TWF is ONLY effective with large amounts of bonus damage. Rogues are the only class that gets large amounts of bonus damage. Every other class is better off using a two handed weapon = same or more damage, for less gold/stats/feats, making it superior in every possible way. The only reason this is so is because large amounts of bonus damage means all you really need is a lot of attacks.
Thanks, I figured that was the logic behind tyour statement.
And against all the other stuff you fight, or all the non evil stuff you fight? Exactly. Not to mention what Dire Mongoose said.
Non-evil happens, but pound for pound I see the paladin hold his weight on smite damage and then some. Just because something doesn't always apply doesn't mean it's not effective. In practice, the Paladin just ends up avoiding combat situations where he can't smite — as he should.
None of which addresses the fact he is better off using a two handed weapon, because there will be more than 1-7 opponents per day, and not all of those will be evil, but the expense of equipment is always there so it MUST be universally applicable, or very close to it.
In other words, similar reasons as to why most weapon enchantments aren't worth it.
Wouldn't consider divine bond filling in for half the enchants? That brings you back to the price of 1.
I really like the concept of a TWF sword & board Paladin, because it's so iconic and regular sword and board is pretty much crap, but it takes a really, really nice Point Buy to be competitive with the strength focused THF paladin or the Dex focused Archer Paladin.
Combined with the fact that you'll be incredibly strapped for feats (TWF + Shield Feats is very very feat intensive) and it largely becomes a flavor option instead of a particularly well designed option.
If the ability score prerequisites were less intensive for the TWF chain then I think it would be viable but honestly the game favors THF pretty strongly.
Even Rogues who benefit from TWF being tied to their prime requisite have to pay the inordinately high cost of investing in weapon finesse + some sort of dex bonus = damage bonus feat in addition to the high feat tax of the TWF chain.
By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
I find lunchmeat wonderful, delicious and quite useful to sooth bumps and burns. :)
Feats so far:
Human: Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Falcata
Fighter: Weapon Focus - Falcata
1st: Power Attack
2nd: Two Weapon Fighting
3rd: Improved Shield Bash
4th: Weapon Specialization - Falcata
5th: Improved Bull Rush
6th: Shield Slam
7th: Greater Bull Rush
He's the tank for our 5 person group, has good AC, nice crowd control, sets up great AAO's from our melee, has the highest average dpr (discounting favored enemies) and by far and away the highest potential to one-round things out of the group.
From what I've seen so far on these boards, CoD, a lot of pronouncements seem to fall from your lips. Or, it might be lunchmeat...
Happy Holidays everyone :)
|
Ah, yes, good old Robilar. Now there was a thinking man's LE fighter!I've heard conflicting reports on the actual alignment of Robilar in actual play. Yes he's become kinda a LE thinking man's fighter but there have been some implications that is the result of an effect (or possibly long term mind control).
The man has after all pissed off a huge number of dieties and other powerful entities during his long illustrious career.
Now mercenary as hell? Yeah I'd agree with that.
Just going by the official record (rogue's gallery). I do agree the chicken scratch on the paper may not tell the whole tale, but this is serious business, no room for speculation!
;-)
By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
That is demonstrably incorrect. A two-weapon fighter can be made very effective using only 15 point buy. You do have to know what you want out of your fighter and what you deem necessary for two-weapon fighting. I was able to build an effective two-weapon fighter that was able to take all the two-weapon fighting feats without needing magic to boost his stats. He can easily hold his own in and out of combat.
And against all the other stuff you fight, or all the non evil stuff you fight? Exactly. Not to mention what Dire Mongoose said.Non-evil happens, but pound for pound I see the paladin hold his weight on smite damage and then some. Just because something doesn't always apply doesn't mean it's not effective. In practice, the Paladin just ends up avoiding combat situations where he can't smite — as he should.None of which addresses the fact he is better off using a two handed weapon, because there will be more than 1-7 opponents per day, and not all of those will be evil, but the expense of equipment is always there so it MUST be universally applicable, or very close to it.
In other words, similar reasons as to why most weapon enchantments aren't worth it.
