(3.5) Always starting casters with 18 in casting stat

[Biggus]

Starting a new thread to avoid derailing this one (http://http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?591895-why-roll-hit-dice).



Q: What Int does a wizard start with, pre-racial, in a 36 point buy game?
A: 18

Q: What Int does a wizard start with, pre-racial, in a 20 point buy game?
A: STILL 18

I see this idea a lot, that a caster should always start with an 18 in their casting stat no matter how bad it makes their other stats. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, given that it takes 6 points to increase a 16 to an 18, when the same 6 points could increase your Dex or Con from 8 to 14, which for a Wizard or Sorcerer could more than double your HPs, or increase your initiative, AC, reflex saves and ranged attacks by 3, whereas the extra 2 points on your casting stat only increases your save DCs by 1 (which only matters 1 time in 20, and many spells don't allow a save) and gives you a small number of extra spells per day at higher levels (and none at all for the first 6).

I understand that Wizards and Sorcerers prefer to avoid combat, but this isn't always possible, especially at lower levels.

So, what am I missing? Why is this widely considered a good strategy?

[MisterKaws]

One casting of Sleep or Color Spray will break an encounter most of the time at levels 1-2, and afterwards you have Glitterdust, which can carry you for quite a long time. Those three spells require a high casting stat to be used effectively, and that's why people tell you to have your stats as high as you can.

[DdarkED]

DC pumping (for your save or suck/lose/die's) and bonus spells. the same reason you see builds/guides suggest getting items that buff your primary casting stat.

2 of the casting stats come with good side benefits (could argue all 3) wis is used in Will Saves, Int for Skill Points and, charisma can be powerful as well with bluff/diplomacy ect

[Nebuul]

Don't forget that charisma can turn charm into dominate.

[Anthrowhale]

If you have a character concept that isn't about optimization, then I think it's fine to have a less-than-maximum stat.

If you are optimizing though,

18 may become 20 post-racial which makes a difference between 3 and 4 spells at level 1 which matters a fair bit if you have 4 encounters/day (which the game is built around).
When the point buy is low you can sometimes use the X to Y list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?125732-3-x-X-stat-to-Y-bonus) to work around the downsides of specializing.
Once Polymorph/Wild Shape/etc... comes online, you don't really care about your physical stats much so investment in them is often a waste. This happens as early as level 1 when you are a Hengeyokai, level 2 for a Mulhorandi Divine Minion, or level 3 if you pay for spellcasting services[Polymorph Any Object].


There are times when you would sacrifice your casting stat though. For example, if you are in a duel situation at level 1 restricted to core races, taking Dexterity 14 may be more important than Int 18 since the primary failure mode is simply not being able to act before you are dead.

[heavyfuel]

I always asked this myself. I think it's a stupid idea that has somehow remained within our midst.

Don't your casters get attacked? Even if you have Abrupt Jaunt (which is super stupid), you still only negate 1 atk/round.

Are you really gonna put no points in Con for HP or Dex for Ac.

Speaking of Dex and Con, don't you ever get target on Fort and Reflex saves? Surely the enemy spellcaster, upon seeing your sickened complexity and lack of coordination, will target these two saves.

Still on Dex, don't you like winning Initiative?

Even with good Will progression, dumping Wis might make you vulnerable to Will saves.

Yeah, I'd much rather play a Wizard with 14 int and other decent scores than 18 Int and crap for con/dex/wis

[SangoProduction]

Depends on your build. If you've got a lot of disables, which act as force multipliers for your team (let alone save or dies), then DC bumps are god. If they save, you wasted an entire turn. If they don't, you win the fight. Hyper binary here.

If you are a blaster, then you're always dealing some amount of damage, even on a successful save. Or you are targeting touch attack, which has been almost calculated to ensure you literally always hit with minimal difficulty. Or you are using Magic Missile to kill secure.
Either way, you don't need DCs anywhere near as much. You could also simply just play a Warlock with 7 in every stat. But point remains.

[iceifur]

It all depends on how long you think the campaign will last.

In short campaigns where you don't think you'll make it past level 8 or so, that 18 (or 20, if your race has a +2 bonus) in your casting stat is a noticeable advantage, as the others have noted.

In longer campaigns, especially ones in which aging comes into play, you can manipulate the math a bit to accommodate the entended game. For example, if you start with a 15 in your casting stat and play a race with a +2 bonus to the relevant stat (for a total starting stat of 17), you not only save 8 point buy points, but after adding +5 to the stat from leveling, +5 inherent from wishes or a stat book, +6 enhancement from a stat item, and +3 from aging, you still end up with a 36 (+13 ability modifier) in your casting stat, which gives you 2 bonus 9th-level spells. Of course, if you really want to "optimize" the stats this way, you start with odd numbers in all your physical scores and even numbers in your other two mental scores for similar mathemagical reasons.

[False God]

At the levels where a magic user is vulnerable, are any of those other points really going to matter? I mean, a Wizard has 1d4 HD. Even maximized that's 4 points. Raising your AC from 10-12 or your Con from +0 (or less) to +2 doesn't make much of a difference either way, a single hit and you're dead.

And further down the road these elements will become even less valuable. By 10th level your +2 Con has gained you 20 HP, two good longsword hits from monsters that regularly do that each turn. Your HD are still only ringing in at a whopping ~25 points themselves. But by 10th level you have access to a variety of AC-boosting spells and you got Polymorph 3 levels ago!

And really, if the bad guys are getting past your front-liners....how many HP you have isn't the problem here.

[rel]

This is basic min maxing. You pick one thing, stack it as high as possible and mitigate the weaknesses being introduced by everything else being low.
Single attribute dependent builds are considered strong specifically because you can pull this trick off easily.

Now, you don't Have to min max. And it isn't impossible to make a build that casts spells and functions fine despite a low casting stat.
However, if you want a powerful and effective casting build and you don't have something really specific in mind, maxing your casting stat is a quick easy way to give a casting build a shot of power at pretty much any level of play or optimisation.

[Maat Mons]

Where's this "20 point buy" coming from? The DMG has 15, 22, 28, and 32.

22 point buy is enough the put 18 in your casting stat, and still have enough left over for 14 constitution. That's quite workable for a pure caster.

15 point buy isn't enough to get an 18 period. So this discussion doesn't really apply.

[Khedrac]

I have to add that waht is said on the boards, and what a lot of people encounter in real life often differ greatly.

I am one of the better(?) optimizers in our group and we usually play 28 point buy - and I rarely put an 18 in a casting stat (it happens sometimes) - usually because I believe that a well-rounded character is more likely to survive and more fun to play.

Now, if generating a character to start above 4th (or better 8th) level it makes much more sense to push the primary casting stat higher - because it is much easier to use magic items to compensate for low stats elsewhere. (It is still something I try to avoid for realism reasons.)

[Zaq]

I don’t think I’ve ever had a preracial 18 on a caster.

[Biggus]

Thank you for the replies, I do understand better now why you would do this. It appears that the answer to the question "should you put an 18 in your casting stat even with low point buy?" is "it depends". It depends on your build, on what enemies you're expecting to face, on what level the campaign is starting at. More specifically, it depends how tolerant your DM is of Polymorph cheese :smallwink:



18 may become 20 post-racial which makes a difference between 3 and 4 spells at level 1 which matters a fair bit if you have 4 encounters/day (which the game is built around).


Where did you get the idea that the game is built around 4 encounters/day? The only reference to it I know of is in the DMG (p.49) it says that on average, after 4 encounters of the party's level they will need to rest and heal or risk being wiped out. But later on the same page it says that only 50% of encounters should be same-level, with the other 50% higher or lower level, so it should be a common occurrence for there to be more or less than 4 encounters in a given day.

And this assumes we're talking about a dungeon-crawl style adventure where the PCs are able to choose how many encounters they have, in many types of adventure this is not the case.

In games I've played, having exactly 4 encounters happens less than half the time: in fact, it's quite common to only have one.



it isn't impossible to make a build that casts spells and functions fine despite a low casting stat.


I'm not talking about having a low casting stat: 16 is a high casting stat, it's just not the absolute maximum.



And really, if the bad guys are getting past your front-liners....how many HP you have isn't the problem here.

Bad guys can teleport, fly, burrow, tumble, go invisible, use ranged attacks...if your enemies never get past your front-liners, the DM is going easy on you.

[heavyfuel]

Bad guys can teleport, fly, burrow, tumble, go invisible, use ranged attacks...if your enemies never get past your front-liners, the DM is going easy on you.

