|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wild Bad-Guy appears.I have an init bonus of +22, I crit a shocking grasp for 120 points of damage before anyone else can act.He's dead, next round another bad guys runs out of the ruins.Bladed Dash, I hit him for a total of 97 points of damage before anyone else can act.He's dead. The BBEG appears and attacks, I hit an AC of 35You missed. Before anyone else can go I crit with an empowered shocking grasp....
Well guys, Its been fun, meet again next Friday night?I'll have to check my calendar, I'll let you know if I can make it next week.
If your night goes like this, I have a problem.
I edited your scenario for the other extreme.
I edited your scenario for the other extreme.Wild Bad-Guy appears.I have an init bonus of +22, I crit a shocking grasp for 120 points of damage before anyone else can act.He's dead, next round another bad guys runs out of the ruins.Bladed Dash, I hit him for a total of 97 points of damage before anyone else can act.He's dead. The BBEG appears and attacks, I hit an AC of 35You missed. Before anyone else can go I crit an empowered shocking grasp....
Well guys, Its been fun, meet again next Friday night?I'll have to check my calendar, I'll let you know if I can make it next week.
If your night goes like this, I have a problem.
Part of me hopes that this gets copied and edited time and time again to prove people's points on these boards.
Of course you're right on that front. And the best response a DM can have is to throw something at them that isn't combat based, or just up the CR. I may be one of the few DM's that doesn't have an issue with letting my player's min-max, I just hate doing it myself. But the discussion at hand about optimization in general still lands with my opinion on 'be able to do your job.'
In my original example, the wizard player couldn't do his job because his job was to cast spells, and not die. I'm not saying he has to fill some quintessential party role. I'm just saying he has to be able to be a competent contributor.
If my players feel they have to power min-max to beat my encounters, then I would be willing to drop the difficulty of my encounters. If they just need some friendly advice, then I will give them friendly advice. If I do both and they still cannot win, then I have no mercy left for them.
As a GM it may indeed drive you crazy to have non-optimal or even stupid or silly characters, but if the players are having fun I would just roll with it and adapt to their style. Of course, you have the right to have fun, too, so if it truly drives you crazy, then maybe it's time to have someone else sit behind the GM screen so you can drive them crazy.
This needs to be framed and hung on the virtual wall somewhere.
Best gaming advice you'll ever see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM it may indeed drive you crazy to have non-optimal or even stupid or silly characters, but if the players are having fun I would just roll with it and adapt to their style. Of course, you have the right to have fun, too, so if it truly drives you crazy, then maybe it's time to have someone else sit behind the GM screen so you can drive them crazy.This needs to be framed and hung on the virtual wall somewhere.
Best gaming advice you'll ever see.
Said every player ever. See my above example and find a DM that wouldn't go crazy with a character who's concept is about how worthless they are. Being sub-optimal or goofy is one thing. Unbearable is not. The answer cannot always be "well you shouldn't be DM then!" Having minimal expectation of players does not lead to too many problems. What leads to too many problems is setting the bar too high. Quirky characters that do 5-10 damage opposed to power game'd ones that do 20-25 damage are still manageable.
Maybe you need to find a new style and not blame the DM for all the times you get yourself killed. Especially if you have consistent results with different DMs and your character concepts not working.
|
|
As a GM it may indeed drive you crazy to have non-optimal or even stupid or silly characters, but if the players are having fun I would just roll with it and adapt to their style. Of course, you have the right to have fun, too, so if it truly drives you crazy, then maybe it's time to have someone else sit behind the GM screen so you can drive them crazy.This needs to be framed and hung on the virtual wall somewhere.
Best gaming advice you'll ever see.
The problem occurs when there are wildly varying levels of optimization within the same group.
PFS suffers from this problem.
The only time it gets into drive-me-crazy territory is when there is a big discrepancy in power among characters. It's important that they all have a niche they can fill, but I've had games where it was very hard to plan encounters without either one or two characters being completely overwhelmed if trouble headed their way, or one or two character cutting through the battle like butter.
If I have a group of silly, all-over-the-place characters, fine. I throw fights at them that meets their power level, and vice versa for really strong optimized ones. I award EXP based on attendance, so they dont have to worry about levelling slower.
