Why does optimizing kill some stats?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I've read so many optimized builds out there and they all begin with 2 7's, an 18 and a 20. Why is that optimal?

I'm thinking of building an optimized magus PC. It's not for a game...just an exercise to see if I can make 0 level spells useful. The magus is great for this since they can eventually just drop their acid splash into their sword.

So I was looking at making a dex based magus, but after focusing on dex I want to max out his damage. Personally IMO I feel that it's more important to take a +4 in the dex instead of a +5, and therefore throw some other points around to the int and str that will be important to this build.

How harsh are you all with your build stats? Am I missing the whole point of "optimizing?"

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Grab a scimitar and look at the dervish Dance line of feats. There is one that allows you to use your dex bonus instead of your str for damage.

But I agree about the 7s. I would still put a 12 in str so you are not nerfed because of carrying capacity.


The whole point of optimizing, as I understand it, is to build a character with a narrow focus on his or her core competencies.

For example, a fighter could be built solely to do damage, have a high AC and have decent saves. None of these require intelligence or charisma AKA dump stats. So the optimized fighter will shine in combat relative to one that hasn't dumped his INT and CHA but will suffer in social encounters and skill-based encounters in general.


Mark Hoover wrote:
I've read so many optimized builds out there and they all begin with 2 7's, an 18 and a 20. Why is that optimal?

One form of optimizing, usually called "minmax", involves getting the most out of an advantage while minimizing the drawbacks. If a particular Ability Score means little to a character, then you can safely leave that stat low in order to increase the Ability that does more for you.

For instance: when you lower the Charisma of a Rogue by 2 points, he'll be worse at Charisma-based skills like Bluff or Use Magic Device. But if you then raise his Intelligence, you gain an extra skillpoint per level, which you can use to offset the Charisma penalty. For some Rogue builds, that's a good deal. For others, not so much.

A 20 Strength, 7 Charisma Barbarian hits more often and does more damage. A 19 Strength, 10 Charisma Barbarian... well, he's nicer to be around.

Quote:
How harsh are you all with your build stats? Am I missing the whole point of "optimizing?"

When building a character concept "just for fun", it can be interesting to see how much raw power can be had by wringing every last "plus" out of the rules. But when actually playing, I prefer not to have any negative Ability Modifiers, thankyouverymuch.

Except Wisdom. Wisdom sucks. Wise people are no fun.


Mark Hoover wrote:
So I was looking at making a dex based magus, but after focusing on dex I want to max out his damage. Personally IMO I feel that it's more important to take a +4 in the dex instead of a +5, and therefore throw some other points around to the int and str that will be important to this build.

Who is telling you to dump Str and Int? Even a Dex Magus usually keeps a 13 Strength around for Power Attack (unless using an agile weapon and Piranha Strike), and Int is your casting stat. Most builds I've seen keep it around a 14-16 to start. So basically, by taking an 18 Dex instead of 20 so you have points for these other stats, you are optimizing. While dumping Charisma to 7 would make sense mechanically, as it would be doing basically nothing of value for your character, dumping Str or Int is just confusing.

I think it is important to remember that, while many people talk about optimization, some are just flat wrong. You'll hear nonsense like dual bastards swords being overpowered, or that Powerful Sneak is a great way for Rogues to boost damage. When optimizing a character it is important to look at the base mechanical effects of your choices and their mathematical implications for what you want to be able to do and how you want your character to be. There is a lot of great advice out there that can give you ideas of how to achieve that goal, but one should always be aware that some people just don't know what they are talking about.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Here's a little food for thought:

My 9th PFS character (yes, really) has pre-racial stats of 14/14/13/13/12/12 and is shaping up to be pretty strong. Meanwhile, the last time I GM'd a table with a couple of PCs who had 20s and 7s, it was a TPK.

Just sayin'.

Shadow Lodge

Humphrey Boggard wrote:

The whole point of optimizing, as I understand it, is to build a character with a narrow focus on his or her core competencies.

