He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache.


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

lordfeint wrote:

Its just a bunch of "High Horse" mentality.

Its a clear case of the have-nots trying to take what they perceive to be a moral high-ground against the vile players that actually HAVE.

If you have a character with a 20 strength and a 7 intelligence, then you must SURELY be a min-maxing scum who can't grasp the concept of honest role-play, simply because I don't agree with a set of numbers that appear on your character sheet.

Its the time-tested tradition of "I'm right, so YOU'RE wrong". Even though the very concept of the argument is pointless. Its not even apples to oranges. Its apples to toenail clippings. You can be both. Or neither.
Smart people know there is a no direct correlation between the two concepts.

Meh, it goes both ways. I've seen plenty of people take the attitude "If you don't have a 20 Strength and 7 intelligence, you're not playing effectively and are risking the whole party."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BARBARIAN AM WELL-BUILT BARBARIAN WITH MIGHTYFINE ABILITY TO SMASH CASTYS.

PEOPLE AM CALLING BARBARIAN AN DAMN DIRTY MINMAXER.

AM NOT DIRTY. BARBARIAN AM SHOWERING ALL THE TIME. USUALLY IN BLOOD OF ENEMIES, BUT SOMETIMES AM USING WATER.

AM YOU SAYING ALL BARBARIAN HAD TO DO WHOLE TIME AM GROW MUSTACHE?!


Sacerdos wrote:
Here's an example that may help...

Let me see if I understand your post.

You are saying that you started with a character concept (Cleric of Lovitar that uses a whip and focuses on pain-style spells)

Then you took that concept and came up with the stats, feats and spells that would make that character concept effective as possible.

You realize that makes you a classic optimizer right? You took a character concept then figured out how to make the mechanics work effectively. Guess what? That's all optimizing is.

Look at all the optimizing guides. Notice not a single one of them show a character with all the stats filled in with the declaration "Here it is!", no, instead it's a list of suggestions of what works and what doesn't, so the player with the concept can make that concept effective, just like you did.

So are you not a roleplayer?

A Man in Black wrote:
Ciretose's distinction between "optimizing" and "minmaxing" is (unfortunately common) nonsense.

I think there is some confusion between the terms "Minmaxer" and "Powergamer".

A Minmaxer is an optimizer. It's just a less politically correct term for the same thing.

When we talk about loopholes, or exploiting the rules, we are no longer talking about optimization or minmaxing in a practical sense.

I agree with the term "asshat"


Optimizer: This is my concept. I will make it work mechanically.

Min Maxer: I will only make concepts that allow me to make very powerful characters.

Munchkin: I will find legal loopholes in the rules that allow me to be uber powerful.

They're not the same thing. If anything they're on a spectrum/axis. Role playing is on a completely separate axis.


I guess compared to the cheese that 11 years of a trillion splatbooks produced in Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 I don't understand the optimization complaints that Pathfinder gets. If you keep Pathfinder contained and don't allow too much or any cheesy stuff from 3.5 I don't understand the complaining.

Also, with how strong and relatively straightforward the base and core classes are, I don't see how somebody could screw up unless they were just bungling on a catastrophic scale. Even a "bad" character should be pretty good.

Plus, the gap between a Paladin or a Monk, some of the weaker classes in previous editions, and a caster seems to have really been bridged in this edition. The strongest core classes from 3.5, Cleric, Wizard, Druid and Sorcerer in about that order got some goodies but have been brought relatively back to earth while some classes got monster overhall and lots of super goodies.


Treantmonk wrote:


Then you took that concept and came up with the stats, feats and spells that would make that character concept effective as possible.

You realize that makes you a classic optimizer right? You took a character concept then figured out how to make the mechanics work effectively. Guess what? That's all optimizing is.

Look at all the optimizing guides. Notice not a single one of them show a character with all the stats filled in with the declaration "Here it is!", no, instead it's a list of suggestions of what works and what doesn't, so the player with the concept can make that concept effective, just like you did.

So are you not a roleplayer?