As a GM it may indeed drive you crazy to have non-optimal or even stupid or silly characters, but if the players are having fun I would just roll with it and adapt to their style. Of course, you have the right to have fun, too, so if it truly drives you crazy, then maybe it's time to have someone else sit behind the GM screen so you can drive them crazy.This needs to be framed and hung on the virtual wall somewhere.
Best gaming advice you'll ever see.
Said every player ever. See my above example and find a DM that wouldn't go crazy with a character who's concept is about how worthless they are. Being sub-optimal or goofy is one thing. Unbearable is not. The answer cannot always be "well you shouldn't be DM then!" Having minimal expectation of players does not lead to too many problems. What leads to too many problems is setting the bar too high. Quirky characters that do 5-10 damage opposed to power game'd ones that do 20-25 damage are still manageable.
Maybe you need to find a new style and not blame the DM for all the times you get yourself killed. Especially if you have consistent results with different DMs and your character concepts not working.
Says every person who enjoys the game as a method of having fun rather than a route to a power trip.... on either side of the DM screen.
Please note the bolded section of the above quote. In both "strawman" examples given above it's pretty clear that only one person was having any fun at those imaginary tables. The game has to be fun for everyone, the DM included.
Maybe you need to find a different group of players if the interaction between your playstyle and theirs is causing you so much grief?
As a GM it may indeed drive you crazy to have non-optimal or even stupid or silly characters, but if the players are having fun I would just roll with it and adapt to their style. Of course, you have the right to have fun, too, so if it truly drives you crazy, then maybe it's time to have someone else sit behind the GM screen so you can drive them crazy.This needs to be framed and hung on the virtual wall somewhere.
Best gaming advice you'll ever see.
Said every player ever. See my above example and find a DM that wouldn't go crazy with a character who's concept is about how worthless they are. Being sub-optimal or goofy is one thing. Unbearable is not. The answer cannot always be "well you shouldn't be DM then!" Having minimal expectation of players does not lead to too many problems. What leads to too many problems is setting the bar too high. Quirky characters that do 5-10 damage opposed to power game'd ones that do 20-25 damage are still manageable.
Maybe you need to find a new style and not blame the DM for all the times you get yourself killed. Especially if you have consistent results with different DMs and your character concepts not working.
Says every person who enjoys the game as a method of having fun rather than a route to a power trip.... on either side of the DM screen.
Please note the bolded section of the above quote. In both "strawman" examples given above it's pretty clear that only one person was having any fun at those imaginary tables. The game has to be fun for everyone, the DM included.
Maybe you need to find a different group of players if the interaction between your playstyle and theirs is causing you so much grief?
I see what you did there, but I stand by my statements that if someone is dragging down the rest of the table for their own fun, then blaming the DM, it's their problem.
The word players must be plural and refer to all of them. One player choosing to differ in play style from everyone else is not entitled to tell off everyone else at the table, and he is definitely not entitled to blame the DM for his problems.
The demeanor of most players is to have fun mostly for their own self, and they see the DM as their main opposition on this particular front, but they have to understand that the DM has to stand up for his own fun and the fun of everyone else sitting at the table. Now, if everyone at the table is under powered, the DM is encouraged to compensate, sure to an extent. But tailoring the game specifically for one player who wants to try a crappy concept on purpose is not on my list of things to do, especially when I go out of my way for these guys. Other players at my table agree with me so I know I'm not just being a hard ass.
I think something worth considering is that players who make a character whose resources are so spread out can often feel frustrated when they perceive to be not very useful in combat. This also can carry over to players whose character have the *potential* to be potent in combat but are not due to a lack of that player actually using those resources.
For example, there are two characters in the game I'm currently running. One is a sort of an unconventional thinker. He loves summoning riding dogs and toads, animating rope, and that sort of thing. I feel bad because in combat, that playstyle just plain doesn't contribute much more than flavor. He's a good roleplayer and I try to come up with scenarios in which he can shine, but at the end of the day he just isn't as effective in resolving fights and I fear that sometimes he gets frustrated by that fact.
The other cleric is more of the flavor of a battle cleric, but the problem is that so far in the campaign, I can count how many times he's actually cast a spell on one hand, not counting channeling. His style is much more of running in with a greataxe on round 1. There is so much you can do with a cleric other than just hit things, and I try to get that across, but at the end of the day it's his character and not mine. This player is also a great roleplayer, and I really enjoy that aspect of both of them.
