I am just returning to the Pathfinder RPG scene after a very long time away and I need to build a lvl 1 Wizard. The only problem is that I am pretty clueless, especially after being away so long.
Can anyone build me a lvl 1 Wizard that is as optimized as possible? I'd greatly appreciate any help I can get. Any advice on how to spec him as he levels would be greatly appreciated as well while I re-familiarize myself with the game again.
Ok. I was going to make a joke and just post:
7 14 14 20 10 7
But that's perhaps a bit mean.
Unfortunately, this kind of crippling overspecialization is what a lot of people here think of when you mention the word "Optimized".
And that array is only possible on 20 points buy or higher.If it was 15 point buy I'm sure someone would suggest
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 18+2
Wis 7
Cha 7; and vehemently defend it as the absolute best distribution.
It's not. You've crippled yourself in several areas just to keep that 20 Int.
Why optimised?
Wizards can do something other than blowing things up.
= Here is a favourite of mine. Change as you will.
Human Level 1 Wizard - Fav. Class bonus to HP
HP 6 + 1 con + 1 Fav Class + 1 toughness = 9
Str 12
Int 18* Human bonus
Wis 12
Dex 12
Con 12
Cha 12Feats
Toughness
Martial Weapon Prof: LongswordSkills
Spellcraft
Knowledge Arcane
Knowledge Dungeoneering
Knowledge Religon OR History OR Nobility (you pick)Diplomacy
Perception
+1 skill for raceTraits
Well Travelled - Dip as class skill
Eyes and ears of the City - Percept as class skillYou get a sort of Elminster-esc vibe from the guy.
This character is NOT optimised, by ANY means but he has decent save rolls, some backup use as party face (use aid another if you dont trust his +5 to Dip) and can be fun in general as he isn't a weak pale faced absent minded professor nerd.
If you want to change him up some and still have him ok? Change to Elf. Gives you 14 dex and 10 con with the same 18 Int but gives him bow (and decent dex to use it) and sword... you can change toughness to Point Blank shot - is good for both your bow AND ray attacks. STILL leaves you good for something OTHER than blowing stuff up.
I like it. What starting spells and cantrips did you pick out for him?
Ok. I was going to make a joke and just post:
7 14 14 20 10 7
But that's perhaps a bit mean.
Unfortunately, this kind of crippling overspecialization is what a lot of people here think of when you mention the word "Optimized".
And that array is only possible on 20 points buy or higher.
If it was 15 point buy I'm sure someone would suggest
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 18+2
Wis 7
Cha 7; and vehemently defend it as the absolute best distribution.
It's not. You've crippled yourself in several areas just to keep that 20 Int.
"Crippled" is hyperbole, and it's in areas that are very easily compensated.
Str covers melee attack and damage and carrying capacity. A stereotypical Wizard should NEVER be in melee, and without armour, Str 7 lets a Wizard carry a lot more than a Rogue or Bard with the same Str. Plus a Wizard can more easily take the hit to mobility and carry a heavy load.
Cha is only good for skills. With 7+ skill points per level, skills points will soon make more difference than the +2 a 10 Cha will give. Plus your favorite stat item will give you max ranks in the skill(s) of your choice. At Level 1 this will hurt the most, but that's why someone else is the party face. In a pinch, Charm Person makes everyone your friend with a DC 16 save most 1st lvl NPCs will have trouble making.
Wis is skills (see Cha) and saves. For skills, only Perception and maybe Sense Motive matter. For saves, again first level hurts the most, but with a high save progression, that +2 will matter less and less. Plus, a single feat gets +2 to all Will saves, but only +1 to only one school of spell DCs.
Finally, Str, Cha, and Wis are easily shored up with items and feats. Haversacks, circlets of persuasion, and Iron Will are all great values. Spell DCs are much harder to raise.
Of course, the real reason not to take this array is: role-playing. Unless you haven't yet explored all the facets of the cookie-cutter, feeble, absent-minded, anti-social Wizard.
Play an elf. Max out Int. Take Breadth of knowledge. At level 1 knowledge monkey is you're most optimal build.
|
This is what I would consider optimized, no dump stats. Anything else would be super optimized IMO.
