Most people I noticed were using comparative math discussing how point buys affect SAD v. MAD characters. Anecdotal "we played it on 15 and it was fine" just doesn't contribute much, especially in the context that you've just said you routinely forget pieces of the encounter, substitute your own ideas, and tailor encounters to the group. That doesn't actual speak to the wider discussion of how a 15 point buy affects an AP beyond saying that you make a 15 point buy work with your own modifications.
Having said that, I did also note that the APs don't require a 20 point buy or an optimized party at all, so there's nothing wrong with a 15 point buy standard; you should be able to tackle most APs just fine. Some groups may need to adjust though, and I know that many people, including the people who write the APs use a 20 point buy most of the time.
Now you are putting words into my mouth, as I never said anything about forgetting stuff regularely or substracting anything from the APs.
But coming back to adding to a wider point: What I was trying to get at, was that if the encounters are manageable on 15 point-buy, than they are even less challenging on a 20 point-buy.
So if you want to challenge your group a bit, I'd say go for a 15 point-buy, especially if you have an experienced group, because as you said: They will need to adjust, so that they manage the challenges, which leads to less streamlined solutions and a more varied campaign.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now you are putting words into my mouth, as I never said anything about forgetting stuff regularely or substracting anything from the APs.
Ummm, dude...
As far as "the remembering of all of the tools" goes, I'm definitely guilty of that. It's hard remembering all nooks and crannies of encounters of encounters I haven't designed, that's why I love to throw in my own ideas every few sessions and for the most part those are more challenging for the party, as I design them around their strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not putting words anywhere.
But coming back to adding to a wider point: What I was trying to get at, was that if the encounters are manageable on 15 point-buy, than they are even less challenging on a 20 point-buy.
That's a fair assertion, and I don't think anyone's contested that. That doesn't mean that some people aren't going to have more fun or perhaps need the boost of a 20 point buy.
So if you want to challenge your group a bit, I'd say go for a 15 point-buy, especially if you have an experienced group, because as you said: They will need to adjust, so that they manage the challenges, which leads to less streamlined solutions and a more varied campaign.
That's a fair recommendation. Personally, I think the difference between 15-20 is pretty marginal and won't change balance much, but will benefit MAD classes in a way that could make them more robust, interesting, and possibly even fun to play. Every person at Paizo I've ever heard talk about it uses 20 points, and it's PFS standard. There's not really a "right answer" on point buy, other than "go with the one that's the most fun for the table".
Now you are putting words into my mouth, as I never said anything about forgetting stuff regularely or substracting anything from the APs.
Ummm, dude...
As far as "the remembering of all of the tools" goes, I'm definitely guilty of that. It's hard remembering all nooks and crannies of encounters of encounters I haven't designed, that's why I love to throw in my own ideas every few sessions and for the most part those are more challenging for the party, as I design them around their strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not putting words anywhere.
I plan and lay out most encounters quite well, but sometimes players just tackle an ecounter in a way you haven't prepared for. In those cases I think afterwards, I've could have done this or that, but I think most GMs know this and my players rarely catch me completely off-guard.
As for modifying encounters, I've said "I love to throw in..." which means I add stuff to encounters or add additional encounters. The encounters are for the most part to well written for me to just throw them out for no reason.
As for SAD vs. MAD classes, I haven't seen many builds that don't work on an heroic stat array, besides monks (I don't see any problems on the examples you gave). Will they work better on 20 point-buy? Sure, but they'll still be less powerful than most SAD classes (not because they are SAD, mostly because SAD classes tend to be full casters).
But I have to acknowlegde that I haven't been a player in years, so I have a hard time following the sentiment, that PCs need to feel powerful through stats.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Let's see, APs I've played or run successfully at 15 PB:
Rise of the Runelords AE
Serpent's Skull
Carrion Crown
Skull & Shackles
In progress:
Wrath of the Righteous
Reign of Winter
Shattered Star
Number of TPKs: 0
PC deaths per AP: usually about 1-3 total, across the whole group.