There is a vast difference between "lunch meat" and "better off using." Just because the paladin may be better off using a two-handed weapon does not mean that they are automatically lunchmeat when they use two-weapons. This is a huge problem when you try to debate in absolutes. Something may be a better choice but that does not mean that a less desirable choice is 100% ineffective (and that is what you mean when you say "lunchmeat").
That is demonstrably incorrect. A two-weapon fighter can be made very effective using only 15 point buy. You do have to know what you want out of your fighter and what you deem necessary for two-weapon fighting. I was able to build an effective two-weapon fighter that was able to take all the two-weapon fighting feats without needing magic to boost his stats. He can easily hold his own in and out of combat.By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
Ah, but as the wise and powerful CoDzilla in his magnificence pointed out in another thread, if you're using less than 25 point buy you're an idiot. Using 25 point buy makes it easy to max out the 3 stats a full caster needs after dumping the other 3 stats to 7.
There is a vast difference between "lunch meat" and "better off using." Just because the paladin may be better off using a two-handed weapon does not mean that they are automatically lunchmeat when they use two-weapons. This is a huge problem when you try to debate in absolutes. Something may be a better choice but that does not mean that a less desirable choice is 100% ineffective (and that is what you mean when you say "lunchmeat").And against all the other stuff you fight, or all the non evil stuff you fight? Exactly. Not to mention what Dire Mongoose said.Non-evil happens, but pound for pound I see the paladin hold his weight on smite damage and then some. Just because something doesn't always apply doesn't mean it's not effective. In practice, the Paladin just ends up avoiding combat situations where he can't smite — as he should.None of which addresses the fact he is better off using a two handed weapon, because there will be more than 1-7 opponents per day, and not all of those will be evil, but the expense of equipment is always there so it MUST be universally applicable, or very close to it.
In other words, similar reasons as to why most weapon enchantments aren't worth it.
Couldn't this paladin just fight with a sword and shield, going two-weapon when it's beneficial and going with one weapon when it's not? They'd have a great AC, could easily sink the feats to do it, and their damage against their smite evil targets would be very high. Actually a lot higher than fighting with a two-hander considering you can get double the potential damage on a single target with two weapons. Kind of like how a two-weapon barbarian wasn't garbage in 3.5 thanks to its strength boost, the paladin has basically the same kind of deal going here. He's got the standard lower to hit from TWF, but wait, he places himself back up and then some when smite evil takes effect. Because having higher to hit is of greater benefit to him than other attackers due to having more attacks, this basically turns him into someone with one weapon not using two weapon fighting but with double the attacks, some at slightly reduced damage. If this is with a shield, Improved Shield Bash keeps his AC higher than the two-handed weapon user as well. For the sacrifice of 2 to hit and a 2-5 (+1-6 when power attacking) damage variable over 20 levels, money and some stat points (if you play that way) he gains:
Better AC due to shield (constant)
More attacks during a full attack
Much damage when smiting
The option to stop using these extra attacks and only use one weapon (useful against fire shield like effects or against foes with very high AC)
Not losing to grapple/disarm
It's more resource investment than the two-handed attacker, but it also is better at different things. For one, due to stat requirements this character benefits more from an increased initiative score through various means. For two, this character kicks evil in the tush on a full-attack action, hitting more in one round than the two-handed warrior, and stays alive longer due to a higher AC, a skill that is very valuable to a backup healer. If the damage increase from paladin benefited more from a two-handed fighter, I would agree, but multiplying that much additional damage eclipses the two-handed warrior once you get four attacks in a round.
Ah, but as the wise and powerful CoDzilla in his magnificence pointed out in another thread, if you're using less than 25 point buy you're an idiot. Using 25 point buy makes it easy to max out the 3 stats a full caster needs after dumping the other 3 stats to 7.That is demonstrably incorrect. A two-weapon fighter can be made very effective using only 15 point buy. You do have to know what you want out of your fighter and what you deem necessary for two-weapon fighting. I was able to build an effective two-weapon fighter that was able to take all the two-weapon fighting feats without needing magic to boost his stats. He can easily hold his own in and out of combat.By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)
That is the worst idea ever.
It results in being killed by a small group of shadows/other stat draining creatures at any point during your career.
