Not maximizing your primary ability?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 639 of 639 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Joe Hex wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:

I'm curious about people's opinion on how common, or rare character's who have this higher + ability scores are.

We know 10-11 is average, and I'd say 12-13 is not uncommon.
With the example of strength- I think in every village/neighborhood in game, has several folks that are known to be good at some heavy lifting. So, maybe 1 in 10 characters have a 12-13 strength.
It's when you get higher than that range, that you start to wonder how rare it is.
Would it be 1 in 50, or 100, that possesses 14-15?
When we get to a score of 20, which is a high as possible among the common races, I'd say that character would be renown throughout the kingdom or region. I think of someone like The Mountain from Game of Thrones.

The high end of characters with no class levels is 15 after racial modifiers. The low end of anyone if their racial penalty falls into their low score is 6. If that does not happen it is an 8.

If you have a PC class you might have a 17 after racial modifiers, and that is for NPC's. If you get to level 4 you can push that to an 18. I dont think many NPC's get past level 5.

In Golarion while a 20 is rare I dont think it automatically makes you known in the region, but there is a high chance you have an important position. I would say people in your city know who you are.

Yes, level 5 for NPCs is a good benchmark, the highest level follower a character can receive through the Leadership feat is level 6 and that is if the character is of a very high level (at the end of their career) and with a high charisma and /or owns a castle, guild house or religious temple.

In relation to measuring character level, Justin Alexander (The Alexandrian), a talented writer and play-tester of D&D 3.5e stated in one of his essays: "take Aragorn, for example. He’s clearly described as one of the best warriors in Middle Earth. But what do we actually see him do? Let’s take The Fellowship of the Rings as an example:

...

Gandalf ALSO never reveals his full power in front of mortals. The only fights he came close involved other deific beings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Mordenkainen is like a demi god with Str 10, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 18, Wis 15 Char 18. That's a 67 point buy!

Even crazier when you consider the stat generation method at the time was 3d6 in order, which means that that the chance his total of equaling 95 (which they do) is only 0.00008277933065%. The odds are actually significantly worse when you consider that to achieve those near-perfect scores for his class, each of them has to be rolled in order or you have to start over (because you didn't pick where your stats went).

This leads me to conclude that Mordenkainen and his creator are cheating bastards. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Mordenkainen is like a demi god with Str 10, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 18, Wis 15 Char 18. That's a 67 point buy!

Even crazier when you consider the stat generation method at the time was 3d6 in order, which means that that the chance his total of equaling 95 (which they do) is only 0.00008277933065%. The odds are actually significantly worse when you consider that to achieve those near-perfect scores for his class, each of them has to be rolled in order or you have to start over (because you didn't pick where your stats went).

This leads me to conclude that Mordenkainen and his creator are cheating bastards. :P

lol. GM PC of the highest order :)


Ashiel wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Mordenkainen is like a demi god with Str 10, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 18, Wis 15 Char 18. That's a 67 point buy!

Even crazier when you consider the stat generation method at the time was 3d6 in order, which means that that the chance his total of equaling 95 (which they do) is only 0.00008277933065%. The odds are actually significantly worse when you consider that to achieve those near-perfect scores for his class, each of them has to be rolled in order or you have to start over (because you didn't pick where your stats went).

This leads me to conclude that Mordenkainen and his creator are cheating bastards. :P

Well, if you assume the class was picked because of the stats, it's not quite so bad.

More generally, I don't know if those stats were done as 3d6 in order, since even Gary suggested other methods. Those could also have been after in play boosts, for all I know - Tomes and the like.
Or made up by later authors, since Gygax didn't reveal the stats, as far as I know.

I've seen several sets of stats quoted for Mordenkainen, none of them quite matching those.


thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Mordenkainen is like a demi god with Str 10, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 18, Wis 15 Char 18. That's a 67 point buy!

Even crazier when you consider the stat generation method at the time was 3d6 in order, which means that that the chance his total of equaling 95 (which they do) is only 0.00008277933065%. The odds are actually significantly worse when you consider that to achieve those near-perfect scores for his class, each of them has to be rolled in order or you have to start over (because you didn't pick where your stats went).

This leads me to conclude that Mordenkainen and his creator are cheating bastards. :P

Well, if you assume the class was picked because of the stats, it's not quite so bad.