For example, a fighter could be built solely to do damage, have a high AC and have decent saves. None of these require intelligence or charisma AKA dump stats. So the optimized fighter will shine in combat relative to one that hasn't dumped his INT and CHA but will suffer in social encounters and skill-based encounters in general.

thats actually called minmaxing.

optimizing is making a character that has a high survivability chance during a game. it is a very misused term on these boards for people who dont feel they optimize a character.

minmaxing is narrowly focusing a character into a direction, like hitting hard, at the expense of other aspects of there character, like saves for instance.

so basically 2x 7's in stats is usually a minmaxed character

but tanking charisma for a character who is not a sorcerer, or using cha for skill checks or umd IS something an optimizer will do.


What hasn't been said about minmaxing and giving your character two 7'a in point buy? Optimizing is all about getting the highest relevant stats to a narrowly focused build with little to no regard for the less important ones. It's ok for a straight up hack n' slash, not so much for a more roleplay and story focused campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Fury wrote:
What hasn't been said about minmaxing and giving your character two 7'a in point buy? Optimizing is all about getting the highest relevant stats to a narrowly focused build with little to no regard for the less important ones. It's ok for a straight up hack n' slash, not so much for a more roleplay and story focused campaign.

That's min/maxing. Optimizing is something a player should strive for; making a character that both fits the roleplaying concept you want and is effective during gameplay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Fury wrote:
Optimizing is all about getting the highest relevant stats to a narrowly focused build with little to no regard for the less important ones. It's ok for a straight up hack n' slash, not so much for a more roleplay and story focused campaign.

This is quite the overreach. To optimize, one makes the most mechanically effect representation of a concept. You can optimize a build designed for a single purpose, or optimize a generalist, or optimize anything in between.

That you would argue it is just for "hack n' slash" is a classic example of the Stormwind Fallacy: that optimization and system mastery are somehow opposed to roleplaying. The fact is, one person can make a 14 Charisma Fighter and be a terrible roleplaying, while another can make a unique and interesting character who happens to have a 7. Making a mechanically ineffective character does not make one better at roleplaying, nor does an effective character make one worse at it. If anything, I would say that optimization can aid roleplaying: if my concept is a Zorro-type character, but can't fight, ride, and seduce effectively, I'm not Zorro. I'm Don Quixote.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole thing with 'optimising', is that it's relative to the challenges you face. You have to know, or have good reason to suspect, the kind of encounters you're going to be faced with in the course of the campaign.

If you know that your GM isn't comfortable ad-libbing NPC dialogue, if you know he just got The Big Book of Underground Vermin, and you know he prefers hack'n'slash as a player, then you can be confident there will be minimal (even none) diplomatic niceties to worry about, so you can be confident when dropping Cha and all your social skills. You'd be optimized for that campaign.

If you know that your GM is an amateur thespian, does lots of SCA or LARP, has invited his co-LARPers to be the other players, has picked up The Big Book of Complex Multilayered Plots, has been known to put the PCs in tight deadlines or social situations that enforced splitting the party, takes into account every PCs actions during a social scene (so, yes, hiding at the back and looking shiftily at your feet, while your Face does the work does apply penalties to his rolls), has spent the last week installing mood lighting in his game room....
Well, you'd better be ready for a game full of diplomacy and intrigue.
If you bring an Int 7, Cha 7 thug to that game, you would not be optimised, in fact, you'd be a liability.

If GMs are going to run their players through similar kinds of campaign every time, then they shouldn't act surprised when the players bring characters that emphasise those aspects and ignore the elements they expect the GM to leave out.
The GM helps set the tone for the campaign, by the encounters he selects or focusses on.


Jiggy has it right. My latest character is nicely well rounded with a few small bonuses and to everything (except his 10 Charisma). He can do almost everything well and nothing terribly. A fellow player of mine LOVES min/max. It does make for some interesting PCs.

Also, my guy is an Inquisitor, so bonuses everywhere are pretty much required.


I think people get confused with theoretical optimization, and practical optimization.

It is an interesting thought exercise to figure out how to make a character who can do the maximum possible damage in a single round. But such a character would probably have poor defenses and be socially worthless.

I personally don't allow characters to have 7's when I GM, as I find the concept of a group putting up with such a character, and trusting each other with their lives breaks the believability of the game.

