DM- you might want to take a closer look at the Paladin's key ability for spell-casting.
DM- you might want to take a closer look at the Paladin's key ability for spell-casting.
dont tell me let me guess... Wisdom?
My problem is your telling the player what to do, if that is the case. Now saying...
"your x stats of 7 (or below) might not allow you to last long, there is a lot of things that deal ability damage" and allowing the person to take that chance is completely differernt than..."create a new character that is more plausible"
Maybe that person wants to play the extreme stat character who barely makes it through because of X?
The only thing I'm telling the player is what type of character s/he can bring to the table. There will be zero munchkins at my table. You can play with a single 7 in a dump stat. You can even have several 9s. I've been gaming too long and I have too little time to put up with the type of player who thinks that he must have a 20 in a starting stat and dump 3 more just to be viable. I have a full time job and a social life outside of gaming. I already put 1-2 hours a day into the campaign as well as the 6-7 hours on Sunday that I run things. I have enough to do without having to account for someone needing to bring in yet another character because he had 3 dump stats (again). It disrupts the campaign and ends up irritating the rest of my group.
The person who makes characters with 3 dump stats has no intention on playing a character. I have never seen, in more than 30 years, more than a dozen states, and several hundred players, anyone who makes the one time character with 3 dump stats. This is a common theme for this type of player. I don't have the time nor patience to deal with them.
If others want to make and play those characters at their tables, that's cool with me. I don't allow it at mine. I also don't allow evil characters, Chaotic Neutral characters, non-standard races (most of the time), third party stuff, WotC stuff, or any of the broken builds people seek out. I have had very few players walk away from the table because of this. I live in an area where finding a game is incredibly easy so they could walk if it was a problem. I have 6 players and several others who want to join. People can find the group that suits them best.
You-oo-oo are!
You-oo-oo are!
My problem is your telling the player what to do, if that is the case. Now saying...
"your x stats of 7 (or below) might not allow you to last long, there is a lot of things that deal ability damage" and allowing the person to take that chance is completely differernt than..."create a new character that is more plausible"
Maybe that person wants to play the extreme stat character who barely makes it through because of X?
The only thing I'm telling the player is what type of character s/he can bring to the table. There will be zero munchkins at my table. You can play with a single 7 in a dump stat. You can even have several 9s. I've been gaming too long and I have too little time to put up with the type of player who thinks that he must have a 20 in a starting stat and dump 3 more just to be viable. I have a full time job and a social life outside of gaming. I already put 1-2 hours a day into the campaign as well as the 6-7 hours on Sunday that I run things. I have enough to do without having to account for someone needing to bring in yet another character because he had 3 dump stats (again). It disrupts the campaign and ends up irritating the rest of my group.
The person who makes characters with 3 dump stats has no intention on playing a character. I have never seen, in more than 30 years, more than a dozen states, and several hundred players, anyone who makes the one time character with 3 dump stats. This is a common theme for this type of player. I don't have the time nor patience to deal with them.
If others want to make and play those characters at their tables, that's cool with me. I don't allow it at mine. I also don't allow evil characters, Chaotic Neutral characters, non-standard races (most of the time), third party stuff, WotC stuff, or any of the broken builds people seek out. I have had very few players walk away from the table because of this. I live in an area where finding a game is incredibly easy so they could walk if it was a problem. I have 6 players...
you only put in 1 to 2 hours a day on your campaign builds? How do you manage so little time? on average I put in 8 hours a week of actual sit down write it out time, and then well over 4 to 5 hours per day of idea percolating.
you only put in 1 to 2 hours a day on your campaign builds? How do you manage so little time? on average I put in 8 hours a week of actual sit down write it out time, and then well over 4 to 5 hours per day of idea percolating.
I've been DMing long enough with the same group of people that I know what I need to work on and what I don't have to worry about. I am also running an Adventure Path so my time in campaign creation has been mostly done. The things I work on are converting, entering things into Hero Lab, answering emails, and working on side things that the players want to deal with. Also, 8 hours a week is probably close to my 1-2 hours a day (6-12 hours each week depending on what I have to do).
