Do wee need to max our stats? It's a necessity or minmax idea?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Another thing I feel I ought to mention: When stats are lower or more even, and builds are less crazy, the CR system actually begins to fall into place a little bit. The more outlandish the stats/builds are, the more the DM needs to compensate for party composition.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

In my experience, a SAD character can get by with a 15-16 in their primary stat after racial bonuses, and a MAD character is fine with 14s. Any character is entirely playable using just the default array of 15 14 13 12 10 8.

The CR system presumes parties of 4 15 PB characters who are optimized about as well as the iconics. The further you deviate from that the more holes show in the system.


I will never, ever, build a character like the iconics. And I've built characters whose skills were “drunken slurs; get punched in the face; end of list“.


I usually have a 17 in my primary stat after racial mods.

It leaves me the points to play around with a broad range of abilities and goes to 18 at 4th level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ryric wrote:
In my experience, a SAD character can get by with a 15-16 in their primary stat after racial bonuses, and a MAD character is fine with 14s. Any character is entirely playable using just the default array of 15 14 13 12 10 8.

While I agree, it's not clear that those are fun characters to play. Obviously "fun" is a personal thing, and everyone will have different expectations..... but the one expectation that almost all of us bring to this hobby is role-playing, that is, playing a role.

What's the role you want to play when you play a fighter? Well, I don't know about you, but what I want to play is the heroic slayer-of-dozens, striding Conan-like through a horde of bandits or standing Inigo Montoya-like at the castle gate, effortlessly turning aside the blades of my foes. I'm not really trying to be Neville Longbottom, holding a sword and waving it around blindly.

Similarly, if I'm playing an investigator, I'm probably thinking of Sherlock Holmes, not Inspector Clouseau. If a wizard, I'm thinking Gandalf, not Rincewind. Unless we're deliberately going for a comedy theme, which, frankly, few adventures do.

In other words, I usually want to be good at my role. I don't think I'm alone or unusual in that.

So which stats will make my fighter a better fighter? Strength, obviously, because that means I can hit things harder and more often. Constitution so I can shrug off hits that would have killed a normal man. Charisma,.... so I can,.... um,.... play the drums better? Use magic scrolls? I'm not really feeling that.

While it's all very well and good to argue for "well-rounded characters," it seems that a lot of people are arguing for "well-rounded" to mean a decent swordsman who can also play the drums and make chicken curry. And by "decent," I mean "will hit more often than he misses," but we're not talking about Conan or Inigo Montoya here.

I spend six evenings a week "playing" a realistic, competent, well-rounded human being with a wide range of skills that enable me to survive in a realistic environment. I can, in fact, play the drums and make chicken curry. Is that really what I should aspire to be in my imaginary fantasy life, too?


ryric wrote:

In my experience, a SAD character can get by with a 15-16 in their primary stat after racial bonuses, and a MAD character is fine with 14s. Any character is entirely playable using just the default array of 15 14 13 12 10 8.

The CR system presumes parties of 4 15 PB characters who are optimized about as well as the iconics. The further you deviate from that the more holes show in the system.

I then guess the whole concept of SAD/MAD is the real issue then.

If you only need 1 stat vs needing 3, you're always at an advantage.

I wouldn't mind making a Sorcerer with 16 CHA, but a Wizard with less than 18 feel wrong, mostly because I lose on skill Points.

After this campaign I might try an Halfling Barbarian mounted rider with 16 STR or even 14 and check out if it works.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
What's the role you want to play when you play a fighter?

The fighter I played over the weekend focused on dealing death with his polearm + combat reflexes.

When not killing things: he was stealthy, beat everyone except the elven ranger on perception, could track, was decent on several knowledge skills, and had decent spellcraft in a party with no casters.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Orfamay Quest wrote:
ryric wrote:
In my experience, a SAD character can get by with a 15-16 in their primary stat after racial bonuses, and a MAD character is fine with 14s. Any character is entirely playable using just the default array of 15 14 13 12 10 8.

While I agree, it's not clear that those are fun characters to play. Obviously "fun" is a personal thing, and everyone will have different expectations..... but the one expectation that almost all of us bring to this hobby is role-playing, that is, playing a role.

What's the role you want to play when you play a fighter? Well, I don't know about you, but what I want to play is the heroic slayer-of-dozens, striding Conan-like through a horde of bandits or standing Inigo Montoya-like at the castle gate, effortlessly turning aside the blades of my foes. I'm not really trying to be Neville Longbottom, holding a sword and waving it around blindly.

Similarly, if I'm playing an investigator, I'm probably thinking of Sherlock Holmes, not Inspector Clouseau. If a wizard, I'm thinking Gandalf, not Rincewind. Unless we're deliberately going for a comedy theme, which, frankly, few adventures do.

In other words, I usually want to be good at my role. I don't think I'm alone or unusual in that.

So which stats will make my fighter a better fighter? Strength, obviously, because that means I can hit things harder and more often. Constitution so I can shrug off hits that would have killed a normal man. Charisma,.... so I can,.... um,.... play the drums better? Use magic scrolls? I'm not really feeling that.

While it's all very well and good to argue for "well-rounded characters," it seems that a lot of people are arguing for "well-rounded" to mean a decent swordsman who can also play the drums and make chicken curry. And by "decent," I mean "will hit more often than he misses," but we're not talking about Conan or Inigo Montoya here.

I spend six evenings a week "playing" a realistic, competent, well-rounded human being with a wide...

There's a big gap between "I need big stats to have fun" and "all characters need big stats." Obviously I can't argue against what you find fun - that's extremely personal and subjective. I can only argue against the idea that these stats are required to be mechanically successful at the game.

Conan probably does have an 18 Strength - he's a big beefy guy. Inigo Montoya, OTOH, likely doesn't have any stat above a 15-16 or so. And you don't need bigger stats to create him. Inigo also clearly has Combat Expertise and uses it, but that's another discussion.

Having "only" a +2 in your main stat doesn't make you a comic relief character, unless you want it to. Comic relief would be more like putting a penalty in your main stat.

