Here wha I tell my players.
Once you reach 10 level you are in the major leagues and people (specially the bad guys) are going to start paying attention to you.
The local Lich is going to be showing his minions training films of you in action. People magazine going to discussing what amulets you wear , what type of sword you have. Martial arts magazine are going to run articles on your favorite move etc,. You are going to be studied by the opposition like a major league athlete is studied by the opposing team.
So if you are overly specialized the bad guys are going to know it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here wha I tell my players.
Once you reach 10 level you are in the major leagues and people (specially the bad guys) are going to start paying attention to you.
The local Lich is going to be showing his minions training films of you in action. People magazine going to discussing what amulets you wear , what type of sword you have. Martial arts magazine are going to run articles on your favorite move etc,. You are going to be studied by the opposition like a major league athlete is studied by the opposing team.
So if you are overly specialized the bad guys are going to know it.
Would you make that somewhat less true for sneaky characters?
Should your characters fight like anime characters seem to? Have a super specialty held in reserve - fight without it most of the time - and only actually use it when they start having trouble with an opponent? (doesn't work so well in Pathfinder due to how few rounds fights tend to last)
It kind of reminds me of the 1st story arc of Naruto where Zabuza & Kakashi had never met, but they were in each others' 'bingo books', so they knew of each other and knew each others' fighting style/specialties.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that there is a difference between trying to optimally building a character (I want to do X, let's figure out how to best do that) and building a build (my character is required to have these stats, these dump stats, this specific combination of obscure magic items and the whole party has to build around him) and the general problem is that no one agrees where one starts and the other stops.
Some people cry foul if you put an 18 in the state you use the most. Some people use Sacred Geometry without blinking.
The thing is, outside of guides for spellcasters, you really do need some of the things listed (like the Big 6) or else you're going to find yourself wildly outmatched by stuff you shouldn't be struggling with. There is no Fighter who is meaningfully contributing at 10+ without a magic weapon of some sort, for example.
Mostly, people need to stop arguing past each other, because it's not helpful to the discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Builds are critical. If you don't have a build you find yourself locked out of later options by poor early choices.
The feats you wasted on weapon proficiency and focus on a wizard may mean you can't pick up spell perfection at level 15 and your campaign is going to end at 16.
The poor stat distribution on your fighter may mean you're going to be dominated by every devil you come across. Being impulsive may have been fun at low levels, but now you're a dagger at your party's throat.
Your vacillation between two weapon fighting and archery means that you don't have the feats to keep up with either.
Multiclassing without a plan usually leaves your character bad at two things instead of good at one.
If you're not prepared to have your character's entire lifetime advancement planned out before your first non-character-creation game session (or second level in PFS which gives a free full rebuild there) then D&D 3.x/PF is not the system for you.
I'll disagree pretty much with the entire last paragraph. You don't have to plot out every point and feat and movement in order to be successful or have fun with 3.x or Pathfinder. You certainly don't have to do it from first level on.
You can do it. You can also move more organically as well, and yeah, you won't be able to do some things, or go into some prestige classes, or get that nifty feat at X level. And you know what? That isn't a bad thing. It's a choice many players make, in fact.
Much like Real Life, not everyone plots out every movement and angle and still manages to get by, profit, and have a good time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh I generally don't overthink my character path too much. I just do what seems right for the campaign. If I know that it I'm fighting some types of enemies (aka a dm enjoys using Giants, take advantage of using enchantment to disable which is normally not very optimal) . You can have an amazing crit build but if your dm told you are going to be fighting Jubilex and its army of Oozes...your crit build is downright useless. Nowadays of course, most dms don't stick to a specific theme and you end up fighting all kind of monsters with various tactics.
As spoony said..."Never go on a boat, if your dm wants you on a boat, its to use all the aquatic monsters that he never get to use and you don't know about."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.
Guides/Builds will give you ideas , yes , sometimes you cant apply them 100%, but you can check multiple builds and see what you wont be able to get even before the game starts.
I would say the issue with builds unlike guides , is that usually you wont get a very big explanation about lower levels and such.