DM- you might want to take a closer look at the Paladin's key ability for spell-casting.dont tell me let me guess... Wisdom?
You might want to take a closer look.
DM- you might want to take a closer look at the Paladin's key ability for spell-casting.dont tell me let me guess... Wisdom?You might want to take a closer look.
** spoiler omitted **
well for me I might leave it as is...
but if you are looking to get the most bang for you buck then yeah flip Wis and Cha otherwise I think its still a valid build.But as always YMMV.
Until I can get a hold of my own copy of the core I have to go with what little I have read so far (perusing my roomies core [he is the GM this time]) and I tend to zero in on certain key classes to learn a system.
I opted for the Monk this first time out as I am a bit burned out on my traditional class (mage as if you could not tell from my choice in name).
Until I can a hold of my own copy of the core I have to go with what little I have read so far (perusing my roomies core [he is the GM this time]) and I tend to zero in on certain key classes to learn a system.
I opted for the Monk this first time out as I am a bit burned out on my traditional class (mage as if you could not tell from my choice in name).
You, sir, require this link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You, sir, require this link.
Until I can a hold of my own copy of the core I have to go with what little I have read so far (perusing my roomies core [he is the GM this time]) and I tend to zero in on certain key classes to learn a system.
I opted for the Monk this first time out as I am a bit burned out on my traditional class (mage as if you could not tell from my choice in name).
And now we see the downside of being an oldtimer. This here newfangled interwebz thing confuses the bejeezus outta me... I did not know that there site existed. bookmarked. dad-blasted younker showin' me up... ;)
And now we see the downside of being an oldtimer. This here newfangled interwebz thing confuses the bejeezus outta me... I did not know that there site existed. bookmarked. dad-blasted younker showin' me up... ;)
That's the "official" reference doc, but the turnaround on rules getting added is a bit slower than d20pfsrd.com, which is a fan site that includes all core, peripheral, and 3rd party material (labeled as such, of course) in one place.
Happy reading!
...of course, as a true grognard, you'll want to pick up the beautiful full-color hardcovers for authenticity's sake.
And now we see the downside of being an oldtimer. This here newfangled interwebz thing confuses the bejeezus outta me... I did not know that there site existed. bookmarked. dad-blasted younker showin' me up... ;)That's the "official" reference doc, but the turnaround on rules getting added is a bit slower than d20pfsrd.com, which is a fan site that includes all core, peripheral, and 3rd party material (labeled as such, of course) in one place.
Happy reading!
...of course, as a true grognard, you'll want to pick up the beautiful full-color hardcovers for authenticity's sake.
naturally...
The problem is Min/Maxing at its heart is something everyone does unless they're just trying not to specifically out of some sort of taboo.If I was a true min-maxer my wizards would all have str 7 (or less), my fighters would all have int 7 (or less), and so on anything that's done to get prime stats up to 20 or higher. Optmisation refers to using what I do create to effective levels while still keeping them relatively balanced. Part of that goal is the realisation that 1st level characters should not need 20's in thier prime stat.Denied. Everyone min maxes. It's just a matter of the degree. Any time you improve the effectiveness of your primary at the cost of your secondary, then you have min/maxed.
I'm hesitant to build a wizard with lower than an 8 strength simply because I find it convenient to be able to carry stuff around. Regardless of my PC's strength, I also tend to purchase pack animals for this purpose as well ('cause I often pack food, tents, extra sets of clothing, clay jugs, extra water, a few choice spices, some pots, sleeping bags, blankets, etc).
However, if you have a choice between a 13 and an 8 for your Str/Int as a wizard, you have min/maxed if you end up with an Str 8 / Int 13. That's just all there is to it.
I am curious...
If everyone min/maxes then where did I min/max this die rolled (3d6 place to taste) character?Monk
Level 2
Str - 15
Dex - 17
Con - 16
Int - 14
Wis - 18
Cha - 15
1. You are playing a monk who needs several decent scores, and where the scores go depend on how you intend to play the monk so it is too hard to judge.
