|
In any AP where social settings are used (in a town or city say), the wizard with low wisdom, low charisma and low strength is a walking time bomb. He's a scrawny kid with aloud mouth and. No common sense who feels his superior intelligence needs to be shouted to the world and it would land him in trouble all the time.
I suspect players who build low stats like this don't play to their characteristics though. Many folk who claim to better players tend to do this in fact. They deliberately gimp areas for power in their preferred stats then use player knowledge and ability to overcome those situations where the characters stats would screw him.
If GM's are allowing that to happen, then they're baby sitting their players.
Cheers
if a concept offends you as the dungeon master, and you really don't want to deal with it, don't try to punish the Player IC, just say Veto the character and tell the player to make a few changes.
a 7 or few in reasonable stats is fine, such as for example, an anemic and scrawny bard i played who dumped strength and constitution down to 7. she was anemic and refused to drink milk nor eat liverwurst. so she was also short and highly physically underdeveloped for her age.
We limit it to one stat no less than 8 in our games.
I am not offended by people building these characters, but I insist they play to their stats. I also make NPCs interact in similar ways, and interact with p layers based on impressions fro stats.
Bullies, for example, are going to target the wizard I spoke of earlier, everytime. He's scrawny, isn't wise enough to know when to shut up, and has all the charisma of a wet paper bag. I suspect that given enough time around him, most folk would feel he deserved a smack in the mouth just to stop him thinking he was so much better than the rest of them " cos of all his fancy book learning"
However, I get the distinct impression that players who build characters like that don't play the character like that, or even something even remotely like that.
Cheers
We limit it to one stat no less than 8 in our games.
I am not offended by people building these characters, but I insist they play to their stats. I also make NPCs interact in similar ways, and interact with players based on impressions from stats.
Bullies, for example, are going to target the wizard I spoke of earlier, every time. He's scrawny, isn't wise enough to know when to shut up, and has all the charisma of a wet paper bag. I suspect that given enough time around him, most folk would feel he deserves a smack in the mouth just to stop him thinking he was so much better than the rest of them " cos of all his fancy book learning"
However, I get the distinct impression that players who build characters like that don't...
You see the wizard as a loudmouth who can't shut up, but that's not the only interpretation. He could be a scrawny wimp that's been picked on enough in his life that he cringes at the thought of confrontation and hides behind someone he considers safe. Rather than a loudmouth who thinks his intelligence makes him better, he's more akin to the bullied high school nerd who's studies might take him someplace a wiser person would have stopped. Or maybe he just plain studies so much that he doesn't get the whole 'personal interaction' thing. (That flower is lovely? Looks like any Chamomilla Verdantis common to this area to me.)(Does that dress make you look fat? I don't see how it could, there's no enchantment on it. Although I suppose Quimby the Lesser did suggest that colors have inherently illusionistic properties it was never actually proven. At least that I am aware of...).
And if bully types DO target him every time, that can be used as a plot device. That being said, bullies tend to be impressionable, and generally in a fantasy world know to avoid the scrawny robed guy with the fancy stick. Especially after he lights his pipe with his index finger. It doesn't mean they want to hang around with him, but unless they've known him long enough to know how much they can get away with, they are unlikely to try anything.
As for social situations, he'd all but have to use his spells to intimidate someone. He's just doesn't have the force of personality to back up his threats with nothing but the words. For that matter, he's also unable to tell is people are lying to him. His sense motive is god awful without training a long, long time, and he starts out behind the curve in that respect. Sure, he can point out inaccuracies with his knowledge skills, but he can't tell if it was a deliberate lie or just because the guy he's questioning isn't as smart as him. he'd get the worst deals at all the markets, and be the first person to believe that the shabby looking fellow in the long cloak with the shifty eyes really does have a map to the lost treasures of Qadira for sale, cheap. And those glances at the guards? Probably just a nervous tic, or maybe he owes someone money. After all, he must need money if he's selling a map like that!
Any way it remains a playable character, a survivable one, and possibly even interesting.
All that said, I, too, use the house rule of no more than 1 ability score lower than an 8. Min/maxing can be okay, but shouldn't be the sole focus of the game. Otherwise there'd be one standard set of stats handed out with each class type and no variety.