I would certainly agree that optimization comes in many forms and changes depending on the goal to which you are directed. But I'm also pretty sure not everybody sees optimization in the same way. While a character with a lot of craft skills, supporting knowledge skills, and feats in skill focus and item creation would be optimized around crafting magic items, you'd still have parts of the self-identifying optimization crowd complaining about the PC not carrying their weight while adventuring. For them, I think a portion of optimization (perhaps the bulk of it) has to include optimization toward being an adventurer in dangerous situations where combat is likely to ensue (and be played out by the players on a tactical battlemap). Deviation from that, even if it entails optimization toward taking a weak weapon and making it a little less weak (and don't even think about it being a sword cane), is making a less effective and sub-optimal character.


Quote:
For them, I think a portion of optimization (perhaps the bulk of it) has to include optimization toward being an adventurer in dangerous situations where combat is likely to ensue

Isn't that sort of what 99% of the games ARE? Its a matter of importance. No one dies if you make 65 baskets in a day instead of 82, but if you can't hit the broad side of an orc when he's trying to put a greataxe in my head then we have a problem.

Quote:
Deviation from that, even if it entails optimization toward taking a weak weapon and making it a little less weak (and don't even think about it being a sword cane), is making a less effective and sub-optimal character.

Why optimal or not? How about a gradient in between?


Bill Dunn wrote:
I would certainly agree that optimization comes in many forms and changes depending on the goal to which you are directed. But I'm also pretty sure not everybody sees optimization in the same way. While a character with a lot of craft skills, supporting knowledge skills, and feats in skill focus and item creation would be optimized around crafting magic items, you'd still have parts of the self-identifying optimization crowd complaining about the PC not carrying their weight while adventuring. For them, I think a portion of optimization (perhaps the bulk of it) has to include optimization toward being an adventurer in dangerous situations where combat is likely to ensue (and be played out by the players on a tactical battlemap). Deviation from that, even if it entails optimization toward taking a weak weapon and making it a little less weak (and don't even think about it being a sword cane), is making a less effective and sub-optimal character.

The character you describe is essentially the Eberron Artificer. Which, having played the class, is considered very valuable to the adventuring party. Partly due to having a large stock of magic items with which to contribute to the adventure in very targeted ways. Said item crafter is actively optimizing his whole party with custom built items they normally wouldn't get. Backing this with Knowledge skills allows the character to identify other creatures weakness and direct his party in effective application of resources.

Lets be a bit clearer. There is optimal for the concept and then there is optimal for the campaign. These are not the same.

I can create the most kickass goblin slayer in mechanics with a back story and full on acting that puts Mass Effect to shame. However I can still be totally useless if the game revolves around pie eating and baking. And extreme example, but I hope it illustrates the point.


Bill Dunn wrote:


I would certainly agree that optimization comes in many forms and changes depending on the goal to which you are directed. But I'm also pretty sure not everybody sees optimization in the same way. While a character with a lot of craft skills, supporting knowledge skills, and feats in skill focus and item creation would be optimized around crafting magic items, you'd still have parts of the self-identifying optimization crowd complaining about the PC not carrying their weight while adventuring. For them, I think a portion of optimization (perhaps the bulk of it) has to include optimization toward being an adventurer in dangerous situations where combat is likely to ensue

I think we disagree on the concept of roleplaying. I think we also disagree on the concept of optimization.

Making a character who crafts, only crafts, and won't contribute beyond that isn't roleplaying. It's not good roleplaying, it's not bad roleplaying, it's not roleplaying at all. The character could be interesting, boring, deep, shallow, none of that has been developed yet.

Also, as you point out, the character could be "optimized" as a crafter. We don't really know that yet either. So far, all we have is a concept.

I would suggest the concept is poor, though not from an optimization standpoint. (Concepts are neither good nor bad from an optimization standpoint, it's the choices made to make the concept a reality which requires optimization).

The concept is poor from a teammate standpoint. In the group I play with, most of the players are not optimizers. However, being an optimizer isn't required to know that the game is going to involve challenges that we will work together to solve.

We all understand (optimizer or no) that when we play Pathfinder we are playing in a fantasy setting, where our characters will face danger, excitement, adventure, etc, and we all make characters that fit those parameters.