Completely agree. Not to mention that - with every DM I've ever played - looking like a caster* or casting any somewhat high-level** spell is basically the same as putting a giant target on your head.

*Not just physical attributes like carrying a spell component pouch, but the general behavior like staying in the back lines.

**High level is based on the level/CR the enemy is. Level/CR 4 enemies would consider a Fireball to be a high level spell, assuming they can identify it.


At the levels where a magic user is vulnerable, are any of those other points really going to matter? I mean, a Wizard has 1d4 HD. Even maximized that's 4 points. Raising your AC from 10-12 or your Con from +0 (or less) to +2 doesn't make much of a difference either way, a single hit and you're dead.

And further down the road these elements will become even less valuable. By 10th level your +2 Con has gained you 20 HP, two good longsword hits from monsters that regularly do that each turn. Your HD are still only ringing in at a whopping ~25 points themselves. But by 10th level you have access to a variety of AC-boosting spells and you got Polymorph 3 levels ago!

And really, if the bad guys are getting past your front-liners....how many HP you have isn't the problem here.

Having +2 Con pretty much doubles a Wizard's HP lol. How is that not a relevant difference?

Also, because of how AC works, a +2 to AC is always relevant, unless the enemy would hit you on a nat 2 anyway. If he previously needed a 3 to hit you, now he needs a 5. You increased the chance of him missing by 100% (previously he missed on a 1 or 2 - two number. Now he misses on a 1, 2, 3, or 4 - four numbers)

Not to mention initiative. Losing the initiative means you likely won't even get to cast your Sleep spell.

[Biggus]

Not to mention that - with every DM I've ever played - looking like a caster* or casting any somewhat high-level** spell is basically the same as putting a giant target on your head.


Exactly my point: intelligent opponents will preferentially target casters if they have the means to do so (if even low-Int enemies do it your DM is not playing fair though, at least until it becomes obvious the caster is the one doing their side the most harm).



Not to mention initiative. Losing the initiative means you likely won't even get to cast your Sleep spell.

Yes, for me this is one of the strongest arguments for saving some points for Dex: going first is extremely valuable to casters, so unless you have some means of getting around that even at low levels (like the early Polymorph tricks Anthrowhale mentioned) a +3 to initiative is comparable in value on its own to a +1 to save DCs, even before you consider the increased AC etc.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Should you max your casting stat?

Hard yes: Wizards and Druids. Wizards are painfully reliant on that high INT; everything they do is about their spellcasting. More slots means more versatility and staying power, and they're often throwing around Save-or-X. More int giving more skill points and knowledge is icing. Druids max Wisdom simply because they're the closest to a true-SAD class in the game; they basically just need a touch of Con and that's it. Pre-wildshape the reasoning is more like Wizards.

Usually yes: Sorcerers and fixed list casters. Still heavily reliant on save DCs, still pretty SAD, various ancillary benefits to their casting stat. But you could get away with a 16 for better con/dex, especially in low point buy.

It depends: Cleric. Are you going more "cleric as wizard impersonator," using the variety of good Save-or-X that they get? Go ahead and max wisdom. But the classic cleric (IMO) is the 'Zilla, who doesn't want to dump anything and wants several stats high. Such a Cleric doesn't throw around a lot of Save-or-X and doesn't need to cast a spell to be effective, and so can afford to lose a couple spell slots and points of save DC to shore up the other areas.

Also, at the lowest levels, many suboptimal choices look better because of the PCs' fragility. In core, a 1st level sorcerer or wizard might pick a toad familiar for toughness just to (maybe) survive one more goblin javelin. That doesn't make it a great choice later on... and then again maybe those same casters want to pump their DCs as much as possible, figuring their best chance of survival is to wreck encounters before the javelins can be thrown at all.

[Buufreak]

Tangentially, I had a thread about a year ago arguing the specific situations in which having an absolutely maxed out int score wasn't the wisest decision. Turns out, in an arena setting where you are playing a mailman, dex slightly outweighs int, but not by much, and int should definitely be your second stat.


Don't forget that charisma can turn charm into dominate.

No. No it doesn't.

[magic9mushroom]

(and none at all for the first 6)
"First 3-4" is probably more true here. Buying a +2 item of [casting stat] is quite doable at level 4 or 5.

So, what am I missing? Why is this widely considered a good strategy?
Well, in a no-holds-barred game and the specific case of Wizards there's the old standby of Faerie Mysteries Initiate. With that feat I absolutely would say "get 18 Int at all costs". This also applies to some extent to anybody going Necropolitan.

Otherwise, I'd definitely say 14 Con 16 casting stat > 8 Con 18 casting stat. Dex... eh. Initiative matters, yes, but +1 on an opposed roll is worth less than +1 to DC or +1 to a roll vs. DC for maths reasons, and most of the other things Dex does can be worked around. Dex is nice, certainly, but I'd definitely only start investing in Dex after 14 Con 16 casting stat.

[Gnaeus]

Having +2 Con pretty much doubles a Wizard's HP lol. How is that not a relevant difference?

Not to mention initiative. Losing the initiative means you likely won't even get to cast your Sleep spell.

Level 1
Me 4hp you 6 hp
Level 2
Me 7hp you 11hp
Level 3
Me 17 hp you 15 hp
Because with a 20 starting int, at level 3 I have a bonus spell of second level with my int +2 item. I can use that for false life, for 8.5 bonus HP for hours.

If I have 1 extra first level spell, nerveskitter>> +1 or 2 initiative. I can use it to give initiative to myself or someone else.

The extra spells usually more than compensate for the bonuses for slightly higher non casting stats. The higher save DCs, extra skill points, and bonuses for prime skills make int stacking a clear win.


"First 3-4" is probably more true here. Buying a +2 item of [casting stat] is quite doable at level 4 or 5.

But making one with CWI is affordable by 3. It’s only 2kgp crafted. It’s cheaper than a +1 sword for the fighter. I would have my +4 by mid way through 6

[heavyfuel]

like the early Polymorph tricks Anthrowhale mentioned

What is this trick anyway? Polymorph only lasts 1 min/lv, so you're spending a high-level slot and your standard action to get some buff, the standard action wasted here being the main thing.

[Zancloufer]

While I don't play in many PnP games I have done a lot of 3.x video games and DM a 3.x table on the regular.

18 in your casting stat for a Psion/Wizard/Sorcerer is rare pre-racial mods at level 1. I wouldn't even see/put a 18 in a casting stat with anything less than 30 PB. It is basically impossible to have an 18 with less than 22 PB and I would argue is down right counter-productive pre 30 PB.

Mind you at 30+ PB having 18 in your main spell casting stat for a Psion/Wizard/Druid and even sometimes sorcerer isn't a terrible idea though I would argue it's only good in theory games not games people actually play. People forget that you can't always stop an encounter with your front line and that Sleep/Colour spray in theory end encounters, they also mean instant death to a Wizard who can't take a hit if anything goes wrong.

Well, instant death if they dump physical stats. An 18 Int wizard with 18 PB isn't a PC but a Red Shirt.

[Gnaeus]

What is this trick anyway? Polymorph only lasts 1 min/lv, so you're spending a high-level slot and your standard action to get some buff, the standard action wasted here being the main thing.

They talking about buying a Polymorph any Object with a permanent duration from a high level caster.

My DMs wouldn’t allow it either. But RAW it’s fair

[heavyfuel]

They talking about buying a Polymorph any Object with a permanent duration from a high level caster.

My DMs wouldn’t allow it either. But RAW it’s fair

Oh, I see. We've had PAO blanket banned for so long that I even forgot it was a thing. Thanks!

[Elkad]

Stat selection by points. Anything not listed is 7 (minus racials)
10=17 Int, Con8, Dex8 - I'll make a Psion instead of a Wizard, so I can run Vigor in emergencies.
15=18 Int, Con10, Dex 8 - Wizard

Everything more than that. 18 Int, and increases go in con (to 14), dex (to 14), get wis to 10, and then split between dex/con as desired.

I'll happily play a Str:5 Con:6 Dex:10 Grey Elf in a 15pt game to have a 20 Int. And be Venerable for Int:23 if the DM will allow it. I'll get some slaves to carry my palanquin, since I'm Str:1, Con:1, Dex:4. Once my Con hits 5 on a d4 class, the next 4 points lost have no effect anyway. I'll put shutters on the palanquin and train my familiar or unseen servant to open/close them on my turn. And I'll still get to watch the mayfly races be born, age, and die before I do.

