Going from 45% chance of success to 55% chance of success is, overall, a 22% improvement in effectiveness.
Would you like to make 22% more money this year? Would you like to score 22% better on all your tests? If a [non-oil, non-tech] company improved its profits by 22%, they'd be doing pretty well for themselves.
In short, an additional 1 in 5 (almost 1 in 4) of the spells you cast will work to full effect instead of failing or working at half effect. That means, about once per combat, a spell that failed to affect a target will instead affect that target.
All in exchange for not being as good at something you weren't going to be good at, anyway.
Right, but your examples are in life and personal livelyhood. Being able to do things like expand as a business, feed and clothe your family, have extra income to buy gaming products.
I'm talking about success at a GAME, where you lose nothing if you don't succeed. You may lose a character, but they are free, you don't lose the fun you had, you get to do something new now. Or even just have them brought back. No great loss for not being the penultimate ability scores on paper, in a make-believe world.
The key to playing any kind of character that doesn't have their primary stat maxed out is to build that character differently than you would if the primary stat was completely maxed. This may mean that you have to change the character concept around a bit, which I understand in this day and age is often seen as a horrible affront to players' freedom everywhere, but it does work. Really, it does. Don't let the min/maxer's need to be the best at everything get in the way of trying concepts that work just fine even though they don't have an instant win button built into them.
Another way to see it is that 20 Int is 25% better than 18 Int. (+5 modifier versus +4 modifier).Okay, and a 14 Int is 100% better than a 12. A 16 is only 50% better than a 14, an 18 33%, etc. So in the end the higher you go, it becomes diminishing returns, by your rationale.
Considering you can only get stats up to 20 initially, the example ends there (since we're talking about starting stats). After you start playing its a linear progression -- those that are farther ahead beat out those that are farther behind.
But even with a 55% success rate, 2pts on a d20 only changes that by 10%. So maxed out to be a super genius socially inept weakling (instead of low int as we are discussing casters). You go from a 45% success to 55%, a 9 in 20 chance to an 11 in 20 chance. *GASP* the horror of a 9 in 20 must be so unbearable to some. Well worth being a socially inept weakling. To me, not so much.Because even with the highest casting stat in the game, with all the feats available, and all the tricks available in pathfinder you are still only looking at about a 55% success rate with spells that allow a save throw, and whereas the fighter can swing all day hit or miss, you only have those 3~5 slots at first level to really shine.
No one wants to suck regularly, and to suck at what you are supposed to be good at, when you can only do it a very few number of times per day sucks even more so.
A fighter will drop anything he can hit in one round.
A wizard might drop something with a 55% with his best spell possible, if he's lucky and can even target the creature that doesn't have immunity.
1: The character is not a socially inept weakling. He is slightly below average. A cha8/str8 dude is as inept and weak as a cha12/str12 is a paragon of social graces and a physical titan. My brother suffers from ADD and Asperger's. He is socially inept. If I were to stat him, I would say Cha4. He is completely unable to force his will on someone except our mother. That a good bit less than 7-9.
2: Put 10, and you're still gonna fail in social and physical contexts because you're a wizard. Put 12, still gonna fail for the same reasons. You will CARRY a little more, but that is pretty much all. In fact, you're better off socially by dumping cha and buffing int as you get more skill points to put in social skills.
3: Int governs everything a wizard does. More spells per day, all your relevant skills, all your DCs, and your ability to succeed. It is not like a fighter, who opens other options if you pursue above average stats in unrelated (read: dump) stats. A wizard cannot go "I have Str13 so I can qualify for feats that allow be to become better at magic!".
4: A +10% chance to succeed is pretty amazing from a mechanical perspective. Most feats that give you a +5% chance of success are highly situational, affecting only one weapon, school of magic etc.
But this is all pretty obvious. And the reasons to do so is equally obvious: The player wants his character to be good at his job. And that is the answer to OP's original question. We dump stats to get better at what we want to do. Which has been said over and over.
Right, but your examples are in life and personal livelyhood. Being able to do things like expand as a business, feed and clothe your family, have extra income to buy gaming products.I'm talking about success at a GAME, where you lose nothing if you don't succeed. You may lose a character, but they are free, you don't lose the fun you had, you get to do something new now. Or even just have them brought back. No great loss for not being the penultimate ability scores on paper, in a make-believe world.
Right. This is where we differ. You play the game in a different way than how I do. I am not a casual player, I spend days creating every character, complete with characteristics, back-story, motivations, family, ideals, dreams and ambitions. And thus I care about the advancement of my character, and his ability to leave a mark on the world. This does not mean I make every character a completely min/maxed monstrosity, but I will make him as mechanically good at his "thing" as I am able to. Sometimes that "thing" does not demand a single high attribute, like my current paladin/monk that had a 16 as his highest stat at lv1. He is "optimized" to portray a romanticized view of Bushido and martial enlightenment.
He still kicks ass though.
And the reasons to do so is equally obvious: The player wants his character to be good at his job. And that is the answer to OP's original question. We dump stats to get better at what we want to do.
It's not about being good at their job. 'Good' is a 14 or 16, 'Great' is an 18, 'The Best' is optimizing for a 20. These optimized builds are not just so they can get better, it's to be the best possible at any particular stage of progression. They are all about not how to get 'more' bonuses, they are building to get the 'MOST' bonuses.
The OP's question doesn't just hinge on why do they dump stats, it's also a question of what's so important about having the most or best, in a ROLE-playing game. It is non-competitive, why must people feel that they must get the MOST bonuses?
And the reasons to do so is equally obvious: The player wants his character to be good at his job. And that is the answer to OP's original question. We dump stats to get better at what we want to do.It's not about being good at their job. 'Good' is a 14 or 16, 'Great' is an 18, 'The Best' is optimizing for a 20. These optimized builds are not just so they can get better, it's to be the best possible at any particular stage of progression. They are all about not how to get 'more' bonuses, they are building to get the 'MOST' bonuses.
The OP's question doesn't just hinge on why do they dump stats, it's also a question of what's so important about having the most or best, in a ROLE-playing game. It is non-competitive, why must people feel that they must get the MOST bonuses?
My reason? To contribute more to the party. When I was playing 2e back in my teenage years, we were more competitive. See who dealt more damage and whatnot. Now, I just want to make sure I bring in a character who does exceedingly well in the fields where I want him to excel.
And there we also have the reasons I dump stats for the most part. When I am weak, the warrior's amazing strength becomes that much more apparent. When I make a low-charisma character, I play a tortured soul who has a personal reason to be broken/jaded/"inept" in terms of social interaction. Or in short-lived games, I might play a "joke" character, like a dwarf who thought smelling like days old alcohol kept the undead away, and argued that his high resistance to disease and poison was because he "trained his immune system".