You only get the end result and what it should do at lvl X.
You must be the one to understand exactly what that will mean until you get to said levels and make the corrections here and there to make it possible getting there in the first place.
Some builds are really not something the person thought about using low level or even high level actually , some builds are just ways to get powerful early.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
Bah! A 15 point buy human Wizard can invest 7 points in Int and start with a 15, which goes to 17 after racial adjustment; by 4th level, he's got it up to 18 - for seven measly points! Are you telling me that having an 18 Int at 4th level is going to meaningfully gimp your casting? Nonsense.
Now, drop one stat down to 8, and you've got 10 points to fill out the other four. It's really not necessary to build a Wizard with stupidly low "dump stats" across the board, even at 15 point buy. Being less than perfectly optimized doesn't mean being a pushover.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bah! A 15 point buy human Wizard can invest 7 points in Int and start with a 15, which goes to 17 after racial adjustment; by 4th level, he's got it up to 18 - for seven measly points! Are you telling me that having an 18 Int at 4th level is going to meaningfully gimp your casting? Nonsense.
Now, drop one stat down to 8, and you've got 10 points to fill out the other four. It's really not necessary to build a Wizard with stupidly low "dump stats" across the board, even at 15 point buy. Being less than perfectly optimized doesn't mean being a pushover.
Sure, a character starting at a 17 or even a 16 INT works fine for being a Wizard, they just aren't optimized for casting spells. You can do other things besides cast spells, which may be more important for your long term survival. But starting with an INT of 20 means you can cast more spells and your DC is as high as you can get.
No one can cast wizard spells better than the Int 20 wizard, because that is what he is was optimized to do. Whether you need that level of optimization is doubtful in most games, but that isn't the question being asked. The question being asked is how do I make a character who is designed to be the most optimized spellcaster. And that requires an INT as high as possible.
Whether you need that level of optimization is doubtful in most games, but that isn't the question being asked. The question being asked is how do I make a character who is designed to be the most optimized spellcaster. And that requires an INT as high as possible.
The question being asked?!
What...you mean the question that Treantmonk asked, and answered, himself?
The question, itself, and the entire guide are...misguided.
Whether you need that level of optimization is doubtful in most games, but that isn't the question being asked. The question being asked is how do I make a character who is designed to be the most optimized spellcaster. And that requires an INT as high as possible.The question being asked?!
What...you mean the question that Treantmonk asked, and answered, himself?
The question, itself, and the entire guide are...misguided.
Not really , many will agree with this and many quite like his guide.
"Misguided" , well to you perhaps , but really you dont have any more say on others PCs than they have on yours and if they want the best possible wizard following Treantmonk view , then that is as right as you that want your char to not follow the optimization path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh...Treantmonk's guide is cynical in a thousand ways, from insulting the roles of every other character class to encouraging cheezed-out mechanics like Planar Binding abuse, etc.
If the man had his head in the right place, he'd have started his guide with: "The Wizard is incredibly powerful if you know how to use spells effectively, so don't worry about optimization if you play one. Now, here are the spells..."
But, of course, nobody who'd write a guide to "being God" should be expected to show much restraint.
He was writing it in a humorous fashion. It was not meant to be taken seriously. :)
Well, when he wrote that guide he was essentially pioneering that format for the pathfinder fan base. His guides were the first community generated aides for pathfinder. The models he established are still the base line for new guides today (ie, you need to color code, you need to break up the parts of the build and discuss the options separately, etc.)Ehh...all he was doing was re-hashing the stuff he had done with 3.5 material, and he was not the first to write guides for that game. Yay for color-coding.
It sounds like you just didn't like his sense of humor, and that you don't like that he would recommend the most powerful options (because at some point they become cheese at your table, therefore a guide to building a powerful character which has the disclaimer "optimization" should leave out all the options that are too powerful and only tell you about the ones which are just "powerful enough.")Allow me to quote him:
You're right; I just don't get his sense of humor. To me, that doesn't look funny, other than perhaps unintentionally (evoking National Socialism in a comment about PF encumbrance rules is all sorts of clever). Doesn't look insightful, either. What it does look like is a shameless and unambiguous call to munchkinism. He was quite the pioneer.What STATS does GOD have anyways?...