I'd say the main difference between the characters you've mentioned and the "decent" masses is level, not stats. Possibly with the exception of Sherlock - he's a good example of a character who has dumped other stats to get his primary as high as possible.

Sovereign Court

The only time I max out a stat in point-buy is if I'm playing an arcane SAD caster (wiz/sorc/witch) - but starting with an 18 or 19 are perfectly solid choices even in a more hardcore tactics game.

In part it depends upon the sort of spells you want to focus on. A debuff focused caster needs to worry more about DCs than a conjurer/buffer.

For any other class, I would need to be playing more than a 20pt buy for an 18 pre-racial to be worthwhile. Some MAD classes are lucky to get any 18 stat post-racial.


WormysQueue wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It ultimately stems from what "competence" means; it is a relative term, and subjective to certain ideals and perspectives. What may seem "competent" for one, may not be so for another.

Let's take a 16 Strength Cleric as an example. Is that competent? Superior? Incompetent? Overpowered? To me, it is competent, since Clerics need good Wisdom and acceptable Charisma as well. For those who wanted to optimize the melee capabilities of the Cleric, perhaps not so much. There's also the factor of considering the attribute in relation to the others, such as having only a 14 Wisdom for that Strength, or an 8 Dexterity, Intelligence, 12 Charisma, etc.

For classes that don't rely so much on multiple attributes, like the Wizard, the stakes for them become higher, because they have close to no reason to spread their attributes; Dexterity becomes obsolete later on (and if you're smart enough, you won't have to use it), same with Wisdom as you carry a good Will save. Constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig; that isn't to say Constitution is worthless, but improving it won't make it all that much better. Charisma, like most other classes, has little to no impact on the character's general function (i.e. casting spells), so not pumping Intelligence to the top invites weakness to the character.

You're right from a pure mechanical standpoint. That's not the way everyone looks at its character though.

When I create a character, I don't start with the mechanics but with the background story. That may for example mean that my wizard PC has overage strength (think Hagrid), wisdom (Dumbledore) or Charisma (Snape) even when that means that I can not maximise my primary attribute. Naturally this assumes that the challenge level of the game is such that those characters are viable and it also means that some challenges may be more difficult to overcome. But I like it this way, especially as I feel that it gives me more options in character creation.

The problem is, the mechanics of the game go hand in hand with the flavor of the game as well. You can't look at one without contemplating and evaluating the other, otherwise you get mixed, incoherent, or unwanted results.

I'm not saying that nobody wants to play inoptimal, there are people who enjoy inoptimal, or critical flaws in their character because they value the flavor of those flaws, and want to play them out in-character more than the strength that could be generated by shoring up or eliminating that weakness. And that's fine. That's enjoyable gaming for those who appreciate such priorities.

But that doesn't change the fact that, in order to have these flaws, or even strengths of that character, the mechanics and build of the character have to reflect it; having a gullible person requires reducing Charisma, making them more susceptible to Charm/Dominate results, a weak-willed person reducing Wisdom and their Will Saves, and in the case of making powerful characters, you must do the inverse, making their relative attributes at high (or even peerless) levels of strength.

As an example, I wanted to create the most powerful Master Blaster Caster. I attempt to accomplish this by pumping my Casting statistic (and class feature statistic) to its relative highest (20 Intelligence, 16 Charisma), taking feats for the purpose of maximizing my potential damage output and spell slot flexibility, and transmuting any other subject to serve those purposes. If I don't do those things, then I can't say that I have created, or at least succeeded at creating, the most powerful Master Blaster Caster.

The same is true for any character concept, regardless if they are attempting to optimize, or creating flaws on purpose. Of course, people do build in different manners, and that's fine and to be expected; for myself, I find it easier to set the mechanics of a character in stone, and then apply flavor to those mechanics, especially since it doesn't particularly require tinkering the mechanics (which can be a much bigger headache in my opinion), but others may find themselves more malleable with their mechanics once the flavor is set.


Maxing your stats is not necessary unless you are truly focusing on one special role (spell DCs, melee damage, etc). Otherwise, lesser stats will work fine via point buy, especially for a group of APs (Kingmaker and Rise of the Runelords being two of the exceptions). The key is that APs (and really almost all canned adventures) assume you will have equivalents of the four man band (arcane, divine, rogue, and martial), so when you get a group of hybrid characters running in a game with a variety of stats, things become harder.

Like many have stated before, it also depends on how your game generates stats, and how your GM views characters. I prefer to view PCs as the heroes, who are or will become top members of their professions. Hence, I use 4d6 rolls, take the best three, reroll 1s or 2s until you have none, so a 9 becomes the minimum stat that can be generated. This creates powerful characters via stats, but then my campaigns have a tendency to be more powerful due to that. Others modify stuff for point buy, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Letric wrote:

I always struggle with this. Besides some classes like Cleric where if we're going some sort of front line guy we can feel not about a 14 in WIS and a 16 ion STR, usually if we play martials/casters I always feel the need to have the maximum possible.

That 16 on INT wouldn't feel ok being a wizard, not only because of the amount of spells at level 1 (1 extra at 20 is a lot), but also because of DCs and skillpoints.

My current Wizard doesn't have a single rank in Perception. He has Knowledges (a lot of them), Linguistics (yeah), Spellcraft and going to get some into Craft Wood, because DM allowed me to use Amazing Tools for Wands/Staves.

Overall, I'm not sure whether I'm wanting an 18/20 because it's a requisite that I must follow or just because I feel I'm not maximizing the character.

Like playing an Halfling Barbarian. Wasting an 18 to become a 16 feels BAD, WRONG, and horrible! Not only I'm wasting points to buy that 18, but it's also not working, and that +2 DEX isn't going to be suddenly another 18, because buying a 16 is expensive.

So, I'm never sure how to deal with it. Sometimes I wish Skill Points shouldn't be tied to INT, so if I go 16 INT Wizard because I want more agile/dexterous/charming Wizard, will work. But then, you have so many things to avoid being hit, replacing CHA with INT, and downright not caring about it, that still feels wrong.

How do you forum people deal with this? Do you feel ok using an 16 on your main stat, does your GM have limitations on 20s, not being allowed?

