I've been thinking about point-buy generation systems, and why I don't like them.

[Shpadoinkle]

And I've concluded that it's because they treat every stat as equal, when they're not.

Among the physical stats, Dexterity is the most useful, and among the mental stats Wisdom stands above Intelligence and Charisma. Dexterity adds to your touch AC, initiative, and attack rolls with ranged weapns and most spells that require attack rolls, while Wisdom affects perception rolls and Will saves.

If you're not playing a beatstick type, Strength is effectively useless. How many DMs really, genuinely use encumberance rules for everything? In every game I've been in, DMs tend to ignore them unless the party's trying to cart around something unusually heavy. And I'm not naive enough to pretend my experience is universal, but from what I've heard on forums like this, encumberance getting kind of glossed over is pretty common.

Charisma, likewise, tends to be a totally useless stat unless your DM ACTUALLY USES stuff like NPC attitude rolls and runs skills like Bluff and Diplomacy by the book - it seems like very few DMs do, and in my experience, most DMs don't even let players use those skills at all. But again, that's only my own personal experience.

Constitution and Intelligence are useful for everybody (more HP and bonus to Frotitude saves, and more skill points, respectively,) but if you don't need more of those and you're not playing an Intelligence-based caster, you can pretty safely leave them at 10.

Therefore, this leads to SAD characters, like wizards or sorcerers, benefitting far more from any degree of point-buy than MAD characters do. All the former have to do is pump up their casting stat and they're good to go. Meanwhile warriors need strength, constitution, and dexterity to be even remotely effective. Rogues need dexterity and wisdom to boost their main skills. Warrior-types with magic abilities, like paladins and rangers (or quasi-magical abilities, like monks,) need wisdom on top of decent physical stats. And point-buy systems make zero allowance for the fact that some classes only need one or MAYBE two stats to dominate the game, while others might need as many as four to be merely capable.

[Quertus]

Yet another reason to return to the perfect beauty of 2e, where, if you didn’t roll MAD stats, you didn’t get to play MAD classes?

[Jervis]

Thing is each stat is valued differently for every class. Anyone that uses weapons in 3.x needs strength, even bow users because it’s adds to damage. Heavy armor users get dex capped for everything anyway so any higher than 14ish is kind of pointless. Cha is a dump stat for wizards sure… but cleric pump it for turn undead and sooooo many classes use it for casting and add it to things. Int is important for anyone that wants to use skills. Wis is for some of the most important skills, is a prerequisite for a lot of feats, and yes adds to saves and a lot of good casting. The only stat that’s universally important for everyone is Con. If the stats in question where more expensive or cheaper based on the star’s perceived value then it would effect which classes are or aren’t good. And the classes that care about each stat aren’t in the same tier either so making, say, Int more expensive will hurt wizards, rogues, factotums, etc. and al of those are in different positions.


Yet another reason to return to the perfect beauty of 2e, where, if you didn’t roll MAD stats, you didn’t get to play MAD classes?

Mad classes already suck. How does making classes that care about something other than a single stat worse help in a edition where SAD casters are already god? Besides that 3d6 down the line is a terrible meme in a game with this many classes and options where you can end up in a array that makes you useless and forces you to play, say, a fighter with 10 strength and 11 Dex against enemies that assume not that. In 2e where combat is a fail state and you die to a stiff breeze at any level it’s tolerable but I wouldn’t use it anywhere that has stats that matter.

[Ashiel]

And I've concluded that it's because they treat every stat as equal, when they're not.
Which roll systems also do.


If you're not playing a beatstick type, Strength is effectively useless. How many DMs really, genuinely use encumberance rules for everything? In every game I've been in, DMs tend to ignore them unless the party's trying to cart around something unusually heavy. And I'm not naive enough to pretend my experience is universal, but from what I've heard on forums like this, encumberance getting kind of glossed over is pretty common.
Imagine, if you will, a world where people removing the benefits of something and then lament that thing being under valued.

Coins are 1 lb. per 50. Clothing can easily eat up weight allotment. Armor of all sorts weight a fair amount. Flasks with potions, magic items, and the like also all tend to have weight values. If your party comes across a silver idol worth 750 gp in the forgotten temple, it probably weighs about 50 lbs. That's before factoring in tangential issues that occur from low Strength scores, such as increased vulnerability to many common poisons and having difficult times doing things like opening stuck doors. Casters that dump Strength in my games often regret it later.

Anytime you make a major change (and that change can be simply ignoring something) it will have a rather profound impact on the value of something. Dungeon Craft's YouTube channel suggests not even using hit points for enemies but instead just make monsters take a specific number of hits to "keep the game flowing" (I don't recommend this because it invalidates things like hitting enemies with big two-handed weapons or going less accuracy for more damage, etc), but simply choosing to ignore a mechanic pretty much makes Constitution essentially useless for NPCs.


Charisma, likewise, tends to be a totally useless stat unless your DM ACTUALLY USES stuff like NPC attitude rolls and runs skills like Bluff and Diplomacy by the book - it seems like very few DMs do, and in my experience, most DMs don't even let players use those skills at all. But again, that's only my own personal experience.
Second verse, same as the first. Don't play by the rules, wonder why the rules don't work.


Therefore, this leads to SAD characters, like wizards or sorcerers, benefitting far more from any degree of point-buy than MAD characters do. All the former have to do is pump up their casting stat and they're good to go. Meanwhile warriors need strength, constitution, and dexterity to be even remotely effective. Rogues need dexterity and wisdom to boost their main skills. Warrior-types with magic abilities, like paladins and rangers (or quasi-magical abilities, like monks,) need wisdom on top of decent physical stats. And point-buy systems make zero allowance for the fact that some classes only need one or MAYBE two stats to dominate the game, while others might need as many as four to be merely capable.
What this post is actually about has nothing to do with point buy vs non-point buy. It's entirely about ignoring strengths and weaknesses in a fashion that favors certain classes and playstyles more than others and then lamenting that it favors them.

