Viability of Casual (Non-Optimized) Characters?

It's only been a week and scrolling through these forums I've seen a lot of discussion of builds and optimization and DPS and the like. I'm just wondering how friendly Second Edition is to more casual players who just like to pick character options and roll with it without necessarily worrying about mechanical optimization. Is that doable or will such characters be noticeably less effective? Are there obviously poor options that a newbie wouldn't know to avoid?

Thanks.

In my opinion, PF2 punishes a lot non optimized builds due to the new critical success rule. Having one less point in Strength modifier is nearly removing 20% damage.
I would say: Max your main attack attribute, whatever it is.

People go into hyperbole so much, casual characters are totally fine. People love to compare a pc class vs another pc class as if it was pvp but in most games...you are going to be fighting monsters.

Monsters have various strengths and weaknesses but in general, if you are just adapting as the game goes and get the appropriate amount of gear for your level, you will be fine.

I'm going to disagree with SuperBidi.

While a non-optimized character will of course underperform compared to an optimized character in whatever category was optimized for, the question is about viability.

From what I have seen of the system so far, you have to try pretty hard to make a nonviable character - it basically has to be intentional.

You certainly don't need to start with an 18 main stat, for example. Because of how attribute boosts work, someone with a 16 starting main stat will actually have the exact same modifier as someone with a starting 18 for nearly half of their career.

Combine that with characters being very baseline competent - which means that even if you pick "bad" class and ancestry feats you are still going to be fine at what you do - and you'd really have to reach very intentional "I'm going to dump my main stat"-type builds to find a non-viable character.

It is pretty forgiving, having an 18 in a primary stat is still desired though.

Having a 16 works fine mathematically.

Having a 14 is not advised, but takes extra effort to go for.

But as far as spell and feats work, you can create a weaker character but it is significantly harder for a new "play as you want" player to screw up badly.

Comparing an 18 to a 16, you will be behind by 1 for approximately half your play time. In exchange, you get quite a bit more flexibility.

Don't start with 14 in your main stat and refuse to increase it, and you'll be fine.

The established/expected baseline is pretty hard to drop below by casually picking stuff. So while you won't be maximally effective, you won't be useless.

I GM'd 7 tables of PFS over the GenCon weekend, 5 tables at level 1 (mix of pre-gen and hand-made), 1 table at level 5 (1-00, therefore all pregens), and one at ~level 3 (all handmade with the playtest level skip boons). I only had one player show signs of thinking their character was useless and that person was playing a pregen rather than a handmade. The player looked pretty obviously like they were only playing because their friend were playing. None of the personalized characters had trouble contributing (now its only level 1 and there's not that many choices yet)

16 in your main stat is totally viable. 14 in the main stat might hurt a bit if you don't take efforts to work around it.

People love to compare a pc class vs another pc class as if it was pvp but in most games...you are going to be fighting monsters.

Quick calculation got me this number: A level 1 Character with a Greatsword and 18 Strength against an AC 16 monster does 29% more damage than a level 1 Character with a Greatsword and 16 Strength and 73% more than a level 1 character with a Greatsword and 14 Strength.

Eltacolibre wrote:

People love to compare a pc class vs another pc class as if it was pvp but in most games...you are going to be fighting monsters.

Quick calculation got me this number: A level 1 Character with a Greatsword and 18 Strength against an AC 16 monster does 29% more damage than a level 1 Character with a Greatsword and 16 Strength and 73% more than a level 1 character with a Greatsword and 14 Strength.

So it's far from hyperbole, it's actually hurting a lot.

Only if all you care about is damage; that 16 Strength character also has 2 higher in another stat, thus giving them higher AC, better saves, or more skills.

How much less damage does that character take from having 18 AC instead of 17?

Comparing an 18 to a 16, you will be behind by 1 for approximately half your play time. In exchange, you get quite a bit more flexibility.

Don't start with 14 in your main stat and refuse to increase it, and you'll be fine.

I think "half your play time" is incorrect: The amount of actual play that occurs post-level-14 tends to drop off massively due to real-life constraints.

I'd say you'd be behind by 1 for closer to 70-80% of your play time (at levels 1-4 and 10-14)

Eltacolibre wrote:

People love to compare a pc class vs another pc class as if it was pvp but in most games...you are going to be fighting monsters.

Quick calculation got me this number: A level 1 Character with a Greatsword and 18 Strength against an AC 16 monster does 29% more damage than a level 1 Character with a Greatsword and 16 Strength and 73% more than a level 1 character with a Greatsword and 14 Strength.

