Good Classes for bad Stats

[Elvensilver]

Some time ago, I tried out different methods of rolling out stats, such as 3D6, 4D6 drop lowest, 2D6+6, 2D8+2, 5D4...anyway, I recorded the results and each the best and worst (statwise) character out of 150. While some were downright normal, others...less so. Not strong enought to wear armor, as sickly as Raistlin Majere, only marginally more intelligent than a horse. Such things. So my question: what are good classes of the stat-handicapped? Classes for Pathfinder, where, despite having awful stats, they still can meaningfully contribute to a party. Any party constellation, any role possible, as long as they aren't total burdens to their team-mates.
My thoughts untill now:
Druid: as long as you have positive Wisdom...animal companion to hide behind, Wild Shape, some surival
Summoner: for positive Charisma...mostly the same reasoning, plus, your spellcasting stat only needs to go up to 16.

"A"
Str: 5 In: 10
Dex: 3 Wis: 15
Con: 9 Ch: 5

"L"
Str: 6 In: 8
Dex: 8 Wis: 9
Con: 6 Ch: 7

"R"
Str: 8 In: 10
Dex: 6 Wis: 5
Con: 6 Ch: 6

[Grim Reader]

Pretty much. Everyone needs Con though. But add Warlock to the list.

[grarrrg]

You could be fine, assuming at least your CHA is above 10, you can get dang near -anything- to run off of CHA (but not -everything-, some options are mutually exclusive, mainly due to Alignment).

Heck, Summoner can still work even with <10 CHA, just go Synthesist and pretend to be a Fighter.


Everyone needs Con though.

Not if you're evil with some CHA (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/a-b/agent-of-the-grave/) (especially an Evil Kobold (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/racial-feats/kobold-confidence))

[Particle_Man]

I guess there is always the weedy wizard with 11 int that stays in the back and spams magic middle until they can get their int up and or metamagic feats.

I mean you mentioned Raistlin but hey, despite a crappy con score he won Dragonlance! :smallcool:

[Ashiel]

"A"
Str: 5 In: 10
Dex: 3 Wis: 15
Con: 9 Ch: 5
Actually more than you need to play a druid. The Charisma penalty doesn't matter for Handle Animal because it's a class skill and you get a large bonus with your companion. Summon nature's ally and buff spells don't care about your save DCs, only caster level. The same is also true for clerics who can use summon monster and animate dead, and of course can be a buff-bot for the party since things like bless and resist energy do not care about your stats.


"L"
Str: 6 In: 8
Dex: 8 Wis: 9
Con: 6 Ch: 7
Similar to the above but with more emphasis on "pet" classes like druid and summoner. If you have a +2 racial to drop somewhere that could help. Honestly think at this point you're probably better spamming multiclassing for as many situational class features as you can get ahold of and then retraining them later when you have better stats and more money. That way you can pick up multiple abilities that you can use a few times per day. Something like Ranger/Paladin/Alchemist or Ranger/Paladin/Bard for example would quickly build up your saves and give you a decent boost to HP and at least give you a few immunities and skills despite your penalties, and open up your access to magic through items from their spell lists even if you can't cast them yourself.


"R"
Str: 8 In: 10
Dex: 6 Wis: 5
Con: 6 Ch: 6
If you have a +2 racial available, pretty much anything as the above, and also wizard is viable on 12 Int.

If you're using Spheres of Power as an option, pretty much all of the above is functional with careful selection of abilities. Particularly if you take the summoning or undead creation routes (at low levels you can sacrifice some goats and let the goats beat up goblins for you).

[Ashiel]

I guess there is always the weedy wizard with 11 int that stays in the back and spams magic middle until they can get their int up and or metamagic feats.

I mean you mentioned Raistlin but hey, despite a crappy con score he won Dragonlance! :smallcool:
Amusingly, that's a pretty viable strategy. Things like pearls of power I are quite cheap relative to many other items (particularly if you craft them yourself), and since you can fill higher level slots with lower level spells, you can pretty much spam a few nice 1st level spells pretty frequently. Of course you still have access to higher level magic through the use of things like wands.

