Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Danse Macabre

DrDeth's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,028 posts (6,029 including aliases). 18 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,028 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.

You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.

That's not really how shields work. They're an active defence. You block with them.

Not in D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?

Thieves had skills in slots like wizards had spells. They fought on the cleric chart, ie, second best.

So, a level one skill slot might be "pick locks". This would allow the Original Thief to simply do so. Period. No rolls needed, and over and over. Other characters had to break down the door or use a spell. Disarm simple trap.

Higher skills slots might be "Pick magical locks". Disarm complex trap. Even higher might be disarm magical trap- I think that was a 3rd level ability.

Now sure, the DM could ask the player to play it out or even say "This trap is so fiendishly complicated I will require a roll".

But it made opening routine doors and disarming simple traps very quick and easy.


Quark Blast wrote:


1) Still no bonus to hit that you wouldn't have under any other "sneak attack" scenario. Remember, the goblin is totally oblivious to the rogue's presence. How does that situation not warrant a bonus to hit beyond a marginal +2?

Worse, the goblin retained his shield bonus. How dumb is that?

The goblin would lose his Dex bonus and you'd get extra damage.

Yes, the shield bonus remains, since you still have to hit him where his shield aint.

You might as well say the Goblin should lose his armor bonus as there are places not covered by his armor and you'd hit there.


I heartily recommend Designers & Dragons (4 volume set) by Shannon Appelcline, especially the platinum appendix.

:-)


thegreenteagamer wrote:
You got that wrong - wands and potions between, SPELLS are during - because they actually scale with level and can do a hefty chunk if you get high enough ones, like Heal. Wands are just potions you don't have to pull out multiple times. They still suck and do minimum level + modifiers. Staffs...well, that's a different story.

And a devoted channeler can really heal massively. Twice a round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


One (very early) experience with 3.PF - my rogue PC successfully snuck up behind a goblin, who was watching the battle elsewhere, and the GM gave the goblin his shield bonus to AC because "facing doesn't matter according to the rules". Also, because the goblin was already (technically) part of the battle, he had a slot on the initiative order and so, even though my rogue got the first attack, there was no surprise attack on the part of my rogue because (technically) the goblin wasn't surprised!

That same goblin, believing himself to be safely out of melee, is no easier to hit in total surprise from behind than if my dwarf was standing in front of him shouting a warning challenge before engaging in combat.

Really? Yep, really. The goblin even retained his shield bonus against the (theoretical) surprise attack!

That's just dumb. What's the point of the rogue's sneak and hide skills if your opponent's AC remains the same?

Well, if the goblin didnt see you, you were "invisible" thus sneak attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
So you're the guy responsible for all the underpowered rogues out there? =)

Naw, that's Paizo, pre Unchained. ;-)

The Thief was pretty powerful and very very necessary, esp in those days of diabolical Gygaxian traps. They were't just "make a reflex safe and take 5d6 damage". You could be Tported naked, or trapping in a pit with a Gelatinous Cube or lose life levels, etc.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Who knows. I not only have a 3 OD&D set, but also the supplements and I think 5 volumes of Strategic Review (there weren't actually that many of them, I think it's either 4 or 5 that I have, if there were more I may be missing some of them).

I was just reading the Strategic Review this summer!

I also think it was Dr Deth who introduced/created the Thief Class?

Nice stuff.

Yep.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Who here is lucky enough (or perhaps unfortunate enough) to have a Old School, 3 Volume set OD&D, maybe Avalon Hill wargame , veteran player in their group?

I'll accept as "Grognard" if they played AD&D or Holmes Basic when those first came out.

Not everyone who played in the 80's has any real desire to play that way today.

Some of the things are still golden, others are best consigned to history.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I had been under the impression that "grognard" was a dismissive and somewhat ageist term, and thus I try not to use it. Am I mistaken?

Yes you are mistaken, it is a badge of honor.

Hm.

Sure doesn't seem that way when used by folks who don't self-identify as such. But I'm glad to see this thread is going in a more positive direction than I first feared when I saw the thread title.

Carry on, then.

:)

Anything can be used as a pejorative by those not in the group- "New school gamer" "raised on video games", "powergamer" "roleplayer". etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
I had been under the impression that "grognard" was a dismissive and somewhat ageist term, and thus I try not to use it. Am I mistaken?

Yes you are mistaken, it is a badge of honor.

I am a Grognard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are both Grognards! (Gives secret handshake)


Lobolusk wrote:

Forgive me please I have a hard time getting out what is in my skull on paper.

my main question is how do you keep a serious Atmosphere when you are gMing? fun is okay but there times I want my players to focus and feel the palpable danger int he air.

