I Didn't Think "Don't Build A Stupid Wizard" Was A Controversial Statement

[Neal Litherland]

Over the past few months, I've seen a slew of players asking how to make what is essentially an anti-class. The weak, sickly barbarian, the uncharismatic sorcerer, the fighter with no physical stats, and the one from the title, a stupid wizard. In short, the players wanted to take the attributes that a class's abilities sort of depend on, and purposefully put their lowest scores in them.

I get the reasoning behind it. If you have a character who has to struggle to overcome something, then they can feel like they have more of an arc. But if you are essentially less useful than your average commoner, why would someone bring you out into a dangerous situation? Which was why I made the case in No One Wins When You Build A Stupid Wizard that the way to have your cake and eat it too was to play a character who is actually another class. The weak "barbarian" is actually a slayer or a rogue who uses precision and tactics to overcome stronger opponents, the smart "fighter" is actually a magus or a wizard who is a soldier, using arcane power to compensate for physical frailty. Etc., etc.

What surprised me, though, was the vehement reaction from a lot of people to this opinion. If a player wants to play a wizard with an INT of 11, they said, then they should be allowed to do that for story reasons. Which left me scratching my head. After all, if you don't bring anything to the party, then why would they want you on their team?

Looking for thoughts and opinions from others. To be clear, I'm not talking about players who put their second-best stats into a class's necessities, or who use feats and class features to substitute abilities for their features. I'm talking about situations where a player is purposefully sabotaging their own character's effectiveness, and why anyone would impose that kind of a burden on the rest of their table.

[Shiroi]

It depends on the game, I could see a whole party doing it together, a funny low power campaign where you all theory build a single-class sheet with low needed stats where none of you will ever be good and you struggle to handle bats. Doing it in a campaign where you intend to function on a relatively normal optimization is less available, but could still be done if the party agrees to it, making you the comedic relief. Even beyond that, asking them not to so much cover for your weakness as to treat you as a normal member of the party to see how far you go and then roll a normal character (possibly family seeking vengeance?) to replace the character when it inevitably dies...

There's options here, at least three situations where I can see this being a cool way to do something fun and different without disrupting the table.

[N N 959]

Neal Litherland wrote:

What surprised me, though, was the vehement reaction from a lot of people to this opinion. If a player wants to play a wizard with an INT of 11, they said, then they should be allowed to do that for story reasons. Which left me scratching my head. After all, if you don't bring anything to the party, then why would they want you on their team?

I've run into these types of players as as well. It also takes the form of players whose PCs have zero skill ranks, and maybe even negative net modifier, thinking it's great roleplay for their half-orc with a 7 Charisma to try and roll Diplomacy for the hostage release before the 18 Charisma Bard gets to say anything.

Another version of this mindset is someone insisting on playing an evil character when the rest of the party is good, and then that player wanting to commit evil acts against his or her party members.

My response to this is two fold:

1) Assuming the entire party isn't supporting this, or the GM imposing this, this is behavior of selfish/inconsiderate players. Their first thought is about what they think is cool or fun, without thinking about how it affects others or whether they are stepping on toes;

2) Blame your GM. It is entirely / 100% incumbent on the GM to stop this behavior. First, players shouldn't be put in a position to police the anti-social behavior of other players. Second, the OOC nature of the game compels PCs to play with each other when in real life, there would be no way in hell you'd risk your life on a mission with a Wizard that had an 11 INT or a fugly Half-orc fighter who insists he is the party face.

But I have also run into some GMs who initially think this is part of the roleplaying. If PCs were truly roleplaying, anyone who intentionally sabotages party success would be kicked out of the party if not killed outright. When your life depends on the guy next to you, you don't tolerate shenanigans. Read some documentaries about the Vietnam war, and commanding officers who made command decisions that were considered suicidal were sometime shot in the back by their own unit.

So if a GM is going to let players pull these kinds of stunts and insist its "roleplaying", then they need to let other party members attack each other and settle it on field. Since most games, the GM won't let party members take matters into their own hands, GMs need to actively stop this type of behavior.

Fortunately for me, when I've run into this type of stuff, I've confronted the offending player and they've acknowledged the unfairness of what they were doing and stopped it. But as others will tell you, sometimes you just need to find another group.

[Neal Litherland]

I agree those are scenarios where such a thing would work. What confuses me, though, is when someone ISN'T trying to do it for comic relief. So you have the strongest barbarian in the mountain tribes, the most powerful wizard in his class, and one of the holiest sisters of the order of divine might... and Dave, the sorcerer with three cantrips, and two first level spells with a save DC of 9.

Matching the tone, as you said, is definitely important. If everyone's doing it, I can understand the experiment. But if one player is trying to be silly when everyone else came to kick ass and chew bubble gum, then it makes me wonder why they would push that slightly unusual commoner.