I would no more envision a character who only crafts wood carvings and can do nothing else than I would a fighter pilot. Neither fit the parameters of the campaign. It has nothing to do with Optimization or Roleplaying, that's simply respecting the people I play with.


Treantmonk wrote:
simply respecting the people I play with

I think a lot of people talk on the internet in hyperbole, and simply "discuss" as if the "other side" isn't following this simple statement I quoted.

Where in fact, I'm pretty sure the majority of people out there playing do indeed follow that simple 7 word phrase.

Discussing the rules of the game, or even gameplay styles, is not the same as what a person actually does in practice. This goes double for internet discussions.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Optimizer: This is my concept. I will make it work mechanically.

Min Maxer: I will only make concepts that allow me to make very powerful characters.

Munchkin: I will find legal loopholes in the rules that allow me to be uber powerful.

They're not the same thing. If anything they're on a spectrum/axis. Role playing is on a completely separate axis.

Agree completely, and I was perhaps unfair in the Min/Max lumping as some min/maxers are willing to play the min/max they built. And min/max characters can be awesome and effective...in their roles with a party that can compensate for where they are weak.

Where I get annoyed is the person who puts a 6 in Wisdom but says they are very "Streetsmart" or a 5 in Charisma that says the are very charming.

Fluffing your character doesn't overcome low scores. The GM having encounters that your low scores negatively effect isn't the GM being out to get you.

Liberty's Edge

Treantmonk wrote:


I think we disagree on the concept of roleplaying. I think we also disagree on the concept of optimization.

Making a character who crafts, only crafts, and won't contribute beyond that isn't roleplaying. It's not good roleplaying, it's not bad roleplaying, it's not roleplaying at all. The character could be interesting, boring, deep, shallow, none of that has been developed yet.

Also, as you point out, the character could be "optimized" as a crafter. We don't really know that yet either. So far, all we have is a concept.

I would suggest the concept is poor, though not from an optimization standpoint. (Concepts are neither good nor bad from an optimization standpoint, it's the choices made to make the concept a reality which requires optimization).

The concept is poor from a teammate standpoint. In the group I play with, most of the players are not optimizers. However, being an optimizer isn't required to know that the game is going to involve challenges that we will work together to solve.

We all understand (optimizer or no) that when we play Pathfinder we are playing in a fantasy setting, where our characters will face danger, excitement, adventure, etc, and we all make characters that fit those parameters.

I would no more envision a character who only crafts wood carvings and can do nothing else than I would a fighter pilot. Neither fit the parameters of the campaign. It has nothing to do with Optimization or Roleplaying, that's simply respecting the people I play with.

And here I slightly disagree (but only slightly)

If you have a party that would benefit from someone pouring focus into crafting magic items, say you are playing in a world without much access to such things, that concept could be a great boon to the party, even if they would be sub optimal in combat, personally.

The question of value can just as easily be formed around the question of "what can you do for your party" more than "what can you do to the enemy".

Now if, as you say, all they can do is make woodcarvings, that is a different matter. But some games are less combat and more social interaction heavy. Some groups are more avoid conflict through strategy and diplomacy than charge forth once more into the breach.

YMMV


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And here I grew up on the terminology where "min/max" meant: minimize weaknesses and maximize benefits.

A "min/maxer" (in this context) would likely not have any weaknesses that he hasn't covered. Low strength is followed by bags of holding and resistance/immunity to common causes of strength damage, etc.

Min/maxer is being used these days like you are minimizing things that aren't useful for your specialization, and maximizing what is. This is a different idea. One where you can run into a character that is not very independent and strictly one-dimensional. Very much left open with a weakness.

In my point of view.. a min/maxer Fighter wouldn't have his Will save tanked. That's not minimizing his weakness, rather it's leaving it wide open, completely dependent on outside factors (someone else saving his butt, or boosting his defense).

The reason people had problems with my "min/maxer" was not because he was one-dimensional or created unrealistic or repetitive characters. Rather it was because it was hard to challenge a character that had few to no weaknesses, and in a group where someone else might not "min/max", they will potentially hog the spotlight.