Note: I should point out that I have only seen those low scores put into mental stats, never into physical stats. I guess I would have no problem with an 8 str, especially if the character was a halfling or gnome.

Shadow Lodge

i dont get that fergie, have you ever seen the big bang theory? sheldon has a cha of 1 but his friends still accept him and understand that he brings something important to the group contrary that he annoys them to hell and back.


Jiggy wrote:

Here's a little food for thought:

My 9th PFS character (yes, really) has pre-racial stats of 14/14/13/13/12/12 and is shaping up to be pretty strong. Meanwhile, the last time I GM'd a table with a couple of PCs who had 20s and 7s, it was a TPK.

Just sayin'.

Conclusion: Even a 40 point buy cannot save a player who is:

A) an idiot, or
B) really, really unlucky.


Practical and theoretical optimization: the fighter (or wizard or magus) is going to be terrible socially no matter what, so why not dump charisma? That's why you adventure with socially acceptable people like clerics and cavaliers and bards. You don't need everyone in the party to be sociable any more than you need everyone in the party to be able to disable traps.

Practical optimization: Your DM makes you roll stats. You rolled a 5 or less. There is no way it's not going in charisma or intelligence. Nothing else can be dumped so low and still have a playable character. More classes can dump charisma than intelligence. Some you just have to choose a different class if you have a roll that low.


Mark Hoover wrote:

I've read so many optimized builds out there and they all begin with 2 7's, an 18 and a 20. Why is that optimal?

I'm thinking of building an optimized magus PC. It's not for a game...just an exercise to see if I can make 0 level spells useful. The magus is great for this since they can eventually just drop their acid splash into their sword.

So I was looking at making a dex based magus, but after focusing on dex I want to max out his damage. Personally IMO I feel that it's more important to take a +4 in the dex instead of a +5, and therefore throw some other points around to the int and str that will be important to this build.

How harsh are you all with your build stats? Am I missing the whole point of "optimizing?"

Because PF rewards dumping stats. In 3.0/5, you couldn't go below 8 by point buy.

In PF, you can buy down for extra points. Cha is rarely used by non-socially skills/Cha spells/Paladin/Summoner.
What use is Cha to a Barbarian in general? How about +2 Str? Yeah 4 points might only be +1 Str if you have 17 bought, but every point helps.

Scarab Sages

Fergie wrote:


Note: I should point out that I have only seen those low scores put into mental stats, never into physical stats. I guess I would have no problem with an 8 str, especially if the character was a halfling or gnome.

I once played a character with a 3 strength (rolled on 4d6, keep highest 3). GM offered to allow me to reroll, I declined.

Starbuck_II wrote:

Because PF rewards dumping stats. In 3.0/5, you couldn't go below 8 by point buy.

In PF, you can buy down for extra points. Cha is rarely used by non-socially skills/Cha spells/Paladin/Summoner.
What use is Cha to a Barbarian in general? How about +2 Str? Yeah 4 points might only be +1 Str if you have 17 bought, but every point helps.

If the GM is strict on earning fame, a character with a 7 Charisma is going to be at a huge disadvantage. This in turn will affect his ability to purchase desired gear. This can easily be the difference between having a +1 weapon or a +2 weapon.

It can also be the difference between having a rezz available when needed and having a permanently deceased character.

Scarab Sages

This is what I am currently looking at using for PFS as a magus.

Not as social as I wanted, but I'll be able to pick up speed on diplomacy a little starting at 4.


Most classes don't have a snowball's chance in Qatar of making social skill checks anyways. If they're cross-class skills on a low skill point class that isn't a charisma based caster it's pretty much a lost cause unless the GM is playing softball with DCs.

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:
Most classes don't have a snowball's chance in Qatar of making social skill checks anyways. If they're cross-class skills on a low skill point class that isn't a charisma based caster it's pretty much a lost cause unless the GM is playing softball with DCs.

If it's a cross-class skill, you're only at a three point disadvantage. It really depends on the check, you're probably not going to smooth-talk the professional diplomat, but you might be able to ingratiate yourself with Bob the dirt farmer.


