I always struggle with this. Besides some classes like Cleric where if we're going some sort of front line guy we can feel not about a 14 in WIS and a 16 ion STR, usually if we play martials/casters I always feel the need to have the maximum possible.
That 16 on INT wouldn't feel ok being a wizard, not only because of the amount of spells at level 1 (1 extra at 20 is a lot), but also because of DCs and skillpoints.
My current Wizard doesn't have a single rank in Perception. He has Knowledges (a lot of them), Linguistics (yeah), Spellcraft and going to get some into Craft Wood, because DM allowed me to use Amazing Tools for Wands/Staves.
Overall, I'm not sure whether I'm wanting an 18/20 because it's a requisite that I must follow or just because I feel I'm not maximizing the character.
Like playing an Halfling Barbarian. Wasting an 18 to become a 16 feels BAD, WRONG, and horrible! Not only I'm wasting points to buy that 18, but it's also not working, and that +2 DEX isn't going to be suddenly another 18, because buying a 16 is expensive.
So, I'm never sure how to deal with it. Sometimes I wish Skill Points shouldn't be tied to INT, so if I go 16 INT Wizard because I want more agile/dexterous/charming Wizard, will work. But then, you have so many things to avoid being hit, replacing CHA with INT, and downright not caring about it, that still feels wrong.
How do you forum people deal with this? Do you feel ok using an 16 on your main stat, does your GM have limitations on 20s, not being allowed?
You don't "need" to do anything; if you want to play a wizard with 12 intelligence and 16 strength, you can. But characters definitely benefit from higher numbers in their relevant stats, in the sense of "are more powerful with."
The theorists on this board like to distinguish between multiple-attribute-dependent (MAD) classes and single-attribute-dependent (SAD) classes. A wizard is a classic example of a SAD class, since almost all of their abilities depend (number of spells, spell DCs, maximum casting level, et cetera) depend only on Intelligence. By contrast, a cleric needs Wisdom for casting, Charisma for channelling, and Strength and Constitution for front-line melee combat. An archer fighter only needs Dexterity, but a monk needs Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom and Constitution.
Especially if you're playing a SAD character, you will usually be able to deal effectively with level-appropriate encounters with only a 16 in your main stat; having a 20 will simply add +2 to your chance of affecting them at any given point (e.g., you have a 10% greater chance to have your spells land). So there's no reason not to be a charismatic wizard if you like.
16 is fine for a main stat. I had great fun playing a gnome barbarian with Strength 16. I am currently running a 7th-level human bloodrager with Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 16. She uses her Charisma mostly for Bluff checks.
The higher a main stat, the better the character is at his or her main job in the party. But sometimes, the party has an encounter where the key factor is some minor ability. If the player sacrificed that minor ability to maximize the main one, the character suffers and maybe dies. As in, "Shame the fighter failed his Acrobatics check crossing the rope bridge over the chasm. He really should have removed his heavy armor." The adventure with the high-Charisma bloodrager has a small element of intrigue, so bluffing falls under the occasionally-important category.
It really depends on the game style you are all playing. If your playgroup is Tactics focused, then your halfling barbarian is probably not a good fit without some really clever build ideas. (At least more clever than I can come up with ATM.). If your playgroup is less tactically inclined, the character might have a lot of plot hooks and roleplay opportunities.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the game style you are all playing. If your playgroup is Tactics focused, then your halfling barbarian is probably not a good fit without some really clever build ideas. (At least more clever than I can come up with ATM.). If your playgroup is less tactically inclined, the character might have a lot of plot hooks and roleplay opportunities.
A well-built barbarian is just as capable of having plot hooks and roleplay opportunities as a poorly built one. More capable, in fact, because he's more likely to stick around for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that I need, but it's a group game, and if I want to play a an 16 STR 12 INT Wizard I need a very good reason. As soon as my players see this they can get a bit angry because I'm not contributing enough.
My idea behind this I must have 20 on INT it's derived from the contribution I can make to a party.
Just to make an example. I have an Oracle of Like who took an achievement feat, when he gets 1k hp healed, all of his heals are maximized, but doing damage reverts this on a 2/1 scale.
Basically he can't do damage, unless it's with summon. He uses a Heavy Shield but doesn't use a weapon, otherwise he can't cast spell, so he doesn't threaten. He doesn't go on the frontline, despite Breastplate and heavy shield. He only cast Summon Monster I and CLW, Channels.
Is he useless? Many will say he is. Others will say he's not. But having a 10 STR Oracle wearing Breastplate and Heavy shield makes no sense (at least to me). Go Light Armor, and no shield, you're always behind anyway.
Bless? What is that. Shield of Faith? I don't know that spell. He has 80% cast only CLW and channel.
That's my idea behind, being useful to the party. You can come up with any weird build, but a frontline fighter with 12 STR-DEX isn't really useful, he will fail at hitting things, being a threat most of the time.
Where do we draw the line, where do you draw it? When do you start being useful on paper, despite your poor decision-making?
Edit= An 12 INT Wizard is the same as an 18 INT one at level 1, but his DC will make the difference, making his contribution much higher or lower.