All in the name of having fun with the characters I make.
I'll answer that for me (though I don't always totally min/max). When I want to play a bad-ass swordsman, i want to play a bad-ass swordsman. Someone who is potentially the best. Now, if the concept is a soldier who's pretty strong but gets by on his training and friends, then i'll probably play with a lower strength score.
But when i want my guy to be building towards the best of the best of the best (SIR!), then I want him missing as rarely as possible. Obviously he's going to miss sometimes, but I'm going to build him so he misses as few times as possible, and this means pushing that strength score as far as possible within my comfort limits. I, like some of the others on here, will dump a stat or two down below 10 - sometimes to the 7-ish range - but don't usually feel comfortable dropping it much lower than that because I don't like the idea of having some ridiculously stupid/hideous/whatever character.
But that's just my answer; you may or may not have the same tolerance for tweaking your scores this way.
It is non-competitive, why must people feel that they must get the MOST bonuses?
Ah, so every campaign you play is purely social and there are no challenging persons or situations in which your character and your party are tested?
Because I optimized healing as a cleric for our Kingmaker campaign, and if I hadn't, the way our party of martial optimizers run at everything that snarls at us, the entire party should have been TPKed several times before level 3. We were using 3.5 stuff then, and I had quicken channeling. It was broke.
Sure, my bard COULD have CHA 16, which is the minimum for casting sixth level spells, which wouldn't even be relevant till higher levels anyway, and be pretty darn slick in mental stats across the board, as well as physically gifted, but... she's 16, with all the wisdom of a typical fashion and boy obsessed teenager. Hot as all get out, impressionable as clay and dumb as a brick. Had CHA 17 at creation "dumping" Wis to 8. All other stat modifiers positive, including DEX and INT 14. Sure, coulda had INT 16 as well and devoted most of my skill points to knowledge skills instead of perform, but... what the heck? if i wanted to build a crappy enchanting wizard, would have been able to do that just as well, "dumping" strength and charisma instead of just WIS.
|
I'm talking about success at a GAME, where you lose nothing if you don't succeed. You may lose a character, but they are free, you don't lose the fun you had, you get to do something new now. Or even just have them brought back. No great loss for not being the penultimate ability scores on paper, in a make-believe world.
Dark Dungeons.
|
Hm...some interesting bits floating around here.
For me, I'm tired of the constant "oneupsmanship" that results from crazy optimized PCs.
The time and effort I spend on tweaking the written AP's, just to present a challenging game, is not worth the end result.
5+ hours designing a BBEG, just to have it fail the heightened, persistent, bouncing Charm Person cast by the Cha 20 (starting) Str 7 Infernal Sorcerer? That's supposed to be an enjoyable experience?
Really?
So, as a Player, I have started toning down my character design. I often play Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, just to keep the total "I Win" potential lower.
So, when I see dumped stats, especially to 7, and doubly so when there's multiples of them (7 Str, 14 Dex, 12 Con, 20 Int, 10 Wis, 7 Cha wizards make my teeth hurt), I immediately see that Player as potential trouble at the table.
The question becomes, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
In my experience, the answer almost invariably is "No, not in a regular game."
|
I played a H-Orc monk in 3.5/PF (we converted) and he was the most fun I've had with a character. He cunning but not articulate. He also knew that he had no charm. When he speaks, he told you flat out what he felt. But he was also WISe enough to realize people just dont like that type of frankness. Eventually, the group made him the party leader. Primarily because no one was smart enough or wanted the job. Could I have made him more min/maxed? Probablly. But I had a concept for him and I ran with it and had fun doing it.
AAROK, SON OF STONE
Male half-orc Monk 6
LN Medium humanoid
<<Init >> +4 ; <<Senses>> Perception +12
------------------
DEFENSE------------------
<<AC>> 17, touch 17, flat-footed 14 (+2 dex, +4 monk bonus)
<<hp>> 46 (6d8+6)
<<Fort>> +6, <<Ref>> +7, <<Will>> +8
------------------
OFFENSE------------------
<<Spd>> 50 ft./x4
<<Melee>> Unarmed Strike +8 1d8+3 20/x2
<<Melee>> Unarmed Strike +8/+8/+3 1d8+3 20/x2
<<Ranged>> Shuriken +6 1d2+3 20/x2
<<Ranged>> Shuriken +6/+6/+1 1d2+3 20/x2
------------------
STATISTICS------------------
<<Str>> 16, <<Dex>> 14, <<Con>> 13, <<Int>> 11, <<Wis>> 16, <<Cha>> 8
<<Base Atk>> +4, <<Cmb>> +9<<Cmd>> +24
<<Feats>> Dazzling Display (PFCR 120), Dodge (PFCR 122), Improved Grapple (PFCR 127), Improved Trip (PFCR 128), Improved Unarmed Strike (PFCR 128), Mobility (PFCR 130-131), Stunning Fist (PFCR 135), Weapon Focus (PFCR 136-137)
<<Skills>> Acrobatics +10, Climb +9, Escape Artist +8, Intimidate +8, Knowledge (history) +5, Perception +12, Sense Motive +10, Stealth +7, Swim +8
<<Languages>> Common, Orc
<<Combat Gear>> Unarmed Strike, Shuriken
<<Other Gear>> Armor & Shield, Weapons
<<Traits>> • Bully (Social) - +1 intimidate checks. Intimidate is always a class skill for you. (PFCT 6)
• Reactionary (Combat) - +2 Initiative. (PFCT 4)
And the reasons to do so is equally obvious: The player wants his character to be good at his job. And that is the answer to OP's original question. We dump stats to get better at what we want to do.It's not about being good at their job. 'Good' is a 14 or 16, 'Great' is an 18, 'The Best' is optimizing for a 20. These optimized builds are not just so they can get better, it's to be the best possible at any particular stage of progression. They are all about not how to get 'more' bonuses, they are building to get the 'MOST' bonuses.
The OP's question doesn't just hinge on why do they dump stats, it's also a question of what's so important about having the most or best, in a ROLE-playing game. It is non-competitive, why must people feel that they must get the MOST bonuses?
Except it is competitive. If I'm not good at my ROLE, why am I adventuring? If my all powerful wizard with an Int of 16 can't charm a goblin if his life is on the line, why is he here?
And in answer to your question of what's so important about having the most or best in a Fantasy world that I am partaking in? Wish fulfillment? And if I am not going to succeed on STR checks no matter what or CHA checks no matter what, and NOT dumping them hinders my casters ability to Crowd Control or Damage the enemy, then...I dump them.
Hm...some interesting bits floating around here.
For me, I'm tired of the constant "oneupsmanship" that results from crazy optimized PCs.