Here's some examples:
12-point buy: Str 7 (-4), Dex 16 (10), Con 12 (2), Int 16 (10), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 8 (-2)
...
25-point buy: Str 8 (-2), Dex 16 (10), Con 14 (5), Int 18 (17), Wis 7 (-4), Cha 9 (-1)Obviously these aren't set in stone. If you want to have a decent strength (maybe your DM is an encumbrance Nazi), then drop the Dex to a 14, or whatever you need to do. The most important thing is you make sure your Intelligence is your top priority, and that Dex and Con, in that order, are number 2 and 3. The rest are dump stats.
The entire guide was not humor. That was a serious section and munchkinsim must like "OP" or "broken" is subjective. If I read a guide I want the best options. If I decide not to take them at least I have that option. Most players are already good enough to find the decent combos.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Plans are nothing, planning is everything."
Most of the theorycrafted builds posted online either won't work outside a limited set of circumstances or have issues reaching the point where everything comes online. The act of planning those builds, however, gives the player the knowledge and skills to adapt to a living game.
To quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Plans are nothing, planning is everything."
Most of the theorycrafted builds posted online either won't work outside a limited set of circumstances or have issues reaching the point where everything comes online. The act of planning those builds, however, gives the player the knowledge and skills to adapt to a living game.
I think that depends on the builder. I do not know if "most" is true.
@ the OP: To get back on topic a build is only too specialized if it needs several things to function. Most builds do well without some thing so they are not really a requirement, just nice to have.
I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
Bah! A 15 point buy human Wizard can invest 7 points in Int and start with a 15, which goes to 17 after racial adjustment; by 4th level, he's got it up to 18 - for seven measly points! Are you telling me that having an 18 Int at 4th level is going to meaningfully gimp your casting? Nonsense.
Now, drop one stat down to 8, and you've got 10 points to fill out the other four. It's really not necessary to build a Wizard with stupidly low "dump stats" across the board, even at 15 point buy. Being less than perfectly optimized doesn't mean being a pushover.
You've managed to completely miss the point by latching onto two words out a post out of context. I'd suggest working on your reading comprehension.
To quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Plans are nothing, planning is everything."
Most of the theorycrafted builds posted online either won't work outside a limited set of circumstances or have issues reaching the point where everything comes online. The act of planning those builds, however, gives the player the knowledge and skills to adapt to a living game.
Trust me, most theorycrafting works quite well. A person who theorycraft to have the highest trip may run into issues by focusing on such a narrow and frankly bad ability. But a person who focuses on maximizing their Dazing Spell of Choice, is going to work perfectly fine. Especially with all the other spells they get.
Bah! A 15 point buy human Wizard can invest 7 points in Int and start with a 15, which goes to 17 after racial adjustment; by 4th level, he's got it up to 18 - for seven measly points! Are you telling me that having an 18 Int at 4th level is going to meaningfully gimp your casting? Nonsense.I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.And yes... historically Wizards have been considered not very strong, not particularly wise, or particularly charismatic. Oh there are exceptions (not Merlin though, he's a Druid), but for the most part the weak, unwise, unattractive Wizard is literally the historical imagery for a Wizard.Heh...I suppose the beautiful Circe and Medea were sorceresses, right? Certainly not wizards. Morgan Le Fey couldn't have been a wizard, either. Jafar had foresight and a silver tongue...must have been a sorcerer.
Are you really willing to do violence to history in order to make this argument?
The math says it's not nonsense. From 1st level to 3rd level, you'll have 2 DC less on all of your saving throws, which is 10% less chance of successfully landing a spell. From 4-7, it will be 1 DC (5%) less, then it returns to 10% at level 8, et cetera.