To be fair, their level is below when clerics really start to shine, but I guess my point is that in a number-derived situation like combat, these kinds of characters just aren't going to be as effective without help from the DM, and I think sometimes DMs can catch a lot of flak when players feel marginalized. My players have not done so, but I definitely have seen players hassle their DMs about not being effective, even when it was through player choice or oversight.
One is a sort of an unconventional thinker. He loves summoning riding dogs and toads, animating rope, and that sort of thing. I feel bad because in combat, that playstyle just plain doesn't contribute much more than flavor.
Hey, flavored combat beats bland combat.
|
I was worried recently with the fact that some of the PCs in my game of Jade Regent just will not be optimized. In fact, the players refuse ideas I try to sell them so that their PCs will be more optimized. And then I have some light powergamers who will be building highly optimized PCs in the same group.
Thankfully, I found the answer in a post on the forums : "Fun > Balance". It really eased my worries.
As long as all my players have fun, I know I will too, no matter how imbalanced (in either direction) their characters are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mad Monkeys plus Pit plus aqeaus orb. You know you want to.
I've been tempted to create a character that uses the most bizarre spells possible and eyeing "mad monkeys" as his signature spell.
I can tell you from personal experience that mad monkeys can be a very effective spell.
BTW, the sort of caster you have in mind would find some useful stuff in Rite Publishing's 1001 Spells. I can't remember the names just now but there's one spell that creates a pair of boulders in midair, and smashes the target between them; another that simultaneously (but separately, so you have to make four saves) the eyes, ears, nose and mouth of the target -- fail the save and you lose that organ.
|
For myself, "optimized" means: no stat under 10 (before racial modifications, when using a point-buy system; obviously, the dice can screw this over if rolling for stats), skills that are useful and make a coherent whole that fits in with the background of the character. Beyond that, well, it varies according to the class I've chosen to play; obviously, an optimized Fighter is different from a Rogue is different from a Wizard, etc.
And there is the social aspect of optimization: you have to build a character that is at least bearable to be around (basically, not being a jerk to the other people at the table). Yes, you can be grim, but at least grin when the humorist in your party drops a miserable pun into the mix. Yes, you can be secretive, but at least encourage other people to talk about themselves instead of stalking off into the shadows at the drop of an inquiry...
[I should admit that I DO usually go a few steps further than "just" optimized, as defined above. But that's the core of my build philosophy.]
See, for me "optimized" (although maybe I mean min/max and I have a bad internal definition of "optimized"?) means being really, really good at your primary role to the expense of everything else. For example were I to create an "optimized" 20 point buy barbarian right now, I'd go human bump Str up to 18, drop int, wis, cha down to 7, put the racial bonus into Str and be left with stats of 20/14/16/7/7/7. I'd probably go power attack and raging vitality for the feats, and indomitable faith and reactionary for the traits. I'd do the invulnerable rager archetype and go greatsword for the weapon.
That being said, my PFS barbarian is a dwarf, started out with stats of 18/14/14/12/9/6, and uses a Dorn-Dergar for a weapon. He's impulsive but not stupid - and most fun of all to play - has no brain/mouth filter.
I like being able to min-max/optimize, but I almost always build characters to have fun with.
The single most important tool at a D&D game - for players and DMs both - is communication. In order for everyone to enjoy themselves a clear vision of what character types or builds will or will not work in a game or campaign is needed, along with an understanding of what the players want their characters to achieve and (in broad therms) some clue from the DM as to what they can expect to have to deal with as the game progresses. A truly stupid or useless character build certainly will only drag the entire game down and limit the fun of everyone involved, but that is not to say that all characters have to reach some arbitrary bar of performance in order to be "playable".
If this thread shows nothing else, it makes it very clear that there is a wide disparity of play styles from table to table to table. If your group wants to play the D&D equivalent of a Navy Seals Team with maximized effectiveness, a specific job for each PC, and a carefully-scripted battleplan for any conceivable encounter, go for it. If you want to play a looser game with less-than-perfect characters who "wing it" half the time, that's fine too.... so long as everyone knows that going in, and agrees to the concept, and has fun doing it. Talk to one another about what you want and expect from the game before you start, and a lot of the issues discussed here will go away.
