I make charisma stand for luck as well. So, when something's truly random, I make people do a charisma check.
Few players like being the butt-monkey, so they put points into CHA so that they don't become "Fafred the Unlucky".
I've honestly not had an issue out of it in third or Pathfinder. There was one guy we gamed with in second who always wanted 6s and 7s in int, wis, and cha, but it wasn't always an attempt to get higher physical stats, he just liked playing that type of character.
In my opinion it wasn't a problem for Pathfinder to fix. If someone wants to drop one stat to make another higher, why shouldn't they be able to? If all you see are low charisma and intelligence characters, honestly I think it has a lot more to do with the way you DM. Make skills more important, especially social skills. I bet in an eight hour session PCs make upwards of thirty diplomacy checks in one of my campaigns, especially if it's urban. Even when they're not making diplomacy checks, they're out searching for clues or researching stuff. Someone who came to my table with a nose picking illiterate fighter would probably get up and leave before we broke for lunch.
|
How do other DMs deal with this?
I really don't.
I had a player recently say to me, "I dumped Charisma but I have a high Diplomacy so it doesn't really matter."
I pointed out, "If you had a low Strength, you'd still have a high BAB so it wouldn't really matter, either."
He agreed but couldn't wrap his appendix (long considered vestigial but the actual purpose of which was recently determined to be to minmax) around it. I really don't care.
When I play, I'm not much better except I have an aversion to negatives that exceeds my need to dumpstat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow people that are good at one thing but not another tend to have jobs that use the thing they are good at and not what they are bad at?
Who would have thought the game would be so realistic?
I would recommend not doing Point Buy. Having each player roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die result for each set would diversify the stats. Have them roll each stat in turn (e.g. Str, then Dex, then Con, etc). This will get each PC roughly near a 15PB. You will have some variation in PC abilities, but it can be a good trade off if you are tired of seeing PC's appear with the same stat arrays. Of course, players may not get a stat array that allows them to play whatever they want, but I think it more actualy reflects real life in that we are all born and raised with the stats we get.
|
<rant-mode ON>
I would recommend not doing Point Buy. Having each player roll 4d6 and drop the lowest die result for each set would diversify the stats.
And you should also have each player roll [(1d20 x 10,000gp) - 10,000] for starting gold, too -- because that's just as fair.
Oh? You say it's not? Well, if a character with mediocre rolls has to advance twenty levels to catch up to somebody with five extra pips-worth of numbers on their dice, how is that different than somebody else starting with five magic tomes of stat-advancement and you getting zilch?
Rolled stats and rolled advancement hit-dice are dumb (I cannot fathom why this method is still even a feature in any intelligently-designed RPG) -- if a DM doesn't want min-maxed characters, then he should just set limits on max low and high stats w/point-buy, or say everyone has a stat-array spread out as they wish.
<rant-mode OFF>
I don't have any problems with it but my players all start with concept first and then work to build that. So I don't see as many low Charisma fighters as other game masters. The fighter in my game has the highest Diplomacy check and the second highest Charisma after the paladin.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong for people to min max to a point. I have a problem with three dump stats but one isn't bad. It's how I prefer to play compared to others who prefer a game focused more on the numbers. Neither is wrong, just different and sometimes incompatible.
Developer
|
Rolled stats and rolled advancement hit-dice are dumb (I cannot fathom why this method is still even a feature in any intelligently-designed RPG) -- if a DM doesn't want min-maxed characters, then he should just set limits on max low and high stats w/point-buy, or say everyone has a stat-array spread out as they wish.<rant-mode OFF>
I agree. Why shouldn't players get to play the exact character they want (within reason of course)? Rolled stats aren't terrible, but forcing them to assign the values any way other than as they see fit, and thus forcing them to play something they don't want is not my idea of fun at all. I don't play this game to simulate real life. I go to work to do that.
On the topic itself, dump stats aren't a problem, so long as they're roleplayed. I tend to dump Wisdom, though I've plenty of characters that don't. There are stats that are more valuable to certain builds. That's fine. It doesn't actually lessen the game. If a player can play the same 7 INT / 7 CHA fighter over and over and feel satisfied, why stop her? Personally I get more out of the game mixing up classes and stat arrays, but I'm not going to play a 13 INT wizard, nor should I have to, and if a GM tells to to roll stats in order, a prospect that could ruin a character concept, I'll go find another table.
...there really needs to be a name for this. "A critique of the rules will be countered with the statement that the problem is not with the rules but with you, the DM or player." It's like a law.
Often I would agree, though in this case, I don't. I'm not knee-jerk reacting, but giving you my honest opinion. Sometimes it really is the DM's fault.
I have plenty of players with high Diplomacy skills. They're just not playing fighters. Diplomacy is a cross-class skill that's working off a fighter's natural dump stat; it doesn't make a lot of sense for the fighter to burn precious skill ranks getting up to +1 or +2 Diplomacy when the bard, rogue or paladin can invest the same number of ranks and get +8 to +10.
Explain to me how a fighter's natural dump stat is charisma. Are we talking mechanics wise, or character wise? Because if you're claiming so mechanic wise, then all I can say is every class doesn't need to require every attribute be above average. If you're going character wise, I would like examples. There are plenty of potential characters using the fighter class who would need charisma and diplomacy. If that's not what your characters are playing...well, you could always force them to play what you want them to...see how that goes.