More generally, I don't know if those stats were done as 3d6 in order, since even Gary suggested other methods. Those could also have been after in play boosts, for all I know - Tomes and the like.
Or made up by later authors, since Gygax didn't reveal the stats, as far as I know.

I've seen several sets of stats quoted for Mordenkainen, none of them quite matching those.

Mordenkainen's stats that I posted are from the published adventure, WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure written by yours truly Gary Gygax and Robert J. Kuntz.

I suppose Gary just got some lucky rolls (cough, cough).


Morzadian wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Mordenkainen is like a demi god with Str 10, Dex 17, Con 17, Int 18, Wis 15 Char 18. That's a 67 point buy!

Even crazier when you consider the stat generation method at the time was 3d6 in order, which means that that the chance his total of equaling 95 (which they do) is only 0.00008277933065%. The odds are actually significantly worse when you consider that to achieve those near-perfect scores for his class, each of them has to be rolled in order or you have to start over (because you didn't pick where your stats went).

This leads me to conclude that Mordenkainen and his creator are cheating bastards. :P

Well, if you assume the class was picked because of the stats, it's not quite so bad.

More generally, I don't know if those stats were done as 3d6 in order, since even Gary suggested other methods. Those could also have been after in play boosts, for all I know - Tomes and the like.
Or made up by later authors, since Gygax didn't reveal the stats, as far as I know.

I've seen several sets of stats quoted for Mordenkainen, none of them quite matching those.

Mordenkainen's stats that I posted are from the published adventure, WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure written by yours truly Gary Gygax and Robert J. Kuntz.

I suppose Gary just got some lucky rolls (cough, cough).

There are several other published versions and Gygax has said he never released the original stats.

But he was apparently known for high-stat characters, so it's likely most of them weren't made with straight 3d6. Shrug.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gygax opens Gatekeeper and sets all stats to 25.
"They must never know..."


Ashiel wrote:

Gygax opens Gatekeeper and sets all stats to 25.

"They must never know..."

To be fair, high stats were far more of a necessity in 1st and 2nd edition. There were far too many gates that didn't open for characters unless your stats were high.

With very little short of a probably-perverted Wish giving you stat boosts, NOT having a 16+ in a primary stat was a bit of a downer. For a caster it could be even worse with the stat->spell level restrictions.

3.x devalued stats pretty heavily in comparison. I think that's a pretty good thing.

Shadow Lodge

Interesting opinion...did you play any pre-3.x editions?

Shadow Lodge

In 1e you only needed a 6 int to be a magic-user and you could cast upto 4th level spells.


Jacob Saltband wrote:
Interesting opinion...did you play any pre-3.x editions?

I did, but it has been ages since I've looked at or owned the books. I remembered that the stat-to-spell-level-available limit existed and believed it to be similar in design to the current.

A quick google search reveals that I was wrong on the stats required, but there were plenty of other reasons to want that casting stat higher. I do concede that I'd misremembered the requirements pretty strongly.

(late edit) Assuming 3d6 stats (fairly stupid assumption in my experience, even in old d&d days), it's still far more likely that a wizard will be stat limited out of his highest level spells without getting stat boosting tomes or decks of many things or rings of wishes or luck blades. It's not as bad as I'd remembered, but it's still bad enough that I have little doubt that many players did everything in their power to make sure they had what they needed.

So, yeah. I believe that high stats were more necessary in 1st and 2nd edition than in 3.x era games, but were harder to legitimately achieve.

Shadow Lodge

My opinion.

Classes in the earlier editions that required higher then average ability scores to quailfy for are equivalent of prestige classes in the latest editions.

Edit: or more likely looked upon as elite classes, requires being more the average joe to qualify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yet having a 16+ in your stats primary thing also granted you a much coveted +10% XP bonus. Likewise, while you COULD learn up to 4th level spells with a 6 Int (meaning you're still a crappy wizard) your chance to learn spells was abysmal. You were also limited in how many spells of each level you could know. So it was pretty horrible.

Shadow Lodge

Ok you win!

New always means better.

Sorry being an ass again.


If we're talking 1E AD&D, you needed 9 Int to be a magic-user. And a 6 Dex, if that matters.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
If we're talking 1E AD&D, you needed 9 Int to be a magic-user. And a 6 Dex, if that matters.

