Point Buy - Down to 7


Advice

1 to 50 of 978 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So this kept coming up in another thread but I never got a good answer and it was slightly off-topic anyway. Many many people say that they would disallow stats to be dumped down to 7 under a point-buy system. If you're one of those people - why? What's so bad about dumping to 7 vs dumping to 8? I await your reply.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Because 7 means you're a dirty power-grabbing minimaxer, of course.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently there was something about "unacceptable min-maxing" which was defined as "coming up with mechanics before concept" but when I asked why that mattered nobody even attempted an answer.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Sacred cow from 3.x for me. I wonder how many people would take the 7 if it only gave 1 additional point rather than 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am typically loath to dump any stats (assuming a 20 point buy), but if I do, I am not entirely sure that a 7 is so much of a problem. It only becomes a problem if you are dumping that stat, and you also have a racial penalty to that stat (I'm looking at you, dwarves)

Typically, if I am willing to dump, it is because I have severe enough problems in the other stats.

For instance, I have been toying with the idea of a 'sword slinging', cowboy-esque tengu inquisitor (Abadar, since hey, it makes sense for a lawman). The problem here, of course, is that I am not only being a bit MAD as a melee caster, but there is a penalty to constitution. I am going with a strength build, so the bonuses to dex and wisdom are nice, but not entirely covering it. Also, my standards for 'melee caster' is typically 16-14-14 and 14 casting stat. Not an issue for a human/half-elf/half-orc, but somewhat so for a tengu. On a 20 point buy, those points would already be spent just on strength and constitution.

So, like many others before me, I dumped CHA. But I do not do so lightly (again looking at you dwarf players), and I did not expect the character to sit in the back while the face is talking. Luckily, my decision was softened by the stern gaze ability, which gave bonuses to intimidation. So in he end, I got a gruff birdman dressed like a cowboy that could scare the tusks off an orc, but he was too ....'honest'... for his own good (which would explain why he was sent off to the boonies by his superiors and ended up with whichever party I'll eventually put this character with when I use him)

As a complete sidenote: I imagine the voice of this sword-slinger as the one of John Marston, the protagonist of the game Red Dead Redemption. Because that is the gravely voice of a man that has spent his life drinking whisky and smoking tobacco like it was going out of style.

Where was I? Oh yes, my point is that if you are going to dump down to 7, then you had better give some compelling in character reasons for 'why?'. Just saying "I am a big and gruff [x]" is not enough. And it should not be because of minmaxing, but simply raising the character to a basic level of competence. While I'll admit, my standards might be a bit high, I still wouldn't get too much wiggle room even if I did lower them. And all I aim for is a somewhat similar level of competence as a human character with my build.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

How many of the "village idiot" strongman fighters we've all seen at the table would have existed if there was no mechanical benefit to dumping Int?

How many of the "rude bastard" characters we've all seen at the table would have existed if there was no mechanical benefit to dumping Cha?

How many of the "can't lift a dagger" genius wizards we've all see at the table would have existed if there was no mechanical benefit to dumping Str?

If someone has a character concept, great. But honestly I as a DM don't want my players being morons. I don't want them being uncivil, even "in character". I also don't want them jacking a primary stat higher than the game expect by sacrificing "useless stuff".

I allow 25-point build, but I stipulate I don't want to see negatives. I also don't want to see a pair of 16s (before racial adjustment). I give those bonus points so my players can make well-rounded and interesting characters that are multifaceted.

The gentleman barbarian. The sorcerer who looks like a wrestler. The tactician fighter. I like to see clever, like-able, able characters, so I empower my players to do that.

Now, final comment. If we're talking 15-point build... that's a horse of a different colour. It's difficult to make some classes work at that level. Say... a monk, or a paladin. Any MAD class. If you don't have the points to spread over a few abilities, dumping is a necessary evil.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:
Where was I? Oh yes, my point is that if you are going to dump down to 7, then you had better give some compelling in character reasons for 'why?'. Just saying "I am a big and gruff [x]" is not enough. And it should not be because of minmaxing, but simply raising the character to a basic level of competence. While I'll admit, my standards might be a bit high, I still wouldn't get too much wiggle room even if I did lower them. And all I aim for is a somewhat similar level of competence as a human character with my build.

Do you also require people to justify high stats, or just low ones?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
How many of the "village idiot" strongman fighters we've all seen at the table would have existed if there was no mechanical benefit to dumping Int?

Lots, probably. D&D didn't invent the dumb jock stereotype. Or the weedy nerd, for that matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:

How many of the "village idiot" strongman fighters we've all seen at the table would have existed if there was no mechanical benefit to dumping Int?

I allow 25-point build, but I stipulate I don't want to see negatives.

I totally, completely, do not understand this. The big dumb brute (or socially inept, weakling genius) is a common fictional trope, even in the complete absence of any game mechanics. I really don't get where you're coming from. It's obviously not about game balance, or you wouldn't be handing out 25-point buy.

I'm at a loss.

EDIT:

Anguish wrote:
If you don't have the points to spread over a few abilities, dumping is a necessary evil.

Why is it "evil" at all?


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Sacred cow from 3.x for me. I wonder how many people would take the 7 if it only gave 1 additional point rather than 2.

This is the closest to an actual answer I've gotten thus far. Thanks Petty Alchemy. Is it just because of that extra point? Does this make that much difference in the stat arrays that you can come up with? (I'm playing around on Point Buy Calculator)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that there are quite a few character builds that lose little of consequence by taking strength, intelligence or charisma down from an 8 to a 7. These stats don't impact your saving throws, and depending on your approach to combat may not be relevant to any of your day-to-day checks. Because of this, it's pretty much free points for such characters.

People do bring up the example of social skills for charisma, but I say: so what? You don't have to make a diplomacy check every time you open your mouth, so it's not like this renders you a complete mute who must abstain from all interaction. Furthermore, unless you're dumping both intelligence and charisma you can easily counter-act this penalty by assigning a few extra skill points. An Alchemist who dumps charisma to raise his intelligence not only makes his combat abilities more potent, but after a few levels the extra skill points will completely counter-act the penalty.

Intelligence is particularly bad because a Fighter (or any 2-point class) with 8 intelligence gets exactly the same number of skill points as a Fighter with 7 intelligence. At least a wizard with 7 strength has a lower carrying capacity and a monk with 7 charisma takes a penalty to diplomacy (even if these aren't always that consequential) but lowering the intelligence on certain classes has no penalty whatsoever. Moreover, virtually all intelligence-based skills are trained to begin with, so an intelligence penalty virtually never comes up - these characters just aren't capable of making those checks in the first place.

Quote:
Sacred cow from 3.x for me. I wonder how many people would take the 7 if it only gave 1 additional point rather than 2.

Indeed, this is how I do it. It's quite overvalued at a 2-point bonus, given the only characters that will ever take a stat this low are ones that are largely unaffected by further penalties.

Quote:
Apparently there was something about "unacceptable min-maxing" which was defined as "coming up with mechanics before concept" but when I asked why that mattered nobody even attempted an answer.

There's nothing wrong with a "mechanics before concept" approach, but that's all the more reason to tone down the benefit for taking an attribute down to 7. This option is almost exclusively exercised by characters who are ignoring the stat to begin with, so the actual benefit should mirror the actual sacrifice: practically none.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think some of it might have to do with a "cookie-cutter" mentality for the detractors. It's the thought of "oh, look; another magus with dervish dance and dumped int." I personally kind of get what they mean; the same build gets old. But on the other hand, theres only so much you can change and not feel like a drain on the group.

just my 2 cp anyway.

EDIT: Dumped cha, I meant cha, who dumps the primary casting stat?


@Dasrak good points about obviating the need for certain stats. I think the game assumes a certain amount of that is going on - the rogue disarms traps, the bard talks, the fighter fights. Nobody has to do everything.

@Green Smashomancer that makes sense and I am beginning to think the explanation is more to do with psychology than with game mechanics.


What about min-maxing or 'optimizing' on builds/classes which are seen as weak? I could see it interpreted as "wanting to do a fun concept, but not be a completely ineffective joke"


Sarcasmancer wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Where was I? Oh yes, my point is that if you are going to dump down to 7, then you had better give some compelling in character reasons for 'why?'. Just saying "I am a big and gruff [x]" is not enough. And it should not be because of minmaxing, but simply raising the character to a basic level of competence. While I'll admit, my standards might be a bit high, I still wouldn't get too much wiggle room even if I did lower them. And all I aim for is a somewhat similar level of competence as a human character with my build.
Do you also require people to justify high stats, or just low ones?

I would ask them to justify it if they had both in the same character. If you have 2 16s or above and one or more severe dump stats, something is off. If you have a stat over 18 post racial (or heaven forbid, an 18 preracial) while still getting that 7, or worse, then something needs to be done.

And for the most part, I only see it really justified if you are working against racial adjustments. I mean, I could see how you could have trouble with an ifrit inquisitor, for example. Anything with a CON penalty also somewhat applies. But for the most part, if you are working with a 20 point buy or above, then the system is more than generous most of the time to make you 'decent'.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people think more optimization means less role play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do the opposite. I let players dump their stats all the way down to 3. A base stat min of 7 is just too confining for proper 3/18 min/max.

3 ..... -16
4 ..... -12
5 ..... -9
6 ..... -6
7 ..... -4
8 ..... -2
9 ..... -1
10 .... 0
11 .... +1
12 .... +2
etc


lemeres wrote:
I would ask them to justify it if they had both in the same character. If you have 2 16s or above and one or more severe dump stats, something is off. If you have a stat over 18 post racial (or heaven forbid, an 18 preracial) while still getting that 7, or worse, then something needs to be done.

If you had two 16s in 20-point buy you would have to have two 7s. Are you saying it strikes you as false that a person could have two strong attributes and two weak attributes? Like nobody could be strong and healthy but also dumb and oblivious?

& If somebody took an 18 (pre-racial) and didn't dump any stats they would have an array something like: 18 13 10 10 10 10.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lemeres wrote:

I would ask them to justify it if they had both in the same character. If you have 2 16s or above and one or more severe dump stats, something is off. If you have a stat over 18 post racial (or heaven forbid, an 18 preracial) while still getting that 7, or worse, then something needs to be done.

Why?

It's not like dumb jocks are rare. CNN just did a story on that this week.

Str 20, int 7. Plays for Clemson.

What more needs justification?


@BigNorseWolf I'm not interested in getting into that. I'm interested specifically in why dumping to 7 is considered beyond the pale, even though it's allowed by the rules.

@demontroll That's an interesting houserule. Does anybody take you up on that and actually dump to 3? Seems like a really glaring weakness for a character.


Quote:
@demontroll That's an interesting houserule. Does anybody take you up on that and actually dump to 3? Seems like a really glaring weakness for a character.

Keep in mind that at a certain point there is no further penalty for reducing your intelligence.

For Clerics, Fighters, Sorcerers, and Summoners there is no difference between 9 intelligence and 3 intelligence, so it's basically just 15 free build points. If you play as a human and use your favored class bonus for skills, you will still have 3 skill points per level.

One could also make the case for dumping charisma that low. Sure, you're taking a -4 penalty on all social skills, but that's a huge benefit to your other abilities. At the end of the day, the difference beteeen 3 charisma and 10 charisma is only slightly worse than the difference between having diplomacy as a class skill and not having it as a class skill. At level 5, you may actually have a better diplomacy check than a fighter with 10 charisma but no skill points invested in diplomacy.

Shadow Lodge

I personally have no problem with 7's in stats. I can see why people might not like a 7 in a stat or two for skills or combat or other stuff, but I don't see a huge issue between a 7 and an 8. Heck, I've done it for RP reasons purely. I play dump-stat characters, as long as I am not dumping a primary stat, I don't usually get complaints.

The only exception to this rule is CON. Because although a low CON character might be fun to play and viable in campaigns with little/no combat, they are not productive for the party in combat-heavy campaigns, and can really drag down the party. I know because I did it in PFS, and even then I had an 8 and not a 7. And if you get a way to get a different stat to HP then by all means have a 7CON.

Grand Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.

Because making a character that can be extremely effective in combat is "bad evil fun" even if you roleplay well. However making a mediocre combat character who is roleplayed equally well is the highest pinnacle of "good holy fun."


Dasrak wrote:
Quote:
@demontroll That's an interesting houserule. Does anybody take you up on that and actually dump to 3? Seems like a really glaring weakness for a character.

Keep in mind that at a certain point there is no further penalty for reducing your intelligence.

You'd usually fail any relevant rolls related to intelligence (Appraise, Knowledge, Spellcraft) and get incapacitated by the first intelligence-draining ability, spell, poison, or disease that hits you. If you're dropping more than one ability down to 3 you've got even bigger problems. If your GM was especially malicious I...er, they... would rule that you have difficulty understanding all but the simplest speech or writing.


Sarcasmancer wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Quote:
@demontroll That's an interesting houserule. Does anybody take you up on that and actually dump to 3? Seems like a really glaring weakness for a character.

Keep in mind that at a certain point there is no further penalty for reducing your intelligence.

You'd usually fail any relevant rolls related to intelligence (Appraise, Knowledge, Spellcraft) and get incapacitated by the first intelligence-draining ability, spell, poison, or disease that hits you. If you're dropping more than one ability down to 3 you've got even bigger problems. If your GM was especially malicious I...er, they... would rule that you have difficulty understanding all but the simplest speech or writing.

There are only two poisons in the srd that do intelligence damage. And how often does a fighter check Spellcraft?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarcasmancer wrote:
@BigNorseWolf I'm not interested in getting into that. I'm interested specifically in why dumping to 7 is considered beyond the pale, even though it's allowed by the rules.

Thats one of the, if not THE big reasons WHY its considered beyond the pale.


Kenji Elindir wrote:
Because making a character that can be extremely effective in combat is "bad evil fun" even if you roleplay well. However making a mediocre combat character who is roleplayed equally well is the highest pinnacle of "good holy fun."

Not interested in that, interested in why people say stuff like:

Marthkus wrote:
7 is the point that you are minmaxing and is inexcusable with a point buy of 20 or greater.
bfobar wrote:
I would say only 1 stat may be dumped, and only to 8 or 9, with no 7s before racial modifiers.
Khrysaor wrote:

Dumping metal stats to 7 on your warrior to max out the physical is munchkin and cheesy. This doesn't mean people in real life couldn't have similar stats. Just that it's entirely abusing the system.

They're not opposed to dumping a stat per se, they're opposed to dumping it -to 7-. Which is what the rules allow. I understand not allowing people to dump to 3 (even though such a character would not be long for this world in one of my games) since that would be a houserule. But I don't get why 7 is seen as so offensive -even when 8 is not-.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
There are only two poisons in the srd that do intelligence damage. And how often does a fighter check Spellcraft?

Then those are the two poisons they get hit with? I guess a fighter wouldn't check Spellcraft. But still I don't think they're going to get far in life failing even "general knowledge" checks.

EDIT: And get swindled by unscrupulous merchants / fellow party members when buying and selling.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

For me it's not the people who drop their INT to 7. It's the people who drop their INT to 7, but then don't play their character that way.

If you're going to have an INT of 7, you don't get to come up with all of the clever solutions to the problems confronting the party.


fretgod99 wrote:

For me it's not the people who drop their INT to 7. It's the people who drop their INT to 7, but then don't play their character that way.

If you're going to have an INT of 7, you don't get to come up with all of the clever solutions to the problems confronting the party.

This is a big one. Some people play Pathfinder purely as a numbers game, these are the people who you'll see start their argument with "There is really only a 5% difference between 7 and 8 therefore...". That doesn't make them wrong, that's just the way they want to play. When they get in a group of like-minded players everyone has a good time. When they don't, well then you get the endless "whining" about it on the Internet.

I kind of think it's a side effect of having a point-based skill system. Even a fighter with an Int of 7 still gets at least one skill point per level. This allows them to buy skills to compensate for the reduction, 1 skill point spent in Knowledge (Engineering) still gets them a net +2 bonus to the skill. It may take them longer to get good at anything, but they eventually can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
You'd usually fail any relevant rolls related to intelligence (Appraise, Knowledge, Spellcraft)

Spellcraft (and craft and linguistics, for that matter) is a trained skill - anyone who isn't putting skill points into it can't use it to begin with. If you do actually invest points in it, however, you're only packing a -4 penalty; you're already back at 0 just by putting one rank in it and getting a class skill bonus if it's that important. The only characters I might imagine who would be affected by this are Clerics and Sorcerers who want to do some crafting. Similarly, you cannot make a knowledge check with a DC higher than 10 without having skill points in it, so you're not even allowed to make attempts on the more difficult checks anyways unless you're investing points.

And really, appraise? You'd have to come up with a very contrived scenario where the fighter must make an appraise check where no one else in the party is capable of doing so.

Quote:
EDIT: And get swindled by unscrupulous merchants / fellow party members when buying and selling.

If party members are actually working against each other, then you're in a very different kind of game. Most GM's actively discourage this kind of behavior.

Secondly, why would the character with the horrific intelligence penalty be asked to make the appraise check? Another party member would doubtlessly do it for him. Maybe the GM might catch you the first time and sell you a water-down potion, but after that you'll be in a "fool me once" scenario and the player won't fall for it again.

Quote:
Then those are the two poisons they get hit with?

A) If you keep hitting the party with the same intelligence-damage poison over and over, it's going to get old fast.

B) The fighter gained 16 build points from his intelligence dump. He's probably got 18 constitution and can make any fortitude save you throw at him, so he's probably the last character that would actually be affected by this.
C) Both poisons in question are ingested poisons, by far the hardest to deliver in a circumstance where it actually matters.


Dasrak wrote:
And really, appraise? You'd have to come up with a very contrived scenario where the fighter must make an appraise check where no one else in the party is capable of doing so.

Cheerfully conceded all your points, it's a contrived scenario to begin with as nobody is dropping stats to 3 except under house rules. The topic of my thread is why people are adverse to allowing stats to be dropped to 7.

The Exchange

Sarcasmancer wrote:


EDIT: And get swindled by unscrupulous merchants / fellow party members when buying and selling.

Diplomacy(cha) and Sense Motive(wis) is a good counter to that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
fretgod99 wrote:

For me it's not the people who drop their INT to 7. It's the people who drop their INT to 7, but then don't play their character that way.

If you're going to have an INT of 7, you don't get to come up with all of the clever solutions to the problems confronting the party.

Now what do you say of characters who have 7 intelligence, but say 14 Wisdom? Are they not allowed to be clever?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Because it's the minimum.

I know if I look at a random character sheet I'll focus on the highest and lowest stat. I'll probably double-take at 5s and 20s. There is an inherent need to focus on minimums (and maximums). I can think of many engineering examples in which the only relevant data is the maximum and minimum values. By a 7 being the minimum, it is special, and people will pay more attention to it. If you could buy down to a 6, that would be "the point that you are minmaxing and is inexcusable." It's all relative.

As a point, when houserules were posted that allowed for buying down to a 3, the discussion of those rules centered on the 3. The numbers between the old minimum (7) and the new one (3) were ignored, even though there were 3 other values lower than the old minimum of 7. Who cares about dumping to a 4? That's child's play; true munchkin min/maxers buy 3s.


Quote:
Cheerfully conceded all your points, it's a contrived scenario to begin with as nobody is dropping stats to 3 except under house rules. The topic of my thread is why people are adverse to allowing stats to be dropped to 7.

Right you are! Back on topic!

Quote:

For me it's not the people who drop their INT to 7. It's the people who drop their INT to 7, but then don't play their character that way.

If you're going to have an INT of 7, you don't get to come up with all of the clever solutions to the problems confronting the party.

While I understand where you are coming from, I disagree with this portrayal of intelligence.

Intelligence in Pathfinder describes your ability to learn. A low intelligence score in Pathfinder might not represent stupidity, but rather a learning disability. In this sense, it's entirely reasonable to play a character who just completely lacks mental focus but still has sharp problem-solving skills. I am not of the opinion that a low intelligence score prevents a player from using novel or interesting problem-solving.

They certainly can roleplay a dumb-as-bricks character if they want to, but I don't believe anything from a low intelligence score actually mandates it.

Quote:

Because it's the minimum.

I know if I look at a random character sheet I'll focus on the highest and lowest stat

I'd totally agree, but for somewhat different reasons.

Characters that lower any attribute below 10 tend to be in a position where that attribute's penalty won't come up very often. As a result, it's a relatively small sacrifice that frees up more points to be spent where they are more relevant. Presuming the penalty is low enough, a character will keep making that trade (lowering their dump stat to raise an important stat) to whatever maximum exists.

The key problem isn't so much that there is a minimum, but rather that there exist some characters which are not meaningfully affected by further reductions. Whether it's 10, 8, 7, or 3, they'll dump all the way because the penalty just doesn't matter to them.


@Riuken that makes sense.


One of our GMs says no 7s because if its a dump stat, there is no real negative between 8 and 7 to justify the 2 more points to build with. I guess if it gave only a -3 for 7 instead of -4 it wouldn't be a problem for him but I do tend to agree that in most builds, you wont notice the negatives of a 7 compared to an 8.

But having played with 7s, I don't think it gives a power advantage at all unless you are taking more than one 7.


@ Captain Netz that's helpful. & I agree I don't see it as an unfair power advantage.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its interesting how people only use part of a discription to make their point.

Intelligence determines how well your character Learns and Reasons.

But of course only the learn part has a game mechanic to support it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Intelligence determines how well your character Learns and Reasons.

But of course only the learn part has a game mechanic to support it.

So because of one word in one section that is never referenced anywhere else or given any representation in the rules, you'll make subjective calls on the way your players are allowed to roleplay?

As I said to the other guy, I know where you're coming from, but I completely disagree.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it relevant that the ones who benefit most from being able to dump a stat (or stats) are the ones who are MAD and thus arguably need it the most? And the stats least onerous to drop (Int and Cha) are the ones that your martial types often have least use for?

Wizard doesn't care if his stats are 18 13 10 10 10 10, Fighter does, Monk and Paladin really do.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion on why some dont like dump stats, its because when they think of heroes they think of characters like Conan. Heroes dont have major flaws.

Those who have no problem with dump stats, like the 'flawed' heroes more. They think you have a more flavorful hero because hes more 'human'.

To each his own.

Most people I know who dont like dump stats dont like any negatives.

Not sure about those who think 8 is ok but 7 is bad.

To me any negative 'bonus' is a noticable flaw and while it can be over come somewhat it never goes away. Example, low cha might be a speach problem and can be trained to over come but in times of stress can manifest again. Problem with this is game mechanics dont support it so its ingored.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is that Conan is conan, or conan and his amazing friends, not four equally competent individuals adventuring as equal team members. He doesn't have any weaknesses because he's doing everything himself and there's no sense of balance: he and other solitary heroes like Tarzan have damn near strait 18s down the board. There's no variety or balance there.

Grand Lodge

The game is centered on having a group of characters with different skill sets working together and covering each others weaknesses. Disallowing the creation of characters with weaknesses that need to be covered by the other characters is ignoring the spirit of the game.

Simply having the power to end every encounter is fine, as long as you aren't using it all the time. Save your ability to annihilate everything that moves for when the party is out of other options. You'll be the hero, and everyone will get their time in the sun.

Munchkinism is a social problem, not a mechanical problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
In my opinion on why some dont like dump stats, its because when they think of heroes they think of characters like Conan. Heroes dont have major flaws.

Except even in the realm of what most people universally consider heroes, many (even, I'd dare say, MOST) have flaws.

Hercules obviously dumped Int, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the campaign i'm running now I told my players I was giving them a few extra points to pad their ability scores, but they didn't get bonus points for taking stats below 10 . I'm very happy with the results.

If they want to play a big dumb fighter, sure, go ahead and take an int 7. I'm not giving you a mechanical incentive to do so though. If it's really roleplay they care about, it shouldn't be a big deal, right? Guess how many people in my campaign have a stat below 10? Oh that's right, none of them do.

It's not that I'm particularly *against* the trope of a big dumb fighter, or a weakling wizard, or a socially paralyzed druid... it's just that I don't think that it should be the default way to make a character. Under the default rules, you are literally penalized for not taking a 7 in a stat, by the simple truth that every class has ability scores that are vastly more important for their class than others.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Jacob Saltband wrote:
In my opinion on why some dont like dump stats, its because when they think of heroes they think of characters like Conan. Heroes dont have major flaws.

Except even in the realm of what most people universally consider heroes, many (even, I'd dare say, MOST) have flaws.

Hercules obviously dumped Int, for example.

Depends on which Hercules you use for an example.


awp832 wrote:
If they want to play a big dumb fighter, sure, go ahead and take an int 7. I'm not giving you a mechanical incentive to do so though. If it's really roleplay they care about, it shouldn't be a big deal, right? Guess how many people in my campaign have a stat below 10? Oh that's right, none of them do.

Is this tired, irrelevant "roleplay vs mechanics" example supposed to prove something?

"When people get bonuses to offset taking penalties, they take the penalties to get the bonuses. But when they don't get anything to offset the penalties, they don't take penalties."

awp832 wrote:
Under the default rules, you are literally penalized for not taking a 7 in a stat, by the simple truth that every class has ability scores that are vastly more important for their class than others.

Under the default rules you are literally penalized FOR taking a 7 in a stat, in the form of a -2 penalty. There is no way you can construct a character using 20 point buy so that they have no bonuses or penalties whatsoever.

EDIT: What I mean is your penalties will always be outweighed by your bonuses. Obviously you can construct something like 18 13 10 10 10 10 and take no ability penalty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nitpick: Hercules was fairly clever, depending on whom you ask, but he clearly dumped Wisdom.

Counter-point: Kellan Lutz.

1 to 50 of 978 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Point Buy - Down to 7 All Messageboards