Incidentally, I forget the name of it but there's a Forgotten Realms feat that lets you break higher level spell slots down into lower level spell slots (like taking a 3rd level slot and making it into three 1st level slots or something like that) which is particularly nice for such characters, since you can certainly go quantity over quality.

[upho]

I'd say this is of course highly dependent the assumed power level of the hypothetical game these poor sods are supposed to be played in. If it's say "PFS modules run as written", AFAIK none of the example stat sets are likely to cause much of a problem. At least not as long as you play a summoner, hunter or full caster matching with the highest score, with or without retrained early level class-hopping as Ashiel suggested. I'd also add that example set "R" (Int 10) is likely slightly better suited for a sage bloodline sorcerer rather than as a wizard during early levels, as it would net a few additional low-level slots for spamming.

If we're talking about say "typical Paizo AP run as written" it's pretty much the same, but you're likely gonna have to rely quite a bit more on fellow party members to cover for you in and/or outside of combat. I'd guess you'd be either sort of a very weak sorcerer or a 3.5-style "melee combat only"-fighter (synth or AC) for quite a few levels. Before late mid levels or so, you'll likely also struggle in a utility caster function expected in many AP's, and at least during the first three levels or so, I'd guess PC's based on the Con 6 "L" and "R" example sets would either have to go synth or be very careful in combat and simply run away if they cannot engage from a relatively safe position via spells and/or a pet.

But if it's game with just a bit higher assumed power level than "typical Paizo AP run as written", you'll have drastically fewer viable options to avoid becoming a burden for your party. Synth, or druid or hunter with a powerful AC, would of course most likely still work, especially if Cha or Wis is your highest score, but otherwise you're kinda screwed during at least the lower levels. And if we go a step or two further up the game power ladder, to say my own current "long-haul" tweaked RotRL game with a kinda "high T3 - high T2 PCs based on T3 - T4 classes"-power, I can't see any way for you to not simply end up as the outlier causing me a major headache every time I'm preparing challenges, even if you were allowed to play any Paizo or DSP class as written (which they other PCs can't). Maybe in high levels with some very serious optimization, assuming you've crafted the perfect gear to cover all your gaping holes. And something like a PF Tippy-verse would of course be right out of the question without access to some very serious 3.5 cheese I gather would be considered questionable even in such a game.

Also, damn those stat sets sure are depressing! Even if a player for some reason decided to roll stats instead of using point-buy in one of my games, regardless of the power level of the game I'd sure allow them to change their mind if they rolled one of those sets. And though I personally think those sets are kinda interesting TO exercises, I'm pretty certain I'd soon find it boring and tedious to play a character based on one of them in a vast majority of actual games.

EDIT: Tip: try using anydice.com (https://anydice.com/) if you feel like finding out the standard deviations of various die combos again, saves you from having to do a lot of tedious rolling and algebra (or seriously high-level probability math). I've found it to be very helpful when I've wanted to for example compare the various averages of different complex die combos. /EDIT

[StreamOfTheSky]

D&D 3.5E specifically has a rule that player characters should have a net ability modifier (after adding together all of them) of +1 before racial modifiers, and if you don't get that, you can roll again. Did Pathfinder get rid of this rule?

[ericgrau]

D&D 3.5E specifically has a rule that player characters should have a net ability modifier (after adding together all of them) of +1 before racial modifiers, and if you don't get that, you can roll again. Did Pathfinder get rid of this rule?