I guess we all try to get luck out of the equation. If hitting that Grease depends more on the enemy's luck on the dice roll than your stats, I think things are already looking grim
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When making a fighter, ask yourself this question: Is it vitally important to me to trivialize encounters until around level 5?
That question is equally important for barbarians and anyone else focused on weapon combat.
If the answer is "Yes", then by all means maximize damage as high as you can. Get your AC as high as you can too. Go ahead and sacrifice Int, Wis, and Cha to do this. There's plenty of ways to negate having a low Wisdom after all. And who cares about those 'skill' things? Your job is to hit things, hard. it's not to talk or be knowledgeable. After all, nobody expects Ugg the Barhairion to be smart or diplomatic.
If the answer is "No", then congratulations. You realize that things beyond "hit stuff" can be important. You have the capability to use such things as "tactics", "reason", and "Diplomacy". Prepare to enter the richly rewarding experience known as "Society".
If playing a wizard or sorcerer ask yourself the same question.
Is the answer "Yes"? Then dump everything into your casting stat. And maybe con if there's anything left over. You understand that nothing is more important then your ability to cast spells. You don't need to walk well, nor do you need the ability to carry more then five pounds. Wisdom? What's that? You don't need it, you have a great will save already. And if you don't, there's probably a feat for that. Or more likely a spell for it.
If the answer is "No", then welcome to the world of exercise and common sense. You understand that adventurers usually have to walk around all day, and often get in fights. You can pick up your tankard without getting winded, and know better then to stick your hand in any substance you tentatively identified as "Orc jelly". After all, it might be carnivorous.
This post has been brought to you by Sarcasm Unlimited.
Sarcasm, yeah, it's a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?
Mauve,
I'm not arguing that a well built barbarian can't have all the plot hooks, etc. What I AM saying, is that if optimization is important to the party play-style, then a sub-optimized character would likely be perceived as a drain on the party.
[An old group had one player who thought that any character not fully optimized for combat (melee, period) was an abomination and a personal affront. Sadly, I am not exaggerating for emphasis. He specifically asked the players why they felt that they deserved full shares of the loot, and even experience, since their builds were so inefficient. Eventually this became intolerable to the rest, it was kind of funny for awhile.]
There is no right answer here, it is all about what is fun for you and your group.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?
Probably not, because that's not going to happen. But the Stormwind Fallacy isn't going to go away, so there will always be some idiot arguing that "character" must mean "incompetence."
A more sensible question is whether your group demands competence in depth, or in breadth. Perhaps obviously, if you specialize in something, you will be more effective in a narrower range of situations than if you are more of a generalist. There's no need to be able to carry your equipment all day if the barbarian is able and willing to carry everyone's equipment, unless you're worried that the barbarian might be not be available for some reason. There's no need for the barbarian to be able to use diplomacy if she expects the sorcerer to do all the talking.
There are basically two issues that I run into. The first is redundancy; if your sorcerer goes down, there's no one left to do the talking, and that closes a lot of options for the party as a whole. The second is the converse: players who build generalists tend to be overshadowed by the specialists -- if someone has a +12 score in Diplomacy, my "mere" +6 won't really let me do much except maybe roll to Aid Another, and that's boring to play.
So there is a natural tendency for people to build the very best character they can at what they really want to do, because otherwise you end up with a character that is not especially useful.
|
|
[An old group had one player who thought that any character not fully optimized for combat (melee, period) was an abomination and a personal affront. Sadly, I am not exaggerating for emphasis. He specifically asked the players why they felt that they deserved full shares of the loot, and even experience, since their builds were so inefficient. Eventually this became intolerable to the rest, it was kind of funny for awhile.]There is no right answer here, it is all about what is fun for you and your group.
Wait, WHAT?! This guy seriously didn't think the wizard who's been doing crowd control should get their fair share simply because they aren't going ME SMASH and stupidly engaging in melee combat? Or that the cleric who's been spending their time patching up mister "I hit things" shouldn't get their share?
He would HATE Kahel then. Low strength, good damage... but it's not melee damage. It's standing back and smacking things with bolts of electricity. Although he would have loved one version of Shardrena Treefairer I played. GM forced me to use the half dragon template, and I rolled 17 strength base to go along with my 18 base Charisma. At level 1 I was better in melee then the fighter with 18 strength. You know, due to having the same strength score as a young red dragon.
|
|
I find that often builds that over specialize actually end up having gone too far. I mean, being able to reliably hit for 15 or more damage every round sounds great. Then you realize most of the things you're facing only have 6 hit points. And when you need to take captives, you can't do it. Even doing a non-lethal attack, it's going to wrap around and probably kill them.
On the other hand, such an optimized character might mock the monk who's 'only' got 12 or 14 strength. But that's still effective enough to deal with most of the things you are facing. And they have the option of not killing everything they fight. It's much easier to knock someone out when you're damage bonus is +4 (with power attack), instead of +10. Especially if their health isn't particularly high.
