Pathfinder 1E Does pathfinder strike anyone as too gamey?

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I watched a guy sit down to a game, and right infront of all of us rolled the following stats with 3d6 place as you get it... 18 str 16 dex 18 con 16 int 18 wis 17 cha... in the same game where I couldn't be any class at all (my only stats that were higher then 9 was con and cha, and in 2e every class had prereqs) I had to be an elf so I could -1 to my 16 con and +1 to my 8 dex so I could be a thief. the player with the super stats played a human 2nd level fighter who duiled into paliden so he could roll for exceptional str, and the guy rolled 98% then weapon specialized in longsword... about 5 or 6 levels later he duiled a second time... into wizard. when we ended game he was a 2nd level fighter 5th or 6th paliden, and 12th level wizard.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I watched a guy sit down to a game, and right infront of all of us rolled the following stats with 3d6 place as you get it... 18 str 16 dex 18 con 16 int 18 wis 17 cha

that reminds me of two different funny rolls, one in 2e (me) and one in 3e (my friend linda)

in 2e I rolled a spell fire ranger were my 6 rolls were 17,15,17,15,17,15... but I didn't put them in that order... and that was 4d6 drop the lowest.

in 3e my friend linda rolled her dwarf cleric were she rolled 4d6 drop the lowest and her first roll was all 4 dice as a 6, and her 6th roll was all 4 dice 6's... so she had 2 18's... but her next highest stat was an 8

 

[Savage Wombat]

I actually saw a player roll "00" for percentile strength, in plain view of the players and DM, one roll only.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I don't know about "better".

Sounds to me like a lot of the sports debates about instant replay and computer-assisted calls. There are a lot of traditionalists who would rather have a human being making the call, even at the expense of getting it objectively right.

And in the same vein, there are probably a lot of rpg-ers who care more about the outcome and don't care that much about the process used to get it.

Different? Yes. Better? More of an individual preference.

Thus the "IMO" disclaimer. I guess I should have said, "Better for me", but, I thought that was pretty strongly implied with the IMO.

But, to be perfectly clear, for me, in any RPG that I want to play, I would vastly prefer to play with 100% transparency at the table and zero die rolling shananigans.

 

[Ahnehnois]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]
I get it. No objections to that.

 

[N'raac]

I watched a guy sit down to a game, and right infront of all of us rolled the following stats with 3d6 place as you get it... 18 str 16 dex 18 con 16 int 18 wis 17 cha... in the same game where I couldn't be any class at all (my only stats that were higher then 9 was con and cha, and in 2e every class had prereqs) I had to be an elf so I could -1 to my 16 con and +1 to my 8 dex so I could be a thief. the player with the super stats played a human 2nd level fighter who duiled into paliden so he could roll for exceptional str, and the guy rolled 98% then weapon specialized in longsword... about 5 or 6 levels later he duiled a second time... into wizard. when we ended game he was a 2nd level fighter 5th or 6th paliden, and 12th level wizard.

I recall rolling a character (I don't recall method - probably 4d6, drop the lowest and arrange as desired) with 3 18's, 2 17s and a 16.

I actually saw a player roll "00" for percentile strength, in plain view of the players and DM, one roll only.

I didn't see it, but it was witnessed by our group with the first player to roll after we upgraded from the old Basic Box to AD&D - he also rolled the 18 as his first roll, and his last was the 17 he needed to allow him to place the 18 in STR to play the Paladin he wanted. That was a one attempt, play what you roll character.

It was also back in high school, yet I recall no complaint ever raised that his character was "more powerful" than the rest of us.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I actually saw a player roll "00" for percentile strength, in plain view of the players and DM, one roll only.

One of my players did that back in 1e days as well - and, it was on the table in front of everybody. Even I gave him a "high 5" for that one, and I was the DM.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I remember back in 3E or 3.5E days when I was a player, I rolled stunningly well for my PC using 4d6. I think my lowest stat was a 13, and it was something like 13, 14 16, 16, 17, 18. My character was an elf duskblade, if I recall. He died in the first session due to some bad rolling in combat - I guess I had blown all my good rolls in character gen.

 

[Hussar]

I recall rolling a character (I don't recall method - probably 4d6, drop the lowest and arrange as desired) with 3 18's, 2 17s and a 16.



I didn't see it, but it was witnessed by our group with the first player to roll after we upgraded from the old Basic Box to AD&D - he also rolled the 18 as his first roll, and his last was the 17 he needed to allow him to place the 18 in STR to play the Paladin he wanted. That was a one attempt, play what you roll character.

It was also back in high school, yet I recall no complaint ever raised that his character was "more powerful" than the rest of us.

Dude, he was playing a paladin. Of course you didn't hear any complaints.

 

[N'raac]

Dude, he was playing a paladin. Of course you didn't hear any complaints.

As there was no percentile intelligence, 18's tended to go to warriors with STR. We had at least two other warriors, one with a lower percentile, and one with, I think, a 16 STR (may have been 15), the Ranger. Neither complained about the Paladin being "too powerful".