Assuming we're talking about (Casting Stat), Dex and Con being your boosted to max stats, that leaves Strength, which can be dumped or not, depending, and the other two mental scores, Charisma which is safe to dump if your Dm uses only core material, Intelligence which is usually safe to dump but results in you having only Spellcraft or UMD as possible maxed out skills plus your favored class or human bonus skill, and Wisdom, which is a bad idea to dump as a primary caster as it undermines your Will save, meaning it will become around the same as your other saves, which kind of suck.
It can also lead to the ever embarrassing "dropped to 0 str and rendered helpless by a rogue in the first round of combat with no saving throw despite being able to squish his head with my mind" scenario.
In short, derp.
I leave for three days and all goes to hell.... I'll be back when it all starts making sense to me again
Merry Christmas everyone
logical point of view
Yes I would agree. Rogues do need to be very mindful of their build. My personal opinion is that rogues require alot from a player to be effective, which is why I like them. A crafty rogue can be the most deadly character in my opinion.
Others disagree but thats just my take on it.
With that said I apologize for my original snarkyness KG, I am sure you and your wife are great players :)
@Midnightoker: Thanks ^^ and sorry for insinuating that "effective rogue players don't roleplay".
@ all those who says a fighter can't 2wpn fight.
General Marcus Muri of Narland wants a word with you. He is a sword and board fighter, and can pretty much solo boss encounters as long as they do not involve mind-affecting spells. But then again, no rogue would be better off, so, moot point.
His AC is (and has always been) nigh impervious even to equal-CR monsters, and as long as he can full-attack, he reliably deals 100+ damage/rd to anything without criticals. His record is somewhere around 270.
And I am pretty sure he would mop the floor with a boss-encounter in the next part right now, even if that one assumes he is 3 levels higher at the time.
|
Sword and board fighters with the two-weapon fighting kit are amazing (for those who don't consider martial a waste of time). Great AC, great damage output, and if you correctly choose dwarf great saves too :). Two weapon rend and double-slice represent two of the highest damage output boosts, and the two-weapon kit gives the weapon bonus to any weapon you happen to find AND at 9 fixes the biggest issue with 2-handers, granting a 2nd attack when you close.
Choose a level for a rogue, I'll outdo them in combat 2-hand vs 2-hand while maintaining a far better AC and saves anytime :).
Sword and board fighters with the two-weapon fighting kit are amazing (for those who don't consider martial a waste of time). Great AC, great damage output, and if you correctly choose dwarf great saves too :). Two weapon rend and double-slice represent two of the highest damage output boosts, and the two-weapon kit gives the weapon bonus to any weapon you happen to find AND at 9 fixes the biggest issue with 2-handers, granting a 2nd attack when you close.
Choose a level for a rogue, I'll outdo them in combat 2-hand vs 2-hand while maintaining a far better AC and saves anytime :).
What point buy are you talking about?
My general sense is that TWF Fighters really only become practical at some Point Buy > 15.
Further comparing the DPR of a full BAB character with a ton of feats and higher HPs to the DPR of a 3/4 BAB character that needs to invest several feats (Weapon Finesse + TWF at a minimum)to become effective is a false dichotomy.
Comparing the DPR of a THF archetype to the TWF archetype across most levels of play and the advantages of THF vis-a-vis the TWF are more readily apparent.
The "optimal" solution in this case is to go with the build that maximizes DPR and minimizes opposition DPR against level appropriate foes. In the minds of the hardcore optimizer going with a substandard build is either unthinkable or done for fluff reasons in casual play games.
That being said I like that APG has increased support for TWF even though I think it's still too feat and ability score intensive. 3.x/3.P is unbalanced in favor of THF even though TWF and Sword & Board should be competitive. In my own experience things like TWF rogues and fighters are fun and even relevant in actual play.
In discussions of game balance additional options that are less powerful than other options are problematic. They represent the dichotomy between newbie traps and system mastery. As much as I love APG there are also plenty of archetypes that are suboptimal by most measures.
|
|
20 point buy; which is what I generally assume (PFS player). Here are stats:
Dwarf fighter
Str: 16
Int: 7
Wis: 12
Dex: 17
Con: 16
Chr: 5
(I love dwarves for fighters, since they take care of that save issue. +2 vs all magic; quickly becomes +4 with a feat).
Skill is perception (with trait to make it class skill as dwarf).