So in the long run, it gimps your casting by roughly 7.5%. (This number is slightly misleading -- it actually means that about 15% more opponents will save against your spells. Normally about half your opponents will manage to save, but instead 57.5% will.) Attempting to avoid this (by restricting yourself only to spells that don't allow saves) will also gimp your casting by taking the majority of the spells off the table.
In addition, you have one fewer spell per day at level 1, which is a hefty percentage of your low-level spells. At level 8, you'll probably have two fewer spells per day, but this depends on your equipment as well.
I'd say both the lowered effectiveness and reduced number (dropping from 2 spells per day to only 1) are both meaningful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The math says it's not nonsense.
Take a look at the actual math. On a 15 point buy, the only way you're getting to 18 INT before racial adjustment is by brutally dumping basically everything except INT. An 18 INT costs 17 points, by itself. The only way you can build a 1st level Wizard with a 20 INT on 15 point buy is if your other stats are worth a net negative two points, making you for all intents and purposes an incompetent peasant with a big, swollen egg head. In modern terms, you might very well be autistic (you don't fool me; I know what your WIS and CHA will end up being in this scenario). Very heroic stuff.
This is the dystopian end of the optimization rainbow, and exactly what Treantmonk recommends...player characters who are so specialized they are objects of pity outside of their narrow field of expertise. I can sort of understand it for the weaker classes...but for a Wizard?! That's just shameless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The math says it's not nonsense.Take a look at the actual math.
I did. It says what I said it says.
The only way you can build a 1st level Wizard with a 20 INT on 15 point buy is if your other stats are worth a net negative two points, making you for all intents and purposes an incompetent peasant with a big, swollen egg head. In modern terms, you might very well be autistic (you don't fool me; I know what your WIS and CHA will end up being in this scenario). Very heroic stuff.
People with autism can't be heroes?
He's still better at the core tasks a wizard needs to do, namely cast spells that have a high probability of affecting opponents, than someone with an intelligence of only 17. Which is to say, he's optimized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People with autism can't be heroes?
Sure they can. If that's your idea of a hero, then by all means. I mean, Rain Man was really good at counting cards and also freaking out at airports and such.
A straight-up autistic Wizard would actually be a pretty good character concept...it would at least be an honest treatment of what walking around with a bloated INT and a 7 WIS and CHA really means.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a quote from historian William Wilson's "The Lone Samurai" that summarizes my attitude towards specialization (especially with the martial classes):
"...As Musashi himself had learned first-hand in his more than sixty bouts and six major military engagements, the martial artist must be practical: partiality towards (or bias against) one weapon or another is anathema, as is one-sidedness of any kind. On the one hand, he urged the student to wield the weapon that would be "fitting to his own abilities." On the other, he stressed the need to be ambidextrous and the advantages of being able to use two swords at once. The fundamental point of the martial arts, he declared, is to win: "Your real intent should be not to die with weapons uselessly worn at your side." (pg. 153-154)
Miyamoto Musashi was a legendary swordsman who urged his readers in "The Book of Five Rings" to avoid the trap of over-specialization. He himself made a point of learning something about all weapons and styles, including unarmed combat and throwing weapons. He was also a celebrated artist and poet and was infamous for the various psychological ploys that he used to put his opponents at a disadvantage. Far from the ultra-focused "sword saint" who knew one--and only one--thing, Musashi was a flexible and innovative warrior who understood the best ways to prepare for the unpredictable nature of warfare, whether in a duel or in the middle of a huge battle.
In some ways, I suppose, Pathfinder has become more and more a table-top version of the MMOs that have generated mountains of money for video game companies. Even the terms "theorycrafting" and "DPR" are recent imports. With their minutely scrutinized, endlessly replayable fights and battles, MMOs demand hyper-specialization merely to meet certain benchmarks. While there are certainly some guidelines for what you need for certain levels of scenarios/modules, proper table top RPGs, on the other hand, have that element of the unknown that has all but disappeared from computer MMOs. Will the party face water combat? aerial combat? Poison, disease, swarms, blizzards, quicksand,etc, etc....? You would hope that a party of specialists would be fine in all situations, but I've seen a lot of highly optimized PFS parties become almost frantic when faced by situations that they utterly failed to anticipate, much less prepare for. By all means, be good at something, but don't put on a pair of blinders and pour all your energy into that one "thing", whatever it may be.
