I have been messing around with some builds and such and I have been wondering about skyrocketing certain abilitie scores sometimes to the detriment of others. This is PFS that I am talking about here because a 1-20 campaign follows a bit of a different guide line.
So here is the crux. Full casters and 2hw brutes pretty much need the highest stat possible for save DCs or dmg output, because that is what they do... Alot of your 3/4 BaB melee + other classes need diverse stats and are generally called MAD because of it. But I don't think that "optimal/ maximum" dmg is the point of these classes.
You want to be competent in melee, sure, but there are other things these classes bring to the table as well. So what is a good and reasonable balance for stats? If You get a free +3 from lvls and can assume a couple +4s from ability increasing items, then where do you draw that soft line in the sand?
Here is an example: if I want a melee cleric, rogue, monk, inquisitor, or whatever... 18 str on a 2hw seems like a good soft cap. You need a 22 min to capitalize on the 1.5 dmg, but that is a +4 that could go somewhere that is needed elsewhere. Capping at 18 gives you a respectable +4 to hit and +6 to dmg.
For these classes, an 18 dex is pretty much all you need for def with a mithril b-plate without breaking the bank either. Decent AC, ini, ranged to hit, and dex based skills. Even a semi optimized archer can get a decent attack and dmg out of 18 str/dex which is not breaking your character in the slightest.
These classes have alot more that they can offer than pure dmg, so I think giving them some love to other stats makes them better at being well rounded.
Thoughts?
Imagine a barbarian whose only purpose is to hit things. He's going to just max his stats in order of combat importance (str > con > dex), and dump the rest (wis last, because will saves are cool). Then imagine a class who focuses on 6 different things, each using a different stat. He's not real, but if he were, he'd spread completely evenly.
All other classes are going to fall between the two extremes. Where you draw the line on stat spreads is going to depend where on the spectrum they fall. A paladin is going to want to strike a different balance from monks and rogues, and not only which stats, but in what amounts.
Basically, look at what your class features do, then decide what stat you need to make that thing worthwhile. If you can do that with all your stats and not run out of points, you win. If not, pick a stat to dump and see if you're good now. You don't have to build to utilize all your class features, for instance, there are good arguments for some cleric builds to dump their cha and just say to heck with channeling.
You're looking for a clearly drawn soft line in the sand, but it changes with every class and every build. Which I understand is an extremely unsatisfying answer. I'll agree with you and say 18s for combat stats is probably adequate (not juiced, but adequate) if you want to play around with points in other stats, as long as you're not settling for an 18 in your damage or spellcasting stat post-belt/headband. Unless your build doesn't really care about dealing damage, or isn't concerned with its DCs.
I could see even a dervish dancer or the poor rogue that falls in the TWF trap to pump out dex rather than finding a balance, but for the most part I am trying to figure out a good balance for each non straight dmg/ save or suck class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that any PFS character is perfectly viable with a 16 in it's primary stat. It's not like PFS is so deadly you have to max out the optimization just to survive. The only build I might consider really wanting an 18+ is a save or suck caster. More versatile stats means a more versatile character. Not all PFS encounters are combat oriented. Having a more versatile character means that character can participate more in more varied encounters. Which means the more versatile characters are more likely to have more fun in the game. And let's face, min/maxing for combat should come in second place to min/maxing for enjoyment of the game.
I like a 19. It gets you the same thing as a 20 over the long haul but costs a lot less.
I like to buy a 16 in my main stat and try for at least one odd number stat. That lets you sink you level based ability score bumps into those odd numbers and gain something nice from it, especially if it's in Int or Con.
The way I see it, most monster ACs are designed so a full BaB class gets the majority (75%) of their iterations off, and 3/4 BaB classes get most (50%) off and 1/4 BaB get 1 off if they use tactics.
For a 20 point build, I usually go 16, 16, and a mix of 12/10/8/7 as I see fit.
20 point build?
15
14
14
14
12
7
my standard martial array before modifiers
for example
with an Onispawn Barbarian, i put the 15 in STR, the 12 in Wis. and the 7 Cha.
Giving me an Onispawn Barbarian with
17 Str (18 st 4th)
14 Dex
14 Con
14 Int
14 Wis
5 Cha
this array is subject to change with Cha based builds and specific SAD classes. such as paladins, bards, oracles, and witches.