Of course I'd prefer a Lesser Air Genasi or a Wild Gnome WILD! I tell you! (eww, spd20) or a Half-Gnome or Lesser Tiefling or Wispling (spd20 again) to avoid the Con/Dex hits.

The barbarian can carry my stuff (and me, if we have a forced march and I get tired).

In combat on my own feet I can hide behind the rogue, barbarian, animal companion, cleric, paladin, druid, or my own familiar. Plus pets, slaves, henchmen, summons, caltrops, blockades, cloudy conjuration, or just plain running away around a corner. If the enemy even gets a swing at me, I've made a tactical error. Adventurers with Int:20 don't make tactical errors, therefore it's not going to happen.


Yes, there is some - OK, quite a lot - Wis:7 hubris in there

[Gnaeus]

Well, instant death if they dump physical stats. An 18 Int wizard with 18 PB isn't a PC but a Red Shirt.

He’s probably among the best characters in the party.

An 18 PB Grey elf wizard probably looks like
Str 6
Dex 10
Con 8
Int 20
Wis 8
Cha 8

His 3 HP are no doubt an issue. But if he had 4 or 5 he could still be 1 shot. As a focused specialist he has 5 spells per day, DC 16. He will stay in the back, making use of his 28 skill points and spells, playing cautiously. Probably a knowledge specialist. He has +0 initiative before familiar or nerveskitter or feat. I’d probably take a toad for +3 hp and swap it out at 3. He also has cantrips for some extra utility. He can scribe scrolls for a bigger pile of utility, unless he swapped it for a combat feat, like improved initiative. Hasn’t spent his level 1 feat yet.

An 18 PB human monk probably looks like
Str 14
Dex 12
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 8

That’s a front line fighter with 9 hp, +2 1d6+2 or +0/+0. He has 12 AC. His massive +1 initiative makes him marginally less likely to be flat footed, but if he is he is AC11 in the front row. His 16 skills make him pretty useless outside combat. Now he is human, so 2 feats. Good luck fixing that with 2 feats. (That’s probably close to the array for most combatants. The ranger may swap Str and dex. The Paladin can’t afford decent cha and wis. Fighter may or may not go con 14 wis 10. None of them can do their party role as well as the wizard.)

I’ll take the wizard, thanks.

[Nebuul]

No. No it doesn't.

From charm person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm):

You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do.

If your charisma is high enough, you can make a charmed creature do anything you want short of harming itself. A high charisma turns charm from useful into full-on broken.

[Gnaeus]

From charm person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm):


If your charisma is high enough, you can make a charmed creature do anything you want short of harming itself. A high charisma turns charm from useful into full-on broken.

That’s true enough, but it’s probably only an issue in really high PB. Unless you are an Enchanter Cha probably is your dump stat. And they need to fail a save for it to be relevant at all. I would expect most wizards with decent opti-fu to take enchantment as an opposition school. It’s too easy to hard counter with things like immunity to mind affecting or mind blank or even protection from evil. Leave the mind control to sorcerers and beguilers.

[pabelfly]

An 18 PB human monk probably looks like
Str 14
Dex 12
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 8

That’s a front line fighter with 9 hp, +2 1d6+2 or +0/+0. He has 12 AC. His massive +1 initiative makes him marginally less likely to be flat footed, but if he is he is AC11 in the front row. His 16 skills make him pretty useless outside combat. Now he is human, so 2 feats. Good luck fixing that with 2 feats.

I’ll take the wizard, thanks.

That's just an argument for how bad a Monk is, especially with a low point buy, which I don't think anyone would disagree with. A more fair comparison would be something like:

Orc 18PB Fighter
Str 20
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 6
Wis 6
Cha 6

They start with 150 gold, and we'll presume they've got a greataxe (20 gold) and studded leather armor (25 gold) for some basic gear. The character still has 105 gold to spend, as well as a fighter bonus feat and a normal feat of their choice.

HP is 12. Attack rolls are at +6. Damage is a D12 + 7. AC is 13.

A wizard is going to be really helpful to the party, sure. They have a lot of utility with their spells, and I'd rather have a Wizard's skill points and skill selection. But at low-level, a decent melee character is definitely doing a lot better than what you're depicting.

[Gnaeus]

That's just an argument for how bad a Monk is, especially with a low point buy, which I don't think anyone would disagree with. A more fair comparison would be something like:

Orc 18PB Fighter
Str 20
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 6
Wis 6
Cha 6

They start with 150 gold, and we'll presume they've got a greataxe (20 gold) and studded leather armor (25 gold) for some basic gear. The character still has 105 gold to spend, as well as a fighter bonus feat and a normal feat of their choice.

HP is 12. Attack rolls are at +6. Damage is a D12 + 7. AC is 13.

A wizard is going to be really helpful to the party, sure. They have a lot of utility with their spells, and I'd rather have a Wizard's skill points and skill selection. But at low-level, a decent melee character is definitely doing a lot better than what you're depicting.

And that’s just an argument for how good Barbarian is. A paladin or ranger can’t dump stats like that. 18 Pb muggle is a range with my monk at one end, that guy at the other. I’d argue most are closer to the monk than the Barbarian. But....

A Str 20 Barbarian is hardly an argument against min-maxing for a 20 casting stat. Kinda the opposite in fact. If I’m in a game with THAT as a thing, I’d much, much rather have a DC 16 will save where I could beat it than a +1 AC or hp. Whether the wizard has 8 con or 14 it’s equally dead if it gets hit.

Edit. Oh it’s a fighter. Same comments apply. It would be better as a Barbarian. Also, I would argue that this guy can’t actually fulfill its role either. The -2 will save makes it a liability, and 6/6 int/wis should preclude him from intelligent play. Regardless, it’s hard to say that a 4 skill point ugly moron is a clear winner over the gray elf in almost any metric.

[Zancloufer]

He’s probably the best character in the party.

An 18 PB Grey elf wizard probably looks like
Str 6
Dex 10
Con 8
Int 20
Wis 8
Cha 8

His 3 HP are no doubt an issue. But if he had 4 or 5 he could still be 1 shot. As a focused specialist he has 5 spells per day, DC 16. He will stay in the back, making use of his 28 skill points and spells, playing cautiously. Probably a knowledge specialist. He has +0 initiative before familiar or nerveskitter or feat. I’d probably take a toad for +3 hp and swap it out at 3. He also has cantrips for some extra utility. He can scribe scrolls for a bigger pile of utility, unless he swapped it for a combat feat, like improved initiative. Hasn’t spent his level 1 feat yet.

An 18 PB human monk probably looks like
Str 14
Dex 12
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 8

That’s a front line fighter with 9 hp, +2 1d6+2 or +0/+0. He has 12 AC. His massive +1 initiative makes him marginally less likely to be flat footed, but if he is he is AC11 in the front row. His 16 skills make him pretty useless outside combat. Now he is human, so 2 feats. Good luck fixing that with 2 feats. (That’s probably close to the array for most combatants. The ranger may swap Str and dex. The Paladin can’t afford decent cha and wis. Fighter may or may not go con 14 wis 10. None of them can do their party role as well as the wizard.)

I’ll take the wizard, thanks.

Monks are just bad. Especially with low PB. This might be the most unfair comparison possible.

On the note of those dumped physical stats: Your 6 str wizard is going to have no carrying capacity. Maybe not an issue eventually but it's going to be VERY limiting. Heck he can't even carry a Bag of Holding without stripping naked or taking penalties for encumbrance unless he gets a strength boosting item.

HP/ AC wise? Okay let us take that bottom of the barrel Monk and wizard and compare them to a Golbin. They have a CR of 1/3 so fighting 3-8 is within the CR and encounter parameters. The Goblin has +2 to hit and deals 1d6 damage. Versus our squishy Wizard they have a 60% chance to hit and 66% chance to KO the wizard. Three attacks of minimum roll with KO the wizard which is 6 attacks max. Which means about a 40% chance to take him down.

The monk (Who has 12 AC, not 11 BTW) has a 50% chance to be hit and a 0% chance to KO the monk, well a 0.08% of a confirmed critical to take him out. Odds are it will take 3 hits to KO him but the best case scenario is about 9 hits.