As mentioned, the system baseline (CR)/a published adventure assumes a 15 point buy/elite array, only a moderate amount of optimization, and (after 1st level) equipment around the WBL guidelines (including the 25% defensive, 25% weapons, etc.). Again, this is not difficult to reach.

Specific groups and individuals may have different expectations and preferences, but an "effective" character does not usually require an extreme degree of optimization to meet some arbitrary "best" criteria; often in just one activity. A character will be "effective" most of the time if they are "good" rather than "the greatest" in that one activity and can also contribute in other aspects. Quantity vs. quality: You can have a character that contributes in more types of situations or a character that is "the best" in one type of situation.

RPGs and published adventures tend to reward characters that can contribute in more types of situations, unless the group is "all combat all the time;" or groups that focus characters only for specific roles (stereotypical barbarian without a ranged weapon, bard is the only one with social skills, cleric is the "heal-bot," etc.). Which is a valid way to run things, tracing back to the wargaming roots, but doesn't fully engage the social and "role playing" aspect of the system.

To specifically address the OP:

A front-line cleric can work with a 16 Str (after +2 from race) and a 14 Wis; you just need to grab/improve a headband of inspired wisdom sooner, rather than later (assuming all of the ability score increases from leveling are going in Wis). You won't be as strong at healing and/or spells that require saves, but self-buffing combat clerics have been a strong option for decades.

16 Int for a wizard is fine in many cases. The save DCs will be 2 lower (10% better chance for a target to make a save) than a 20 Int version; unless you are frequently targeting good saves instead of poor saves, that is a minor difference (25% chance to make a save vs. 15%). Also, a wizard seldom "needs" to put maximum ranks in skills like Craft, some specific Knowledges, Linguistics, or even Spellcraft: Craft usually only needs a +8 check modifier (for creating masterwork items using masterwork tools; or even less when using crafter's fortune) apart from Craft (Alchemy) DCs; other than identifying creatures or magical auras/effects/spells, most Knowledge check DCs do not require scaling as levels increase; Linguistics checks, for a character with comprehend languages and/or tongues, do not actually come up often in many groups (and language constraints are also overcome with spells or magic items most of the time); Spellcraft, unless trying to maximize item creation, can usually afford to be at around 80% of the maximum possible skill ranks.

A halfling barbarian with 14 Str (after the -2 from race) goes up to 18 Str when raging. A 16 Str goes up to 20, but that's just a +1 difference on attack rolls and damage compared to the 14 Str version.

It's quite easy to have a (15-point buy) human 8 Str, 14 Dex, 12 Con, 16 Int (+2 from race), 10 Wis, 14 Cha wizard that acts as the party "face" by using the human bonus feat to take Additional Traits for World Traveler and one of Bastard, Ease of Faith, Friend in Every Town, Influence, Suspicious, or Trustworthy. Alternately, you could use the Focused Study alternate racial trait to take Skill Focus (Perform (Oratory)) at 1st level (gaining Skill Focus as a bonus feat again at 8th and 16th) and then Eldritch Heritage (Imperious Bloodline) at 3rd.


I request that the thread's title be changed to "Do Wii need to max our stats? It's a necessity or a miimax idea?"


You don't need to min max but for class, caster you need to keep in mind you progression in spell levels. You need the 19 when you are able to cast spell 9th level spells. I tend get it to at least 16, 18 with stat bonus. Might as well have it from the start or close to it.

For 6th level caster I usually start with 12 in my casting stat. Works out that ever 4 level stat boost come just in time.

For martials I don't max out anything unless I'm two handing it, then it is offense the best defense and max out strength.

I find min maxing lead to problems. The negative outways the benefits as a high stat costs too much to get.


Kahel Stormbender wrote:

When making a fighter, ask yourself this question: Is it vitally important to me to trivialize encounters until around level 5?

That question is equally important for barbarians and anyone else focused on weapon combat.

If the answer is "Yes", then by all means maximize damage as high as you can. Get your AC as high as you can too. Go ahead and sacrifice Int, Wis, and Cha to do this. There's plenty of ways to negate having a low Wisdom after all. And who cares about those 'skill' things? Your job is to hit things, hard. it's not to talk or be knowledgeable. After all, nobody expects Ugg the Barhairion to be smart or diplomatic.

If the answer is "No", then congratulations. You realize that things beyond "hit stuff" can be important. You have the capability to use such things as "tactics", "reason", and "Diplomacy". Prepare to enter the richly rewarding experience known as "Society".

If playing a wizard or sorcerer ask yourself the same question.

Is the answer "Yes"? Then dump everything into your casting stat. And maybe con if there's anything left over. You understand that nothing is more important then your ability to cast spells. You don't need to walk well, nor do you need the ability to carry more then five pounds. Wisdom? What's that? You don't need it, you have a great will save already. And if you don't, there's probably a feat for that. Or more likely a spell for it.

If the answer is "No", then welcome to the world of exercise and common sense. You understand that adventurers usually have to walk around all day, and often get in fights. You can pick up your tankard without getting winded, and know better then to stick your hand in any substance you tentatively identified as "Orc jelly". After all, it might be carnivorous.

This post has been brought to you by Sarcasm Unlimited.
Sarcasm, yeah, it's a thing.

oh right, i forgot the world was entirely populated by people with straight 10s... no fine. i'll give you that you didn't mean to say no one was exceptional. only that no one (or at least not a story's protagonist) has any exceptional weaknesses to exploit? or perhaps that they couldn't possibly be expressed mechanically?

don't get me wrong. i don't think it's absolutely necessary to max stats, but i also see no problem with dumping stats and using that in character.


cuatroespada wrote:
oh right, i forgot the world was entirely populated by people with straight 10s... no fine.

And those NPCs with straight 10s will say, "That barbarian saved our hides, but golly, he is dumber than a box of animal crackers."

My wife likes characters with one or two weak stats on the grounds that flaws can be fun to roleplay. But when most PCs in the party drop every stat not necessary for their class features down to 8 or less, the character stats get repetitive: all fighters are dumb, all wizards are feeble, all bards lack common sense, etc.

Low stats can lead to roleplaying, but so can good stats, such as a fighter good at some skills because he is smart.