My Dad played with us sometimes. He was a WWII veteran who saw quite a bit of combat. Combat Infantry badge.

When a early DM complained about the joking and wanted us to be serious, my father explained that when things were the worst, when death was just around the corner, they were cracking the most jokes- usually very dark humor.


Who here is lucky enough (or perhaps unfortunate enough) to have a Old School, 3 Volume set OD&D, maybe Avalon Hill wargame , veteran player in their group?

I'll accept as "Grognard" if they played AD&D or Holmes Basic when those first came out.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:

Welp, this thread sure is a lot of dudes talking about us, and congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to have women in their groups, rather than to us. Or better yet, asking questions and listening.

Any discussion of how to make gaming tables welcoming to women should be led by women. You shouldn't be trying to speak for us. So I'm not sure what purpose discussions talking about us as if we're some sort of exotic animals serves.

Because that's the OP, Jessica: "Quick survey... who here has a girl in their group... and is she treated with the respect she unquestionably deserves!! ;))"

So, if I answer the OP by saying yes, as I did- am I "congratulating themselves for being enlightened enough to have women in their groups" or just answering the OP's question?

The OP is not a "discussion of how to make gaming tables welcoming to women" it is a question- by a female note- as to who "has a girl in their group". She asked a reasonable polling question, and many of us are simply answering it.

This doesnt make us sexist or presumptuous or speaking for the other sex. It means simply we respect the Op and are answering her query.


Fomsie wrote:


and a cantankerous old fart... (that would be me)

Get off my lawn!


Harleequin wrote:

One of the things I've enjoyed but been surprised about, is how its not an issue being a girl in a RPG gaming group. Most times I'm the only girl in the group but no-one has batted an eyelid.

I know RPG playing is very much seen as a geeky guy thing but I think more women are giving it a go.

Quick survey... who here has a girl in their group... and is she treated with the respect she unquestionably deserves!! ;))

We have had members of the Distaff in my games since 1974*. Yes, not as common as males, but it's by no means at all rare or uncommon to see females in table-top roleplaying games.

* Just look at my Manual of Aurania, which in 1977 recognized the contributions of two of our female players.

In my Wednesday game, we have one- in my Saturday game the females outnumber the males.

We have always treated them with the same respect the males members get- joshing, a little teasing, camaraderie, friendship.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You are part of a group of henchmen, hirelings, 1st level types, working for some experienced and powerful adventurers. You are left to hold the horses outside the dungeon.

Suddenly there's a cloud of rank dark smoke and four pairs of smoking boots appear- and a evil laugh....


Digitalelf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!

What’s he that wishes so?

My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin.
If we are marked to die, we are enough
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honor.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,


Shifty wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

So, you're not penalizing those players who arent personally good at diplomacy, but still have a high score, just like you're not making the barbarian chin himself to make his strength roll. But cool roleplaying gets a bonus.

I don't think the expectation is that players hop up and give us the St Crispins speech from Henry V, but yeah a bit of a descriptor or at least the attempt to provide an overview of the direction they wish to take.

Hah. Oddly I had a PC who could boost the party thru oratory and I gave part of that speech a couple of time!


Digitalelf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
It's also pretty much a necessity when it comes to things like finding traps by describing how you're looking for them, since there's nothing other than player knowledge to rely on.

I'm willing to bet that is one of the reasons that the good Dr. of Deth (:-P) came up with the thief class in the first place...

I can understand not wanting to go back to such a way of playing, but for me, one of the major reasons I went back to an older edition was the newer edition's seemingly total reliance placed upon the numbers on a character sheet and the general attitude of "If it's not on the sheet, you cannot do it!".

Yes, more or less.


Shifty wrote:


The players have a habit of pointing to their sheet and their Diplomacy score, rather than engage in actual diplomacy. They see it that they are within their rights to bypass the old school type of way,...

And they are. But DM's can assign a +2 bonus or -2 as they see fit.

DM:" so how do you convince the Queen?"
Player: "I roll my diplomacy".
DM "Sure, but if you come up with something good you can get a +2, if not there may be a minus."
Player: "Umm, I also have a high Ks Nobility roll?"
DM: "Sure, that gives you a +2, but if you say something cool and flowery, you might get another +2."

So, you're not penalizing those players who arent personally good at diplomacy, but still have a high score, just like you're not making the barbarian chin himself to make his strength roll. But cool roleplaying gets a bonus.