Classes played/seen at 15 PB: fighter, alchemist, summoner, sorcerer, bard, oracle, inquisitor, wizard, rogue, druid, ranger, cleric, barbarian, witch, slayer, brawler, bloorager, paladin, hunter.
I generally don't find arguments of "you can't play class X at 15 PB" convincing. My experience dictates otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the one who posted multiple times in the past about how a 25-point-build is equivalent to +1 to each stat.
I've actually done the math to determine this, after realizing using Advanced Creature for all the foes just made things too tough (it's the +4 boost to AC, along with a good boost to HPs - with one critter it's not too bad, but with a dozen? Yeah...)
The math shows you can compensate NPCs and monsters as follows:
25-point build - +1 to each stat for encounters.
32-point build - +2 to each stat for encounters.
46-point build - +3 to each stat for encounters.
61-point build - +4 to each stat for encounters.
This is based on the 15/14/13/12/10/8 build, and determining the effective points when they go up by +1.
For instance, from 15 to 16 is +3. From 15 to 19 is +14.
------------
My Runelords game is (due to 4d6, reroll 1s, drop the lowest) based on a 46-point build. Not everyone is at that level, mind you - the GMPC is closer to a 30-point build. But it allows the monsters to have equal footing to the PCs - at least before I tossed Mythic into the mix! (I was young and stupid! ^^) When I forgot to add +3 to each stat in the Runeforge, the PCs easily wiped the floor with the first room of Wrath (though they also were freshly rested and leveled up, and did a fastball special on the Halfling cleric to put her in the middle of most of the enemies and hit them all with Stormbolts).
Do note, in the Core Rulebook it states the standard value for a character is 15 points and this system is typically used for organized play events. That would include Adventure Paths. ;)
I know a lot of players hate the 15-point build. There is a view that a +1 to a stat is insignificant. I'm old-school. I'm used to a stat meeting to be a 16 in order to get that +1. The old-school is working under the assumption low stats are useless, and the new school that low bonuses are useless. ;) The truth is, however, a +1 is still a good bonus, and 1st level characters don't need an 18 to be effective.
That said, 25-point builds appear to provide a happy medium. It gives players decent boosts to stats, and is very easy to compensate for with +1 to each enemy stat without often requiring wholescale rewriting of the enemy's skillpoints and the like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do note, in the Core Rulebook it states the standard value for a character is 15 points and this system is typically used for organized play events. That would include Adventure Paths. ;)
Minor note, PFS uses 20 point buy, not 15.
That is irrelevant. The Core Rulebook states the standard value for a character is 15 and this system is typically used for organized play events. That the PFS chose to go with 20 points does not negate what the Core Rulebook said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness to the CRB, PFS used to use a 15 point buy but they went with twenty a few years ago for a few factors.
The idea that you can't play generalist with 15 PB is also really not true. Say you want to play a Bard, 15 PB would be something like
Str 12 Dex 14 Con 13 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha 15, pre-racials. Str Bard? flip Dex and Str, OR Str 14 Dex 8 Con 13 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 15. This is perfectly reasonable.
Want a Str Magus? Str 14 Dex 13 Con 12 Int 15 Wis 8 Cha 10
TWF? Str 15 Dex 14 Con 13 Int 12 Wis 10 Cha 8
I challenge anyone to find a consept that can't be dome with 15 pb. Are they going to be great, no, but perfectly playable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll keep rolling, unless I end up playing PFS.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is irrelevant. The Core Rulebook states the standard value for a character is 15 and this system is typically used for organized play events. That the PFS chose to go with 20 points does not negate what the Core Rulebook said.
What organized play events are you referring to? PFS is the core engine for organized play and uses a 20 point buy. It has been years since I've seen an event use 15 point buy, and I attend a few conventions each year, including PaizoCon.
The Core Rulebook's 15 point buy suggestion is also based on a math error that was rolled forward from earlier editions. Ask Mark Seifter on the design team about it sometime.
I think it's also telling that guys who write the APs and design the rules use a 20 point (or higher!) buy for most of their games.