[dragonhunterq]

I'll be honest, players are welcome to play an 11 int wizard when I'm GMing - they won't last long because I won't softball for them. I just hope their decision doesn't lead to a TPK.

If I'm playing and someone insists on playing an int 11 wizard, then one of us is walking away, because I won't play with someone that selfish - and it is selfish. You are putting the entire party at risk for a story that you can tell just as well and still be effective just in a different way.

[Mathmuse]

I posted my example of a character who was a different class than she thought in Neal Litherland's Improved Initiative blog, but let me post the opposite example here: the character who effectively uses strong abilities built into the character that other people think are useless. My wife built a melee sorcerer.

Touch attacks are some of the most damaging sorcerer/wizard spells. The magus class makes good use of the ones on his list, but he has armor and a weapon and 3/4 BAB, too. My wife's character Wealday Addams was a halfling sorceress with Abberant bloodline who donned a chain shirt and attacked with touch spells. She had occasional spell failure, but she hit often and hit hard. She was more powerful than a magus because she had higher-level spells. Her feats were used up on Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery to eliminate the spell failure rather than on feats to increase the DCs of her spells, because touch spells seldom allow saves.

Wealday Addams was a melee character with low Strength, but an optimized melee sorcerer does not need Strength. This build has always been viable, and she was the strongest and most effective character in the party. My wilderness-survival gnome barbarian who specialized in Raging Swim, Raging Climb, and Night Vision was also unexpectedly productive, because the campaign left the party stuck in a jungle and our enemies often attacked at night.

[Jhaeman]

I'm one of those players who likes to play against type. Anyone can pick an optimized build from the boards and dominate, but there's some really interesting role-playing and strategy that comes from running a character who does his best at something even though he's not as good at others at it. I have a Paladin, for example, with mediocre Charisma and a high Intelligence. It's not optimal from a mechanical perspective, but it sure makes him different than the million other Paladins with more conventional stats.

I will agree, however, that RPGs are team games and that each character should be able to meaningfully contribute to the team in some way and that intentionally making completely useless characters to (intentionally or not) sabotage the team's efforts isn't really in the spirit of the game.

[roguerouge]

If you're going to purposely gimp your PC, let me know as another player at the table. Because I'm going to be peeved in the extreme if you get my character killed because you can't fulfill your responsibilities because of your choices. In a collaborative game, your choices aren't solely your choices: they affect everyone else at the table. Players should remember that you shouldn't be selfish in character design.

[Dasrak]

I can see someone with a lot of system mastery making an 11-intelligence wizard work, focusing on spells that do not allow for saving throws. However, you're going to struggle to contribute in combat and this could lead to resentment by the other players that they're carrying you. It's all well and good to say you want to overcome adversity, but in practice it will often be the other players overcoming your adversity, which isn't fair to them.

[Neal Litherland]

Mathmuse wrote:

I posted my example of a character who was a different class than she thought in Neal Litherland's Improved Initiative blog, but let me post the opposite example here: the character who effectively uses strong abilities built into the character that other people think are useless. My wife built a melee sorcerer.

Touch attacks are some of the most damaging sorcerer/wizard spells. The magus class makes good use of the ones on his list, but he has armor and a weapon and 3/4 BAB, too. My wife's character Wealday Addams was a halfling sorceress with Abberant bloodline who donned a chain shirt and attacked with touch spells. She had occasional spell failure, but she hit often and hit hard. She was more powerful than a magus because she had higher-level spells. Her feats were used up on Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery to eliminate the spell failure rather than on feats to increase the DCs of her spells, because touch spells seldom allow saves.

Wealday Addams was a melee character with low Strength, but an optimized melee sorcerer does not need Strength. This build has always been viable, and she was the strongest and most effective character in the party. My wilderness-survival gnome barbarian who specialized in Raging Swim, Raging Climb, and Night Vision was also unexpectedly productive, because the campaign left the party stuck in a jungle and our enemies often attacked at night.

Melee sorcerers are awesome! Perhaps my proudest moment was when a friend of mine sighed, shook his head, and said, "Of COURSE the sorcerer has a 16 Strength and is carrying a greatsword... he's YOUR sorcerer!" Still, had a higher Charisma, and proved quite hard to touch for the first few levels.

[thorin001]

There are still a lot of people who think that roleplaying is linked to mechanics in an inverse way. So the weaker your character is mechanically the stronger your roleplay game has to be.

[Jhaeman]

There are still a lot of people who think fun is linked to optimization in a direct way, so the more overpowered your character is the more fun the game will be.

I'm . . . not one of those people :)

[Claxon]

Yeah, but the Stormwind fallacy is way more common. That character optimization means bad role play.

I'll agree that people building completely ineffective characters only works if everyone at the table does it and the GM wants to run that kind of game. Otherwise, they're dead weight that shouldn't be kept around.