I got mocked in one game for doing non-lethal damage by preference and not building to be a melee god. Funny thing is, we failed our primary objective for the adventure, which was to capture a thieves guild leader alive. Why did we fail? Because the fighter who had been mocking me couldn't deal less then 13 damage with an attack. The thieves guild leader had 12 hit points and 10 constitution. One attack from said fighter put the guild leader down to -9 hit points, and he bled out.
As a result, we weren't able to learn the information that was needed. We found some correspondence, but were unable to learn how this thieves guild leader was smuggling enemy agents into the city. Just one example of how being too optimized can actually be a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's necessary seems entirely dependent on the group you're playing with.
I've been in games where a 16 strength spiritualist power attacking with a scythe and never casting a single spell or ever summoning his phantom was dominating the party.
And I've been in games where a pounceblender barbarian who basically never failed a will save and killed nearly every enemy you could throw at her in one charge was merely just another party member among several.
I'm not saying that I need, but it's a group game, and if I want to play a an 16 STR 12 INT Wizard I need a very good reason. As soon as my players see this they can get a bit angry because I'm not contributing enough.
Did they actually become angry about such things in the past, or is it just an assumption?
And yes, it's a group game and it's good to consider the impact on others' fun. But it's also your personal character and it's good to consider your personal fun. I wouldn't like to be forced into the INT 20 wizard corner.
Unusual stats can also have unexpected benefits. Str 16 will significantly improve your melee touch attacks - and Aid Another actions. Yeah, yeah, I know a wizard is often supposed to stay behind the others, but in actual play there is no guarantee that will work out every time.
Finally, you play a wizard, a class with the potential to solve every problem on his own (at least so I heard). It's actually a nice action to tone such a powerful class down, so others have more chances to shine.
Greetings from a player who enjoys his INT 18 gnome illusionist...
Kahel,
Your ability to damage would have been acceptable, crowd control was tolerable if it did not interfere with what he wanted to do. What was intolerable was any focus not directly beneficial to melee. The player was an utter failure outside of combat, because he just could not understand that there was any value there. It was like watching a train wreck, you knew it was kind of sick watching it, but it was so hard to look away.
|
How do you forum people deal with this? Do you feel ok using an 16 on your main stat, does your GM have limitations on 20s, not being allowed?
Well, in games I run or tend to play, combat isnt' the main focus of play. We tend to keep it fast (often without battle map), which often has the consequence that fights are not as deadly as they probably could be.
Doesn't matter though, because we're more interested in story-oriented games, where the character's background may have quite the influence on the story, so character deaths aren't necessarily a thing the GM tends to strive for.
As a result a 16 (or even a 14) stat in a prime attribute poses no problems most of the time especially as there are enough possibilities to increase the stat in continuing game. Which is good as I'm also a fan of rolling the dice, so chances are that you won't have the results to achieve a 20 anyways.
|
|
Daw, How did he deal with situations where you need to take someone alive, which does come up now and then. Not to mention is rather difficult if all you can do is "cut enemy in half with axe with one swing". Even a Mercy weapon wont save someone if you're doing 60 damage and they only had 30 hit points. Or when you need to be sneaky and not announce your presence with a raging battle?
Heck, what did he do when he encountered swarms which were immune to weapon attacks?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what we need to understand as players, is that the bar for viability (that is, being able to handle an at CR encounter with minimal expenditure of party resources) is REALLY low. It is, in fact, a lot lower than most people think. Consider this:
At 10th level, the average monster has a 24 AC, 130 HP, and saving throws between +9-+13. In order for a party member to be considered viable, you need to be able to functionally either A) Cast spells that effectively reduce the target's HP (such as by increasing the damage it takes by reducing its defenses, or taking it out of the fight) or B) Be capable of dealing damage, or supporting your allies' damage, in any combination, equal to a percentage based on the number of party members.
Basically, everyone in the group needs to be able to do roughly 43 points of damage on average, but the game also doesn't assume you're ending this encounter in one turn. In fact, what you're REALLY looking at is about 20-25 damage per turn, on average, per group member, possibly even LESS if you assume an encounter should go on longer than 2 rounds (which is fairly reasonable, I think). That number is RIDICULOUSLY low, especially compared to what most optimization guides recommend. Heck, without heavy optimization or specialization, most damage-oriented builds are pumping out roughly double that listed amount of damage, and around that level a totally optimized Wizard will likely be throwing out DC24-ish spells, each of which also deals an effective amount in excess of the above numbers.