[Biggus]

If you're not playing a beatstick type, Strength is effectively useless. How many DMs really, genuinely use encumberance rules for everything? In every game I've been in, DMs tend to ignore them unless the party's trying to cart around something unusually heavy. And I'm not naive enough to pretend my experience is universal, but from what I've heard on forums like this, encumberance getting kind of glossed over is pretty common.

I don't both counting encumbrance most of the time when I DM, simply because it's fairly rare in my experience for someone to encumber themselves except when carrying treasure home. If someone dumps their Str down to 6 in order to get an 18 in another stat I make them account for every last pound though.



Charisma, likewise, tends to be a totally useless stat unless your DM ACTUALLY USES stuff like NPC attitude rolls and runs skills like Bluff and Diplomacy by the book - it seems like very few DMs do, and in my experience, most DMs don't even let players use those skills at all. But again, that's only my own personal experience.

I use a modified version of Diplomacy because the PHB one is broken AF. But it's certainly not my experience that most DMs ignore those skills entirely.



Constitution and Intelligence are useful for everybody (more HP and bonus to Frotitude saves, and more skill points, respectively,) but if you don't need more of those and you're not playing an Intelligence-based caster, you can pretty safely leave them at 10.


Are you really saying you often start with Con 10? I don't think I've seen a PC in my entire life with Con less than 12, and the majority start with 14 if they can.

While I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, I think a significant part of it is the people you've happened to play with, rather than the game or its players in general.

[pabelfly]

The real difference between point buy and stat roll is how much control you have over your stats, and whether you want to gamble on how well you roll your stats.

Whether some stats are "better" than others is an irrelevant question since you normally control whether you put a stat in a roll or how much point buy you put in a particular stat.

[Fizban]

Second verse, same as the first. Don't play by the rules, wonder why the rules don't work.
My people!


Are you really saying you often start with Con 10? I don't think I've seen a PC in my entire life with Con less than 12, and the majority start with 14 if they can.
Tying neatly back into the other thread- when rolling and point buy are huge, yeah you can always afford more than 10 con. And you've said yourself that your table gives away free 18s or uses 32+ point buy. But if you're playing with SPB or Elite Array and are trying to do too many things at once, yeah you might find that Con 10 is required, because you need that 12 in a different stat so it can get bumped to 13 for a prerequisite.

This is more likely with a martial character who wants stuff that requires Combat Expertise (and isn't allowed to use some variant that gives away those later feats for free), and say Dodge, and is entering a PrC that has some spellcasting. Now you need 13+ in three different stats that are not Str or Con, and Str is your main attack stat but you have a high base HD, so Con might be getting the 10. Or you could simply be playing an Elf, so that 12 is actually a 10.

But again, tons of people allow variants that give away feats that normally require Combat Expertise for free, and get rid of the Dodge feat because they think it's bad, and hey that's two prerequisites evaporated.

[Ashiel]

Are you really saying you often start with Con 10? I don't think I've seen a PC in my entire life with Con less than 12, and the majority start with 14 if they can.
I had a Pathfinder Point Buy Paladin with a 7 Constitution. She was a Paladin of Wee Jass the Lawful Neutral goddess of Death, Magic, Law, and Love.

EDIT: I really miss that character actually. She was a lot of fun to play. The campaign died before she did. She was kind of a reluctant hero type. The sort of person that at first seems like someone with a rather mercenary demeanor, except she had a tendency to hurl herself into harm's way for the betterment of others who couldn't protect themselves wondering was this the day her goddess would take her? She was a really fun character playing with what it means to be a Paladin (she cursed, drank, was a harlot, etc) but at the same time she was 100% Lawful Good and really kept what it truly meant to be a Paladin, even if the cover of the book was misleading.

[Biggus]

Tying neatly back into the other thread- when rolling and point buy are huge, yeah you can always afford more than 10 con. And you've said yourself that your table gives away free 18s or uses 32+ point buy. But if you're playing with SPB or Elite Array and are trying to do too many things at once, yeah you might find that Con 10 is required, because you need that 12 in a different stat so it can get bumped to 13 for a prerequisite.



I had a Pathfinder Point Buy Paladin with a 7 Constitution. She was a Paladin of Wee Jass the Lawful Neutral goddess of Death, Magic, Law, and Love.


After I wrote that I realised I might have exaggerated slightly. In a 4d6 drop lowest game I was in one player rolled really badly (I worked it out to be in the bottom 1%) for their ability scores and the DM wouldn't let them reroll, so I think they might have had to start with a 10 or 11 Con. But I'm pretty sure that's the only one I've seen.

I've never met anyone IRL who uses the elite array for PCs, although I've heard one or two people on these boards talk about it. I used to use 4d6 drop lowest (with no free 18) when I DMed, but I did allow full rerolls more readily than the PHB recommendations, because they're ridiculous (it's possible for a character to roll scores worth 14 points in PB and still be "not too low"). Nobody ever started with below 12 Con in those games as far as I can recall.

But all this is peripheral to the point I was making, which was that the OP's claim that you can "pretty safely leave (Con) at 10" isn't how the vast majority of players I've played with see it.

[Maat Mons]

I feel like, no matter what ability score generation method you use, SAD classes will always have an advantage over MAD classes. With rolls, the SAD classes only need one good roll, and have plenty of places to dump bad rolls. The MAD classes need much more specific, and therefore much rarer, rolls to be viable.

[Ashiel]

But all this is peripheral to the point I was making, which was that the OP's claim that you can "pretty safely leave (Con) at 10" isn't how the vast majority of players I've played with see it.