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

[Volkard Abendroth]

dragonhunterq wrote:

I'll be honest, players are welcome to play an 11 int wizard when I'm GMing - they won't last long because I won't softball for them. I just hope their decision doesn't lead to a TPK.

What if he is a transmuter with a 21 STR and Arcane Strike at level 1 and planning for natural attacks?

[AaronUnicorn]

Claxon wrote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

You mean Johnny Thunder or Snapper Carr or Jimmy Olsen or Rick Jones? (Or in cartoons, Snarf in Thundercats?) Yeah, who remembers that guy?

[Mysterious Stranger]

Spells are single most important class feature of the wizard. Since you are limited in what level spell you can cast based on your INT this makes the 11 INT wizard a handicap beyond 3rd level. Sure you can use the higher level spell slots for 1st level spells, but that does not help much. By the time you reach 5th to 7th level you no pretty much irrelevant to the party.

A fighter or barbarian still gets all his class abilities even with low physical stats. The barbarian can still rage, the fighter still gets his bonus feats. In both cases the BAB and saves increase at the same rate as a character with higher stats. Even the HP of the character increases at only a slightly lower rate. These things go to keep the character from being a compete drain on the party. They may not contribute as much as a better built character, but they can contribute something.

The low INT wizards BAB increase at such a slow rate that it is not relevant. They also have less AC and HP which means putting them on the front line is going to get them killed. Normally a wizard stats back and uses his spells to contribute. If the 5th level wizard is able to cast haste to boost the party keeping him safe is a good investment. If all the wizard is able to do is to cast magic missile or worse yet shocking grasp his value is not worth the effort to keep him alive.

[Volkard Abendroth]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Spells are single most important class feature of the wizard. Since you are limited in what level spell you can cast based on your INT this makes the 11 INT wizard a handicap beyond 3rd level. Sure you can use the higher level spell slots for 1st level spells, but that does not help much. By the time you reach 5th to 7th level you no pretty much irrelevant to the party.

If only there were ways to raise stats as characters progressed.

Even with a starting INT of 11, you can keep up with spell progression, You'll just never have the high DC other wizards have. This is a non-issue if you are focused on shape shifting and buffing.

What you will have is superior physical stats, higher what most characters can achieve at the save level. You would be looking at a whopping +4 stat mod at 16th level. High enough to cast 9th level spells.

I'm also assuming, with a build like this, that you eventually move into a prestige class (Eldritch Knight and Living Monolith both come to mind.)

[ryric]

I had a friend who once played a 12 Int, 18 Str wizard who "went to wizard school on a football scholarship." He multiclassed into fighter at level 2 and simply used his few spells as self-buffs. The campaign only went to level 4 or so (and we knew that going in) so an oddball concept like that was just fine.

[Claxon]

AaronUnicorn wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

You mean Johnny Thunder or Snapper Carr or Jimmy Olsen or Rick Jones? (Or in cartoons, Snarf in Thundercats?) Yeah, who remembers that guy?

I don't know who Johnny Thunder, Snapper Carr, or Rick Jones are. And the thing I remember about Jimmy Olsen is being Superman's friend. Not saving the day or being a hero.

You're actually helping to prove my point, in my opinion.

Edit: To elaborate a little more. Jimmy Olsen isn't a hero. He's not even a side kick. He's friends with Superman's alter ego, and usually requires saving from Superman more than anything else.

[pauljathome]

Claxon wrote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

In fairness, this character DOES work quite well in fiction. Zander from Buffy, Snapper Carr from the JLA (60's to early 70's. I'm an old fart), Jimmy Olsen, etc.

The (utterly brilliant) Buffy RPG even made Zanders contributions significant to the success of the team.

And people can have a lot of fun playing the Grogs in Ars Magica.

But the standard Pathfinder camapaign (one involving lots and lots of combat) isn't the venue for this. All characters are EXPECTED to contribute to combat and other adventuring.

[SorrySleeping]

You are making references from the 40s to the 60s in an incredibly specific genre. Please stop acting like not knowing those characters means a lack of literary diversity. We have people from all ages groups on this forum, and not all of us read comic books.

The only time we remember those characters is annoying comic relief. Snarf was never funny. He was always annoying. In your sessions, your entire party is Lion-O, Panthro, Cheetara, Tygra,and maybe the two kids. Your sidekicks are NPCs that you meet in the world. You wouldn't have Snarf in your main fighting force, on the battlefield, facing off against Mumm-ra.

[LordKailas]

SorrySleeping wrote:

You are making references from the 40s to the 60s in an incredibly specific genre. Please stop acting like not knowing those characters means a lack of literary diversity. We have people from all ages groups on this forum, and not all of us read comic books.