So it's far from hyperbole, it's actually hurting a lot.

Some players don't care at all if it does less damage or if it is less effective than the average. The question is if you can fight the enemies with an underpowered character, and that seems to be true

Comparing an optimized character to a non-optimized character isn't the important comparison however, its comparing a non-optimized character to a on-level encounter (and a level +1 or 2) encounter.

Can they still contribute? Yes.

Are they likely to be one-shot? AC is harder to tank by accident (low Dex and light armor and standing in a place you're an obvious target). But yes you might get crit more easily with a non-optimized build and poor tactics. However if the monster could crit you, they could also crit your allies and your HP doesn't swing that much based on build thanks to the ancestry and class contribution at level 1.

I disagree with SuperBidi - if you chose to have your main attribute be only a 16 instead of an 18, your modifier is only behind from levels 1-5 and then levels 10-15. It's equal the rest of the time.

Since you increase scores by +2 if they're below 18, and by +1 if they're above 18, being able to round out your character at level 1 isn't as crippling as it was in PF1.

That was different in the Playtest, but the math is a little looser now. That being said, it is very easy to get yourself an 18 in your main stat, and most people will probably do so. I would not start with anything below a 16 in your main stat, because then you will definitely be behind.

As for obviously poor options, PF2 is a lot more forgiving regarding feat selection. If you're fighting with a 2-handed weapon, it's fairly easy to pick feats that will work well with a 2-handed weapon and avoid ones that won't. A new person should generally be able to avoid making any particularly bad choices.

How much less damage does that character take from having 18 AC instead of 17?

15% roughly.

In my opinion, if you are not maxed in your main attack attribute and in AC (if you are in frontline) you'll feel it a lot.

MaxAstro wrote:

How much less damage does that character take from having 18 AC instead of 17?

15% roughly.

What you say is a little different than casual. Casual player will put the 2 points in a less useful stat, not in another roughly equivalent one. And lose a lot of potential damage.
Also, you can max AC without increasing Dexterity.

In my opinion, if you are not maxed in your main attack attribute and in AC (if you are in frontline) you'll feel it a lot.

Define "useful"? The worst case scenario is Charisma, which unfortunately remains a bit of a trap option... although Demoralize is really good in this edition, so high Charisma Fighters can actually be awesome.

Every other attribute is going to give the character a meaningful benefit in some area or another, and since they chose to put that stat there it's probably an area they care about.

Some players don't care at all if it does less damage or if it is less effective than the average. The question is if you can fight the enemies with an underpowered character, and that seems to be true

The main difference if you don't max your main attribute is that your critical chances will drop. Most characters will hit on a 8-11 on their dice. So, a +1 in such cases is between 33% and 100% more critical chances. This is something that you will feel a lot. Same on the other side: Being crited on an 18 instead of an 19 gives you a very different feeling. An underpowered character will clearly feel that monsters are obliterating him while he will never shine because of the lack of criticals. In my opinion, it's not something to ignore. But it's just my opinion.

Thanks everybody, for both viewpoints. I'm reassured that I can't mess up too badly and I know to strongly consider and recommend maxing the primary damage stat right off the bat.

I don't think the math is so tight that such a character will feel not viable, though.

Every other attribute is going to give the character a meaningful benefit in some area or another, and since they chose to put that stat there it's probably an area they care about.

I have hard time answering to everyone quickly enough, as I'm the only one defending my point of view :)

There's also another important point: Weapon damage dice. Choosing a poor weapon "for fluff" is also hurting a lot.
Still, I agree with everyone about the feats. You can do nearly what you want regarding feats.

From my reading, there are a few things that are very important to consider in PF2.

Thanks everybody, for both viewpoints. I'm reassured that I can't mess up too badly and I know to strongly consider and recommend maxing the primary damage stat right off the bat.

Yeah, I think this is fair. Certainly if what you care most about is your class' main schtick, maxing your main stat is a good idea.

On the other hand, a character with a 16 main stat and a more rounded build is certainly still viable and will occasionally outperform the optimized character at other things (for example, the rounded character can have 3 different stats at +4 by level 5, while the optimized character can only have 2).

I don't think the math is so tight that such a character will feel not viable, though.

Define viable :)

Also, remember that if you increase a secondary stat by +2, you have a +1 only half the time. It takes no time for your secondary stat to go to 18 and to increase by +1 while the 18 Strength Fighter will still increase it by +2. Compare 2 builds, and you will see that the only interesting moment are level 5-9. Otherwise, you exchange a +1 in primary stat for a +1 in secondary stat. Considering the impact of a +1 in the primary stat, it's something you have to consider greatly.