Cross class, inadequate skill points, no mechanical reason to have any charisma.

Compare Bard (will max social skills, has at least 14 base charisma and often 16, will wear a headband of charisma) to Fighter (has 2 skill points, no charisma based class skills except intimidate, and no other justification for charisma) You're probably looking at a 5-6 point gap even without dumping, and it's only going to get bigger when the fighter wants skill points for things like perception and a bit in ride and climb and swim and the bard gets stat boosters and possibly puts level up points in charisma. Heaven help the rogue if he wants to also be able to bluff, because he's going to wind up failing at both.

Rogues are in the same boat as bards if built for UMD and even if not will still gain ground over time as the fighter doesn't have enough skill points to go around.

Cavaliers would have a +3 swing if they didn't have twice as many skill points to go around. But they do, so they can potentially keep pace on face skills.

Clerics aren't much on skill points, but unlike fighters diplomacy is often part of their role and they use charisma for channeling. Paladins are in a similar boat, but have even more reason to have high charisma.

Wizards and Witches would face better than fighters, but they have a skill role that it's very hard for any other class to fill that sucks up all their skill points. If you have two wizards they can split the knowledges and other int skills and can be diplomatic, but if you have two wizards there's no reason for them to both be diplomatic.

Monks have so many stat needs and so few free benefits (like rage or weapon training) they need to dump two stats just to match the accuracy of a non-dump statted fighter or barbarian.

Barbarians could put points in diplomacy if diplomacy weren't contrary to pretty much every barbarian concept ever. They might want stuff like survival and knowledge (nature) and climb and swim and maybe acrobatics that fit the character concept instead. And at that point charisma isn't doing much so may as well dump it.

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:
Barbarians could put points in diplomacy if diplomacy weren't contrary to pretty much every barbarian concept ever.

The barbarian I'm playing now is keeping maxed-out diplomacy along with his 12 CHA, to help him be a redemptive character and deal properly with the new cultures and peoples we're all interactivng with during our long-trek campaign. Has roots in the mixed environment he was raised in, the complete lack of shame of his heritage(he's proud of being a half-orc and Shoanti), and it helps him to inspire others if he needs to do that. Spirit Totems also play off his positive CHA a bit. Staying full barbarian the whole way through.

Scarab Sages

None of those arguments change the fact that diplomacy is a frequently required skill to complete faction missions in PFS.

You don't have it, you lose out on fame.

Low fame = reduced magic item availability.

Reduced magic item availability = reduced combat effectiveness.


Mikaze wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Barbarians could put points in diplomacy if diplomacy weren't contrary to pretty much every barbarian concept ever.
The barbarian I'm playing now is keeping maxed-out diplomacy along with his 12 CHA, to help him be a redemptive character and deal properly with the new cultures and peoples we're all interactivng with during our long-trek campaign. Has roots in the mixed environment he was raised in, the complete lack of shame of his heritage(he's proud of being a half-orc and Shoanti), and it helps him to inspire others if he needs to do that. Spirit Totems also play off his positive CHA a bit. Staying full barbarian the whole way through.

I love the idea of a barbarian diplomat - he's actually a terrible negotiator but everyone just gives him what he wants because he has a reputation of raging out whenever someone disagrees with him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:

None of those arguments change the fact that diplomacy is a frequently required skill to complete faction missions in PFS.

You don't have it, you lose out on fame.

Low fame = reduced magic item availability.

Reduced magic item availability = reduced combat effectiveness.

Not everyone plays Pathfinder Society games or enjoys a highly structured, limited environment. Believe it or not, a lot of people play home games.

Liberty's Edge

Artanthos wrote:

None of those arguments change the fact that diplomacy is a frequently required skill to complete faction missions in PFS.

You don't have it, you lose out on fame.

Low fame = reduced magic item availability.

Reduced magic item availability = reduced combat effectiveness.

First of all, there are no right or wrong opinions. We all play pathfinder to have fun! If you ENJOY a broken character, find a broken campaign and have fun. If you ENJOY a character with 12's and a couple of 8's, go to town and roleplay your heart out.

Min/Maxing is GENERALLY associated with stats.

