Fallen Paladins and stupid wizards in PFS?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

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:
Regarding fallen classes, they are PFS legal:
Quote:

However, a few conditions need

not be resolved by the end of play, including permanent
negative levels, ability drain that does not reduce an
ability score to 0, becoming a fallen member of a class
that requires an atonement spell to regain class features
or spellcasting abilities, and conditions that impose no
mechanical effect.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The topic comes up every now and then on the boards.

What I've observed is that characters like this tend to be considered antithetical to the "cooperate" tenet of the Society, since their lack of ability to contribute to the party's efforts can be seen as actively uncooperative. Additionally, most of them are antithetical to the function of the Society itself - a character who is unfit for adventurer duty, no matter what their class or role in a party, would not be sent on field missions and would likely not even be a member of the Pathfinder Society in the first place.

Class features are, well, what makes a class. A paladin without his paladin powers is a fighter with half the feats and no additional features. A stupid wizard... uh, I'm drawing a blank on what he'd do, since what wizards mostly do outside of combat is roll Intelligence-based skills, and in combat he's rocking 1/2 BAB and a d6 HD with no armor proficiencies.

Scarab Sages

Minna Hiltula wrote:

Spoiler:
The topic comes up every now and then on the boards.

What I've observed is that characters like this tend to be considered antithetical to the "cooperate" tenet of the Society, since their lack of ability to contribute to the party's efforts can be seen as actively uncooperative. Additionally, most of them are antithetical to the function of the Society itself - a character who is unfit for adventurer duty, no matter what their class or role in a party, would not be sent on field missions and would likely not even be a member of the Pathfinder Society in the first place.

Class features are, well, what makes a class. A paladin without his paladin powers is a fighter with half the feats and no additional features. A stupid wizard... uh, I'm drawing a blank on what he'd do, since what wizards mostly do outside of combat is roll Intelligence-based skills, and in combat he's rocking 1/2 BAB and a d6 HD with no armor proficiencies.

I've certainly seen sub-par builds within the normal players. I don't really think that players bringing un-optimized characters is enough of a justification to write off the concept.

As for what such a character would do, that is entirely up to the player. There are aspects of the classes which are not totally ruined by losing aspects to parts of the class. A paladin still has full BAB, and the wizard still has a familiar/bonded item and school powers, even without high intelligence (or even with a negative intelligence mod).

Plus, many of these classes are taking gear, stats, or other options specifically related to maximizing a certain aspect of a class. By not spending resources there, they could actually become at least useful in another area. Not amazing, but at least as useful as a sub-par PC or an overspecialized PC that has no skills to cope with the current opponent.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Please don't do this.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we please not even have this discussion right now?

Let's all post in happy threads. Give a shout-out to a great GM you had recently. Talk about a rarely used mechanic that you think is fun and would like to see show up in a scenario. What NPC race did you recently bump into that was amusing to socialize with?

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have occasionally considered dipping a level of wizard on a fighter, just to get access to wands without UMD...

And I have a 9 charisma Lvl 1 Oracle. :)

Dark Archive

Also keep in mind that a fallen paladin who doesn't get Atonement at the end of the session can't gain levels as a paladin until they do atone. Which means if the session you fell was just after leveling, you're a gimped fighter for 2 more sessions. And then you have to pick a new class when you level up. Since many paladin builds I've seen focus more on charisma then strength, that's not going go go very well.

The Exchange 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"I studied the ways of what I was told were ancient orcs. Turned out my old master thought it some sick joke to train a barbarian to be a wizard. I would kill him but some proper barbarians had done it for me"

this is Zavven my less smart wizard who started with 13 Int and rune inscribed great axe marked Bigga Fasta Stron along the haft he buffs himself and then swings with his axe works well enough and I have fun playing him. However I only test such builds with people I know I do not want to cause a death at a con due to my poor build

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Minna Hiltula wrote:


Class features are, well, what makes a class. A paladin without his paladin powers is a fighter with half the feats and no additional features. A stupid wizard... uh, I'm drawing a blank on what he'd do, since what wizards mostly do outside of combat is roll Intelligence-based skills, and in combat he's rocking 1/2 BAB and a d6 HD with no armor proficiencies.

Ehhh... One or two class features ignored isn't unusual. In fact its really hard to build out certain classes that effectively uses all its options because they often end up being mutually exclusive in terms of gimmicks.