The time and effort I spend on tweaking the written AP's, just to present a challenging game, is not worth the end result.
5+ hours designing a BBEG, just to have it fail the heightened, persistent, bouncing Charm Person cast by the Cha 20 (starting) Str 7 Infernal Sorcerer? That's supposed to be an enjoyable experience?
Really?
Either "Charm does not work, as you are involved in combat. Read the spell." or "Sorry, he has Protection from *Your Alignment* going." (comes in potion form if he is not a caster)
When you cross from optimized into cheese, I bring my cheese-cutter. I have to deal with a blood-optimized wizard player who spams debilitating spells before dropping a save-or-lose that most anything I take out of the bestiary need a 20 to make, as he has LITERALLY scoured Golarion for the optimal items to get his Int over 30.
Hm...some interesting bits floating around here.
For me, I'm tired of the constant "oneupsmanship" that results from crazy optimized PCs.
The time and effort I spend on tweaking the written AP's, just to present a challenging game, is not worth the end result.
5+ hours designing a BBEG, just to have it fail the heightened, persistent, bouncing Charm Person cast by the Cha 20 (starting) Str 7 Infernal Sorcerer? That's supposed to be an enjoyable experience?
Really?
So, as a Player, I have started toning down my character design. I often play Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, just to keep the total "I Win" potential lower.
So, when I see dumped stats, especially to 7, and doubly so when there's multiples of them (7 Str, 14 Dex, 12 Con, 20 Int, 10 Wis, 7 Cha wizards make my teeth hurt), I immediately see that Player as potential trouble at the table.
The question becomes, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
In my experience, the answer almost invariably is "No, not in a regular game."
Wizards and Sorcerors have quite a few "I Win" buttons up their sleeves. They need high casting stats in order for them to ever be effective. And may I remind you that by using that many metamagics on a spell is using up all of her resources on just one spell. If that spell had failed, they would have been up s*+&'s creek without a paddle.
I do have a prestige class that I've homebrewed that gives other options, but as it stands it is very hard to play an arcane spell caster without a maximized casting stat, and not something I would recommend for beginning, or even experienced players -- I have done it -- it is possible -- but it isn't easy.It's not extremely difficult to set up. For instance, a spellcaster focused on casting buffs really doesn't need an optimized casting stat. The ability score modifier only helps with bonus spells in that case -- and PF has loaded characters with abilities that compensate running out of spells. . .
What it *does* do is put you in a very specialized box. You have to think/pick spells/gather equipment that works within that box. An experienced player should be able to do that. . .
And I am -- it doesn't make it easy though, but as you said an experienced player can do it (I have). This is not something I would recommend for a new player or a casual player.
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.
As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
As such if you start with 'mediocre' as your best save DC, then once you are out of your top three spells you are in real trouble with your lower level spells because their DC are even lower.
This is not a problem any of the martial classes have -- they do lose effectiveness by simply using resources -- casters do. And the more of your higher level spells you must use to get the job done the less you have for other tasks (like staying alive) or for the next combat.
Spell casters need those high stats so they aren't wasting limited resources and causing the party to wait on them all the time to get the rememorize their spells because they ran out.
It is especially prominent at lower levels to run out of spells -- but at higher levels the specter of not having a good enough DC to succeed with a spell really starts showing up.
I rolled my stats for my witch in an upcoming campaign. I got some great rolls. So I put my highest roll (18) in int, of course. I put my second highest in cha, because I did not want to put it in dex to create a wizard who had a better ranged attack bonus than our martial characters. Since we have a sorcerer in the group with a 20 cha, my witch also will not be playing the "face". So the high cha score is really almost entirely a role-playing choice, deliberately put into the stat that provides the least power-gaming options for the character. In effect you could say I "dumped" my second highest roll into charisma.
When I first started playing this game, I definitely went down the power gaming route. As I got more and more into the role playing aspect, I more and more wanted a character who was not a glass cannon or a pencil-necked spell caster. My favorite characters now are generally characters with usable, but not overpowering stats. My 7th druid has an 18 wisdom, but only after adding a +2 racial bonus. I just completed a campaign and retired my fighter whose level 6 str was 16. He did fine.
If your team is effective, your individual characters don't need to be one-trick optimized ponies. And it has been my experience that such characters tend to become stereotypes as they are role played. One thing I realized very early in my RPGing career is that I will never again play a stereotyped character. I much prefer well rounded characters who can do lots of things reasonably well, and do their main job adequately, but don't suck at anything.
The whole concept of playing a sickly, pencil-necked, unattractive dweeb wizard has zero appeal to me. I much prefer playing the wizard who can carry his own gear, can take a punch and has a shot at charming the ladies.
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
So, what's the cap on debuffing an opponent's saving throws? Is it possible that a wizard could accept a little help from a debuffing party member to gain the same effect as a higher DC instead of becoming a poster child to DC optimization? Isn't this supposed to be a team game?
Wizards and Sorcerors have quite a few "I Win" buttons up their sleeves. They need high casting stats in order for them to ever be effective. And may I remind you that by using that many metamagics on a spell is using up all of her resources on just one spell. If that spell had failed, they would have been up s$!&'s creek without a paddle.Hm...some interesting bits floating around here.
For me, I'm tired of the constant "oneupsmanship" that results from crazy optimized PCs.
The time and effort I spend on tweaking the written AP's, just to present a challenging game, is not worth the end result.
5+ hours designing a BBEG, just to have it fail the heightened, persistent, bouncing Charm Person cast by the Cha 20 (starting) Str 7 Infernal Sorcerer? That's supposed to be an enjoyable experience?
Really?
So, as a Player, I have started toning down my character design. I often play Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters, just to keep the total "I Win" potential lower.
So, when I see dumped stats, especially to 7, and doubly so when there's multiples of them (7 Str, 14 Dex, 12 Con, 20 Int, 10 Wis, 7 Cha wizards make my teeth hurt), I immediately see that Player as potential trouble at the table.
The question becomes, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?"
In my experience, the answer almost invariably is "No, not in a regular game."
Not every wizard focuses on save or lose. Those rare times I get to play as opposed to DM I generally play a wizard who focuses on battlefield control. This is an equally effective strategy if not more so, and let's your friends bask in the glory while you are content to know the hand you played in making their heroics possible.
So, what's the cap on debuffing an opponent's saving throws? Is it possible that a wizard could accept a little help from a debuffing party member to gain the same effect as a higher DC instead of becoming a poster child to DC optimization? Isn't this supposed to be a team game?
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
He could and it could -- the question becomes who's playing that other character and is he enjoying simply setting the wizard up for a spike?
If so great more power to the duo -- if not then not so much.