I was just looking at the int chart but your right I think the 4 core classes required a minimum 9 ability score.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

Ok you win!

New always means better.

Sorry being an ass again.

To be fair, I don't think new means better (I'm really not a fan of 4E and I think 5E is terrible for example) but I do think better means better. I've tried to play 2E a few times and I always end up throwing my hands up in the air and quitting on any attempt outside of Infinity-engine games like Baldur's Gate.

Old-D&D is all over the place with tons and tons of frankly bad rules. For example, ability scores in 2E aren't very unified and are kind of all over the place. Generally speaking it takes extremely high scores to get any sort of benefits but those benefits tend to be massive when you do. For example, Str 9 and 15 are more or less the same outside of carrying capacity and Str checks. 16 gives a minor +1 to damage, but if you're a warrior class you suddenly gain +10% more experience because reasons.

And "because reasons" is a very, very common thing in older D&D editions I've seen.

The rules for dual-classing could only have been written by a drunken madman coming down off a meth-high playing with his rubber ducky in a pool of LSD while watching the count on Sesame Street. (>.<)

Today we have a system that is much simpler. I don't care what anyone says, even though the system is huge it is a hell of a lot simpler to learn. There isn't nearly half the random and arbitrary charts to deal with and most things are consistent enough that if you learn a thing it probably applies elsewhere. However, that system is also much better at being fair and way, way better at emulating realistic and believable people and characters.

We have the privilege of being able to argue over dancers and low-Charisma prostitutes and such. In previous editions you couldn't even BE a dancer as there was no way to actually govern that or any consistent way to handle that. You could perhaps default to an ability check (because there were no skills really) but that's not really great either (every high-Dex or whatever stat you choose character is great at dancing, and you would frequently fail to dance whenever you rolled higher than your ability score).

I think the system still needs improvement, but this system is way, way superior at creating characters and adventures that 2E ever was. The best 2E games are in spite of the system rather than because of it. Usually the result of a really great GM who probably ignored half the rules in the books anyway. I've found nothing that I could do with 2E that I cannot do with d20, but I've found countless things that I cannot do with it.

Shadow Lodge

I agree that there was alot of impvocements but, to me, there was alot lost as well. One major one is magic items, they became common place so lost the wonder of their rareness. Some of the cool scary monster like the mummy also became common place.

PF improved things even more but also isnt flawed

I also disliked 4e and probably wont touch 5e becuase they kept some of the 4e rules I though were some of the worst of that edition.

Each edition (maybe excluding 4e) improved on the system before it. But, as you said, each system has its own flaws.

Shadow Lodge

You know I've always wondered why WotC decided that half the classes only got 2 skill points per level. PF changed the skill system somewhat but kept that number, maybe they rhought that since they reduced the number of skills they didnt need to increase the skill points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Saltband wrote:

I agree that there was alot of impvocements but, to me, there was alot lost as well. One major one is magic items, they became common place so lost the wonder of their rareness. Some of the cool scary monster like the mummy also became common place.

PF improved things even more but also isnt flawed

I also disliked 4e and probably wont touch 5e becuase they kept some of the 4e rules I though were some of the worst of that edition.

Each edition (maybe excluding 4e) improved on the system before it. But, as you said, each system has its own flaws.

A friend of mine had a bunch of premade adventures published by TSR for 2E that he left at my house for a long time. I recall them being chocked full of magic shwag. Likewise, if OSRIC is any indicator as to the frequency of magic items they're actually more frequent than in Pathfinder.

For example, a group of bandits is always led by an 8th-10th level Fighter, 6 2nd level Fighter guards, and a 7th level Fighter lieutenant. A group of bandits consists of 20d10 bandits (average 110 bandits). For every 50 bandits you get an additional 6th level Fighter bandit, every 40 a 5th level Fighter, every 30 a 4th level Fighter, and every 20 a 3rd level Fighter. The number of bandits determines the level of their leader (under 100 = 8th, up to 150 = 9th, higher = 10th).

For every 50 bandits, there's a 25% chance of a magic user being present at 7th to 10th level (6 + 1d4).

For every 50 bandits there's a 15% chance that a cleric is present. The cleric is 5th or 6th level and comes with a 3rd or 4th level assistant.