Male Human (Chelaxian) Wizard 1
LN Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +6; Senses Perception +3
--------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------
AC 12, touch 12, flat-footed 10. . (+2 Dex)
hp 9 (1d6+2)
Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +2
--------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------
Spd 30 ft., Shift (5') (6/day)
Wizard Spells Known (CL 1, 0 melee touch, 2 ranged touch):
1 (2/day) Protection from Evil (DC 14), Summon Monster I, Obscuring Mist
0 (at will) Acid Splash, Mage Hand, Light
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 11, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 10, Cha 12
Base Atk +0; CMB +0; CMD 12
Feats Improved Initiative, Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus: Conjuration, Wizard Weapon Proficiencies
Traits Focused Mind, Natural-Born Leader
Skills Diplomacy +2, Knowledge (Arcana) +7, Knowledge (Local) +7, Knowledge (Planes) +7, Perception +3, Sense Motive +2, Spellcraft +7
Languages Abyssal, Celestial, Common, Infernal
SQ +2 to Fortitude saves, Divination, Empathic Link with Familiar (Su), Hero Points (1), Necromancy, Share Spells with Familiar, Summoner's Charm (+1r) (Su), Teleportation
--------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
--------------------
+2 to Fortitude saves You gain the Alertness feat while your familiar is within arm's reach.
Divination You must spend 2 slots to cast spells from the Divination school.
Empathic Link with Familiar (Su) You have an empathic link with your Arcane Familiar.
Focused Mind +2 to Concentration checks
Natural-Born Leader Your cohorts, followers, and summoned creatures gain +1 vs. Mind-affecting effects, +1 Leadership score if you have the Leadership feat.
Necromancy You must spend 2 slots to cast spells from the Necromancy school.
Share Spells with Familiar The wizard may cast a spell with a target of "You" on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
Shift (5') (6/day) (Sp) Short-range teleport
Spell Focus: Conjuration Spells from one school of magic have +1 to their save DC.
Summoner's Charm (+1r) (Su) Increase duration of summoning spells by 1/2 level (permanent at 20).
Teleportation Associated School: Conjuration
Oh look, it is this thread again.
As for the nay-sayers: A player in my kingmaker campaign made a Int20, screw Str/Cha wizard. He is more powerful than the entire party combined, and could solo the last part of the AP.
Even the iconic wizard got age-haxx'd to get Int18, because the sad truth is that anything lower makes for a crap wizard.
Great - let him also Solo the NPC engagements and carry anything more than a pack, a spell book and a staff and still be lightly encumbered.
Its also boring to be like the fighter who has nothing to do until its time to roll initiative.
He took craft wondrous item at 3, and was never bothered by weight or social awkwardness since. And he does not need to do social stuff. There will always be others to do it.
To have a wizard focus on social nonsense is like having the star surgeon do secretary duties at the hospital. You want someone to change their opinion of you? Charm Monster, Suggestion, Dominate Person etc. do the job far more reliably than diplomacy/bluff/intimidate.
Ok... check out this link
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/spell-lists---sorcere r-and-wizard
Spark is a goodie - you NEVER know when you need fire.
level 1? You cannot beat prot from evil. Its useful in SOOOO many ways.
summon monster 1
Colour spray is the mutts nutts
Enlarge is a great level 1 buff spell to put on your fighter and gravity bow makes your archer type hit like a .44 magnum.
I am sure other people have suggestions but this will serve you well until you start finding scrolls to copy into your spell book.
Oh and for your additional skill that I didn't assign? Sense Motive isn't bad at all or pop it into a 'Trained Only' skill and give yourself some more variety... crazy as it seems 'Disable Device' may not be totally insane - you're int will give you a +5. Alternatively Use Magic Device is a solid choice.
Sorry to inform you, but enlarge person while it is a great buff, does not stack with gravity bow, as it specifically states in the spell description that anything leaving your body returns to normal size. And gravity bow, again while being a great spell, is only a personal spell, meaning that you cannot buff your ranger friend.
