|
NOt familiar with that archtype. In fact, I don't know what book it's in or what class it's for.
Sorcerer, swaps charisma for wisdom.
The larger point is that there are so many ways of getting what you want that you almost need to purposefully gut your own character not to get what you're going for and most of the goodies too.
|
|
NOt familiar with that archtype. In fact, I don't know what book it's in or what class it's for.Sorcerer, swaps charisma for wisdom.
The larger point is that there are so many ways of getting what you want that you almost need to purposefully gut your own character not to get what you're going for and most of the goodies too.
However, this is also predicated on *having the resources* to do so.
For the sake of a painful example, what about someone new to PFS that only has their CORE book and RPGGG as material?
Is one going to suggest and/or fund their 'options' to access other material?
Despite the many flaws inherent in the first run of the ACG, I picked it up immediately after playing Zadim.
However, what if I didn't have that kind of money?
Is that the sort of attitude and response we necessarily want to impart to folks 'You *must* Pay to Play' ?
|
NOt familiar with that archtype. In fact, I don't know what book it's in or what class it's for.Sorcerer, swaps charisma for wisdom.
The larger point is that there are so many ways of getting what you want that you almost need to purposefully gut your own character not to get what you're going for and most of the goodies too.
However, this is also predicated on *having the resources* to do so.
For the sake of a painful example, what about someone new to PFS that only has their CORE book and RPGGG as material?
Is one going to suggest and/or fund their 'options' to access other material?
Despite the many flaws inherent in the first run of the ACG, I picked it up immediately after playing Zadim.
However, what if I didn't have that kind of money?
Is that the sort of attitude and response we necessarily want to impart to folks 'You *must* Pay to Play' ?
Yeah. Kinda. PFS is in part built to encourage sales. We kinda want to encourage people to buy the books, because we want to support the creators.
There are certainly other ways to play that dont require pay.
|
|
I could almost see a few sorcerer builds that dump their casting stat. Dragon bloodline for example might be able to get away with it. Well, other then the fact the claws can only be used a set number of rounds per day. And the limit is determined by charisma.They can't finagle the Empyreal archtype and a 14 wisdom into the build?
if they cant finagle a 14 cha i doubt it
NOt familiar with that archtype. In fact, I don't know what book it's in or what class it's for.Sorcerer, swaps charisma for wisdom.
The larger point is that there are so many ways of getting what you want that you almost need to purposefully gut your own character not to get what you're going for and most of the goodies too.
However, this is also predicated on *having the resources* to do so.
For the sake of a painful example, what about someone new to PFS that only has their CORE book and RPGGG as material?
Is one going to suggest and/or fund their 'options' to access other material?
Despite the many flaws inherent in the first run of the ACG, I picked it up immediately after playing Zadim.
However, what if I didn't have that kind of money?
Is that the sort of attitude and response we necessarily want to impart to folks 'You *must* Pay to Play' ?
The purpose of PFS is to sell books. Just like any network campaign run by a publishing company.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?
I would describe it more like 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the resources to be competent'.
Be creative! But if your creativity involves a character who ups the challenge for the party without offering any appreciable assistance... it might be best to hold off on unleashing your full creative potential. ^_^
|
if they cant finagle a 14 cha i doubt itI could almost see a few sorcerer builds that dump their casting stat. Dragon bloodline for example might be able to get away with it. Well, other then the fact the claws can only be used a set number of rounds per day. And the limit is determined by charisma.They can't finagle the Empyreal archtype and a 14 wisdom into the build?
The point of the OP's question was not having access to the majority or all class features. Using an archtype to change casting stat then putting points in the new casting stat doesn't fulfill this requirement in the OP's question. Just like Kahel doesn't meet that criterial. Yes, her con is only 13, but her archtype changes the key attribute that governs her abilities to Charisma, which is 18.
Now, yesterday I did observe someone who made a Charisma 9 wishcaster sorcerer of the djinn bloodline. This was a character who couldn't really use much of their class features. Or archtype abilities for that matter. Nor did they get any benefit from the Expanded Arcana feat they took.
|
|
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?