3/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

A 7 Int Universalist Wizard is the best I can do until Paizo releases that Commoner boon that I've always wanted.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Players should build whatever type of character they desire as long as it is legal and they attempt to cooperate with and aid their group to the best of their character's ability ( even if the character's abilities are modest and not optimized ). If a player wants to have a unique character, or place his character in a more challenging situation then that's his choice.

Scarab Sages

Zavven wrote:

"I studied the ways of what I was told were ancient orcs. Turned out my old master thought it some sick joke to train a barbarian to be a wizard. I would kill him but some proper barbarians had done it for me"

this is Zavven my less smart wizard who started with 13 Int and rune inscribed great axe marked Bigga Fasta Stron along the haft he buffs himself and then swings with his axe works well enough and I have fun playing him. However I only test such builds with people I know I do not want to cause a death at a con due to my poor build

I had a half-orc sorcerer that basically did this, his score cha was high enough it didn't prevent him from casting his highest slot.

Scarab Sages

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Also keep in mind that a fallen paladin who doesn't get Atonement at the end of the session can't gain levels as a paladin until they do atone. Which means if the session you fell was just after leveling, you're a gimped fighter for 2 more sessions. And then you have to pick a new class when you level up. Since many paladin builds I've seen focus more on charisma then strength, that's not going go go very well.

So, first, they can acquire experience regardless of being an Ex-class or not. As for Ex-class characters being forced to level, I'm not sure if that is a rule or not. It does seem like getting the GP to atone should be feasible in 3 or 6 sessions. 450-2950gp per casting of atonement, as I read it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Players should build whatever type of character they desire...

Not exactly. First, your character should thematically work with the Pathfinder Society. Meaning that you have to have some skills/abilities that the organization would be interested in utilizing. Otherwise, you never would have been permitted entry into the training program (or received a field commission) in the first place. Having a character that is at least moderately effective is clearly a rule as intended even if the RAW for character creation does not come straight out and say it. If, for example, your gimped character's most effective contribution is using aid another and flank, you are not PFS material and have no business going on missions (technically being a legal character notwithstanding).

Sure, players are encouraged to be creative and build unique characters. There is no requirement to min/max or "uber-"optimize your PC, but there is a reasonable limit to how much you can intentionally create an effectively "useless" character without breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule.

Scarab Sages

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Players should build whatever type of character they desire...

Not exactly. First, your character should thematically work with the Pathfinder Society. Meaning that you have to have some skills/abilities that the organization would be interested in utilizing. Otherwise, you never would have been permitted entry into the training program (or received a field commission) in the first place. Having a character that is at least moderately effective is clearly a rule as intended even if the RAW for character creation does not come straight out and say it. If, for example, your gimped character's most effective contribution is using aid another and flank, you are not PFS material and have no business going on missions (technically being a legal character notwithstanding).

Sure, players are encouraged to be creative and build unique characters. There is no requirement to min/max or "uber-"optimize your PC, but there is a reasonable limit to how much you can intentionally create an effectively "useless" character without breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule.

Right place, right time. That's how field commissions are earned.

Regarding character builds, I've noticed that the character's gear seems more important than race or class abilities. Just being the guy with the rope can make your character shine with under equipped party members. Equipment can be enough to maintain the usefulness that the PFS seeks. And if gear is the key, then high strength and good planning can make any character useful.

I will give a special note to dead optimized characters. If the character is dead, and my living, but deemed "useless" character is still alive, perhaps the concept of "useless" needs revisiting.

Anyway, if fallen paladins are a huge an issue for PFS, then they would treat atonement as a required condition to repair at the end of a session. They would likewise require minimum stats for classes, if the characters being unable to cast spells was such a huge issue. Clearly, PFS doesn't care on this stance, so arguing this sort of thing is required seems more an opinion.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, point of the thread was to see what others have tried, or considered trying, rather than debating if the concept is valid or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was a woman Aristocrat who'd made it to at least 10th before NPC classes were banned. Somebody on a thread harped about how lame she must be, but several multi-star posters (who had actually played with her) said she was a pivotal PC. She'd carried the party at times and she was awesome to roleplay with to boot.
That said, I would dissuade anybody from hobbling their PC on a lark, especially if you haven't played a few full powered PCs into higher levels. Just sayin'.
Cheers.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes I wish that the PFS Leadership would skip an entire season - going a full year without producing any new scenarios or Society content - and spend that time writing a Guide that covers every possible situation, concept, and character idea. That way, "the rules don't say I can't do the thing" will never come up again.