Mathmuse wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
oh right, i forgot the world was entirely populated by people with straight 10s... no fine.

And those NPCs with straight 10s will say, "That barbarian saved our hides, but golly, he is dumber than a box of animal crackers."

My wife likes characters with one or two weak stats on the grounds that flaws can be fun to roleplay. But when most PCs in the party drop every stat not necessary for their class features down to 8 or less, the character stats get repetitive: all fighters are dumb, all wizards are feeble, all bards lack common sense, etc.

Low stats can lead to roleplaying, but so can good stats, such as a fighter good at some skills because he is smart.

I think the tendency to roleplay is more likely linked to player style, than stats. Strong/weak, smart/dumb - which ever end of the spectrum your stat's lay, acting that way in character is a player trait, not a PC stat/trait, the same as using an accent, or some kind of body-language or "tic" that you use at the table to define your character from your OOC questions/comments.

Of these 12 gamer traits, some people are more likely to enjoy acting (or over acting). Although, I don't believe any one completely falls fully in any bucket, we all have our IRL "primary" tendency.

12 Player Traits:
Accumulating Cool powers: Enjoying the acquisition of loot/powers, planning a character many levels in advance.
◾Kicking Butt: Enjoying combat for the sake of inflicting mayhem and destruction on foes.
◾Brilliant Planning: Enjoying combat for the sake of winning, beating foes with brains and tactics.
◾Puzzle Solvers: Resolving riddles, short puzzles or longer investigation type puzzles.
◾Playing a favorite role: Seeking the same class/themes/roles campaign after campaign.
◾Supercoolness: Being a badass and be able to show it often.
◾Story: Seeking the range of emotions that comes from a game’s narrative and non-crunch achievements.
◾Psychodrama: Seeking to explore and develop a character from an internal perspective.
◾Irresponsibility: Being able to create trouble without having to deal with real-world consequence (ex: jumping off the rails and go wild!)
◾Setting Exploration:Seeking new horizons in a setting and learning the lore of in-game objects, locales and events.
◾The Outlier: Seeking the emotional kick of subverting a group’s dynamic by creating weird characters or actively seeking failure.
◾Lurker: No clear goal or motivation except to show up at the game and participate.

Referenced from: http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/2008/01/23/robins-laws-revisited-part-2-p layer-types-and-traits/


Aside: I thought most npcs had 8-13 randomly distributed, with the floating racial bonus (if applicable) also randomly allocated. Or maybe that was just a house rule, I forget.


Mathmuse wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
oh right, i forgot the world was entirely populated by people with straight 10s... no fine.

And those NPCs with straight 10s will say, "That barbarian saved our hides, but golly, he is dumber than a box of animal crackers."

My wife likes characters with one or two weak stats on the grounds that flaws can be fun to roleplay. But when most PCs in the party drop every stat not necessary for their class features down to 8 or less, the character stats get repetitive: all fighters are dumb, all wizards are feeble, all bards lack common sense, etc.

Low stats can lead to roleplaying, but so can good stats, such as a fighter good at some skills because he is smart.

The only stat is a must have dump is charisma. INT not worth, unless you're human, because you get min 1 + 1 race, and between 2 and 3, it's the same for a fighter.

WIS? Unless you have strong save, you just leave it at 10, and done with it.
STR? Must dump if you aren't melee honestly, there is no use at all for STR when there are magic items, or level 1 spells to make up for it.


I have a wizard with 30 INT at level 14, the hope is to get it to 32 when we hit 16. This character is arrogant, a bit too attracted to power, but also feels he needs to be as powerful as possible to defeat the oncoming threat in the game. Mechanically, it is nice to have so many spell slots that he can last throughout a ridiculously long day, like a major combat or invasion. Our GM likes to press the plot urgency. I am not going to lie, it's ridiculously fun and superoverpowered, but I moderate, and usually only resort to high level spells to open combat or against high level threats. Also this allows my low level spells to still be effective even at high levels (persistent glitterdust or stinking cloud are both awesome; dazing aqueous orb is also a treat). Point it is fun, and works very well with a party of bard, swashbuckler, and fighter. With crafting I can even manage to fix some of my deficiencies in stat that aren't INT and DEX.

An extra spell at first level is a difference maker in terms of survivability. So it works when it works.


Letric wrote:


The only stat is a must have dump is charisma. INT not worth, unless you're human, because you get min 1 + 1 race, and between 2 and 3, it's the same for a fighter.
WIS? Unless you have strong save, you just leave it at 10, and done with it.
STR? Must dump if you aren't melee honestly, there is no use at all for STR when there are magic items, or level 1 spells to make up for it.

Apparently I've been building my characters wrong all these years :(

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I'm a fan of underdog overcoming odds. I'm a fan of diverse characters. So I'm very much not a fan of optimization, since it tends to make all characters of the same class look the same. I'll optimize a stat in rare cases, but I will often have my highest stat somewhere that isn't the "primary" stat for a character, depending on the concept of the character. I'm even willing to dump Con, even though that seems to be a big sin according to many.

I mostly play PFS, but also am in a couple AP's. I've seen no need to have optimized characters in any of these cases. (That was my experience in 3 decades of other games as well.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thrawn007 wrote:

I'm a fan of underdog overcoming odds. I'm a fan of diverse characters. So I'm very much not a fan of optimization, since it tends to make all characters of the same class look the same. I'll optimize a stat in rare cases, but I will often have my highest stat somewhere that isn't the "primary" stat for a character, depending on the concept of the character. I'm even willing to dump Con, even though that seems to be a big sin according to many.

I mostly play PFS, but also am in a couple AP's. I've seen no need to have optimized characters in any of these cases. (That was my experience in 3 decades of other games as well.)

I fundamentally disagree with this attitude. Sure, someone might only try to build "the optimal character" with nothing but the best possible feat/spell and ability choices for their class, but that's a rather limited view of what optimization is.

When I optimize a character I'm usually not looking to build the best wizard, or the best cleric or the best barbarian, I'm looking to build the most effective shapeshifter wizard, or the optimal cleric archer, or the spiked-armor grappler barbarian.