No, what we're saying is "be creative, but also be effective". Weird builds can be fun and effective. But if you have to ask someone else the question "Is this able to contribute" then the answer is probably no. It may not always be a no, but the majority of the time if you have to ask that question you might want to rethink how you are handling your concept.
|
|
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?
You can be creative as long as your character winds up useful
A roguey druid can be done straight out of core.
A beatstick wizard with no spells (in my opinion) cannot be done straight out of core or with additional materials
A character that beats someone with a book can be done with additional materials but not straight out of core.
Yes, additional materials greatly expands the range of weird character ideas that you can do and still wind up competent.
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
If you want Draconic Bloodline then no you can't unless you purposefully want to cast fewer spells but even Im not sure that archetype stacks with Wildblooded.I could almost see a few sorcerer builds that dump their casting stat. Dragon bloodline for example might be able to get away with it. Well, other then the fact the claws can only be used a set number of rounds per day. And the limit is determined by charisma.They can't finagle the Empyreal archtype and a 14 wisdom into the build?
NOt familiar with that archtype. In fact, I don't know what book it's in or what class it's for.
Its an archetype that modifies bloodlines. What was suggested was essentially you take a modified version of the Celestial bloodline.
|
|
yeah, BNW is saying that any creative idea you want to pull can be done without needing to give up most of your class features. A beatstick wizard/sorcerer? Yeah, that's easy to do, if you have access still to your spells. So starting casting stat of 13 or 14. If you want a beatstick with no spells then play a spell-less beatstick class.
|
|
But this was posted by someone that appears to have had "history" with several regular board personalities - so they seemed (IMHO) were quick to respond to what they felt where the posters "ulterior motives"... rather than just responding to what was asked.
Its a combination of the two. If they had asked what's a way to be a fighter and still have skills in pathfinder society I would assume that... they wanted to be a fighter but that the lack of skills was more of a turn off for the fighter class in pfs than in other games and pointed them towards the lorewarden.
When someone asks what amounts to, how do i deliberately weaken my character... something seems really weird.
The only person who KNOWS what the point of the OP's question would be the OP, right?
With most people the idea of words is to convey an accurate representation of what it is you're looking for, not keep your motives secret for.. reasons.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?
I'm not sure what what your motives to this line of thought are, Wei, but just to make sure:
Can we NOT turn this argument into Paizo and friends vs. poor people?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The following is just my opinion, feel free to skip it...
The only person who KNOWS what the point of the OP's question would be the OP, right? I mean if someone asks a question, the only person who would know WHY they asked would be the person who asked, esp. when the question is asked on an internet posting board. In this case we had a number of people who then responded to UNASKED questions - or attributed motives to the OP for WHY they were asking the questions they asked. After all - someone just wouldn't ask a question without ulterior motives, right? (sorry - Sarcasm creeping into my post - I'll try to control myself better). The questions asked were:
"Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"IMHO: if I had asked the above questions, people would have jumped to the conclusion that I was trying to tie this to the Take 10 rule in some way - or perhaps that I was just being an idiot. (shrugs) If someone with no posting history (a newbie to PFS) had come on with the above they would have gotten several responses telling them that they shouldn't do that - phrased nicely so as not to offend the new guy. But this was posted by someone that appears to have had "history" with several regular board personalities - so they seemed (IMHO) were quick to respond to what they felt where the posters "ulterior motives"... rather than just responding to what was asked.
Language is widely regarded as an effective way to express an idea to other parties. If you do not have a grasp of language i can see how the idea that you can communicate your desires to others is a bit baffling. but you seem to have a decent grasp of the idea of language. You clearly expressed a 'point', that is that you feel people have unfairly judged the point of the OP because of his posting history.
The OP originally expressed that his key desire was to see a build that could not use the majority of its class abilities. That wan't unclear in the OP. However, having no knowledge of the OPs history I still jumped to the why question. a PFS character should be designed to fill and be effective at one or more adventuring roles. Pathfinder Field Agents are, in theory, skilled adventurers capable of handling any role. So we question why you would try to force a Fighter with 1/2 bab and a d6 hit points into the ranks of the Pathfinders, he clearly isn't very skilled, and his skills (swordplay) don't match the training he has received (wizardry). (Remember, conceptually, if a character is a level 1 wizard he spent years training at an arcane school, or under an older wizard, despite not having the ability to perform the magic he was being taught).