But let that bide. Assume for argument's sake that this is, in fact, a problem -- maybe not a major one, but a constant annoying background hum. What are some plausible in-game ways to fix this? (Making Cha the "luck stat" is one interesting idea, though I'm not really clear on how that would work in practice.)
Did you read any of the rest of my post you quoted? No, I didn't go through exact scenarios, but I did say a higher emphasis on skills will help.
What type of adventurers are you running? Published, or do you come up with stuff yourself? If you come up with it yourself, are you more fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants or do you have an outline before you start the game?
I mentioned research in my previous post. Have a wide variety of skills aplicable in this research, not just one or two knowledge skills. Give a couple different ways to get at the information. Say you have one fact (the local aristocrat has a thing for young girls) that you want the party to discover in order to hook them for an adventure (young girls have been dissapearing from the more rural areas). They could roll Knowledge nobility or Knowledge local to see if they know enough about the aristocracy to have heard such rumors. Or they could make a Diplomacy check at the local market/pub to strike up conversation with people and catch wind of this (and other) rumor.
Yes, in the above example one party member makes the roll, and then tells everyone else about it. So what we want to do is come up with several pieces of intel that need to be discovered, and give at least the appearance of a time limit. That way while one guy is out finding out about the creepy aristocrat, someone else is discovering the rumors of an Urgathoa cult opperating out of the woods. Maybe someone else is in town talking with people about a foreshadowed hook for the next adventure.
|
|
Heh. I started a thread on this a couple of days ago. I was curious to find out too since I've had a player dump stat once or twice.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/whyStatDump
From what I'm seeing. It's really just a question of laying down your preferences and making sure the players understand. For me, if we are using point buy; one dump stat, if you're going to have one and no lower the 7 after racial adjustments.
I have yet to play a game where high/low charisma matters at all beyond the 2d6 relatively important social rolls per game. Sure, it is a big deal in the beginning, like "Oh that sorceress is really hot" or "The fighter is scarred and grumpy". Then we hardly ever give two ducks if you have 8 or 25, as other things come into focus.
In the basic 4 character party, the cleric has a Cha of 14 to get selective channel and two more channels, and focuses his skills in diplomacy and sense motive, and disregards most other skills, since he will never be even the shadow of the wizard in terms of knowledge.
Charisma needs some REAL mechanical return, because that is why it is dumped: No return to take it, no consequence to drop it and get more points that lets you become better at something that actually matters.
When a stat does nothing for you, you can safely dump it. Str for wizards/sorcerers, Int/Cha for brutes.
I have yet to play a game where high/low charisma matters at all beyond the 2d6 relatively important social rolls per game. Sure, it is a big deal in the beginning, like "Oh that sorceress is really hot" or "The fighter is scarred and grumpy". Then we hardly ever give two ducks if you have 8 or 25, as other things come into focus.
In the basic 4 character party, the cleric has a Cha of 14 to get selective channel and two more channels, and focuses his skills in diplomacy and sense motive, and disregards most other skills, since he will never be even the shadow of the wizard in terms of knowledge.
Charisma needs some REAL mechanical return, because that is why it is dumped: No return to take it, no consequence to drop it and get more points that lets you become better at something that actually matters.
When a stat does nothing for you, you can safely dump it. Str for wizards/sorcerers, Int/Cha for brutes.
In the game I'm running, the party is level 16 and it has remained important the entire time. The allies and contacts they have made because of using their social skills have changed the general direction of the adventure path. The party has managed to accomplish things that were never intended in the adventures.
For example, the party befriended a phase spider sorcerer who was a bit crazy. They not only convinced him that they were there to help him, but that he should help them too. They brought him along to fight a black dragon sorcerer since they couldn't fight her themselves. This was not written into the adventure but it seemed like a good bit of role playing and some good Diplomacy checks so I let it happen.
Currently, the party was at a large social gathering where they needed to mingle with many powerful people. The party managed to use their skills to befriend everyone, turning even hostile NPCs into friendly and helpful NPCs. There was only one NPC that they couldn't befriend but they didn't have the chance due to circumstances. This will play out in later adventures.
Skills are as important as the GM allows them to be. If the GM only focuses on "climb" or "spellcraft" then that is what they players will focus on. I like to have my players use their skills in unusual ways. I also like them to need many different skills so they tend to focus on a wide variety. They don't usually get to max them out so we see more Take 10, Take 20, and Aid Another than other groups I've been in.
I agree with you Bob_Loblaw, social rolls may be important the entire game, but i have to ask you this:
How much important were the skill ranks in the situations and how much was the +1 or +2 from the CHA, because really having a 7 CHA only means 10% less chance than someone who has 10 CHA, well 10% is something i can live with.
Anyway what i am trying to say is that CHA isn't really important even in the situation you said, what's really important are the skill ranks.
Douglas Muir 406, were the last posts of yours directed at me?
Because i didn't say anything like that.
I agree with you Bob_Loblaw, social rolls may be important the entire game, but i have to ask you this:
How much important were the skill ranks in the situations and how much was the +1 or +2 from the CHA, because really having a 7 CHA only means 10% less chance than someone who has 10 CHA, well 10% is something i can live with.
Anyway what i am trying to say is that CHA isn't really important even in the situation you said, what's really important are the skill ranks.