Yes the Wizard might KO the entire goblin party but he NEEDS TO. If he doesn't odds are he is dead. He could try casting defensively but at level 1 with 8 con he only has a 45% chance of succeeding on that. Considering that sleep is a full round to cast and Colour spray is close range. . .

[pabelfly]

And that’s just an argument for how good Barbarian is. A paladin or ranger can’t dump stats like that. 18 Pb muggle is a range with my monk at one end, that guy at the other. I’d argue most are closer to the monk than the Barbarian. But....

A Str 20 Barbarian is hardly an argument against min-maxing for a 20 casting stat. Kinda the opposite in fact. If I’m in a game with THAT as a thing, I’d much, much rather have a DC 16 will save where I could beat it than a +1 AC or hp. Whether the wizard has 8 con or 14 it’s equally dead if it gets hit.

Edit. Oh it’s a fighter. Same comments apply. It would be better as a Barbarian. Also, I would argue that this guy can’t actually fulfill its role either. The -2 will save makes it a liability, and 6/6 int/wis should preclude him from intelligent play.


There are quite a few decent melee classes, depending on what books are allowed - Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader, Psychic Warrior, and Totemist are a few examples that come to mind. A lot more options are quite viable with a mix of various ACFs, feats, etc. Monk is on the poorer end of the scale of frontline characters. Fighter and Barbarian are in the middle, I picked Orc Fighter merely because I wanted to use the same books as you were.

If you're worried about having above-average WIS or INT if you're worried about "Intelligent Play" (I think it's fun to play a dumb character on occasion, but no problem) a lot of the aforementioned melee characters will appreciate a positive boost to INT or WIS. There are also melee characters that have a good Will save or require a good WIS stat - Swordsage and Psychic Warrior, for example.


Regardless, it’s hard to say that a 4 skill point ugly moron is a clear winner over the gray elf in almost any metric.

They both want eachother at low-level. The frontline fighter wants the Wizard's smarts, skills and spells, the Wizard wants someone who can take a hit or two without dying and can deal with a bunch of mooks throughout the day and allow the wizard to save their spell slots for when they're really needed.

[Buufreak]

From charm person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmPerson.htm):


If your charisma is high enough, you can make a charmed creature do anything you want short of harming itself. A high charisma turns charm from useful into full-on broken.

Equally from the same link:
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."

Friendly, as described under the diplomacy skill, is someone who "wishes you well," and under actions they will take lists "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate." No where under that does anything close to full mental or magical domination get mentioned.

[Nebuul]

Equally from the same link:
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."

Friendly, as described under the diplomacy skill, is someone who "wishes you well," and under actions they will take lists "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate." No where under that does anything close to full mental or magical domination get mentioned.

It regards you as friendly. In addition, the spell description clearly states that you can force it to do something by making an opposed charisma check.

So, helpful even if you are low charisma. But if you can win charisma checks, you can compel action. I don't understand what the confusion is.

[Segev]

Equally from the same link:
"This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly)."

Friendly, as described under the diplomacy skill, is someone who "wishes you well," and under actions they will take lists "Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate." No where under that does anything close to full mental or magical domination get mentioned.

Yes. So Friendly is what it will do by default. If you try to give the target orders, there are specific rules for checking to see if it will follow them.

If I wrote a spell that said, "This spell summons a creature that will bake you a vanilla cake. If you succeed on an opposed charisma roll, it will make you a chocolate cake," that wouldn't mean that you can't make it bake you a chocolate cake because the first sentence said it would make a vanilla one.

If you strip back the mechanics a bit, what this is saying is that the target of the Charm spell is so fuddled into liking and trusting you that, if you can win an opposed charisma check against it, you can convince it to do just about anything short of harming itself. You're essentially swaying its "Friendly" attitude into believing that whatever you've asked of it is reasonable and within the bounds of what it will willingly do.

[Buufreak]

Yes. So Friendly is what it will do by default. If you try to give the target orders, there are specific rules for checking to see if it will follow them.

If I wrote a spell that said, "This spell summons a creature that will bake you a vanilla cake. If you succeed on an opposed charisma roll, it will make you a chocolate cake," that wouldn't mean that you can't make it bake you a chocolate cake because the first sentence said it would make a vanilla one.

If you strip back the mechanics a bit, what this is saying is that the target of the Charm spell is so fuddled into liking and trusting you that, if you can win an opposed charisma check against it, you can convince it to do just about anything short of harming itself. You're essentially swaying its "Friendly" attitude into believing that whatever you've asked of it is reasonable and within the bounds of what it will willingly do.

And I would mostly agree, until you take into factor what all you count as harmful. Is stealing from the local bar crowd harmful, or is it going to inevitably going to produce a harmful result? How about orchestrating a jail break?

That's how I think people get really carried away with this. It's a first level spell, and people treat it like it's the golden key to the city. I once saw a guy trying to argue how it justifies date rape. And yes, I may be overthinking it in the opposite direction, and i accept that, but i just don't see this simple spell as anything more than a means of getting information without having a singer tongue.

[False God]

And I would mostly agree, until you take into factor what all you count as harmful. Is stealing from the local bar crowd harmful, or is it going to inevitably going to produce a harmful result? How about orchestrating a jail break?

That's how I think people get really carried away with this. It's a first level spell, and people treat it like it's the golden key to the city. I once saw a guy trying to argue how it justifies date rape. And yes, I may be overthinking it in the opposite direction, and i accept that, but i just don't see this simple spell as anything more than a means of getting information without having a singer tongue.

Yeah I ran into one of those guys before too, MAJOR CREEPER ALERT. It's not dominate, and anyone with two cents to their DMing skills wouldn't let Charm Person become dominate. The person regards you as their friend, but even friends can be leaned on too often or too hard. It's a fine way to get past a bouncer or a guard, or maybe get someone to loosen their tongue, but it's not a way of enslaving someone to your will.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Regarding the strange level 1, 18 point buy core comparison: First off, at 18 PB, many classes are just straight-up screwed. That includes monk and paladin, but also your classic core tripping fighter who can't really afford 13 INT. Also, at level 1 the choices get weird. For instance, CON is less useful because the HP scaling hasn't set in. The best you're going to do at level 1 for a mundane is probably a Human barbarian with Combat Reflexes and EWP Spiked Chain (or even WF Glaive and buy armor spikes), with an array of 16/14/10/8/8/8, relying on killing the enemies before they get to him (as well as having 12 base HP and not-terrible AC). But the more valid comparison is, could that Gray Elf do better with 2 less INT? I'd say yes, by putting it all in DEX. That's +1 DC/slot/knowledge versus +3 AC/ranged attack/init/reflex/dex skills.

[Nebuul]

And I would mostly agree, until you take into factor what all you count as harmful. Is stealing from the local bar crowd harmful, or is it going to inevitably going to produce a harmful result? How about orchestrating a jail break?

That's how I think people get really carried away with this. It's a first level spell, and people treat it like it's the golden key to the city. I once saw a guy trying to argue how it justifies date rape. And yes, I may be overthinking it in the opposite direction, and i accept that, but i just don't see this simple spell as anything more than a means of getting information without having a singer tongue.

It gives a fairly good description of what the career cannot compel:

An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

That makes it fairly clear that "harmful" refers to "physically harming oneself" in this case. Subverting that is against it's moral code would be filed under "getting the target to do this will require a charisma check." The proper way to adjust the power of the spell would be to put circumstance modifiers on the target's roll.

[Buufreak]

It gives a fairly good description of what the career cannot compel:

An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person’s language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.

That makes it fairly clear that "harmful" refers to "physically harming oneself" in this case. Subverting that is against it's moral code would be filed under "getting the target to do this will require a charisma check." The proper way to adjust the power of the spell would be to put circumstance modifiers on the target's roll.

But that's your interpretation. Some people are capable of understanding that "harmful" is far more than just things that result in hp damage.

[Biggus]

Hard yes: Wizards and Druids. Wizards are painfully reliant on that high INT; everything they do is about their spellcasting. More slots means more versatility and staying power, and they're often throwing around Save-or-X.

Well, no. Not every Wizard uses a lot of save-or-X. A ray specialist for example benefits a lot from the +3 to ranged attacks and +3 initiative, more than they do from a +1 to the save DCs of the relatively few spells they use which have them. Likewise someone who casts a lot of buffs doesn't get much mileage out of the increased DCs.

Also, I don't understand why people think the "more slots" thing is such a big deal. I get that for the first few levels even 1 extra spell matters, but after that the number of extra spells you get from starting with a 16 instead of an 18 pre-racial is very small compared to your total number of spells.