The only time we remember those characters is annoying comic relief. Snarf was never funny. He was always annoying. In your sessions, your entire party is Lion-O, Panthro, Cheetara, Tygra,and maybe the two kids. Your sidekicks are NPCs that you meet in the world. You wouldn't have Snarf in your main fighting force, on the battlefield, facing off against Mumm-ra.

I agree, to return to the jimmy olsen argument. The rest of the party is the justice league. How often do you remember the justice league saying "wait, we need to grab jimmy olsen before we head out to save the world". If sups did take jimmy along you can be assured there would be a discussion afterwards about how irresponsible it was to bring him along and put his life in danger for no reason.

It puts me in mind of a character I ran.

Spoiler:

We had a player that insisted that way play "the right way" and even put together a list of "guidelines" for how to play a "good" game. It had "no talking animals" on the list twice.

Anyway, I had a concept for a character I wanted to play. But I'd never made them because I knew it would be a more RP intensive character and I couldn't find a way to properly do the concept in pathfinder without it being sub-optimal. I wanted to make an Ex-anti-paladin. The idea was that he used to be a huge villain but had a really nasty encounter where he got level drained back to first level and then decided to follow a path of redemtion following the teachings of Korada. He had one level in rogue and the rest in paladin. He also still had his old sword (a masterwork rhoka) but it had lost most of it's powers (I had the appropriate exotic WP). The thought was he would try to refrain from using his old sword except in dire situations (since it was a temptation). This meant that he ran around punching people instead (I had improved unarmed strike so I wasn't provoking doing this). I had the idea that the sword would grow in power "on it's own" so that it would continue to be a temptation, trying to draw the character back into his old ways.

Well, since we were playing a "pirate" game this player completely flipped his lid because he just "knew" that there would be some situation where I would run off and attack someone I shouldn't and I'd get killed. Or I would play my paladin "wrong" and not deal with a situation like I should.

Well, it never happened, but said player quit the group because he didn't want to get "screwed". The thing is, my character actually didn't have any issues like expected because he was a redeemed villain. He would never attack someone just because they were evil since he used to be evil himself. Instead he would use diplomacy and intimidation to try and change the ways of other characters. If a fight was inevitable he would do so. No one in our group was evil, nor did anyone in our group plan on being evil.

TLDR: I played a paladin once and he didn't fall.

My point is, you can certainly play builds that are sub-optimal for "roleplay reasons" just make sure that you're not playing an NPC whose presence hinders the group more than it helps and of course as with any unusual build, I would also make sure that your DM is cool with the concept. In the aforementioned game, the other player complained so much about my character concept that the DM made an exception and allowed my paladin to be the same alignment as his god, NG. Though honestly, I could of been LG and it wouldn't of changed anything.

[Dave Justus]

You should certainly always consider why the other players (and their characters) would want your character on their team. The convention is that the party will try to accept any character a player brings to the table. That automatically creates an obligation to try and bring something that will work, both mechanically and for the theme of the campaign and the nature of the party.

There are a lot of possible answers to what will work though, depending on the game and the other players. If having one PC be a dependent character 'works' for the group, then that works. If having a very optimized PC doesn't work for the group, then it doesn't work.

Most of us are mature enough to talk this out and figure out how to build a party that will work for everyone.

[Volkard Abendroth]

SorrySleeping wrote:

You are making references from the 40s to the 60s in an incredibly specific genre. Please stop acting like not knowing those characters means a lack of literary diversity. We have people from all ages groups on this forum, and not all of us read comic books.

I also referenced characters in currently running, prime time TV shows.

[Mathmuse]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Claxon wrote:

AaronUnicorn wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

You mean Johnny Thunder or Snapper Carr or Jimmy Olsen or Rick Jones? (Or in cartoons, Snarf in Thundercats?) Yeah, who remembers that guy?

I don't know who Johnny Thunder, Snapper Carr, or Rick Jones are. And the thing I remember about Jimmy Olsen is being Superman's friend. Not saving the day or being a hero.

You're actually helping to prove my point, in my opinion.

Edit: To elaborate a little more. Jimmy Olsen isn't a hero. He's not even a side kick. He's friends with Superman's alter ego, and usually requires saving from Superman more than anything else.

Or demonstrating your lack of literary diversity.

Willful ignorance on your part does not make your statement correct. It just demonstrates a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to gain that understanding.

All of the current CW shows have their heroes surrounded by sidekicks that both lack superpowers and are essential to the main hero's success. E.g. Felicity Smoak.

My experiences with literary diversity (some comic books contain great stories) remember times when Jimmy Olsen did save the day. He even had his own comic book for a while. Unpowered sidekicks, such as Jimmy Olsen and Rick Jones, become the equivalent of 10th-level commoners. In a world of 1st- and 2nd-level commoners, they are awesome.