2. You got lucky and rolled really well.Try a paladin with 17,15,13,10,10,8.
actually considering how the law of averages skews dramatically with my group those were pretty average. (we either roll very well or very crappy).
I made the class human and took the +2 to one...
2e requirements?
I thought you were familiar with pathfinder rules. If you don't what to put where I can't really make a call.<--That is in relation to your statement of not knowing the requirements(mechanics) of the class. You have to at least know that much before you can begin to build effectively.
edit:I just read some of the other post. Feel free to return redistribute the points after you look over the class. For the sake of this exercise we will assume the DM won't be pulling punches.
2e requirements?
I thought you were familiar with pathfinder rules. If you don't what to put where I can't really make a call.<--That is in relation to your statement of not knowing the requirements(mechanics) of the class. You have to at least know that much before you can begin to build effectively.
That is a very subjective term... effectively to do what? a Hack/Slash game? A political/social game? A Mental challenges game? Something in between? The build would be different for each of those.
edit:I just read some of the other post. Feel free to return redistribute the points after you look over the class. For the sake of this exercise we will assume the DM won't be pulling punches.
this too is subjective... how will the GM not be pulling punches? Socially? Physically? Mentally?
Without further information I (personally) would in all likely hood maintain the build as such...
Str - 17
Dex - 10
Con - 10
Int - 8
Wis - 15
Cha - 13
Then apply the Race Template.
Human is my preference (add the +2 to int to lose the negative modifier.)
But if it is indeed a pure H&S game (dont get much call for those around here though) I would flip Wis and Cha and probably go with Half-Orc (again the +2 going into Int to lose the negative Modifier) for the Orc ferocity.
I don't concern myself with "optimizing for Combat superiority" I am more interested in what looks like fun?
In the typical games I play in; the Half-Orc Paladin would probably be built more like this...
Str - 10
Dex - 10
Con - 10 (8+2 racial bonus)
Int - 13
Wis - 15
Cha - 17
The Idea of a socially skilled "hated half breed" appeals to me as a fun challenge. (I would probably request he be placed in the Kingmaker AP).
But as always Builds are a personal thing. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to build a character.
2e requirements?
I thought you were familiar with pathfinder rules. If you don't what to put where I can't really make a call.<--That is in relation to your statement of not knowing the requirements(mechanics) of the class. You have to at least know that much before you can begin to build effectively.
That is a very subjective term... effectively to do what? a Hack/Slash game? A political/social game? A Mental challenges game? Something in between? The build would be different for each of those.
edit:I just read some of the other post. Feel free to return redistribute the points after you look over the class. For the sake of this exercise we will assume the DM won't be pulling punches.this too is subjective... how will the GM not be pulling punches? Socially? Physically? Mentally?
Without further information I (personally) would in all likely hood maintain the build as such...
Str - 17
Dex - 10
Con - 10
Int - 8
Wis - 15
Cha - 13Then apply the Race Template.
Human is my preference (add the +2 to int to lose the negative modifier.)But if it is indeed a pure H&S game (dont get much call for those around here though) I would flip Wis and Cha and probably go with Half-Orc (again the +2 going into Int to lose the negative Modifier) for the Orc ferocity.
I don't concern myself with "optimizing for Combat superiority" I am more interested in what looks like fun?
In the typical games I play in; the Half-Orc Paladin would probably be built more like this...
Str - 10
Dex - 10
Con - 10 (8+2 racial bonus)
Int - 13
Wis - 15
Cha - 17The Idea of a socially skilled "hated half breed" appeals to me as a fun challenge. (I would probably request he be placed in the Kingmaker AP).
But as always Builds are a personal thing. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to build a character.
There are ways to build a character so that it won't be useless in any game, assuming the DM does not cheat, and has equal parts RP and combat. That is what I was getting at.