For example, the earliest you can get 2 extra spells per day from starting with an 18 compared to a 16 is level 9, and at that point you already have at least 18 spells (ignoring level 0) with the 16 starting stat, so 2 extra is not a huge difference. The earliest you can get 3 extra spells per day is level 17, and at that point you'd have at least 42 spells if you started with a 16 stat.

I do understand that having an extra spell of your highest level available is a pretty big deal, but that's only the case at a few levels, most of the time it'll be your second, third or even fourth-highest level spell which gets the extra one.



Well, in a no-holds-barred game and the specific case of Wizards there's the old standby of Faerie Mysteries Initiate. With that feat I absolutely would say "get 18 Int at all costs".

Wow...yeah I'd definitely go 18 Int too if that was allowed.


Initiative matters, yes, but +1 on an opposed roll is worth less than +1 to DC or +1 to a roll vs. DC for maths reasons

Yes, but if you have a 14 Dex and a 16 Int rather than an 8 Dex and an 18 Int, you're getting a +3 initiative in exchange for a -1DC, not a 1-for-1 swap.


Oh, I see. We've had PAO blanket banned for so long that I even forgot it was a thing. Thanks!

Yeah, I've got tripped up by that a few times, stuff that everyone I play with bans or houserules eventually becomes the default rule to me and I forget there are still people who play with the official one. For example, when people mention XP penalties for multiclassing and I think "oh yeah, those exist".

[Gnaeus]

Monks are just bad. Especially with low PB. This might be the most unfair comparison possible.

On the note of those dumped physical stats: Your 6 str wizard is going to have no carrying capacity. Maybe not an issue eventually but it's going to be VERY limiting. Heck he can't even carry a Bag of Holding without stripping naked or taking penalties for encumbrance unless he gets a strength boosting item.

HP/ AC wise? Okay let us take that bottom of the barrel Monk and wizard and compare them to a Golbin. They have a CR of 1/3 so fighting 3-8 is within the CR and encounter parameters. The Goblin has +2 to hit and deals 1d6 damage. Versus our squishy Wizard they have a 60% chance to hit and 66% chance to KO the wizard. Three attacks of minimum roll with KO the wizard which is 6 attacks max. Which means about a 40% chance to take him down.

The monk (Who has 12 AC, not 11 BTW) has a 50% chance to be hit and a 0% chance to KO the monk, well a 0.08% of a confirmed critical to take him out. Odds are it will take 3 hits to KO him but the best case scenario is about 9 hits.

Yes the Wizard might KO the entire goblin party but he NEEDS TO. If he doesn't odds are he is dead. He could try casting defensively but at level 1 with 8 con he only has a 45% chance of succeeding on that. Considering that sleep is a full round to cast and Colour spray is close range. . .

The monk has 11 ac on round 1 before he acts. Which is important because he is in the front. His job is to be in the front. That’s almost literally his only contribution to the party. He has to stand there and go toe to toe with baddies. The wizard’s role doesn’t involve him meleeing goblins. If he is meleeing 3 goblins, that means the muggles already fracked up and he needs to withdraw.

Also, the wizard as I pointed out can have a toad and 6 hp.


There are quite a few decent melee classes, depending on what books are allowed - Swordsage, Warblade, Crusader, Psychic Warrior, and Totemist are a few examples that come to mind. A lot more options are quite viable with a mix of various ACFs, feats, etc. Monk is on the poorer end of the scale of frontline characters. Fighter and Barbarian are in the middle, I picked Orc Fighter merely because I wanted to use the same books as you were

If you're worried about having above-average WIS or INT if you're worried about "Intelligent Play" (I think it's fun to play a dumb character on occasion, but no problem) a lot of the aforementioned melee characters will appreciate a positive boost to INT or WIS. There are also melee characters that have a good Will save or require a good WIS stat - Swordsage and Psychic Warrior, for example.

They both want eachother at low-level. The frontline fighter wants the Wizard's smarts, skills and spells, the Wizard wants someone who can take a hit or two without dying and can deal with a bunch of mooks throughout the day and allow the wizard to save their spell slots for when they're really needed.

Well, it isn’t like I was arguing for abrupt jaunt either. And monk is at the low end, but hardly alone there. Ranger, Paladin, Swashbuckler, Hexblade, Samurai, Soulknife. And that’s just the frontlines. Your ninja also stabs people for a living and he probably has 6-7 hp, less skill points, and worse AC than the wizard. There’s a lot of classes that just drop to nonfunctional at 18 Pb.

That’s true, but it’s also kinda the point. They suffer from the Monk’s MAD problems. Swordsage at least is about half rogue, so isn’t going to be quite useless if they can’t stand in melee. What’s a PsiWar’s point spread at 18 Pb. Likely:
Str 14
Dex 10
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 14
Cha 8
So 4 skill points. 2 power points. 9 hp. And he has to stand in melee.

That last I agree with. The point I was arguing with was “an 18 Pb wizard with an 18 isn’t a PC but a red shirt” I don’t have to show that an 18 Int wizard is the only good thing you can play at 18 Pb at level 1. I don’t think that’s defensible. (Druid otoh...) I do think it is a reasonable point spread for the wizard to take and he is at least as productive in a party as his counterparts. And the higher the level the better he will compare.

[heavyfuel]

Also, the wizard as I pointed out can have a toad and 6 hp.

"Can", sure. But will he? 3hp is almost nothing beyond the early levels.

There are much better familiars, like bird that can scout and have high perception skills. I don't think I ever saw anyone even considering the toad familiar.

[Gnaeus]

"Can", sure. But will he? 3hp is almost nothing beyond the early levels.

There are much better familiars, like bird that can scout and have high perception skills. I don't think I ever saw anyone even considering the toad familiar.

Because it’s only useful in level 1-2 low PB games. You absolutely replace it. Probably level 3 unless you plan to replace for an improved familiar shortly after. Even if you fail your save 600xp is a small price to pay.

But it’s not the only option, just the core one I like. Toad + improved initiative = hummingbird + toughness for example. Then you retrain toughness later. Or swap for abrupt jaunt which is worth more than 3 hp.

[heavyfuel]

You absolutely replace it.

By waiting a whole year?

[Elkad]

Waiting a year to replace a familiar rates right next to multiclass XP penalties. I've yet to play at a table where it was actually enforced, and I've never enforced it at mine.

Edit. And if retraining is on, I'll trade it for an ACF at 2.999 and buy it back with Obtain Familiar at 3 anyway. Which bypasses the whole problem.

[DdarkED]

But that's your interpretation. Some people are capable of understanding that "harmful" is far more than just things that result in hp damage.

anything dangerous is potentially harmful, and you can compel them to do dangerous things. i think your the one interrupting things and hes just reading the words as written.

[heavyfuel]

Waiting a year to replace a familiar rates right next to multiclass XP penalties. I've yet to play at a table where it was actually enforced, and I've never enforced it at mine.

Edit. And if retraining is on, I'll trade it for an ACF at 2.999 and buy it back with Obtain Familiar at 3 anyway. Which bypasses the whole problem.

Does it? Literally every game I played that had a Wizard/Sorcerer in it (and the Wiz wasn't me), the Wiz/Sorc replaced the familiar with something else out of fear of having it killed and being forced to spend a year without their class feature.

Now, this is anecdotal. Yes. And maybe if the players had actually bothered asking the DM if the DM would enforce this penalty, the DM might have said "no". But the fact that every player assumed it would happen does speak that it's not so obvious.

[Willie the Duck]

I see this idea a lot, that a caster should always start with an 18 in their casting stat no matter how bad it makes their other stats. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, given that it takes 6 points to increase a 16 to an 18, when the same 6 points could increase your Dex or Con from 8 to 14, which for a Wizard or Sorcerer could more than double your HPs, or increase your initiative, AC, reflex saves and ranged attacks by 3, whereas the extra 2 points on your casting stat only increases your save DCs by 1 (which only matters 1 time in 20, and many spells don't allow a save) and gives you a small number of extra spells per day at higher levels (and none at all for the first 6).

I understand that Wizards and Sorcerers prefer to avoid combat, but this isn't always possible, especially at lower levels.

So, what am I missing? Why is this widely considered a good strategy?