Optimizing is GENERALLY associated with feat/skill/archtype/prestige class paths & chains.

Broken characters GENERALLY have done both. Broken being a variable opinion:)

EVERY player & DM has a Combat/roleplaying ratio, few people are purists and are 100/zero or zero/100. Personally, I'm a 75 combat / 25 roleplay guy. Some encounters REQUIRE some roleplaying, I get that. For the sake of the game and story flow & the enjoyment of those 25/75's , I hang out looking interested while they get their roleplaying grove on.

For home games, like players gravitate towards each other and in turn gravitate towards a like minded DM. Min/Max, Optimized, or even broken characters work with very little effort.

In PFS play it is always a crap shoot. After a while you get a feel of the ratios of the regulars who show up to your local hobby shop/gaming place. If they post a gaming schedule you can pick and chose what games you make, so you can get a DM that fits your gaming style. A combat orientated player, sitting down at a table with a 10/90 DM is in for a long painful night, lol.

Conventions on the other hand are a whole different creature altogether. You truly have very little say in the DM or your fellow players. The best you can do is research the games you are signed up for and read the none spoiler reviews to give you an idea of the mod, whether it is combat heavy or social encounter / roleplay heavy, or a combination of two. You can do this and STILL end up sitting down with 3-4 players that are your direct opposite as far as gaming style goes. The tolerance level for broken characters is MUCH lower here. There is nothing like sitting down at a table with 4 low optimized characters and 1 broken one. The 4 of us didn't fly/drive 500+ miles and spend real money to do so, to sit back and let the broken character own all the combats in 1 or 2 rounds each:( Broken has fun, feeling he/she has performed like a champ and used their character to best of their abilities... The rest of the table looks at Broken with varying degrees of annoyance, thinking they are an ass.

Adventure writers and DM's have a tough job in PFS. Very few mods are written to accommodate a party that has more than one broken character. God forbid you have 2, 3, or even 4 broken characters. Those poor fluffy mods with combats geared towards a 'normal' group of average characters don't have a chance:( In home games, the DM adds 20 hps to the monsters or adds a few extra bad guys, no worries... PFS does not allow for this contingency... on the other hand, there are a couple of mods written with power characters in mind (the mods with higher than average TPK rates). These mods eat fluffy groups and the best the DM can do is discourage the group from playing up. Provided they even have the opinion of playing down.

Bottom line, when at a Con, you need to have a think skin and patience... everyone WANTS to have fun and your character and/or gaming style may hinder other players enjoyment at your table. It is very RARE that it is personal, the other people don't even know you. Keep that in mind and you'll have a better time. I only mention this because Gen Con is next week and I'm sure I'll see many of you (the brokens & fluffy) there:)

wow, that was more of a rant than I had in mind when I started to reply, LOL.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a big difference between a +10 total skill modifier and a +6, but no difference at all between +2 and -2.

And I will roleplay my character based on what he can and cannot do, not based on your interpretation of what ability score levels mean, thank you very much.

Scarab Sages

Aratrok wrote:


Not everyone plays Pathfinder Society games or enjoys a highly structured, limited environment. Believe it or not, a lot of people play home games.

If all your playing is hack & slash then by all means: dump your int and cha down to 7 and just "forget" to roleplay it.

A gm running this style of game at home is probably never going to require individual players to take a test vs mental stats anyways.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:


If all your playing is hack & slash then by all means: dump your int and cha down to 7 and just "forget" to roleplay it.

Jesus f*+*, this Real Roleplayer(tm) b#@&*&&+ is tiresome.

Artanthos wrote:


A gm running this style of game at home is probably never going to require individual players to take a test vs mental stats anyways.

Tests vs mental stats are really not a thing in 3.X games. What are some situations where you would call for a test vs. a mental stat?


Basically, if you play a wizard you ARE going to suck at melee. No two ways about it. Without asking what the fruit your wizard is doing in melee: Take Str 10 or Str 7. By level 5-6 or so, you are going to need a 20 to hit most things anyway, unless you use spells and feats to improve, in which case you are failing even harder at your prime mission: Being a wizard.