However, if these characters were dropped into Golarion (those pesky inter-dimensional portals!) and expressed as characters of the same level as a roleplaying party, they would prove Neal Litherland's premise. Rick Jones, who once served as the alter ego of Captain Marvel because they could swap places at will, would be a vigilante. Jimmy Olsen is too lawful to be a rogue, so monk without any of the Eastern mystique would fit him. Lois Lane, Superman's other unpowered friend, would be an investigator to match her reputation as a prize-winning journalist.

[Cavall]

To be fair, it's superman. When you mention the justice league you talk about "oh the guys who hang with superman" for the most part.

As for stupid wizards? Well. 11 int isn't stupid. And it's enough to cast spells. a transmuter or diviner or necromancer or abjurationist would do well enough with that.

I mean you'll not have bonus spells (key word bonus), but you'll have enough to buff or cast any spell that doesn't need a DC. Which is completely workable.

Ideal doesn't mean workable. Just means ideal.

[MerlinCross]

I'm actually fine with it to a degree. I know all too well the feeling of not doing anything due to the rest of the team being better or at least 1 person. I'd hate to see someone go through that. So my thought process is; you can do it but hope you have a build or area you focus on.

I read one story where some played a fat drunk traditional monk cleric. Had meh stats. But he actually was the support for the team. Tossed out buffs, made sure they had plenty of potions and items, drove the wagon be brought to the team and watched over it. Weak character or not what you'd expect of a Cleric but forged his own spot on the team.

I don't care what you build as along as you bring some level of use to the group like above.

[LordKailas]

Cavall wrote:

As for stupid wizards? Well. 11 int isn't stupid. And it's enough to cast spells. a transmuter or diviner or necromancer or abjurationist would do well enough with that.

11 is enough to cast 1st level spells only.

Wizard wrote:

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.

As previously stated, once a wizard hits 3rd level they will not get 2nd level spells since they only have an 11 int. Now, at 4th level they could increase their int to 12, but they will encounter the same problem once they hit 5th level (now they have 2nd level spells but not 3rd). But there's an even bigger problem, they won't get their next stat increase until 8th level. At 8th level they now have an int of 13 and can now cast 3rd level spells. At 12th level they will finally be able to cast 4th level spells. This gap continues to grow as the character gains levels. This is all of course assuming that the player is willing to "abandon their character concept" and actually put those points into int. If you don't follow then let me swap things for a moment.

Imagine that I want to play a "dumb fighter". He has a 9 intelligence and my whole roleplaying concept is that he's not very bright. Is that character still a "dumb fighter" if by level 12 I've decided to spend my points and use items to raise his intelligence to a 16? No, you're going to look at me funny if I tell you I'm playing a "dumb fighter" who ONLY has an intelligence of 16.

Without items, a character gets 5 stat increases from 1 to 20. If a wizard wants to have full access to their core class abilities by level 20 they must have a 19 in intelligence. This means that the minimum intelligence a wizard will need at 1st level is a 14. To have anything less than this is to shoot yourself in the foot for no reason. It's like playing a paladin with a charisma of 10. Sure I could do it but I just got rid of a whole bunch of abilities for no reason.

A wizard with a 14 intelligence is sub-optimal but workable. A wizard with less than that is gimped because you are completely locked out of abilities you would normally have. Sure you can expend resources to make up the gap, but that's just transference. Now you're gimped because you don't have the same amount of resources you might of otherwise had.

[AaronUnicorn]

So, to be fair, the exact question was

Quote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

And there were several distinct examples of that provided. Whether you remember them or not isn't the question, there are lots of people who do.

But that's not the same thing as the question of "Can that everyman character compete in a TTRPG on equal footing with more capable heroes?"

And the short answer is that in Pathfinder, as written, no, they cannot. There are other RPGs that do provide those kinds of characters ways that they are extremely valuable to the table (the previously mentioned "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" RPG had several very cool mechanics that could only be used by the "White Hat" players, which gave a reason why you wanted some of them at the table and not just "Heroes,") but Pathfinder does not.

And so, yeah, if everyone else is trying to create mechanically competitive characters and one person brings the 11 Intelligence Wizard to the table, then as a GM, it is very reasonable to pull that person aside and ask what their plan is, and how they can make sure that they're contributing equally to the party.

Or if everyone is trying to make those sub-optimal characters to see how well they can do as a party, then you're fine.

But that wasn't the question I was responding to. I was only answering the question of "Who remembers the story of the Joe nobody who hangs out with heroes?" And I provided an answer, which is that lots of people do.

[Stereofm]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Over the past few months, I've seen a slew of players asking how to make what is essentially an anti-class. The weak, sickly barbarian, the uncharismatic sorcerer, the fighter with no physical stats, and the one from the title, a stupid wizard. In short, the players wanted to take the attributes that a class's abilities sort of depend on, and purposefully put their lowest scores in them.