In any AP where social settings are used (in a town or city say), the wizard with low wisdom, low charisma and low strength is a walking time bomb. He's a scrawny kid with aloud mouth and. No common sense who feels his superior intelligence needs to be shouted to the world and it would land him in trouble all the time.
I suspect players who build low stats like this don't play to their characteristics though. Many folk who claim to better players tend to do this in fact. They deliberately gimp areas for power in their preferred stats then use player knowledge and ability to overcome those situations where the characters stats would screw him.
If GM's are allowing that to happen, then they're baby sitting their players.
Cheers
if a concept offends you as the dungeon master, and you really don't want to deal with it, don't try to punish the Player IC, just say Veto the character and tell the player to make a few changes.
a 7 or few in reasonable stats is fine, such as for example, an anemic and scrawny bard i played who dumped strength and constitution down to 7. she was anemic and refused to drink milk nor eat liverwurst. so she was also short and highly physically underdeveloped for her age.
We limit it to one stat no less than 8 in our games.
I am not offended by people building these characters, but I insist they play to their stats. I also make NPCs interact in similar ways, and interact with p layers based on impressions fro stats.
Bullies, for example, are going to target the wizard I spoke of earlier, everytime. He's scrawny, isn't wise enough to know when to shut up, and has all the charisma of a wet paper bag. I suspect that given enough time around him, most folk would feel he deserved a smack in the mouth just to stop him thinking he was so much better than the rest of them " cos of all his fancy book learning"
However, I get the distinct impression that players who build characters like that don't...
First, there is more than one way to play the same array. Maybe he is just extremely absent minded, and is very drab and unappealing, lacking any confidence, personal magnetism or leadership ability.
second, a bully might think twice about targeting someone who could easily put them on their back with something like Colour spray or sleep, which that high int will help doing.
Edit: Ack, I've been ninja'd.
I usually play low cha as meek and not talkative. Or very insulting and cynical and bitter. I picture being a loudmouth blowhard to actually be more of a high charisma thing. High charisma doesn't mean likable, it's notable, standing out. For good reasons or bad ones.
Str isn't really something you roleplay so much. There are carrying capacities...you follow them. Your CMB sucks, so you don't try grappling anyone. Pretty simple.
Low wis is a bit harder to deal with when you have high int. It's not as simple as "street smarts vs. book smarts"... you're not a dumbass just for having low wis and trust everything anyone says. I usually play it as being smart enough to recognize you suck at reading people and defer to another PC, basing your judgments of a person on how he acts. And yeah...your willpower and observational senses are a bit subpar.
|
Who the heck do you play with?!? Seriously, I have played similarly stated out wizards in several AP...hell some with even LOWER stats as we did 10 point buy for the challenge of it and it seriously was not an issue as long as your not stupid. APs don't really punish builds all that much...but they do punish being stupid pretty heavily. At least anything after council of thieves.In my experience with Serpent's Skull and Carrion Crown:
Smuggler's Shiv has great potential for you to just die. After that you're fine but if you can't Climb/Swim in certain parts of Smuggler's Shiv you at BEST stop progressing along until you can or find another way around (not always an option, I believe).
Carrion Crown: Not much in Harrowstone, but the latter half of Trial of the Beast has a few "Make an Acrobatics check or fall 200 feet" segments, where "Make an Acrobatics check" is triggered every time an enemy fires its bow at you.
Climb and swim issues...rope. Seriously. Have somebody good with rope climb up ahead and drop a knotted rope. This assumes you don't have levitate. For swim, tie a rope and have somebody swim across the river and drag you to the other side if needed. Now the shackles game has some points where lack of swim can kill you...but smart use of summon monster can help with that one.
By that fight, you can afford rings of feather fall or at least the boots of the cat. Failing that, if you caster doesn't have at least one feather fall memorized for anyone too stupid not get one of those item ASAP...that caster has failed at their job.
|
|
I suspect its seriously not an issue as long as the DM baby sits the characters.I get tired of people suggesting that they are more intelligent at playing a game because their experience differs from others.
For the first few levels that wizard can barely carry his own stuff, let alone pull himself out of a trap or similar situation that just springs up on you at low levels.
Well considering several of my games are played rolled in the open AND we all know the stats of the monsters...I highly doubt that it's an issue of the DM "taking it easy". In fact some of the APs are run without a DM. We just try our best to kill ourselves when we play the monster turns.