Fights Dwarven War Axe/Shield style. The feat line above is generally right, but uses Double-slice for damage improvement.
What point buy are you talking about?
My general sense is that TWF Fighters really only become practical at some Point Buy > 15.
You can make a very effective two-weapon fighter with 15 point buy. I've done it.
Further comparing the DPR of a full BAB character with a ton of feats and higher HPs to the DPR of a 3/4 BAB character that needs to invest several feats (Weapon Finesse + TWF at a minimum)to become effective is a false dichotomy.
I agree completely. The fighter (or any other full BAB class) should be doing better in the DPR world than those with less BAB.
In discussions of game balance additional options that are less powerful than other options are problematic. They represent the dichotomy between newbie traps and system mastery. As much as I love APG there are also plenty of archetypes that are suboptimal by most measures.
That is one of the problems with most game systems. System mastery, and I'll throw in optimization, changes quickly. With some system mastery, even a casual player can still have a character that isn't uber optimized and still playable. A newbie will make many mistake and without a DM to help guide him to better choices, he will find his character to be ineffective or coddled. DMs should invest their free time into helping their new players avoid mistakes.
I removed some posts (and a couple replies to said posts.) If you cannot post civilly, do not post.
Lol ok I'm new to pathfinder and in the process of currently DMing my second game which includes a rogue and I'd like to voice my first impressions of the class. First off though I want to start by saying that my opinion is so amateur, subjective and completely situational that it's probably entirely without value. Having said that I'm deciding to pip up anyway because why not =)
Ok the thing I've noticed most when we're playing is the fact that while sometimes I have to fudge things (dice rolls, monster choices)to make sure the players don't get too bashed it seems like I have to cheat a great deal more for the rogue player to make sure he doesn't get shredded. I routinely direct monsters to ignore the tempting lower AC and HP rogue for the more effective melee beasts. It seems the problem for us is that the rogue is primarily a close range fighter type (when it comes to combat) who just doesn't have what it takes to survive easily at those ranges. Sometimes the rogue will attack at longer range with his short bow or wands but he can't really use sneak attack then usually and that seems to be the classes primary damage deal capability.
I wouldn't say the rogue just sucks because he still has fun things like face skills and interesting talents but he does seem to struggle in combat compared to the other PCs (I guess you could say it's a flaw in our game too in that I don't find traps that interesting so I don't use them that much and we do have slightly more combat the character interaction).
Oh well that's my worthless two cents, like I said it it's based on vague impressions not objective fact but I can see where people are coming from when they claim the rogue is underpowered.
It boggles my mind to think about actually ROLEPLAYING a character with Wis and Cha 7. I mean, wow, what manner of social interaction would that lead to? You're as oblivious and unlikable as the system allows you to get without playing races that get further penalties. Maybe if I wanted to make a character with Asperger's Syndrome and ADD, or similar socially debilitating disorders.
I mean, I have a paladin with Wis 8, and I have to restrain myself from contributing in terms of common sense, or at least pass my good ideas on to the players who play characters with scores that justify coming up with them. He is hopelessly naive and even forgets to use detect evil at times, because common sense is not his strong suite.
But, I guess the rules doesn't force you to roleplay your stats, or indeed roleplay at all.
It boggles my mind to think about actually ROLEPLAYING a character with Wis and Cha 7. I mean, wow, what manner of social interaction would that lead to? You're as oblivious and unlikable as the system allows you to get without playing races that get further penalties.
Well, let's qualify this: you're as oblivious and unlikeable as the game allows a PC to get without playing a race with a further penalty. Which is kind of like being the dumbest person attending MIT, in the sense that you're at the low end of a group that's already statistically ahead of the general population.
Beyond that, hell, half of one of my gaming groups has players with Wis and Cha around 7. It would be easier for them to roleplay those stats than not. :P
Yeah I can see the skirmisher part. At this point neither I nor my players are that good at the game so that could account for the perceived difficulty I suppose. As far as fudging it's not an all the time thing but I'd rather play a monster a little stupidly then have the smart and evil beast disembowel a clumsy player for making a silly choice, just based on the idea that most of the time PCs have more fun with their intestines on the inside. It's less that I feel like I have to fudge it and more I'm just trying to let everyone have a good time.