Also, summon monster 1 is a horrible spell especially for first level, as it only lasts 1 round!
As you mentioned, color spray is far superior. Sleep is a good spell, but the longer casting time makes it a bit less "optimal", and is often almost never used once past 3rd or 4th level.
As a wizard at low levels, you are going to want to place stats in this order of priority: INT, DEX, CON, CHA, WIS, STR. Please note the preference of CHA over WIS is only if you take the dangerously curious trait where you are able to get use magic device (which I highly recommend). The other trait is any that afford you a bonus to concentration checks, or initiative mod...whichever you prefer.
So at low levels you are going to want to grab a crossbow, or longspear and wage war at range or aid other while using the longspear, because you will most likely not hit often and even if you did the fact that you are dump stating strength means it is almost a waste.
Helaman said it: It's a team game. You rely on others to overcome challenges none of you (except the wizard past a certain level) could hope to deal with alone.
And this is iconic way back to the Tolkien era. After all, Gandalf said "This foe is beyond any of you" when they encountered the balrog.
<grognard rant>
I have always viewed "optimizing a character" to be the effort required to build the most fun character possible.
Usually, in fact almost always, in my experience, that has been a more balanced character who relies on other party members to provide a team approach to combat.
In every case where I have either played, or played with, a fully "optimized" character for any specific role, that character has been the one that has caused the most party friction, done the least to carry the load in non-combat situations and has frequently been the least enjoyable player to play with.
The tendency to super-optimize so that every character HAS TO HAVE an 18 (or 20!) in their main attribute or "they suck" has done more to make the game less fun than anything I've encountered in my 30 years of game play.
There was a time when playing characters who had to actually plan and think and overcome their own limitations was considered the most fun part of the game...
</grognard rant>
Of course, being a true optimizer, he did not step on other people's toes. He buffed the combatants, kept the cleric safe, made sure their gear was top notch, ruined the opposition's ability to muster a resistance, and allowed the fighters to deal almost ALL the damage.
But everyone knows why they won.
And if he scribed a bunch of summoning scrolls, he could likely do all of it alone. Just would have to get lots of money first.
Helaman said it: It's a team game. You rely on others to overcome challenges none of you (except the wizard past a certain level) could hope to deal with alone.
And this is iconic way back to the Tolkien era. After all, Gandalf said "This foe is beyond any of you" when they encountered the balrog.
Until he solo'd it. Dang wizards.
Of course, being a true optimizer, he did not step on other people's toes. He buffed the combatants, kept the cleric safe, made sure their gear was top notch, ruined the opposition's ability to muster a resistance, and allowed the fighters to deal almost ALL the damage.
But everyone knows why they won.
And if he scribed a bunch of summoning scrolls, he could likely do all of it alone. Just would have to get lots of money first.
None of the things you've listed above for the wizard's role (buffing, upgrading gear, crowd control, debuffing) even remotely require an "optimized" wizard. Those roles can be performed just as effectively by a wizard with a 16 starting int as a wizard with a 20 starting int.
The argument I always hear for why a wizard needs a starting 20 int is because he has to have all of his "save or suck" spells with the highest DC possible so that his opponents don't make his spellcasting fail too often. If you aren't relying on SoS spells, I don't see a need to throw a 7 into str just so you can have a 17 in int...
Of course, being a true optimizer, he did not step on other people's toes. He buffed the combatants, kept the cleric safe, made sure their gear was top notch, ruined the opposition's ability to muster a resistance, and allowed the fighters to deal almost ALL the damage.
But everyone knows why they won.
And if he scribed a bunch of summoning scrolls, he could likely do all of it alone. Just would have to get lots of money first.
None of the things you've listed above for the wizard's role (buffing, upgrading gear, crowd control, debuffing) even remotely require an "optimized" wizard. Those roles can be performed just as effectively by a wizard with a 16 starting int as a wizard with a 20 starting int.
The argument I always hear for why a wizard needs a starting 20 int is because he has to have all of his "save or suck" spells with the highest DC possible so that his opponents don't make his spellcasting fail too often. If you aren't relying on SoS spells, I don't see a need to throw a 7 into str just so you can have a 17 in int...
