PDA

View Full Version : why is primary casting attribute supposed to be your main for all casters?



taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:17 PM
Ok, so supposedly your main attribute as any caster should ALWAYS be your primary casting attribute...

Problem I see with that is... what if you are playing a buffer, healer, tank, etc...
Your primary attribute gives the following:
1. Better DC for enemies to resist your spells... useless if you only buff / heal / etc...
2. Is required to cast spells of a certain power... BUT, you can start with a medium score and easily use items / level up to increase it.
3. It gives you extra spell slots... a pitiful amount of... especially if you get lots of spell slots to begin with... And those slots are usually many levels lower than your max.

For a cleric who is buffing and tanking and healing, str and con should come first, shouldn't they?
And for a wizard/sorc who chooses only certain types of spells... con.

This works especially well as an optimizing mechanic...
For example. Say you want to play a fighter.. but you want a better fighter.
Cleric... STR 18 (or as high as you can), str is primary, con secondary, wis = 15, dump everything else.
level 1 through 12, your wis is high enough to cast everything. Level 13 and above you need a little boost... by then you should be able to get a +4 item... If not, if not, you could put some points in it from leveling up and get a +2 item.

You are now able to cast all spells. Your counterparts with wis 26 have a few more casting per day, but of low level spells of which your caster level gives you plenty of. Your poor DC is irrelevant, you mainly buff and heal, and mainly YOURSELF. For your BAB, you have the awesome spell "divine power" giving you full BAB. for extra fun, make it permanent.

Forget tower shield, get two handed weapon of choice. Str adds 1.5x in that case, you do more damage, you get 2 damage per 1 to hit from power strike.

You are now an uber fighter... worship the god of war or the like.

PS. I came up with it when I tried to apply the "a cleric is better at everything" to a fighter, saying, how can I use a cleric to make a fighter that is a better fighter than a fighter.

PPS. please be gentle, I am being proven wrong so often on this forum... ;p

GROUND RULE1: Absolutely no polymorphing / shape shifting cheese allowed. Otherwise that extra spell per day is always better, it allows you to cast polywin one more time per day.

Myrmex
2009-09-22, 10:20 PM
Every extra spell you get is another chance to replicate an entire class. Spells are that valuable.

+2 to hit? +2 damage? +40 HP? That pales compared to another Time Stop, Shapechange or Righteous Might.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:21 PM
Every extra spell you get is another chance to replicate an entire class. Spells are that valuable.

+2 to hit? +2 damage? +40 HP? That pales compared to another Time Stop, Shapechange or Righteous Might.

but they already HAVE all those spells... what they get is extra castings per day... aka spell ENDURANCE... which, by those levels, they have a ton of from caster levels.

to clarify, you get bonus SPELL SLOTS PER DAY. not bonus spells known...
score of 15 = +1 level 1 through 2.
score of 18 = +1 level 1 through 4.

score of 25 = +2 level 1, +2 level 2, +2 level 3, +1 levels 4 through 7.

By the time you are high enough level, and have fully invested in those abilities, you are getting some extra level "so low it doesn't matter" spells and exactly ONE spell per level of your not maxed out levels.

woodenbandman
2009-09-22, 10:25 PM
Okay look at it this way: What's better? +2 to hit and damage? Or + 8 to hit and damage? Because at certain levels, your high wisdom score is buying you another use of Divine Power, or Righteous Might, or Bite of the Weretiger.

Battle clerics can totally get away with a 24 in wisdom, but it'd definitely be better if they had a 26, or a 28, or a 30. And it scales much better than strength does. Shoot, if you are swimming in high level spell slots, quicken some of them. What's better now? A +2 on attack/damage, or tossing out an additional 1d4+1 negative levels on top of a full attack?

Myrmex
2009-09-22, 10:27 PM
but they already HAVE all those spells... what they get is extra castings per day... aka spell ENDURANCE... which, by those levels, they have a ton of from caster levels.