Overall, starting with a 16 in a primary attribute isn't a problem, you just need to understand that that number (as opposed to an 18) will result in an overall 5%-ish decrease in effectiveness in your main schtick (closer to 6.5%-ish, depending on what the schtick is). If your character isn't well built (class/feat/archetype build choices), that can matter a lot. But, say, if you know that your Halfling Barbarian should be taking the Halfling-unique feat, Risky Striker, which greatly increases damage against large & larger creatures, and create a barbarian basically the same way as a traditional one, your overall contribution will only be minimally smaller, and in the case of the numbers with which we're dealing, they likely won't matter at all before the enemy is dead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm personally a fan of 16 pre-racial as a good score. Bump with a racial bonus to 18 for a very good score. Going all the way to 20 has such an opportunity cost you often run in to diminishing returns, though. 17 pre-racial is good for SAD classes or higher point buys.
|
|
And consider, even a kind ofbad arcehtype like Elemental Ascetic is only really bad when compared to optimized builds. A level 1 Elemental Ascetic with 14 strength can potentially deal 4-11 damage with a single attack (baring elemental resistances/immunities). And they get Flurry of Blows, so they can deal a possible 8-22 damage in one round. That's at level 1. This will go up as the character progresses in level. Not to mention they gain utility abilities, and some solid ranged combat capabilities. And this is a bad archtype.
Kahel is an overwhelming soul, another "bad" archtype. And at level 4 Kahel is capable of dealing 6-16 damage, baring resistance or immunity. That's going to go up, while again adding utility. Even when I eventually retrain out of the archtype Kahel shoudln't lose too much damage. In fact, damage will probably actually go up in the long run even though the stat my damage bonus is based on will go down. This will happen for a variety of reasons, including the ability to take burn.
|
The only thing you'd need to really worry about if you only had a 16 in your main stat is being overshadowed by the SAD class with a 20 in the only stat they care about. Neither PFS nor the APs require high optimization.
I had a Fighter3/Monk3 "Captain America" that only had a 16 in strength, and that was the highest stat he had. Might have also had a 16 in Dex, it's been a while. He did great in combat as a medium damage tank and had some pretty good out-of-combat functionality via diplomacy, know local, perception, sense motive, and he spoke a lot of languages. No, he wasn't doing the damage a 22 str power attacking barbarian would do, and he didn't have auto-success on his diplomacy rolls like a 22 cha bard would, but he still added a lot to the team, even when put up against the more optimized members.
|
|
What I find funny is how often those optimized for one thing characters fall flat when anything outside their one specialty crops up. Such as the barbarian who's dealing 20 damage every round at level 3... being incapable of making a will save even if his life depends on it. At which point, it turns out his life DID depend upon it. Or the trip specialist who's only effective if they can repeatedly trip and Aoo an enemy... facing a gelatinous cube. Or a dragon. Or anything else you can't really trip.
Or, and this REALLY cracks me up, the wizard who literally can't do anything except his DC 30 spells which he's oh so proud of... who finds them self in and anti-magic field or area where if you cast anything higher then a level 0 spell, you're in serious trouble. And what does that wizard do if his rest gets interrupted several times? You know, thus preventing the refreshing of spells. Or if the GM is actually using rules on how many pages a spellbook has, and the wizard has to chose which of their dozen spellbooks they take with. Thus which spells they actually have access to.
Kahel,
How he dealt with needing to capture and hold a foe? He didn't. He killed them, and was really pissed off if he was thwarted in his attempts to prevent us from wasting his time.
Being sneaky to avoid a fight? The whole point of the game is the fights, why would he want to avoid them?
Swarms were one of the reasons why the casters were even allowed in a party. The game would have been better without the existence of swarms, I'm sure. If all characters had fast regen, there would be no need for clerics even.
Again, I really wish I was exaggerating for emphasis.
|
|
Kahel,
How he dealt with needing to capture and hold a foe? He didn't. He killed them, and was really pissed off if he was thwarted in his attempts to prevent us from wasting his time.Being sneaky to avoid a fight? The whole point of the game is the fights, why would he want to avoid them?
Swarms were one of the reasons why the casters were even allowed in a party. The game would have been better without the existence of swarms, I'm sure. If all characters had fast regen, there would be no need for clerics even.
Again, I really wish I was exaggerating for emphasis.
... I think he would have been happier playing Dynasty Warriors (whatever volume it's up to now). If all he wants is nonstop melee combat with no story or deviation from melee combat, that's not a roleplaying game.
How many times did he make it far harder on the group due to his murderhobo ways?
I always struggle with this. Besides some classes like Cleric where if we're going some sort of front line guy we can feel not about a 14 in WIS and a 16 ion STR, usually if we play martials/casters I always feel the need to have the maximum possible.
That 16 on INT wouldn't feel ok being a wizard, not only because of the amount of spells at level 1 (1 extra at 20 is a lot), but also because of DCs and skillpoints.
My current Wizard doesn't have a single rank in Perception. He has Knowledges (a lot of them), Linguistics (yeah), Spellcraft and going to get some into Craft Wood, because DM allowed me to use Amazing Tools for Wands/Staves.
Overall, I'm not sure whether I'm wanting an 18/20 because it's a requisite that I must follow or just because I feel I'm not maximizing the character.
Like playing an Halfling Barbarian. Wasting an 18 to become a 16 feels BAD, WRONG, and horrible! Not only I'm wasting points to buy that 18, but it's also not working, and that +2 DEX isn't going to be suddenly another 18, because buying a 16 is expensive.So, I'm never sure how to deal with it. Sometimes I wish Skill Points shouldn't be tied to INT, so if I go 16 INT Wizard because I want more agile/dexterous/charming Wizard, will work. But then, you have so many things to avoid being hit, replacing CHA with INT, and downright not caring about it, that still feels wrong.