There are a few groups I play with where you could give them 40 point buy and they would have issues with the APs. And there are some groups where they kinda ran over the same AP with 10 point characters. Run by the same DM (aka me). It's not a matter of system mastery alone (because I did help the 40 point buy players make good characters and explained how they worked). The AP in all honesty are written in a manner to punish playing badly...but no so much to you having possibly a weaker then optimized character. I actually really like that about these new crop of APs.
|
|
Agreed on that pont Cold Napalm. The APs are getting better at having a wider range of situations for non system masters as well as system masters. It means even beginners to the game have a good shot at playing through them, if they learn to work together s a team.
I guess it's just a personal thing for me to see such a gimped out character built for optimisation reasons. That's why we put the limit in for our games I guess. Different horses for different courses, which is what Pathfinder is about I guess. It allows for those differences in play styles to come out. We'd never get a character at our table built like that, because of the way we play. I guess others do.
To the others who stated those stats can be played in other ways, I understand that fully. The original statement that sparked all this was when someone stated a character like that would struggle to survive to higher levels. The counter argument was it could if you were a smart player. I was pointing out ways that the character would have troubles that could lead to his/her death because of those stats. Remember that stats are mechanics that allow people to interpret the world through their character. It comes down to game styles and GM style I guess. In our games, as stated, we try to play our character to match the stats. That includes their contribution to planning situations and social interactions. That character would be a Source of endless fun in our games, because social situations would likely dissolve around him/her. I doubt it would survive long but it would be fun to play and fun to GM with while it lasted.
Anyway, I've probably derailed this thread long enough.
Cheers
the Anemic Bard with the 7 STR and 7 CON couldn't survive a normal game without a highly intelligent player for the following reasons
- abysmally low hit points, 6HP at 1st level and 3HP per level after
- minimal combat contribution, buffing allies, using battlefield control, then proceeding to do little else but hide and make skill checks.
- poor armor class, not enough strength to wear armor
- poor fortitude saves, poison becomes really nasty and foes that use it become potentially fatal
- young, female, and noble blooded, essentially the source of many a ransom
- extraplanar and fey heritage, essentially, everybody would try to capture her for their own sick and malicious purposes
- sickly, nobody would want to travel with a terminally ill child that requires constant protection. the only redeeming factors she had was she was that good at negotiating deals and treaties, gathering information, disabling nonmagical locks and traps, and stealing small and useful mcguffins.
the puppeteer countess girl was quite useful, despite her illness. when they asked where she learned that kind of skill with traps and palming small objects, i told them "try pulling strings for a few years, it builds quite the dextrous fingers."
Climb and swim issues...rope. Seriously. Have somebody good with rope climb up ahead and drop a knotted rope. This assumes you don't have levitate. For swim, tie a rope and have somebody swim across the river and drag you to the other side if needed. Now the shackles game has some points where lack of swim can kill you...but smart use of summon monster can help with that one.
Ah.
So, "not playing stupid" is "Hope another player can cover my ass because I sure can't".
Gotcha.
Not saying that's not a valid playstyle, but it's not particularly reliable either.
By that fight, you can afford rings of feather fall or at least the boots of the cat. Failing that, if you caster doesn't have at least one feather fall memorized for anyone too stupid not get one of those item ASAP...that caster has failed at their job.
As I said (*checks back up* *meant to say), Feather Fall won't help you make that DC 20 Swim check at the bottom of said fall.
You'd probably survive unless you dumped Con too but you'd be out of the game for quite a while.
If I really wanted to be mean, it says there are a ton of Ghasts hanging around the swamp around that river, so the trek back from wherever you ended up could be pretty interesting.
Climb and swim issues...rope. Seriously. Have somebody good with rope climb up ahead and drop a knotted rope. This assumes you don't have levitate. For swim, tie a rope and have somebody swim across the river and drag you to the other side if needed. Now the shackles game has some points where lack of swim can kill you...but smart use of summon monster can help with that one.Ah.
So, "not playing stupid" is "Hope another player can cover my ass because I sure can't".
Gotcha.
Not saying that's not a valid playstyle, but it's not particularly reliable either.