Yeah, that's why I figured it was worth mentioning for the novelty. 10 Con is usually plenty if the GM is following the game's suggestions. A lower Con is essentially just -1 to your hit die size, so a d10 Paladin with a -2 Con is like a 10 Constitution character with a d6. The fact she was a Paladin (Pathfinder version) was a big contributor to her tanked Constitution being a viable option, as they get a very sexy lay on hands usable ChaMod + 1/2 level times per day, for 1d6/2 Paladin levels, can heal themselves as a swift-action, and +Cha to saving throws (which offsets the Fortitude loss, along with some of their protective auras and immunity to diseases), and of course proficiency with good armor and shields.

So her lower than typical front-line HP was offset by solid non-Hp defensive qualities and ability to rapidly heal herself for significant amounts of damage. Due to lay on hands, her effective HP was actually much higher than non-Paladin warriors such as Fighters, Barbarians, and/or Rangers.

[Elves]

Dungeon Craft's YouTube channel suggests not even using hit points for enemies but instead just make monsters take a specific number of hits to "keep the game flowing"
Ironically this is exactly what hit points originally were -- 1 hit point meant you could take 1 hit

IIRC standard soldier units in Chainmail and other tabletop wargames had 1 hit point
When 4e gave minions 1 hit point it was being retro, not neo

[Martin Greywolf]

Ironically this is exactly what hit points originally were -- 1 hit point meant you could take 1 hit

IIRC standard soldier units in Chainmail and other tabletop wargames had 1 hit point
When 4e gave minions 1 hit point it was being retro, not neo

If we're talking history, then no, hit points weren't that. Originally, hitpoints were used in wargames by the Royal Navy in WW2. One hitpoint meant you could take exactly one hit from a IIRC 14-inch naval cannon. From Royal navy, the concept went through Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame to Gygax and Arneson's own naval wargames and then got used once they started to adapt Chainmail for single characters.

Point is, I don't think your 1st level bard with +1 CON can facetank a broadside salvo from USS Texas and live.

If you know this, then HP makes a lot more sense, because it is the aforementioned USS Texas that can take several hits and still operate at more or less full capacity. No abstractions, no "taking HP damage doesn't mean being physically hit", just a really big boat with damage control crews and a lot of armor.

[Biggus]

Yeah, that's why I figured it was worth mentioning for the novelty. 10 Con is usually plenty if the GM is following the game's suggestions. A lower Con is essentially just -1 to your hit die size, so a d10 Paladin with a -2 Con is like a 10 Constitution character with a d6. The fact she was a Paladin (Pathfinder version) was a big contributor to her tanked Constitution being a viable option, as they get a very sexy lay on hands usable ChaMod + 1/2 level times per day, for 1d6/2 Paladin levels, can heal themselves as a swift-action, and +Cha to saving throws (which offsets the Fortitude loss, along with some of their protective auras and immunity to diseases), and of course proficiency with good armor and shields.

So her lower than typical front-line HP was offset by solid non-Hp defensive qualities and ability to rapidly heal herself for significant amounts of damage. Due to lay on hands, her effective HP was actually much higher than non-Paladin warriors such as Fighters, Barbarians, and/or Rangers.

Wow, that is a LOT better than 3.5 Lay On Hands. Yeah, with powerful swift-action self-healing low HPs become a lot less of a problem.

I would say though that a d6 HD character with 10 Con is very fragile in melee. At low levels in particular one crit can kill them outright. Did you play your Paladin from 1st level?

What do you mean by "10 Con is usually plenty if the GM is following the game's suggestions"?

[icefractal]

Roll in Order systems do have the advantage that since the stats aren't fungible, they don't have to be of equal value. Although that doesn't mean that characters will be balanced, the ones with good rolls in the better stats will be stronger. It's just that you could have stats like:
* Agility
* Spirit Sense (spirits are very rare)
* Godpower (lets you rewrite reality)

Without everyone shifting as much as possible to Godpower. But 5/1/10 is still much stronger than 5/10/1 if you happen to roll it.

Roll and Assign systems do not have that property; they still require the stats to be roughly equivalent in value if you don't want the worse ones consistently dumped. It's just that occasionally, by happenstance, someone will get all good / all bad / all average rolls and not have the worse stats be noticeably lower.

[Kurald Galain]

And I've concluded that it's because they treat every stat as equal, when they're not.
So it strikes me that your issue is not so much with point buy, but with the inequality of stats.

For instance, if you find dexterity is too much of a "god stat", then it may help to base initiative on intelligence instead, on the grounds that quick-thinking characters react faster and recover from surprise more quickly. And it helps to have a GM that frequently asks for climb, swim, and bluff checks.

[Ashiel]

Wow, that is a LOT better than 3.5 Lay On Hands. Yeah, with powerful swift-action self-healing low HPs become a lot less of a problem.
Yeah, Paladin in Pathfinder is arguably the tankiest class in the game. They're absolutely amazing and a ton of fun to play. Their smite is a heaven of a lot better too. Instead of being x/day for 1 attack, it's x/day for a single enemy (e.g. if you declare a smite vs a target, it lasts until either that target is dead or you regain your smite, and it allows you to pierce DR).


I would say though that a d6 HD character with 10 Con is very fragile in melee. At low levels in particular one crit can kill them outright. Did you play your Paladin from 1st level?
I did. And yes, at low levels a crit can kill them outright. But the same is also true for a character with 20 Con at 1st level, because critical hits in d20 are not really designed very well. A CR 1/3 orc warrior with a greataxe will crit for an average of 28 damage (minimum 12, maximum 45), which will drop even a 20 Con Barbarian (who begins at 17 HP) to -11 in a single stroke.