Generally in two rounds you'll get a total penalty from debuffing of -6 on the high end -- now that is significant -- for two rounds of buffing.
Bestow curse will typically get you a -4 on the save, shaken can get you a -2, a few spells will net anywhere from a -1 to a -6 (depending on rolls -- these spells include touch of idiocy, enervation, feeblemind, and the like).
However with a lower casting stat you have fewer spells -- and if you are having to debuff before you apply your spell with DC of choice just to break even on the save throw DC then you are expending more resources for the same effect still.
At which point you run out faster and have less overall effect than someone with a higher casting stat.
And the guy with the higher casting stat could debuff in the same way and instead of having a 55% success rate have a 65% success rate.
(again this isn't to say that it is impossible to run a lower than best casting stat caster, simply that it makes it that much harder on yourself).
The problem with a lower casting stat is that it compounds the issue for each point under maximum that you are:
1. Lower DC's means more spells fail.
2. Fewer bonus slots means fewer spells that you can afford to flub, or spend in setting yourself up.
3. Lower casting stat means it's harder to be able to cast the higher level spells without items meaning you need the items more.
4. Lower casting stat means you have a harder time on concentration checks and therefore lose more spells (even at maximum stat you are still looking at between a 25~45% failure rate on concentration check for your highest spell level).
5. Unlike other classes where you don't run out of what makes you a valuable part of the team, the caster does -- each spell cast is another tick to commonerhood.
6. Opportunity costs -- the more spells prepared means the more spells of another type you don't have prepared, and with a lower casting stat you have fewer spells in the first place, with a higher failure rate.
So a lower casting stat is more than just "a slightly lower DC".
It is:
1. A lower DC
2. Fewer spells
3. Less chance to succeed on concentration checks
4. Inability to cast higher level spells
5. Greater reliance on items
Unlike other classes the problem compounds itself for every 2 points you drop, since you lose more of everything instead of simply some of somethings.
It was outrageous poor design decision making in my opinion that allowed the save DC to vary. I can't believe characters default to such low numbers that they have a difficult time saving against the low numbers of a poorly created wizard... but then they do everything except put a pencil in your hand to make sure that the wizard boosts the save DC. It is garbage.If there was ONE THING I'd want them to fix in a second edition it would be this aspect.
So a intelligence 12 wizard should have the same success rate as an intelligence 20 wizard?
And someone with a high wisdom should be just as likely to fail as someone with a low wisdom against charm spells?
No thank you.
Boosting save throws is easier than boosting anything else except for attack bonuses and AC bonuses. Boosting save DCs is one of the single hardest things to do in the game.
A fighter that spends an equal amount of wealth and feats boosting his saves as a wizard does boosting his DCs is going to end up doing more than simply breaking even at success rate at the end of the day, due to the feats giving bigger bonuses to saves than DCs, save throw bonus items being cheaper than save DC items, and being more plentiful, while also offering more bonuses to other things too.
Honestly, I haven't played a wizard in a long, long time. I got sort of bored with wizards. I tend to like to play jack-of-all-trades characters that do all the things the one-trick-optimizers fail spectacularly at. Things like climbing, riding, bluffing, crafting (non-magical things), etc. That means I tend to like playing high skill characters, particularly rangers and rogues. I like druids precisely because they are the jack-of-all trades of "full" spellcasters, plus they can melee or wildshape to be even more useful. I just find that being able to do lots of things means I get to role play a lot, and I like that more, generally, than having my character point a finger at someone and say "DIE!" and hope for the target to fail a save.
But I am playing a witch now. I suspect the witch is going to be similar to the druid in that they are spellcasters, but they aren't easy to pigeon-hole. They can do a whole lot of really cool things, and on occasion they can do wizardly sorts of things on top of that.
But playing a DC optimized for save or suck wizard would be pretty much the definition of boring for me in the game.
So, what's the cap on debuffing an opponent's saving throws? Is it possible that a wizard could accept a little help from a debuffing party member to gain the same effect as a higher DC instead of becoming a poster child to DC optimization? Isn't this supposed to be a team game?
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
I believe another poster may have already stated this, but what if the other party member DOESN'T want to play a bard, or a witch? What if you are the only spellcaster (aside from the cleric) in the standard 4 man team?
And even with battlefield control spells, a saving throw mostly negates those effects. So...yeah, max your casting stat, unless you are a booster-type spellcaster (like a bard or maybe a cleric) period. Spend the other points however you want, but your main stat should be your casting stat.
You could say "Whateva, whateva, I do what I want!" And make a wizard with a 14 INT...but you'll be a severe detriment to your team. "Sorry guys, all my spells fail to have any effect on the kobolds because they only have to make a DC 14. What? I like being well-rounded. Have you seen my CHA?" At which point, my character goes "Sorry man, we're looking for people who can pull their own weight" and kicks you out of the group.
So, what's the cap on debuffing an opponent's saving throws? Is it possible that a wizard could accept a little help from a debuffing party member to gain the same effect as a higher DC instead of becoming a poster child to DC optimization? Isn't this supposed to be a team game?
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
I believe another poster may have already stated this, but what if the other party member DOESN'T want to play a bard, or a witch? What if you are the only spellcaster (aside from the cleric) in the standard 4 man team?
And even with battlefield control spells, a saving throw mostly negates those effects. So...yeah, max your casting stat, unless you are a booster-type spellcaster (like a bard or maybe a cleric) period. Spend the other points however you want, but your main stat should be your casting stat.
You could say "Whateva, whateva, I do what I want!" And make a wizard with a 14 INT...but you'll be a severe detriment to your team. "Sorry guys, all my spells fail to have any effect on the kobolds because they only have to make a DC 14. What? I like being well-rounded. Have you seen my CHA?" At which point, my character goes "Sorry man, we're looking for people who can pull their own weight" and kicks you out of the group.
LOL, "pull their own weight" is a lot different than "practically guarantee success against kobold saving throws."
I personally don't think the DC issue is really a factor until you reach a high level. I believe I've seen some posts on this or other threads that show how the DC problem scales as you go up in levels. So I don't think kobolds are an issue. And nobody is suggesting playing a caster with a key stat of 14, that's pure exaggeration on your part. An 18 is more than adequate to "pull your weight". And that leaves a lot of room to round out other stats, if you only need a 16 plus 2 racial bonus to get to 18.
As I said, it's attitudes like I've seen expressed on this thread that have led me to play anything but a wizard or cleric for a long, long time now. I prefer not to be so restricted in my choices.
BTW, a rogue with a wand can do some debuffing, you know....
Also, my seventh level druid with an 18 wisdom (including racial bonus) more than "pulls her weight" in a party with two clerics and a sorcerer. I just simply don't buy this argument that you have to super-optimize a spell caster to "pull your weight." Not at all.