I get the reasoning behind it. If you have a character who has to struggle to overcome something, then they can feel like they have more of an arc. But if you are essentially less useful than your average commoner, why would someone bring you out into a dangerous situation? Which was why I made the case in No One Wins When You Build A Stupid Wizard that the way to have your cake and eat it too was to play a character who is actually another class. The weak "barbarian" is actually a slayer or a rogue who uses precision and tactics to overcome stronger opponents, the smart "fighter" is actually a magus or a wizard who is a soldier, using arcane power to compensate for physical frailty. Etc., etc.

What surprised me, though, was the vehement reaction from a lot of people to this opinion. If a player wants to play a wizard with an INT of 11, they said, then they should be allowed to do that for story reasons. Which left me scratching my head. After all, if you don't bring anything to the party, then why would they want you on their team?

Looking for thoughts and opinions from others. To be clear, I'm not talking about players who put their second-best stats into a class's necessities, or who use feats and class features to substitute abilities for their features. I'm talking about situations where a player is purposefully sabotaging their own character's effectiveness, and why anyone would impose that kind of a burden on the rest of their table.

Short answer from me, and YMMV :

Because the game is stupidly, childishly waaaaaay too esy as it is now, and that alone allows some players to keep any interest ?

it's not like there are too many of us around there

[Dave Justus]

"LordKailas wrote:

"Without items, a character gets 5 stat increases from 1 to 20.

Without items the game is very different. Following the standard rules, I wouldn't expect more than one level, at most, where a wizard with a starting INT of 11 didn't have access to the highest level of spells. They would of course be weaker than other wizards, lower DCs and less bonus spells, but you could certainly make such a character viable.

All that is fairly irrelevant of course. Obviously a polite person won't try to play ANY character that the other players don't agree will make the game enjoyable, and if the other players agree that the character makes the game enjoyable their is nothing wrong with playing it no matter how much an outsider might believe it is bad-wrong-fun.

I once played an Amber Game (for those that don't know, a typical PC in that system has powers that make a 20th level wizard seem like nothing) where one person ended up playing a talking horse. That was all it was, just a horse that could talk (she was a guest one night, took over an NPC role and everyone had so much fun it ended up being months.) Her character had no powers, any of the other characters could defeat her easily in any manner they chose, and she couldn't help in any sort of confrontation, but she ended up having a meaningful role as the conscious of the group as well as a lot of comic relief. Her way underpowered character was fun for her to play and made the whole game a lot better than it would have been otherwise.

[blahpers]

Oh good, another "badwrongfun" thread.

[Cavall]

LordKailas wrote:

Cavall wrote:

As for stupid wizards? Well. 11 int isn't stupid. And it's enough to cast spells. a transmuter or diviner or necromancer or abjurationist would do well enough with that.

11 is enough to cast 1st level spells only.

Wizard wrote:

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level.

As previously stated, once a wizard hits 3rd level they will not get 2nd level spells since they only have an 11 int. Now, at 4th level they could increase their int to 12, but they will encounter the same problem once they hit 5th level (now they have 2nd level spells but not 3rd). But there's an even bigger problem, they won't get their next stat increase until 8th level. At 8th level they now have an int of 13 and can now cast 3rd level spells. At 12th level they will finally be able to cast 4th level spells. This gap continues to grow as the character gains levels. This is all of course assuming that the player is willing to "abandon their character concept" and actually put those points into int. If you don't follow then let me swap things for a moment.

Imagine that I want to play a "dumb fighter". He has a 9 intelligence and my whole roleplaying concept is that he's not very bright. Is that character still a "dumb fighter" if by level 12 I've decided to spend my points and use items to raise his intelligence to a 16? No, you're going to look at me funny if I tell you I'm playing a "dumb fighter" who ONLY has an intelligence of 16.

Without items, a character gets 5 stat increases from 1 to 20. If a wizard wants to have full access to their core class abilities by level 20 they must have a 19 in intelligence. This means that the minimum intelligence a wizard will need at 1st level is a 14. To have anything less than this is to shoot yourself in the foot for no reason. It's like playing a paladin with a charisma of 10. Sure I could do it but I just got rid of a whole bunch of abilities for no reason.

A...

If only there was some sort of item you could buy before then that boosted intelligence.

[Heather 540]

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Claxon wrote:

AaronUnicorn wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

You mean Johnny Thunder or Snapper Carr or Jimmy Olsen or Rick Jones? (Or in cartoons, Snarf in Thundercats?) Yeah, who remembers that guy?

I don't know who Johnny Thunder, Snapper Carr, or Rick Jones are. And the thing I remember about Jimmy Olsen is being Superman's friend. Not saving the day or being a hero.