Anyways, I'm certainly not saying you can't play the game with a 15 point buy, I just think it tends to be more balanced and more fun on a 20 point buy, especially for classes who want things like Combat Expertise and/or Improved Bravery, or who require multiple good stats to use their abilities.
Smeh. Point buy gives me tons of gas. APs can be played at any level of ability scores, it just requires adjustment like anything else. 15 is the general assumption the adventure makes. I had a 4 man optimized roll 4d6s, reroll 1s and 2s 1st level abiliy generated group, with a paladin, a bard, a time thief, and a cleric, and they were almost killed by one CR 3 trap. On the other hand, I have used the same rules in Kingmaker and had 31 dead PCs and they never finished book 5. It really depends on the players, frankly.
I am a big fan of 20 point buy. NPC classes use something like a 3 point buy. PC class NPCs use 15 points. And with 20 point, the PCs can build a solid character, and all be on the same power level starting out. No one gets an overpowered character, and no one gets a crap character.
Elsewhere in the forums, James Jacobs answered a question I had on what assumptions were made for creatures in the Bestiaries. He said they are built assuming they would face a 15-point build.
Please note above my summation of stat bonuses to compensate for high-stat characters. You can easily do a 25-point build and just add +1 to every stat of every monster and other NPC.
If you decided, you could give your players a 60-point build. Let them have Uber-Characters that have multiple 18s before racial modifiers. And then add +4 to the stat of every monster they face. Of course, you'll be adding plenty of skill points and additional languages to each monster... but it's still doable.
(Note, I have not modified those bonuses to account for Undead, Constructs, or other entities that use under six stats and sometimes under five or four stats. For those you might want to increase one stat by and additional +1, or more than one stat for that matter.)
My point is this: Pathfinder's APs and monsters are designed assuming the characters have a 15-point build. If you don't want to limit them to a 15-point build? I have provided the mathematical tools by which you can allow players higher stats and yet still provide them with a challenging game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Coach always told us we couldn't buy points, that we had to earn them. Thankfully, the refs were much more agreeable.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.
The last time we rolled stats:
"Okay, I have three 18s, a 16 and two 14's. What did you get Neil?""I got a 14, and a couple 10s. And a 9 and two 8s."
"Don't worry. I'll let you carry my stuff."
I really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.The last time we rolled stats:
"Okay, I have three 18s, a 16 and two 14's. What did you get Neil?""I got a 14, and a couple 10s. And a 9 and two 8s."
"Don't worry. I'll let you carry my stuff."
that's how life is. not all are born equal. to overcome that is part of life and should reflect in the game
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our Iron Gods campaign, the Fighter (64 pb) and rogue (37) got way higher than the casters, Oracle (24, but also a dwarf) and wizard (20), so it actually evens out quite nicely. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's how life is. not all are born equal. to overcome that is part of life and should reflect in the gameI really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.The last time we rolled stats:
"Okay, I have three 18s, a 16 and two 14's. What did you get Neil?""I got a 14, and a couple 10s. And a 9 and two 8s."
"Don't worry. I'll let you carry my stuff."
I disagree. There's other ways to reinforce a PC as an underdog beyond forcing a disparity in the party.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
that's how life is. not all are born equal. to overcome that is part of life and should reflect in the gameI really don't get the fascination with PB. Just roll the stats. That's how my father did it, that's how I do it, and it worked out pretty well so far.The last time we rolled stats:
"Okay, I have three 18s, a 16 and two 14's. What did you get Neil?""I got a 14, and a couple 10s. And a 9 and two 8s."
"Don't worry. I'll let you carry my stuff."
That would have been a 74 point buy playing with a 0 point buy. Balancing encounters for the two would have been nearly impossible.
We all made our own choice of class.
My Group is currently running WotR. I gave 20 PB (mistake) and then with Mythic on top the massive numbers give me a headache. My next game will be 10 PB. Hard mode FTW!