As you level, the ranks will be more important with every skill. That doesn't change anything though. The skills are as important as the GM makes them. The argument you are making can apply to all the skills. With the exception of Craft, Knowledge, Perform, and Profession, Charisma has the second biggest impact on skills. Simply raising your Charisma by 2 points is like adding 1 rank to 6 skills.
Sure other attributes impact more things but that doesn't mean that one must neglect the Charisma score. You can lower your Dexterity by 1 and increase your Charisma by one and you probably won't notice much of a difference in how often you go first or how often you get hit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised that nobody has mentioned the effects of class skills.If you're a fighter, high Cha helps you with just two class skills: Handle Animal and Intimidate. (By way of comparison, it helps the rogue with six class skills, and the bard with seven.)
If you're a wizard, high Cha doesn't help you with a single class skill. Str doesn't, either. Every single one of the wizard's class skills are Int based except for Fly (Dex) and Profession (Wis).
When taken together with the fact that a PC is normally part of a party, the skill system strongly encourages you to invest in your class's skills and to shape your character accordingly. The fighter who drops Str, Dex or Con to raise his Cha is still not going to be as good a diplomat as the rogue or bard, even if he raises his Cha to be just as high as theirs.
I can totally understand raising your Cha for roleplaying purposes. But saying "oh, high Cha is incredibly useful for a fighter, you just have to make lots of Cha-related skill checks" -- no.
Doug M.
I don't think that's true at all. The highest Diplomacy check in the party I am running is the fighter (level 16). He took Conspiracy Hunter trait which makes Diplomacy a class skill. He took Skill Focus (Intimidate) for +6. He has a Charisma of 14 (no magic enhancers). This gives him a +27. Could it be higher? Sure. Does it need to be? Not really.
|
|
I don't think that's true at all. The highest Diplomacy check in the party I am running is the fighter (level 16). He took Conspiracy Hunter trait which makes Diplomacy a class skill. He took Skill Focus (Intimidate) for +6. He has a Charisma of 14 (no magic enhancers). This gives him a +27. Could it be higher? Sure. Does it need to be? Not really.
And, of course, it means that he has used up 2 of his 2 (nominal) skill ranks per level, and one of his precious feats on something that many other classes could have done with minimal expenditure.
Now, obviously, either your players are working in a vacuum, or they are not working together to make an adventuring PARTY.
Should the Fighter be the Diplo Monkey of the party? Almost certainly NOT. This shows, to me, at least, a party that is going to have some fairly oddball issues dealing with many at-level challenges that a better-balanced TEAM would not have as much of an issue with.
Now, in an organized play environment, you might find something like this, but OP is a strange beast to begin with. In a home game, the GM should be building adventures that challenge his players, and the players should be working on their PCs as though they were part of an adventuring party.
And, yes, that point of Dex can make for massive differences in combat or non-combat capabilities. One point of AC can spell the difference between having a critical confirmed or not, or getting off that sneak attack by going first.
One point of Con can make the difference between being alive or requiring a Raise Dead.
Just ask a high level caster if they want a 17 or 18 in their casting stat, along with the level of spells, and bonus spell, that represents.
One point of Wisdom, Dex or Con can represent the difference between making or failing a saving throw.
There was discussion on another thread about SAD, MAD and Monk stat requirements; but it missed a point, even some nominally SAD classes can wind up as MAD builds, depending on where you are going. But, the more stats you need to be significant, the more likely you are to need either one or more dump stats (with point buy) or some place to put those bad rolls (for stat rolling).
You can, with my blessing, go back to the days when you could wind up with a PC with no stat over a 3, if your dice are cold, and try to play that; especially if someone else in your party has hot dice, and winds up with no stat under 12. Fighter of Dewmed vs Monk of Dewm. That all-3 player will be unhappy. So will the gyuy you are forcing to either play a very strange fighter with bad stat rolls for a fighter, or making play a wizard because that is what the dice rolled, even if he hates running wizards.
KoDT is amusing to read, but, hopefully, most groups and GMs are beyond that point.
Nobody can be good at everything, and you gotta do something with that low roll. A smart player is gonna put it where it does the least damage, i.e. Fighter with low Int or Cha, or Wizard with low Str.
That's not something I worry about. What I worry about is the player who's playing a Fighter and decides to put that "9" he rolled into Strength and the "16" into Intelligence "for roleplaying purposes". That character is now a dangerous liability to the entire party.
I had a DM I used to game with that hated any well-designed character who was competent at his/her job, and did his best to gimp them. He was one of those "old-school" gamers that believed roleplaying was all about making lemonade when life gives you lemons. Of course, when we all inevitably ended up with a party full of gimped loser characters, he would get angry at us when we couldn't win battles or complete quests.
Go figure.
It must be realized that no matter which system you use to determine stats there will always be dump stats.
If you use 4d6 drop the lowest, the lowest rolls will go into stats that aren't needed as much.
If you use point buy they will suck points out of what they need to put them into things they do.
If you don't allow points to be pulled out. Then stuff they don't need will likely sit at 10.
If you use an array the lowest scores will go into things not needed.
Everyone keeps talking about social skills. If you want to player that is diplomatic good for you, but don't make me play a diplomatic fighter just because you think it's wrong to have a low charisma.