Of course I don't play much at high levels because the game gets pretty absurd in too many ways for me.
In the real world it is mostly senators and priests that get caught in bed with kids. Their wisdom and schooling didn't help them. Of the million that died of H1N1 a century ago, a shocking number were young and healthy - their immune systems turned against their lungs. Its mostly the beautiful with the most worldly experience that get suckered in and have their hearts broken by beautiful women.
No -- it is mostly senators and priests we hear about because they are in power -- not because they are the ones doing it.
Which has nothing to do with using magic better or saving against it better.
I also doubt that just because the disease had a high DC that the sickly somehow didn't die from it. In fact I dare you to prove that the old and decrepit somehow didn't die when catching the disease. Beautiful doesn't mean smart, and it doesn't mean wise, and it doesn't mean that somehow you shouldn't get your heart broken -- it just means you look good -- I don't see how you confuse the two.
The real world is full of horrible things that people can't avoid, despite it being directly in their sphere of superiority that they should be able to. How much more should magic be like that?
Whatcha talking about Cledus? You've lost me here.
As for the save DCs, what use is "being smart" when it comes to casting spells? Really? What's all that smarts doing? Are they smart enough to channel more energy? Smart enough to say the words better? It isn't doing anything. It is an game mechanic with little to no game world effect.It is even worse for priests. What is the wisdom doing to make saving harder? If he saying a better prayer? If he casting it at a better time so his god cares more? Does he deserve it more for being wiser? No. None of that. The character leveled up and the god honored him with another spell. His wisdom shouldn't have even a thing to do with it being triggered.
Actually it apparently does -- being smarter does mean you get the spell done better -- that's exactly what the mechanics suggest -- you are better at directing the magic because you understand it better -- or for sorcerers -- because you use your force of personality to force it on others better than those with lower charisma scores.
How does that not make sense? A smarter wizard should be better at magic than a dumper wizard -- his spells will work better because he understands them better -- same for a sorcerer only on force of personality and for a cleric it's having the wisdom to allow their god's magic to do exactly what the deity wants/needs it to.
Why doesn't that make sense? Why shouldn't understanding the magic better make it work better too? If I have a better understanding of building cars than you do I'm more likely to design a better car than you are. If I'm stronger than you I'm more likely to pick up a larger weight than you do -- why should magic be any different? If I understand it better why shouldn't I use it better?
If I have better dexterity I aim the gun better, same with magic.
LOL, "pull their own weight" is a lot different than "practically guarantee success against kobold saving throws."I personally don't think the DC issue is really a factor until you reach a high level. I believe I've seen some posts on this or other threads that show how the DC problem scales as you go up in levels. So I don't think kobolds are an issue. And nobody is suggesting...
Actually it is a factor at all levels:
A CR 1 challenge typically has a +4 on the good save (if not already immune due to being undead, a construct, a dragon, or whatever else), and a +2 on a good save.
The DC of a first level spell is 11+stat mod.
So if your stat mod is a +2 (due to having a 14) then the target has a 50% success rate with its bad save -- if the creature has a good save then you have a 40% success rate.
Where as if you have a stat mod of +5 then you have a 75% success rate against the bad save and a 65% success rate against the good save -- you might not waste the spell.
And this is hoping for a CR 1 -- heaven forbid the GM send a CR 2 creature at you with a bonus of +6, or a CR 3 creature with a bonus of +8.
That is the difference that sticks to the system from level 1 all the way to level 20.
Whats more with that 50/50 chance of failure you are also down a spell compared to the 20 int caster -- so when you fail you have less chance of doing anything on the next round.
Also even with the best save DC possible it is hardly a 'guarantee' that you're spell will land -- and unlike the fighter who can simply swing again on the next round (or shoot) you are not likely to have another of the spell to spend on this encounter -- especially if you prepared a single identify, a mage armor, or anything else that you might want besides offensive combat spells.
Now can it be done? Sure -- but again it's not easy at any level.
Except it is competitive. If I'm not good at my ROLE, why am I adventuring? If my all powerful wizard with an Int of 16 can't charm a goblin if his life is on the line, why is he here?And in answer to your question of what's so important about having the most or best in a Fantasy world that I am partaking in? Wish fulfillment? And if I am not going to succeed on STR checks no matter what or CHA checks no matter what, and NOT dumping them hinders my casters ability to Crowd Control or Damage the enemy, then...I dump them.
No, it's not a competitive game, it is a cooperative one. Who are you competing with? The other players? The DM? Has anyone told them the idea is to work as a team to overcome challenges set before you by the game master. Overcoming them does not make you WIN over your team, or WIN over the GM. Everyone WINS by playing and having fun together. There is no scoreboard, no league that plays for rankings, I'm assuming you are not competing with anyone for the championship trophy.
You are good at your Role even without total optimization. Just by the 15 pt buy, you are well above the average NPC, the majority of the average people in the world are less powerful than a 1st level PC. Without optimization. That's why you are an adventurer.
Is it really wish fulfillment? Your wish is to be better at rolling dice and adding modifiers, which represent make-believe successes in a story told only amongst your circle of friends? This confounds me.
If the target numbers for things are always over 20, so that only the person that focused on whatever stat is in question can succeed, then the GM needs to also learn that it is a cooperative group game.
LOL, "pull their own weight" is a lot different than "practically guarantee success against kobold saving throws."I personally don't think the DC issue is really a factor until you reach a high level. I believe I've seen some posts on this or other threads that show how the DC problem scales as you go up in levels. So I don't think kobolds are an issue. And nobody is suggesting...
Actually it is a factor at all levels:
A CR 1 challenge typically has a +4 on the good save (if not already immune due to being undead, a construct, a dragon, or whatever else), and a +2 on a good save.
The DC of a first level spell is 11+stat mod.
So if your stat mod is a +2 (due to having a 14) then the target has a 50% success rate with its bad save -- if the creature has a good save then you have a 40% success rate.
Where as if you have a stat mod of +5 then you have a 75% success rate against the bad save and a 65% success rate against the good save -- you might not waste the spell.
And this is hoping for a CR 1 -- heaven forbid the GM send a CR 2 creature at you with a bonus of +6, or a CR 3 creature with a bonus of +8.
That is the difference that sticks to the system from level 1 all the way to level 20.
Whats more with that 50/50 chance of failure you are also down a spell compared to the 20 int caster -- so when you fail you have less chance of doing anything on the next round.
Also even with the best save DC possible it is hardly a 'guarantee' that you're spell will land -- and unlike the fighter who can simply swing again on the next round (or shoot) you are not likely to have another of the spell to spend on this encounter -- especially if you prepared a single identify, a mage armor, or anything else that you might want besides offensive combat spells.