That's obviously an extreme exaggeration. But it's reflective of the problem with these theoretical, corner-case threads. They consistently create strife in a forum that already has way too much of it, which - frankly - is unhealthy for the forum's atmosphere. And if something were to be done about these corner-cases, it would require time that PFS Leadership could be spending on actual problems, creating new content, or innovating new policies.

In addition, it would likely result in rules being codified, probably to ensure that those who had heretofore gone unnoticed were no longer legal. (For example, in this case, they might end up mandating minimum casting stats.) Speaking as someone who once learned the entire Magic: the Gathering Comprehensive Rules Document, I'd rather not see the Guide turn into that.

In any case... back on topic. If someone insisted on playing a character that was underpowered to the point of being intentionally disruptive (a variable and subjective measurement with no set standard), I would feel entirely comfortable in asking them to play a less disruptive character. Failing that, they would be asked to leave the table. And I would happily defend my decision to my VC, my RVC, or Ms. Woldridge herself.

If you (or anyone else) wishes to play such a character in PFS, I suggest discussing the concept with the GM and other players before playing that character, and having a backup or pregen if the character would be disruptive.

Dark Archive

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Also keep in mind that a fallen paladin who doesn't get Atonement at the end of the session can't gain levels as a paladin until they do atone. Which means if the session you fell was just after leveling, you're a gimped fighter for 2 more sessions. And then you have to pick a new class when you level up. Since many paladin builds I've seen focus more on charisma then strength, that's not going go go very well.
So, first, they can acquire experience regardless of being an Ex-class or not. As for Ex-class characters being forced to level, I'm not sure if that is a rule or not. It does seem like getting the GP to atone should be feasible in 3 or 6 sessions. 450-2950gp per casting of atonement, as I read it.

It's part of the rules for being a failed monk or fallen paladin. They can't advance in their class. Thus they can't take more levels in that class. Gain experience, yes. Level in the class they fell from grace in, no. So if the player's concept is "I'm a paladin who fell" and they don't get an Atonement, they can no longer level as a paladin until they do get an atonement.

Dark Archive

Take your 1 level of paladin, cook in the balance fighter until you find a convenient place to fall. Then perhaps a few rogue levels .. a little shadowdancer. It could work.

Or go the dragon disciple route. Pal1, sorc1, F3, dd +n

I doubt it works for multilevel paladin.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of your threads are "Ohmygodscrewingwithpeoplethisway is LEGAL!!?!?!?!?!"

Yes. Yes it is

ANDNOTHINGCANBEDONE!

Well.. no.

Social pressure is a thing and as an extra layer of rules probably has at least as much to do with how a table actually works as the written rules. If you annoy people, they will stop playing with you or boot you out of the group.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Even if one has a 'competent' character and a reasonable grasp of tactics, one can find one's self 'ostracized' from a given group of players due to personality conflicts or simply health issues.

In my case, I have oftentimes a hard time handling being around folks who are saturated with nicotine or 'funk'. Wasn't as much of an issue before but it is becoming more and more of one.

There's no need to aggravate that situation with increasingly inane corner cases that violate the spirit of Society play.

Or, tl;dr... READ THE GUIDE FOR SEASON EIGHT!

First section.

Part of that is *not* compulsively analyzing every single possibility for odoriforous intents.

May one have a great an enlightening day, free of the entangling web of banal rules development.

Dark Archive

My question really would be, why would you want to play a paladin who can't use their paladin class abilities? Why not just make a fighter if you want to be a weapon user with no divine aid?

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere aka Rei

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
My question really would be, why would you want to play a paladin who can't use their paladin class abilities? Why not just make a fighter if you want to be a weapon user with no divine aid?

Because fluff, someone will jump in here and say.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem that certain people only post questions that fall into the, "How can I be legally disruptive?" vein.

PFS the Campaign assumes (in fact, codifies in its rules) that you won't do this. We used to call it "being a jerk", but that term wasn't self-explanatory enough for some people.

PFS the in-game organization assumes you are, and want to be, a Pathfinder. There are all sorts of ways to do this, but there are some concepts that are inappropriate. Just being in the "right place, right time" earns you a pat on the back, not a field comission, unless you also have the skills (or at least SOME skills) to back it up.