How do you forum people deal with this? Do you feel ok using an 16 on your main stat, does your GM have limitations on 20s, not being allowed?
1. I don't see this as min-maxing
2. How much one has to optimize(make a mechanically good character) depends on the GM.For my games you can bring a decent character and be ok*.
ok=you should reasonably be able to be useful and not be too close to dying in an AP.
As for 18's they are over-rated with regard to point buy. I find characters are betting off buying up no higher than a 16.
Kahel,
How many times did he make it far harder on the group due to his murderhobo ways?
It is easier to get your head around if you think of him as an inherent obstacle, more environmental than individual. At least that was the mindset we all fell into. Nothing we should feel proud of really, but that is what we did.
Re Dynasty Warriors: I don't recognize the reference, but from the context and description, I am pretty sure I understand the point. The answer is pure conjecture, I really think he needed to feel that he was the leader, guiding us poor clueless souls through the hard hard world. Tearing him down felt kind of like stomping a chihuahua into a puddle, you feel guilty, even though it IS a chihuahua.
(My apologies for this reference, a lot of people evidently like the little piranha-rats.)
I'm not saying that I need, but it's a group game, and if I want to play a an 16 STR 12 INT Wizard I need a very good reason. As soon as my players see this they can get a bit angry because I'm not contributing enough.
My idea behind this I must have 20 on INT it's derived from the contribution I can make to a party.
Just to make an example. I have an Oracle of Like who took an achievement feat, when he gets 1k hp healed, all of his heals are maximized, but doing damage reverts this on a 2/1 scale.
Basically he can't do damage, unless it's with summon. He uses a Heavy Shield but doesn't use a weapon, otherwise he can't cast spell, so he doesn't threaten. He doesn't go on the frontline, despite Breastplate and heavy shield. He only cast Summon Monster I and CLW, Channels.Is he useless? Many will say he is. Others will say he's not. But having a 10 STR Oracle wearing Breastplate and Heavy shield makes no sense (at least to me). Go Light Armor, and no shield, you're always behind anyway.
Bless? What is that. Shield of Faith? I don't know that spell. He has 80% cast only CLW and channel.That's my idea behind, being useful to the party. You can come up with any weird build, but a frontline fighter with 12 STR-DEX isn't really useful, he will fail at hitting things, being a threat most of the time.
Where do we draw the line, where do you draw it? When do you start being useful on paper, despite your poor decision-making?
Edit= An 12 INT Wizard is the same as an 18 INT one at level 1, but his DC will make the difference, making his contribution much higher or lower.
I guess we all try to get luck out of the equation. If hitting that Grease depends more on the enemy's luck on the dice roll than your stats, I think things are already looking grim
That 12 and 18 are far apart. If you were a play in my game I would suggest at least a 15.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Squigget said:
What's necessary seems entirely dependent on the group you're playing with.
I've been in games where a 16 strength spiritualist power attacking with a scythe and never casting a single spell or ever summoning his phantom was dominating the party.
And I've been in games where a pounceblender barbarian who basically never failed a will save and killed nearly every enemy you could throw at her in one charge was merely just another party member among several.
Agree totally, missed this the first time through.
As to Letrecs concern with a 12 strength/dexterity fighter being a poor choice for a frontline fighter. Point granted, but what else does he bring to the table? Also, does the party even need another front line fighter?
Sadly, the answer here is always going, it depends. The best we can give you is how we play, which may or may not have any value for your position. Really, several people have given you the only good advice we can give. You need to talk to your GM and fellow players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?Probably not, because that's not going to happen. But the Stormwind Fallacy isn't going to go away, so there will always be some idiot arguing that "character" must mean "incompetence."
Conversely, there's always another person (who although I disagree with, I wouldn't describe as an idiot) insisting that only "superiority" means "competence".
Conversely, there's always another person (who although I disagree with, I wouldn't describe as an idiot) insisting that only "superiority" means "competence".When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?Probably not, because that's not going to happen. But the Stormwind Fallacy isn't going to go away, so there will always be some idiot arguing that "character" must mean "incompetence."
Quite possibly. One of the issues that's firmly in the GM's control is the frequency and capacity of the opposition. Technically speaking, an "average" encounter is equal to the APL -- a number of people on this forum either don't know that or simply don't follow that and that for them, a typical, modal, "average" encounter is APL+2 or more. If the GM is throwing APL+2 encounters at you (technically "hard") at you on a regular basis, the baseline for "survival" is essentially punching two levels above your weight.
Similarly, an APL+4 encounter is beyond "epic," but a number of posters consider them to be routine. <Shrug.>
Conversely, there's always another person (who although I disagree with, I wouldn't describe as an idiot) insisting that only "superiority" means "competence".When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?Probably not, because that's not going to happen. But the Stormwind Fallacy isn't going to go away, so there will always be some idiot arguing that "character" must mean "incompetence."