Now can it be done? Sure -- but again it's not easy at any level.
There you go again with the complete straw man argument that claims a 14 int is going t be in play. It's not, so stop trying that nonsense. As I said, a character with an 18 in their key stat, with racial bonus, does not need to dump stats. And that 18 puts your failure rate at 40%, not 50%, where a fully optimized 20 at that level puts it at 35%, so your dumping of stats gains you one additional successful spell cast in 20 attempts. That's what you are gaining. What you are losing is the ability to do just about anything other than your key ability. So you can't climb, or swim, or balance, or charm the ladies, etc.
You've just drastically reduced your role playing options for the gain of 1 successful spell in 20 attempts. That's the math of it.
I have played many, many characters over the years who lack 20 int at level 1. In fact I don't think I have ever played a 20 int level 1 character until the witch I just rolled up, and I was prepared to play a poorly statted witch, I just got lucky on my roll for once. I typically roll pretty average on character creation, this is one of the rare times I rolled well, so well that I dumped my second highest roll into cha to keep from overpowering the rest of the party.
I keep using the example of my druid, whose highest roll when I created her was a 15. I put that in wisdom. Her racial bonus made it a 17. At level four she made it to 18.
She has been an absolute powerhouse character in every conceivable way. She rains destruction on her enemies, she buffs her allies into monsters, she summons meat shields and now she enters melee as a fang and claw mountain lion and shreds opponents with pounce.
Her original wisdom roll was FIFTEEN.
That's all I need to say, really. Your argument simply doesn't match my experience in the game. That's all.
I think the hardest class to play in the game with the 15 pt buy array (and choosing the right stats to dump) is the monk.
You just can't win. The only stat that doesn't possibly have any mechanical repercussion for dumping is CHA. And Int. And in order to be effective, you need to dump both, because he has MAD (multiple attribute dependancy). A bard can be versatile and simply opt out of combat, but a monk is in the thick of combat...and has to juggle Con, Str, Dex, and Wis in order to represent a threat.
The best monk I've seen is a Zen Archer I made. Waaaaay more combat effective than a melee monk. And much more survivable.
I think the hardest class to play in the game with the 15 pt buy array (and choosing the right stats to dump) is the monk.
You just can't win. The only stat that doesn't possibly have any mechanical repercussion for dumping is CHA. And Int. And in order to be effective, you need to dump both, because he has MAD (multiple attribute dependancy). A bard can be versatile and simply opt out of combat, but a monk is in the thick of combat...and has to juggle Con, Str, Dex, and Wis in order to represent a threat.
The best monk I've seen is a Zen Archer I made. Waaaaay more combat effective than a melee monk. And much more survivable.
I do actually concur with this, but that is due to the monk being a poorly designed character, in my humble opinion.
There you go again with the complete straw man argument that claims a 14 int is going t be in...
LOL, "pull their own weight" is a lot different than "practically guarantee success against kobold saving throws."I personally don't think the DC issue is really a factor until you reach a high level. I believe I've seen some posts on this or other threads that show how the DC problem scales as you go up in levels. So I don't think kobolds are an issue. And nobody is suggesting...
Actually it is a factor at all levels:
A CR 1 challenge typically has a +4 on the good save (if not already immune due to being undead, a construct, a dragon, or whatever else), and a +2 on a good save.
The DC of a first level spell is 11+stat mod.
So if your stat mod is a +2 (due to having a 14) then the target has a 50% success rate with its bad save -- if the creature has a good save then you have a 40% success rate.
Where as if you have a stat mod of +5 then you have a 75% success rate against the bad save and a 65% success rate against the good save -- you might not waste the spell.
And this is hoping for a CR 1 -- heaven forbid the GM send a CR 2 creature at you with a bonus of +6, or a CR 3 creature with a bonus of +8.
That is the difference that sticks to the system from level 1 all the way to level 20.
Whats more with that 50/50 chance of failure you are also down a spell compared to the 20 int caster -- so when you fail you have less chance of doing anything on the next round.
Also even with the best save DC possible it is hardly a 'guarantee' that you're spell will land -- and unlike the fighter who can simply swing again on the next round (or shoot) you are not likely to have another of the spell to spend on this encounter -- especially if you prepared a single identify, a mage armor, or anything else that you might want besides offensive combat spells.
Now can it be done? Sure -- but again it's not easy at any level.
That's a druid, man. Not a wizard. And if you played that character in 3.5-I mean, seriously, how the hell can you NOT succeed as a Druid in 3.5?
And it isn't a strawman, it's math. Basic. Math.
Charm the ladies all you want, smooth talker. I'm a wizard. CHARM PERSON. Bam! Ladies Charmed.
Oh noes! A wall! FLY.
OH NOES! WATER! WATER BREATHING.
OH NOES! I'm not STRONG! TENSER'S TRANSFORMATION!
Just as much of a strawman
I don't think I'm using a strawman -- people asked why a full caster shouldn't start with a lower casting stat -- I used an example to show why but it isn't like I grabbed a wizard with an Int of 8 for the sample -- or said this was anyone else's position (which is needed for a strawman). I simply demonstrated why there is a problem. The problem still exists no matter what stat you take, it is simply a matter of prominence.
*********************************************************8
Ok so you take an 18 instead of a 20 -- now you have a 14 Dex -- all of 1 point higher AC than my 20 Int 12 Dex wizard with the same point buy.
The 20 Int wizard isn't helpless, hopeless, clueless, or socially inept, even with a 15 point buy. Saying he is shows a lack of ability in character creation -- I can even make a wizard with 15 point buy that has a single stat at 8 with the rest being 10 or better -- that isn't dumping -- that isn't helpless -- that's average joe. So unless you are telling me that average joe is somehow socially inept, awkward, weak, sickly, stupid, and lacking common sense your entire argument that a wizard with the same stats besides intelligence is such fails.
It's dead on arrival.
Also if you start with the 18 then your lower level spells are still just as likely to fail (at higher level) your best spell is still at a 50/50 chance (at most levels), you are still down a spell known, still down a spell per day, and still less likely to make the concentration check.
********************************************
So a druid does well with a lower wisdom -- no surprise she's a druid she still has other things to do than simply cast spells -- things like medium BAB, armor and wild shape still help her -- unlike say a wizard that doesn't have those things in addition to full casting.
As I stated before -- it is possible to play a caster with lower than maximum casting stat -- that doesn't make it easy, or better -- just possible.
Your druid is still starting with a high casting stat -- I wonder why that is -- oh wait -- because she doesn't want to suck at casting spells.
Gee i wonder why -- oh wait because she is a spell caster and that's what she does well.
I think the hardest class to play in the game with the 15 pt buy array (and choosing the right stats to dump) is the monk.