By what level?
A level 7 cleric has 3 level 4 spells- two from CL and 1 from his domain.
With must haves like Dismissal, Deathward, Divine Power, Freedom of Movement, or Control Water, you get only two castings of those (maybe another from your domain). If you have 18 or 19 in your wisdom, instead of 15 to 17, that's one extra spell that will totally rewrite an encounter.

Casting one Divine Power a day just isn't as great as casting two or three.

Basically, every time you get access to another level of spells, you are exponentially more powerful. Wouldn't it be ideal to have as much real ultimate power as possible?

taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:30 PM
Okay look at it this way: What's better? +2 to hit and damage? Or + 8 to hit and damage? Because at certain levels, your high wisdom score is buying you another use of Divine Power, or Righteous Might, or Bite of the Weretiger.

Battle clerics can totally get away with a 24 in wisdom, but it'd definitely be better if they had a 26, or a 28, or a 30. And it scales much better than strength does. Shoot, if you are swimming in high level spell slots, quicken some of them. What's better now? A +2 on attack/damage, or tossing out an additional 1d4+1 negative levels on top of a full attack?

which goes back to them being "clerics" instead of "self buffing / healing" warriors. Those are certainly GENERALLY the best way to go... but I am saying it is POSSIBLE to build a well designed character USING a caster that isn't maxing out its primary casting attribute

taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:33 PM
By what level?
A level 7 cleric has 3 level 4 spells- two from CL and 1 from his domain.
With must haves like Dismissal, Deathward, Divine Power, Freedom of Movement, or Control Water, you get only two castings of those (maybe another from your domain). If you have 18 or 19 in your wisdom, instead of 15 to 17, that's one extra spell that will totally rewrite an encounter.

Casting one Divine Power a day just isn't as great as casting two or three.

Basically, every time you get access to another level of spells, you are exponentially more powerful. Wouldn't it be ideal to have as much real ultimate power as possible?

You are not gonna get a 25 wisdom without buffs for your cleric at level 7.
Assuming 18 starting, +2 racial, +2 amulet, +1 from leveling. = 23, max. For purpose of spell preparation.

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 10:34 PM
Problem I see with that is... what if you are playing a buffer, healer, tank, etc...

Stop right here first. Any of those roles should not use only a single type of spell. Even as any of the above, they should have some other spells related to save DCs. Particularly at low levels, where you don't have arcane tanking spells, buffs are weak and short duration, and heals, as at all levels, are not ideal in combat.

Basically, a low level wizard who doesn't have as many extra low level spells is actually rather poor off, and more so, the spells that make him powerful rely on a high intelligence, other than alter self and grease.


Your primary attribute gives the following:
1. Better DC for enemies to resist your spells... useless if you only buff / heal / etc...

See above.


3. It gives you extra spell slots... a pitiful amount of... especially if you get lots of spell slots to begin with... And those slots are usually many levels lower than your max.

If you can't get at least the additional ninths, you're missing out on something worth 81,000 GP. As well as the sum total of all the others. Basically, the extra ninth is the important part.


For a cleric who is buffing and tanking and healing, str and con should come first, shouldn't they?

I did 16 wis, 16 charisma, 12 strength, 12 con. All day fast healing means I don't need a lot of con. Massive buffs to strength and trickery domain meant I didn't need strength or dex. At early levels, I used heal and knowledge devotion for encounters.


And for a wizard/sorc who chooses only certain types of spells... con.

They really shouldn't do that.


You are now able to cast all spells. Your counterparts with wis 26 have a few more casting per day, but of low level spells of which your caster level gives you plenty of. Your poor DC is irrelevant, you mainly buff and heal, and mainly YOURSELF. For your BAB, you have the awesome spell "divine power" giving you full BAB. for extra fun, make it permanent.

You can't make divine power permanent.

At level 12, highest level spell is 6. A 26 wisdom lets you use an additional level 6 spell, which is your top of the liners, such as flame strikes, or something. A flame strike with a decent (for the level) DC of no less than 24.


Forget tower shield, get two handed weapon of choice. Str adds 1.5x in that case, you do more damage, you get 2 damage per 1 to hit from power strike.