Digitalelf wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Elf, I want to play a game with you. I feel like it would be one of the most awesome games I've ever played in. :)

I thank you. That's kind of you to say. :-)

I'm afraid that my style of DMing would not go over very well by today's standards. I am very much a DM of the past (if you catch my meaning).

To me, the way I DM, it's the "rules" are more guidelines, and made up monsters and cool, unique loot are common. Gygaxian traps are there, too.


Digitalelf wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Manual of Aurania.

Shameless plug! ;-P

But on a more serious note, I'd love find a copy of this.

if I only had copies to sell, then i'd be happy to. I guess then it's not that much of a plug.... ;-)


Shifty wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
There was a Samurai class in 1977.

1976, in Dragon magazine.

It didn't make an 'official' hardcover book until 1985 with the launch of the amazing and deliciously flavoursome 'Oriental Adventures'.

Assuming you were playing AD&D and not BECMI of course...!

Otherwise, Fighter.

Manual of Aurania.


Lemmy Z wrote:

Who exactly did I attack? As far as I can tell, all I did was to criticize close-mindness and elitism.

The Strawman you set up.


Shifty wrote:


Want to be a Samurai? Fighter.

There was a Samurai class in 1977.


It is legit to run a Killer Dungeon (such as Tomb of Horrors) as a competition, but just so long as a warning is given first. Note that is exactly what ToH was. No one went in Gygaxs ToH dungeon with the idea that was just another dungeon crawl.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's a paladin right there, Dr. D.

Hmm, +2 to STR or CHA? I guess STR.


HolmesandWatson wrote:

B

And good to see Deth back.

Err...

YOU CALLED? oh, Dr Deth.... sorry, see you in 53 years.


Talonhawke wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Could do a "roll in order, switch any two stats" maybe.
Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.

Except that you get fun things like a Fighter with a Int of 15, a Sorc with a STR of 15, a monk with a 14 CHA, and so forth.

I just rolled 4D6 drop one, re-roll ones (my fave)
13
14
16
11
13
15
29 points. Nice.

But think of all you can do with that!
So if they were in order, sure you'd consider a Sorc, but a rather tough sorc now, maybe one who specializes in touch attacks? Or a fighting bard? Pretty much any class that isnt INT based. Remember most races allow a +2, some more.


Anzyr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Except no one here stated anything at all like what Lemmy accused "angry elitist grognards " of doing. Thus, there is no fallacy. No one here claimed "All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed."

The Stormwind fallacy is not a fallacy as it is mostly used to set up a strawman. No one here fell into "the Stormwind Fallacy".

Is that clear enough to resolve your error on how the Stormwind Fallacy is abused?

I don't recall Lemmy saying anyone had. He presented a person committing the Stormwind Fallacy as an example of what he dislikes people doing. Maybe you could quote the part where he accused someone in this thread of Stormwind Fallacy for me. Actually while you are getting that quote, could you also please quote where he used it to set up a strawman?

Thanks! I'll wait.

Why bring it up then? When you set up a hypothetical then attack it, that is a strawman. You didnt know that?

In fact I have never seen the "Stormwind fallacy" properly used, except as a attack on others.


Except no one here stated anything at all like what Lemmy accused "angry elitist grognards " of doing. Thus, there is no fallacy. No one here claimed "All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed."

The Stormwind fallacy is not a fallacy as it is mostly used to set up a strawman. No one here fell into "the Stormwind Fallacy".

Is that clear enough to resolve your error on how the Stormwind Fallacy is abused?


Anzyr wrote:
I really wish people would read things before they contribute their opinions on them. The Stormwind fallacy is in fact a fallacy. It is a specific example of the False Dilemma Fallacy. Which anyone who has read it would already know

It's not a fallacy as that not how it was used here. People didnt say things like "Well - optimized characters cant be roleplayed". That's a strawman, which is a type of argumentation/debate fallacy. The example given was a Strawman, no one actually brought forth a False Dilemma aka Stormwind.

In fact the "Stormwind Fallacy" as a version of the False Dilemma is rarely fallen into, what is much more often used is a accusation that the poster being replied to has used the Stormwind fallacy, when in fact they haven't.

Thus, as far as i am concerned the so called "Stormwind fallacy" aint. It's simply a way of putting up a Strawman and used to belittle another poster.

Much like "I really wish people would read things before they contribute their opinions on them." isnt actually a belief that the poster didnt read, it's simply a personal attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Greyhawk had two republics, complete with elections, representatives, etc.:

1) Perrenland (loosely based on switzerland, including export of mercenaries) ;
2) and the Yeomanry, with a government of the warrior people by the warrior people.

Not en expert on FR or Eberron, but it seems that "never any republic" in classic D&D settings isn't factually correct.