You just can't win. The only stat that doesn't possibly have any mechanical repercussion for dumping is CHA. And Int. And in order to be effective, you need to dump both, because he has MAD (multiple attribute dependancy). A bard can be versatile and simply opt out of combat, but a monk is in the thick of combat...and has to juggle Con, Str, Dex, and Wis in order to represent a threat.
The best monk I've seen is a Zen Archer I made. Waaaaay more combat effective than a melee monk. And much more survivable.
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14 Int 9 Wis 14 Cha 7 before racial bonuses using 15 point buy.
Use a dwarf and you have:
Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 9 Wis 16 Cha 5.
A perfectly serviceable monk. Heck put your favored class bonus into HP and you have 12 HP going in to it, with a 15 AC. Not bad at all.
I agree with brassbaboon that an 18 after stats is fine to play and does not exactly suck. The only character I played with a 20 at level one was from rolling stats.
I do actually concur with this, but that is due to the monk being a poorly designed character, in my humble opinion.I think the hardest class to play in the game with the 15 pt buy array (and choosing the right stats to dump) is the monk.
You just can't win. The only stat that doesn't possibly have any mechanical repercussion for dumping is CHA. And Int. And in order to be effective, you need to dump both, because he has MAD (multiple attribute dependancy). A bard can be versatile and simply opt out of combat, but a monk is in the thick of combat...and has to juggle Con, Str, Dex, and Wis in order to represent a threat.
The best monk I've seen is a Zen Archer I made. Waaaaay more combat effective than a melee monk. And much more survivable.
He should have a full BAB, but YMMV.
I completely understand the desire to optimize as much as possible. As I said I used to do it. But the math is simple. In every point buy system, going from a 16 to an 18 is a major jump. With racial bonuses the 16 will give you 18. Since 18 is generally the pre-racial bonus max, optimization at character creation for a level 1 character pretty much means the difference between an 18 and a 20 in your key stat, and what that means you have to sacrifice to gain that 20.
My entire point is that when it comes to DCs, that 20 is a 5% increase in chance (all other things being equal) that your save or suck spell will succeed. That means you will be successful ONE MORE TIME out of 20 tries than the 18 int wizard.
That's the math. And whatever you sacrificed to gain that one in 20 gain in effectiveness is what you paid for it. In some point buy systems, that's still enough to leave a pretty decent character. But in a 15 point buy, you are dumping something, and keeping others at minimum.
It is quite ironic to hear someone arguing that a wizard can't "pull their weight" with an 18 int now arguing that an "average joe" with an 8 and a couple of 10s is a perfectly acceptable character.
I guess it all depends on what point you are trying to argue, doesn't it?
Bottom line, optimizers pay a cost for their precious additional one in 20 chance gain in effectiveness. Is it worth it?
Not to me.
Oh, one nice additional bonus to having your save or suck spells be not quite so wonderfully effective?
Maybe you use other sorts of spells from time to time that don't rely on an optimized DC to be effective.
Just a thought.
I think the hardest class to play in the game with the 15 pt buy array (and choosing the right stats to dump) is the monk.
You just can't win. The only stat that doesn't possibly have any mechanical repercussion for dumping is CHA. And Int. And in order to be effective, you need to dump both, because he has MAD (multiple attribute dependancy). A bard can be versatile and simply opt out of combat, but a monk is in the thick of combat...and has to juggle Con, Str, Dex, and Wis in order to represent a threat.
The best monk I've seen is a Zen Archer I made. Waaaaay more combat effective than a melee monk. And much more survivable.
Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14 Int 9 Wis 14 Cha 7 before racial bonuses using 15 point buy.
Use a dwarf and you have:
Str 14 Dex 14 Con 16 Int 9 Wis 16 Cha 5.
A perfectly serviceable monk. Heck put your favored class bonus into HP and you have 12 HP going in to it, with a 15 AC. Not bad at all.
If you take steelsoul at level one from the apg how are enemy wizards going to like you then with a +8 bonus or +9 for will to save versus their spells at first level to all saves. Take precise shot as your bonus feat and then point blank or dodge level 2 as you do not need to meet prerequistes. Let us see that fight wizards or other spellcasters.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedFeats.html#steel-soul
It is quite ironic to hear someone arguing that a wizard can't "pull their weight" with an 18 int now arguing that an "average joe" with an 8 and a couple of 10s is a perfectly acceptable character.
Prove I said that -- I dare you -- I have numerous times stated that a wizard can get along fine without a high casting stat -- simply that it is difficult.
IF you are going to accuse me of using strawman arguments you best stop doing it yourself and stop putting words in my mouth.
When I say "high stats" I am talking of a range from 18~20 -- 20 is optimum and if you want long term regular success as a wizard or sorcerer you best have the 20 or a plan to make up for it.
However 18 is hardly a low stat even if it doesn't give you another spell slot or the best success rate possible.
Your entire point seems to consist of the idea that a +5% chance on spells and an extra spell slot and an extra skill point doesn't matter -- but somehow the same +5% chance on different skills, and to AC, or to hit does matter is rather -- lacking.
If it doesn't matter on the one why does it matter on the other hm?
I completely understand the desire to optimize as much as possible. As I said I used to do it. But the math is simple. In every point buy system, going from a 16 to an 18 is a major jump. With racial bonuses the 16 will give you 18. Since 18 is generally the pre-racial bonus max, optimization at character creation for a level 1 character pretty much means the difference between an 18 and a 20 in your key stat, and what that means you have to sacrifice to gain that 20.
My entire point is that when it comes to DCs, that 20 is a 5% increase in chance (all other things being equal) that your save or suck spell will succeed. That means you will be successful ONE MORE TIME out of 20 tries than the 18 int wizard.
That's the math. And whatever you sacrificed to gain that one in 20 gain in effectiveness is what you paid for it. In some point buy systems, that's still enough to leave a pretty decent character. But in a 15 point buy, you are dumping something, and keeping others at minimum.
It is quite ironic to hear someone arguing that a wizard can't "pull their weight" with an 18 int now arguing that an "average joe" with an 8 and a couple of 10s is a perfectly acceptable character.
I guess it all depends on what point you are trying to argue, doesn't it?
Bottom line, optimizers pay a cost for their precious additional one in 20 chance gain in effectiveness. Is it worth it?
Not to me.
Oh, one nice additional bonus to having your save or suck spells be not quite so wonderfully effective?
Maybe you use other sorts of spells from time to time that don't rely on an optimized DC to be effective.
Just a thought.
I'm pretty sure he's saying if a wizard allocates all of his stat points to his casting stat, he's just as effective in melee combat or bluffing (IE, NOT effective) as the guy who has an 18 and threw a couple of points around to be well rounded. However, in casting (you know, where it matters) that 20 int wizard has a)more spells b)higher saves and c)has more points allocate to skills.