Actually, the part about 'ruined the opposition's ability to muster a resistance' obviously refers to save or suck spells, and is the specific reason for that.
I get that you have an axe to grind vs people who enjoy making optimized builds, but please do understand that they arent mutually exclusive with roleplayers. Some people *Gasp* enjoy both.
This could be a controversial suggestion since it's a little outside the box, but consider the trait Rich Parents to get an extra 900gp to start, and use the money to buy spells for your spellbook along with your starting equipment.
By raw the cost of buying spells is the materials cost plus the seller's fee, which is "usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more." So you'll have to work with your GM, but if he agrees that the spells you could otherwise select for free are neither rare nor unique, then additional first level spells only cost 15gp each to add to your spellbook (10gp materials + the 50% fee). There is a spellcraft check involved, but any optimised build would make such checks an auto success taking 10 for such easy spells.
With a bonded object, once a day, you can cast any spell in your books.
So, with the extra money from Rich Parents, you could start play with practically every first level spell at your disposal.
None of the things you've listed above for the wizard's role (buffing, upgrading gear, crowd control, debuffing) even remotely require an "optimized" wizard. Those roles can be performed just as effectively by a wizard with a 16 starting int as a wizard with a 20 starting int.
The argument I always hear for why a wizard needs a starting 20 int is because he has to have all of his "save or suck" spells with the highest DC possible so that his opponents don't make his spellcasting fail too often. If you aren't relying on SoS spells, I don't see a need to throw a 7 into str just so you can have a 17 in int...
Crowd Control and Debuffing are accomplished through Save or Suck spells.
You're probably thinking of killing spells--but optimized spellcasters never kill, they just make enemies helpless and let their party feel awesome killing them.
Actually, the part about 'ruined the opposition's ability to muster a resistance' obviously refers to save or suck spells, and is the specific reason for that.I get that you have an axe to grind vs people who enjoy making optimized builds, but please do understand that they arent mutually exclusive with roleplayers. Some people *Gasp* enjoy both.
Weables, I don't have an "axe to grind." I put the grognard rant in start and end tags to demonstrate that it was mostly in jest. I guess that didn't come across clearly.
Also, you may think it is "obvious" that "ruined the opposition's ability to muster a resistance" refers to save or suck spells, but I don't think that's obvious at all. There are plenty of non save-or-suck spells that do exactly that, most of which are in the crowd control or terrain control areas. Which are the two areas I see most spellcasters seem to ignore the most.
I have put together extremely optimized builds and have role played them effectively. In fact I have a 4e ranger who is pretty much nothing but a damage-dealing machine, and I role play him that way. However, in my experience once you optimize a character to the point that you've totally crippled their non-critical attributes, your role playing options are highly compromised. Not that you CAN'T do it, but it just becomes harder when compared to characters with a wide variety of skills and decent abilities across the board.
It was the disappearance of Gandalf that let the characters do any stuff at all for the a lot of The Two Towers.
Tolkien actually addressed this from a story/plot perspective in interviews. In both "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" he deliberatly removed Gandalf from the story so that the actual protagonist(s) could grow.
In role play gaming terms, that would mean the only reasonable "Gandalf" style character would be a GM run NPC. Otherwise the other characters can't "grow".
I'm sorry you feel that having a 7 str or cha makes roleplaying harder. Personally, I feel it makes it easier. Roleplaying an innate character flaw brings interesting opportunities to the table, and can be just as enjoyable as roleplaying a killing machine.
Personally? my roleplaying generally has little to do with my stats. Sure, I won't roleplay someone with cha 7 as extremely diplomatic, but thats just one facet of personality. My characters *gasp again* have a personality, which is more than just the sum of their stats. Someone trained in combat may be great at throwing down when they call for it, but may be a jovial happy go lucky person otherwise. That's not reflected in stats at all, and having an optimized build in no way compromises that
|
I'm sorry you feel that having a 7 str or cha makes roleplaying harder. Personally, I feel it makes it easier. Roleplaying an innate character flaw brings interesting opportunities to the table, and can be just as enjoyable as roleplaying a killing machine.