I build my characters to stand out from others mechanically, and because of that I usually have a solid skeleton to slip into a roleplayer's skin. Why is my wizard so enamored with shapeshifting magic? Maybe he hates his bodyweight and is incredibly self conscious, or he's horribly scarred or burned and wants to hide it from everyone. Mechanical stats often give way to ideas for backgrounds and storylines for your character.


I think one of the biggest reasons there are for folks looking to optimise is the fear of not being relevant or useful. There's the fear of not Doing It Right, I think. At least, it's what drew me to reading guides to begin with.

Fiddling around with PCGen, I find myself leaning towards 16s for most of the trying-it-out characters I build there, with a rare few times pushing a primary stat to 18, and a great aversion to tanking any stat (aside from two high-concept ones--one was basically Rocky Balboa, the other the World's Dumbest Elf, as a gunslinger).


Mathmuse wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
oh right, i forgot the world was entirely populated by people with straight 10s... no fine.

And those NPCs with straight 10s will say, "That barbarian saved our hides, but golly, he is dumber than a box of animal crackers."

My wife likes characters with one or two weak stats on the grounds that flaws can be fun to roleplay. But when most PCs in the party drop every stat not necessary for their class features down to 8 or less, the character stats get repetitive: all fighters are dumb, all wizards are feeble, all bards lack common sense, etc.

Low stats can lead to roleplaying, but so can good stats, such as a fighter good at some skills because he is smart.

Essentially, each of them are some kind of idiot savant or something (although this covers physical as well). Good at their one thing, but crippled at almost everything else.

The fighter can't form 4 word sentences, the wizard needs someone to prop him up or he will be crushed by his own body weight, and the cleric needs someone to tie his shoe laces for him since he has a negative dex score and as such can't do anything finer than 1 foot wide motions.

I am not sure I would trust such people to get me milk from the grocers, let alone fight demi-gods.

I am a strong supporter of 16(14)/14/14/14/10/10 kind of spread for most melee casters (or anyone that needs a mental stat). Shake it up a bit depending on the exact stats needed. With pure martial or caster, I let up a bit, of course, and go for 18(16) for main stat (str for barbarian, int for wizard, etc). When I do dump, it is usually to 8 at most, which feels like "yeah, it is his weak point, but still fairly normal" kind of thing.


It'd be nice if we had a game that didn't make some stats so useless for certain classes that dumping it down to nothing wasn't such an obvious choice.

The sad truth is even if you aren't trying particularly hard to min-max it's still difficult to justify a smart, charismatic fighter or a strong, agile wizard even if you're willing to take the hit. Just imagine a world where a fighter could put 14 or 16 points in Intelligence and actually gain some impactful benefit from it and not be gimping himself for the sake of roleplaying.

But for some unfathomable reason Paizo decided that certain stats should be borderline mandatory for everyone to pump and some should do next to nothing unless you have class features to prop them up.

But hey, this is why 25 PB is great. Shame so many people around here seem to be such strong devotees of 15 PB.

Then again, that might be part of why threads like these are so popular. The lower your PB the more likely you are to see standardized builds because even with bare bones competency it's difficult to swing anything extra.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

Essentially, each of them are some kind of idiot savant or something (although this covers physical as well). Good at their one thing, but crippled at almost everything else.

The fighter can't form 4 word sentences

I'm not sure I'd really call 7 or 8 int an idiot savant. You're 1 or 2 points down from average on skill checks. So if an average person is going to answer a question correctly 80% of the time, the fighter is going to do it 70% or 75% of the time.

And with any training at all that gap vanishes completely and doesn't apply at all to.. pretty much anything else.

Sounds more like someone who didn't receive much of an education than someone with a severe neurological disorder.


swoosh wrote:
lemeres wrote:

Essentially, each of them are some kind of idiot savant or something (although this covers physical as well). Good at their one thing, but crippled at almost everything else.

The fighter can't form 4 word sentences

I'm not sure I'd really call 7 or 8 int an idiot savant. You're 1 or 2 points down from average on skill checks. So if an average person is going to answer a question correctly 80% of the time, the fighter is going to do it 70% or 75% of the time.

And with any training at all that gap vanishes completely and doesn't apply at all to.. pretty much anything else.

Sounds more like someone who didn't receive much of an education than someone with a severe neurological disorder.

I was more thinking of the extreme examples of races with stat penalties, and then people dump that stat. Suli, for example, have a rather nice +2 to str and cha (if you had to have intimidate, which can be nice if you go for hurtful/cornugon build), while they get a -2 to int. Imagine that on a 7 int pre racial. And it is not that unusual, since I am sure we have all seen similar things with dwarves and cha. While int is more important than cha... I can see someone writing it off if they are a 2+ class.

Plus, I wouldn't think that intelligence is that straight forward. Otherwise, my pet dog might be able to get 5%-20% right on a test, since it has 2 int. Which... is ...yeah. So I assume there is a SHARP drop off point somewhere. 5 int seems fairly close to that- the lower limit of how low one can get with a playable race. Lower than that, and you have to start asking whether he is an animal companion...

I was also thinking of more.... extreme mental min maxing with wizards. Ones that think that both wis and cha are expendable. Paladins are more common examples of that particular kind of mental minmaxing though (dumping int and wis cause one adds to skill points, that get written off, and the other adds to saves, which are already fantastic). That definitely goes towards idiot savant. Where you are good at one thing, and everything else is can be described as 'vestigial'.


lemeres, you are reminding me of ANCIENT WAYANG WISDOM. It is a remarkably entertaining thing.


swoosh wrote:
lemeres wrote:

Essentially, each of them are some kind of idiot savant or something (although this covers physical as well). Good at their one thing, but crippled at almost everything else.

The fighter can't form 4 word sentences

I'm not sure I'd really call 7 or 8 int an idiot savant. You're 1 or 2 points down from average on skill checks. So if an average person is going to answer a question correctly 80% of the time, the fighter is going to do it 70% or 75% of the time.

And with any training at all that gap vanishes completely and doesn't apply at all to.. pretty much anything else.

Sounds more like someone who didn't receive much of an education than someone with a severe neurological disorder.