I ran across the following in a different thread, but it has a fair degree of relevance to this discussion as well (nod to Chris Van Horn, but my emphasis):
The game is supposed to simply be what you enjoy, and the extremes who say it has to be played one way or the other are wrong. Not because they can't enjoy it the way they like it, but because they are trying to force their views on others. That is a real issue in games that I hate to see. Find a group that works and plays the way you want, and don't expect others to conform solely to your views, no matter how much of a grognard you are :)
Strawman all you want, but no one makes a wizard that can't cast spells...
I actually had to point out to a fellow player once that, in fact, he should not multi-class to wizard for 3 levels, because it would not actually meet the prestige class prerequisites. He didn't have a high enough intelligence to cast 2nd level spells; in fact I believe he has a -1 modifier. Unfortunately, he had to spend four levels on sorcerer to make the prerequisite. We knew for some time he wouldn't be able to cast anything; I just hadn't realized that the prestige class prerequisite was explicitly "ability to cast 2nd-level arcane spells".
I think just about any level of optimization is fine, as long as it is reasonably consistent across the party and with the GM's expectations. If I put a build I've optimized hard in a party with characters created, unassisted, by some people I have played with, my character would dominate. To describe an extreme, a game with Pun-Pun and three commoners with Skill Focus (craft: underwater basket weaving) will not go very well. A party of Pun-Puns going through an adventure built for commoners would not go well. Nor will a band of commoners trying to survive an adventure built expecting Pun-Puns.
What I would probably use for a baseline effectiveness level to aim for is to pull up the Bestiary table with expected values by CR, and aim for certain likelihoods on chance to hit, not be hit, and have the enemy fail a save against your spells, as appropriate to what the character does, for at-level encounters. What likelihoods exactly, I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in-depth. That, at least, should be reasonably consistent with the expectations of the published modules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is quickly devolving into "You are having badwrongevilboring fun. Stop it. Even if you are across the world from me and will in no way impact my gaming, you are wrong and should stop."
Please stop.
And, HD,
Yeah, our definitions of "optmizing" are at odds. Being "really really good" at a single thing and (forgive me) sucking at everything else is not "optimal." Again, by my definition.
I tend to play characters that have some utility. Rangers are my favorite because they're good at what they are supposed to be good at, but also have spells and skills that are useful. When I arrange stats, I tend to keep those in mind.
But, to play devil's advocate, as long as your character is part of a team that compensates for what you lack, could that not be considered optimal to have a group in which each character hyper-specialized?
Dump-statting offends me. YMMV, but I absolutely hate it.
I find nothing optimal about gaping holes in a character's capacities because they wanted one or two uber-stats.
An "optimal" character in my lexicon is one who is good at his/her job, yet doesn't suck at a secondary role or two.
I also tend (OK, pretty much always) to multiclass, which can skew which stats would be "dumpable" anyway...
But really; a post-racial 16 or 17 is, in my mind, MORE than adequate for a primary stat: that's what level attribute bonuses are for -- reaching those superhuman stat levels. I'd much rather be able to afford a decent CON and DEX to go with a Wizard's requisite INT score, for example...
Pretty much in agreement with all of this. As a quick aside, in my opinion...
'Min-maxing' seems more likely to involve taking dump stats in order to absolutely max out that one stat that you really want up to 20 after racials, and then capitalize on everything that stat can give you. As said though, this tends to leave rather large flaws in your character.
'Optimization' seems more likely to involve making the best of the options you have, and making sure that you will generally have a) your preferred option available often or b) other options, should your preferred not be accessible. As well as c) not being terribly bad at any particular thing (no easily exploitable saves, for example, or a severe lack of out-of-combat utility).
Those definitions are just my opinion of the terms, but regardless, I prefer the latter. That's not to say I don't dump stats - I certainly have before (though I do try to avoid it), but I rarely go for a maxed stat anywhere. I can't remember the last time, and I'm not sure if I ever have, had a stat all the way up to 20, and 19's are extremely rare for me as well.
I tend to prefer having stats spread more between 10's (in the stats that won't do much for the character), 12 or so (in stats that are not a great help, but nice to have - Dex, Con, and Int will usually fall in here for characters that aren't reliant on them already), and anywhere from 15-17 (in the stats that are key for the character), all after racials. Of course, that's certainly not always going to be how they end up, it's just my personal preference.