It ultimately stems from what "competence" means; it is a relative term, and subjective to certain ideals and perspectives. What may seem "competent" for one, may not be so for another.
Let's take a 16 Strength Cleric as an example. Is that competent? Superior? Incompetent? Overpowered? To me, it is competent, since Clerics need good Wisdom and acceptable Charisma as well. For those who wanted to optimize the melee capabilities of the Cleric, perhaps not so much. There's also the factor of considering the attribute in relation to the others, such as having only a 14 Wisdom for that Strength, or an 8 Dexterity, Intelligence, 12 Charisma, etc.
For classes that don't rely so much on multiple attributes, like the Wizard, the stakes for them become higher, because they have close to no reason to spread their attributes; Dexterity becomes obsolete later on (and if you're smart enough, you won't have to use it), same with Wisdom as you carry a good Will save. Constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig; that isn't to say Constitution is worthless, but improving it won't make it all that much better. Charisma, like most other classes, has little to no impact on the character's general function (i.e. casting spells), so not pumping Intelligence to the top invites weakness to the character.
Honestly, I think it sort of depends on your party and DM. For example. If everyone in your party is going to the max with their main attributes, this will in turn signify to the DM that they may wish to increase the difficulty of their encounters in some way or form. Now, that is without even looking at your character sheet. A DM could look at just 2 of your fellow adventurers, see they're going all out and not even look your direction before thinking it's time to turn 5 trolls loose on a lv. 1 party of 4. In this case, it'd probably be a good idea to max the stat to the best of your characters possibilities.
Alternatively, if your team is doing it mostly for funsies, not maxing, putting all ranks in knowledge geography for the sake of their character's flavor, then a non-maxed stat is probably safe.
I mean, if your DM is known for running tough adventures all if not most of the time, then that extra bit towards your spells DC saves, or damage could go a long way towards survival.
So, as vague as it sounds. In my personal opinion. It's really just up to who you're playing with and their play / DMing styles.
Edit: Essentially Ninja'd by Paul...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff.
My point somehow. There are classes were having a high stat has a significant impact.
Wizard I think it's the prime example, because you not only get more skill points, but possibly spells and DC.For a cleric having high CHA might be worthless. Channel is a feature that works at most up to level 5, and unless you invest feats into it, it's usually only a non combat heal, and besides that, Cleric in all honestly can't afford to drop points into Diplomacy with 2-3 skill points. And even if you do, with low charisma it's not going to be that great.
And usually if you have someone with a better stat, that guy is led to be the party face, and you just don't do much talking.
Does this mean you're not supposed to talk to NPCs? Of course not, but maybe if you meet 3 strangers on the road, better let the party face do it.
Other classes get confusing, like melee. Your job is to hit things, that is most of the times what you can mechanically do. If you're not decent at that, you're character has no use from a numbers point of view. Anyone can RP, whether you have 5 CHA or 26.
But if that beautifully roleplayed Barbarian swings his 2 Handed axe and misses 60% of time, something IS wrong.
But the has harshes choice than a Wizard. He needs high STR, CON. If he wants skill points, he can't afford them, if he wants to be a Lancelot guy, charming and sexy, he can't do it. He suddenly is torn apart by all this decision making.
Anyone will tell you that at least a 14 CON is a necessity if you're a front liner.
|
|
One thing I like doing as a GM is getting a copy of everyone's character sheet. This lets me tailor challenges to the party. If they have no means of picking locks or disarming traps, I'm not going to be having extremely nasty traps very often. And there will be more keys they can find to open locked doors/chests. If everyone made a combat monster who's only good at smashing things in one form or another, well, I'll probably have fewer stealth encounters or diplomatic encounters. And I'll use less investigative style adventures.
That said, as a GM there's a fine line between designing encounters to challenge a heavily optimized group and encounters that will wipe them out with ease. Any encounter which has a decent (even if it's only 1 in five) chance to hit the optimized martials is likely to tear the casters apart. Anything which can withstand a few rounds of the martials can probably deal so much damage in a single attack that if anyone gets hit, they're going to die. Yet if you don't throw these greater challenges at the party, they walk all over everything and nobody's really having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conversely, there's always another person (who although I disagree with, I wouldn't describe as an idiot) insisting that only "superiority" means "competence".When 16 becomes the upper end will we then have threads asking if 14 wasn't better?Probably not, because that's not going to happen. But the Stormwind Fallacy isn't going to go away, so there will always be some idiot arguing that "character" must mean "incompetence."It ultimately stems from what "competence" means; it is a relative term, and subjective to certain ideals and perspectives. What may seem "competent" for one, may not be so for another.
For me, and in games I run, competence is a matter of concept. If the stats make the concept work, they're competent. Then again, my games are focused on playing for fun and less focused on challenge.
|
|
Then you have the weird classes like kineticist. Classes that have a main attribute such as Constitution that is normally not needed in excessively great amounts for anything. What does a standard kineticist need attribute wise? Con, as much as they can get. This fuels their class abilities. It gives them bonus damage. And it affects their save DC with class abilities such as Slick or Fan of Flames. What else do they need? Uhm, dex so they can hit stuff (and for AC). Beyond that, a kineticist doesn't "need" anything.