The wrong way to build a character is such that you leave your buddies doing all the work or your character dies quickly, not due to back luck, but just a terrible build. I think it is hard to build such a character, but it is possible.Off-topic since this is about your group: How are you alive, and contributing with those physical stats as a pally(frontliner in general)?
There are ways to build a character so that it won't be useless in any game, assuming the DM does...2e requirements?
I thought you were familiar with pathfinder rules. If you don't what to put where I can't really make a call.<--That is in relation to your statement of not knowing the requirements(mechanics) of the class. You have to at least know that much before you can begin to build effectively.
That is a very subjective term... effectively to do what? a Hack/Slash game? A political/social game? A Mental challenges game? Something in between? The build would be different for each of those.
edit:I just read some of the other post. Feel free to return redistribute the points after you look over the class. For the sake of this exercise we will assume the DM won't be pulling punches.this too is subjective... how will the GM not be pulling punches? Socially? Physically? Mentally?
Without further information I (personally) would in all likely hood maintain the build as such...
Str - 17
Dex - 10
Con - 10
Int - 8
Wis - 15
Cha - 13Then apply the Race Template.
Human is my preference (add the +2 to int to lose the negative modifier.)But if it is indeed a pure H&S game (dont get much call for those around here though) I would flip Wis and Cha and probably go with Half-Orc (again the +2 going into Int to lose the negative Modifier) for the Orc ferocity.
I don't concern myself with "optimizing for Combat superiority" I am more interested in what looks like fun?
In the typical games I play in; the Half-Orc Paladin would probably be built more like this...
Str - 10
Dex - 10
Con - 10 (8+2 racial bonus)
Int - 13
Wis - 15
Cha - 17The Idea of a socially skilled "hated half breed" appeals to me as a fun challenge. (I would probably request he be placed in the Kingmaker AP).
But as always Builds are a personal thing. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to build a character.
we tend to play more political/social and mental challenge games than combat centric ones.
And by thinking outside the box when it comes to combat if we could not arrange for combat to take place under circumstances we preferred. Any set of stats can be made viable.I find it harder to place stat blocks like 13,14,15,16,17,18 than 3,4,5,6,7,8. (but thats me, YMMV)
we tend to play more political/social and mental challenge games than combat centric ones.
I always wanted to play or run a game like that. It makes more sense to try to avoid combat since nobody really wants to risk getting hurt in real life. Even in novels and movies most heroes only fight when they have too.
I actually allow Chaotic Neutral characters, but only from those people I know not to play Chaotic Neutral as either insane, or someone who overdoes the Two Face aspect.
. I also don't allow evil characters, Chaotic Neutral characters, non-standard races (most of the time), third party stuff, WotC stuff, or any of the broken builds people seek out.
Chaotic Neutral does not equal insane Two Face.
Chaotic means they have no use for rules. Two-Face is VERY much into rules. It's just his own twisted personal set of rules. He will follow his own set of rules to destruction if he has to, but he follows them. That's actually pretty lawful.
Neutral means they have no preference for good or evil. Two-Face is actually evil. He knows what he is doing is wrong. Intentionally doing wrong is evil. He murders, robs, etc, and enjoys it.
Two-Face is therefore LE.
Chaotic Neutral is selfish. They don't care about laws, they don't care about good or evil. They only care about themselves, and what's best for them. If killing is something they have to do, they will, but they are just as likely to run away from a BBEG if that's better for them.
It's actually kind of hard to play CN, since people don't like to leave the rest of the party to fight the BBEG. Most people play CN as either 'Chaotic Stupid' or 'Chaotic Good'.
I actually allow Chaotic Neutral characters, but only from those people I know not to play Chaotic Neutral as either insane, or someone who overdoes the Two Face aspect.
. I also don't allow evil characters, Chaotic Neutral characters, non-standard races (most of the time), third party stuff, WotC stuff, or any of the broken builds people seek out.
The only people I have ever wanted to play Chaotic Neutral also wanted to play kender rogues (or thieves when we were playing 1st or 2nd edition). I know where the adventure is headed at that point. One of my current players wanted to play a chaotic neutral blaster wizard. I told him that he couldn't because I already knew that he would be actively trying to be disruptive. He skirts the line currently and he's playing true neutral.