...Ah, but as the wise and powerful CoDzilla in his magnificence pointed out in another thread, if you're using less than 25 point buy you're an idiot. Using 25 point buy makes it easy to max out the 3 stats a full caster needs after dumping the other 3 stats to 7.That is demonstrably incorrect. A two-weapon fighter can be made very effective using only 15 point buy. You do have to know what you want out of your fighter and what you deem necessary for two-weapon fighting. I was able to build an effective two-weapon fighter that was able to take all the two-weapon fighting feats without needing magic to boost his stats. He can easily hold his own in and out of combat.By all means, have your words. It's a PF martial character, and a TWFer who isn't a Rogue. It's lunchmeat.Besides, Rogues are the only class that can TWF effectively.My Fighter would like to have some words with this assumption. ;)That is the worst idea ever.
It results in being killed by a small group of shadows/other stat draining creatures at any point during your career.
Assuming we're talking about (Casting Stat), Dex and Con being your boosted to max stats, that leaves Strength, which can be dumped or not, depending, and the other two mental scores, Charisma which is safe to dump if your Dm uses only core material, Intelligence which is usually safe to dump but results in you having only Spellcraft or UMD as possible maxed out skills plus your favored class or human bonus skill, and Wisdom, which is a bad idea to dump as a primary caster as it undermines your Will save, meaning it will become around the same as your other saves, which kind of suck.
It can also lead to the ever embarrassing "dropped to 0 str and rendered helpless by a rogue in the first round of combat with no saving throw despite being able to squish his head with my mind" scenario.
In
Shadows do 1-6 str damage each touch. With a 7, if they roll "average" damage then you die. At any level. Keep in mind this is a CR 3. With a 10 they have to roll a 10 or higher to do the same thing, which is a much lower chance. Roughly the same chance for two allip touches to do you in if you've got 7 wisdom as for two shadow attacks doing you in when you have 10 str.
Lol ok I'm new to pathfinder and in the process of currently DMing my second game which includes a rogue and I'd like to voice my first impressions of the class. First off though I want to start by saying that my opinion is so amateur, subjective and completely situational that it's probably entirely without value. Having said that I'm deciding to pip up anyway because why not =)
Ok the thing I've noticed most when we're playing is the fact that while sometimes I have to fudge things (dice rolls, monster choices)to make sure the players don't get too bashed it seems like I have to cheat a great deal more for the rogue player to make sure he doesn't get shredded. I routinely direct monsters to ignore the tempting lower AC and HP rogue for the more effective melee beasts. It seems the problem for us is that the rogue is primarily a close range fighter type (when it comes to combat) who just doesn't have what it takes to survive easily at those ranges. Sometimes the rogue will attack at longer range with his short bow or wands but he can't really use sneak attack then usually and that seems to be the classes primary damage deal capability.
I wouldn't say the rogue just sucks because he still has fun things like face skills and interesting talents but he does seem to struggle in combat compared to the other PCs (I guess you could say it's a flaw in our game too in that I don't find traps that interesting so I don't use them that much and we do have slightly more combat the character interaction).
Oh well that's my worthless two cents, like I said it it's based on vague impressions not objective fact but I can see where people are coming from when they claim the rogue is underpowered.
Didn't make much mention of your party's tactics, which might go some way to explain why the Rogue seems to get shafted. As a DM, one of the hardest things to learn is balancing your own game to suit everyone, and you'll never get it exactly right, even using nothing but stuff straight out of the sourcebooks you may find one monster more effective than you thought it might be. It happens, don't sweat it.
However, one thing to consider is how and why your monsters are reacting to the party as they are. Initially, especially if they win initiative, there might be a degree of engaging the clothies first if the monsters are intelligent. Mindless, or instinct creatures often just target the first thing they see. This isn't to say you go easy on him, more just take a heartbeat to consider why your monsters are doing what they are doing.