I was on the WotC forums bitd when 3e was actively coming out, and there were always a few people for whom this was practically a form of religious doctrine -- there was nothing a caster could get (short of not having a delay in spellcasting progression, so don't give up an LA for it) that was more important than an extra point in their casting stat. Each point was halfway to another +1 on the save DC and an extra low-level spell (and closer to an extra high-level spell, as you slowly increased that initial score). For that reason grey elves and similar +mental stat/LA+0 races were in-ar-gu-ab-ly broken. It was... fairly amusing.

I'd say that the basic argument is less wrong for casters--particularly wizards, or druids once you can (if you can) get to being wildshaped most of the time. However, it's working under the same thought process as the one that says a wizard really only needs 1 HP because they should be working to make sure they never get hit at all ever -- it's a fine theory that is the first casualty of actual gameplay. You will get attacks against you, and you will get hit. Furthermore, you will run into situations where you don't have a spell prepared for the current situation and all those memorized spells and high DC won't matter one iota. Having a slightly more diversified loadout of generalized 'things you are good at,' and, more importantly, 'things you are not bad at,' will eventually be the thing that makes the difference and carry the day (or just keep you alive).

[Elkad]

I don't have 1hp. I have 11. Sure, I'm unconscious for 10 of them, but I can still be in the next encounter.

[Quertus]

If you have a character concept that isn't about optimization, then I think it's fine to have a less-than-maximum stat.

If you are optimizing though,

18 may become 20 post-racial which makes a difference between 3 and 4 spells at level 1 which matters a fair bit if you have 4 encounters/day (which the game is built around).
When the point buy is low you can sometimes use the X to Y list (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?125732-3-x-X-stat-to-Y-bonus) to work around the downsides of specializing.
Once Polymorph/Wild Shape/etc... comes online, you don't really care about your physical stats much so investment in them is often a waste. This happens as early as level 1 when you are a Hengeyokai, level 2 for a Mulhorandi Divine Minion, or level 3 if you pay for spellcasting services[Polymorph Any Object].


There are times when you would sacrifice your casting stat though. For example, if you are in a duel situation at level 1 restricted to core races, taking Dexterity 14 may be more important than Int 18 since the primary failure mode is simply not being able to act before you are dead.

This is pretty much what I came to say.

I would add that the extra spells aren't just stamina, they are also (in cases like that of the toolkit generalist Wizard) better odds that you have the correct spell prepared.

And, of course, my obligatory "Balance to the Table". When I ran an AoE SoL character, I didn't get my casting stat up to an 18 until the party was in their teens. Whereas with a blaster, I'll play a Tainted Sorcerer for those virtually unresistable spells (and lots of juice in the tank).


At the levels where a magic user is vulnerable, are any of those other points really going to matter? I mean, a Wizard has 1d4 HD. Even maximized that's 4 points. Raising your AC from 10-12 or your Con from +0 (or less) to +2 doesn't make much of a difference either way, a single hit and you're dead.

And further down the road these elements will become even less valuable. By 10th level your +2 Con has gained you 20 HP, two good longsword hits from monsters that regularly do that each turn. Your HD are still only ringing in at a whopping ~25 points themselves. But by 10th level you have access to a variety of AC-boosting spells and you got Polymorph 3 levels ago!

And really, if the bad guys are getting past your front-liners....how many HP you have isn't the problem here.

When the Dragon breathes on you, or the traitor has held an action to leap in front of your Fireball, or you're fighting foes with ranged weapons, those extra HP (and bonus to Concentration checks), or that extra initiative, can sometimes mean the difference between casting a spell, and a dirt nap. Or, at least, that's been my experience.

So, save DC and extra spells is nice. Getting to cast them is nice, too. Hard to say which is better overall for an unknown campaign.

[heavyfuel]

So, save DC and extra spells is nice. Getting too cast them is nice, too. Hard to say which is better overall for an unknown campaign.

Seems pretty easy actually. Any spell you don't get to cast has a DC of 0, regardless of your casting stat.
Yeah, I know a DC of 0 can still be failed on a Nat 1, I was just making a joke...

[MeimuHakurei]

Seems pretty easy actually. Any spell you don't get to cast has a DC of 0, regardless of your casting stat.
Yeah, I know a DC of 0 can still be failed on a Nat 1, I was just making a joke...

You can also fail that if your save modifier is negative (a sickened, shaken 6 Wis 1st Level Barbarian has a -6 Will save so he'd fail a DC 0 Will save 25% of the time).

[Doug Lampert]

Seems pretty easy actually. Any spell you don't get to cast has a DC of 0, regardless of your casting stat.
Yeah, I know a DC of 0 can still be failed on a Nat 1, I was just making a joke...

Any spell you can't cast on account of being too dead to cast is also a complete whiff.

But, with 22 point buy: 18 Int, 14 Con, who cares about the rest?
You need to go below 22 for there to be a real issue for a wizard, druid, or sorcerer (clerics and bards have enough other stuff to do that the 18 casting stat is probably overkill).

I won't be using rays, but wizards/druids/sorcerers have plenty of good spells that aren't rays.

[Quertus]

Also, I don't understand why people think the "more slots" thing is such a big deal. I get that for the first few levels even 1 extra spell matters, but after that the number of extra spells you get from starting with a 16 instead of an 18 pre-racial is very small compared to your total number of spells.

For example, the earliest you can get 2 extra spells per day from starting with an 18 compared to a 16 is level 9, and at that point you already have at least 18 spells (ignoring level 0) with the 16 starting stat, so 2 extra is not a huge difference. The earliest you can get 3 extra spells per day is level 17, and at that point you'd have at least 42 spells if you started with a 16 stat.

I do understand that having an extra spell of your highest level available is a pretty big deal, but that's only the case at a few levels, most of the time it'll be your second, third or even fourth-highest level spell which gets the extra one.

I think you just answered your question.

When my character hits level 17, I want them to get that extra 9th. That takes a, what, 28? 18 +4(level) +6(enhancement), pretty easy. But, with +5(inherent) +3(venerable), I can have yet another 9th, if I've maxed my casting stat.

Am I playing a character who just can't wait for Mindrape and Dominate Monster? If so, I might optimize my 9ths. Same for any "signature" spell, of any level.

But, most of the time, it's the… hmmm… diversity of the toolkit that a prepared caster can keep "in their back pocket", and/or the stamina of their standard procedures (Kauper's Skittish Nerves to Haste on the party or to (hold an action to) BFC round 1, for example) that really make the primary casting stat so tasty and hard to say no to, for me.


Any spell you can't cast on account of being too dead to cast is also a complete whiff.

But, with 22 point buy: 18 Int, 14 Con, who cares about the rest?
You need to go below 22 for there to be a real issue for a wizard, druid, or sorcerer (clerics and bards have enough other stuff to do that the 18 casting stat is probably overkill).

I won't be using rays, but wizards/druids/sorcerers have plenty of good spells that aren't rays.

Don't forget, going first also helps with the whole "not being dead when it's your turn" thing.

Also, what does your level 1 Wizard do when he's out of spells? The classic answer is "fire a crossbow", which benefits from Dex.

[heavyfuel]

Any spell you can't cast on account of being too dead to cast is also a complete whiff.

But, with 22 point buy: 18 Int, 14 Con, who cares about the rest?
You need to go below 22 for there to be a real issue for a wizard, druid, or sorcerer (clerics and bards have enough other stuff to do that the 18 casting stat is probably overkill).

I won't be using rays, but wizards/druids/sorcerers have plenty of good spells that aren't rays.

Your initiative still sucks, as do your reflex saves and perception skills. Your will saves aren't looking too good either, despite having good progression.

With 22 pb you'll be much more well rounded going something like 8 12 14 16 10 8. I wouldn't be opposed to swapping Dex and Con either simply because Initiative is that important for a Wiz/Sorc.

[ottdmk]

So, the Standard Point Buy from the DMG is 25 pts. This is based on the "Standard Array": 15 14 13 12 10 8.

For my guy, who is mainly a caster, I used 16 14 14 10 9 8. (In case you're curious, Int Con Dex Wis Str Cha).

Now, I could've gone 18 Int, but I'd end up with either a third -1 penalty (Most likely Wisdom) and Dex & Con at +1, or either Dex or Con at +1 and the other (plus Wisdom) at +0.

I like how it's turned out. I'm currently at 23 Int thanks to a +4 Headband. It's a fun character. I'm happy I didn't min-max too much with it.

[Psychoalpha]

And I would mostly agree, until you take into factor what all you count as harmful. Is stealing from the local bar crowd harmful, or is it going to inevitably going to produce a harmful result? How about orchestrating a jail break?