I'm getting ready to run a crew through "Reign of Winter" and my advice to them has been "be prepared for anything". If they show up with four or five Ifrit sorcerers loaded with fire spells, expecting the entire AP to be nothing but a bunch of ice trolls and white dragons, they are in for some nasty surprises....
My apologies for the wall of text, but this subject has been on my mind quite a bit for the last month or so.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A straight-up autistic Wizard would actually be a pretty good character concept...it would at least be an honest treatment of what walking around with a bloated INT and a 7 WIS and CHA really means.
Keep in mind that, at least in Pathfinder, a 7 in a stat is not some kind of disability.
The stat spread, before race, for all those billions of NPCs in the world is 13/12/11/10/9/8. That means that any time the 9 or the 8 lands on a race's penalized stat (such as a dwarf's CHA or a nagaji's INT or whatever), which is going to be one third of the entire population of that race, they're going to have a final stat of 7 or less.
So unless you're prepared to assert that one third of the entire dwarven race has a social handicap on the level of autism, then (at least as far as Pathfinder is concerned) you're wrong. Which in turn also means that calling non-handicapped representations of a 7 in a stat is wrong as well.
Maybe you assign different meanings to the stats in your own games, but you don't get to hold anyone else to that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@John Lance - I love the idea of versatile heroes instead of hyperspecialized ones. My favorite character I've ever played was a versatile and heroic melee cleric. Unfortunately, it took a ridiculous amount of work (and number of books) to make it happen. Every feat, spell, purchase, class decision, and so forth had to be soooo carefully chosen that it was ridiculous. I dreaded the thought of someone eventually auditing my PC, because I knew it would take forever. And that was just to come up with somebody who could be relevant in multiple areas but never the best at anything.
Basically, I have to fight the game - and use a lot of system mastery - to do an effective generalist. Which saddens me, and is part of why I decided to just go ahead and write my own new system. :/
|
|
Keep in mind that, at least in Pathfinder, a 7 in a stat is not some kind of disability.
I'd agree. I don't think it reaches the point of borderline disability until you hit 5ish. After all - if you follow the standard ballparking of Intelligence to IQ, a 7 Int = IQ of 70-75ish. (Intx10=IQ) You'd be kinda slow, but legally you're not considered metally handicapped at that level, but only if you're below an IQ of 70.
I use that as a ballpark for other mental stats at all. A wisdom of 7 is impulsive & misses things, but not to the level of autism. A charisma of 7 is a wallflower with no real presence. I'd say a wisdom/charisma of 5-6 might be ausbergers level. (ausbergers = borderline autism, it didn't used to qualify at all - the broader definition of autism is what's lead to so many 'more', not vaccines etc :P)
|
|
I once played a 7 Int, 7 Wis Paladin as Forrest Gump. It was fun. That is not the only and definite way to play every character with 7 Int and 7 Wis, though, and I don't think anyone with any sense would ever claim it was.
Technically Gump was a 6 Int - since he was mentally handicapped, though just barely. :P
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I once played a 7 Int, 7 Wis Paladin as Forrest Gump. It was fun. That is not the only and definite way to play every character with 7 Int and 7 Wis, though, and I don't think anyone with any sense would ever claim it was.Technically Gump was a 6 Int - since he was mentally handicapped, though just barely. :P
If 6 INT is mentally handicapped, then so is one sixth of the entire nagaji race.
The IQ=INT*10 thing is not how Pathfinder is set up.
If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch? What is going to do when the first Kobold grapples Him?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree. I don't think it reaches the point of borderline disability until you hit 5ish. After all - if you follow the standard ballparking of Intelligence to IQ, a 7 Int = IQ of 70-75ish. (Intx10=IQ) You'd be kinda slow, but legally you're not considered metally handicapped at that level, but only if you're below an IQ of 70.Keep in mind that, at least in Pathfinder, a 7 in a stat is not some kind of disability.