If you're going to play Pathfinder Society, remember that it's a group game. GMs, remember that you don't have to allow one disruptive player and their character concept to hijack your table. I have had the V-C throw a PC out of their office during the briefing based on their behaviour (allowing the player to bring in a substitute, after an out-of-character warning). We don't have "min-min" players here like the OP suggests, but if we had someone show up with no ability to contribute beyond artificially raising the APL, I imagine the exchange would go something like this:

Minny the 7-Int Wizard: "ok, I'm ready to go on this, uh, mission... Thing. I have no spells or other training, but I found a knife, and I can play a mean banjo."
V-C: "..." (looks at files) "Nope. Back to Pathfinder school for you. Secretary, make a note to strip this guys's Field Comission, it was obviously forged. And send in the next person that walks past my door instead."

(No offense to banjo players intended.)

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
My question really would be, why would you want to play a paladin who can't use their paladin class abilities? Why not just make a fighter if you want to be a weapon user with no divine aid?

There is a subset of individuals who want to 'self-nerf' their characters and want to set the bar to 'Well, it's my level of fun' or 'The rules don't say I *can't*, so I *can*'.

Rather than grasp the potential of say, a fighter whose *backstory* is that they were a paladin, once, and young, they'd rather have someone who *is* a paladin under 'bad graces' that needs to do their 'heroic journey' to 'redeem themselves'.

Alternatively, there are also folks that need to have *everything* spelled out in text, or they have a bit of a 'disconnect'. Failing to delineate every single stinking banal thing is anathema to such an individual, because in that direction, chaos lies!

While it may be an amazing thing for a home campaign, it can be exceptionally disruptive for an organized campaign.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:

It does seem that certain people only post questions that fall into the, "How can I be legally disruptive?" vein.

If you're going to play Pathfinder Society, remember that it's a group game. GMs, remember that you don't have to allow one disruptive player and their character concept to hijack your table. I have had the V-C throw a PC out of their office during the briefing based on their behaviour (allowing the player to bring in a substitute, after an out-of-character warning). We don't have "min-min" players here like the OP suggests, but if we had someone show up with no ability to contribute beyond artificially raising the APL, I imagine the exchange would go something like this:

Minny the 7-Int Wizard: "ok, I'm ready to go on this, uh, mission... Thing. I have no spells or other training, but I found a knife, and I can play a mean banjo."
V-C: "..." (looks at files) "Nope. Back to Pathfinder school for you. Secretary, make a note to strip this guys's Field Comission, it was obviously forged. And send in the next person that walks past my door instead."

(No offense to banjo players intended.)

Alternatively:

"Let's hear your banjo playing first and if it isn't pure gold, then we may need to arrange for some alternate training. If you can explore, report, and cooperate and help bring the ENTIRE team home alive, well, it doesn't matter HOW unconventional your tactics are, as long as the rest of the team isn't carrying you in a divan the whole expedition..."

Sorry for back-to-back posts there

5/5 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16 aka Sir_Wulf

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've occasionally had trouble with overly optimized characters in PFS, but no issues with "basketweaver" PCs who nerf themselves. I would recommend that any such characters avoid the Year 4 scenarios, however.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
(For example, in this case, they might end up mandating minimum casting stats.)

I thought they never codified those rules because you can in fact completely dump your spellcasting stat under certain circumstances and have it end up still end up with a character more powerful than a spellcaster who hasn't dumped their spellcasting stat.

Dark Archive

But if you need a casting stat of 10+spell level to cast spell, wouldn't someone with 9 or less in their casting stat be unable to cast even a 0 level spell? I've played casters who just barely qualified to use magic before. And it takes more creative thinking to be effective at higher levels. But it is possible. But playing a caster who can't use magic at all seems... Well, sub-optimal would be an improvement.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
But if you need a casting stat of 10+spell level to cast spell, wouldn't someone with 9 or less in their casting stat be unable to cast even a 0 level spell? I've played casters who just barely qualified to use magic before. And it takes more creative thinking to be effective at higher levels. But it is possible. But playing a caster who can't use magic at all seems... Well, sub-optimal would be an improvement.