As a side note, this very thing is one of the reasons why as a GM, I think over emphasizing damage at low levels is pointless (most NPCs at this level have less than 10 hp, with the average being around 5-6, which means dealing 2d6+6 is not much better than dealing 1d8+4, since most enemies are gonna be dropped regardless).


What do you mean by "10 Con is usually plenty if the GM is following the game's suggestions"?
If the GM is following the CR guidelines (e.g. treating APL+3 as the limit for encounters you're expected to win), then it's generally pretty rare that you'll get one-shot. Don't get me wrong, I'd generally rather have 12+ Con, but if your team is smart and you don't neglect your other options then you can often get by alright. Every +1 Con modifier is essentially +0.5 or -0.5 die size to your starting HP, or +/- 1 die size to subsequent Hp.

For example, all warriors begin with a d10 HD in Pathfinder (save specials like Barbarian with d12). That's 10 starting, and +5.5 thereafter. If you have a +1 Con, that gives you 11 starting and +6.5 thereafter. Having a -1 Con, that gives you 9 starting and +4.5 thereafter. Which means that a -2 Constitution (8 starting and +3.5 thereafter) on a d10 character gives you almost the exact same result (slightly better) than a d6 character with a 10 Constitution.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, that's why I figured it was worth mentioning for the novelty. 10 Con is usually plenty if the GM is following the game's suggestions.
But wait, what you're saying is not that 10 con is fine for every character, but that it's fine for a character with d10 hit dice and self-healing ability.

There's not a whole lot of classes that fit that description, meaning that for almost everyone, Biggus's remark is on point:

I don't think I've seen a PC in my entire life with Con less than 12, and the majority start with 14 if they can.

[Ashiel]

Nay sir, I said that regarding a 7 Con character.

[zlefin]

That's not an innate feature of point buy systems; you could easily make a point buy system with different costs for different stats. Which brings up the interesting question: what would the costs be for different stats, and how should they scale based on how high the stat is? How do we measure how well such a system works once we build it?

Mathematically, it's easier if stats are independent; that is, a cost of X in a stat costs Y points. Whereas it would be possible to have a system wherein costs are interlinked, meaning for instance a discount for having multiple well developed stats. Or for certain stat combinations.

[Kurald Galain]

That's not an innate feature of point buy systems; you could easily make a point buy system with different costs for different stats. Which brings up the interesting question: what would the costs be for different stats

Judging by my own characters, con shouldn't be point-bought at all (because pretty much all of them have a 12 or 14), dex should be substantially more expensive, and the other four stats are pretty much ok.

[SimonMoon6]

For instance, if you find dexterity is too much of a "god stat", then it may help to base initiative on intelligence instead, on the grounds that quick-thinking characters react faster and recover from surprise more quickly.

One of my favorite game systems (the DC Heroes RPG by Mayfair) used an interesting system for initiative: You used your DEX, INT, and Influence (which is one of the charisma stats that sort of measures impressiveness, at least on a surface level), added together.

[Biggus]

I did. And yes, at low levels a crit can kill them outright. But the same is also true for a character with 20 Con at 1st level, because critical hits in d20 are not really designed very well. A CR 1/3 orc warrior with a greataxe will crit for an average of 28 damage (minimum 12, maximum 45), which will drop even a 20 Con Barbarian (who begins at 17 HP) to -11 in a single stroke.

They reduced orcs to CR 1/3 in PF? :smallconfused: I increased them to CR 1 in my 3.5 games...

I have to echo Kurald Galain's comment here that you're choosing rare, extreme examples and talking about them as though they're the norm. In 3.5 a crit from an orc with a greataxe is one of, if not the highest damage of any low-CR opponent, and it doesn't look like PF is much different. Against a more typical crit, a 17HP Barbarian has a much better chance of surviving than a 6HP Bard.

Also, the default weapon for orcs in both 3.5 and PF is a falchion, if your DM is habitually changing that to a greataxe I feel like a word in their ear of the "are you actually trying to kill us?" kind is warranted.

[Logalmier]

So it strikes me that your issue is not so much with point buy, but with the inequality of stats.

For instance, if you find dexterity is too much of a "god stat", then it may help to base initiative on intelligence instead, on the grounds that quick-thinking characters react faster and recover from surprise more quickly. And it helps to have a GM that frequently asks for climb, swim, and bluff checks.

Along this line, my favorite fix is to base Initiative on Wisdom, and Will saves on Charisma. This makes Intelligence the best dump stat for martials, but its a comparatively painful one. 2 lost skill points per level hurts more than a -2 to Charisma checks in my experience. Plus it goes a long way to fix the "unpleasant hero" syndrome that afflicts a lot of adventuring parties.

[Jervis]

So it strikes me that your issue is not so much with point buy, but with the inequality of stats.

For instance, if you find dexterity is too much of a "god stat", then it may help to base initiative on intelligence instead, on the grounds that quick-thinking characters react faster and recover from surprise more quickly. And it helps to have a GM that frequently asks for climb, swim, and bluff checks.

One rare case of 4E did it better syndrome. IIRC Dex and Int work for a lot of the same stuff. Fort saves work with Connor strength. Will use Cha or Wis. etc

[RexDart]

But all this is peripheral to the point I was making, which was that the OP's claim that you can "pretty safely leave (Con) at 10" isn't how the vast majority of players I've played with see it.

I played a (rolled) Duskblade where I put the low score in Con as a calculated risk. The choice was where to put a 10 and a 12 between Con and Int, and I went with 12 Int because Duskblade is a skill point-starved class. (Note that the campaign's version of Duskblade is customized and a Charisma-based rather than Int-based casting class, which I still think makes way more sense than the official version.)