Of course they want good wisdom, they don't have an amazing will save by default. And skill points are a good thing. But unless you use an archetype, all a kineticist actually needs is dex and con. Course, some of those archetypes change a kineticist from SAD to MAD. Or they alter what your primary attribute is. Or both.
My dwarven earth death puncher sure does love his strength score.
|
|
I can see that. I have a pyrokinetic named Flayre Blazefist who has 14 str, 16 Dex, 17 Wis, and 14 con. Obviously not human with that stat array on a 20 point buy. Still manages to do some respectable damage with unarmed attacks. Which is good since at level 1, Flayre can't do ranged attacks. Dealing 3-11 damage at level 1 is nice... unless the enemy is immune to fire that is. If I could have afforded to put more into strength, I might have. Even as it is, getting 14 strength meant dropping Dex down to 16 after racial bonuses. Course, I was able to get 12 Int out of it too. But still. I'd wanted both Dex and Wisdom at 16 before adding garuda-blooded aasimar benefits.
It's too bad you can't get elemental defenses with the archtype. Although I suppose I could splash a few levels of monk instead for the build to almost the same effect. But then I'd lose out on d10's for kinetic fist damage.
Not sure, what do you think Captain Yesterday... is that a worth while trade? Prob couldn't take more then 3 or 4 monk levels tops before losing too much kinetic fist damage potential.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff.My point somehow. There are classes were having a high stat has a significant impact.
Wizard I think it's the prime example, because you not only get more skill points, but possibly spells and DC.
For a cleric having high CHA might be worthless. Channel is a feature that works at most up to level 5, and unless you invest feats into it, it's usually only a non combat heal, and besides that, Cleric in all honestly can't afford to drop points into Diplomacy with 2-3 skill points. And even if you do, with low charisma it's not going to be that great.
And usually if you have someone with a better stat, that guy is led to be the party face, and you just don't do much talking.
Does this mean you're not supposed to talk to NPCs? Of course not, but maybe if you meet 3 strangers on the road, better let the party face do it.Other classes get confusing, like melee. Your job is to hit things, that is most of the times what you can mechanically do. If you're not decent at that, you're character has no use from a numbers point of view. Anyone can RP, whether you have 5 CHA or 26.
But if that beautifully roleplayed Barbarian swings his 2 Handed axe and misses 60% of time, something IS wrong.
But the has harshes choice than a Wizard. He needs high STR, CON. If he wants skill points, he can't afford them, if he wants to be a Lancelot guy, charming and sexy, he can't do it. He suddenly is torn apart by all this decision making.
Anyone will tell you that at least a 14 CON is a necessity if you're a front liner.
Channel is a very powerful feature, both defensively and offensively, until you get access to Mass Cure spells, and even then it will generally outweigh their healing output since the scaling of D6's by 9th level (Mass Cure Light is 5th level AFAIK) will be ~5D6, whereas Mass Cure Light will be like 1D8+9, tops. On an average roll between both, the Channel will win out; plus, with the right investments, you can do that in addition to your most powerful feature, spellcasting. It's also a resource that doesn't consume any of your spellcasting, which offers much more significant utility, such as Lesser Restoration, Remove Poison/Disease, etc.
You are right about the Skill Points though. Presuming Intelligence is dumped, you get 2 skill points/level via FCB, which you will be putting points into Knowledge (Religion) and Perception. Everything else for a Cleric is optional. The Party Face would be for people who use Charisma, and/or have a lot of skill points/level. Think Bards. (I'd suggest Paladin, Rogue, and Ranger, but they either don't use Charisma, or don't have the Skill Points to spare.)
The problem with melee is that they are more inclined to be MAD due to the combat system. You use two sets of attributes for melee combat, for offense (Strength) and Defense (Dexterity). You use one set of attributes, for spellcasting (Intelligence, Charisma, or Wisdom, but never two of the three unless you multi-class). Channel, as explained above, would require its own set of attributes, as it is its own thing. Regardless, all this tells us is that the combat system favors spellcasting over melee, because it requires investment into a singular thing, not two things, and because the current gaming chassis rewards specialization over diversification...
For the record, I have done just fine with 10-12 Constitution frontliners. Most of the time if I get dropped, it's because of a lucky critical, bad decision-making, etc. Constitution helps make you not die to basic stuff, but having excessive amounts of it, unless you're a Barbarian who needs it for Raging Vitality and because you have no other defense besides your HP, isn't really all it's cracked up to be. Why do you think most people take the Skill Point? Because the HP/level sucks, and is no better than a Toughness feat, which is also pretty meh. I mean, sure, lower Constitution means you should play more careful, but the most masterful of players (and perhaps the most lucky of players) need not worry about what their Constitution score be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
CON not so good
I always have 14 CON on any character, and usually do HP on FCB, unless it's something very good like extra spell known.
I don't know, I'm not the best player and I like feeling safe. I don't feel comfortable having less HP per level.