But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
But if you need a casting stat of 10+spell level to cast spell, wouldn't someone with 9 or less in their casting stat be unable to cast even a 0 level spell? I've played casters who just barely qualified to use magic before. And it takes more creative thinking to be effective at higher levels. But it is possible. But playing a caster who can't use magic at all seems... Well, sub-optimal would be an improvement.
But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.

Bloodrager is your friend.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Rysky wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
But if you need a casting stat of 10+spell level to cast spell, wouldn't someone with 9 or less in their casting stat be unable to cast even a 0 level spell? I've played casters who just barely qualified to use magic before. And it takes more creative thinking to be effective at higher levels. But it is possible. But playing a caster who can't use magic at all seems... Well, sub-optimal would be an improvement.
But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.
Bloodrager is your friend.

True, but that +2 to Will saves could make Wizard more attractive.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
But if you need a casting stat of 10+spell level to cast spell, wouldn't someone with 9 or less in their casting stat be unable to cast even a 0 level spell?

Unless you play a spellcaster that has two casting stats. The only reason why I didn't dump the one stat on my character is that by hell or high water I wanted to make a Knowledge domain character making it so I couldn't dump int.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

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 **

Leave this sort of thing for your home games where your friends who know you can indulge your whims. Inflicting purposely unfunctional characters on a group of three others who now have to carry the weight you're not managing is rude at best.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Rysky wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
But if you need a casting stat of 10+spell level to cast spell, wouldn't someone with 9 or less in their casting stat be unable to cast even a 0 level spell? I've played casters who just barely qualified to use magic before. And it takes more creative thinking to be effective at higher levels. But it is possible. But playing a caster who can't use magic at all seems... Well, sub-optimal would be an improvement.
But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.
Bloodrager is your friend.
True, but that +2 to Will saves could make Wizard more attractive.

Bloodrage gets you a +2 will saves.

And more HP. And STR.

And Bloodrager gives 2 more skills than wizard, which as a Fighter with a 9 INT would be really nice. And PERCEPTION as a class skill

3/5

I have a character with a level dip in Magus who is too stupid to cast spells. Always amusing when folks who think he's a straight fighter see him spend his one arcane point or when he talks about his spell book... The Will save bonus from Magus is one of the only reasons he does make some will saves...


TimD wrote:
I have a character with a level dip in Magus who is too stupid to cast spells. Always amusing when folks who think he's a straight fighter see him spend his one arcane point or when he talks about his spell book... The Will save bonus from Magus is one of the only reasons he does make some will saves...

This isn't what the OP is talking about. He's not talking about dipping. He's talking about making a single class player who can't perform in his class.

Silver Crusade

I have a cleric with dumped charisma, because channeling just isn't his thing. He can still channel once a day - negative energy only. He's a bad touch cleric, so I went neg channeling for the spontaneous inflict spells.

I'm also planning a 1 level dip in a charisma casting class on a PC with 7 charisma. So my unchained rogue will take a level of medium, in order to channel the champion spirit and gain some pretty good bonuses (+2 Will, +1 Fort, +1 on all attack rolls, +3 on all damage rolls, spirit surge a couple of times per day after failed fort or attack rolls), but won't be able to cast the cantrips that most mediums would get at that level.

But neither of those are giving up the primary class abilities of their class, like a wizard with single digit int would be.

Dark Archive

Id like to see a divine trickster sometime to bad touch sneak attack. I use a wand for it sometimes...but having a cleric progression could be interesting.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8 aka WalterGM

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've long-considered making an ex-paladin 1 / whatever in PFS, with the background being that the character was going to be a paladin before something traumatic happened that caused him to abandon his faith. Mechanically, it's identical to a vanilla fighter dip, exchanging the bonus combat feat for Iron Will--which isn't a terrible option in some builds.

1 level of fighter = d10 HD, +1 BAB, +2 skills, +2 Fort, +1 feat
1 level of fallen paladin = d10 HD, +1 BAB, +2 skills, +2 Fort, +2 Will

On the topic of having low Int wizards and the like, I have a character with three spellcasting lists (bard, druid, ranger) but without the casting stats to cast spells in any of the three lists. It's just not what he's designed to do, so he doesn't make use of those class features. He still contributes to the party, but does so through use of other abilities.