TSRodriguez wrote:

Some players don't care at all if it does less damage or if it is less effective than the average. The question is if you can fight the enemies with an underpowered character, and that seems to be true

The main difference if you don't max your main attribute is that your critical chances will drop. Most characters will hit on a 8-11 on their dice. So, a +1 in such cases is between 33% and 100% more critical chances. This is something that you will feel a lot. Same on the other side: Being crited on an 18 instead of an 19 gives you a very different feeling. An underpowered character will clearly feel that monsters are obliterating him while he will never shine because of the lack of criticals. In my opinion, it's not something to ignore. But it's just my opinion.

Luckily for us the game isn't played in the statistical realm, we fortunately get to use dice!

Glabrezu 34 AC (lvl 13)

Fighter that started with 18 STR = +28 to hit.
Hits on a 6 (4 flanking)

Fighter that started with 16 STR = +27 to hit
Hits on a 7 (5 flanking)

The second one hit a little less of course, but it's not bad at hitting stuff either and at lvl 5-9 it had the same to hit than the first.

The OP doesn’t appreciate that optimisation posts and dps calculations are a massive part about what the paizo forums have always been about (along with rules clarifications and alignment arguments :-P)

As has been mentioned the game isn’t played on paper it is played on the table and it seems like unless you go out of your way to put a lower than expected figure in your main stat you should be fine on average

And retraining seems easier in this edition and stat boosts happen more often to attempt a course correct

Glabrezu 34 AC (lvl 13)

Fighter that started with 18 STR = +28 to hit.
Hits on a 6 (4 flanking)

Fighter that started with 16 STR = +27 to hit
Hits on a 7 (5 flanking)

The second one hit a little less of course, but it's not bad at hitting stuff either and at lvl 5-9 it had the same to hit than the first.

10 chances to normally hit for both and 5 chances to crit against 4 chances to crit. As criting deals twice damage (if I don't consider anything else), it's 11% more damage on average. I don't count the extra point of damage as it's very low at that level. It's less extreme than first level, still I find it a lot.

A character with jacked up Charisma who has proficiencies in Diplomacy & Deception is just as "viable" a character as a damage dealer.

2 of my 5 players in one game started with a 16. They do fine. The fighter still does the most damage in the party and the cleric can heal, cast offensive spells, and use her starknife at both range and melee.

Not sure about now, but I had players, in the playtest, build characters with 14 in their main attribute and just kept missing their Strikes.

The playtest had a lot tighter math than the final version does. A 14 in their main attribute is also lower than what I think the math is supposed to support. I think a 16 generally works for PF2.

Do non-fighters get any accuracy boosts at 1st level? That +2 bonus that fighters get from being expert with most weapons would be really huge otherwise.

I think this is the 1st RPG I know of where one can say "Fighters are overpowered!" as anything other than a joke.

I've been trying to build some intentionally not-so-good characters to see how they function in the system. Nothing super bad but in my campaign right now I'm playing a 16 strength outwit ranger with a longsword and it's... functional.

So that's cool.

I think this is the 1st RPG I know of where one can say "Fighters are overpowered!" as anything other than a joke.

They were pretty overpowered in 4e too.

16 may be viable, but i think that those +1s matter way more when you go against bosses and such.

yes, vs a monster that's level -2 or even a monster that's equal level, that -1 trasnlates to "a bit less damage"

but vs a boss that's at level+2 you're usually hurting for not having those +1 imo.

but all in all, 16/18 on main stat is all the optimisation i feel one needs unless they intentionally mess up their character.

I'm with SuperBidi on this. At least mostly.

If your primary contribution to combat is doing damage then an 18 in your damage stat is very worth while.

Given that an 18/16/12/12/10/10 is easily available that also pretty much maxes out your AC, gives you a decent Con and one other stat to let you roleplay something/pick a non stat skill to be at least decent at.

Now, if your primary contribution to the game ISN'T combat, or you've got other means of contributing (Pet, heal spells, summons, control, whatever) then you may well not need your primary stat maxed out.

And those people saying "Well, the stat will catch up" are really only a little bit right. Behind at level 1-4,10-14 covers a HUGE amount of where most games end up being. I'd say for most games its more than 1/2 the time.