A ranger, a fighter, a barbarian and the wizard also have on average ONE charisma based skill. Meaning you are not going to be convincing anyone by having 10 instead of 8 or 7. Unless you want to shank your character's effectiveness by putting resources towards becoming average in, say, diplomacy. So you can pick up barmaids or whatnot.

The class dictates what you are going to be GOOD at. A sorcerer with str 14 is not going to be a GOOD melee combatant. He is at best going to be middling. And those who have seen Rome know what Octavian says about "middling swordsmen".

Octavian:
"The graveyards are littered with middling swordsmen. If you are not among the best, better to not use a sword at all."


Rasmus Wagner wrote:
Artanthos wrote:


A gm running this style of game at home is probably never going to require individual players to take a test vs mental stats anyways.
Tests vs mental stats are really not a thing in 3.X games. What are some situations where you would call for a test vs. a mental stat?

It does not happen. Everything is tied up to a skill. And depending on your class, you are either going to be good at it, or you are going to suck. A fighter can put Int/Cha16, and try as hard as he wants. He is never going to be as good as the bard at knowledge OR social skills.


Artanthos wrote:
Aratrok wrote:


Not everyone plays Pathfinder Society games or enjoys a highly structured, limited environment. Believe it or not, a lot of people play home games.

If all your playing is hack & slash then by all means: dump your int and cha down to 7 and just "forget" to roleplay it.

A gm running this style of game at home is probably never going to require individual players to take a test vs mental stats anyways.

No tests exist by RAW.

Now poisons exist. There might be some that target these specific mentlas, but if you bump Fort save, you'll never fear them so no difference.

Grand Lodge

I find that introducing ability score damage once or twice "fixes" this little problem.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:


No tests exist by RAW.
Now poisons exist. There might be some that target these specific mentlas, but if you bump Fort save, you'll never fear them so no difference.

The Maze spell (DC 20 int check) exists. I am sure there are others. Just few and far between.

A 7 is not nearly as bad as most 'roleplayers' make it out to be. That said I really wish Paizo had left point buy as a quadratic system rather than a parabolic one.


People dump stats - particularly Charisma - down to 8 or 7 because the game rewards doing so. Period. The difference between a Charisma of 10 and a Charisma of 7 is almost impossible to notice, even in diplomacy-heavy games. You can ignore the game's rules and pretend that characters with a charisma of 7 are repulsive instead of almost imperceptably less charismatic than average, but that's lousy roleplaying, so I prefer not to do that and I prefer my players not to do that.

Trying to "counter" dumped charisma with ability damage is only useful if your players are bad at math or you're extremely heavy-handed about it (Oh man! It's another magical trap that does exactly seven charisma damage! What are the odds?)

The following things are just true:

- Charisma affects very little besides skills.
- Spending points in an attribute purely to help with skills related to that attribute is very inefficient; you get relatively few attribute points, and well-spent ones improve a lot of things. You get lots of cheaper character resources (skills, feats, traits) with which you can improve skills if you want that.
- A character with a 10 in an attribute is going to succeed on challenges related to that attribute only very slightly more than a character with a 7, to the extent that most people won't even notice.
- There's nothing magical about having a 10 in a stat that suddenly makes you fine when it comes to checks. If you're using checks that 7-Cha characters will usually fail, 10-Cha characters will usually fail them too.
- Paizo inexplicably decided that players should be hugely rewarded with very valuable attribute points for dumping relatively worthless stats to 7.

That's why people dump charisma to 7.


So...everyone should have a charisma of 7, barring those few classes that need Cha for casting/powers?

I instead gravitate toward the argument that, regardless of what the bonus/negative is for your respective stats you should roleplay generally around them. Do they define you entirely? No, but they are some of your most definable characteristics.

If you have 12's on every stat you are Unremarkable Guy; destined for a life of mediocrity (among super-heroic PCs and NPCs that is). On the other hand if you've got a 20 strength and a 7 charisma you have become a villain in WWE; you're handsome, incredibly strong...and everyone loathes you for it.