The only people I have ever wanted to play Chaotic Neutral also wanted to play kender rogues (or thieves when we were playing 1st or 2nd edition). I know where the adventure is headed at that point. One of my current players wanted to play a chaotic neutral blaster wizard. I told him that he couldn't because I already knew that he would be actively trying to be disruptive. He skirts the line currently and he's playing true neutral.
Aha! THREADCAP: Min-maxing isn't the root of all evil. Kender are the root of all evil.
I always wanted to play or run a game like that. It makes more sense to try to avoid combat since nobody really wants to risk getting hurt in real life. Even in novels and movies most heroes only fight when they have too.
we tend to play more political/social and mental challenge games than combat centric ones.
It just requires that all players at the table be in agreement as to the style of game. The real fun is teaching a munchkin or "roll-player" how to "role-play". Once they learn how and have serious fun they tend to become the best RPers you will ever meet.
I accept that the players optimize to a certain degree, but not at the expense of immersion and fun. When players start to obsess about how their characters stats are compared to a monster of equal CR or worse starts to obsess about other peoples character builds and mechanical choices it has gone to far. Also people who obsess about the whole wealth per level issue annoys me to no end. Crafting and shopping rules in Pathfinder has taken a lot of fun out of the game for me personally. IMO the only person who should have control over what resources the pc's have available at any given moment is the GM, otherwise it is just one more thing for the optimizers toolbox instead of the wondrous treasures they ought to be.
Mortagon: I mostly agree with you, but I don't see why PF's shopping and crafting rules should take the fun out of the game for you. The GM is still in charge of resources, the rules just give guidelines for more immersive role-playing: characters would shop and crafters would craft. Roleplay it!
Mortagon: I mostly agree with you, but I don't see why PF's shopping and crafting rules should take the fun out of the game for you. The GM is still in charge of resources, the rules just give guidelines for more immersive role-playing: characters would shop and crafters would craft. Roleplay it!
It's the one thing I really dislike about the Pathfinder rules, it is way to easy to abuse for the players IMO.
Mortagon: The concept of "Wondrous treasures" died with the 2e book that put a price-tag on stuff. It was non-existent in all the incarnations of 3e, and thus as an extension, also in PF. I hear it is even worse in 4e, where the DM is supposed to take a "wish-list" from the players, and make those treasures appear in the dungeons.
Limiting resources is fine if you compensate with house-rules or increased point-buy. Otherwise, it's a raised middle finger against all who wish to play martial/skill characters, as they are left in the dust by the mostly unaffected casters who make use of their wealth by making scrolls and wands.
On the flip-side, there is Kingmaker, where the players have all the downtime in the world, and large wealthy cities like Restov within a day's ride. In my campaign, the players have everything they could ever dream of (disregarding the delusions of grandeur from the wizard), AND started with a 25 point buy, since I was new to APs, and let the 5 players make characters before I read page 1 of part 1. Meaning even CR>=APL combat monsters need 16+ to hit on primary attacks (melee characters had ACs over 30 before lv10, and closer to 40 after), and only spellcasting encounters ever turn into any shade of challenge. Which made me rebuild a lot of encounters to recreate the danger they were supposed to represent for a 4 player party of 15pb characters. Otherwise, there would be no point to playing it with dice. I could just as well have told an interactive story.
But this tactic is flawed as well, since this leads to something I have come to call the "Thomas Effect", in memorandum of a player who stopped playing in 3e when he found that his beloved warriors had nothing to contribute to mid/high/epic level play, since encounters were built to meet the onslaught of CoDzillas, wizards and gishes; Challenging the optimized characters pulverizes the non-optimized ones.