That's how I think people get really carried away with this. It's a first level spell, and people treat it like it's the golden key to the city. I once saw a guy trying to argue how it justifies date rape. And yes, I may be overthinking it in the opposite direction, and i accept that, but i just don't see this simple spell as anything more than a means of getting information without having a singer tongue.

You must never have had any friends who managed to talk you into totally outrageous, even illegal shenanigans before. I assure you, it's not even remotely uncommon. I mean, people have been convinced by friends to literally help them get away with murder IRL, so I'm not too skeptical of a spell that by default makes someone regard you as a trusted friend PLUS overcoming their resistance to an idea via raw Charisma, letting you get them involved in whatever crazy nonsense you're trying to do.

I don't really play Enchanters or make use of Charm Person much myself, but saying "It's a level 1 spell it can't be any good." seems kind of bizarre given how frequently a spell's usefulness is disproportionate to its spell level.

[Biggus]

You must never have had any friends who managed to talk you into totally outrageous, even illegal shenanigans before. I assure you, it's not even remotely uncommon. I mean, people have been convinced by friends to literally help them get away with murder IRL, so I'm not too skeptical of a spell that by default makes someone regard you as a trusted friend PLUS overcoming their resistance to an idea via raw Charisma, letting you get them involved in whatever crazy nonsense you're trying to do.

I won't say I've never been persuaded to do anything idiotic, but I will say I can count on my fingers the number of times it's happened in my 40+ years of life. And I don't consider myself to have a particularly high Will save or Charisma score. People who've been persuaded to help cover up a murder do exist, but those are very rare, exceptional cases.

So for really outrageous shenanigans, I'd say it makes sense in the case of a really spectacular failure. For example, if you fail the Charisma check by 10 points, or maybe less if you rolled a natural 1 on your Will save.

[Asmotherion]

I always asked this myself. I think it's a stupid idea that has somehow remained within our midst.

Don't your casters get attacked? Even if you have Abrupt Jaunt (which is super stupid), you still only negate 1 atk/round.

Are you really gonna put no points in Con for HP or Dex for Ac.

Speaking of Dex and Con, don't you ever get target on Fort and Reflex saves? Surely the enemy spellcaster, upon seeing your sickened complexity and lack of coordination, will target these two saves.

Still on Dex, don't you like winning Initiative?

Even with good Will progression, dumping Wis might make you vulnerable to Will saves.

Yeah, I'd much rather play a Wizard with 14 int and other decent scores than 18 Int and crap for con/dex/wis
Those all can easyly be bypassed with the right spell/item/feat.

-Abjurant Champion Prc/(Greater) Luminus Armor+Shield/Combat Panache.
-Undying Vigor of the Dragonlords provides Arcane Healing (Self Only). Temporary HP spells give you bonus HP for a hard-hitting opponent. Only reason you really need Con is for Concentration spells. Touch Attacs are virtually auto-hit but a bonus does't hurt.
-Cloac of Resistance/Ruin Delver's Fortune/Evil's Blassings. A Charisma caster can pump his average saves by 2*(Cha)+5 as soon as he wants to.
-Celerity line of spells + Quic Recovery means you don't care about initiative-You always play the moment you want.
-Force of Personality means you basically Dump Wis for Cha. Optional as you already can have amazing Saves with the abovementioned methode.

All a Caster needs is his int and Cha as high as possible and arguably a passable Dex (for better chance at hitting with (ranged) touch.

[Crake]

I don't have 1hp. I have 11. Sure, I'm unconscious for 10 of them, but I can still be in the next encounter.

Not if the rest of the party dies too because they were a man down after you dropped to a single magic missile in the first round of combat?

[FaerieGodfather]

Well, one thing this thread has convinced me of-- after years of uncertainty-- is that point buy is as bad as random dice rolls, only in a different way.

I need to work out different methods for generating PC stats entirely.

[Maryring]

For me, 18 in casting stat is done simply because it's the most fun. If I'm playing a caster, it's because I find it fun to cast spells. The higher my intelligence, the more spells I have available, the more fun I can have before things turn boring because I'm now a commoner who can't hit the broad side of a barn. Ignoring optimization, getting as high a casting stat as possible is important because it allows me to fulfill my primary role, the role which I wanted to play if you wish.

[heavyfuel]

Well, one thing this thread has convinced me of-- after years of uncertainty-- is that point buy is as bad as random dice rolls, only in a different way.

I need to work out different methods for generating PC stats entirely.

How about arrays? Giving the players the stats and have them arrange them as they wish.

Or maybe point buy, but have a high cost for 17 and 18, or even a cap at 16

[Segev]

Well, one thing this thread has convinced me of-- after years of uncertainty-- is that point buy is as bad as random dice rolls, only in a different way.

I need to work out different methods for generating PC stats entirely.


How about arrays? Giving the players the stats and have them arrange them as they wish.

Or maybe point buy, but have a high cost for 17 and 18, or even a cap at 16

Assuming FaerieGodfather's problem is with the ability to get 18s in stats, arrays would fix it by not allowing them.

I personally have no problem with high stats, and like randomness, so I encourage a particularly high-numbers method of rolling a 6x6 matrix of 4d6k3 (rolled in-order, though it doesn't matter if your order is top-down-left-right or left-right-top-down or anything else as long as there is a fixed order of placement based on rolls), then choosing the row, column, or diagonal that you like best. It provides options and tends towards higher values.

One potentially interesting method I haven't tried would be for the DM to roll up one such matrix, then give the players, say, 100 gp each, and let them bid on stat lines. Only one player can have any given row, column, or diagonal (though obviously they'll share some numbers from them).

[FaerieGodfather]

How about arrays? Giving the players the stats and have them arrange them as they wish.

Or maybe point buy, but have a high cost for 17 and 18, or even a cap at 16

Arrays are good. I was thinking arrays, or something random but less swingy.

In the Alternity Gamemaster's Guide, there are two optional random methods: one where you roll your abilities by profession, and one where you roll them by species. They guarantee you meet the minimums, yeah? When I run Alternity, you roll both methods for each ability and average the results plus one. If you play aganst type, like a Weren Diplomat or a Fraal Combat Spec, and you roll bad on both rolls... you might not technically qualify-- player's choice whether to take a waiver, or take a mulligan.


Assuming FaerieGodfather's problem is with the ability to get 18s in stats, arrays would fix it by not allowing them.

Nah. Believe it or not, my problem here isn't with the 18s so much as the 7s. Particularly, it's with the notion that an 18 and five 7s is a fun, viable character, and that if an 18 is achievable by any means, it must be achieved by any means. I find this mindset disturbing, and indicative of a serious problem with the rules. Of course, we're talking about single-stat spellcasters maxing out their single spellcasting stat... so what isn't seriously wrong?

I have a bit of a background in Rolemaster, which just hands you a 90 in the stat of your choice before you start buying the other nine. In 3.PF I normally do high point-buy games where an 18 isn't a trivial choice, but it's a reasonable one.

Maybe a modified point-buy where you get your choice of a single 18 or twin 16s before buying the rest.

[Segev]

Nah. Believe it or not, my problem here isn't with the 18s so much as the 7s. Particularly, it's with the notion that an 18 and five 7s is a fun, viable character, and that if an 18 is achievable by any means, it must be achieved by any means. I find this mindset disturbing, and indicative of a serious problem with the rules. Of course, we're talking about single-stat spellcasters maxing out their single spellcasting stat... so what isn't seriously wrong?

I have a bit of a background in Rolemaster, which just hands you a 90 in the stat of your choice before you start buying the other nine. In 3.PF I normally do high point-buy games where an 18 isn't a trivial choice, but it's a reasonable one.

Maybe a modified point-buy where you get your choice of a single 18 or twin 16s before buying the rest.

Huh. I actually have little problem, as a DM, with a caster who has one 18 and a load of 7s. There's plenty of ways those 7s will bite him. So much so that I probably wouldn't build a character with a load of 7s just to get that one 18; it's nice, but it's not critical. A 16 will do just fine, and a 14 will work in a pinch.

[Allanimal]

Huh. I actually have little problem, as a DM, with a caster who has one 18 and a load of 7s. There's plenty of ways those 7s will bite him. So much so that I probably wouldn't build a character with a load of 7s just to get that one 18; it's nice, but it's not critical. A 16 will do just fine, and a 14 will work in a pinch.