That breaks down in that on the DC ten auto checks you have to roll at all where the ten or above into just knows things.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

swoosh wrote:
Just imagine a world where a fighter could put 14 or 16 points in Intelligence and actually gain some impactful benefit from it and not be gimping himself for the sake of roleplaying.

*Looks at my 16 Int, 12 Cha cavalier that has been a very successful character*

No need to imagine, we live in such a world already.


RDM42 wrote:
swoosh wrote:
lemeres wrote:

Essentially, each of them are some kind of idiot savant or something (although this covers physical as well). Good at their one thing, but crippled at almost everything else.

The fighter can't form 4 word sentences

I'm not sure I'd really call 7 or 8 int an idiot savant. You're 1 or 2 points down from average on skill checks. So if an average person is going to answer a question correctly 80% of the time, the fighter is going to do it 70% or 75% of the time.

And with any training at all that gap vanishes completely and doesn't apply at all to.. pretty much anything else.

Sounds more like someone who didn't receive much of an education than someone with a severe neurological disorder.

That breaks down in that on the DC ten auto checks you have to roll at all where the ten or above into just knows things.

With some of the harsher int dumps, you have to be a trained professional (ie- skill point and class skill) just to know basic dc 10 facts as well as a 'normal' person. "I went to college for 5 years in order to learn how to add and subtract."

This is another slight problem with trying to be too serious with int... a creature (not a player...unless they got drained) can still theoretically do successful knowledge checks when they have animal level intelligence (Ie- answering basic dc 10 facts when they overcome the -4 to -5 penalty)

So I am not going to just work off assumptions here and say int 5 is the bare minimum for what we traditionally consider an intelligent creature. Int 3 and 4 are kind of... TV caveman levels.


ryric wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Just imagine a world where a fighter could put 14 or 16 points in Intelligence and actually gain some impactful benefit from it and not be gimping himself for the sake of roleplaying.

*Looks at my 16 Int, 12 Cha cavalier that has been a very successful character*

No need to imagine, we live in such a world already.

Unless you're adding your Intelligence to Attack and Damage rolls, or your GM is throwing a bunch of bats at you, I highly doubt it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
ryric wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Just imagine a world where a fighter could put 14 or 16 points in Intelligence and actually gain some impactful benefit from it and not be gimping himself for the sake of roleplaying.

*Looks at my 16 Int, 12 Cha cavalier that has been a very successful character*

No need to imagine, we live in such a world already.

Unless you're adding your Intelligence to Attack and Damage rolls, or your GM is throwing a bunch of bats at you, I highly doubt it.

Doubt all you want, but I've seen characters without high stats in their "main" areas do fine in several APs. Stats above 14 are nice but not necessary. Said cavalier was in a Kingmaker game, so the normal assortment of foes for that AP. No trick to add Int to attacks, just normal Str-based attacks and damage.

By the metric of "can you contribute to the party's success, not be a dead weight, and survive an AP run by a GM who doesn't pull punches," a 5 PB character does the job. It's not really a high bar. So 15 points allows plenty of room to branch out to other things.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
ryric wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Just imagine a world where a fighter could put 14 or 16 points in Intelligence and actually gain some impactful benefit from it and not be gimping himself for the sake of roleplaying.

*Looks at my 16 Int, 12 Cha cavalier that has been a very successful character*

No need to imagine, we live in such a world already.

Unless you're adding your Intelligence to Attack and Damage rolls, or your GM is throwing a bunch of bats at you, I highly doubt it.

Knowledge checks, which I as the GM give as part of perceiving a creature, can prevent a wasted round of combat: "Guys, that creature has DR 10/silver and resists cold and acid. Pull out your silver weapons." Gathering information in town sometimes reveals the secret tunnel into the bad guy's lair. And that cavalier probably still has good Strength.

swoosh wrote:
But for some unfathomable reason Paizo decided that certain stats should be borderline mandatory for everyone to pump and some should do next to nothing unless you have class features to prop them up.

I remember the old Advanced Dungeons & Dragons days when the attributes were rolled in order. The attributes came before the class selection. "I have a high Wisdom, so I guess I play the cleric. Or maybe druid. My Constitution is not good enough for a ranger." Thus, class design was to have a class built around one or two good attributes. The game has evolved, but, as swoosh said, even today some attributes are universal and some are niche.

Everyone needs Constitution. Any martial or half-martial class benefits from Strength or Dexterity, though seldom both in the same character. Intelligence gives skills, which are as useful as the GM makes them. Wisdom is situational except for good Will saves. Charisma is entirely situational.


Mathmuse wrote:


Knowledge checks, which I as the GM give as part of perceiving a creature, can prevent a wasted round of combat: "Guys, that creature has DR 10/silver and resists cold and acid. Pull out your silver weapons." Gathering information in town sometimes reveals the secret tunnel into the bad guy's lair. And that cavalier probably still has good Strength.

Only one person needs to make those and only a bard or int caster can reasonably invest in all of them. As a 16 int cavalier monster ID knowledges would eat so many skill points you wouldn't have enough left to get the skills that would justify not dumping charisma. The face package is four skills. If you just wanted intimidate it could be moved to int or str.

Liberty's Edge

swoosh wrote:


But for some unfathomable reason Paizo decided that certain stats should be borderline mandatory for everyone to pump and some should do next to nothing unless you have class features to prop them up.

To be fair though it's not really Paizo fault. It's been like this since 2E D&D. Low stats in 2E could cripple a character imo. Low con good luck surviving ressurrection. Or surviving being turned from stone to flesh. Low int meants you had a decent chance of not learning any spells. While also being limited to a certain umber of spells per level. A low Wisdom meant your spells would fizzle. If it was low enough one also took a numerical penalty on Will saves. Charisma almost everyone dump stat meant one was going to have at most one or two followers with them being less loyal. While also getting a numerical penalty while dealing with others. Dex was tied into being surprised, missle attack ajustment and a bonus to AC. You can expect none of those being good with a low dex. Strength let's just say the higher the better.

As long as stats and what you can do are so tied together it will be a problem. A low stat while giving one more roleplaying opprtunities. Does not give one anything in terms of mechanics imo. A low str Fighter has to specialize in light armor and needs a decent dex. Otherwise he maybe armored like a tank and move like a snail. Forget about carrying any treasure either.