I like to start off with 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 10. I'll put 1 lvl point in the 13, and 2 in either the 16 or the 14. Racial abilities let me get 2 16s or an 18 and a 16 (or 2 14s depending on the class/ race.
Actual arrays that I have on active PFS characters:
Diplomacy-focused, reach weapon Human paladin: 14 14 10 14 10 16
Reach weapon, combat-focused Angelkin summoner: 18 12 12 12 12 14
Dwarven Sky Druid: 14 14 14 14 16 6
I have an aversion to spending more than 5 points on any stat. The summoner was an exception to my rule.
So what is a reasonable stat boost item according to wbl by say lvl 10?
I like a 19. It gets you the same thing as a 20 over the long haul but costs a lot less.
not true. By level 8 you could have a 22 score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I usually never buy more than a 16, but I also like to play with my stats a little more, ergo I do it wrong as far as minmaxing goes.
I always prefer to not have a negative WIS, and have perception maxed, hence one of my favorite classes is the ranger.
When I play a wizard, I forgo all other stats beyond INT and DEX and make sure I don't have a negative CON.
I have yet to find a decent balance for a well rounded cleric that can take advantage of all his class abilities. If you want to channel, and do it well, you can't do melee. If you want to focus on spellcasting, you're not gonna channel. They are the worst MAD class imo, and I think for fluff and for mechanical benefit they should receive the same change that paladins got switching their casting stat to CHA.
Personally I cannot stand dumping INT.
I have a lot of problems with the PF point buy system, and I think making the starting available points be based on class is a good start for better balancing.
SAD classes like the wizard or sorcerer get the lowest PB from the games main mechanics, then the middle range MAD classes like paladin and ranger get the middle, and the really MAD classes get the most.
Compare the stats of a 15 point buy wizard to a 20 point buy paladin to a 25 point buy cleric and put them in the same game, imo it would balance better.
|
I used to min-max early on, and down the track I was convinced by someone that it was kind of cool to have a more averaged-out character who wasn't completely obliterating bad guys with over-the-top maxed stats and being obliterated by far-too-low skills in certain areas.
I've since gone back to min-maxing, because the logic doesn't work and I've ended up with really, really underpowered characters as a result of trying to average out.
My new logic is that min-maxing will let you perform well where you need to, and you're balanced out where you'll have trouble performing in those areas you've chosen to sacrifice. I've accepted that it's going to come to that.
I used to min-max early on, and down the track I was convinced by someone that it was kind of cool to have a more averaged-out character who wasn't completely obliterating bad guys with over-the-top maxed stats and being obliterated by far-too-low skills in certain areas.
I've since gone back to min-maxing, because the logic doesn't work and I've ended up with really, really underpowered characters as a result of trying to average out.
My new logic is that min-maxing will let you perform well where you need to, and you're balanced out where you'll have trouble performing in those areas you've chosen to sacrifice. I've accepted that it's going to come to that.
Pretty much this.
Pretty much this.I used to min-max early on, and down the track I was convinced by someone that it was kind of cool to have a more averaged-out character who wasn't completely obliterating bad guys with over-the-top maxed stats and being obliterated by far-too-low skills in certain areas.
I've since gone back to min-maxing, because the logic doesn't work and I've ended up with really, really underpowered characters as a result of trying to average out.
My new logic is that min-maxing will let you perform well where you need to, and you're balanced out where you'll have trouble performing in those areas you've chosen to sacrifice. I've accepted that it's going to come to that.
i do partial optimization. i'm not building a level 6 halfling that deals 500 DPR with 3.5 splats and hiding my build from everyone. but i take the level cap and skill point allotment into account.
still doesn't stop me from taking a 5 charisma whenever possible
my builds aren't damage kings, but they deal enough damage to contribute in a group of 12 PCs.
i am usually expected to be one of 2 people to cover 3 roles in a party of 12.
the 3 roles, are skill monkey, healer, and caster, so to get my martial fix and help a little with with social skills, while providing access to healing wands, i will usually play an oracle, inquisitor, bard, witch, or sage bloodline sorcerer. or a UMD rogue.
I usually never buy more than a 16, but I also like to play with my stats a little more, ergo I do it wrong as far as minmaxing goes.