Personally? my roleplaying generally has little to do with my stats. Sure, I won't roleplay someone with cha 7 as extremely diplomatic, but thats just one facet of personality. My characters *gasp again* have a personality, which is more than just the sum of their stats. Someone trained in combat may be great at throwing down when they call for it, but may be a jovial happy go lucky person otherwise. That's not reflected in stats at all, and having an optimized build in no way compromises that
I guess it is my turn for a bit of a grognard your doing it wrong rant. Role playing well means to roll play the character you have on paper. What his feats/skills/stats/class are as important to the characterization as who his parents were/what cliche horrible event drove him to adventure/his vices/his virtues/his nervous ticks. If your only role playing half of your character then your pretty much doing the dramatic equivalent of snatching up the dice before anyone sees the role and telling the DM it was a hit.
I'm sorry you feel that having a 7 str or cha makes roleplaying harder. Personally, I feel it makes it easier. Roleplaying an innate character flaw brings interesting opportunities to the table, and can be just as enjoyable as roleplaying a killing machine.
Personally? my roleplaying generally has little to do with my stats. Sure, I won't roleplay someone with cha 7 as extremely diplomatic, but thats just one facet of personality. My characters *gasp again* have a personality, which is more than just the sum of their stats. Someone trained in combat may be great at throwing down when they call for it, but may be a jovial happy go lucky person otherwise. That's not reflected in stats at all, and having an optimized build in no way compromises that
If you are not playing your 7 int character as a moron, you are not role playing YOUR CHARACTER. You might be role playing A CHARACTER, but not the one on your sheet of paper. After a while I get tired of playing moronic fighters. I sometimes like to play intelligent fighters.
"Role Playing" does not mean "make up whatever I want for my character to do." It means "play the character according to their ACTUAL STATS, SKILLS and ABILITIES."
Of course I've had this discussion many, many times with people who simply don't understand the definition of role playing the way I do. You probably fall into that group based on your comments so far.
There's nowhere I said I wouldn't play a 7 int character as a moron. That being said, 7 int isnt 'babbling incoherently stupid' the same way int 13 isnt 'super genius rocket scientist'. I often play low wisdom, high int characters, with a disposition of the absent minded professor. Heck, in my post I even said roleplaying an innate character flaw (a low score, obviously) makes for interesting opportunities. Selective reading, maybe?
There's simply more to it than stats, thats the point I was trying to make. Stats are one of a million things about the character that I roleplay, because he's more than a collection of numbers.
Heck, even give your example, you can roleplaying an intelligent fighter and min/max him quite thoroughly. You end up with the combat expertise (expertise? its as if he studied or something!) line of feats that require 13 int or better. He's still a damn good fighter, an expert killing machine, and quite bright to boot. He can also have an 18 strength and be set up to chop goblin heads off here or there. There's ways to optimize any concept.
My point, is that optimizing does not make you less of a roleplayer, something that seems to be over the head of many people. I guess you fall into that based on your comments so far. ;)
Weables, we may be using different understandings of the word "optimized" I was using it in the sense of sacrificing non-critical abilities to gain an 18 (or 20!) in the character's main ability and stating that the character "sucks" if they don't have that 18 (or 20!).
I thought I made that clear.
If you have a fighter with a 13 intelligence (and some of the combat expertise feats require HIGHER intelligence) then that character is not going to have "optimized" str, dex AND con. They are going to be "unoptimized" in that sense. Heck with a 15 point build I'm not even sure you can have an 18 str if you have a 13 int. Certainly not a 20 str.
That's been what I've been saying. A 16 str is not "optimized" by the definition I've been using, but that's probably what your 13 int "optimized" combat expertise fighter will end up with.
I would still call that "optimized" according to MY definition of optimizing (which is about optimizing for a CONCEPT not for a ROLE), but by the previously stated standards, that would not be an optimized fighter.
Perhaps you and I are not that far apart in what we actually do, we may just be having typical internet communication issues...