I regretted the decision and had a few close calls before acquiring a Tome of Constitution (or whatever it's actually called) and got a +3 to Con. I probably would have hated playing a character who literally only had 3 skills: Spellcraft, Knowledge: Arcana, and Concentration, though.

[Elves]

If we're talking history, then no, hit points weren't that. Originally, hitpoints were used in wargames by the Royal Navy in WW2. One hitpoint meant you could take exactly one hit from a IIRC 14-inch naval cannon. From Royal navy, the concept went through Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame to Gygax and Arneson's own naval wargames and then got used once they started to adapt Chainmail for single characters.

Point is, I don't think your 1st level bard with +1 CON can facetank a broadside salvo from USS Texas and live.
Interesting, I didn't know the term hit points had such a long history.

I believe it's correct that in Chainmail and similar wargames, the typical soldiers had 1 hit point. Obviously there and in the RPGs that emerged from them, the presumed standard hit wasn't a naval cannon but the typical shot or hand-to-hand attack.


If you know this, then HP makes a lot more sense, because it is the aforementioned USS Texas that can take several hits and still operate at more or less full capacity. No abstractions, no "taking HP damage doesn't mean being physically hit", just a really big boat with damage control crews and a lot of armor.
Gygax and Arneson weren't unaware of this: Arneson's idea was that characters would improve in their defense and dodging but their hp wouldn't radically increase. Gygax decided on the opposite route for gameplay reasons, because it was more entertaining to have a bar that predictably depleted than to allow one hit to randomly kill you at any time. I agree with that but still find the inflated hp to be awkward and am interested in alternate health/injury systems.

[Ashiel]

They reduced orcs to CR 1/3 in PF? :smallconfused: I increased them to CR 1 in my 3.5 games...
Orcs are probably the most brutal of low-CR foes in Pathfinder. They are treated as being the same as other races (so 1/3 CR for NPC-classed mooks). However, those madlads gave them a racial trait called Ferocity, which is basically die-hard as a racial. So they got like, maybe 5-6 hp, but can fight well into the negatives, albeit staggered. :smallamused:


I have to echo Kurald Galain's comment here that you're choosing rare, extreme examples and talking about them as though they're the norm. In 3.5 a crit from an orc with a greataxe is one of, if not the highest damage of any low-CR opponent, and it doesn't look like PF is much different. Against a more typical crit, a 17HP Barbarian has a much better chance of surviving than a 6HP Bard.
Depends on what you mean by typical. A falchion crits more often and still for 18 average damage on an orc. In both cases they're reduced to negatives from full health. The falchion is actually worse because they have 3x the chance of landing the threat range than the great-axe. The great axe is certain death, the falchion is three times more likely near-certain death. But that's kinda the dig, y'know? Either an errant crit downs everybody, or you're roughly about as squishy as anyone else. Having 8 hp at 1st level is usually enough to be able to take a hit.


Also, the default weapon for orcs in both 3.5 and PF is a falchion, if your DM is habitually changing that to a greataxe I feel like a word in their ear of the "are you actually trying to kill us?" kind is warranted.

Orc warriors are proficient in all simple and martial weapons. Their choice of weapon doesn't have any influence on their challenge rating. They can use longswords and shields, battleaxes, great-axes, great-swords, falchions, scimitars, bows, javalins, pole-arms of all types. My personal favorite loadouts with them are actually pole-arms (glaives & ranseurs) which ain't much nicer (the pole-arms all have x3 crits as well). The reason I went with the great-axe as an example is because the classic 3.x art depicts Orcs with greataxes (https://imgs.search.brave.com/9A92lwfQGcdXn9ZkvnVVt1SmDtXPDV9SPoMZfaHIRhA/rs:fit:400:548:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly92aWdu/ZXR0ZTIud2lraWEu/bm9jb29raWUubmV0/L3BvbGFxdS9pbWFn/ZXMvZC9kOC9PcmMu/anBnL3JldmlzaW9u/L2xhdGVzdD9jYj0y/MDA1MDcyMDIwMTIx/OA) and so it's always the one I imagine (and it was their weapon of choice in 3.0). Honestly Falchions always seemed too fancy and elegant for orcs. :smallconfused:

[Fizban]

Orc warriors are proficient in all simple and martial weapons. Their choice of weapon doesn't have any influence on their challenge rating.
If you run them using formula classed NPC CR. If you compare them to actual monsters, you find that they ought to be CR 1, as I point out every time it comes up and as Biggus has also ruled. The choice of weapons and armor should obviously alter the real CR of a foe, the same way it would if you just gave your monsters free natural weapon damage or crit range or AC etc. Even if you considered NPCs with greater levels and thus NPC WBL, it should still be clear that 1HD warrior stablocks presented as monsters should not be getting a pile of free bonuses. You've just held up an example that you admit is extreme, and then turn around to say it's RAW, with does not mitigate it being extreme.

The easiest example of awareness of this problem can be found in the change from 3,0 to 3.5 kobolds, where they originally had full damage light crossbows such that an EL "1" six-pack of the CR 1/6 "mooks" could shoot 6d8 at you. In 3.5, they have slings for 1d3-1. I think it's generally believed that the switch from orcs with greataxes to falchions was to make them less random, with a more likely ~5 base instead of an equal chance of 1 or 12, and a less instantly lethal crit. But widening the crit range is arguably just as bad. But if they'd given them clubs people would either be mad that orcs aren't badass, or ignore it and give them better weapons anyway, as you just suggested.


Falchions always seemed too fancy and elegant for orcs. :smallconfused:
DnD treats them as a fancy weapon because it thinks of itself as a medieval British/central Europe setting where big curved swords "not from around here". In reality, a falchion is just a single-edged sword with some curve covering a massive swath of known historical examples, found all over the place and usually bearing local names that are the equivalent of "sword."