Now here's the rub. Without counting any of the treasures that the bandits have at their lairs or anything, each of those leveled characters has a 5% chance per level of possessing a magic item in a certain category. Fighters can possess magic items in the weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion categories.

This means the average sized bandit group has the following:
1 9th Level Fighter = 45% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion
1 7th level Fighter = 35% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion
2 6th level Fighters = 30% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion
2 5th level Fighters = 25% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion
3 4th level Fighters = 20% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion
5 3rd level bandits = 15% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion
6 2nd level bandits = 10% magic weapon, armor, shield, misc. weapon, and potion

That's a lot of dosh. Might be more if magic users and clerics are present (resulting in scrolls, rings, misc. magic items, wands, etc).

So what does this dosh look like? Well for armor and shields, you roll a d20 to determine the following:
1-10 = +1 armor/shield (50%)
11-15 = +2 armor/shield (25%)
16 = +3 armor/shield (5%)
17 = +4 armor/shield (5%), with a 35% to be a +5 instead
18 = cursed
19-20 = special

Repeat for weapons as they follow the same formula.

Now to put this into perspective, we're talking a mac truck of treasure in just the gear that the badguys are expected to be wearing randomly, many of these things randomly appearing as +2 to +5 weapons and/or armors. Falling out of the sky, practically. :o

So what does Pathfinder look like if we build the same encounter?
Well...

A 9th level Fighter has 10,500 gp in total gear, and only about 3,500 gp of it is expected to go into weapons, roughly the same in magic armor, which caps him out at +1 magic items unless you eat away his other gear. He'll have a +1 weapon and a masterwork secondary.

An 8th level Fighter is mostly the same.

A 7th level Fighter cannot afford both a +1 armor and a +1 shield.

A 6th level can afford a single +1 weapon and armor but at the cost of a secondary weapon.

Anything 5th level and below can't even afford a +1 weapon.

Now if we dumped about 75% of the treasure values of the 1st level bandit warriors into the pool and just gave them the bare minimum of mundane weapons, we could drop an extra 21,450 gp worth of treasure into the mix, so we could have the leader wearing something really sexy (like a +4 weapon) to distinguish them a bit, but by default? Really infrequent magic items and what is popping up is relatively low-key.

The only real difference that I can see that would make people go "Oh but magic is more common" is that there's standardized rules for buying magic. Not because it was ever actually rare but just now you have something that you can reliably shovel your mountains of coin into that is rewarding instead of using coin to level up.

Which was totally a thing since treasure = XP back when evil wizards were gallomphing for roys with their sawdust summoning squares. Look out, here comes a Roy right out of Grant's Ear!


Jacob Saltband wrote:

Ok you win!

New always means better.

Sorry being an ass again.

Nah, no apology necessary here, I think.

I think that there are a lot of layers to the question of the importance of high-stats in 1ed vs 3.x.

For example, if you played the game as the rules are laid out in 1st, you roll stats, choose race, and then pick class from whatever you have available. I seem to recall trying that once or twice and being left with thief or fighter or something similar.

That's not how a teenager wants to play the game :) At least, I didn't. I wanted to start with my class. I wanted to be a ranger or a paladin or a monk. Those were cool and iconic and trusting my fate to the whim of 3 (or 4 if you used Method V) little dice that hated me was not going to work out well.

nope. :)

Especially when you really needed that 16, like Ashiel said, for any bonuses to really start rolling in. My memory of 1st edition character creation is that it was an exercise in finding ways to creatively cheat so that I could have a character that wasn't gimped. Because the other side of the stat roller coaster involved penalties that started much closer to the statistical average (7's seem to be common to start seeing -'s on the stat tables) than the numerical bonuses do. Heck, a thief with average stats suffered penalties to his rolls that didn't go away until you hit a stat of 13.

It should come as no surprise that my faded and jaded memories of 1st edition leave me with the impression of a game where early stat generation would make or break a character before the first monster was seen.

:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's been a very long time, and I was pretty young, but from what I remember from 2nd, was that Charisma was basically a throwaway stat, as far as class features and prerequisites went.