And a fighter's career will be even shorter. The point being that a low-point buy harms martials to a larger degree than casters.The fighter has a higher hit die and heavy armor to help compensate for that. But really, the fighter has it relatively good, as he's basically SAD too. A really MAD class is something like a monk or cleric.This is a subject that has been beaten to death already, so broad strokes:
Good luck affording heavy armor at 1st level. Fighter and wizard both need 3 stats at least, and fighter gets less out of them then they invest.
15 pt-buy mandates optimization to survive. It chokes out character variety.
Bolded for emphasis, but THAT, so very very much that. They all end up cookie cutter classes and it's repetitive.
I've never understood why people are so afraid of higher stats. Yes, as a GM it takes a bit more work and craftiness to make sure things are appropriately challenging but that only adds maybe 15 to 20 minutes prep time for me. I think that's more than worth it for everyone, myself included, to have a blast.
My Runelords game (the Skype one), I had die-rolls.
The Halfling Cleric/Bard had a Strength of 7. She had a Constitution of 10. An Intelligence of 8. Her Wisdom and Charisma were good, as was her Dexterity... but what would have been a 26 point build when compared to a Barbarian with a 43-point build, and a Ranger/Wizard with a 46 point build.
I could hear the disappointment in the player's voice. I offered to let her reroll. She refused. I said "f*#* it" and I modified the character's stats, raised her Strength to 9 and her Intelligence to 12 and pretty much brought her stats to what, point-wise, would be a 45 point build.
I did this because I was going to increase the difficulty of the enemies and didn't want her character dying off. And it worked. And she enjoyed the character far better.
And when a fourth player joined us (and later a fifth, though I had the Barbarian drop out before that newest player) I gave them a 40-point build to work with so they'd be on par with the other players.
I'm already planning out the next game (Hell's Rebels). I gave them 25-point builds (going with 16, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10 for stats, pre-racial modifiers). And while one player has groused a little that he's got such low stats, they all know I've been boosting the enemies significantly and that this won't happen in the new game (though that's still probably a year out at least).
This is from an old-school GM. This is from someone who disliked the 3.5 point builds on old D&D computer games. Because I've learned an important lesson: you need parity with characters, or you'll have some players dominating and others being ineffectual.
--------
As an aside, the Barbarian player had run a Rogue in my Reign of Winter game. She initially was using bad dice when rolling her stats (two dice kept rolling 2s - I snagged the dice, rolled them four times in rapid succession and they did twos each time) so I had her reroll. 4d6, reroll 1s. She had a 56-point build. The only reasons her character was not uber was first she was running a Pathfinder Rogue (pre-Unchained), and second rather than boost her 17 to a 19, she boosted a 15 to a 17 - the lowest stat she had was one 13.
Do you honestly think it's fair for a player to have a character with two 17s, three 16s, and so forth, while someone else might have nothing higher than a 15 after racial modifiers? Do you honestly think every player in such an environment will enjoy the game equally?
Maybe the character stats are "cookie cutters" but if it means my players are enjoying themselves rather than grumbling at bad dice and envying someone else's character sheet? Then I will gladly put aside the old-school method of character creation and use point-builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you guys have killer GMs who seek to destroy your characters at every turn because that's not how I run games. I run them so you have fun.
Pathfinder APs are designed for 15-point builds. This has been stated by Paizo employees on multiple occasions. Pathfinder Society uses 20-point builds, in part because you're not gaming in a group where you know everyone, but instead have a bunch of strangers getting together and those extra five points help compensate for groups that might lack a healer or the like.
At lower levels, a +3 to hit, or +3 to the CR of spells, and +2 hit points per level, or +2 to armor class? That works just fine! Your foes are built on a similar level!
Seriously. Look at most human or demi-human enemies in the APs! They are built with 15-point builds. And do you know how many encounters are at CR or below? How many are in essence a cakewalk where you use up player resources but probably don't hurt them?
Far too many. It's a complaint a number of GMs have on the APs.
There is only one reason I would allow high-stat characters in a game, and that is if I disallowed buff spells like Bull Strength or Belts of Strength or the like. And hey, Pathfinder Unchained has a rule for that where those bonuses? Are intrinsic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you guys have killer GMs who seek to destroy your characters at every turn because that's not how I run games. I run them so you have fun.