Several times you may read about someone who deliberately makes their Wizard look less like a stereotypical guy in robes in order to not be targetted first by sensible enemies, the same applies for the Rogue. Is there a reason for monster A to choose the Rogue over someone else? Not every monster has a clued in knowledge of AC, Saves and HP levels (a Gelatinous Cube doesn't roll over the cleric out of rational choice, for example, just engulfs whatever is in front of it. Wolves, while great pack tactic users, won't single out the guy with the weakest AC if he is in the middle of the group. A Bugbear won't willingly turn his back on a heavily armed and armoured fighter to strike at someone behind him without very good reason such, so if the Rogue didn't hit, he shouldn't get squished out of hand for flanking. Also, most monsters don't want to get hit for no reason, so only things with a sense of their own invinvibility in a certain situation are likely to disengage from combat with one player to target another).
If the Rogue is routinely seperating himself from the group without stealthing, charging into the thick of the fighting without flanking and, in short, making himself a tempting target, then consider if the monsters attacking would actually go for him first. Something like a Skeleton or Zombie would, closest target, but the evil cleric overlord might see the sorceror or the party cleric as something that needs neutralising first and foremost, though he would probably try to keep the Rogue in sight.
Just a collection of thoughts really, things to consider, rather than how to run your game, it might just be that the Rogue went for a range of things and didn't optimise his dex so his AC is not as high as it could be and he dumped his Con so his HP count is lower than average. There is nothing wrong with that at all, its how he chose to play it.
Yes James I completely understand what your saying and to a large extent I agree. A couple of notes:
While always letting the dice land where they may and playing the villains as smart as they actually are lends to the believability and immersion of the world fudging and a bit of cheating can let the narrative flow much better in the direction I feel it should go. The direction it 'should go' being whatever I judge to be the most exciting and meaningful place the story can lead. I give the players great control over what they do and how they effect the world but when it comes to situations that would lead to a TPK I subtly avoid that happening as much as possible.
Also playing villains 'stupid' can be done fairly subtly for a group not that versed in the rules, it can be as simple as the villain using his SoD spell against a character that specifically has that good save and thus little chance of failing his roll. Anyone who knows the rules well will be like "what is that villain thinking?" but at this point my group hasn't quite reached that level.
As far as teaching them bad habits that is a very valid point but I have repeatedly told my group that if the start a game with someone else be aware that the DM will probably not be as forgiving and there a good chance their PCs will get raped to death on the first encounter if their not careful, lol.
On the last point yeah role playing doesn't end when combat begins, quite the opposite actually in that we sometimes have entire dialogues during the combat (where is the villain and PCs getting the breath for all this talking between swinging swords and chanting spells? I dunno) Although yes i guess you could make the argument that a smart villain played dumb is a role play fail but o well.
Oh and thanks for the advice I will definitely read the forums more and see what kind of builds people are making and advice on how to play them.
Well first I would suggest that you don't ever have to fudge things. Ever.Lol ok I'm new to pathfinder and in the process of currently DMing
while sometimes I have to fudge things
Then come and steal my GM's d20, otherwise, a fudge here and a fudge there is the only way to avoid TPK every session, as he rolls an average of 5 natural 20s per encounter. And I tend to roll ONE natural 20 every 5 encounters (Yes, I kept track and did the math), and I have scored two critical hits over 6 levels of play. The only reason I have survived so far is that I play a paladin and have great saves, so I just need to roll average to make them at most times, and I have lay on hands to cure the stead stream of damage that the cleric is unable to.
Luck, or the lack thereof can utterly ruin the fun for people.
In response to Stuart, he is a weedy guy in leather armor vs huge guys in plate dumb monsters might not make the jump that he is weaker but most villains will in theory.
He uses stealth pretty well but he often pops up to sneak attack in the midst of an enemy group. Pretty dumb but he can't resist the opportunity to kidney stab villains, o well.
Well first I would suggest that you don't ever have to fudge things. Ever.Lol ok I'm new to pathfinder and in the process of currently DMing
while sometimes I have to fudge things
Then come and steal my GM's d20, otherwise, a fudge here and a fudge there is the only way to avoid TPK every session, as he rolls an average of 5 natural 20s per encounter. And I tend to roll ONE natural 20 every 5 encounters (Yes, I kept track and did the math), and I have scored two critical hits over 6 levels of play. The only reason I have survived so far is that I play a paladin and have great saves, so I just need to roll average to make them at most times, and I have lay on hands to cure the stead stream of damage that the cleric is unable to.