I remember when 3rd came out, and the Sorcerer was introduced, thinking they finally made charisma important for a class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Hex wrote:

It's been a very long time, and I was pretty young, but from what I remember from 2nd, was that Charisma was basically a throwaway stat, as far as class features and prerequisites went.

I remember when 3rd came out, and the Sorcerer was introduced, thinking they finally made charisma important for a class.

I think the randomness was the interesting part of early versions of D&D. If you were lucky enough to roll a Str 18/00 you loved that character (because he was so rare).

Going slightly off-topic I do miss the 'trial by combat' parts of the Druid and Monk class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:

It's been a very long time, and I was pretty young, but from what I remember from 2nd, was that Charisma was basically a throwaway stat, as far as class features and prerequisites went.

I remember when 3rd came out, and the Sorcerer was introduced, thinking they finally made charisma important for a class.

I think the randomness was the interesting part of early versions of D&D. If you were lucky enough to roll a Str 18/00 you loved that character (because he was so rare).

Rare enough that nobody would believe it happened without cheating :)

RandomJunk: 3d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 3) = 93d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 3) = 83d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2) = 113d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 5) = 113d6 ⇒ (4, 2, 3) = 93d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 3) = 9

(edit: holy carp those rolls sucked)

As I write this I have no idea what those dice rolls will be, but knowing my luck, the only thing I'll qualify for is a clumsy human thief or anemic fighter :) I'm not the one that finds that sort of randomness appealing.

Quote:
Going slightly off-topic I do miss the 'trial by combat' parts of the Druid and Monk class.

Interesting, because I see these as very similar in intent as the house rules people have proposed/implied about using raw Charisma comparisons to determine starting attitudes of random NPCs. It strikes me as an attempt to force mechanics to enforce flavor to the world.

What's stopping you from dropping monk schools into your game and requiring in-world monks to show up for a big tournament every year on an island, and the winners get to be the Grandmaster of Flowers? Heck, maybe you swipe a page from pop culture and make the whole thing a secret story to save the world...the winner has to fight a demon's champion in order to prevent all out war. :)

Thing is, it's story or fluff or something like that. Locking class progression to it eliminates avenues of play. If you have to have monk schools and grand masters and fight them to progress, then you can't have the self-taught hermit on a hill, or the wandering grand master school-destroyer, or whatever. When mechanics enforce storyline, all you do is limit player options.

I just don't see that as a grand idea.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Interesting, because I see these as very similar in intent as the house rules people have proposed/implied about using raw Charisma comparisons to determine starting attitudes of random NPCs. It strikes me as an attempt to force mechanics to enforce flavor to the world.

What's stopping you from dropping monk schools into your game and requiring in-world monks to show up for a big tournament every year on an island, and the winners get to be the Grandmaster of Flowers? Heck, maybe you swipe a page from pop culture and make the whole thing a secret story to save the world...the winner has to fight a demon's champion in order to prevent all out war. :)

Thing is, it's story or fluff or something like that. Locking class progression to it eliminates avenues of play. If you have to have monk schools and grand masters and fight them to progress, then you can't have the self-taught hermit on a hill, or the wandering grand master school-destroyer, or whatever. When mechanics enforce storyline, all you do is limit player options.

I just don't see that as a grand idea.

Well, the stated in-game assumptions of 1e were a bit different than things stand now. There is a place in the DMG where a 6th level character is referred to as "unimaginably high level." At that scale of play, having class abilities be gated behind supremacy contests doesn't affect worldbuilding much at all - who cares if the top 10 monks in the world have to duke it out to see who's best to unlock their full potential when the vast, vast majority never get that high. It's easy to have a hermit master up on the mountain when being a "Master" required only level 6 or 7 and the contests didn't begin until 8.

Now, I would say that this intended scale didn't truly get borne out in actual play in many campaigns. But 1e reads as if 6th level guys are supposed to be about 1 per city/region and using that scale it kinda works.

Going back to ability scores - yes in 1e you needed 15s or 16s to get bonuses. I think the intention really was to use a meat-grinder approach to sort yourself into good stats - make a character, it dies, make another, it dies, oh hey this one lived!. Just read the examples of play from back then - like half the party dies in two encounters.


ryric wrote:
Well, the stated in-game assumptions of 1e were a bit different than things stand now. There is a place in the DMG where a 6th level character is referred to as "unimaginably high level." At that scale of play, having class abilities be gated behind supremacy contests doesn't affect worldbuilding much at all - who cares if the top 10 monks in the world have to duke it out to see who's best to unlock their full potential when the vast, vast majority never get that high. It's easy to have a hermit master up on the mountain when being a "Master" required only level 6 or 7 and the contests didn't begin until 8.