[Elves]

If you run them using formula classed NPC CR. If you compare them to actual monsters, you find that they ought to be CR 1
They're an LA +0 race with 1 level of an NPC class, hence CR 1/2

[Ashiel]

If you run them using formula classed NPC CR. If you compare them to actual monsters, you find that they ought to be CR 1, as I point out every time it comes up and as Biggus has also ruled. The choice of weapons and armor should obviously alter the real CR of a foe, the same way it would if you just gave your monsters free natural weapon damage or crit range or AC etc. Even if you considered NPCs with greater levels and thus NPC WBL, it should still be clear that 1HD warrior stablocks presented as monsters should not be getting a pile of free bonuses. You've just held up an example that you admit is extreme, and then turn around to say it's RAW, with does not mitigate it being extreme.
I...don't think I said it was extreme at all. I'm not sure what free bonuses you're talking about either. Pretty much anything short of a dagger is one-shot territory on a critical at 1st level, if in the hands of anything with a moderately decent strength modifier (a bog-standard riding dog deals 2d6+6 damage on a crit, which is 13 average and gets a strong rider on top of it).


The easiest example of awareness of this problem can be found in the change from 3,0 to 3.5 kobolds, where they originally had full damage light crossbows such that an EL "1" six-pack of the CR 1/6 "mooks" could shoot 6d8 at you. In 3.5, they have slings for 1d3-1. I think it's generally believed that the switch from orcs with greataxes to falchions was to make them less random, with a more likely ~5 base instead of an equal chance of 1 or 12, and a less instantly lethal crit. But widening the crit range is arguably just as bad. But if they'd given them clubs people would either be mad that orcs aren't badass, or ignore it and give them better weapons anyway, as you just suggested.
I mean, I never suggested giving them better weapons. I suggested giving them different weapons. Probably the most painful weapon choice I've seen is a quartet of kobolds with point blank shot and alchemist fire (which very comfortably fits within their NPC WBL). Honestly kobolds with slings aren't even real kobolds. :smalltongue:


DnD treats them as a fancy weapon because it thinks of itself as a medieval British/central Europe setting where big curved swords "not from around here". In reality, a falchion is just a single-edged sword with some curve covering a massive swath of known historical examples, found all over the place and usually bearing local names that are the equivalent of "sword."

I don't mean fancy as in eastern vs western kind of fantasy, I mean that they usually strike me as too fancy from the perspective that making a blade that's long and curved like that requires a fairly significant amount of skill as a smith, and orcs are crappy artisans. Orcs are typically described as preferring to take than make largely for this reason. Even the iconic orc artwork has his greataxe being basically a chunk of rusty steel tied to a shaft with rope like a giant primitive axe. For reasons like these, most of the orcs in my campaigns actually are going to have a bunch of random weapons rather than being formed like a well-regulated military unit with matching equipment (because most of their gear is scavenged or stolen).

Like to put it into perspective, it's pretty hard to make a functional sword to begin with. Most blacksmiths can't do it. Trying to make a long (two-handed requiring long) curved blade that doesn't snap in two the moment you hit something with it is beyond what your typical orcish smith would be capable of. Even though mechanically the DCs are both 15 (which most orc smiths are gonna struggle with), making axes or pole-arms which are mostly a haft and a some form of small blade mounted on the end gives me a greater sense of verisimilitude than not.

[Thane of Fife]

If we're talking history, then no, hit points weren't that. Originally, hitpoints were used in wargames by the Royal Navy in WW2. One hitpoint meant you could take exactly one hit from a IIRC 14-inch naval cannon. From Royal navy, the concept went through Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame to Gygax and Arneson's own naval wargames and then got used once they started to adapt Chainmail for single characters.

Hit points definitely predate WW2. I have a book about US Naval War College wargaming here, and it describes a "point" system from around 1900, where a battleship has a "life" of 1000 points and points are deducted based on the type of ship firing and how far it's firing from. It also discusses how this evolved into a system where life was measured in 12-inch shell hits (and then on from there). And I have my doubts that hit points were a new concept even in 1900.


I believe it's correct that in Chainmail and similar wargames, the typical soldiers had 1 hit point. Obviously there and in the RPGs that emerged from them, the presumed standard hit wasn't a naval cannon but the typical shot or hand-to-hand attack.

That's basically correct, but the evolution goes through hit dice. In Chainmail, a normal person takes 1 hit to kill, and a hero takes 4 (simultaneous!) hits. In OD&D, a normal person has 1d6 hit points, a hero (4th level fighter) has 4d6 hit points, and every weapon does 1d6 damage. So one hit in Chainmail equates to one hit die in D&D.



With regards to the OP, I would probably go so far as to say that ability scores in general don't make much sense. I mean, in OD&D, they work to provide some variety in characters who would otherwise be very similar, and in AD&D they basically function like skills, but for 3e, they're pretty much totally vestigial. The game would probably work better if you just rejiggered the numbers a bit so they weren't necessary.

[Kurald Galain]

Pretty much anything short of a dagger is one-shot territory on a critical at 1st level, if in the hands of anything with a moderately decent strength modifier (a bog-standard riding dog deals 2d6+6 damage on a crit, which is 13 average and gets a strong rider on top of it).
The difference is that 13 damage will drop a first-level PC but not kill him, unless you tank your con score. That is why we're suggesting that most classes should have at least 12 con.

[Ashiel]

The difference is that 13 damage will drop a first-level PC but not kill him, unless you tank your con score. That is why we're suggesting that most classes should have at least 12 con.

Oh, I know why it's being suggested. It's one of those situations where more really is more. There's never any downside to having a higher Constitution, outside of having lower other things as a result (assuming you're using any generation method that actually gives you choices in priorities). I do think that emphasis on Constitution can be a bit over rated though, since Constitution also really doesn't do much outside of the HP/Fort Save.