You're actually helping to prove my point, in my opinion.

Edit: To elaborate a little more. Jimmy Olsen isn't a hero. He's not even a side kick. He's friends with Superman's alter ego, and usually requires saving from Superman more than anything else.

Or demonstrating your lack of literary diversity.

Willful ignorance on your part does not make your statement correct. It just demonstrates a lack of understanding and an unwillingness to gain that understanding.

All of the current CW shows have their heroes surrounded by sidekicks that both lack superpowers and are essential to the main hero's success. E.g. Felicity Smoak.

I wouldn't consider Felicity Smoak on the same level as Jimmy Olsen though. She has a high level of tech skill and can hack into just about any system. That's a 'power' that lets her contribute.

[LordKailas]

Cavall wrote:

If only there was some sort of item you could buy before then that boosted intelligence.

Yeah... if only. It's a real shame I didn't talk about such items in the post you quoted....

[ryric]

LordKailas wrote:

It's like playing a paladin with a charisma of 10.

I played a dwarf paladin with a Charisma of 5 once. He became a paladin due to parental pressure, then immediately multiclassed into fighter at level 2. This was a 3.0 game, and he eventually went into Dwarven Defender, which required BAB+7, and level 7 of fighter got you bupkiss in 3.0 so I went with a more fun roleplaying option of paladin 1/fighter 6.

That was a fun character. AC in the 50s, once provoked 21 attacks of opportunity in one round from moving. We were fighting an absolute horde of humanoids and my dwarf ran to stand over a fallen ally to prevent him from getting CdG'ed.

[Claxon]

AaronUnicorn wrote:

So, to be fair, the exact question was

Quote:

Who remembers the story about the completely normal average guy with the team of superheroes who never got better or stronger or developed any powers that eventually allowed them to contribute equally? Yeah...no.

You're right, I phrased my statement incorrectly but the actual point I was trying to make remains. Playing the Everyman isn't really appropriate at a Pathfinder table unless the whole party agrees to it.

I should have phrased it as "Who remembers that time that the JLA asked Jimmy Olsen to save the day?"

I shouldn't have implied that they are always completely irrelevant to the plot, because some writers like to Deus Ex the Everyman into doing something. And I shouldn't have implied they aren't memorable, because anyone who watched ThunderCats remembers how annoying Snarf was, but we generally don't remember him for heroics.

What I was trying to get at with my original statement is that most people don't remember characters like Jimmy Olsen for heroics. Because with rare exceptions, they aren't heroes.

In Pathfinder you're (eventually) playing Superheroes.
While it's fun to have NPCs like Jimmy Olsen around you BAMF character, it's probably not fun (for the other players) if the game is set for 4 PC characters when there are only 3 PCs and 1 character that is basically a commoner or expert.

[blahpers]

The moments when the everyman succeeds are all the more memorable because the everyman didn't have superpowers to make it happen.

Anyway, as always, fun is subjective, and making sweeping statements like "you must be at least *this* optimized to play" is not healthy.

[SheepishEidolon]

LordKailas wrote:

Cavall wrote:

If only there was some sort of item you could buy before then that boosted intelligence.

Yeah... if only. It's a real shame I didn't talk about such items in the post you quoted....

These items deserve some attention for sure - because they can basically save the Int 11 wizard. Expected wealth for a 5th-level PC is 11k, meaning a 4k headband is expensive but doable. Assuming the campaign / GM permits it.

At level 11 (6th-level spells) you are in need of the next better version again, but technically you could delay the +4 headband until level 13, due to the ability score increase at level 12. 16k is little in comparison to expected wealth at level 11 (82k) or 13 (140k), though - so there is not much need for a delay.

The headbands do nothing at level 3 - but hey, if all the 6th-level casters and spontaneous 9th-level casters can wait until level 4 for 2nd-level spells, an Int 11 wizard can also.

[Claxon]

I"m not saying you can't have fun with an Everyman group. I'm saying that if the rest of the group is having to carry you, they might not find it fun. And they shouldn't have to accommodate you to have their fun.

If the whole group goes into it knowing someone is playing Jimmy Olsen, and they're cool with it, and the GM makes the game suitable for having a character like that then it could work just fine.

[WhiteMagus2000]

Neal Litherland wrote:

Over the past few months, I've seen a slew of players asking how to make what is essentially an anti-class. The weak, sickly barbarian, the uncharismatic sorcerer, the fighter with no physical stats, and the one from the title, a stupid wizard. In short, the players wanted to take the attributes that a class's abilities sort of depend on, and purposefully put their lowest scores in them.