Failuressaywhat?
|
So, what's the cap on debuffing an opponent's saving throws? Is it possible that a wizard could accept a little help from a debuffing party member to gain the same effect as a higher DC instead of becoming a poster child to DC optimization? Isn't this supposed to be a team game?
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
Halfling (Jinx) Witch
Evil Eye (Su): The target takes a –2 penalty on saving throws. At 8th level the penalty increases to –4.Halfling Jinx (Racial Trait): You lose the halfling luck racial trait (and its +1 racial bonus on saving throws) and instead gain the ability to curse another creature with bad luck at will as a standard action. A jinxed creature takes a –1 penalty on all saving throws.
Feets:
Bolster Jinx:Benefit: A jinxed target’s penalty on Fortitude, Reflex, or Will saves increases by 2 if you have the Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, or Iron Will feat, respectively. If you have more than one of these feats, the additional penalties apply to all of the corresponding saves.
Malicious Eye:Benefit: When a creature fails its save against your evil eye hex, add the effect of your jinx to the effect of the hex. The save penalties from the hex and jinx stack. Using your jinx on another creature does not end the hex or the jinx effect on the hexed target.
Halfling Witch level 9
Racial Trait: Halfling Jinx
Feets: Malicious Eye, Bolster Jinx, Iron Will, Lighting reflexes, Great Fortitude.
Hex: Evil Eye (Total effect of evil eye hex on saves -7)
Then you can cast curse for -4
Total for both -11
So, what's the cap on debuffing an opponent's saving throws? Is it possible that a wizard could accept a little help from a debuffing party member to gain the same effect as a higher DC instead of becoming a poster child to DC optimization? Isn't this supposed to be a team game?
The problem is there is a hard cap on save throw DCs. There is not a hard cap on save throw bonuses, attack bonuses, damage bonuses or HP bonuses.As such it is harder to have effective spells that rely on DC than it is to have good save throws, good attack bonuses, good damage bonuses or good HP.
Halfling (Jinx) Witch
Evil Eye (Su): The target takes a –2 penalty on saving throws. At 8th level the penalty increases to –4.
Halfling Jinx (Racial Trait): You lose the halfling luck racial trait (and its +1 racial bonus on saving throws) and instead gain the ability to curse another creature with bad luck at will as a standard action. A jinxed creature takes a –1 penalty on all saving throws.
Feets:
Bolster Jinx:Benefit: A jinxed target’s penalty on Fortitude, Reflex, or Will saves increases by 2 if you have the Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, or Iron Will feat, respectively. If you have more than one of these feats, the additional penalties apply to all of the corresponding saves.
Malicious Eye:Benefit: When a creature fails its save against your evil eye hex, add the effect of your jinx to the effect of the hex. The save penalties from the hex and jinx stack. Using your jinx on another creature does not end the hex or the jinx effect on the hexed target.Halfling Witch level 9
Racial Trait: Halfling Jinx
Feets: Malicious Eye, Bolster Jinx, Iron Will, Lighting reflexes, Great Fortitude.
Hex: Evil Eye (Total effect of evil eye hex on saves -7)
Then you can cast curse for -4
Total for both -11
If you have a witch.
If you have a witch.
A halfling witch to spend a round before casting another spell and spend several feats, and a trait and a racial ability.
A nice build to be sure -- but very focused, and still allowing saves based on Int which fails if you have a lower int.
I'm pretty sure he's saying if a wizard allocates all of his stat points to his casting stat, he's just as effective in melee combat or bluffing (IE, NOT effective) as the guy who has an 18 and threw a couple of points around to be well rounded. However, in casting (you know, where it matters) that 20 int wizard has a)more spells b)higher saves and c)has more points allocate to skills.Failuressaywhat?
One, at first level, even with a 20, you're going to be running out of spells or have ones prepared that don't particularly fit the situation that actually comes up, so you still need a back up plan, at least for the first couple levels, and at those levels, an additional +1 or even +2, considering how expensive an 18 is to buy, in another stat does a good job of taking that diplomacy check from dont even bother because a 20 still won't get you anything to depending on what you say and how you say it to give you circumstance bonuses, you might actually have a chance to to succeed, and can at least figure on not pissing the person off accidentally. By the time that the extra +1 in CHA doesn't matter anymore, you have more spells slots and more powerful spells, but it's still nice at those levels to have a fall back plan in case you find yourself in a situation that for social reasons, you really don't want to start throwing charm person around in open view of everyone, or be casting spells that an uneducated viewer could think might be charm person.
Just saying it can be done. And yes it's a focused build. All you need is the evil eye, and it last for one round if you make the save.
Part of the problem is one round ends before your next round comes up -- meaning you don't have a chance to actually use that penalty you inflicted unless they fail the save.
Now it is still nice -- but it isn't exactly Int independent either.
One, at first level, even with a 20, you're going to be running out of spells or have ones prepared that don't particularly fit the situation that actually comes up, so you still need a back up plan, at least for the first couple levels, and at those levels, an additional +1 or even +2, considering how expensive an 18 is to buy, in another stat does a good job of taking that diplomacy check from dont even bother because a 20 still won't get you anything to depending on what you say and how you say it to give you circumstance bonuses, you might actually have a chance to to succeed, and can at least figure on not pissing the person off accidentally. By the time that the extra +1 in CHA doesn't matter anymore, you have more spells slots and more powerful spells, but it's still nice at those levels to have a fall back plan in case you find yourself in a situation that for social reasons, you really don't want to start throwing charm person around in open view of everyone, or be casting spells that an uneducated viewer could think might be charm person.
I'm pretty sure he's saying if a wizard allocates all of his stat points to his casting stat, he's just as effective in melee combat or bluffing (IE, NOT effective) as the guy who has an 18 and threw a couple of points around to be well rounded. However, in casting (you know, where it matters) that 20 int wizard has a)more spells b)higher saves and c)has more points allocate to skills.Failuressaywhat?
A) I don't care what an uneducated observer thinks. I am a wizard, not a diplomat. That falls to the bard, sorceror, or possibly the paladin. And obviously you do it discreetly.
B) That extra +1 to CHA is at the deficit of my casting abilities. I'd pump DEX over CHA any day of the week, so that my touch spells have a greater chance of success.
C)At first level, the +1 you get to your diplomacy check is going to fail anyways. Spend your points in Knowledges. Those are where the money is at. And is Diplomacy/Bluff even a wizard class skill? No, it isn't. You have to spend twice the amount of skill points to get the skill. Two skill points that could have been allocated somewhere in you fields of expertise.