So the question is, what is the goal of creating a build like this? Placing flavor over base competance is generally considered to be a jerk move in organized play. I refuse to play in home gmaes with one of my friends because he does not think the ability of a character to survive is at all important when compared to the entertainment of having a useless actor be forced into an adventure and feign death whenever combat starts. I certainly dont want to play in a game where that character is somehow a Pathfinder Field Agent.
Im not saying you have to be optimized. But saying how could we build a fighter without the feats, or weapon/armor training (fallen paladin) or how should we build a fighter without the feats, bab, HP, or Armor/weaon training (Stupid Wizard) and still be an effective class? its an interesting thought exercise and can maybe work with a campaign designed around the ideas. But this is about PFS, and therefore you have to assume the answer to the question will be considered for use in PFS, and therefore you have to ask WHY?
So of course people are going to question that motive. I did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?
It's okay to be creative as long as you remember that you're participating in a social activity, and you need to take in account your tablemate's desires to succeed in the scenario you participate in.
It's extremely selfish to create a nonfunctional character and expect everyone else to carry your load for your "creativity". If you want to play Rincewind, there's an excellent Playstation game I can recommend.
Also, the example I just listed pretty much dashes the concept of making a wizard who isn't competent enough to cast spells as "creative".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that back when all Pathfinder had was the CRB and the APG that there was a small character design space for these types of builds, but that with all the new base classes and especially archetypes that that time has mostly passed.
For instance, it is conceivable that there is a Domain that is so awesome that it is worth building a character around even without casting spells. And back in the day, if you wanted to do that, you had to build it on a Cleric chassis. But now that there are other ways to get Domains, you can almost certainly find a less limiting way to get the class feature you really want.
That said, I think that a case can be made that Fallen Paladin 1/Fighter x is a strictly better option than Fighter x+1. You trade a one level delay in those highly-sought-after Fighter Class Features for additional class skills and a +2 to Fortitude and Will saves. That's at least an even trade, and depending on the game might just be flat out better.
|
|
Yes, a dip into a class to get something and not use the rest isn't bad. Like dipping wizard for wands. Probably not the most optimal, but hardly crippling. Many people feel the OP is saying trying to be a paladin the entire or most of leveling but be fallen all the way. So it's being a paladin X or X+1.
|
|
Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?
** spoiler omitted **
Alright, Murdock. I've kept up with this thread, and I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I'm just going to ask questions.
When you say intentionally fallen Paladin, how do you mean? Fallen with a 1 level dip, or with many levels? Is there any attempt to retrain those levels as part of roleplaying that story? Do you plan on just keeping the fallen levels? Will there be any attempt at atonement?
What qualifies as a "stupid" Wizard? Below 10 Int? Below 16? If the Wizard has no spells because their Int is below 10, what are your proposals for counterbalancing that loss with something else that they could do? Also keep in mind, that with a low Int Wizard, you're also leaving them with less skill points, so that diminishes another way Wizards could contribute to party success.
Anyhow, I'm just trying to understand what you want to accomplish here, and maybe a little bit of your motivations before I feel I could offer interesting ideas for you.
Regarding fallen paladins, I don't have a clue. I only recently noticed that fallen paladin was allowed to continue playing without using atonement at the end of a session. So I figured someone must have tried it, and made it work, since it's legal, so I was curious which builds work for fallen paladins.
For Stupid wizard I was thinking negative INT mod wizards. Basically, wizards where INT was one of their dump stats. As mentioned before, I see a couple of ways this could work, with one being some sort of melee wizard, and the other being a UMD based wizard. Regarding how to balance it, I mean you could dip, but that wasn't really the direction I was thinking, but I hadn't ruled it out either. But arcane bonded object and armored wizards have no real drawbacks if you can't cast spells, and some of those school powers are actually pretty useful for a non casting wizard. Plus the wizard has that innate Will bonus, of which the fighters are very envious. UMD could make up for INT loss, though you could also focus on being low INT at low level, and then purchase INT boosting magic items at higher levels.