And the City of Greyhawk itself was run by the Directing Oligarchy, aka the guilds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


Keep in mind that both the Roman and Greek Republics weren't democracies as we understand them today. To be a Senator for example in Rome, you were the head of a powerful family. You weren't "elected" to the position by the plebian population.

But the Plebes did elect the Plebian assembly and most of the Officials. The Plebian Assembly and the Tribunes had a lot of power in the late Republic.


Lemmy Z wrote:


The classes are at theoretically balanced taking their SAD/MADness in consideration (1.obviously, Pathfinder fails quite hard in the balance department, but that's more an issue of magic x non-magic than anything else).

Admittedly, Monks are very, very MAD (2.and extremely poorly designed all around), b... 3.Channel Energy tends to fall quite quickly in usefulness, so Cha 10 is more than enough.

1. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

2.You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

3. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

You opinion is as valid as anyone else's but it's still your opinion.


Lemmy Z wrote:


Putting your highest roll in Str and your lowest in Cha when you play a Barbarian is cookie-cutter. So is picking the appropriate feats. Rolling stats in order and then picking the most fitting class is also cookie-cutter.

You have a unusual definition of "cookie cutter". To me, it's have a PC who has little or no unique abilities and where everything is packed to optimize. The Christmas tree is decorated the same, the same feats as every other two handed fighter (for example) and so forth.


DM Beckett wrote:

W

As far as discouraging dump stats, it's really hard to do in some ways, as classes like Bard, Fighter, Wizard, and Sorcerer can really get by pretty easily without dumping much, while classes like Cleric, Monk, and Paladin sort of have to in order to work (in the sense of actually using their abilities and doing their basic job/function).

You dont need a 18 or 20 to start. So, you can build a fine character without a really high stat.

I have played a lot of Clerics, Monks, and Paladins without dumping and they contributed just fine.


Lemmy Z wrote:
PT.B=The Devil wrote:
If point buy is "cookie cutter", is stat array also "cookie cutter"?

They are all cookie-cutter at this point.

Rolling 3d6 then allotting the rolls wherever it fits best is also cookie cutter. So is Rolling 3d6 in order and then picking a class that benefits from the rolled stats...

The only difference is that with point buy you actually get to choose the flavor of the cookie you're eating, instead of letting the oven (dice) decide it for you.

The problem are angry elitist grognards who see a character as a build and nothing more... They see the same build twice and accuse their players of being "rollplayers", even if their characters have completely different background and personality, because they can't fathom the possibility of characters being more than their class description and feat selection. These players appeal to the Stormwind fallacy because they have no creativity to see anything beyond what's written down in the character sheet... And yet, they have the nerve to call others "rollplayers".

I am grognard as they come, but I look upon a character as a character, not a set of stats. I dont like, for example- the 3.5 and PF system of buying any or all magic items and thus selling off nearly all the loot to decorate your Christmas tree of magic items.

And Stormwind isnt a "fallacy." Just because someone calls it that , doesnt make it so. At best it's a observation.


HyperMissingno wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Shouldn't a mage be disarming traps? I mean that's what Summon Monster I is for in the later levels.

How does that disarm a trap on the locked door? or on a chest? Or a teleport trap?

I mean sure if the trap is a pit trap in a corridor and the ranger spotted it, sure, send in the pony.

Okay fine, sometimes you need to break out dispel magic for traps.

Also a 10 point buy is less of a thing to avoid and more of a challenge to overcome if you ask me. I'd like to think I got the game savvy to survive and contribute in one of those...barring dice/rng deciding that I get to suck balls at that moment in particular or that the rest of the party doesn't know what they're doing.

10 pt buy can be a challenge, sure- but then its not the games fault that a particular combo doesnt do well when you are at half points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HyperMissingno wrote:


I have an Empiricist Investigator who dips one level into Inspired Blade Swashbuckler, and I'm on a 10 point buy. What reason do I have to not go 9, 14, 14, 15, 8, 7 for my stat array (the +2 goes into dex here.)

So, if your DM gives you a 10pt maybe you dont run that combo. Wait for a 20 pt campaign.

I mean if your DM gives you a 0 point build, maybe you do dump.... that DM.....


HyperMissingno wrote:


Stats come into two categories. Invested and dumped.

By limiting the system to a two category system everything that is not invested goes into the other category, which in this case is dumped. A more proper name for it would be not-invested, but dumped is easier to roll off the tongue so it gets that name.

Is anyone still confused about this very simple system?