Yeah and with that rule you can put a 13 in cha or int and be a sorcerer or wizard and do pretty well. Pick spells without a save DC or a nice save partial, hide in back, get false life, toad familiar perhaps, PF favored class bonuses to HP, PF toughness (+1 HP/level, min 3 IIRC)). Not a big deal at all. Yeah, absolute worst you might have 12/10/10/10/10/10 if you're really unlucky, but the odds seem low. And even then it's manageable. At level 4 you bump it to 13. By level 7 you get a +2 item (15). Bump it again at 8 (16). By level 11 you're up to a +4 item (18). The is the very first level it barely inconveniences you with an expensive but still plenty affordable item. Level 12 you put another +1 in and you're set for life.

Yeah mental ability damage sucks for such a character, but it's very rare. And if you have a 13-14 you can get a little buffer. Heck give the cleric a scroll of lesser restoration or two just to be safe. But not only are you not a burden on the party, you can do quite well.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah and with that rule you can put a 13 in cha or int and be a sorcerer or wizard and do pretty well. Pick spells without a save DC or a nice save partial, hide in back, get false life, toad familiar perhaps, PF favored class bonuses to HP, PF toughness (+1 HP/level, min 3 IIRC)). Not a big deal at all. Yeah, absolute worst you might have 12/10/10/10/10/10 if you're really unlucky, but the odds seem low. And even then it's manageable. At level 4 you bump it to 13. By level 7 you get a +2 item (15). Bump it again at 8 (16). By level 11 you're up to a +4 item (18). The is the very first level it barely inconveniences you with an expensive but still plenty affordable item. Level 12 you put another +1 in and you're set for life.

Yeah mental ability damage sucks for such a character, but it's very rare. And if you have a 13-14 you can get a little buffer. Heck give the cleric a scroll of lesser restoration or two just to be safe. But not only are you not a burden on the party, you can do quite well.

No, I mean all of the OP's examples of bad stat arrays are well below that threshold.

I clicked on the thread expecting stats like you said, but the ones the OP listed are literally so bad that they're not actually possible by RAW.

[Elvensilver]

Thanks for the input! I haven't tought of Hunter and Synthesist, and they both seem amazing for the task.


D&D 3.5E specifically has a rule that player characters should have a net ability modifier (after adding together all of them) of +1 before racial modifiers, and if you don't get that, you can roll again. Did Pathfinder get rid of this rule?
I didn't knew about this. If it is also a rule in Pathfinder, could anybody point out where it's written?

@upho: wow, I'd never guess that Paizo Adventurer Paths are this easy...till now, I only played in homebrew campaigns.

All in all, regardless of the Minimum modifier of +1 rule, it is more of a thought exercise- while all the DMs I played with let the players roll for their character's stats, none of them wouldn't allow rerolls for such abysimal results. Although, sure, (role-)playing your dumpstats is funny! I'd actually probably decide to play "A", but only because he has some strengths, too.

About using anydice.com (http://anydice.com), that sure is a handy tool! Aside from 4d6 drop lowest I didn't really have problems calculating standard deviations and averages of different methodes with Excel or Matlab. I found it more interesting to actually roll to get the best and worst characters (so that it wouldn't be 3/3/3/3/3/3 or 18/18/18/18/18/18 like with an infinite number of rolls)- after all, that is also what I would do in an actual game, and the results are less improbable.

[ericgrau]

No, I mean all of the OP's examples of bad stat arrays are well below that threshold.

I clicked on the thread expecting stats like you said, but the ones the OP listed are literally so bad that they're not actually possible by RAW.



All in all, regardless of the Minimum modifier of +1 rule, it is more of a thought exercise- while all the DMs I played with let the players roll for their character's stats, none of them wouldn't allow rerolls for such abysimal results. Although, sure, (role-)playing your dumpstats is funny! I'd actually probably decide to play "A", but only because he has some strengths, too.

Yeah I went more for a practical approach. If you roll bad just play a mage.

As for thought experiment, basically replace your character with class feature(s). Eidolon maybe? Sorry if my memory of them is hazy and this doesn't work, but you get the idea. As for your actual character's body, if nothing else get toughness, full plate, etc. and cower during fights.