Or, if you want to trade hyperbole, you run a game where you pull punches and make sure that the characters are free from facing reasonable challenges.
I like playing at 20 and above because I like having a character with a lot of options in a situation. 15 pts doesn't give me access to those options without sacrificing fundamentals of that character. Try building a 15 pt monk, it's not pretty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I run a game with the intention of my players having fun.
This does mean at times if a player rolled a 1, I'll say "I didn't see that roll" and let them reroll (though if the reroll is also a miss then the dice gods have spoken).
My group meets online once a month. We game for four hours. It has taken us three years to get into the Runeforge. And my players have often been through a lot of stress with problems like lost jobs, unpleasant roommates, family issues, and more. The game does not need to be a huge source of frustration because the dice decide to join the bad luck conga.
Thus far, the GMPC has been dropped below 0 hit points twice and killed to the point Breath of Life was needed twice more. Other players have been below half hit points on several occasions and I've used up most of their resources on several occasions.
Most importantly, my group has had fun. That's the point of the game.
If you want to say that means my group is free from facing reasonable challenges and that I pull punches? Go right ahead.
That said, I'm the Game Master who had rolled stats for his group and then factored out the math so to ensure the monsters were at a point-value of stats equivalent to the players with their high stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most importantly, my group has had fun. That's the point of the game.
I agree, you are fortunate to have a group you can enjoy yourself with. I hope that does not come across as sarcastic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really get this. If 15 point buy means cookie cutter optimization to survive, but GMs have to put in more work to make things appropriately challenging for higher point buys, what's the point? Can't they put in work to make it easier to survive for the lower point characters? If the GM is making it harder, might the 20 pt characters also need cookie cutter optimization to survive?I don't really have a position in this argument, but that line of thought just makes no sense to me.
The point is, when you have nothing but 15 point buys there are only a couple of builds per class that work, it's min-maxing, over-optimization, because you just don't have options. You won't get people playing fighters with high charisma because they want that in a character because those points need to go to STR/DEX and CON.
If I have to spend a little extra time so that my players can make UNIQUE characters every single time, then I deem it worth it.
Every group is different, every group dynamic is different. And my logic doesn't have to make sense to everyone. I don't mind if people love 15 point buy, I just personally hate it, and it doesn't make sense to me. I very much dislike low fantasy games for the same reason. If I'm going to play or run something fantastic, by golly it will be FANTASTIC !
In the end, it's mostly just personal preference between players and GM's and something each group has to sort out among themselves.
I run a game with the intention of my players having fun.
This does mean at times if a player rolled a 1, I'll say "I didn't see that roll" and let them reroll (though if the reroll is also a miss then the dice gods have spoken).
My group meets online once a month. We game for four hours. It has taken us three years to get into the Runeforge. And my players have often been through a lot of stress with problems like lost jobs, unpleasant roommates, family issues, and more. The game does not need to be a huge source of frustration because the dice decide to join the bad luck conga.
Thus far, the GMPC has been dropped below 0 hit points twice and killed to the point Breath of Life was needed twice more. Other players have been below half hit points on several occasions and I've used up most of their resources on several occasions.
Most importantly, my group has had fun. That's the point of the game.
If you want to say that means my group is free from facing reasonable challenges and that I pull punches? Go right ahead.
That said, I'm the Game Master who had rolled stats for his group and then factored out the math so to ensure the monsters were at a point-value of stats equivalent to the players with their high stats.
I run very much the same way and I think you rock, even if we disagree on stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the one who posted multiple times in the past about how a 25-point-build is equivalent to +1 to each stat.
Aha! Well, at least I gave you "uncredited" credit! I just didn't remember your handle. ;)
Then you guys have killer GMs who seek to destroy your characters at every turn because that's not how I run games. I run them so you have fun.
This.
We do 25 PB (not as high as you seem to like, but still not 15) simply because the characters are more fun. That's not to say you can't have fun with 15 PB and a MAD character, just that we think you can have a bit more fun with 25 PB and any character. My PCs aren't going to die, period and they know that. The challenge is almost an afterthought to us overall. We are in it to laugh and argue and spit snot out of our noses because of something so silly or stupid or obscene that we can't help ourselves. The bad guys die, the good guys live, that's how it goes.