I always prefer to not have a negative WIS, and have perception maxed, hence one of my favorite classes is the ranger.
When I play a wizard, I forgo all other stats beyond INT and DEX and make sure I don't have a negative CON.
I have yet to find a decent balance for a well rounded cleric that can take advantage of all his class abilities. If you want to channel, and do it well, you can't do melee. If you want to focus on spellcasting, you're not gonna channel. They are the worst MAD class imo, and I think for fluff and for mechanical benefit they should receive the same change that paladins got switching their casting stat to CHA.
Personally I cannot stand dumping INT.
I have a lot of problems with the PF point buy system, and I think making the starting available points be based on class is a good start for better balancing.
SAD classes like the wizard or sorcerer get the lowest PB from the games main mechanics, then the middle range MAD classes like paladin and ranger get the middle, and the really MAD classes get the most.
Compare the stats of a 15 point buy wizard to a 20 point buy paladin to a 25 point buy cleric and put them in the same game, imo it would balance better.
16/12/12/7/14/14 with +2s in St and Cha gives (human or aasimar)
18/12/12/7/14/16 which is a perfectly capable healer, channeler, melee cleric (your DCs are low but as a melee your likely to be focusing on buffs and heals anyway so DC is irrelevant)
Personally I would swap so I have a 16 STR, 18 WIS, and 14 CHA, since a melee cleric still isn't in it to our DPR a full BAB paladin. I value Bonus Spells, a lot.
Maybe a "Sub-Optimal build guide" is in order for players who want to build strong yet playable classes that include the use of a +2 to all physical stats item and a +4 single mental stat boost item.
Mechanically I don't have much of a problem dumping int to 7 for a human 2skill class, because it has the exact same feel (unfortunately). I already consider 10 int characters to be kinda slow and not too big with the bright ideas, but that is me.
Maybe a "Sub-Optimal build guide" is in order for players who want to build strong yet playable classes that include the use of a +2 to all physical stats item and a +4 single mental stat boost item.
Mechanically I don't have much of a problem dumping int to 7 for a human 2skill class, because it has the exact same feel (unfortunately). I already consider 10 int characters to be kinda slow and not too big with the bright ideas, but that is me.
Yeah, for 2+ skill classes if you are going to drop INT at all, may as well dump it full and get the extra points for the buy since mechanically it's identical to have a 7 or a 9.
On 20 pt buy, I'd only buy more than a 16 if I wanted to play a race that couldn't put their ability boost in their main ability score, or maybe I'd buy a 17 for a save-or-suck oriented character to get up to 20 at lvl 4.
In general, putting your ability boost from leveling in any stat other than your highest is suboptimal, as increasing a 15 is worth more 'point buy points' than increasing a 16. So for a character that needs several good stats and one great stat.
To be more definite: for a versatile melee character I'd probably buy 15+2,14,14,14,10,8 (something like an inquisitor, melee cleric, magus or dragon disciple). For a versatile ranged character (archer bard, cleric archer) I might buy 16+2,14,14,12,10,8. For something more sad (save or suck sorcerer?), maybe 17+2,14,12,12,10,8.
I like these arrays, I usually go for 15's as well, with MAD classes I never really need more than an 18 in a stat by lvl 8.
In pathfinder one of the three main things is to cooperate. I take a leap and read this as I am part of a team. A team specializes. Min/maxers specialize.
Now if you have a SAD(single attribute design) build like a pure caster then I think you should invest in getting that stat to 20. If you are a MAD(multiple attirbute design design 16 is the most I would invest.
Now many people would say the 20 is stupid and too high a cost, but when you realy on save or suck spells I think it is essential that I squeeze every drop out of my spells. Right now I can make an enemy have to make the save 3 times so that 5% difference makes a huge difference.
Then looking at at my spell caster those few points in dex are for my reflex save since my AC lost the BAB race. My con is 16 since I dumped str to 5 and gnome so he can take a hit if needed.
I would not change the way he is built.
|
|
In pathfinder one of the three main things is to cooperate. I take a leap and read this as I am part of a team. A team specializes. Min/maxers specialize.
Now if you have a SAD(single attribute design) build like a pure caster then I think you should invest in getting that stat to 20. If you are a MAD(multiple attirbute design design 16 is the most I would invest.