We just wrapped up carrion crown with a 15 point buy. Our halfling wizard was insane the whole time, despite starting with a sub-18 INT. You know which spells don't care about your INT score?
Summon monster,
Dispel Magic,
Haste,
Black Tentacles,
Teleport,
Phantom Steed
Etc.
In other words, a whole bunch of the best ones. So it's definitely not worth destroying your character's other abilities to get to 20. I find that anywhere from 16 or above is good for a main stat.
CON not so goodI always have 14 CON on any character, and usually do HP on FCB, unless it's something very good like extra spell known.
I don't know, I'm not the best player and I like feeling safe. I don't feel comfortable having less HP per level.
If you feel the increased Constitution is worth the investment, then go for it. I'm just saying that I haven't invested that much Constitution and I would have lived/died just as much than if I had 14 Constitution, or even more. Experiences differ, YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you feel the increased Constitution is worth the investment, then go for it. I'm just saying that I haven't invested that much Constitution and I would have lived/died just as much than if I had 14 Constitution, or even more. Experiences differ, YMMV.CON not so goodI always have 14 CON on any character, and usually do HP on FCB, unless it's something very good like extra spell known.
I don't know, I'm not the best player and I like feeling safe. I don't feel comfortable having less HP per level.
|
I guess it all depends on your GM and group.
In the Carrion Crown game I am playing in we have a 20 point build and average hit points.
Our Aasomar paladin of Iomedae has a 14 Str and uses a longsword and shield .. My character, an Aasimar a cleric of Iomedae has a 14 Str, 12 dex, 14 con, 14 int, 14 wis, and 14 cha The paladin and my character are brothers
Our fighter who is using two weapon fighting has a 14 St and 15 dex.
We also have an Alchemist, a ranger, and a wizard. I don't believe they have their stats up in the 18s or 20s.
We are getting along just fine. I know it helps to have a 20 point build over a 15 point build. Also it helps to have 6 pcs instead of 4.
But our party for the moment is doing just fine. We are just about to finish Trial of the Beast.
I enjoy having a character that is a bit more rounded and flexible rather then hyper specialized.
but I'm sure everyone has an opinion.
|
|
Yeah, opinions are everywhere. It's a fact you don't need to be hyper specialized or have incredibly high stats to be a good adventurer. 20 point buy characters by their very nature are more powerful then they actually need to be, even if they aren't hyper specialized. They have higher attributes. They have more high attributes. And generally speaking have fewer drawbacks as well.
In 26 years of roleplaying, I've yet to see an adventure where a character made using 3d6 down the line can't be a significant contribute, even if the rolls are rather average. Yes, higher attributes make you more effective at a given task. But as was mentioned earlier, the threshold needed to cross in order for a character to be effective is rather low. It's not like Pathfinder is a video game that completely trivializes everything except the absolute peak of capabilities.
Don't get me wrong, I can and will make characters that specialize. I can min/max and find extremely broken combos with the best of them. I generally chose not to though, because I find that being overwhelmingly powerful just isn't very fun. And if I'm not having fun when roleplaying, what the frack am I playing for?
|
|
It ultimately stems from what "competence" means; it is a relative term, and subjective to certain ideals and perspectives. What may seem "competent" for one, may not be so for another.
Let's take a 16 Strength Cleric as an example. Is that competent? Superior? Incompetent? Overpowered? To me, it is competent, since Clerics need good Wisdom and acceptable Charisma as well. For those who wanted to optimize the melee capabilities of the Cleric, perhaps not so much. There's also the factor of considering the attribute in relation to the others, such as having only a 14 Wisdom for that Strength, or an 8 Dexterity, Intelligence, 12 Charisma, etc.
For classes that don't rely so much on multiple attributes, like the Wizard, the stakes for them become higher, because they have close to no reason to spread their attributes; Dexterity becomes obsolete later on (and if you're smart enough, you won't have to use it), same with Wisdom as you carry a good Will save. Constitution is like putting lipstick on a pig; that isn't to say Constitution is worthless, but improving it won't make it all that much better. Charisma, like most other classes, has little to no impact on the character's general function (i.e. casting spells), so not pumping Intelligence to the top invites weakness to the character.
You're right from a pure mechanical standpoint. That's not the way everyone looks at its character though.
When I create a character, I don't start with the mechanics but with the background story. That may for example mean that my wizard PC has overage strength (think Hagrid), wisdom (Dumbledore) or Charisma (Snape) even when that means that I can not maximise my primary attribute. Naturally this assumes that the challenge level of the game is such that those characters are viable and it also means that some challenges may be more difficult to overcome. But I like it this way, especially as I feel that it gives me more options in character creation.
|
|
I don't think one needs to max out a primary stat. I do think it needs to be at least a 16. As long as stats are so tied to what one can do. One can take a low stat. It does hamper the character imo. A Fighter with low str can wear heavy armor and be protected yet move like a snail or not at all. A Bard can take low charisma. Yet while he can get by with skills. His spells will be fairly easy to save against. It's just how the system is setup.