Except the "standard ballparking" of Intelligence to IQ is horsefeathers, chosen because people (meaning, Gary Gygax, largely) can't multiply by numbers other than 10. That standard ballparking means one person out of 216 has an IQ of 30, which is clearly nonsense.
|
|
I once played a 7 Int, 7 Wis Paladin as Forrest Gump. It was fun. That is not the only and definite way to play every character with 7 Int and 7 Wis, though, and I don't think anyone with any sense would ever claim it was.Technically Gump was a 6 Int - since he was mentally handicapped, though just barely. :P
Right. That's the point. A guy who has a lot of weaknesses (7 Str, 7 Wis and 7 Cha, for example) is not necessarily someone who is completely incompetant at everything. He's no weightlifter, and he's not a shiningly social sage, but he can still do some of the stuff associated with those stats, albeit with more difficulty than someone who didn't dump them.
And that's kind of the point Treantmonk was making. You dump stats that have the smallest effect on your character, and hurt as little as possible to lose them. Then you strengthen your strong points so you are as good as you can be at them. That's all min-maxing means.
Treantmonk, or any guide writer, is not going to kick down your front door and demand you and your group play characters that way. But the option is there, and they wanted people to know that.
If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch?
Adventuring alone? Zero, the same as a wizard with any other stat array.
Adventuring as part of a group that knows what they're doing? Roughly the same as a wizard with any other stat array. He'll have an extra color spray lying around to take care of wandering kobolds, and and roughly one more kobold out of six will fail the relevant save, so he'll be a more powerful spellcaster, but more reliant on his teammates to keep the kobolds off him.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch?Adventuring alone? Zero, the same as a wizard with any other stat array.
Adventuring as part of a group that knows what they're doing? Roughly the same as a wizard with any other stat array. He'll have an extra color spray lying around to take care of wandering kobolds, and and roughly one more kobold out of six will fail the relevant save, so he'll be a more powerful spellcaster, but more reliant on his teammates to keep the kobolds off him.
Or he'll teleport out of the grapple as a swift action without requiring a concentration check, then do whatever he pleases.
|
|
Or he'll teleport out of the grapple as a swift action without requiring a concentration check, then do whatever he pleases.If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch?Adventuring alone? Zero, the same as a wizard with any other stat array.
Adventuring as part of a group that knows what they're doing? Roughly the same as a wizard with any other stat array. He'll have an extra color spray lying around to take care of wandering kobolds, and and roughly one more kobold out of six will fail the relevant save, so he'll be a more powerful spellcaster, but more reliant on his teammates to keep the kobolds off him.
At level 1?
If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch? What is going to do when the first Kobold grapples Him?
High.
At level 1?Or he'll teleport out of the grapple as a swift action without requiring a concentration check, then do whatever he pleases.If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch?Adventuring alone? Zero, the same as a wizard with any other stat array.
Adventuring as part of a group that knows what they're doing? Roughly the same as a wizard with any other stat array. He'll have an extra color spray lying around to take care of wandering kobolds, and and roughly one more kobold out of six will fail the relevant save, so he'll be a more powerful spellcaster, but more reliant on his teammates to keep the kobolds off him.
Conjuration (teleportation) specialist.
At level 1?Or he'll teleport out of the grapple as a swift action without requiring a concentration check, then do whatever he pleases.If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch?Adventuring alone? Zero, the same as a wizard with any other stat array.
Adventuring as part of a group that knows what they're doing? Roughly the same as a wizard with any other stat array. He'll have an extra color spray lying around to take care of wandering kobolds, and and roughly one more kobold out of six will fail the relevant save, so he'll be a more powerful spellcaster, but more reliant on his teammates to keep the kobolds off him.
|
|
Except the "standard ballparking" of Intelligence to IQ is horsefeathers, chosen because people (meaning, Gary Gygax, largely) can't multiply by numbers other than 10. That standard ballparking means one person out of 216 has an IQ of 30, which is clearly nonsense.I'd agree. I don't think it reaches the point of borderline disability until you hit 5ish. After all - if you follow the standard ballparking of Intelligence to IQ, a 7 Int = IQ of 70-75ish. (Intx10=IQ) You'd be kinda slow, but legally you're not considered metally handicapped at that level, but only if you're below an IQ of 70.Keep in mind that, at least in Pathfinder, a 7 in a stat is not some kind of disability.
