Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Character Creation: Point Buy or Roll of the Die?

[StreamOfTheSky]

What we've done in the PathFinder campaign I am playing is that we rolled one array using 2D6+6, and everyone built their character out of the same resulting array.

Completely fair.
Smeelbo

I don't know if I'd call that completely fair. Some classes need one or two very high stats, while others need 3-4 moderately high stats, so forcing one result of rolls on everyone could short change certain classes more than others.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I perfer point buy to rolling. Point buy makes every character even and lets the DM set the power level where he likes. You don't have one character that is significantly better than others. It also avoids all of the drama that can go with rolling (everything from whining, cheating to character suicide).

Point buy does tend to encourage min-maxing, but the DM can avoid this simply by limiting starting characters to no more than a 16. I've never felt the need to do that, but it's worth mentioning for those who are bothered by every character having an 18 in something. I think that the increased cost for higher ability scores is already adequate encouragement to not put an 18 in your primary stat, since you can get so many points elsewhere.

To the OP: When people tell you that a Dwarf is a suboptimal choice for a sorcerer, they are correct. But that doesn't mean you can't still have fun with the character. All a -2 ability score amounts to is a -1 save DC and one or two less spells per day. It's not a big deal. As long as you start with at least a 14 in your charisma, you'll be able to qualify for 9th level spells in the end, so it's all good.

Some people care a great deal more about character optimization than they do about roleplaying - and that's fine, to each his own. But some of the most fun I've had was when playing a suboptimal character. I remember the look on my friends faces when I told them I wanted to play a lowly kobold. One player even jokingly suggested I get the opposite of a LA (a bonus level) for doing so. That character turned out to be one of the funnest I've ever played. And right now, I'm playing a Gnome Wizard, which is hardly the most optimal choice since there are now 4 other races that can get a bonus to Intelligence. But you know what? I don't care, my character is more than powerful enough for his own good and I'm having alot of fun - which in the end is all that matters. So if you want to play a Dwarf sorcerer, I say more power to you! You will probably surprise everyone by just how effective you are even though you picked a suboptimal race.

 

[poilbrun]

Some people care a great deal more about character optimization (...)
So if you want to play a Dwarf sorcerer, I say more power to you! You will probably surprise everyone by just how effective you are even though you picked a suboptimal race.

I wonder how much this is due to the players and how much to the game designers. I don't know if you've run any Paizo Adventure Path but some of the encounters are very tough and it seems to me that if the characters in my group were not optimized, as my players usually do, they can very well have been really lethal.

I think that optimized characters are the assumption of the designers and if a DM runs the adventure as-is, it can be damaging for a player to make unoptimal choices, either at character creation or with his feat or class selection. Would a fighter whose background justifies taking the mounted combat feats not be better served by taking weapon focus at level 1?

I don’t mean this to say that you should always play optimal characters: my first character was an Half-orc rogue and I plan to play an Halfling paladin with his war dog mount as my next character J

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I don’t mean this to say that you should always play optimal characters: my first character was an Half-orc rogue and I plan to play an Halfling paladin with his war dog mount as my next character.

Halfling Paladin isn't terribly suboptimal. The size means you can generally go mounted anywhere. And if 3.5 sources are allowed, the Halfling Outrider prestige class (bonus points for multiclassing ranger and taking the multiclass feat for them) makes it a pretty good choice, actually.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I wonder how much this is due to the players and how much to the game designers. I don't know if you've run any Paizo Adventure Path but some of the encounters are very tough and it seems to me that if the characters in my group were not optimized, as my players usually do, they can very well have been really lethal.

I think that optimized characters are the assumption of the designers and if a DM runs the adventure as-is, it can be damaging for a player to make unoptimal choices, either at character creation or with his feat or class selection. Would a fighter whose background justifies taking the mounted combat feats not be better served by taking weapon focus at level 1?

I don’t mean this to say that you should always play optimal characters: my first character was an Half-orc rogue and I plan to play an Halfling paladin with his war dog mount as my next character J

Taking the example of a Dwarf Sorcerer again, even compared to a race that gives a bonus to Cha, there's only a 4 point difference in ability score. That sounds like alot, but it really only amounts to a 2 point difference in save DC (so your spells have roughly 10% less chance of working on a target) and a couple less bonus spells per day. That's not a huge loss. It's certainly not crippling. It's no different than a player who chooses to put a 16 instead of an 18 and plays a race that doesn't get a bonus to that stat. And the dwarf's other features can help out in other areas, like giving more HP from their Con bonus.