I don't mind a player routinely taking low stats. As long as they are willing to accept the limitations low stats may impose on the character and what they can do. I don't mind helping out in terms of buying items or crafting them. After awhile if the player keeps doing the same for every character they are on their own. Yes I know it's a team game. I am in no obligation to shoulder the burden of a player who consistently keeps taking low stats either. Nor am I obligated as a DM to make sure that a player always finds the right items to overcome it. Or lower DCs either. If a player wants to build a Bard with low Cha and wants to specialize using Enchanmtent spells. Well be prepared for the npcs to succeed more than fail on their saves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


Knowledge checks, which I as the GM give as part of perceiving a creature, can prevent a wasted round of combat: "Guys, that creature has DR 10/silver and resists cold and acid. Pull out your silver weapons." Gathering information in town sometimes reveals the secret tunnel into the bad guy's lair. And that cavalier probably still has good Strength.
Only one person needs to make those and only a bard or int caster can reasonably invest in all of them. As a 16 int cavalier monster ID knowledges would eat so many skill points you wouldn't have enough left to get the skills that would justify not dumping charisma. The face package is four skills. If you just wanted intimidate it could be moved to int or str.

The Core Rulebook says Barbarian receives Knowledge(nature), Bard receives Knowledge(all), Cleric receives Knowledge(arcana, history, nobility, planes, religion), Druid receives Knowledge(geography, nature), Fighter receives Knowledge(dungeoneering, engineering), Monk receives Knowledge(history, religion), Paladin receives Knowledge(nobility, religion), Ranger receives Knowledge(dungeoneering, geography, nature), Rogue receives Knowledge(dungeoneering, local), Sorcerer has Knowledge(arcana), and Wizard has Knowledge(all). Every class in the party can specialize in identifying one kind of creature well, gaining full information instead of partial information, rather than forcing the Bard or Wizard to spread his Knowledge skills across arcana for magical beasts, dungeoneering for aberrations, local for humanoids, nature for animals and fey, planes for outsiders, and religion for undead. If everyone learns something, then no single person has to learn them all.

Likewise, in our party, the Skald specializes in Diplomacy and Bluff, the Fighter specializes in Intimidate, and the Gunslinger (only character with a good Wisdom) specializes in Sense Motive. In a game where the PCs have well-rounded attributes, the party can spread the social roles around instead of leaving the burden on a single character.


Mathmuse wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:


Knowledge checks, which I as the GM give as part of perceiving a creature, can prevent a wasted round of combat: "Guys, that creature has DR 10/silver and resists cold and acid. Pull out your silver weapons." Gathering information in town sometimes reveals the secret tunnel into the bad guy's lair. And that cavalier probably still has good Strength.
Only one person needs to make those and only a bard or int caster can reasonably invest in all of them. As a 16 int cavalier monster ID knowledges would eat so many skill points you wouldn't have enough left to get the skills that would justify not dumping charisma. The face package is four skills. If you just wanted intimidate it could be moved to int or str.

The Core Rulebook says Barbarian receives Knowledge(nature), Bard receives Knowledge(all), Cleric receives Knowledge(arcana, history, nobility, planes, religion), Druid receives Knowledge(geography, nature), Fighter receives Knowledge(dungeoneering, engineering), Monk receives Knowledge(history, religion), Paladin receives Knowledge(nobility, religion), Ranger receives Knowledge(dungeoneering, geography, nature), Rogue receives Knowledge(dungeoneering, local), Sorcerer has Knowledge(arcana), and Wizard has Knowledge(all). Every class in the party can specialize in identifying one kind of creature well, gaining full information instead of partial information, rather than forcing the Bard or Wizard to spread his Knowledge skills across arcana for magical beasts, dungeoneering for aberrations, local for humanoids, nature for animals and fey, planes for outsiders, and religion for undead. If everyone learns something, then no single person has to learn them all.

Likewise, in our party, the Skald specializes in Diplomacy and Bluff, the Fighter specializes in Intimidate, and the Gunslinger (only character with a good Wisdom) specializes in Sense Motive. In a game where the PCs have well-rounded attributes, the party can spread the social roles...

Barbarians could probably afford Knowledge (Nature), even if they dump their Intelligence, since all they really need is Perception, Intimidate, and maybe Acrobatics, but even that is iffy, since Barbarian players will probably play the whole "AM STUPID, AM SMASH" trope, which requires dumping Intelligence to properly emulate in-character.

But a lot of what you suggested (Clerics, Fighters, Paladins, Sorcerers) only receive 2 + Intelligence per level, and most all of those classes will end up dumping Intelligence because increasing it doesn't provide much value apart from dumping it to make their other, more important attributes better, and increasing it requires sacrificing their other capabilities.

Every class needs Perception, and for Clerics, they will probably want the Heal skill, Fighters may want Intimidate or Acrobatics, Paladins may want Sense Motive, so as to not be a complete moron when it comes to dealing with Evil Badguys, and Sorcerers may want UMD instead (unless they're planning on DD, in which case they're screwed anyway).


The question of how much is needed for Ability Scores really depends on how the rest of the game is balanced.

I've done very little high level play in Pathfinder, but what I hear regularly is the monsters are stated under the assumption that players will have Cloaks of Resistance, Ability Score increasing magic items, and other optimized equipment. How much the game demands optimization in other areas really informs how much optimization is required in Ability Scores.


The main thing is to be reasonable about it.

You don't necessarily NEED 18+ right away in your major stats, although it sure can be nice if your GM is running a tough campaign, and it makes it easy to have an area of expertise nice and early. Certain classes manage it better than others. Characters like the sorcerer and wizard, who weren't going to be entering melee anyway and have tricks to carry their stuff, benefit enormously from neglecting their strength to get that casting stat nice and high while sparing a few points for constitution and dexterity. For the wizard in particular, there's nothing but benefits to this because one of the easiest things to do with magic is make up for having craptacular strength but your staggering intelligence has given you a TON of skill ranks to increase your use to the party. For other classes, however, that 18 strength is very useful for inflicting "dead" on the enemy but doesn't give you a lot of other abilities. You do have to worry about getting pideonholed if you have a stat very high but your abilities in other areas suffer for it.