IF you look at an encounter as having only one solution your doing it wrong. Sure you can kill the guards to get into the castle. You can bluff your way in. You can diplomacy the guards. You can avoid them all together, but if you are saying there is one and only one way to do it your thinking inside of a very small box.
I honestly keep seeing things come up in threads like this about punishing people for using dump stats. If everyone in the party dumps charisma, and a situation were diplomacy or bluff is the best option then sure that's there bad for having to come up with a plan b, but if everyone in your group dumps charisma, you aren't seeing the clues that they probably don't want to play a social game.
Or heck with all the talk about role playing, maybe that person want's to play the socially inept character. It's okay to play a wizard as a weakling, but it's apparently never okay to play a socially inept char.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, of course, it means that he has used up 2 of his 2 (nominal) skill ranks per level, and one of his precious feats on something that many other classes could have done with minimal expenditure.
Actually, he's a human fighter with an Intelligence of 10. He has put everything into Diplomacy and Intimidate and then put some ranks in Knowledge (nobility) and Perception. He's doing just fine with those skills.
Now, obviously, either your players are working in a vacuum, or they are not working together to make an adventuring PARTY.
They are an adventuring party. The party has a few people with ranks in some skills that cross-over, like Diplomacy. For the most part, each person selects skills that they feel their character wants to develop based on campaign events.
Should the Fighter be the Diplo Monkey of the party? Almost certainly NOT. This shows, to me, at least, a party that is going to have some fairly oddball issues dealing with many at-level challenges that a better-balanced TEAM would not have as much of an issue with.
You only know about the fighter and nothing about the rest of the team. You also know nothing about the campaign or the players and their preferred styles of play. So far, they have had no problems from level 1 to 16. Each character was built with a certain concept in mind. None are optimized beyond the basics (the fighter has a good strength, for example). They work together, and in fact need to work together more, because they are not built as a party. Instead, each character is built to be useful to the party but still be an individual with his own goals.
Now, in an organized play environment, you might find something like this, but OP is a strange beast to begin with. In a home game, the GM should be building adventures that challenge his players, and the players should be working on their PCs as though they were part of an adventuring party.
I don't play in nor run organized play. This is something that is very common in my groups. My players do not conform to the standards given on internet forums.
And, yes, that point of Dex can make for massive differences in combat or non-combat capabilities. One point of AC can spell the difference between having a critical confirmed or not, or getting off that sneak attack by going first.
For the character where this would be an issue, they have addressed those issues. Reducing Dex by 1 but picking up the Reactionary trait and Lightning Reflexes works just fine for overcoming the problem. It's really only a problem once you start to get your modifiers 3 or more away. Within 1 or 2 points, it's not really all that big of a problem and nearly every situation can be dealt with easily.
One point of Con can make the difference between being alive or requiring a Raise Dead.
If you can address the problem of lower hit points (favored class, Toughness, improved AC, reduced hit chances, etc), then it doesn't make much of a difference in the long run.
Just ask a high level caster if they want a 17 or 18 in their casting stat, along with the level of spells, and bonus spell, that represents.
While it certainly is favored to have your spell casting stats that high, it is by no means a requirement. That only matters if you're a full spell caster. If you're not, then it doesn't matter nearly as much.
One point of Wisdom, Dex or Con can represent the difference between making or failing a saving throw.
Easily addressed with feats, stat boosting items, traits, racial abilities, and spells. 1 point can be 1 point higher than you needed too. The argument works both ways. If I'm always passing my saves by 3 or more, then maybe I could have made different choices to help with other areas.
There was discussion on another thread about SAD, MAD and Monk stat requirements; but it missed a point, even some nominally SAD classes can wind up as MAD builds, depending on where you are going. But, the more stats you need to be significant, the more likely you are to need either one or more dump stats (with point buy) or some place to put those bad rolls (for stat rolling).
You're going far beyond what the original point I was making was. My point has nothing to do with point buy or attribute dependency. My point is that you are not required to conform to what the internet forums tell you. You can play a character that works well and is fun even if it goes against the accepted "wisdom." It's up to the player to figure out how to make that happen. The GM should give the players freedom to use their abilities when it's possible.
You can, with my blessing, go back to the days when you could wind up with a PC with no stat over a 3, if your dice are cold, and try to play that; especially if someone else in your party has hot dice, and winds up with no stat under 12. Fighter of Dewmed vs Monk of Dewm. That all-3 player will be unhappy. So will the gyuy you are forcing to either play a very strange fighter with bad stat rolls for a fighter, or making play a wizard because that is what the dice rolled, even if he hates running wizards.
I'm not forcing anyone to play anything. The player came to me and told me what he wanted to play. I told him what to expect and how to overcome some of the problems he was going to have. He made all his own choices and had enjoyed playing this character. All my players are the same in this regard. They are playing what they want to play and they are the ones who push to use their skills and abilities.
KoDT is amusing to read, but, hopefully, most groups and GMs are beyond that point.
I hope you weren't accusing me of running that style of game. I also enjoy reading it but it is not even close to how I run things.
IF you look at an encounter as having only one solution your doing it wrong. Sure you can kill the guards to get into the castle. You can bluff your way in. You can diplomacy the guards. You can avoid them all together, but if you are saying there is one and only one way to do it your thinking inside of a very small box.