No Man is a master of all things, and Pathfinder is a Team Game
the fighter doesn't usually talk to people, that is usually the bard's job.
the point of a cooperative game is that everyone contribute a different set of roles
imagine a JRPG with different roles controlled by different players. there are just too many examples.
JRPG roles are different from tabletop roles, but most of the stuff still applies
- you usually have a healer, they are usually squishy and have very little ability to solo
- you usually have a warrior of some kind, these guys deal the big melee damage and often have high physical defenses.
- you usually have a glass cannon, a frail damage dealer that deals excellent damage either due to getting that many extra turns, due to combos, due to magic, or due to ranged weaponry. you usually have both a physical and magical glass cannon
- you usually have somebody that provides buffs, often overlaps with healer
- you usually have somebody that debuffs or provides status ailments, usually overlaps with magical glass cannon
- you sometimes have the waste of space, this is the character that happens to be useless or extremely weak compared to others, usually subverted when their power climbs drastically after being babysat for 3/4 of the game.
- you sometimes have the balanced character, sometimes weak, sometimes overpowered, nice early on, loses power later
- you occasionally have the character who starts off powerful but grows weaker later, usually their role changes.
I said it was a valid tactic, but "I have a glaring weakness that can get me killed if I'm not careful" does not negate the fact that they're glaring weaknesses.
He scoffed at the fact that at early levels a Wizard with no ability to Climb or Swim in some APs could be screwed. And he very well COULD be if nobody else thought to invest in those to the extent that they can tow him along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said it was a valid tactic, but "I have a glaring weakness that can get me killed if I'm not careful" does not negate the fact that they're glaring weaknesses.
He scoffed at the fact that at early levels a Wizard with no ability to Climb or Swim in some APs could be screwed. And he very well COULD be if nobody else thought to invest in those to the extent that they can tow him along.
it is indeed a glaring weakness. but a lot of PCs depend on teamates.
the wizard or other full arcanist needs a brute to carry his or her stuff and tow him or her along when climbing or swimming.
the fighter or other brute usually needs somebody to heal his or her hit points when he or she takes damage, this usually a a cleric or other divine caster
the bard or rogue usually needs somebody to cover him or her when he or she scouts, usually a brute who walks at a safe enough distance to distract the foe from him or her
the fighter or other brute usually requires somebody to augment their own offenses or weaken the defenses of their foe, usually a wizard or other full arcanist
the healer usually needs someone to hurt the foe while he or she heals wounded allies. usually a fighter or other brute, or a partial caster that can fill the brute role.
A 1st level Wizard with a 7 Wiz has a +0 Will Save.
While it has been pointed out that a 1st level fighter would have the same, great, then you BOTH failed the save vs Fear (along with the sneaky dude most likely), leaving the cleric to figure out how to take on the Thing that made everyone panic. (Most likely run away too)
Congrats.
Or worse, as those gimpy stats tend not to be improved upon, a DM may just decide to send level appropriate ability damaging critters. 3 7's in a stat array make you extra vulnerable to MORE of those monsters...and now the cleric has to suck up more restoration spells. Or Dispels when you get charmed (that he was saving for the fighter). Or when the enemy notes that carrying your staff appears to be causing you to breath hard, nails you with a Ray of Enfeeblement, or worse yet...Cloudkill and rolls an 8 for Con Damage.
Again, Congrats.
This is draining the party's resources due to gimping yourself so you can uber high DC's. That's not teamwork, that's selfish.
Actually, many 1st level fighters will have a fair bit more than +0, either because they got 12-14 Wis (depends on point buy) or because they took Iron Will (though most seem to take that between lvl 3-7)
Then the 1st Level Wiz with a 7 Wis is worse off than the fighter in Will AND Fort Saves...icky.
25 Point buy is a tool that can be used to break the game, if put in the hands of the right(wrong) players. And that will make summons worthless as anything but speedbumps, as the GM is forced to up the ante to make up for the ridiculous damage output.
If given to people who choose style over substance, it is harmless.
I've played in a bunch of 25 point buy PF games. At least as many games as those any other point buy amount combined. I tend to play with the dirty rotten evil optimizers you seem to dislike, and am one myself.
Nothing you say is true. 25 point buy breaks nothing, damage records are not being made just from a few more points to buy with, summons are still useful. Just...everything you said... is so incredibly not true...