Regarding skill and hit points of stupid wizards, wizard should be able to get an easy 8-10 starting HP if they just have decent CON score. And the point buy system can be manipulated via the transmutation school power, which adds an +1 to one ability score AFTER the point buys are made. So you can make a 17 into an 18 with that, saving points of higher other ability scores. Just with a Human at 1st, using the 20 point buy and transmutation skill bonus, I can do a 20 STR, 16 DEX, 14 CON, 7 INT, 10 WIS, 7 CHA. That's 8 HP at first, which isn't a tank, but that's all a rogue or alchmist would have. Could put the 20 in the CON and have 11 HP at first. Could even dump wisdom since you have that +2 will class bonus, and invest in Iron Will with your starting feats to end with a positive +2 Will save. As for skill points, the beauty of only 2 skill points is that having -2 and -1 INT mods function the same, so 1 skill point per level - that's what fighters get. The human would get 2 skill points, and you could favored class it for a 3rd (though I'd probably get more HP with favored class).
Though if HP is the priority, could take a toad familiar, toughness, and Tribal scars with your Human PC, and add +12 HP at first level. That's enough to make barbarians look at the wizard with awe.
Plus Wizards have Arcane Strike access, which levels with the wizard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
8hp is all a rogue or alchmist would have if they had a 10 con. If they easily put in a 12 or 14 and fcb then they have 11 hp to your 8hp.
And the fact is, you're still basically a warrior NPC class with no feats and half bab.
At lv 6 you'll have 8+6*5 = 38hp
at lv 6 a rogue has 10+7*5 = 45hp
at lv 6 a fighter has 12+8*5 = 52hp
at lv 6 your to hit is 3+6str+1weapon
at lv 6 rogue's to hit is 4+6str+1weapon
at lv 6 fighter's to hit is 6+6str+1weapon+ 1weapon focus + 1weapon training.
Your damage is 1d6+9str+1 weapon +2 for arcane strike and PA is -1+3
fighter's damage is 2d6+9str+2 weapon specialization+1 weapon training+1 weapon and PA is -2+6
so you're a 3/4 HP, 2/3 attack bonus and 70% damage fighter with 1 free feat compared to fighters 1 combat feat and 3 regular feats free. And you need to take the -1 ACP trait to be wearing mithral breastplate else your AC is lower too. You aren't "worth" the space you're taking up in the session. Meaning the only "useful" place for your character is as the 6th to an already good group and no other 6th character options. That way it's not harder for them having you be there than not.
Like I've said before, Having a 13-14 starting int wizard gish can be done and you'll be more worth your spot than you are being a non-casting wizard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And despite all the negativity, there has been some positive discussion in this thread. For instance, before this, I never would have even considered a single level dip in fallen Paladin or int dumped wizard. These obviously don't work as full classes, but there have been suggestions here for how both can be used as a useful single level dip on an oddball, yet playable, PC.
And others (myself included) have shared similar build suggestions, like my single level dip in a charisma casting class with a 7 cha PC.
|
|
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?I'm not sure what what your motives to this line of thought are, Wei, but just to make sure:
Can we NOT turn this argument into Paizo and friends vs. poor people?
It is *not* an argument, Fourth.
It is a question of focus and community, and how to better serve the *entire* community.
What good does it serve the community if the very first thing we tell potential new members is "You need to buy all these books to be viable"?
Instead, can we work together to resolve concerns based on what resources a given player has to make their concept work while maintaining the community AND get a new player involved and interested enough to want to invest more time and effort in said community? In so doing, we can step away from the very argument you perceive to be my concern?
"...Step by step the longest march can be won, can be won
Many stones can form an arch, singly none, singly none
And together what we will can be accomplished still,
Many drops can turn a mill, singly none, singly none..."
--Leslie Fish, A Toast for Unsung Heroes
|
|
you can make viable characters with just core.