.
The way people use min/max these days feels more like "powergame" or "munchkin" (depending on if the person is doing it good-naturedly, or if they are trying to "win" the game): focus on a specialization as hard as you can, either within the rules.. or by twisting them until you wring every little bit of power you can squeeze past your DM.

Sometimes reading stuff on the boards is like reading a second language. I have to filter things through and remember to convert them to get the real meaning people are trying to convey. Damn neckbeardedness.


I just made a character, hoping to play in a PbP game here. He may or may not end up playing in the game, but I was wondering how many of you think he's offensive to your sensibilities.

Elf wizard, 15 pt. buy, after racial adjustments:
S 10
D 16
C 12
I 18
W 7
C 9

I dumped 2 stats to raise others I thought were much more important for a 1st level wizard. Would you allow him in your game, or is he too good at his job?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I'd be interested to see if he survived. :)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'd be interested to see if he survived. :)

In the course of a normal game or in a game where the DM doesn't like his stats so makes a point of trying to kill him? Like out of CR vampires show up and try to dominate him to jump off a cliff.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You say that like anyone here can agree on what a 'normal game' is.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:

Would you allow him in your game, or is he too good at his job?

His spell-casting competence is not the issue. If you play this character as slightly unassuming, scatter-brained, scholarly, unwordly elven wizard, fine.

You can also go the route of foolish, arrogant fop, propably rassistic, once you read Elves of Golarion, which is also legitimate, if slightly less so.
Players who choose this road though, tend to play antagonistic, unhelpfull and use every excuse to behave like an ass, because their charater is, it says that right here in the BOOK... in my exspirience it detoriates rather rapidly from there. Thats where i am drawing the line, as character and player.

As GM i´d warn you against it, ´cause of the low will-saves and i don´t think Int 18 really necessary at first level in Pathfinder, thats what bumps are for.
Wouldn´say that i´d be exspecially after you, but it IS usually the caster the opponents really want compelled. You´d be a security risk ;).


TriOmegaZero wrote:
You say that like anyone here can agree on what a 'normal game' is.

A normal game being one where the DM isn't explicitly taking advantage of stats he doesn't like to punish players. That was obvious from what I said the first time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Glad to see that my attempt to introduce less hostile terminology has gone as ignored as I predicted it would. Enjoy squabbling.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
A normal game being one where the DM isn't explicitly taking advantage of stats he doesn't like to punish players. That was obvious from what I said the first time.

Yeah, but how are you going to prove that to the players, should ability damage come up?


The majority of the players I game with all optimize to a certain point. It won't stop most of them from starting with a sub-optimal concept and then try to make it work based on the idea of a character they had. I don't think anyone can find fault in that.

What annoys me somewhat is this one guy who will NEVER play a race/class combination that isn't favoring the main attribute of his class under any circumstances and he's pretty clear about it. That's a degree of optimization that crosses my personal line. So much importance given to a +2 seems so silly to me. (Adding to the fact that all said characters always act the same.)

In the end it's all a matter of compatibility of playstyle and of trust between the DM and players and also between players.

Having both extremes of the optimizing spectrum at the table will make it annoying for everyone involved in my experience.

Liberty's Edge

Benicio Del Espada wrote:

I just made a character, hoping to play in a PbP game here. He may or may not end up playing in the game, but I was wondering how many of you think he's offensive to your sensibilities.

Elf wizard, 15 pt. buy, after racial adjustments:
S 10
D 16
C 12
I 18
W 7
C 9

I dumped 2 stats to raise others I thought were much more important for a 1st level wizard. Would you allow him in your game, or is he too good at his job?

If you play him as awkward and absentminded, or in some other way demonstrate his markedly low wisdom, it's fine.

If you want to portray him as a wise old wizard from days of yore, then I would have an issue with him.


Benicio Del Espada wrote:

I just made a character, hoping to play in a PbP game here. He may or may not end up playing in the game, but I was wondering how many of you think he's offensive to your sensibilities.

Elf wizard, 15 pt. buy, after racial adjustments:
S 10
D 16
C 12
I 18
W 7
C 9

I dumped 2 stats to raise others I thought were much more important for a 1st level wizard. Would you allow him in your game, or is he too good at his job?