Oh, and "moron" is a bit of hyperbole. A 7 int character is by definition 15% less intelligent than a 10 int character. If a 10 int character is a "C" student, then by definition a 7 int character is an "F" student.
Sure, he/she may not be a drooling idiot, but he/she is not going to be coming up with brilliant strategic concepts int he middle of battle either.
Probably. Regardless, just to give you an example. I tend to use 20 point buy, as thats the PFS standard (and thus officially endorsed)
I'd end up with:
18 (16+2 Human)
12
14
13
10
10
If I wanted to optimize it further, I'd dump cha to 7, and add points to either con or wis (for will save). This is your fighter with a 13 int, 14 con (and all favoured points can be put into HP, you certainly wont need them for skill points as he'd already be more skilled than most fighters with 4/level (2+1int+1human)
Most fighters don't tend to need a huge con, so its not suboptimal to not have a 16+. You're in full plate, and by the time you get enough armor training for a better max dex you can buy an item to increase it, so 12 is more than fine.
This is a reasonably optimized fighter. Not bleeding edge, but it has the 18 strength and the 13 int, and would be considered fairly optimal for a combat maneuver based build. You'd end up with some trip/disarm/etc feats and get to be an intelligent fighter that way, and still end up with the big beefy 2her to lop off goblin heads.
Just an example (without a dump stat no less, but many would dump cha anyways, and it wouldnt be a weaker roleplaying experience for doing so, just different)
Weables, we may be using different understandings of the word "optimized" I was using it in the sense of sacrificing non-critical abilities to gain an 18 (or 20!) in the character's main ability and stating that the character "sucks" if they don't have that 18 (or 20!).
I think you are mixing up the common definitions of Optimizing and Min-Maxing. Optimizing involves getting the most possible out of a specific concept--in a way, you almost can't optimize without roleplaying.
Min-Maxing is where you take all 7s in the stats that don't help you kill things or whatever it is you're doing.
Examples:
An Optimizer makes:
--The best Captain America rip-off Fighter
--The best Lightning-based Sorcerer
--The best Crossbow user
A Min-Maxer makes:
--The character that deals the most DPR
--The character with the highest save DCs on a save or suck/die ability
--The character that makes the most attacks per round possible
Or at least that's how I understand it.
Oh, and "moron" is a bit of hyperbole. A 7 int character is by definition 15% less intelligent than a 10 int character.
Actualy, since there's no difference, mechanically, between an 8 and 9 Intelligence, a 7 is 10% less intelligent, while a 13 is only 5% more intelligence.
mpl... you may be right, I suppose it is "min-maxing" that I think really affects creating highly capable and interesting multi-faceted characters.
I guess I thought "min-maxing" was just a derogatory term for "optimizing." Perhaps there is a subtlety there that I've been missing...
I certainly think the fighter Weables posted above your post could be role played in a huge variety of ways, but I had thought a 15 point buy was "standard fantasy" which is what all of my groups use. a 20 point buy certainly improves your bargaining position somewhat.
I certainly think the fighter Weables posted above your post could be role played in a huge variety of ways, but I had thought a 15 point buy was "standard fantasy" which is what all of my groups use. a 20 point buy certainly improves your bargaining position somewhat.
I thought it was odd, as well, that the "standard" point buy is 20 despite 15 being called "standard fantasy." I think the end result is that a typical game of Pathfinder is actually High Fantasy.
Yes. High fantasy is the standard for PFS, which is paizos officially sanctioned stuff. High Fantasy to me is what this genre is about.
to each their own though
|
|
I thought it was odd, as well, that the "standard" point buy is 20 despite 15 being called "standard fantasy." I think the end result is that a typical game of Pathfinder is actually High Fantasy.
You have to remember that the Pathfinder Core Rule Book states that 15 point buy is for "standard fantasy" worlds. Pathfinder Society uses a 20 point buy because it is set in Golarion which is classified as "high fantasy".
If it was 15 point buy I'm sure someone would suggest
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 18+2
Wis 7
Cha 7; and vehemently defend it as the absolute best distribution.