If a brand new player comes up and has their first character idea be a wizard with int <10 we have a discussion with them basically telling them no, even with every book allowed.
If a brand new player comes up and has their first character idea be an arcane caster and do weapon combat we say that the magus is the best fit. IF they then say that they only have core options then we suggest EK or DD.
The bar for viable is quite low, it's basically make a character and NOT KNOWINGLY COMMITTING SELF SABOTAGE, which are the ideas the OP is looking into.
New books might make you better mechanically while obtaining your vision. But a viable character is found in core.
The op is not a new member. They've been around a while.
No one is being told that they have to pay, just that some concept will require you to pay
Or that some concepts are simply not viable when it's the success of a group effort that's on the line.
|
|
The op is not a new member. They've been around a while.
No one is being told that they have to pay, just that some concept will require you to pay
Getting sick of this.
I'd like suggestions of workings builds, and if you don't have any, kindly keep quite. The near constant attempts to insult my character are not appreciated. Please, if you have suggestions on ways this could work, speak up, but telling me it can't be done because you don't like me as a poster is not helping.
Responses in this thread make me feel unwelcome in the forum, and at this point, it feels like harassment. Like me or not, but try to answer the question asked in a constructive manner, or don't post. I don't feel that defending myself for 4 pages is something I should have to do because some of members of this site dislike me as a person and *clearly* feel the need to express this to all other members of the site.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like suggestions of workings builds
There aren't any ways to make a working build while completely and deliberately gimping your character. It's by definition, a contradiction.
More importantly there's no REASON to do this. Having a deliberately badly character does not increase role playing potential. The stormwind/either or fallacy is a fallacy, not an inspiration.
There are minor mechanics in every class that it can be fun to play around with or focus on: I have a wild empathy focused druid for example, but you still have to make sure the concept works well enough to pull it's weight and a non spellcasting wizard doesn't.
The near constant attempts to insult my character are not appreciated. Please, if you have suggestions on ways this could work, speak up, but telling me it can't be done because you don't like me as a poster is not helping.
If someone asks "whats a good way to feed a crocodile by hand" the answer isn't "palms flat" its "don't. feed. crocodiles.by.hand" It doesn't matter how indignant that person gets at the real answer to the question, or insists that people owe them the answer to the exact question they asked, the right answer remains the same.
Please do not do this.
. Like me or not, but try to answer the question asked in a constructive manner, or don't post. I don't feel that defending myself for 4 pages is something I should have to do because some of members of this site dislike me as a person *clearly* feel the need to express this to all other members of the site.
Again, the problem is with the content. You have yet another corner case in the rules where something is perfectly legal but is still a very, very, very bad idea.
Neither pointing out that this is a very bad idea, nor pointing out that I didn't handle you like a newbie because you're not a newbie are harassment or impugning your character.
If you are sick of my posts, ANother mage has an ignore script.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the problem is where this discussion is taking place. Murdock, if you're really looking purely for build advice for these concepts, the Advice forum is where you should be headed. That's what it's for, and the discussions there are generally much more build-focused. Post in the PFS Main, and you're going to get a ton of editorializing as the approach relates to PFS.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
yeah, BNW is saying that any creative idea you want to pull can be done without needing to give up most of your class features. A beatstick wizard/sorcerer? Yeah, that's easy to do, if you have access still to your spells. So starting casting stat of 13 or 14. If you want a beatstick with no spells then play a spell-less beatstick class.
Truth be told the more creative builds that Paizo actively encourages usually actively gives up most of your class features. My favorite being the Magus that can pulp the other builds early on but can't use spellstrike, spellcombat, or really use certain spells. Its why I said earlier the stat requirement was a bad idea because you know why even bother doing it overtly when you can just look at an archetype that does it for you.
|
|
So what we're saying is 'it's okay to be creative, as long as you have the *resources* to be creative', then?I'm not sure what what your motives to this line of thought are, Wei, but just to make sure:
Can we NOT turn this argument into Paizo and friends vs. poor people?
It is *not* an argument, Fourth.