Meant to say "it can break an AP". I have tried playing several APs with higher than recommended point buy. And it has invariably required severe alterations to the enemies in order to not be over by the PC's second turn.
A game where you make your own stuff, optimization can be met with optimization. Instead of hobgoblin fighters, you send orc barbarians, who do close to twice the damage and have over twice the effective HP. Yet still have the same CR.
Also, an optimizer can be very different from an optimizer. What do you put into "optimizer"? My idea of an optimizer is someone who can casually defeat most things at CR=APL+3, and not be really challenged until CR=APL+6, with optimized feat and item choices.
A 1st level Wizard with a 7 Wiz has a +0 Will Save.
While it has been pointed out that a 1st level fighter would have the same, great, then you BOTH failed the save vs Fear (along with the sneaky dude most likely), leaving the cleric to figure out how to take on the Thing that made everyone panic. (Most likely run away too)
Congrats.
Or worse, as those gimpy stats tend not to be improved upon, a DM may just decide to send level appropriate ability damaging critters. 3 7's in a stat array make you extra vulnerable to MORE of those monsters...and now the cleric has to suck up more restoration spells. Or Dispels when you get charmed (that he was saving for the fighter). Or when the enemy notes that carrying your staff appears to be causing you to breath hard, nails you with a Ray of Enfeeblement, or worse yet...Cloudkill and rolls an 8 for Con Damage.
Again, Congrats.
This is draining the party's resources due to gimping yourself so you can uber high DC's. That's not teamwork, that's selfish.
Dump charisma and str, not wis. You are going to fail charisma skills and melee combat anyway, due to not having the skill set and BAB to back you up, so it changes very little. There is little difference in having -2 and +4 in CMB when the DC is 25.
Dump charisma and str, not wis. You are going to fail charisma skills and melee combat anyway, due to not having the skill set and BAB to back you up, so it changes very little. There is little difference in having -2 and +4 in CMB when the DC is 25.
My response was to the Wiz that is dumping STR, WIS and CHR to 7, and saying they are not having any issues. (See above posts)
He won't have any more issues than several other classes would have; his high base will save covers for the weakness.
If it bothers you so much, can go Int 19, Wis 10 instead.
It's not bothering me in the least. Just refuting that 3 7's in your stats do not cause survivability issues.
|
|
Climb and swim issues...rope. Seriously. Have somebody good with rope climb up ahead and drop a knotted rope. This assumes you don't have levitate. For swim, tie a rope and have somebody swim across the river and drag you to the other side if needed. Now the shackles game has some points where lack of swim can kill you...but smart use of summon monster can help with that one.Ah.
So, "not playing stupid" is "Hope another player can cover my ass because I sure can't".
Gotcha.
Not saying that's not a valid playstyle, but it's not particularly reliable either.
By that fight, you can afford rings of feather fall or at least the boots of the cat. Failing that, if you caster doesn't have at least one feather fall memorized for anyone too stupid not get one of those item ASAP...that caster has failed at their job.As I said (*checks back up* *meant to say), Feather Fall won't help you make that DC 20 Swim check at the bottom of said fall.
You'd probably survive unless you dumped Con too but you'd be out of the game for quite a while.
If I really wanted to be mean, it says there are a ton of Ghasts hanging around the swamp around that river, so the trek back from wherever you ended up could be pretty interesting.
How is teamwork not a reliable play style? I mean yes, if we are talking about PFS, that could be an issue...and PFS has to be built somewhat differently due to the fact that you don't know what the rest of the group is and the DM has less control over the game content...but seriously if NOBODY in the party can make the absolutely must make climb or swim check (AKA bad AP writing because game progress coming down to one d20 roll is just a bad way to make the game flow) then the game stalls. It's okay, we can't do, lets all pack up and go home unless the DM fudges thing anyways to make up for the bad writing.
As for that fight, seriously, you just spent 4 rounds falling via featherfall. Assuming you can even make that swim check, it's another 4 rounds to get back up (more if you have medium or heavy armor or are small..barring goblins). Failed swim check or not...your out of the fight when you fall. And since con was not a dumped stat, you should be fine on holding your breath. Now if the GM is a dick and adds in a flock of ghasts to the separated party member when it isn't in the AP...well the GM could kill your character in many MANY other ways and at that point, it is not an issue of the AP...but individual GM. The point was that the character in the example can survive an AP run as written...not run by a GM who wants to kill you because you failed a swim check when that is not in the AP because he is ad hoc it.