Yeah, I agree that the stated assumptions didn't work out all that much in actual play, in my experience at least. Not when a single bought adventure could carry you halfway to unimaginably high power, and the many of the others would carry you halfway to OMGGodhood (the entire Giants run). Imagine having to tell Lloth to hold on a year or so while you plane shifted back home to train. :)

Quote:
Going back to ability scores - yes in 1e you needed 15s or 16s to get bonuses. I think the intention really was to use a meat-grinder approach to sort yourself into good stats - make a character, it dies, make another, it dies, oh hey this one lived!. Just read the examples of play from back then - like half the party dies in two encounters.

I just want to say 'ick'. :) (also, yes, quite probably true, and why not skip the agonizing death part and make survivable characters from the get-go?)


Zilvar2k11 wrote:


Quote:
Going back to ability scores - yes in 1e you needed 15s or 16s to get bonuses. I think the intention really was to use a meat-grinder approach to sort yourself into good stats - make a character, it dies, make another, it dies, oh hey this one lived!. Just read the examples of play from back then - like half the party dies in two encounters.
I just want to say 'ick'. :) (also, yes, quite probably true, and why not skip the agonizing death part and make survivable characters from the get-go?)

Which is what many (most?) people did and 4d6(drop lowest) was the optional, but recommended method by the start of AD&D.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
ryric wrote:
Going back to ability scores - yes in 1e you needed 15s or 16s to get bonuses. I think the intention really was to use a meat-grinder approach to sort yourself into good stats - make a character, it dies, make another, it dies, oh hey this one lived!. Just read the examples of play from back then - like half the party dies in two encounters.

Absolutely, 100% true.

I remember running "In Search of the Unknown" (B1 - the module that came in the box) and every player rolled up 2 characters at a time, and a foray into the dungeon was considered a success if 1 character in the party could make it out alive after a few encounters. If a single character survived more than once they were a true badass -- and only then did they get a name.

You approached D&D back then much more like a Rogue-like than you did a modern RPG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zilvar2k11 wrote:

Interesting, because I see these as very similar in intent as the house rules people have proposed/implied about using raw Charisma comparisons to determine starting attitudes of random NPCs. It strikes me as an attempt to force mechanics to enforce flavor to the world.

What's stopping you from dropping monk schools into your game and requiring in-world monks to show up for a big tournament every year on an island, and the winners get to be the Grandmaster of Flowers? Heck, maybe you swipe a page from pop culture and make the whole thing a secret story to save the world...the winner has to fight a demon's champion in order to prevent all out war. :)

Thing is, it's story or fluff or something like that. Locking class progression to it eliminates avenues of play. If you have to have monk schools and grand masters and fight them to progress, then you can't have the self-taught hermit on a hill, or the wandering grand master school-destroyer, or whatever. When mechanics enforce storyline, all you do is limit player options.

I just don't see that as a grand idea.

+1 to each paragraph of this post.

I generally find that the less fluff that is hardcoded the more awesome the fluff can be. This is one of the reasons I've never had a problem emulating more of an oldschool feel with d20 but the reverse is never true.


pH unbalanced wrote:
You approached D&D back then much more like a Rogue-like than you did a modern RPG.

This didn't work out great for roguelikes either. Roguelikes that have any sort of mass appeal are usually designed to not kill characters unless the player does something stupid. Players are only willing to play the early game repeatedly and die when they have nothing better to do with their time.


Atarlost wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
You approached D&D back then much more like a Rogue-like than you did a modern RPG.
This didn't work out great for roguelikes either. Roguelikes that have any sort of mass appeal are usually designed to not kill characters unless the player does something stupid. Players are only willing to play the early game repeatedly and die when they have nothing better to do with their time.

Fun, but it is a niche market.

There's a reason basically all modern games let you save and restore.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Atarlost wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
You approached D&D back then much more like a Rogue-like than you did a modern RPG.
This didn't work out great for roguelikes either. Roguelikes that have any sort of mass appeal are usually designed to not kill characters unless the player does something stupid. Players are only willing to play the early game repeatedly and die when they have nothing better to do with their time.