It is a question of focus and community, and how to better serve the *entire* community.
What good does it serve the community if the very first thing we tell potential new members is "You need to buy all these books to be viable"?
That conversation probably deserves its own thread. Not that this thread isn't already so derailed that another derail would even be noticed.
But in my experience, new players tend to be given a pass on the owning books requirement. People will point out the rule that they need to own the books, and try to help them with builds using whatever books they already have, while maybe recommending another book or two to buy. But I've never seen anyone strictly enforce the rules about book ownership, especially with newbies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the spoiled portion of the original post, my assumption was that this thread was explicitly about playing these characters in PFS.
So make it clear that it's intended for PFS. It still belongs more in the advice forum if build advice is really what the OP is after.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The op is not a new member. They've been around a while.
No one is being told that they have to pay, just that some concept will require you to pay
Getting sick of this.
I'd like suggestions of workings builds, and if you don't have any, kindly keep quite. The near constant attempts to insult my character are not appreciated. Please, if you have suggestions on ways this could work, speak up, but telling me it can't be done because you don't like me as a poster is not helping.
Responses in this thread make me feel unwelcome in the forum, and at this point, it feels like harassment. Like me or not, but try to answer the question asked in a constructive manner, or don't post. I don't feel that defending myself for 4 pages is something I should have to do because some of members of this site dislike me as a person and *clearly* feel the need to express this to all other members of the site.
note first, I'm not sure what posts you've done before, but I'm just going off of what I've heard in this thread.
I feel like you're not being consistent. As far as I'm aware you don't HAVE a character like this to be insulting. Unless you're talking about you personal moral character, in which case, it's really not. I didn't see anything related about you for a bit, and when you were brought in it was people saying they've seen you post a lot of posts like this where you're asking something that would cause problems if anyone pursued them. Everyone was responding to the content of your post. Don't do it. Their telling you not to do it because it's something NO ONE should do. There is no advice to give someone when they ask for help building an awful character.
I'm fairly certain that no one has a person grudge against you, but at the content type of a lot of the posts you've made and continue to make. It's a behavior that is unwelcomed in PFS. Hence the strong negative reaction you've had with all these problem posts. Nobody hates an new person. But if you gain a rep because of repeated behavior people can notice and then all of your "it's technically an innocent question" is meaningless to them since it's apparent to them it's not innocent.
Also, answering direct questions that are on topic do a lot better than defending yourself. Like I think it was an entire page or more of people debating if you meant int <10 wizard or 13-16 int wizard.
So again, everyone is saying don't do it because you can't make a worth character when you're intentionally making a not-worth character by definition.
|
|
If you want Draconic Bloodline then no you can't unless you purposefully want to cast fewer spells but even Im not sure that archetype stacks with Wildblooded.I could almost see a few sorcerer builds that dump their casting stat. Dragon bloodline for example might be able to get away with it. Well, other then the fact the claws can only be used a set number of rounds per day. And the limit is determined by charisma.They can't finagle the Empyreal archtype and a 14 wisdom into the build?NOt familiar with that archtype. In fact, I don't know what book it's in or what class it's for.Its an archetype that modifies bloodlines. What was suggested was essentially you take a modified version of the Celestial bloodline.
Isn't the Empyreal bloodline one of the options within the Wildblooded archetype?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer OPs question,
I think you could make a Goliath Druid with an 8 WIS. Just start with 20 STR and basically build it like a fighter, ignoring spellcasting. Since Goliath Druid is so powerful, you'd be fine. Choose rage domain. When you are a giant and raging, that is a lot of +STR.
Maybe human dual talent with starting stats:
STR 20
DEX 13
CON 18
INT 7
WIS 8
CHA 7
Take heavy armor proficiency as first or third level feat and get stoneplate. Then just decide whether your goal is a natural attack build with the troll claw/claw/bite/rend or whether you want to wield a scythe and/or greatsword (would need feat) and go from there.
Of course, it would be more optimal just to do a similar build with a low-ish WIS, like 13-14, so that you could still bump it up high enough with items as you levelled to keep spell progression.