So yeah... finding that elusive middle ground is hard. And I agree that wealth plays a disproportionately large role in the game compared to innate ability. Example: Skill focus gives you a +3 to a skill. A cheap (2500gp) item gives you +5. Fleet gives +5 movement. Boots of striding gives +10 AND a bonus to skills. Weapon Focus gives +1 to hit. A weapon +1 gives +1 to hit AND damage. Etc. A limited resource like feats are supposed to be more impressive than minor items in my mind.
Hmm... maybe I should make a house-rule that makes feats more relevant than the cheapest items at least? Skill Focus=+5/+10 might lead someone to actually WANT to take it. *muses*
Hmm... maybe I should make a house-rule that makes feats more relevant than the cheapest items at least? Skill Focus=+5/+10 might lead someone to actually WANT to take it. *muses*
I had a skill modifier of auto-succeed with the old version of skill focus on most skills. I had a ranger that was about level 13 with at least a +30 to perception. Of course this was also with a 25 point buy. My next campaign will use a 20 point buy or rolling. I would drop down to 15, but I have a player that keeps trying to play monks, and I don't think he has much of a chance with a 15 point buy.
Hi All :)
I'm just wondering what the average take is on min-maxing.
so what's your take? also, just for fun, note whether your a player or GM.
wc
Player. Soon to be GM.
I actually do think it's the root of all evil ... but just because it's the root doesn't necessarily mean all of the fruit that it bears is tainted.
Some players optimize and still play rich, developed characters, making sure to focus on the R and P of RPG.
Some players optimize and just want to destroy anything the DM throws at them single-handedly. The players who prefer "roll-play" are bitter fruit from that tree whose root is min/maxing.
For the record, my definition of min/max & the players who do it generally tend to be the people described in the paragraph above. I don't automatically consider people who like to optimize to be min/maxers, but all min/maxers are optimizers by definition.
Hmm... maybe I should make a house-rule that makes feats more relevant than the cheapest items at least? Skill Focus=+5/+10 might lead someone to actually WANT to take it. *muses*I had a skill modifier of auto-succeed with the old version of skill focus on most skills. I had a ranger that was about level 13 with at least a +30 to perception. Of course this was also with a 25 point buy. My next campaign will use a 20 point buy or rolling. I would drop down to 15, but I have a player that keeps trying to play monks, and I don't think he has much of a chance with a 15 point buy.
My suggestion would be to go with the standard 4d6 drop the lowest rolling method.
My DM modified it so that we rolled 5 and added a +2 to our choice of stats for the 6th.Everyone liked the idea and it wasn't over balanceing it just gave us a better chance at survival.
My priest of wee jas has 14str,12dex,15con,14int,17wisand 14cha.
Naturally I took the feat spellcasting prodigy so the 17 would be treated like a 19 for DC's and bonus spell purposes but all in all a very balanced charecter.
We have one guy at our table that keeps trying to convince us about point buy but when he wanted to run we said great, when he said point buy we said we won't play. Unless you can get an 18 the chartecter is not survivable. yes I have suicided charecters that could have been played otherwise but why waste your time playing trash.
As far as feats go the way my DM limits the money we HAVE to take item creation feats in order to be viable for the encounters we run up against. Both he and we found out the hard way that by limiting the gold in a campaign you nerf your players so much that TPK's are common and after a couple of those what's the fun of playing?
The above mentioned preist is going to be running around in +1 Called Mithral Breastplate as soon as he can afford it. I took the cloistered cleric option for the extra domain so the charecter has no sheild proficency and can only wear light armor( hence the mitral)
There is nothing wrong with optimiseing a charecter and you can still build a great story around them, role play the heck with them and see them survive to be able to retire or at the very least if they do die you will have had fun giveing it your best shot and not saying oh well maybe I'll do better on the next collection of numbers.
While it has been addressed earlier, I think it can stand to be mentioned again: My take on min/max, optimize etc =/= the take of another.
Some might think that having a damage-focused full-bab character be able to reliably hit even level-appropriate monsters on a 2+ on the first attack is "overpowering" after level 5 or so. I think this is an absolute minimum for even calling the character Min/Maxed (which in my book is saying "focused on his freaking JOB").