As for Pathfinder assuming people are optimized, I don't think that is the case at all. All of the Pathfinder modules I've seen give just as much attention to roleplaying as to combat. Also, making encounters that are challenging to most groups but not overkill is a very difficult task. Different party makeups can make some challenges alot easier or alot harder. And that's where the DM comes in. A DM isn't oath bound to use an adventure exactly as written. A good DM will take his players' characters into account and adjust the encounters accordingly.

 

[DM-Frost]

Wait, I'm a player at your table and using the die rolling method that YOU as the DM use at your table IN FRONT OF YOu I roll, 18, 18, 14, 12, 10, 10.

All fair rolls, then you tell me that my rolls are too high and make me RE-ROLL my 18's?

Explain to me how that's remotely fair again? If that's the case then why dont you simply use stat array? I gotta say telling a player to re-roll fair rolls because they are too high is kind of a douchey GM thing to do.

I think you took my post out of context. The term "good" is variable to what everyone rolls. If you have a group where most roll somewhere around elite stats, then you've got one person who rolls "18, 18, 17, 16, 16, 16", I would have that person re-roll one of their 18's, their 17, and one of their 16's. They still retain their good stats, it's just a bit more fair for the rest of the players.
The situation I presented actually happened to me, before. Needless to say, it turned out horribly. We had three guys with interesting characters that all had a niche in the party, and a single mage with the power to raze cities at level 4. I had to beef up the encounters just to give a challenge, and that ended up killing off two of the other players.
I stand by my policy.

It also works conversely. If you've got a group of elite stats and one guy whose rolls number between six and eleven, you allow him to re-roll.

As a GM, you have to make these calls. There are some who just let their players do whatever they want. That leads to ridiculously powerful, machine-like characters. Am I an iron-fisted douche? No. But I do have my own set of laws that must be followed. They're fair, and I've never had complaints.

Oh, and regarding the rolls you submitted as an example: no, I would not make you re-roll them. The lower rolls easily balance out the 18's.

 

[Sylrae]

I use a variant of a Card-Based system I saw on here.

You have 12 cards: 4-9, in 2 suits.
Because I like a little bit of randomness, I replace one of the 5s with a joker.

Shuffle the cards, and draw pairs.
Add the numbers together.

It gives stats in the range of 8-18. It essentially ends up with something comparable to a random point buy. Nobody can ever have more than one eighteen. Also, noone can ever have more than one eight. The limited number of each card makes this work.

The Joker doubles whichever number it is paired with, making it slightly more random. as the above gave too similar numbers each time without it.

The average stats go from 10/11 to 12/13. I tend to up the DCs of spells and poisons vs the PCs by 1-2 to compensate, as well as raise enemy AC by 1-2, as they were plowing through everything because of their superior arrays.

But I really like the effect it has on the players abilities in comparison to eachother so I keep using it.

I also use a different ability score progression by levels, which I end up using on NPCs as well. The Players like the added flexibility.

Every 3 HD you get ability score increases (instead of every 4). You get 2 of them each time instead of 1, but they have to go into two different attributes.

Half my players really like it, one dislikes it, and the other 2 don't seem to wrap their heads around how it works enough to be able to tell the difference, beyond the fact that they find it harder to understand.

It's a really non-standard way to do these things, but I found it, liked it, and adapted it, and I don't plan on going back to 4d6 drop lowest or point buy.

 

[Drathir]

well i usually do roll, it seems that unless its me the best person never has more than one 18 (some of my friends/players hate my luck on stat rolls) and even when it is me the only time i got more than two 18s was when i rolled for the players cause they wanted to make their char then get the stats and repllace the feats they didnt qualify for... i will admit that made one of my least favorite and favorite PC's ever... i hate him cause he has nothing under fourteen but love him 'cause the player is a role player and while he likes his high stats he doest abuse them too much, and in the case where no one else gets over a 14 i allow them to take the elite array if they need that

 

[Endarire]

Character creation is too permanent to leave to chance. When I have a character concept, I don't WANT the dice to say, "No."

I encourage optimizing in point buy systems. You usually get what you want, even if it requires finangling.

 

[Tilacog]

In my games, every player gets 75 points to distribute (1point = 1 score unit), but the min is 8, and the max is 15.

After that, aplly the racial adjustments.

its plain simple, everyone understands, and it is fair.