There are people who run characters who were a 0-point build, and are able to survive and flourish in the game. If a 0-point build could do that, then I could easily see someone with a high-charisma fighter who does well.
The thing to recall is this: it's not the stats that make the character. It's the player. So if you want your high-charisma fighter? Go for it! One of the builds I'd planned out for a GMPC was a Kitsune Fighter, with Fighter Feats to compensate for lost Feats from going with a multi-tail Kitsune. Sure, the fighter only had a 13 Strength and had a higher Dexterity and Charisma, but the point of the character was to provide a character who'd hold the line and be fun to run.
And hey, you can do a high charisma fighter now and have that be the important stat: go with the Swashbuckler class. Or Paladin. Both need a good charisma! :)
The other thing to recall is this: I'm only pointing out that Pathfinder assumes a 15-point build for characters. I'm not stating you MUST go with a 15-point build.
After all, why else do you think I went and figured out the math for 25, 32, 46, and 61 point builds, so that you can beef up the stats of monsters and other encounters so the game remains challenging for high-stat characters? :)
And a fighter's career will be even shorter. The point being that a low-point buy harms martials to a larger degree than casters.The fighter has a higher hit die and heavy armor to help compensate for that. But really, the fighter has it relatively good, as he's basically SAD too. A really MAD class is something like a monk or cleric.This is a subject that has been beaten to death already, so broad strokes:
Good luck affording heavy armor at 1st level. Fighter and wizard both need 3 stats at least, and fighter gets less out of them then they invest.
15 pt-buy mandates optimization to survive. It chokes out character variety.
Bolded for emphasis, but THAT, so very very much that. They all end up cookie cutter classes and it's repetitive.
I've never understood why people are so afraid of higher stats. Yes, as a GM it takes a bit more work and craftiness to make sure things are appropriately challenging but that only adds maybe 15 to 20 minutes prep time for me. I think that's more than worth it for everyone, myself included, to have a blast.
I don't really get this. If 15 point buy means cookie cutter optimization to survive, but GMs have to put in more work to make things appropriately challenging for higher point buys, what's the point? Can't they put in work to make it easier to survive for the lower point characters? If the GM is making it harder, might the 20 pt characters also need cookie cutter optimization to survive?
I don't really have a position in this argument, but that line of thought just makes no sense to me.
It's probably easier to add things to enemies than to take things away. (I'm thinking special attacks, binary situations and so forth). Reducing the challenge might put you into a position where you have to make a choice about losing some feature of the encounter, whereas increasing the challenge can always be done by boosting hit points, saves, AC, DCs or whatever it is you like to do.
The bit about 25 point buy being equivalent to +1 to each ability score modifier may be technically correct, but doesn't reflect the practical difference between this and a low point buy. With a low point buy, for the more MAD concepts, you are going to HAVE to dump or even hard-dump at least one and possibly two ability scores, and some of the most MAD builds just won't be possible (like if you are trying to do Two Weapon Fighting but need points somewhere other than Dexterity or Eldritch Heritage but need points somewhere other than Charisma). And do you really want to be forced to be Thog if your MAD build doesn't have Intelligence as a primary casting stat, or to use Budd Tugly & Company Makeup & Makeovers if your MAD build doesn't have Charisma as a primary casting stat or source of Panache/etc.?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real key to enjoying lower PB values is to realize that your don't really need high stats - a +3 is fine for a SAD character and several +2s are sufficient to play a MAD character. Having your best stat be 16 or 17 after racial adjustments is all you really need - and I've seen players get by with a 14 as their highest score.
I'm not judging anyone's preferred play style - by all means go crazy if that's what your group enjoys. But don't pretend that 10 or 15 PB makes some classes "unplayable" or "cookie cutter" or some other such nonsense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a dwarven Oracle in Iron Gods with a charisma of 14, he's doing just fine.