But it's one of those things that is highly preferential. There's a lot of things that can work without it being part of the common meta. In fact, that's often how new advances in a game's theory are born (from doing things that seem very unconventional and discovering something that works).

As an aside, 10 Con vs 12 Con at 1st level is 1 hit point. In either case, none of the classes are gonna eat 13 damage on a crit and just die outright. You could do it in Pathfinder if you tank your Con to sub-10, since your death threshold in Pathfinder is -ConScore instead of -10 (meaining a 7 Con character dies at -7). Truth be told, you'd probably get more out of that +1 putting it almost anywhere else initially because options are power.

That said, Constitution is a stat that only grows more useful as you gain levels. Depending on the die-size of your class, it can actually take very little time before your Constitution bonus overtakes your HD as your primary source of HP (a +4 Con basically means greater than 1/2 of your HP as a d6 class will becoming from your Constitution score alone).

At the end of the day, do what makes you happy with your characters. ♥

[Fizban]

I...don't think I said it was extreme at all. I'm not sure what free bonuses you're talking about either. Pretty much anything short of a dagger is one-shot territory on a critical at 1st level, if in the hands of anything with a moderately decent strength modifier (a bog-standard riding dog deals 2d6+6 damage on a crit, which is 13 average and gets a strong rider on top of it).
It sounded to me like the first part of your post ending with the red smirk face was accepting that orcs are an extreme example, but maybe that was meant only to refer to the Pathfinder changes.


I mean, I never suggested giving them better weapons. I suggested giving them different weapons. Probably the most painful weapon choice I've seen is a quartet of kobolds with point blank shot and alchemist fire (which very comfortably fits within their NPC WBL). Honestly kobolds with slings aren't even real kobolds. :smalltongue:
Indeed, it's hilarious how the so-called "Tucker's Kobolds" legend is pretty much entirely disassembled with even a glance at the DMG, and particularly the 3.5 MM :smallsigh:

Your statement regarding switching the orcs' weapons technically does not suggest giving the orcs more powerful weapons, but the way you phrase it as though having weapon proficiency actually accounts for any possible weapon is misleading, as it is easily read or extended into "any proficiencies" and "any gear/magic items at all"- and indeed, in your kobolds with alchemist's fire example you explicitly say it's within their "WBL." And while under some readings of RAW that might all be universally true, by any practical rating of CR, it is clearly not. If you make a monster more powerful than the statblock the writer provided, you made it more powerful, period. My point about kobolds still stands: that there is a clear change in the kobold from 3.0 to 3.5 illustrating exactly how the threat of a gear-capable foe can vary drastically between what the writer writes, what the DM uses, and what monsters of the same CR actually do. We have a rare, clear example of a change for effect, and yet this is a point upon which tons of people, possibly yourself included, refuse to consider the actual effects rather than a so-called RAW formula (and then wonder why things don't make sense when they follow rules that aren't rules while ignoring other rules, etc).


I don't mean fancy as in eastern vs western kind of fantasy, I mean that they usually strike me as too fancy from the perspective that making a blade that's long and curved like that requires a fairly significant amount of skill as a smith, and orcs are crappy artisans. Orcs are typically described as preferring to take than make largely for this reason. Even the iconic orc artwork has his greataxe being basically a chunk of rusty steel tied to a shaft with rope like a giant primitive axe. For reasons like these, most of the orcs in my campaigns actually are going to have a bunch of random weapons rather than being formed like a well-regulated military unit with matching equipment (because most of their gear is scavenged or stolen).
I was thinking in terms of the DnD artwork for curved swords, as well as the high gp prices given to them. Another point in favor of axes and spears, being much cheaper. Which in crafting discussion require far fewer checks in addition to less materials, or being more affordable after looting.


Like to put it into perspective, it's pretty hard to make a functional sword to begin with. Most blacksmiths can't do it. Trying to make a long (two-handed requiring long) curved blade that doesn't snap in two the moment you hit something with it is beyond what your typical orcish smith would be capable of. Even though mechanically the DCs are both 15 (which most orc smiths are gonna struggle with), making axes or pole-arms which are mostly a haft and a some form of small blade mounted on the end gives me a greater sense of verisimilitude than not.
As for orcs being crappy artisans- well sure, if you don't give them any ranks in craft skills. But they get a minimum 1 point per level and 4 points total at 1st like everyone else- their societal problem is a smaller overall amount of diversity/flexibility compared to other races, all of whom are crushed by the humans bonus skill points and feat. The reason orcs would have crappy artisans is that the only one they had got killed in a raid because they're fighting all the time and they just can't replace skilled people anywhere near as quickly or easily. A skilled orc weaponsmith with 4 ranks and skill focus, even with Int 6, could take 10 to hit that DC 15 (and if they were an Expert, they'd have 4 skills maxed). But since instead of cities they live in tribal bands where everyone is a warrior (because they're used as monsters), they take combat feats and drop to only reliable simple weapons if they even have the skill.

Really, if orcs should have more crude weapons due to lack of skilled smiths, and should also have more crude weapons to bring them in line with their supposed CR, it sure sounds like they ought to just be using clubs and knives. Which would actually be hilarious as their melee weapons are now all throwable so the PCs are liable to get KO'd by a sudden flying club/dagger to the face because they were just brutes with sticks and knives right?

[Ashiel]

It sounded to me like the first part of your post ending with the red smirk face was accepting that orcs are an extreme example, but maybe that was meant only to refer to the Pathfinder changes.
That's correct.