Now many people would say the 20 is stupid and too high a cost, but when you realy on save or suck spells I think it is essential that I squeeze every drop out of my spells. Right now I can make an enemy have to make the save 3 times so that 5% difference makes a huge difference.
Then looking at at my spell caster those few points in dex are for my reflex save since my AC lost the BAB race. My con is 16 since I dumped str to 5 and gnome so he can take a hit if needed.
I would not change the way he is built.
Yes he is part of a team and teams work best as specialists. But unless he is playing PFS with the same group of people every time, he will have no idea if he will be teaming up with a well balanced group of specialist or an entire party of specialized save or suck casters. Because of this, having at least one other thing you can do well can be crucial both for survival and enjoyment. Heavy specialization in PFS is frequently a bad thing.
In pathfinder one of the three main things is to cooperate. I take a leap and read this as I am part of a team. A team specializes. Min/maxers specialize.It really sucks when you show up to a PFS game and realize your team of 6 DPR specialists have been assigned a diplomatic mission.
If there is a team of 6 DPR specialists and none of them is a paladin with diplomacy ranks I would be sad.
I could not disagree more trollbill. Heavy specialization in a few things is rarely not helpful. If the entire group is save or suck they should be fine. You would need something very rare that I could not hit with a save or suck spell. A sightless, incorpreal, flying creature I can not do anything about. I honestly do not know a creature like that. Plus he has very heavy social skills since cha is his base skill. If it was INT I would have heavy knoweldge skills. Wis perception, sense motive.
Granted if everyone only damage and nothing else, then that is poor building. They should have something else. Everyone should have a skill out of combat they also specialize in. The only people I know that do this are people that take thier build ideas from the internet and poorly arrange thier skills.
You get a summary of the mission befor eyou go on it. If you all sit at the table and decide to be bow hunters with no skill points and no cha for a diplomacy mission you have a table of idiots.
|
|
I could not disagree more trollbill. Heavy specialization in a few things is rarely not helpful.
You just said you disagreed with me and then made a statement that agreed with me.
My point was that heavy specialization, i.e. focusing on doing one thing well to the exclusion of all others in PFS was bad because unpredictable table make up could mean that you did not have sufficient coverage in many of the necessary basic of a balance party. I specifically stated you should have at least one other thing you are good at.
You replied stating that heavy specialization in a few things is rarely not helpful. So if you are heavily specialized in a few things, then by definition you have something's else you are good at. So I don't see where we are really disagreeing here.
You get a summary of the mission befor eyou go on it. If you all sit at the table and decide to be bow hunters with no skill points and no cha for a diplomacy mission you have a table of idiots.
You are assuming:
A. The players all have backup characters at the appropriate level to swap out. This is something I see only rarely except for levels 1-2.
B. The players would rather not play than play with PCs not well built for the adventure. I'm not sure I have ever seen anyone do that.
And please don't mention they could play the pre-gens. Almost everyone I know would rather play their own character even if they knew it wasn't going to be very effective in the adventure than play a pregen.
|
You would need something very rare that I could not hit with a save or suck spell. A sightless, incorpreal, flying creature I can not do anything about.
Or a Hellknight, surrounded by several hundred other hellknights, who refuses your request unless you can successfully use bluff/diplomacy/intimidate.
You get a summary of the mission befor eyou go on it. If you all sit at the table and decide to be bow hunters with no skill points and no cha for a diplomacy mission you have a table of idiots.
How many people show up to PFS with 1 character and no clue who else is playing ahead of time? Even if you are aware, odds are several other players will not be. Of course, if your playing with a set group or know specific players will be at the table, feel free.
Personally: I've sat at more than one table where I was the only person with higher than a 7 charisma. One of them was a diplomatic mission.
I usually show up to PFS game without knowing who else is coming. I have back up 1-2 teir characters but that's about it.
...
;(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you choose to refuse to play a pregen because you want to rock that diplomacy quest under 7 cha then that is again stupid people being stubborn.
So yes I will mention pregens. Since that is part of the game.
That is like saying no one should pick more then one level of a class because it is psecializing. because god forbid everyone comes to the table with wizard.
If you wann aplay lamp lighters at all 13s then go ahead, but it is weak.
|
|
If you choose to refuse to play a pregen because you want to rock that diplomacy quest under 7 cha then that is again stupid people being stubborn.