If you go by the old roll 3d6 for each stat. Not if you use the standard stat array for NPCs. (as is done in Pathfinder)
And yes - there is an argument to be made for using a sort of bell curve as well for such things. As a ballpark -
An Int of 9=IQ of 97ish.
8=93ish
7=87ish
6=80ish
5=71ish
4=60ish
etc
Which would put Forest Gump at an Int of 4-5.
|
|
At level 1?Or he'll teleport out of the grapple as a swift action without requiring a concentration check, then do whatever he pleases.If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch?Adventuring alone? Zero, the same as a wizard with any other stat array.
Adventuring as part of a group that knows what they're doing? Roughly the same as a wizard with any other stat array. He'll have an extra color spray lying around to take care of wandering kobolds, and and roughly one more kobold out of six will fail the relevant save, so he'll be a more powerful spellcaster, but more reliant on his teammates to keep the kobolds off him.
Conjuration (teleportation) specialist.
Fair enough - I forgot about that one specific obscure archetype which would let you do what you said for wizards in general. :P
Fair enough - I forgot about that one specific obscure archetype which would let you do what you said for wizards in general. :PAt level 1?
Or he'll teleport out of the grapple as a swift action without requiring a concentration check, then do whatever he pleases.Conjuration (teleportation) specialist.
Well, I'm not sure how obscure it is, since every optimization guide recommends it.
But that's actually rather part of the point. It's an immensely powerful ability that will save your life, possibly on multiple occasions, to the point where taking any other ability makes you substantially more at-risk to being grappled, shut down, and killed.
There are basically three reasons not to take it:
1) You are deliberately playing the game on "hard mode" and taking options off the table for yourself.
2) You have a character concept in mind that is focused differently.
3) You don't know about it.
The optimization guide addresses reasons 1 and 3. (Reading the guide will tell you about the option, and it will also tell you about the weaker options, if you want to play on hard mode.)
One example: Why would you ever use shadow step over dimension door?
If a Wizard starts with a 20 int at first level and so his other stats suck, what his chance of seeing level 2 unless the GM pulls his punch? What is going to do when the first Kobold grapples Him?
He wont have to worry because every encounter the kobolds will line up in cone formation and die to his colorspray spell.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First: 15 point buy wizard
Str: 7 (+4 points)
Dex: 12 (-2 points)
Con: 12 (-2 points)
Wis: 12 (-2 points)
Int: 20 (-17 points, +2 racial)
Chr: 7 (+4 points)
or
Str: 7 (+4 points)
Dex: 10 (0 points)
Con: 12 (-2 points)
Wis: 10 (0 points)
Int: 20 (-17 points, +2 racial)
Chr: 10 (0 points)
I would not call either of these an "incompetent peasant with a big, swollen egg head".
In my opinion these are just mentally focused characters.
I would prefer the first array, however some might prefer the second.
To address possible concerns with this array I would point out that a 7 strength would be perfectly believable for someone who did little to no physical training and focused on mystical thought processes along with indoor study.
A 7 strength means a max light load of 23 pounds, a medium of 24-46 pounds and a heavy load of 47-70 pounds.
This seems to be just about right for someone who has little to no time invested in physical training to me. I know from carrying a 50 pound pack that it can get very very heavy as the day drags by.
The 7 charisma is based on the fact that he has had little interaction with people aside from those teaching him magic.
A 10 charisma represents someone who got out and interacted normally with people during training.
Neither of these are rainman.
I think that people put too much emphasis on making stats effect role-play.
Initial stats are an inherently mechanical construct and are not the defining limit of what a character can achieve.
All of the above except the stats costs are of course just my opinion.