Looks a lot like the stats of one of my characters, heh.

My wizard might look a little different, but actually pretty similarly.

Cartigan, you seemed quite convinced on what type of personality would keep new people from joining this hobby of ours. I wonder: why are you so sure it is one over the other? Personally, I figure any extreme personality would be off-putting.

I have friends at work that play in my group. They like to talk about the games we're in while at work. Anyone outside of our group quickly determines we're speaking a foreign language. I try to help them along, if they're interested, but they're mostly not. My friends tend to get very excitable and will speak that crazy talk with enthusiasm, and that's enough for most people to look the other way and talk to someone else.

The thing is, they both have different perspectives on what's good for players and their characters. Things have been heated at our table before, but we've handled it. Those two, though, are nearly always at odds.

But to the outsider, it doesn't matter. They're both the same to anyone who doesn't know. They simply don't know what the difference is, despite how easy it may be to us to recognize. I've been told this all the time: "Oh there you guys go again, speaking that language."

So that's my question: how can somebody who isn't initiated know the differences among the types of enthusiasts?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
A normal game being one where the DM isn't explicitly taking advantage of stats he doesn't like to punish players. That was obvious from what I said the first time.
Yeah, but how are you going to prove that to the players, should ability damage come up?

If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.


Swivl wrote:


So that's my question: how can somebody who isn't initiated know the differences among the types of enthusiasts?

It's all in the body language. Ever see the episode of South Park where they all switch to fuel efficient cars?

It's the same way you can differentiate people who use Apple and Linux from the fanboys (though it is REALLY difficult in the second instance). It's easy to observe the difference between the grognard and the average person.


Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.

You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.


TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

You could, and this may be crazy talk I know but still...buy the books from the publisher. You know, the owners of the website you frequent complaining about the product you apparently don't even own.

The beasitary would be a good place to start, off the top of my head Shadows and Ghosts.


Cartigan wrote:


Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

Enough. And you forgot strength and dex which are also common dump stats for some builds.


TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?
Enough. And you forgot strength and dex which are also common dump stats for some builds.

And you suddenly start running into ability damaging creatures regardless of whether or not they fit in the campaign up to that point. Pre-written adventures excluded.


Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?
Enough. And you forgot strength and dex which are also common dump stats for some builds.
And you suddenly start running into ability damaging creatures regardless of whether or not they fit in the campaign up to that point. Pre-written adventures excluded.

Well, on that there's a bit less firmer ground as it's really up to the GM on what actually fits. Creative GM's can make anything fit anywhere with some decent refluffing. Though I imagine in your case that is not what's happening.


ciretose wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

You could, and this may be crazy talk I know but still...buy the books from the publisher. You know, the owners of the website you frequent complaining about the product you apparently don't even own.

The beasitary would be a good place to start, off the top of my head Shadows and Ghosts.

Shadows do strength damage. And ghosts can do Charisma. Suddenly, you run into a Kobold Ghost (CR 1)!


Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

I find the Paizo PRD site to be far far more intuitively laid out. It just doesn't have anything from 3PP like Dreamscarred Psionics.


ciretose wrote:
You could ... <snip> ... buy the books from the publisher.

Owning the books and performing a search (or better yet, a sort!) are two different things.

This is why, despite owning many 3.5e books, I still preferred using this site for my data mining. Specifically this sucker was amazing when I didn't know what I was looking for, but knew what I wanted.

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

You could, and this may be crazy talk I know but still...buy the books from the publisher. You know, the owners of the website you frequent complaining about the product you apparently don't even own.

The beasitary would be a good place to start, off the top of my head Shadows and Ghosts.

Shadows do strength damage. And ghosts can do Charisma. Suddenly, you run into a Kobold Ghost (CR 1)!

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/shadow

"While most shadows steal strength from their victims, rare variants may drain different aspects of a target’s vitality. A variant shadow’s chilling touch may induce paralysis and numbness (Dexterity damage) or a kind of slow decay of the f lesh (Constitution damage). The mere touch of a shadow can cause idiocy (Intelligence damage), madness (Wisdom damage), or an unnerving deadening of the victim’s personality (Charisma damage). Any or all of these could also be preludes to the shadow’s true theft of Strength, further weakening a target and making it easy prey. Other variants include the following."


meatrace wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

I find the Paizo PRD site to be far far more intuitively laid out. It just doesn't have anything from 3PP like Dreamscarred Psionics.