Some encounters really only have one solution but the high majority of them have more. I leave it up to my players how they want to handle things. I have noticed that they can get really creative sometimes. They also are the ones who work their skills into the encounters.
Or heck with all the talk about role playing, maybe that person want's to play the socially inept character. It's okay to play a wizard as a weakling, but it's apparently never okay to play a socially inept char.
We have two socially inept characters in the group. The fighter isn't one of them.
Actually, he's a human fighter with an Intelligence of 10. He has put everything into Diplomacy and Intimidate and then put some ranks in Knowledge (nobility) and Perception. He's doing just fine with those skills.And that's swell. He sounds like a fun character, and I hope you're enjoying him.
But recognize that he's very unusual, and he's unusual because he's suboptimal. He has 10 Int, 14 Charisma and he spent a trait and a feat on Cha-based skills. A minimax fighter who took an 8 Int and a 7 Cha would have a whopping 11 more in point buy over you. He'd have some combination of better attack and damage, better AC and Init, and/or more hp. He'd also have a trait and a feat to spend making himself even more deadly. In a fair fight, he'd kill you.
You could reasonably respond "well, I could use Diplomacy to avoid combat, attract allies to help me, etc. etc." And there's a bit of truth to that. The Diplomacy skill isn't completely useless to you. But it would have been far more efficient if the party bard or paladin had piled ranks into it -- they'd either have a much higher roll, or the same roll much more cheaply.
Again, this is not to say that your character is "wrong" or "bad". It he works IYC, and you're having fun, then all is well. But the game does reward certain particular types of builds.
Doug M.
The character is also very effective in combat. He hits hoard and often. Taking 1 feat and 1 trait doesn't really have the huge impact that people think once you have 18 feats to play with. He's a sword and board fighter who fancies himself as a knight (and was actually playing the knight class from Tome of Secrets before we realized that it sucked).
The party doesn't have a bard or paladin at this point and there is little desire for someone to play one. This is where a lot of people have a hard time with how my players build their characters. They take into account what they do and do not have in the party but they also play what they consider a fun character. No one every plays "what the party needs." They play a character they enjoy that will fit in with the party. For example, everyone knows not to ask me if they can play an anti-paladin because the character isn't going to fit in with the party.
My players do not play stereotypes. None of them look forward to the dumb fighter no one likes but they keep around because he hits hard. None of them look forward to playing the scrawny wizard who can barely hold his backpack.
Their characters are optimized for what they want to do. So far they have been effective in and out of combat. I am running them through Age of Worms and they are about to start Chapter 9. There is a lot of combat. They have used their knowledge skills often. Social skills have come in very handy throughout the game from the first chapter to now. Each character has had something to do and they are having a blast.
The character is also very effective in combat. He hits hoard and often. Taking 1 feat and 1 trait doesn't really have the huge impact that people think once you have 18 feats to play with. He's a sword and board fighter who fancies himself as a knight (and was actually playing the knight class from Tome of Secrets before we realized that it sucked).
The party doesn't have a bard or paladin at this point and there is little desire for someone to play one. This is where a lot of people have a hard time with how my players build their characters. They take into account what they do and do not have in the party but they also play what they consider a fun character. No one every plays "what the party needs." They play a character they enjoy that will fit in with the party. For example, everyone knows not to ask me if they can play an anti-paladin because the character isn't going to fit in with the party.
My players do not play stereotypes. None of them look forward to the dumb fighter no one likes but they keep around because he hits hard. None of them look forward to playing the scrawny wizard who can barely hold his backpack.
Their characters are optimized for what they want to do. So far they have been effective in and out of combat. I am running them through Age of Worms and they are about to start Chapter 9. There is a lot of combat. They have used their knowledge skills often. Social skills have come in very handy throughout the game from the first chapter to now. Each character has had something to do and they are having a blast.
This is what I like to see, and how I build my characters. I hate it when people build what the party "needs." The party doesn't "need" anything. Anyone will be able to contribute, and not having all the bases covered causes players to be more creative to make sure that they are playing to their strengths. You can get by without any class. For instance, instead of a healer one of my groups has a debuffing bard giving the opponents -4 to hit. The reduced damage eliminates the need for most combat healing, and wands fullfill the duty out of combat.
Optimization is overrated. The difference between someone with a 16 and a 20 in their primary stat will rarely be noticed past the first few levels. Sure, the 20 will be better, but not by so much that you can't get by with the 16 in a standard campaign. If your using point buy, your likely saving 5-7 points by droping down to a 16, which allows you to add +2 to annother stat. This is a lot of freedom to help you define a character in a new way.
This opens up build options that you may not have looked at before. For instance, by not dumping charisma you can go dazzling dlisplay and deadly stroke on your fighter effectively. Its not the highest DPR, but it is definetely enough to be effective and it gives you more flexibility in and out of combat. If you go with the standard charisma dump fighter, your looking at a huge penalty you have to overcome on a DC that scales with level, and likely lose a round of debuff. Similarly, a fighter does not need to focus on weapon focus/spec in order to stay at an effective fighting level, freeing up many feat options.
|
|
He hits Horde eh? Dammed Alliance.... :)
The character is also very effective in combat. He hits hoard and often.