So yes I will mention pregens. Since that is part of the game.
Playing the Pregens will never be as fun as playing your own character. So what's more fun? Having an uber-specialized character that sometimes has to sit it out for he sake of table balance, or playing a character that is sufficiently versatile that he never has to. PFS is not some playa'killa monstrosity that requires the maximum level of specialization. You can be good at a secondary job without multi-classing or even making major sacrifices in your primary job. Just don't focus on it to the exclusion of all else.
That is like saying no one should pick more then one level of a class because it is psecializing. because god forbid everyone comes to the table with wizard.
If you wann aplay lamp lighters at all 13s then go ahead, but it is weak.
NOBODY HERE said anything about multiclassing just to not specialize.
NOBODY HERE said anything about taking all 13s in their stats.
and NOBODY HERE appreciates absurdist strawman arguments.
As I have said repeatedly, my argument is against excessive specialization of PFS characters because versatility in unpredictable table situations can increase both survivability and enjoyment of the game. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't specialize, only that you shouldn't specialize to the exclusion of all else.
+1 for versatility in an unpredictable table situation in order to increase survivability and enjoyment of the game.
If you choose to refuse to play a pregen because you want to rock that diplomacy quest under 7 cha then that is again stupid people being stubborn.
So yes I will mention pregens. Since that is part of the game.
Playing the Pregens will never be as fun as playing your own character. So what's more fun? Having an uber-specialized character that sometimes has to sit it out for he sake of table balance, or playing a character that is sufficiently versatile that he never has to. PFS is not some playa'killa monstrosity that requires the maximum level of specialization. You can be good at a secondary job without multi-classing or even making major sacrifices in your primary job. Just don't focus on it to the exclusion of all else.
That is like saying no one should pick more then one level of a class because it is psecializing. because god forbid everyone comes to the table with wizard.
If you wann aplay lamp lighters at all 13s then go ahead, but it is weak.
NOBODY HERE said anything about multiclassing just to not specialize.
NOBODY HERE said anything about taking all 13s in their stats.
and NOBODY HERE appreciates absurdist strawman arguments.
As I have said repeatedly, my argument is against excessive specialization of PFS characters because versatility in unpredictable table situations can increase both survivability and enjoyment of the game. That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't specialize, only that you shouldn't specialize to the exclusion of all else.
Don't specialize, OPTIMIZE!!!
What's the difference? Every optimal guide I see min/maxes. I am looking for optimal guides that aren't afraid to say that an 18 is a good melee stat for a 2hw unless you can afford to go to 22. 20s and 31s are wasted. Or how about a good save or suck stat that can be buffed with a +4 spell like owls wisdom? Something that meets in the middle.
What's the difference? Every optimal guide I see min/maxes. I am looking for optimal guides that aren't afraid to say that an 18 is a good melee stat for a 2hw unless you can afford to go to 22. 20s and 31s are wasted. Or how about a good save or suck stat that can be buffed with a +4 spell like owls wisdom? Something that meets in the middle.
Buy a 16 and use racial mods to get it to 18, don't buy an 18 and use racial mods to get it to 20 and screw yourself out of being able to do anything except hit things and do damage.
That's the difference.
What's the difference? Every optimal guide I see min/maxes. I am looking for optimal guides that aren't afraid to say that an 18 is a good melee stat for a 2hw unless you can afford to go to 22. 20s and 31s are wasted. Or how about a good save or suck stat that can be buffed with a +4 spell like owls wisdom? Something that meets in the middle.Buy a 16 and use racial mods to get it to 18, don't buy an 18 and use racial mods to get it to 20 and screw yourself out of being able to do anything except hit things and do damage.
That's the difference.
even better
Buy a 15, use racial mods to make it a 17, and bump it up to 18 at 4th level.
now you can still kill stuff, and depending on your point allotment, you can afford more skill points to do stuff out of combat.
So what is a good casting stat by lvl 12?
So what is a good casting stat by lvl 12?
if you are a partial caster. a 16 is workable
but if you are a full caster. a base 20 before items is fine. even though some people will try to push for the 26-28 after items.
So I could do some decent SoS with an 18 base stat and a + 4 buff from a 2nd lvl spell against notoriously low will sv mobs.