Steven: I agree with your last statement. I optimize (as in choosing races, ability scores, classes and feats that help me achieve a character that has sufficient survivability and ability to contribute to the party) the heck out of every character I make. That doesn't mean that I am the best character at the table, but I certainly aim to be the best at what I do. Why? Because I like to RP. And if I am not badass enough too survive most everything, I have wasted X sessions on playing a corpse, and have to roll up a dude at level Y, which will in no way be as immersible nor interesting as someone I have played from lv1.
This is also why I am pro player-power, and rather amp up the enemy as needed. While it might annoy me at times to have to tweak things and invest more time in making things harder when I am running an AP, it is better that I am annoyed rather than 4-5 players sit around annoyed.
While I agree completely, I'd like to point out that this has to work both ways, if the inn charges the ugly foul temperd Cha-5 dwarf double because he's ugly and foul tempered, then the Cha- 20 Half orc sorcerer should have the option to pay half.
He can absolutely make a diplomacy check for a discount. However, he's not going to get half just because the dwarf got charged double.
The whole point of charging the dwarf double is annoyance factor. The half-orc, no matter how good his charisma, is (A) a half-orc, and (B) more importantly, not annoying.
An inn-keeper is very likely to give a smooth talking character a discount, especially if they show they can do something like entertain the other guests with stories or song. A half-orc still has to put up with racial dislike (assuming orcs are hated in the campaign).
Additionally, an inn-keeper is going to double the dwarf and make money off the deal, even with the annoyance factor. If she discounts the sorcerer by half, she may not make money (unless he can entertain the other guests). I'd guess that a good diplomacy check and offer to entertain could certainly half the cost. But it won't be automatic. The Dwarf doesn't have to make a test to annoy, he just walks in and opens his mouth. :)
Can't argue with that, witch is why I said he should have the option, my high char characters never do.
on a side note, last time that happened my dwarf took an ax to the innkeeper, when the GM got PO'd I just said "Do you want me to play my Charisma or not"? never happened again :)
one thing I've found especially with Charisma, some Players tend to take what your character says to their character personally, so playing your charisma can be more difficult than it needs to.
WC
And that is why i dislike min-maxers dumping CHA, because they have little to stop them. They attack the bar keep & "Do you want me to play my Charisma or not"? is the justification. They maximise the advantages & minimise the problems.
BTW WildCard, what did the GM do? Throw the dwarf is jail? Fined?
Hmm... maybe I should make a house-rule that makes feats more relevant than the cheapest items at least? Skill Focus=+5/+10 might lead someone to actually WANT to take it. *muses*I had a skill modifier of auto-succeed with the old version of skill focus on most skills. I had a ranger that was about level 13 with at least a +30 to perception. Of course this was also with a 25 point buy. My next campaign will use a 20 point buy or rolling. I would drop down to 15, but I have a player that keeps trying to play monks, and I don't think he has much of a chance with a 15 point buy.
My suggestion would be to go with the standard 4d6 drop the lowest rolling method.
My DM modified it so that we rolled 5 and added a +2 to our choice of stats for the 6th.
Everyone liked the idea and it wasn't over balanceing it just gave us a better chance at survival.
My priest of wee jas has 14str,12dex,15con,14int,17wisand 14cha.
Naturally I took the feat spellcasting prodigy so the 17 would be treated like a 19 for DC's and bonus spell purposes but all in all a very balanced charecter.We have one guy at our table that keeps trying to convince us about point buy but when he wanted to run we said great, when he said point buy we said we won't play. Unless you can get an 18 the chartecter is not survivable. yes I have suicided charecters that could have been played otherwise but why waste your time playing trash.
As far as feats go the way my DM limits the money we HAVE to take item creation feats in order to be viable for the encounters we run up against. Both he and we found out the hard way that by limiting the gold in a campaign you nerf your players so much that TPK's are common and after a couple of those what's the fun of playing?