You're supposed to say, 'Damned Dirty Alliance' ;)
I think optimization is a bad thing, because it gets the player (most times) into the mindset to either forgo or forget the character concept. There's nothing wrong with being good at what you do, but being the best which most try to achieve is nigh impossible. Especially while dice are inovlved.
Another issue to consider here is that in many ways, there is some pressure to create optimized characters. Fantasy games in general and D&D in particular have a specific dynamic where each player's character fulfills a specific role (tank, healer, flanker/striker, blaster, etc.).
Each role is equally important, and in many combats the inability of a character to accomplish his/her role may lead to another player's character dying. Who wants that?
In order to avoid this, many players lean heavily towards optimization.
Doug, I feel like your opinion is being dismissed too easily here. I feel your pain. You have a super-valid point.
In 3.5 days, I was a player and another guy in my group played a Swashbuckler (Complete Warrior - light fighter with lots of skills). He was the party "face" (along with the Bard), and looked over everything and said "You know what? I don't really need Charisma. The ranks and synergy bonuses for Diplomacy/Bluff/Sense Motive are way more important than +2 because of a high Charisma. I can put those points into Dex or something."
I thought about it. And he was right. He wasn't real big on Role-Playing in depth (other than acting his alignment and talking in character from time to time when dealing with NPCs), so he didn't care about the low Charisma. The difference was +3 for all his Charisma skills (from 14 to 8), and +1 to everything Dex-based (from AC to chance to hit with ranged and melee (Weapon Finesse), to other skill checks). With the aid another action from the Bard (few ranks, but naturally high Charisma), he really only had -1 about 80% of the time.
My own character (Wizard) had 8 charisma - I needed it for literally 0 things - and I was simply "short with people and a bit of an introvert". It actually kinda fit with the concept, which helped, but she still could had been the same with 12 Charisma.
In a group of 5, the bard had Charisma 16. Everyone else had 8. Everyone. The Ranger, Swashbuckler, Wizard, and Wizard2 - Charisma 8.
Because we wanted stats. And Charisma was useless. We weren't "bad roleplayers" (especially not me, just to say), or "playing incorrectly" in any way. It's just how it happened.
Now, I am also tired of dump stats - I know everyone but me is going to have one (15 point-buy, I'm a Paladin, nothing worse than 10), and it's kind of upsetting. The fact is, I feel like my Paladin should have higher Charisma and Intelligence (since that's what I really want her for), but I'm the only melee character. So I need Strength and Constitution. I also don't want 7 Wisdom just to get that Int and Cha bonus, so I'm stuck with stats I'm "meh" about, but have to settle for.
The fact is, most people (especially on these forums, but not everyone), worry about optimization so much that a dump stat becomes necessary unless you have a 47-point buy.
And if you don't cast with Charisma, guess which stat has the least amount of uses? Everything else does something useful - for my Wizard, even Strength was useful enough (Carrying Capacity) to warrant a 10 (I didn't want 20 speed). From AC to HP, Skill Points to Will Saves, everything has a secondary use. Except one stat.
And that's why you see dump stats. Optimization taking precedence because no one RPs a dead person well (except...you know...other dead people... >_> ). So being alive is more important than having your stats accurately reflect your character. Most times. There is one mention above of someone's group being outside the box (namely, Bob_Loblaw's), but that is the exception, not the rule.
So, no. A high primary stat is just as important at higher levels, and a fighter who skimps on Str will be at a relative disadvantage for his entire career.
I think he is saying that it is not so significant that it needs to be a character's primary focus. I think he's saying that you can do very well with a slightly lower score. You don't need to have the highest scores to do well.
Optimization is overrated. The difference between someone with a 16 and a 20 in their primary stat will rarely be noticed past the first few levels.I'm sorry, but that's just not true. A high primary stat is a gift that keeps on giving.
Take a 15th level fighter who's making a FRA with 10/15/20 needed to hit, and doing 20 points of damage with every blow. Ignoring crits, he'll do an average of 18 points of damage per round. Now take his buddy, Minnie the Maxer, who has 4 more points of Str. Minnie hits on 8/13/18 for 22 points of damage. Minnie's average damage will be 26.4 points, again ignoring crits. (The difference actually is bigger if we include crits, since Minnie is more likely to confirm, but let that bide.)
26.4/18 = 1.46. Minnie is dealing out a whopping 46% more damage. And I'm pretty sure that difference increases to well over 50% if we add in the crit calculations.
So, no. A high primary stat is just as important at higher levels, and a fighter who skimps on Str will be at a relative disadvantage for his entire career.
Doug M.
Even if your math is accurate (which I'm not convinced), the game isn't designed such that the 50% increase is needed. Most people can do perfectly fine without maximizing their stats, and min-maxing adds more complication than it resolves.
edit: removed the second half because it was wrong.
A fighter can do fine with a starting strength of 14 -- heck even better than fine. A spellcaster is going to need the higher primary stat more than any other class if they want to be a 'primary' caster -- meaning that in most circumstances their first recourse is to cast a spell. Some bards, clerics, druids, and even wizards (typically martial mixed wizards) don't do this and can get by with lower primary casting stats, but for a primary caster a starting stat of 18 is pretty close to mandatory.
Even if your math is accurate (which I'm not convinced)Dude. It's literally seventh grade math.
Here, I'll walk you through it. You swing and you need a 10 to hit, that's a 55% chance of hitting. 11 chances out of 20 = 55%, yeah?. So if you do an average of 20 points damage when you hit, your average damage from that swing is 55% x 20 = 11 points.