Ok, it seems like the advanced template is a big part of the issue here. If you apply the template first, it adds 5 points to each ability score, starting you at a base of 14 instead of 10. (Not to mention the extra two Natural Armor.)
If, however, you apply it after you have bought your abilities, it adds considerably more. The heroic array for NPC's is:
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8. This is a 15-point buy, and certainly not an optimal one, but it serves as a comparison basis. If you apply the advanced template to that, you get:
19, 18, 17, 16, 14, 12. Note, this is illegal with the 19, but we are comparing. So, this would be the equivalent of a 68-point buy. Sure, this is going to overshadow creatures in the normal CR scheme of things. A 25-point buy? Not so much.
As was pointed out earlier, a few extra points doesn't strengthen the power of a SAD class; it merely covers up weaknesses. For a MAD class, it is considerably better, but still, we are only talking about a bonus of 1 or 2 in an area or two. 68 points? Or 55 points? You bet there's a power discrepancy.
Please don't try and shrug off my POV as a personal issue. It is more that this personal experience emphasized a key game flaw/aspect to me that is relevant to, even more so, than any other class's power.
Ineptus: It's however a quite irrelevant comparison to the game in large; the same argument can be used to say that rogues are much better than wizards because an adult white dragon rouge 5 will be more dangerous than an adult white dragon wizard 5.
If you play the game it isn't supposed to be played, of course the game balance will change.
Ineptus: It's however a quite irrelevant comparison to the game in large; the same argument can be used to say that rogues are much better than wizards because an adult white dragon rouge 5 will be more dangerous than an adult white dragon wizard 5.
If you play the game it isn't supposed to be played, of course the game balance will change.
Having the temple simply emphasized and magnified the presence of the system limitation. As stated, perhaps for PFS play, the summoner's power was more balanced for 20+ point buy rather than on the 15 point. So yes if you play the optional 10 point buy the class is going to seem over-powered.
I fret ever even mentioning the template as that seems to have taken over this thread entirely. The experiment that was this game simply showed me the limitation.
On the flip side, if you have a 25 point-buy and let the players start with the Advanced template for free.... The Eidolon and the summons are going to suck to no end!
You're kidding right?
If your GM is going to ramp up your PCs like that, you can bargain with him to do something for the eidolon as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having the temple simply emphasized and magnified the presence of the system limitation. As stated, perhaps for PFS play, the summoner's power was more balanced for 20+ point buy rather than on the 15 point. So yes if you play the optional 10 point buy the class is going to seem over-powered.
I fret ever even mentioning the template as that seems to have taken over this thread entirely. The experiment that was this game simply showed me the limitation.
Look, you keep saying the template is irrelevant, but it really isn't.
+4 to every stat, on top of a regular 25 Point Buy is quite significant. The Monk, whose MADness is generally his greatest downfall, could probably be made pretty darn optimal with a 55 Point Buy.
Meanwhile, the class balanced around the base game (15-20 Point Buy), with immutable stats, is OF COURSE going to have a few issues.
That's not a flaw in the design, that's a flaw in your houserule.
And regardless of my personal opinion (I don't think the Summoner's all that OP), saying "It's UP when there are a bunch of houserules in place to make everyone else more powerful" is not the same as proving the class isn't OP.
They don't really suffer. They are very slightly less good in comparison to other classes.
The reason is that the stats of the summons remain the same no matter how high or low the stats and hp of the PCs are. So by comparison they look worse if the PCs have very high stats. Likewise, in a "low powered" game, summons look much better, possibly even outperforming actual melee classes entirely. Well, they sort of do that now... Gang of creatures all smiting evil is pretty nasty on the big bad guy. I've witnessed it. It's incredible.
Then the 1st Level Wiz with a 7 Wis is worse off than the fighter in Will AND Fort Saves...icky.Getting attached to level 1-3 characters is generally a mistake any way.
How is that relevant?
Characters are disposable, but I wouldn't make one a pure throw away either no matter the level.