And, of course, this isn't to say the former, what I defined as Min-maxing, is a bad thing. I just don't personally find it to result in characters that are actually as effective as other options could be. Diminishing returns, and all that.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. YMMV.
Dumping one stat to make you better at your best thing doesn't mean "you're good at one thing and suck at everything else".
You can have a Cha of 7 and still be good at things that don't require Cha. If you already have a Bard or other Cha caster putting points in Diplomacy ad the like is probably redundant anyway.
So you can dump Cha, make sure you have a decent Wis and be a Perception-er, Tracker, secondary Healer, or whatever.
You in no way "suck at everything else".
As for the OP, optimization is of moderate importance to me. IMO if you're not contributing at least close to as much as everyone else, you need to step it up a bit. I always like to be really good at whatever my concept is, be it a Diplomancer or a guy built around fighting with various fruit and vegetable products as improvised weaponry.
Dumping one stat to make you better at your best thing doesn't mean "you're good at one thing and suck at everything else".
...
You in no way "suck at everything else".
If this was directed towards my post, that's not exactly what I meant, and I understand what you're saying. But Cha is one of the ones that is easier to get away with on that.
As a different example, if you're playing a Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier, or some other class that doesn't have Will as a good save, and you decide to dump Wis to 7 in order to maximize Str/Dex/what have you, you are leaving a very large hole in your defenses, one which could see you taken out for an entire fight at some point.
If you dump Strength down to 7 on a caster and then get drained, you suddenly can't move at all, and likewise spend the rest of the fight out of commission.
It's not so much that a dump stat makes you 'suck at everything else,' but more like 'try not to let yourself be crippled by a single thing.'
But again, that's just a risk I would personally worry about when doing such a thing.
Dumping one stat to make you better at your best thing doesn't mean "you're good at one thing and suck at everything else".
...
You in no way "suck at everything else".
If this was directed towards my post, that's not exactly what I meant, and I understand what you're saying. But Cha is one of the ones that is easier to get away with on that.
As a different example, if you're playing a Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier, or some other class that doesn't have Will as a good save, and you decide to dump Wis to 7 in order to maximize Str/Dex/what have you, you are leaving a very large hole in your defenses, one which could see you taken out for an entire fight at some point.
If you dump Strength down to 7 on a caster and then get drained, you suddenly can't move at all, and likewise spend the rest of the fight out of commission.
It's not so much that a dump stat makes you 'suck at everything else,' but more like 'try not to let yourself be crippled by a single thing.'
But again, that's just a risk I would personally worry about when doing such a thing.
Maybe that shows how the point-buy system is flawed and not the fault of the player for wanting more optimal stats for his classes main role to his party.
Depends sometimes for me. I would say cool character concepts influence my interest in a certain character. Optimizing plays into that. If you see a creative way to maximize certain builds with certain races and class combos, sometimes a whole character is born from that. On the other hand, sometimes I create a character and story first and then build their class around how they would behave. I do try to optimize them as best I can within that concept.
I can tell you this. No one wants to play a poorly made character that is bad at a lot of things.
Ah.
Well, straight 7's in every mental stat means you suck at combat too. Dem Will saves mang.
7 Wis doesn't mean you can't function, it just means you make bad choices.
A Wis 7 character is like your cousin who always tries to rely on gambling to make money and a "get rich quick scheme" to pay off his massive gambling debts.
The only attention I pay to optimization is choosing an appropriate race to match what a player wants to do with the class (I encourage choices that will do what they indicate they want), and shoring up weaknesses.... Like a crappy Reflex save for a Cleric, or the Fighter (archer) who has a 115ft bow range and only 60ft darkvision...
7 Wis doesn't mean you can't function, it just means you make bad choices.
A Wis 7 character is like your cousin who always tries to rely on gambling to make money and a "get rich quick scheme" to pay off his massive gambling debts.
It also means that you tend to lose control of your PC a lot, because any Will save is likely to fail utterly, rendering your character doing random things. Will saves might not be frequent, but they tend to be the most dreaded out of all saving throws.
Title says it all when you create a character how much effort do you put in to optimizing your characters stats and skills etc
Very little to none what so ever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim not dumping stats is key to optimizing.