On the other hand you should also remember why you picked that particular class. If your fighter isn't very strong, dexterous, or tough in order to improve his intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, why exactly are you playing a fighter? Picking a heavily combat-oriented class and neglecting the stats you use for combat in order to try to be more well-rounded often yields results that skew more heavily towards "master of none" than "jack of all trades." I built a fighter once whose stats were pretty much universally 14s before magic items; in theory he's got a pretty decent array of skills and no glaring weaknesses, but the price for that is mediocrity on virtually all fronts. His combat performance is noticeably lower than that of a more focused fighter and while he has high ranks in a number of useful skills a bard would outperform him in pretty much all of them.

Basically, don't overspecialize so much you leave yourself beached most of the time or spread points around so much that you forget to actually be GOOD at anything in your desire to be OK at everything.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But a lot of what you suggested (Clerics, Fighters, Paladins, Sorcerers) only receive 2 + Intelligence per level, and most all of those classes will end up dumping Intelligence because increasing it doesn't provide much value apart from dumping it to make their other, more important attributes better, and increasing it requires sacrificing their other capabilities.

That argument ties right into the main question of the thread: when is it necessary to dump less important attributes because the character needs higher values in his or her most important attributes?

Many people have pointed out that the Paizo Adventure Paths are an environment where the PCs can have non-extreme stats. In the Iron Gods Adventure Path I am currently running (description with spoilers), Knowledge(engineering) is as vital as Perception, and the lowest Int among the PCs--Fighter, Gunslinger, Magus, and Skald--is 14. The two NPCs in the party are more ordinary, Int 12 and Int 8; nevertheless, Intelligence is valued regardless of class as much as Constitution is valued.

Back in D&D 3rd Edition, I played in a party where everyone could be stealthy, even though Hide and Move Silently were cross-class skills for my elven cleric. Dexterity was a valued attribute in that party and fortunately my elf had Dex 19.

Sometimes, players can value attributes for other reasons than their class.


Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Or the trip specialist who's only effective if they can repeatedly trip and Aoo an enemy... facing a gelatinous cube. Or a dragon. Or anything else you can't really trip.

Granted it's pretty ridiculous that you can't trip a dragon. Or a Titan. Or anything that's flying. Oozes and serpents are really the only legitimate 'cannot trip' that come to mind.

Liberty's Edge

When you play in a home game you have the advantage of knowing what the other people are going to play.

In those games you can easily get away with Grunk the 7 Int Fighter whose sole skill is Perception. Everyone is paranoid and takes the social trait Seeker. Home games do tend to see far more razor-honed min-maxing.

If it were a PF Society game it would be different. If you brought your character and everyone read:
Str 20, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 7, Wis 11, Cha 7 (I did the point buy math to make sure it could happen)
Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Falchion
I would completely expect you to be in the Grand Lodge (All hail the ever present Observant trait, a nasty habit I found hard to break myself). Everyone else might be hesitant depending on what they brought. I know several GMs and the only total party kill stories any of them ever told me were when everyone brought their own Grunk.

When you have no idea what everyone else will play it becomes very useful to let the razor dull a little bit when choosing scores. Some of the near death encounters I saw weren't even Perception related. Simple things such as the adventure comes to a halt unless at least one party member can get across a water-filled pit or you are unable to complete your goal unless someone can get a 15 on Knowledge:Arcana outside of combat.

For society the two characters I have the most fun with are far from optimized. A dwarf bard with 14 as his highest score and the 16 strength fighter who has linguistics as his second highest skill and no ranks in Perception.

Neither one has ever failed to be critical in completing, at least some of, the scenario's secondary success conditions.


For me, the obsession of LOSING FOREVER that potential 36 in my primary ability is too COLOSSAL to ignore. As such, I've been thinking that the 5th Edition of That Rule did a nice job of putting a soft cap AND easing ability growth.


Lucas Yew wrote:
For me, the obsession of LOSING FOREVER that potential 36 in my primary ability is too COLOSSAL to ignore. As such, I've been thinking that the 5th Edition of That Rule did a nice job of putting a soft cap AND easing ability growth.

One of the many many reasons I love the retraining rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

The main thing is to be reasonable about it.

You don't necessarily NEED 18+ right away in your major stats, although it sure can be nice if your GM is running a tough campaign, and it makes it easy to have an area of expertise nice and early. Certain classes manage it better than others. Characters like the sorcerer and wizard, who weren't going to be entering melee anyway and have tricks to carry their stuff, benefit enormously from neglecting their strength to get that casting stat nice and high while sparing a few points for constitution and dexterity. For the wizard in particular, there's nothing but benefits to this because one of the easiest things to do with magic is make up for having craptacular strength but your staggering intelligence has given you a TON of skill ranks to increase your use to the party. For other classes, however, that 18 strength is very useful for inflicting "dead" on the enemy but doesn't give you a lot of other abilities. You do have to worry about getting pideonholed if you have a stat very high but your abilities in other areas suffer for it.

On the other hand you should also remember why you picked that particular class. If your fighter isn't very strong, dexterous, or tough in order to improve his intelligence, wisdom, and charisma, why exactly are you playing a fighter? Picking a heavily combat-oriented class and neglecting the stats you use for combat in order to try to be more well-rounded often yields results that skew more heavily towards "master of none" than "jack of all trades." I built a fighter once whose stats were pretty much universally 14s before magic items; in theory he's got a pretty decent array of skills and no glaring weaknesses, but the price for that is mediocrity on virtually all fronts. His combat performance is noticeably lower than that of a more focused fighter and while he has high ranks in a number of useful skills a bard would outperform him in pretty much all of them.

Basically, don't overspecialize so much you leave yourself...

This is what I fight funny.

"Yeah, If I raise my int to a 16 my human fighter can FCB skills and have 7 skills per level!"
right... My human slayer gets that with a 10 int and FCB into HP.

51 to 100 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do wee need to max our stats? It's a necessity or minmax idea? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.