Do the same for the other two swings (15 and 20 = 30% chance and 5% chance, respectively). Okay, now add all three together. You'll get 18 points.
Shortcut: add the probabilities together first. 55% + 30% + 5% = 90%. Multiply that times the average damage (20 points). Hey, that gives you 18 points too. AX + BX + CX = X(A+B+C). -- Whoops, that got up into 8th grade math. Dial it back.
Doug M.
Yeah, your right. I missread your chance to hit as attack bonus (or something, not really sure) and was not paying attention to it. I caught part of my mistake on misreading your post, but that line stayed in.
But the rest of my point still stands. The game isn't necessarily designed for you to be doing 26.4 to the enemy. It could easily be designed for you to be doing 18, in which case if you are doing 26.4 it will seem like it is a cake walk. Just because the system allows for extreme cases does not mean it holds up well when under those cases. And if the published adventures I have played are any indication, or monsters I have pulled out of the beastiary, the game is definetely not designed for you to have that extra boost.
There is no way to remove optimization or dump stats when you are playing a skill based or class based system based on variables, as they are inherent to the system. What you can do is list everything a character is capable of doing, and build that into your encounter design. Taking a page from 4E (skill challenges), you can work skills into your pathfinder game, where character choices based on skills, abilities, or more traditional non-combat elements influence what the characters can do, or how challenging their environment will be. Make the character think twice when they miss a knowledge check, or diplomacy roll, and the encounter became twice as hard, or if they suceed, they can bypass a certain section, or find shelter, etc.
Is not a monumental change, you just have to use all the tools at your disposal as a DM.
One mildly annoying thing about 3.x that Pathfinder didn't fix: each class has clear preferences for dump stats. Playing a fighter? Put that low roll into Int or Cha. A wizard? You won't mind being a bit feeble and unpopular if it gets you the high Int for bonus spells and better DCs, and the Con and Dex that will keep you alive.The problem is, after a while almost all PC fighters have crappy Cha. Yes, you might get the occasional maverick who'll pump it up high enough to get a positive modifier. But the game itself discourages this. In a 15-point buy, putting 2 points into Cha when you could nerf it down to 7 and gain 4... well, that's the difference between having either 13 or 19 points to spend on everything else. Cha is just not that useful for a fighter. The maverick is just going to be savagely punished for his folly, as his fighter will lag in some combination of AC, hp, attack rolls and damage.
But after a while, one gets tired of stupid, ugly fighters, feeble wizards, and the monk PC who is playing his low Cha as "I'm really reserved and don't talk much".
How do other DMs deal with this?
Doug M.
If you allow the leadership feat, and everyone is dumping cha, they are gimping themselves ultimately.
A fighter can do fine with a starting strength of 14 -- heck even better than fine. A spellcaster is going to need the higher primary stat more than any other class if they want to be a 'primary' caster -- meaning that in most circumstances their first recourse is to cast a spell. Some bards, clerics, druids, and even wizards (typically martial mixed wizards) don't do this and can get by with lower primary casting stats, but for a primary caster a starting stat of 18 is pretty close to mandatory.
I'm not even convinced that you need to start with an 18. I can make a very reasonable and playable caster with a starting stat of 15. Obviously I will probably be putting my level increases into my primary stat but even then I don't think it's completely necessary. It is extremely helpful though.
A fighter can do fine with a starting strength of 14 -- heck even better than fine. A spellcaster is going to need the higher primary stat more than any other class if they want to be a 'primary' caster -- meaning that in most circumstances their first recourse is to cast a spell. Some bards, clerics, druids, and even wizards (typically martial mixed wizards) don't do this and can get by with lower primary casting stats, but for a primary caster a starting stat of 18 is pretty close to mandatory.I'm not even convinced that you need to start with an 18. I can make a very reasonable and playable caster with a starting stat of 15. Obviously I will probably be putting my level increases into my primary stat but even then I don't think it's completely necessary. It is extremely helpful though.
Starting Stat 15 (AFTER racial modifiers)
+5 from levels+4 inherent
+6 enhancement
Final Ability: 30 (+10 modifier)
Save DC for a 9th level spell = 29
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Spell Focus = 30
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Great. Focus = 31
Pit Fiend's Average Saving Throws = +25 (counting Unholy Aura)
Chance to Fail 9th level spell: 15%
Chance to Fail Focused spell: 20%
Chance to Fail G. Focus spell: 25%.
Not counting difficulties to penetrate spell resistance.
In short, you will be hard pressed to successfully land your strongest spells vs equal CR enemies, let alone higher level enemies (such as CR +1, +2, or +3 boss encounters). Reduce the chance to fail by 5% for every level beneath 9th, minimum 5%.
Starting Stat 20 (AFTER racial modifiers)
+5 from Levels
+5 inherent
+6 enhancement
Final Ability: 36 (+13)
Save DC for a 9th level spell = 32
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Spell Focus = 33
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Great. Focus = 34
Pit Fiend's Average Saving Throws = +25 (counting Unholy Aura)
Chance to Fail 9th level spell: 30%
Chance to Fail Focused spell: 35%
Chance to Fail G. Focus spell: 40%.
Not counting difficulties to penetrate spell resistance.