It's not. You've crippled yourself in several areas just to keep that 20 Int.
None of which hurt you as much as 20 INT helps you.
If we are talking about optimization, which in this case we are.
If it was 15 point buy I'm sure someone would suggest
Str 7
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 18+2
Wis 7
Cha 7; and vehemently defend it as the absolute best distribution.
It's not. You've crippled yourself in several areas just to keep that 20 Int.None of which hurt you as much as 20 INT helps you.
If we are talking about optimization, which in this case we are.
... unless the actual situation here is "min-maxing" as described above. Which seems to be different than "optimizing" if I'm following this thread accurately...
Well, apparently all of my group's GMs (including me) are too literal minded because we all play with a 15 point buy, and that means most of our characters start with a 16 (18 with +2) as their highest stat, not 18 (20 with +2).
Still managing to have fun in spite of that though... Would it be "more fun" with a 20 point buy?
Dunno... but I doubt it. Just different.
One of the things I constantly tell my players when they ask for cool stuff is that if they want the game to be challenging, then anything they get that over-balances them just means I have to boost the NPCs to keep the game balance. In the end there isn't much, if any, real game play dynamic difference between a 15 and a 40 point buy. There's just a lot more stuff to keep track of...
Lightbulb, by my ages-old definition of "role-playing" (which literally means playing a role, meaning that you are trying to present yourself as a different person with different skills, abilities, intelligence, etc) then a player who plays their charisma 8 character as the party "face" is not "role playing" their character as that character is defined according to their stats.
However, as I have learned from many conversations with players in the 21st century, it appears that the modern RPG player doesn't really give a fig about their stats, they "role play" to achieve a desired effect, not to accurately represent what a character with that character's actual skills, abilities and attributes would be able to do.
It's not "badwrongfun" it's just not the same game I used to play. That's all. I still play my characters as if their stats have some meaning. But that's just me.
Yes, I do believe that means a player who "role plays" their charisma 8 fighter as if the fighter had a charisma of 16 is gaining an advantage since they obviously dumped charisma to gain a mechanical advantage in some other area, but don't accept penalties in the area they dumped the stat... but again, it's a different game these days. All that matters is if people have fun.
mpl... you may be right, I suppose it is "min-maxing" that I think really affects creating highly capable and interesting multi-faceted characters.
I guess I thought "min-maxing" was just a derogatory term for "optimizing." Perhaps there is a subtlety there that I've been missing...
I certainly think the fighter Weables posted above your post could be role played in a huge variety of ways, but I had thought a 15 point buy was "standard fantasy" which is what all of my groups use. a 20 point buy certainly improves your bargaining position somewhat.
Dunno bout you guys, but if you go to WoTC Character Optimization forums, you will find any and every min-max shenanigan there is. That's why I think Adamantine Dragon, much as me, took this as such an attempt.
I'm not sure if I can say this without being offensive, Adamantine, but I'm gonna try. Please bear this in mind.
Denigrating someones idea of fun, then saying its ok as long as you have fun is still insulting.
It's akin to saying 'well, you're a moron, but ignorance is bliss right? you must be happy!'
It really gets peoples back up, my own included. I do my utmost to respect the playstyle of people who see things differently than me, and go out of my way to explain my position, but this more often than not is the frustrating rebuttal.
It's condescending, and I implore you to look at it from someone elses perspective. I understand that you don't mean it to be, but it IS coming across that way, to me at least. and I know if I was doing the same, I'd prefer to be told. so there it is.
Weables.
That's OK, I'm fine if you are insulted. I don't feel any particular need to go to great lengths to avoid saying anything that overly sensitive people get offended by.
It's cool.
As you can see, I don't get offended by your comments because I'm not one who feels that I have some sort of right to never have anything I say or believe questioned by anyone else on the planet.
We cool?
Then how about someone give me a min-maxed lvl 1 Wizard build with some suggestions of spell selection and maybe a skeleton of what spells/feats I should pick up at each level?
I just need a lot of help because my Pathfinder-fu is very weak right now. I am just getting back into the game after a long, long time.