No, but those are YOUR terms. Not unreasonable, but you will have to explain them every time, like Humpty Dumpty.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Shouldn't a mage be disarming traps? I mean that's what Summon Monster I is for in the later levels.

How does that disarm a trap on the locked door? or on a chest? Or a teleport trap?

I mean sure if the trap is a pit trap in a corridor and the ranger spotted it, sure, send in the pony.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:


Not to derail this thread, but alot of times the Inquisitor has to fill the rogue role, so Dex becomes very important. Same with Wisdom, you need it not just for spells, but Perception, Survival, Sense Motive, etc.

Any skill monkey type class has to spread their stats much thinner than a full caster or heavily armored martial. If I want to be successful doing all the things a skill monkey is expected to do, Charisma is getting dumped.

If you are making your Inquisitor fill both the tank and skill monkey riches, then sure, he's gonna need a lot of good stats.

Make your wizard a gish who will fill both the warrior and spellslinger roles and you know what...?

Clerics who have to fulfill tank and divine spellcaster/healer roles have to have good stats in many abilities.

Filling any two niches- need five decent abilities, in general.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
So I have a question, what do anti-stat dumpers feel about NPCs with dump stats? Given your average NPC has a 15 point buy...you get where Im going.

well, diplomacy is ineffective against npcs, so...

No it's not.


HyperMissingno wrote:
So I have a question, what do anti-stat dumpers feel about NPCs with dump stats? Given your average NPC has a 15 point buy...you get where Im going.

"Creatures with NPC class levels have stats in the standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), while creatures with character class levels have the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8);"

Yes, NPCs have one eight, sometimes a nine also. A tiny bit of dumping there. Peasants are different from adventurers.


HeHateMe wrote:

I'm playing an Inquisitor now as well, and respectfully I must disagree. Dex is critically important; Inquisitors can't wear heavy armor, and they need it for many skills including Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics, etc. Wisdom is critically important, Strength is critically important (for a melee build), and you need bonuses in Con and Int. Cha is the only stat you can safely ignore.

Monk is pretty much the same way.

Compare that to a Wizard, they need one stat; Int. Definitely unequal.

Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics? Are you trying to take the niche of the rogue?

Wis you only need enough to be able to cast spells, so a 13 gets you to 3rd level, and my build gives you enough wis to cast every spell a Inquisitor can get.

My Build has a str of 18.

Everyone needs Bonuses to Con. a 12 int is fine.

Wizards need decent Con & Dex, too, at least as much as a Inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Are you saying that the rude, ugly boor with bad breath interrupting him with 'Gives us a bargain you snot nosed creep or I'll chop you wit dis axe" will only help?

If you want people to face the consequences of what they have their characters say and do, that's fine. But you don't get to decide how other people's characters act and then expect them to face the consequences of what you invented.

Someone who tries to play other people's characters according to their own vision and then expects the other players to be penalized for it has no right to be at the table.

EDIT: As an aside, the appropriateness of double-dipping CHA penalties wasn't even my main point. It was that the act of trying to help a tablemate was being labeled "metagaming" by the person who was himself acting on knowledge of game statistics. The irony and hypocrisy there is astounding.

OK, so the rude, ugly boor with bad breath and poor speech can say whatever the players wants him to say. He is still a rude, ugly boor with bad breath and poor speech and he's not gonna "help".

The guy with the 6 str isnt gonna help the guy with 18 strenght - if that's what the DM rules. The DM can assign a + or - 2 penalty at whim, based upon circumstances. It's in the rules.

I dont see how that is ironic or hypocritical, the DM can't metagame. He is the Dm.


HeHateMe wrote:

The issue that everybody seems to forget is, Pathfinder is inherently unfair with regards to stats. Fighters, Barbarians, Wizards and Sorcerers? They need 1 or 2 high stats, that's IT. A Ranger, Inquisitor, Hunter, or other skill monkey type character? You literally need high scores in every stat except Charisma. Problem is you never get enough points to have a bonus in every stat, so guess what? Charisma gets dumped.

All you judgmental types are probably playing Wizards and have no clue how difficult it is to play a MAD character without dumping a particular stat. Play an Inquisitor or Monk sometime, that'll get you folks of your high horse REAL fast.

Inquisitor and other skill based classes are my favorites and I never dump for extra points.

Inquisitor doesnt need much dex. Nor Wis. Nor Int. 12s are fine and then a little more in Wis as you level.

20 pt buy
str 15+2 race=17. 10pts +1 @4th= 18.
Dex: 12= 2
Con14= 5
Int 12= 2
Wis 13= 3 +1 @ 8, 12, 16,
cha 10.

1 to 50 of 6,028 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.