[upho]

Thanks for the input! I haven't tought of Hunter and Synthesist, and they both seem amazing for the task.Yeah, especially during lower levels, and especially the synth since it basically makes your physical stats irrelevant. The problem for PCs with such pathetic stats is that these classes may also be the only (barely) viable options in many games, and that those stats will also make viable build options aside from class extremely limited, along with the number of activities they're able to participate in actual play. Not much player choice involved, unfortunately.


I didn't knew about this. If it is also a rule in Pathfinder, could anybody point out where it's written?There isn't one AFAIK, especially considering the CRB calls "4d6 drop lowest" the "standard" ability score generation method, and includes even "3d6 in order" as an "alternative" method, neither one mentioning any minimum total net modifier values, re-rolls or other adjustments whatsoever to mitigate bad luck.


@upho: wow, I'd never guess that Paizo Adventurer Paths are this easy...till now, I only played in homebrew campaigns.Well, of course you may hear people say otherwise. But generally speaking, AP's follow the GM recommendations for the CR of encounters. Which of course does create quite a lot of variation in difficulty depending on the abilities of the specific party and how fitting specific CR ratings actually are, but are on average very easily handled by moderately well-built and tactically well-played characters. Whereas a party of more optimized and smartly played characters can often easily be at least two levels below the recommended and still have no problems IME.


All in all, regardless of the Minimum modifier of +1 rule, it is more of a thought exercise- while all the DMs I played with let the players roll for their character's stats, none of them wouldn't allow rerolls for such abysimal results. Although, sure, (role-)playing your dumpstats is funny! I'd actually probably decide to play "A", but only because he has some strengths, too.IMO, a character with basically only dumpstats is quite a different matter though. Though I can definitely imagine enjoying say a special one-off playing such a crippled character. It's just that for a whole campaign, I'd find the extremely limited number of ways to have any meaningful mechanical interaction with the environment or impact on the story would quickly become frustrating. Especially in a game like PF where a large majority of such things are regulated by the mechanics. Would be sorta like playing a very poorly built vanilla fighter or monk who can at best deal a bit of damage in melee, but is mechanically rather useless in all situations when melee damage isn't applicable. (Though actually at least the synth could be pretty darn strong in melee.)


About using anydice.com (http://anydice.com), that sure is a handy tool! Aside from 4d6 drop lowest I didn't really have problems calculating standard deviations and averages of different methodes with Excel or Matlab. I found it more interesting to actually roll to get the best and worst characters (so that it wouldn't be 3/3/3/3/3/3 or 18/18/18/18/18/18 like with an infinite number of rolls)- after all, that is also what I would do in an actual game, and the results are less improbable.Well, while you don't get to do the actual rolling, I think there are two advantages with anydice aside from quick results. First, you get graphs allowing for easy comparisons between different combos, including options for interesting averages such as "at least". Which BTW also allows you to quickly get pretty much exactly what your rolls gave; simply pick the probability threshold you prefer, and you'll have the average numbers of the worst set above that threshold. Second, it's for those damn hard (at least for me) ones with multiple rolls simultaneously involving stuff like changing thresholds and multiple rules for exploding dice and/or replacing rolls. Although this is of course mostly for really nerdy stuff like finding out how one particular crit effect option compares to another if both can affect for example the total number of attacks possible per round, the hit chance and damage of subsequent attacks in the round, etc.

[Jay R]

Back in 1976, in original D&D, my DM looked at my stats and said, "He stays at home on the farm, marries a farm girl, lives a good life, and dies in bed. Good game. Let's play another one. Roll a new character."

This is the proper game for a PC with really poor stats.

[grarrrg]

Back in 1976, in original D&D, my DM looked at my stats and said, "He stays at home on the farm, marries a farm girl, lives a good life, and dies in bed. Good game. Let's play another one. Roll a new character."

This is the proper game for a PC with really poor stats.

Why is there no option to upvote this?