Yes, its imperceptible the difference between 7 and 12 on a dump stat like Cha or perhaps Int in the numbers of the game, but IN MY OPINION (I put that all in caps since the flame war still smolders here) I would like to see my players roleplay a difference. I actively encourage folks in my games who min/max their stats to play their characters like the charicatures their stats portray.

Ex: I had a 2e character that converted to 3e, by the name of Arlyss Coranth. I took the moniker Arlyss the Gaunt. He had only a 9 con, nothing too terrible, but since I'd rolled his stats instead of purchasing them the rest of his stats just happened to be pretty terrific - Str 10, Con 9, Dex 14, Int 18, Wis 15, Cha 16. I got really lucky with him.

Now I wanted Arlyss in 2e to be a Scholar kit meaning he was a middle-aged professor-turned-adventurer. He was likeable, though a little scrawny, but tended to drone on in lectures. Translated into 3e he made it to 11th level and had a pair of signature spells from 2e - cause fear and minute meteors.

So when the game got harder, grittier I adjusted Arlyss; enter Arlyss the Gaunt. He became a monster bounty hunter, the living version of the undead monster The Eye of Fear and Flame. He became a charicature; 6' tall, 98 pounds wet, with receeding black hair and a beaked nose. But when he was enveloped in a billowing black cloak, pale white, with a gaze that caused fear and tiny fireballs that streaked endlessly from the depths of his darkness he was kind of cool.

I like min/maxers, I know them and understand their brains. Now after this thread I understand them more and have armed myself w/a few tools to encourage their behaviors to greater highs and lows.


Stat dumping gets punished hard when creatures drain that attribute; STR 7 wizards go down in a hurry when Shadows are around. Of course there's not a huge amount of things running around with CHA drain.


Nothing drains you when a 20 dex + reactionary couples with a charging 2h greatsword swing + 20 str + power attack (and so much else) guarantees that the lamia who was about to suck out your 7 wisdom is nothing more than a bloodmist. Am I right fellas? Up High!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mark Hoover wrote:
Nothing drains you when a 20 dex + reactionary couples with a charging 2h greatsword swing + 20 str + power attack (and so much else) guarantees that the lamia who was about to suck out your 7 wisdom is nothing more than a bloodmist. Am I right fellas? Up High!

hold person

coup de grace


Nuts.

Good thing we've got that barbarian on a leash...


Mark Hoover wrote:

I instead gravitate toward the argument that, regardless of what the bonus/negative is for your respective stats you should roleplay generally around them. Do they define you entirely? No, but they are some of your most definable characteristics.

If you have 12's on every stat you are Unremarkable Guy; destined for a life of mediocrity (among super-heroic PCs and NPCs that is). On the other hand if you've got a 20 strength and a 7 charisma you have become a villain in WWE; you're handsome, incredibly strong...and everyone loathes you for it.

And this is the problem.

You see Charisma 7 as being someone universally loathed, regardless of what their actions have actually been. However, the game sees someone with Charisma 7 as being moderately less able to convince others than someone with Charisma 10.

Why is it better roleplaying to impose your view of what Charisma 7 means than what the game says it means.

You also assume seem to assume that a person with a low Charisma must be somehow vile, unpleasant or distatesful and therefore hated by society.

Would you impose the same penalties if I described my Cha 7 Wizard as intensely bookish and inconcerned with the world around him, dismissive or unnoticing of the trifling concerns of mortals. Or a Cha 7 Cleric who was so wrapped up their faith and meditating on the heavens that they become distant and forget to look down at their flock. Or the Cha 7 fighter, a shell shocked veteran who has seen so much blood and gore that the horror never leaves them, who can never look anyone in the eyes lest they see the faces of dead comrades staring back at them.

Finally I would point out that the guy with all 12's is very much not Unremarkable guy. He's a 12 point buy character, not far off the lowest point buy available to a starting adventurer and well above Mr Really Average with 10.5 in each stat.


Mark Hoover wrote:
I've read so many optimized builds out there and they all begin with 2 7's, an 18 and a 20. Why is that optimal?

Because for a truley optimized build you only need your main stat and constitution. Everything else has diminishing returns for putting in.

Why dump str? - For non martials You only need it to carry things. After level 5 you can carry everything you want for 5 lbs in a handy haversack.