We can see that at the very least, we have a 15% increase in spell effectiveness chances, while also gaining a small boost to Concentration checks, as well as additional bonus spells leading to more spellcasting.
People can make of this evaluation as they wish.
Mechanically, yes, I understand the reasoning. There is a greater numerical chance of greater success with higher scores.
Contextually, it's the difference between 1-5 on a d20, or 1-8 on a d20 for a Greater spell focus (I'm pretty sure those are the numbers you used?). Considering I'm rolling a die, meh what the heck. I'll take my chances with the 3 point difference on a d20 to feel like I made a more well-rounded character.
I don't need to feel like I beat the system by scraping the most points out of it and took the least penalty for doing so. If I die, I die, it's a game. I already have 3 other concepts in mind for my next character. If the other players are upset at me for not trying to get as many points as I can, then I must've have stumbled into the wrong gaming group, and I'd rather find that out early.
A fighter can do fine with a starting strength of 14 -- heck even better than fine. A spellcaster is going to need the higher primary stat more than any other class if they want to be a 'primary' caster -- meaning that in most circumstances their first recourse is to cast a spell. Some bards, clerics, druids, and even wizards (typically martial mixed wizards) don't do this and can get by with lower primary casting stats, but for a primary caster a starting stat of 18 is pretty close to mandatory.I'm not even convinced that you need to start with an 18. I can make a very reasonable and playable caster with a starting stat of 15. Obviously I will probably be putting my level increases into my primary stat but even then I don't think it's completely necessary. It is extremely helpful though.Starting Stat 15 (AFTER racial modifiers)
+5 from levels
+4 inherent
+6 enhancement
Final Ability: 30 (+10 modifier)Save DC for a 9th level spell = 29
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Spell Focus = 30
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Great. Focus = 31Pit Fiend's Average Saving Throws = +25 (counting Unholy Aura)
Chance to Fail 9th level spell: 15%
Chance to Fail Focused spell: 20%
Chance to Fail G. Focus spell: 25%.
Not counting difficulties to penetrate spell resistance.In short, you will be hard pressed to successfully land your strongest spells vs equal CR enemies, let alone higher level enemies (such as CR +1, +2, or +3 boss encounters). Reduce the chance to fail by 5% for every level beneath 9th, minimum 5%.
Starting Stat 20 (AFTER racial modifiers)
+5 from Levels
+5 inherent
+6 enhancement
Final Ability: 36 (+13)Save DC for a 9th level spell = 32
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Spell Focus = 33
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Great. Focus = 34Pit Fiend's Average Saving Throws = +25 (counting Unholy Aura)
Chance to Fail 9th level spell: 30%
Chance to Fail Focused spell: 35%
Chance to Fail G....
While I absolutely concur with your reasoning and rationale, it would be remiss of me to not point out that a wizard has FAR better options then slinging save or lose at a Pit Fiend. In fact, if said Wizard can't think of a more effective approach then the aforementioned, his fellow pc's, the dm, or both likely carried him to endgame.
A fighter can do fine with a starting strength of 14 -- heck even better than fine. A spellcaster is going to need the higher primary stat more than any other class if they want to be a 'primary' caster -- meaning that in most circumstances their first recourse is to cast a spell. Some bards, clerics, druids, and even wizards (typically martial mixed wizards) don't do this and can get by with lower primary casting stats, but for a primary caster a starting stat of 18 is pretty close to mandatory.I'm not even convinced that you need to start with an 18. I can make a very reasonable and playable caster with a starting stat of 15. Obviously I will probably be putting my level increases into my primary stat but even then I don't think it's completely necessary. It is extremely helpful though.Starting Stat 15 (AFTER racial modifiers)
+5 from levels
+4 inherent
+6 enhancement
Final Ability: 30 (+10 modifier)Save DC for a 9th level spell = 29
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Spell Focus = 30
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Great. Focus = 31Pit Fiend's Average Saving Throws = +25 (counting Unholy Aura)
Chance to Fail 9th level spell: 15%
Chance to Fail Focused spell: 20%
Chance to Fail G. Focus spell: 25%.
Not counting difficulties to penetrate spell resistance.In short, you will be hard pressed to successfully land your strongest spells vs equal CR enemies, let alone higher level enemies (such as CR +1, +2, or +3 boss encounters). Reduce the chance to fail by 5% for every level beneath 9th, minimum 5%.
Starting Stat 20 (AFTER racial modifiers)
+5 from Levels
+5 inherent
+6 enhancement
Final Ability: 36 (+13)Save DC for a 9th level spell = 32
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Spell Focus = 33
Save DC for a 9th level spell w/ Great. Focus = 34Pit Fiend's Average Saving Throws = +25 (counting Unholy Aura)
Chance to Fail 9th level spell: 30%
Chance to Fail Focused spell: 35%
Chance to Fail G....
All of that assumes two things:
1) You are using spells that require saving throws
2) You are battling a single creature
I did say that you would be more effective with a higher stat. I also said that you could make a playable and fun character that did not start with an 18 in his starting primary attribute.
I think the problem is that some people assume that it's all or nothing, which is far from the truth. Not all campaigns are run the same way. Not all campaigns will use the same opponents. Not all casters will select the same types of spells. The game is far to diverse to assume that the only way to play an effective caster is to begin with an 18 in your primary stat.