(aside, I'm completely ignoring level 20. For just about every game I've ever been in I wouldn't put my L15 stat boost into raising a stat to 21. Level 20 has almost never been reached or, if reached, we only played at it for a session or 3 to beat the Big Bad)

My advice to players regarding starting ability scores:

18 if you are focused on doing one thing well. Hitting things with a weapon or casting spells.

16 if you have something else to do. Switch hitters, gishes, faces, etc.

14 if you want a last ditch backup when you've run out of other options, and maybe eventually up it to a somewhat reliable option.

12 if you'll basically never make an attack or rely on the stat, but like the ancillary benefits like saves or skills.

10 if you just don't care about the stat.

For the record, a stat's impact on damage calculations gets thrown once more damage dice start entering the picture, extra damage comes from weapon specialisation and such.

Dice entropy is going to play a bigger "wow" role in games for the most part.

An optimizer wants to do it. But the average joe probably doesn't care that after 100+ rolls they are likely doing 3-4 extra damage a round when they are dealing over 30 damage in the first place.

Even at first level when the damage difference is at its largest we are talking a 8.4 average to 6.65 average with a fighter attacking an AC17 target with a D12 weapon on the first attack. It IS a 26% difference, but as I said... Combats are short enough for entropy to play a bigger psychological effect.

A D8 weapon in the hands of someone trained and not expert is looking at an even smaller numerical difference against the same opponent.

18str, 1st: 5.1 2nd: 2.975
16str, 1st: 4.25 2nd: 2.25

It is still a 23% difference on that first strike, but in reality only a very very few will care or even notice. And no matter how much we stack the odds in our favour we cannot guarantee these averages in combats lasting 3-8 rounds.

Again, it makes a difference... But if someone wants to use that ability score somewhere else then don't sweat it. At level 5-9 they are going to be equal to the one that started in 18 anyway.

In fact, I don't see the point of not maxing your main attribute. Every race gives a +2 you can choose, every background either, and you will obviously increase it with the 4 extra bonuses. So what would be the point in playing a 16 Str Barbarian or a 16 Int Wizard when you get 18 to these attributes at no opportunity cost?
And what makes a difference is not the damage boost, but the accuracy one (and the critical one). If you hit a monster with a 9, you deal 17% more damage than if you hit it with a 10, partly because you double your critical chances.

Maybe because the character wants to have some other stat higher than 10 or 12 or 14 because of RP reasons.

Since it is a roleplaying game. I think it's fine if the bad guy takes one extra hit to kill or something. It works just fine.

I view these games as cooperative storytelling games. Not tabletop wargames. If my character has more spread out stats, and a 16 instead of 18 prime score... I'm fine with it. If the 5% less to hit makes the fight take a round longer, then okay.
Others might prefer to be statted out to the max. That's fine for them too.
But viability of a sub-maxed PC? Absolutely.

I feel like the specific way PF2 is much more rewarding to casual characters than PF1 was has more to do with feats than stats. In PF1, an optimized character might be expected to spend 100% of their feats to a specific combat style, often with specific shortcuts to get at something faster. In PF2, you literally can't put all of your feats into being good at just one thing since feats by their nature mostly just unlock "here is a different, but not necessarily better" thing you can do.

Maybe because the character wants to have some other stat higher than 10 or 12 or 14 because of RP reasons.

Since it is a roleplaying game. I think it's fine if the bad guy takes one extra hit to kill or something. It works just fine.

I think saying you'd want to raise other stats "because of RP reasons" is actually a bit misleading and dismissive. To start with an 18 in a stat you have to raise your main stat in all three phases of character creation - that's a legitimately high cost that limits your access to some powerful abilities.

A Barbarian that doesn't start with a 16 in charisma isn't getting Terrifying Howl later. A Barbarian that starts with an 18 in strength and a 16 in charisma is going to start with a 10 in one of dexterity, constitution, or wisdom - not the worst thing in the world but there are legitimate risks to that.

For optimizing damage output, SuperBidi is probably right. I haven't done the math, but 25% - 30% reduced damage is probably about right. But take that with a bit of salt since that means about 2 - 3 points of damage when using a d10 or d12 weapon. An enemy that takes 4 rounds to kill is probably still going to take 4 rounds to kill.

But the point of this thread is asking how viable a non-optimized character is.

And from what I have seen, a non-optimized character is still fully playable. A non-optimized fighter is still going to be an awesome fighter - probably still better than the bard is at doing damage. A non-optimized monk is still going to be running around the battlefield doing damage just fine. A non-optimized mage is still going to be throwing spells around and feeling cool while doing it.