Why dump Dex: Almost no one does this. those that do rely on high hitpoints to live through the fight and get healed up later. Works very well at higher levels when nothing is going to miss you anyway.

Why dump con?- Don't. You gonna die.

Why dump int?- It takes 4 points to go from an int of 7 to an int of 10. There is no mechanical reason to stop in between for clerics, fighters, paladins, and other classes that only get 2 skill points per level. You're guaranteed 1 point anyway, so 2-1 or 2-2 is going to be 1 either way. Doubly true if you're a human getting an extra skill point a level and/or putting your favored class bonus into skill points.

Wisdom: You're not going to make the will save anyway, so don't bother trying. Give your cleric friends a wand of protection from evil.

Charisma: a +2 to diplomacy and a bag of chips is just a bag of chips if you're not a diplomancer. Drop it.

Quote:


I'm thinking of building an optimized magus PC. It's not for a game...just an exercise to see if I can make 0 level spells useful. The magus is great for this since they can eventually just drop their acid splash into their sword.

The zero level spell to be useful is arcane mark. You cast arcane mark with your left hand and it gives you a free attack with your right.

Quote:
So I was looking at making a dex based magus, but after focusing on dex I want to max out his damage. Personally IMO I feel that it's more important to take a +4 in the dex instead of a +5, and therefore throw some other points around to the int and str that will be important to this build.

Your standard issue optimized magus is using a scimatar anyway for the crit range, so dervish dance is a no brainer.

STR: 7 DEX: 20 CON: 16 INT: 14 WIS: 7 CHA: 7

You will be HORRIBLE until third level when you get dervish dance, but if you can make it there you can make it anywhere...

Quote:


How harsh are you all with your build stats? Am I missing the whole point of "optimizing?"

2 7's isn't unheard of for me, i tend to go 7 7 14 14 14 17+2 rather than trying to start with a 20.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
Finally I would point out that the guy with all 12's is very much not Unremarkable guy. He's a 12 point buy character, not far off the lowest point buy available to a starting adventurer and well above Mr Really Average with 10.5 in each stat.

Fun fact:

In Golarion, Random Commoner #3,148 doesn't have 11/11/11/10/10/10. He has 13/12/11/10/9/8 (pre-racial, of course).

This means that every score from 8 to 13 is "normal".

Meanwhile, heroic NPCs get 15/14/13/12/10/8. That's right, in Golarion it's normal for heroes to have an 8.

One-third of human commoners have CHA in the single digits. One-sixth of heroic NPCs have 8 CHA.

And get this: Fully one-third of Golarion dwarves have 7 CHA or less.

The CRB describes dwarves as "a bit gruff".

So in Pathfinder, if you see 7 CHA as being something different than what you'd expect for a third of a race that's "a bit gruff", then you're objectively wrong.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kamelguru wrote:
Rasmus Wagner wrote:
Artanthos wrote:


A gm running this style of game at home is probably never going to require individual players to take a test vs mental stats anyways.
Tests vs mental stats are really not a thing in 3.X games. What are some situations where you would call for a test vs. a mental stat?
It does not happen. Everything is tied up to a skill. And depending on your class, you are either going to be good at it, or you are going to suck. A fighter can put Int/Cha16, and try as hard as he wants. He is never going to be as good as the bard at knowledge OR social skills.

I've called for Intelligence checks when players wanted to remember something they did not bother to note down, Wisdom checks as a chance for a character to rethink a bad action, and of course somethings just plain default when the character doses not have the appropriate skill.

Liberty's Edge

Fergie wrote:
I personally don't allow characters to have 7's when I GM, as I find the concept of a group putting up with such a character, and trusting each other with their lives breaks the believability of the game.

7 is a little bit below average. On a 3d6 (still my standard way of determining stat distribution in the greater population) 16% of the population has a 7 or below in any particular stat, and 65% of the population has at least one 7 or below. It's not all that low.

In my experience, Chr very frequently gets dropped, and Str usually gets dropped by mages. Con never gets dropped, but the other stats have their characters who don't really care.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why does optimizing kill some stats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion