Avoiding "dump stats"


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 371 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's a paladin right there, Dr. D.

Hmm, +2 to STR or CHA? I guess STR.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Meh, 13 is good enough for Power Attack. Only concern is encumbrance.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, 13 is good enough for Power Attack. Only concern is encumbrance.

But since when is 13 enough to reliably HIT with Power Attack? (except against a smite target of course.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

If anything, I'd boost Dex and go court blade/weapon finesse.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, 13 is good enough for Power Attack. Only concern is encumbrance.

That's where the horsey comes in.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
That's where the horsey comes in.

Horsey can't wear the armor for you.


I'm sure someone's gonna be willing to lend you an Ant Haul once they get more 1st level spell slots.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
And Stormwind isnt a "fallacy." Just because someone calls it that , doesnt make it so. At best it's a observation.

You're right, it's not a fallacy because just someone calls it so... It's a fallacy because it's devoid of actual logic. It's a faulty conclusion that does not logically follow from the original premise.

DrDeth wrote:
Why bring it up then?

Because it's pertinent to the subject at hand. It's meant to point out that many people (typically angry elitist grognards) will completely ignore any uniqueness a character has if it's not written down in the character's class description and/or feat selection. And will quickly accuse the player of having a "cookie-cutter" character with no regard to the character's backstory, personality or behavior. Ironically, sticking as rigidly to class descriptions as said angry elitist grognards do leads to masses of "cookie-cutter" characters, where every Rogue is a sneaky scoundrel and every sneaky scoundrel is a Rogue.

DrDeth wrote:
When you set up a hypothetical then attack it, that is a strawman. You didnt know that?

Who exactly did I attack? As far as I can tell, all I did was to criticize close-mindness and elitism.

DrDeth wrote:
In fact I have never seen the "Stormwind fallacy" properly used, except as a attack on others.

I'm sure that if you take a look at past threads where you participated, you'll see more than a few fair accusations of "stormwind fallacy".


DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:

The classes are at theoretically balanced taking their SAD/MADness in consideration (1.obviously, Pathfinder fails quite hard in the balance department, but that's more an issue of magic x non-magic than anything else).

Admittedly, Monks are very, very MAD (2.and extremely poorly designed all around), b... 3.Channel Energy tends to fall quite quickly in usefulness, so Cha 10 is more than enough.

1. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

2.You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

3. You state this like it's true as opposed to your opinion.

You opinion is as valid as anyone else's but it's still your opinion.

Everything everyone says is their opinion. Do you want every single post in the forums to have a warning sign saying "this is my opinion"?

Reread your own posts and see if you never state your opinion as if it were fact (spoiler alert: you do).

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
That's where the horsey comes in.
Horsey can't wear the armor for you.

(I was mostly trying to be humorous)

A medium sized creature with 10 Strength and a heavy load will have the same encumbrance as they will with Full Plate, and still have 50lbs beyond the Full Plate to mess around with other gear. It's not great, but doable.

Add in a 50g Mastrwork Backpack and Medium goes to 76lbs and Heavy goes to 115lbs, which honestly isn't going to matter too much if they are already going to be looking at Heavy Armor asap.

The penalties for Medium or Heavy Armor and also a Medium or Heavy Load don't stack.

Here is an example of a pretty standard starting gear package I use, with Full Plate and a Heavy Shield that is still under the Max Load for a 10 Str Paladin with Masterwork Backpack.

Gear 112 lbs:
full plate, heavy wooden shield, longsword, rapier, basic maps (major landmarks only), bedroll, blanket, blotter, canteen, chalk (10), charcoal stick (10), earplugs, flint and steel, grappling hook, inkpen, knife for cutting quills into pens, knife, utility, manacles (small and medium sized)(2), masterwork backpack, masterwork crusader's cross, mess kit, pen nibs, pigment for making ink, ruler, scroll box, sealing wax, signal horn, signet ring, silk rope (50 ft.), spell component pouch, tattoo holy symbol, vial, waterproof bag, waterskin (2), weapon cord, whetstone

I did forget to throw in a Grappling Hook, (4lbs), was assuming that the Heavy Shield could also double as a (B) weapon, to cover all three types, and also added a Spell Pouch (5lbs) even though it's not needed for a while. It shouldn't be too difficult to swap out a few things for others, like a ranged weapon and ditching the scrivener's kit or mess kit which I normally get for flavor, or to maybe pick up a Crowbar. A Portable Ram is probably outside the character's realistic scope at this level, but not strictly required either.


Lemmy Z wrote:

Who exactly did I attack? As far as I can tell, all I did was to criticize close-mindness and elitism.

The Strawman you set up.


DrDeth wrote:
Lemmy Z wrote:

Who exactly did I attack? As far as I can tell, all I did was to criticize close-mindness and elitism.

The Strawman you set up.

Strawman? Of what? Whose argument did I misconstruct in order to attack?

I criticized a common example of closed-mindedness and elitism.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
That's where the horsey comes in.
Horsey can't wear the armor for you.

What if you cast Possession on the horse?

Shadow Lodge

Then you ain't no paladin.


Talonhawke wrote:


Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.

Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.


Grar.

That is all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.
Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.

Here is a hypothetical for you.

If the roll system was something like 4d6d1, and then get 5 points to boost ability scores using the point buy progression, would you consider it dumping if the player did not buy up low ability scores that they don't care about instead of improving decent to good ones which they do?

Likewise, if the roll system generated a handful of random stat arrays for you to use, would picking an array that has a bunch of high and low rolls as opposed to picking a more balanced but less "powerful" array be any less of a form of dumping?


Snowblind wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.
Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.

Here is a hypothetical for you.

If the roll system was something like 4d6d1, and then get 5 points to boost ability scores using the point buy progression, would you consider it dumping if the player did not buy up low ability scores that they don't care about instead of improving decent to good ones which they do?

Likewise, if the roll system generated a handful of random stat arrays for you to use, would picking an array that has a bunch of high and low rolls as opposed to picking a more balanced but less "powerful" array be any less of a form of dumping?

Your describing optimizing or power gaming if taken to an extreme, NOT dumping. Dumping has a specific definition it sounds silly to use it as it wasn't intended.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:


Unless you have to pick class and race first minmaxing will still happen, the class and race will be chosen to fit the stats instead of the stats being set to fit the class.
Well, sure. But there's still a difference between putting a number you can't control into an out of the way stat and specifically buying a low stat to be able to buy another one higher. In the former, it's called making do with what you get because you aren't compensated for a low score.

That does not change the end result(lowest score for most useless stat) which is what the argument seems to be against. If the real issue is "I don't want you to give up A to get B", then that should be said instead of hiding behind things that still happen when you roll for a score. Also a GM can just say you can't buy down below a 10, and then explain why.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Meh, 13 is good enough for Power Attack. Only concern is encumbrance.
But since when is 13 enough to reliably HIT with Power Attack? (except against a smite target of course.)

At level 2, my most recent paladin had a +6 to hit with only a +2 str mod. +4 would be fine, stats wise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I rarely build Paladins with more than 14 base Strength unless the racials conveniently push to 16 or something.

351 to 371 of 371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Avoiding "dump stats" All Messageboards

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