The above mentioned preist is going to be running around in +1 Called Mithral Breastplate as soon as he can afford it. I took the cloistered cleric option for the extra domain so the charecter has no sheild proficency...
I intended for this particular game to be high-powered. I was just telling the other poster that bumping the skill focus feat might work against him.
And that is why i dislike min-maxers dumping CHA, because they have little to stop them. They attack the bar keep & "Do you want me to play my Charisma or not"? is the justification. They maximise the advantages & minimise the problems.
BTW WildCard, what did the GM do? Throw the dwarf is jail? Fined?
Attacking the barkeep has nothing to do with playing charisma. WC did it to be spiteful because the DM was giving him a hard time, not that I blame him.
All stats are not created equal, and they become less equal depending on your class. I see no reason to not dump charisma, within reason, if I don't need it.
Kamelguru said it best, that min/maxing is optimizing your character to be the best at his chosen field. However, as I have witnessed with my group throughout the d20 glut when 3E was first released, d20 systems almost make it mandatory or at least reward the player who can optimize the best. I've got two players in my group that have learned the system so well, they get obnoxious ACs (30 or better), obnoxious BABs (hit a AC35 without needing a 20), triple digit HPs, spellcasters and psions that have save DCs in the low 20s even with level 1 spells/powers, having a +30 to a skill, all below level 15. heck, below level 20!! That is a min/maxer, game breaker player. A blight on gaming, as it turns encounters into an RPG arms-race, where the GM has to attempt to figure what the heck is going to reasonably challenge said player.
You think that is bad? I currently GM for a party where the combatants have AC37 or so, and can get AC40 easy. Where the main fighter can hit AC40 and easily deals 100-150 damage per round against anything except dragons and such, and the wizard has enough spells and save DCs so high that he could defeat the entire 6 man party alone. And they are lv12.
Sadly, d20 systems have turned half my group of 6 into the above. My solution, a modified old school method of rolling 3d6...however, they may reroll 1s one time and assign as they wish. The annoying, me being the GM, for me min/max system abusers still find ways to break the system. It's why I'm going back to 2E, and all without allowing those players to join the game.
2E was just as easily abused IMO. Demihuman kits, "Complete Book of-" series and so forth allowed you to make a character with THAC0 11 or so at lv1, and as long as you got an 18 for strength, you get to roll d100 for "exceptional strength" and a good shot at having two or three times the bonuses of someone rolling a 17.
However, 2e had no wealth by level, like Mortagon mentioned, and as such, you didn't EXPECT to get stuff. But this was also due to the fact that the game was not internally balanced in ANY WAY. A glance at the XP system reveals this much. But also, in 2e, your INNATE powers carried more weight. Your fighter was 70% of the power, and his gear was 30% or so. Instead of 40%/60% as in 3e or PF.
Specialized in PF: +2 damage
Specialized in 2e: +1 hit, +2 damage, more attacks, opens for Mastery, which takes it even further.
Kamelguru said it best, that min/maxing is optimizing your character to be the best at his chosen field. However, as I have witnessed with my group throughout the d20 glut when 3E was first released, d20 systems almost make it mandatory or at least reward the player who can optimize the best. I've got two players in my group that have learned the system so well, they get obnoxious ACs (30 or better), obnoxious BABs (hit a AC35 without needing a 20), triple digit HPs, spellcasters and psions that have save DCs in the low 20s even with level 1 spells/powers, having a +30 to a skill, all below level 15. heck, below level 20!! That is a min/maxer, game breaker player. A blight on gaming, as it turns encounters into an RPG arms-race, where the GM has to attempt to figure what the heck is going to reasonably challenge said player.You think that is bad? I currently GM for a party where the combatants have AC37 or so, and can get AC40 easy. Where the main fighter can hit AC40 and easily deals 100-150 damage per round against anything except dragons and such, and the wizard has enough spells and save DCs so high that he could defeat the entire 6 man party alone. And they are lv12.
I think I'm in love. Can I, um, get their e-mail addresses? I have notes I'd like to compare with them for, uh, professional reasons....and don't tell my GM.