I think it is certainly possible to color outside the lines with character design, provided you're still bringing something beneficial to the table. And if anyone expects you to act a certain way because of your classes, that's on them for making the assumption.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being able to legally do something, and actually doing it are different. I'm not going to say you can't make a low interest wizard who can't cast spells or a fallen paladin. But I will say, if you do, be prepared to face higher scrutiny on your usefulness.

I generally find its better to not skirt the line on things like this, because you are playing with others. This isn't a game about a characters solo story.

Dark Archive

Im apt to try the DD version as it stacks well and then bring back paladin 2 via atonement after level 9. Then bk to DD. Its all core.. so 3rd core character.

Traumatic - joining a society of unsavory individuals that crosses the law regularly and sometimes does good deeds (as a secondary concern)


RainyDayNinja wrote:
But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.

This is the kind of thoroughly reasonable character concept that would be caught in the fallout, if Leadership had to put minimum-casting-stat policies in place.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I could see, as a concept, a low-Int wizard (possibly a nagaji or other -Int race) who just barely passes the Int requirement to cast his highest-level spells at any given level, and whose motivation for adventures is trying desperately to keep his Int ahead of that requirement. As long as the character is still basically functional, I'm not going to jump on anyone for being underoptimized. (In that character's case, focusing on spells without a save would be a good direction to go.)

Mr. Sheppard's point about a single level of ex-paladin is also good; in addition to the save increase, it also offers different skills. For Diplomacy lovers like myself, that's not nothing. ^_^

I would still advise against going deeper; however, it would make a good foundation for something like eldritch knight or kapenia dancer magus.

Dark Archive

I too can see the concept of a wizard who's not too bright. I've had many a 2nd edition wizard with 9 Int as their highest stat. so the wizard who only became one because they weren't strong, agile, or wise enough to do anything else is a plausible one.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well at risk of sending this thread into tired territory, INT isn't really the best measure of how "smart" you are, anyway. WIS is the stat that allows you to "not do stupid stuff". Conversely, doing "smart stuff" is having applied your Wisdom to find the best course of action to a given situation.

A Wizard can have high INT (learn new information quickly) whilst having WIS as a dump stat (too dumb to remember to pack food and shelter for the scenario mission...).

I kind of like explaining the three kinds of "smarts" in d20 thusly:

When your significant other asks you "Do I look fat in this armor?"

You use INT to determine whether or not she does indeed look fat.
You use WIS to anticipate the reaction to your answer.
You use CHA to give a wrong answer and yet avoid the consequences.

3/5

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
TimD wrote:
I have a character with a level dip in Magus who is too stupid to cast spells. Always amusing when folks who think he's a straight fighter see him spend his one arcane point or when he talks about his spell book... The Will save bonus from Magus is one of the only reasons he does make some will saves...
This isn't what the OP is talking about. He's not talking about dipping. He's talking about making a single class player who can't perform in his class.

I was more responding to Rysky & RDN's aside than the OP.

Probably wasn't obvious as I didn't quote them though.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

GM Tyrant Princess wrote:
RainyDayNinja wrote:
But there's no stat requirement for activating wands. It's not a terrible idea if, say, an 8-Int 2HW fighter wants to take a 1-level dip into Wizard just to be able to use wands of shield or magic missile or whatever he might find on an adventure.
This is the kind of thoroughly reasonable character concept that would be caught in the fallout, if Leadership had to put minimum-casting-stat policies in place.

Actually, at a home game I'd probably rule that you couldn't take a level in Wizard until you had an int of at least 11. I don't see why it'd be easier to activate a wand simply because it's "on your list" if you couldn't remotely hope to actually cast anything else "on your list."

I know people occasionally like to play characters who don't fall into the hypercompetent, min-maxed stereotype, and I like seeing the creative concepts that come from it. That said, I think the best way to play a "bad wizard who's really good with the banjo" is to play a low-int bard, or arcane bloodline sorceror, or etc... rather than actually mechanically being a (useless) wizard.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is making me want to play someone whose backstory is that he was a fallen paladin (but has since retrained those levels to something else). He still wants to make amends and become a real paladin again, yet somehow he just can't keep up with the required discipline, always remaining NG.

Players of a certain season 4 adventure might notice the similarities here.

The PC could even have occasional "episodes" where his righteous anger momentarily get him close to the paladinical power he once had (divine bloodrager?)

Altogether, it would be easy to make a functional PC with a "fallen" backstory.

1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Fallen Paladins and stupid wizards in PFS? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.