We're talking about the standard D&D 3.5 point buy from the DMG p.169, right? How do you get a 7 (before racial mods)?

[FaerieGodfather]

We're talking about the standard D&D 3.5 point buy from the DMG p.169, right? How do you get a 7 (before racial mods)?

I'm primarily a Pathfinder player. PF point buy allows you to dump to 7.

[AnimeTheCat]

Nah. Believe it or not, my problem here isn't with the 18s so much as the 7s. Particularly, it's with the notion that an 18 and five 7s is a fun, viable character, and that if an 18 is achievable by any means, it must be achieved by any means. I find this mindset disturbing, and indicative of a serious problem with the rules. Of course, we're talking about single-stat spellcasters maxing out their single spellcasting stat... so what isn't seriously wrong?

Whether a character with an 18 in one ability score and a 7 in the other 5 is a fun, viable character entirely depends upon the group, the DM, and the overall mindset of the player. I believe that the most important part is that the DM understands the mindset of the players and makes sure that the group is on the same page as far as mindset goes. I've played in games where my characters have been generated with 3d6 in order ability scores. My highest score was a 15 and my lowest was a 6 (the others were somewhere in between), and I remember I was playing a Fighter. Guess where that 6 landed... On my strength. The 15 was in Charisma. After level 1, I ended up switching over to sorcerer and was pretty successful (picked up the Armored Mage ACF for fighter at level 1). Part of the fun for me was figuring out exactly what to do. The other part was just kind of being forced in to a particular character, rather than creating a specific character. I was in the right mindset because my DM helped me get there before the game started. He explained that this was going to be a challenging game where we were taking on the roles of people who occurred naturally in the world. If a character died, we shouldn't feel bad because that was just the end of that particular character's story. If we were bored of the character, we could easily retire that character and then roll up a new one. We weren't bound to be the party's level either, I decided to retire that fighter/sorcerer at level 6 because I wanted to try playing a warforged from the secluded settlement we just discovered. My sorcerer set up shop enchanting warforged citizens and I picked up playing one at level 2 who had been given a +1 enhancement bonus on the slam attack via enchanting.

Long story short, the method of ability score generation has to match the pace and feel of the game. If you're playing a high energy, high intensity, high challenge game, yeah, you're probably not going to want low ability score or highly swingy ability score generation methods. By the same token, if you're playing in the kind of game my DM ran, having a Character's ability scores generated using 4d6b3 on a 6x6 grid take the best of whatever you rolled would probably feel incredibly out of place in this world where characters and creatures are created using 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 and 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 as their ability scores (or lower depending on how the DM felt about what was going on).

I guess my point is that you need to make sure that, if you're a player, you let the group and DM know what your expectations are for the game and, if you're a DM, you moderate the expectation of the group and bring the group to a conscensus, then ensure the party is informed on the expectations of the game. Essentially, expectation management. After that, just pick whatever method you like best for ability score selection (1d10+8/4d6b3w6x6mrr1s/3d6io/etc) and that fits the expectations of the game.

[Psychoalpha]

the notion that an 18 and five 7s is a fun, viable character

I mean... it worked for Raistlin. :smallcool:

Damn, I guess he had decent Dex too, but that is exactly who leapt to mind. ;D

[Bavarian itP]

I mean... it worked for Raistlin. :smallcool:

Damn, I guess he had decent Dex too, but that is exactly who leapt to mind. ;D

Yeah, he is the textbook example. Literally, because the Hero Builder's Guidebook used him for that :smallcool:

[Biggus]

Those all can easyly be bypassed with the right spell/item/feat.

-Abjurant Champion Prc/(Greater) Luminus Armor+Shield/Combat Panache.
-Undying Vigor of the Dragonlords provides Arcane Healing (Self Only). Temporary HP spells give you bonus HP for a hard-hitting opponent. Only reason you really need Con is for Concentration spells. Touch Attacs are virtually auto-hit but a bonus does't hurt.
-Cloac of Resistance/Ruin Delver's Fortune/Evil's Blassings. A Charisma caster can pump his average saves by 2*(Cha)+5 as soon as he wants to.
-Celerity line of spells + Quic Recovery means you don't care about initiative-You always play the moment you want.
-Force of Personality means you basically Dump Wis for Cha. Optional as you already can have amazing Saves with the abovementioned methode.

All a Caster needs is his int and Cha as high as possible and arguably a passable Dex (for better chance at hitting with (ranged) touch.

Many of those things don't come online until level 7 or later though, you've got to survive long enough to get to the point where you can use them. A +5 Cloak of Resistance isn't available "as soon as he wants", it costs 25,000GP.

And as for "Celerity line of spells + Quic Recovery means you don't care about initiative-You always play the moment you want", are you seriously suggesting you can use a Celerity spell every round? Also, the ability to take a standard action ahead of time doesn't become available until level 7 either.


For me, 18 in casting stat is done simply because it's the most fun. If I'm playing a caster, it's because I find it fun to cast spells. The higher my intelligence, the more spells I have available, the more fun I can have before things turn boring because I'm now a commoner who can't hit the broad side of a barn. Ignoring optimization, getting as high a casting stat as possible is important because it allows me to fulfill my primary role, the role which I wanted to play if you wish.

Fair play, I can't argue with that. In my experience running out of spells entirely rarely happens after the first few levels, but obviously that will not be the case for everyone.

[Asmotherion]

Many of those things don't come online until level 7 or later though, you've got to survive long enough to get to the point where you can use them. A +5 Cloak of Resistance isn't available "as soon as he wants", it costs 25,000GP.

And as for "Celerity line of spells + Quic Recovery means you don't care about initiative-You always play the moment you want", are you seriously suggesting you can use a Celerity spell every round? Also, the ability to take a standard action ahead of time doesn't become available until level 7 either.



Fair play, I can't argue with that. In my experience running out of spells entirely rarely happens after the first few levels, but obviously that will not be the case for everyone.

Not every round but definitelly every encounter+when you need to. Especially as a Sorcerer you have plenty of spell slots to spam it.

Levels 7-8 are about the time when an arcane caster (optimised) starts shining. Before level 3 your caster is as good as a burden to the party. 3-6 you start becoming relevant. Thereafter you've practically won D&D.

And Lesser Celerity is not that bad; The ability to run away from melee or from the potential area of an incoming AoE is golden. Also some spells can be controled as a move action.

[Segev]

What is "Quick Recovery" and how does it help with greater celerity? I'm guessing it does something about being dazed, but I am only guessing from context of what the celerity line's drawback is.

[Rijan_Sai]

What is "Quick Recovery" and how does it help with greater celerity? I'm guessing it does something about being dazed, but I am only guessing from context of what the celerity line's drawback is.

Quick Recovery is a feat from Lords of Madness (Pg. 181) that lets you either reroll a failed save to recover from stunned or dazed, or make a special Will save if the original effect does not have it's own save.

Useful for both Celerity spells and Psychic Enervation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/wilder.htm#psychicEnervation)... at least the "dazed" part.

[Segev]

Quick Recovery is a feat from Lords of Madness (Pg. 181) that lets you either reroll a failed save to recover from stunned or dazed, or make a special Will save if the original effect does not have it's own save.

Useful for both Celerity spells and Psychic Enervation (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/wilder.htm#psychicEnervation)... at least the "dazed" part.

Huh. I even own that book. How did I miss that little gem in it all these years...?

Thanks!

[Elkad]

Not if the rest of the party dies too because they were a man down after you dropped to a single magic missile in the first round of combat?

Sure. That extra Grease spell for a 20 Int might save the party too. Or I might use that slot for Shield instead and be immune to the Magic Missile completely.
Or I could use the palanquin I mentioned above (mostly in jest) and get a monkey familiar to swing the shutters open/closed for me on my turn, so I have total cover the rest of the time.

I like hitpoints as much as the next guy. But I'm not wedded to the idea that every character has to pump Con.

Playing a low HP character is fun on occasion. Especially if I'm the T1 guy in a T4 party, gives me something else to do instead of breaking the DM's game.

I've never played the 1hp/lvl variant, but I've played plenty with less than 3hp/level. Last table I was a player at, I played an 8con Ardent. 2.5hp/lvl nominal, and I rolled worse than that. When the game ended at L12, I had 24hp.
My only death was to a PW:Kill. We knew it was the BBEG, so I used the highest ML tattoo i owned and had 75hp of Vigor up, giving me 99hp. So close, and yet so far.