I get the reasoning behind it. If you have a character who has to struggle to overcome something, then they can feel like they have more of an arc. But if you are essentially less useful than your average commoner, why would someone bring you out into a dangerous situation? Which was why I made the case in No One Wins When You Build A Stupid Wizard that the way to have your cake and eat it too was to play a character who is actually another class. The weak "barbarian" is actually a slayer or a rogue who uses precision and tactics to overcome stronger opponents, the smart "fighter" is actually a magus or a wizard who is a soldier, using arcane power to compensate for physical frailty. Etc., etc.

What surprised me, though, was the vehement reaction from a lot of people to this opinion. If a player wants to play a wizard with an INT of 11, they said, then they should be allowed to do that for story reasons. Which left me scratching my head. After all, if you don't bring anything to the party, then why would they want you on their team?

Looking for thoughts and opinions from others. To be clear, I'm not talking about players who put their second-best stats into a class's necessities, or who use feats and class features to substitute abilities for their features. I'm talking about situations where a player is purposefully sabotaging their own character's effectiveness, and why anyone would impose that kind of a burden on the rest of their table.

I've seen this a few times. Once was a heavy RP guy who insisted on rolling his stats (I don't generally allow this). His highest stats were a pair of 13s and I told him to re-roll or just take a 15,14,13,12,10,8. He's like "naw, I'm good, I just want to play as rolled". The rest of the party wasn't going to enjoy a cleric worse than the NPCs out of the book. Fortunately, that game only lasted a couple of sessions before work schedules changed and we had to stop meeting (although I didn't invite him to the next one).

Once we had a cleric that refused to take essential skills for the campaign, so the other players threw him overboard (it was skull and shackles) until he agreed to do some re-training.

[WhiteMagus2000]

Claxon wrote:

I"m not saying you can't have fun with an Everyman group. I'm saying that if the rest of the group is having to carry you, they might not find it fun. And they shouldn't have to accommodate you to have their fun.

If the whole group goes into it knowing someone is playing Jimmy Olsen, and they're cool with it, and the GM makes the game suitable for having a character like that then it could work just fine.

I agree, an Everyman group can be fun, but everyone has to be on board for this to work. So long as everyone is a powergamer, then its fine. So long as everyone is super RP heavy, then its fine. If everyone wants a low power or high challenge game, then its fine. Problems arise when everyone else is doing one play style, except one person.

[Volkard Abendroth]

Heather 540 wrote:

I wouldn't consider Felicity Smoak on the same level as Jimmy Olsen though. She has a high level of tech skill and can hack into just about any system. That's a 'power' that lets her contribute.

If you're just counting skill, we could call Gordon Ramsay a superhero. No normal person can cook food that good, that fast.

If all depends on how you want to define "normal person."

You could push all the way down to saying anyone with a 101 IQ and a four year degree is above average and does not count. Or, in the given context of "Superheros," with can assume is means people without mysterious powers. Computer Hacker is not a mysterious power. More than enough of them exist in the real world.

It just a normal person that is good at their job.

[Jhaeman]

I think the takeaway from this thread is that there's a lot of different ways to play Pathfinder. If anyone thinks their particular way is the only way, they are wrong.

[Saffron Marvelous]

It's not really that hard to be effective while limited to low level wizard spells. I mean, 11 base int wizard won't counter a conventional wizard of equal level, but the only reason I can think of for them to absolutely have to is either the GM acting out of spite for their build, or the player doing something that's stupid to do with a weak build. Outside of that, it's not that hard for a wizard to consume all their actions with low level/no save spells and still be a pretty integral component to the group's success.

It'd be impolite if you were like, keeping your build secret and letting people under the impression that you could do certain things die, but I've never ever seen a group where players didn't have at least some idea of what each others' characters could do, except when it's absolute beginners who've only learned their own abilities. Otherwise, talk of character optimization being a player responsibility rubs me right the wrong way.

My question when looking at a new character is always "can this player have fun with this character and be part of an integrated group?" Because frequently what's going to happen with a weak build is that situations will get resolved at warp speed compared to what they can do, so it's mainly a matter of wanting them to have a build that will actually get to play. The other thing I tend to avoid are diplomancers, because my experience is that they then want to hog every social scene, and that suddenly locks the rest of the group out of something they want to be part of.

If someone wants to run a wimp fighter or a stupid wizard or something otherwise weak and you're leery about it, honestly I'd just offer to let them run the weak build as a separate, lower levelled hireling or something. Joe the Fighter has to bring his younger brother or his mom will yell at him. Then you can let them test the waters a bit, and the weaker character won't be a huge impact on the game's balance anyway.

Edit: God now I want to make a fighter with a weak cohort and have the backstory be that the fighter is power levelling them.

[thorin001]

blahpers wrote:

Oh good, another "badwrongfun" thread.

If you are interfering with the fun of the rest of the group with your incompetence then it really is badwrongfun.

[Cavall]

If the group only sees you as competent because of your numbers, they may the ones having badwrongfun