I've played a few scenarios where the "optimized" players who dumped charisma sat around on their hands the entire evening.
Optimized =/= min/max. Optimized can mean effectiveness in the widest possible set of circumstances. With this definition, stat dumping would be non-optimal.
You guys are taking the word optimizing in the complete wrong direction. Newbies reading this thread will think that optimizing now means you have to make a character that can do everything, which simply isn't the case.
All optimization is about is finding something your character excels at, and manipulating your character in ways to make that aspect(s) better than it would have otherwise been.
If you are playing a Wizard, for example, you will want to have a high INT score. The player chooses a race that gives a bonus to INT, and buys a 16 (10 points) in the stat so he now has an 18 to start. This is small scale optimizing.
Depending on the campaign, you might want/need to optimize more, but for the most part, optimizing comes from playing to a classes strengths (mostly class abilities and such) and building your character in a way that makes those aspects better, rather than taking random feats that don't help the concept, or buying a high stat that doesn't have anything to do with your class abilities.
This whole "optimization is about making a character that has no negative stats" is complete malarkey. Not that is cannot be done, and not that it cannot be done well, but it is not optimizing. In fact, it's more of a power game thing if you are purposely trying to build a character that needs as little help from other team members as possible.
On the subject of dumping WIS: I like to play paladins. When I do, I dump WIS. This is because it helps me role play the character to be trustworthy of people very easily and be willing to be forgiving and let people who otherwise wouldn't deserve it get second chances. It's part of the way to get around the alignment restriction that people so desperately cling to on this site. It also doesn't hurt my saves that much because not only do paladins get good will saves, but divine graves makes my save just as good, if not still better than everyone else's. Dumping a stat is almost mandatory in the current point-buy system if you want a character to have optimized stats to truly take advantage of their class abilities.
Stats are available at 1st, 7th and 12th level. They may not be fully optimized, but they're not deliberately crippled. No casting stats at 11, no Str 10 melee characters, etc.
So far I've reviewed (quick review while at work) a few of the Icons. The Cleric and Ranger seem deliberately crippled. Out of the ones I looked over, only the Druid seems competent; that is a far stretch from efficient.
Ranged Ranger with a Xbow without the ability to fire rapidly. Am I missing something? Improved Crit and PpT. were taken, but not Crossbow Mastery? So a level 12 ranged character has only 1 shot per turned? I must be missing something; otherwise that is deliberately crippled.
Cleric: what is she trying to do? Melee, Ranged, or Caster? Talk about MAD stats; complete fail. If she is supposed to fight in melee, why only one prepared Divine Favor, yet no Wand of DF? DF is the second definition (CWL being number 1) of a spell that should be used from a Wand.
The Druid didn't set off many major alarms, but for a caster druid her WIS is too low (by at least 4). And why have +3 Wildshape leather? If her goal is to avoid melee, just shape into a bird or something and fly away. Why the 16 CHA with no face skills (Handle animal doesn't count, especially for a Druid)?
I could go on, but really these Icons seem fairly weak (which of them is suppose to actually kill the BBEG, even the fighter doesn't deal squat for damage, where is Power Attack?), if not deliberately crippled (specifically the Cleric and Ranger).
True, some are horribly built though they don't need a feat swap or two to make them good enough in my opinion. They use a slightly higher point buy than assumed for the APs (20 instead of 15) so they can diversify their abilities some. Not optimal but fun characters, pictures and a lack of dump stats make me enjoy characters more, so I do find value for the pregens. (but yea, I would modify the ranger a bit)
To the OP:
I tend to optimize my saves or maybe defenses in general. Of course, I try to be useful in combat offensive as well.
I currently play a Zen Archer (Level 16), quite similar to Porpentine's Zen Archer "One". Saves unbuffed: 20/17/23, AC 40, Touch AC 30, Spell Resistance 26.
I guess yes, optimization is important to me. On the other hand there are three full casters in the group: wizard, oracle and druid. At this level, as a martial character I have to optimize to be able to keep up with them. Or at least be a valuable team member.
But sometimes I dream of playing a fighter/rogue or a normal monk in a less optimized group...
I tend to try to get 14 in dex and con and get a primary stat of at least 16. This matters at low levels as the AC and hit piont are importnat then.