Luck, or the lack thereof can utterly ruin the fun for people.
The opposite holds for me.
Crit like a mo-fo when playing, fumble like crazy when DMing (I'm notorious for it amongst my group.)
In response to Stuart, he is a weedy guy in leather armor vs huge guys in plate dumb monsters might not make the jump that he is weaker but most villains will in theory.
He uses stealth pretty well but he often pops up to sneak attack in the midst of an enemy group. Pretty dumb but he can't resist the opportunity to kidney stab villains, o well.
Lol, it happens. Show him the sniping rules (part of the Stealth skill description), he might start making those sneak attacks from 30' away with a shortbow rather than right in the middle of them if he knows he has a chance (though slim...) of not necessarily getting detected straight away. Even if he doesn't use the free re-hide check, the monsters still have to move to engage him and the party might be closer/in the way or obstacles may exist between the rogue and his target/s.
That's good advice Stuart, will do!
It boggles my mind to think about actually ROLEPLAYING a character with Wis and Cha 7. I mean, wow, what manner of social interaction would that lead to? You're as oblivious and unlikable as the system allows you to get without playing races that get further penalties.Well, let's qualify this: you're as oblivious and unlikeable as the game allows a PC to get without playing a race with a further penalty. Which is kind of like being the dumbest person attending MIT, in the sense that you're at the low end of a group that's already statistically ahead of the general population.
Beyond that, hell, half of one of my gaming groups has players with Wis and Cha around 7. It would be easier for them to roleplay those stats than not. :P
but a charisma of 5?
I mean come on, that is hardly even realistic. Making a character with that low of charisma just to min max your other stats to high (str, dex, con) is bad form in my opinion.
7 is not above any normal persons curve, its 3 below. commoners have 10s as a general rule so 7 is almost going to be always traeted like crap, maybe even sometimes by really racist or jerk individuals by not serving them.
5 for charisma like the example above? that is literally almost like barking. Wyverns have more charisma than you do. If a player of mine chose to have 5 charisma he would be refused service by any inn, normal people might even shriek or gawk at his appearance, if he managed to stay in a town for several days during a crisis I would undoubtedly make them blame him for most of it and perhaps mob.
Charisma of 5 is about akin to frankenstein.
but a charisma of 5?
If you're assuming the old-school standard that most people roll their stats on 3d6, then about 5% of humans would have a charisma of 5.
So, sure, low, but not inhumanly low.
but a charisma of 5?
If you're assuming the old-school standard that most people roll their stats on 3d6, then about 5% of humans would have a charisma of 5.
So, sure, low, but not inhumanly low.
um 3d6 is not that common, and it is a house rule.
4d6 drop the low makes the percentage so low that it is nearly unthinkable to happen. (this is still a house rule but more common)
Also, there are humans with that low of charisma, they are feared and hated for their looks and such most likely. Take quasimodo, eigor, insert other ugly uncharasmatic guy here.
They were all hated for their low charisma.
Are you saying purposefully giving yourself a 5 charisma and expecting NO negative effects for it merely because you choose not to do anything related to charisma is fair?
In my opinion it is not, if I do not make sure a player that purposefully min maxes for a low charisma take some kinda of penalties for making it a 5 on purpose they literally are getting some of those points for free to put elsewhere.
that is just my take on it though.
um 3d6 is not that common, and it is a house rule.
4d6 drop the low makes the percentage so low that it is nearly unthinkable to happen. (this is still a house rule but more common)
It's not so much that I disagree with what you wrote here as that the stat generation part of the book directly contradicts it.
Standard: Roll 4d6, discard the lowest die result, and add the three remaining results together. Record this total and repeat the process until six numbers are generated. Assign these totals to your ability scores as you see fit. This method is less random than Classic and tends to create characters with above-average ability scores.Classic: Roll 3d6 and add the dice together. Record this total and repeat the process until you generate six numbers. Assign these results to your ability scores as you see fit. This method is quite random, and some characters will have clearly superior abilities. This randomness can be taken one step further, with the totals applied to specific ability scores in the order they are rolled. Characters generated using this method are difficult to fit to predetermined concepts, as their scores might not support given classes or personalities, and instead are best designed around their ability scores.