I'm not sure how anyone can call it intuitive. The search is barely serviceable (it will NOT return the Detect Magic page if you search Detect Magic). And the lay out is just workable if you know where it goes already. d20pfsrd's link from classes to their related content (like spells and a list and link to archetypes) is better. As opposed to having to know what book the items you are looking for are located in. And what classes they are related to.


RedPorcupine wrote:
Benicio Del Espada wrote:

Would you allow him in your game, or is he too good at his job?

His spell-casting competence is not the issue. If you play this character as slightly unassuming, scatter-brained, scholarly, unwordly elven wizard, fine.

You can also go the route of foolish, arrogant fop, propably rassistic, once you read Elves of Golarion, which is also legitimate, if slightly less so.
Players who choose this road though, tend to play antagonistic, unhelpfull and use every excuse to behave like an ass, because their charater is, it says that right here in the BOOK... in my exspirience it detoriates rather rapidly from there. Thats where i am drawing the line, as character and player.

As GM i´d warn you against it, ´cause of the low will-saves and i don´t think Int 18 really necessary at first level in Pathfinder, thats what bumps are for.
Wouldn´say that i´d be exspecially after you, but it IS usually the caster the opponents really want compelled. You´d be a security risk ;).

His will save at 1st is +0, same as most non-cleric types with a 15 pt. buy. Since it's his best save, it will improve faster than the others. The other 2 saves will always be lacking by comparison, and more likely to get him in trouble.

Treantmonk's guide to wizards leaves wisdom at 7 even with a 25 pt. buy, and that makes sense. It's only relevant for will saves and wisdom damage. Better to shore up your AC and hit points if you want to see 2nd level, since you can't have it all.

As for the int score, it's his most important stat by far. Between spells per day and the need for them to actually work when cast, it has the most bearing on his effectiveness. In most parties, the wizard's the go-to guy for knowledge checks, too. High-skill classes have more pressing uses for their slots early on, and less int. to play with.

Here's some description text:
While Seltyn is very bright, and has a natural talent for things arcane, he's spent more time studying histories and mysteries than developing a deeper "common sense" understanding of the world around him. He's rather naive, and Taustin took advantage of that with a number of wizard's pranks, and the poor elf just kept falling for them.
He's likewise awkward in social situations. Seltyn means well, but he's never at ease, and often comes off as insincere or sarcastic when he tries to interact with others.

Smart, but not good at making himself clear, and pretty gullible. Do you think he's not a team player, or that I'm some kind of attention whore out to ruin the game?


Cartigan wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


If it comes up at first level, that's a good indication.
You do understand there are a handful of AP's that include encounters that do in fact do ability damage right? Not ot mention low CR monsters that do so as well.

Yes, but how many are doing Wisdom and Charisma damage?

PS. Why is the d20pfsrd site so damn slow to load? If Paizo's PRD site wasn't laid out so awfully, I would switch to it permanently.

I find the Paizo PRD site to be far far more intuitively laid out. It just doesn't have anything from 3PP like Dreamscarred Psionics.
I'm not sure how anyone can call it intuitive. The search is barely serviceable (it will NOT return the Detect Magic page if you search Detect Magic). And the lay out is just workable if you know where it goes already. d20pfsrd's link from classes to their related content (like spells and a list and link to archetypes) is better. As opposed to having to know what book the items you are looking for are located in. And what classes they are related to.

That's precisely why it's intuitive to me I guess. I spend so much time looking at the hardbound books and I know where stuff hails from. I want to look at the Invulnerable Rage archetype? I click on the Advanced Core Classes link on the left of every page, then Barbarian. You think about what you want to look at, then click the appropriate link, it seems pretty intuitive to me.

I almost never use the search function on either site anyway. The only time I do is when stuff isn't put where it's meant to be put on PFSRD.

101 to 150 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.