Indeed, it's hilarious how the so-called "Tucker's Kobolds" legend is pretty much entirely disassembled with even a glance at the DMG, and particularly the 3.5 MM :smallsigh:

Your statement regarding switching the orcs' weapons technically does not suggest giving the orcs more powerful weapons, but the way you phrase it as though having weapon proficiency actually accounts for any possible weapon is misleading, as it is easily read or extended into "any proficiencies" and "any gear/magic items at all"- and indeed, in your kobolds with alchemist's fire example you explicitly say it's within their "WBL." And while under some readings of RAW that might all be universally true, by any practical rating of CR, it is clearly not. If you make a monster more powerful than the statblock the writer provided, you made it more powerful, period. My point about kobolds still stands: that there is a clear change in the kobold from 3.0 to 3.5 illustrating exactly how the threat of a gear-capable foe can vary drastically between what the writer writes, what the DM uses, and what monsters of the same CR actually do. We have a rare, clear example of a change for effect, and yet this is a point upon which tons of people, possibly yourself included, refuse to consider the actual effects rather than a so-called RAW formula (and then wonder why things don't make sense when they follow rules that aren't rules while ignoring other rules, etc).
CRs tend to exist within a range. Even in 3.x DMG, it notes that if a magic weapon is among the adventure loot, it should be given to one of the NPCs to wield. No CR change is indicated because that's not generally how it works nor should it. Some monsters tend to be more dangerous in some aspects than the rest of their statistics bear out, and I've never felt like kobolds with d6 light crossbows or d8 heavy crossbows are an issue. When I said kobolds with slings aren't even kobolds, I was referring to the fact they are intelligent and likely aware their slings are virtually useless, and also well known let alone simply capable of making complex mechanisms due to their reliance upon traps (things like dart traps exist at the lowest trap tiers).

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one my friend.

EDIT: Also just to be clear, when I was talking about their treasure values, I was referring to the fact your typical CR 1/4 kobold has about 75 gp worth of treasure in 3.x (they're actually about the same in terms of gear in Pathfinder if you're using the Bestiary methods of handling CR, actually slightly less). I prefer them with light crossbows because heavy ones are harder to use and remain mobile and kobolds are too fast for their size to not think of it as an advantage.

Something else also worth mentioning is that while kobolds are individually a lower CR, they are quite dangerous. They are encountered in groups of 4+, and often in places riddled with traps, meaning the encounter level of the scenarios are often much higher than their individual CRs. For example, if we're assuming 3.x kobolds, their smallest congregation is 3+1d6 kobolds (which is CR 1-2) and more likely than not within close proximity to them is likely a CR 1 trap or two that has something like a weight trigger that they (and haflings and gnomes) can move about or they choose to simply avoid, which will bring the effective CR of the encounter up to 3 or 4 (which is an epic-tier encounter for a 1st level party).


As for orcs being crappy artisans- well sure, if you don't give them any ranks in craft skills. But they get a minimum 1 point per level and 4 points total at 1st like everyone else- their societal problem is a smaller overall amount of diversity/flexibility compared to other races, all of whom are crushed by the humans bonus skill points and feat. The reason orcs would have crappy artisans is that the only one they had got killed in a raid because they're fighting all the time and they just can't replace skilled people anywhere near as quickly or easily. A skilled orc weaponsmith with 4 ranks and skill focus, even with Int 6, could take 10 to hit that DC 15 (and if they were an Expert, they'd have 4 skills maxed). But since instead of cities they live in tribal bands where everyone is a warrior (because they're used as monsters), they take combat feats and drop to only reliable simple weapons if they even have the skill.
Yes, which is why I said they're crappy artisans. They innately begin handicapped when it comes to crafting (-1 to all Craft checks due to Int penalty, which means if you don't spend your starting feat on something like Skill Focus you simply cannot take-10 to do it). As you have pointed out, their social structure doesn't lend itself to this as well (agricultural development and civilization allows the many to feed the few, allowing for increasing levels of specialization and diversity of skill). Indicating to me that few if any orcs would end up with those sets of skills and feats.


Really, if orcs should have more crude weapons due to lack of skilled smiths, and should also have more crude weapons to bring them in line with their supposed CR, it sure sounds like they ought to just be using clubs and knives. Which would actually be hilarious as their melee weapons are now all throwable so the PCs are liable to get KO'd by a sudden flying club/dagger to the face because they were just brutes with sticks and knives right?
Clubs and slings are usually my go-to for the cheap ones (particularly for those who haven't robbed a local militia or something). Spears are my most common orc weapon (they're simple and cheap enough that orcs should be able to handle them) and they are actually more dangerous than the weapons complained about (a regular spear has reach and a x3 crit).

[Xervous]

Point buy systems work well when they are properly tuned and applied. I deem D&Ds point buy incomplete and maybe somewhat improperly applied.

Increasing costs for continued investment will yield a breakpoint where some neglected stats become appealing. When it costs 50 points to go +2 on your main stat there’s a lot you could accomplish by spreading that over the other ability scores. D&Ds issue is you never face that decision. Point buy only exists for character creation. After that you get static level up bonuses, wealth derived bonuses that generally cap low, and spell granted static boosts.

How do you attempt to fix that? Drive ability score progression with some Automatic Bonus Progression that awards points to continue your point buy. Properly structured, this has a net zero impact on dedicated SAD builds, benefits MAD builds, and encourages everyone to be a little MADer.

[pabelfly]

Increasing costs for continued investment will yield a breakpoint where some neglected stats become appealing. When it costs 50 points to go +2 on your main stat there’s a lot you could accomplish by spreading that over the other ability scores. D&Ds issue is you never face that decision.

You actually do get it in character building with more MAD classes. Like, try doing a point buy for a Paladin character, for example - you want high STR, high CHA or WIS, some CON and DEX and wish you had extra points for INT.