And most power gamers are going to have a very hard time criticizing a particular build. The math is too complex and the options too separate and balanced to be able to say definitively that one choice is better than another.

For example the argument of requiring an 18 in primary stat, or having a 16 being sufficient. That really isn't answerable to satisfaction from either side of the debate.

GameDesignerDM wrote:

Maybe because the character wants to have some other stat higher than 10 or 12 or 14 because of RP reasons.

Since it is a roleplaying game. I think it's fine if the bad guy takes one extra hit to kill or something. It works just fine.

I think saying you'd want to raise other stats "because of RP reasons" is actually a bit misleading and dismissive. To start with an 18 in a stat you have to raise your main stat in all three phases of character creation - that's a legitimately high cost that limits your access to some powerful abilities.

A Barbarian that doesn't start with a 16 in charisma isn't getting Terrifying Howl later. A Barbarian that starts with an 18 in strength and a 16 in charisma is going to start with a 10 in one of dexterity, constitution, or wisdom - not the worst thing in the world but there are legitimate risks to that.

Not being dismissive at all - my group has several players who do this sort of thing all the time, in most every system. They have fun and still totally viable, since in my opinion, viable is "are you having fun playing this character?" - and I don't think there's much of a good answer to this sort of question, anyway.

Viable has different meanings to us all, after all.

Maybe dismissive isn't the right way to say what I mean; what I meant is that what you're implying is that "it's fine to come to the table with an ineffective character so long as you're having fun". Which is true at many tables, but can be misrepresentative to people like myself who have the most fun when their character is good at the things they want them to be good at - it breaks verisimilitude for me if my Monk isn't actually very good at punching.

I'm mostly trying to argue Bidi's point and say that a 16 in your main stat isn't necessarily less optimized than an 18, and that PF2 offers more reasons for a more diversified character than PF1 did. I just used your post as a jumping off point.

Yeah, that's fair, too. To each their own with sort of thing, I think. That PF2 doesn't systemically punish you as much, even if you don't care about that, is a boon too.

My Pathfinder experience is heavily defined by what my first character was: a Martial Artist Monk, keyed off of strength, played right out of the box. I wasn't aware of the mechanical pitfalls of this and just had a cool concept in my head and saw that Martial Artist was the closest available choice to implement it. I ended up with a character that didn't do any damage in multiple combats because she just missed all of her attacks.

If my first experience with d20 systems was PF2, then I would have come to the table with much the same character and been far happier with it. PF2 makes it much more difficult to make a character that doesn't do the things it needs to to at least reach the minimum line of success; you almost have to do it deliberately. That's a huge improvement for new players, IMO.

It strongly depends on what you mean by 'optimized'.

If you mean an 18 in your main stat and then raising it...that's very good, though a 16 is viable as well, IMO.

But really, a lot of PF1 optimization was doing way more work than putting an 18 in your main stat. It meant looking for detailed combos in a variety of ways and fiddling with many very specific numbers. You don't need to do that at all to be effective in PF2 (you can, and it makes you more effective, but to a much smaller degree than in PF1), IMO, just put an 18 in your main stat and you're usually good to go.

In fact, I don't see the point of not maxing your main attribute. Every race gives a +2 you can choose, every background either, and you will obviously increase it with the 4 extra bonuses. So what would be the point in playing a 16 Str Barbarian or a 16 Int Wizard when you get 18 to these attributes at no opportunity cost?

And what makes a difference is not the damage boost, but the accuracy one (and the critical one). If you hit a monster with a 9, you deal 17% more damage than if you hit it with a 10, partly because you double your critical chances.

My numbers included crit chance and doubling.

Someone published a document showing the expected damage of different Fighter attack routines and feat combinations. The difference between is RAZOR THIN!! If your STR is 18, then whatever you pick as feats practically doesn't matter. Maxing the stat is key, though! Does more than anything else.

Someone published a document showing the expected damage of different Fighter attack routines and feat combinations. The difference between is RAZOR THIN!! If your STR is 18, then whatever you pick as feats practically doesn't matter. Maxing the stat is key, though! Does more than anything else.

Wonderful. Good to know.

Now, if I come to the table with a character with a max score of 16, are you going to tell me that my character is unplayable?

I just played the start of plaguestone with my str 16 monk. Even compared with the str 18 great sword barbarian, I never felt lacking. Even had a few crits in. So no need to max out a stat for you to be viable, although I would probably not consider a 14 or lower in my primary stat unless I had good reason,