Welcome to the 70s. :)


I make it impossible to "maximize" whatever you think your primary ability score is.

During character creation, choose any six positive integers. Those are your starting ability scores pre-racial and pre-level-up-bonuses.

No maximum ability score means no maximizing any ability scores. Character creation is less of a hassle, and we can get on with playing the game.

On the de-railed subject, rogue-likes seem to be doing pretty well in popularity, judging by the rankings in the Google Play store and the Itunes App Store. They seem to be reaching a heck of a lot more people, than, say, any Pathfinder-related product (not including ACTUAL pathfinding software, like Google Maps, which is a heck of a lot more popular:D).


The Pale King wrote:

I've noticed whenever I see character builds that very very few people don't go as far as possible to max their primary ability score. Starting with less than an 18 at level 1 seems almost unheard of, even if it means dumping multiple stats to 7 or 8. I find even I myself do this to an extent.

But lately I've found myself wanting to play races less 'suited' to the class. An Elven Paladin for example, or a Dwarf Wizard. Usually this mean I end up with 16 in my primary score, but also feel like I have a more well balanced ability score array in the end.

I mean most of the time characters also go for 14 CON, so once you have your primary at 18 and your CON at 14 you have so little to make your ability scores unique and interesting.

This is all considering point buy of course.

How do you guys feel about less optimized ability score arrays?

It isn't optimal, but a wizard can get by just fine with a lower score.

When I play strength based martials I often don't put a max score in anyway. Too many points needed in other things.


18's cost way too much for the improvement they give. I never paid for anything over a 16, even when playing a SAD cast like a sorcerer. Most people I know don't buy up to 18's either. They might get the 16, like I do, and take the 18 if their racial stat bonus adds to it.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

If your 6 Cha Wizard is the choice for negotiator, that's a problem with party decision making, not character building.

If the entire party built Cha-dumped combat machines, then it was a pretty dumb idea to put anything important involving delicate negotiations in the campaign. (Ignoring certain Investigators and Inquisitors).

I've sorely wanted to make a 5 Cha Dwarven Wizard who specialized in Diplomacy using the Student of Philosophy trait and is based on infamous lady's man (no, really!) Henry Kissinger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually start with either a 16 or 17 in my primary stat.

Diminishing returns on higher stats, etc.


1st;
In my group we roll our stats. So it's not often that anyone can start off with a stat maxed.

2nd;
The character I'm making & the class I've chosen should not be mistaken as the same thing. (though class is certainly an important aspect of the character....)
I will be mechanically effective. But I will ALWAYS place my stats to best represent the character I have in mind. Likewise when it comes to stat increases.
For ex; Sans gear, my cavaliers highest stats are Cha & Wis. (it started off Cha & Str, but as he's lv up I've increased his Wis each time as he's becoming a better & better leader/tactician)

The Exchange

I think that for a heretic/sanctified slayer inquisitor of Irori, these stats are more than enough:

Str17
Dex15
Con14
Int10
Wis14
Cha7

In PFS, you get 3 stat increases. At lvl 4 push Str up to 18, and lvl 8 push Dex up to 15. That's 24 game sessions. Seems like more than enough to get the main stat increases.

Because of the conversion inquisition, the Cha basically comes out to a 14.

And because he is going to take the divine obedience for Irori, he'll get +4 to all knowledge skills. That's...not as good, but like having an Int of 18, for the modifiers at least.

So by lvl 4, he looks like:

Str18
Dex15
Con14
Int10 (with 18 modifiers for knowledge skills)
Wis14
Cha7 (with 14 modifiers for intimidate, bluff and diplomacy)

Starting off with Str18 would mean having to cut 3 points off from somewhere. That would either mean making Int a dump stat (crippling his skills), lowering his dexterity (thus losing the planned 2 weapon fighting), lowering his constitution (never a good idea) or lowering his wisdom (a bad idea for an inquisitor).

In cases like this, where many stats are needed and its hard to dump more than one, I don't think that there is really a benefit to starting off with an 18.

601 to 639 of 639 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Not maximizing your primary ability? All Messageboards

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