Clerics can't really use tower shields without a feat, and I don't think people argued that you should use a sword and board cleric either.


You are now an uber fighter... worship the god of war or the like.

I made a geek cleric, which was fairly good in melee, actually.

Myrmex
2009-09-22, 10:36 PM
You are not gonna get a 25 wisdom without buffs for your cleric at level 7.
Assuming 18 starting, +2 racial, +2 amulet, +1 from leveling. = 23, max. For purpose of spell preparation.

You get +1 4th level spell for 18 or 19 wisdom.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-22, 10:36 PM
Well:

1) If you are polymorphing, heyzor, no need for Str.

But:

2) You say 'not a lot of spells' and 'lower level' but that's not exactly true. For example, let's look at the difference between 14/14/20 Cleric vs a 18/16/16 version:

Level 1: 1 vs 2 bonus spells. That's a 25% increase over base.

Level 8: 24 vs 20: 1 extra second and third.

Level 13: 29 vs 25: 1 extra 4th and 5th level.

Level 20: 36 vs 32: 1 extra 8th and ninth.

Now is that always better? For a Cleric, no. But there is no reason to privilege Con over Int as a wizard, without even getting into skill points.

3) You say, what if you never want to cast spells with saving throws. I say, what if you ever do? You are giving up a lot of versatility when you just write off half your class, especially as a Con sorcerer. Something that is only ever worth it as a Dwarf sorcerer sub level, and then only barely for some builds.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-22, 10:43 PM
Save DC is huge...it's hard to increase save DC across the board for all schools, and almost every caster is going to cast some spells negated or partially negated by saves.

For primary casters, you typically need at least 19 to cast 9th level spells anyhow. And of course, stopping at an odd level is a bit inefficient.

Sure, you *could* rely on items. But what happens if your items take a hit? Or you take ability damage? Losing the ability to cast your top several levels of spells due to one nasty effect is....painful. You suddenly go from being powerful to being a squishy target trying to escape.

Look at it this way...say you play a wizard. Lets evaluate the options:

+2 str: You can carry more. In theory, you are more resistant to grappling. Realistically, the difference is likely to be so great as to make a +1 irrelevant. Boosts the strength skills you mostly ignore due to the ability to fly, teleport, etc. Basically, a complete waste.

+2 dex: Boost your ranged touch attack, which is nice. +1 AC, +1 Ref. Frankly, your AC as a wizard is naturally a bit weak anyhow, unless it's boosted via spells and items. Taking the dex route to buff that is probably not a great choice. I'd only really bother with this if my int was awesome, and I did a lot of ranged touches.

+2 con: Boosts the concentration skill by 1, which is marginally useful. Additional 40hp at level 20...+1 fort save. Not actually bad, but it's not huge. Worth considering boosts for if you got really screwed over stat wise at char creation.

+2 int: Boosts most of your class skills, bonus spells, all the goodies already mentioned. The big thing with bonus spells is that the higher your stat, the more value you get from additional boosts. At every +2 starting at hitting 20, you're getting two spells per day. At 30, you get three. One of which is a level 9 spell. Now, 30 takes a lil bit of work to hit, but that is a good payout.

+2 wis: Uh...you get will. Boosting your strongest save. Meh.

+2 cha: I have no idea why you would take this.

Note that if the saves are really a concern, you can take one of the x trait to y save feats, linking, say, dex to int. If you do that, suddenly, throwing all your points at the one stat looks awesome.

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 10:47 PM
+2 cha: I have no idea why you would take this.


I do this for RP reasons, and because I play a lot of planar binders.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:47 PM
Stop right here first. Any of those roles should not use only a single type of spell. Even as any of the above, they should have some other spells related to save DCs. Particularly at low levels, where you don't have arcane tanking spells, buffs are weak and short duration, and heals, as at all levels, are not ideal in combat.

Basically, a low level wizard who doesn't have as many extra low level spells is actually rather poor off, and more so, the spells that make him powerful rely on a high intelligence, other than alter self and grease.
At low levels you are casting one useful spell a day max, its probably grease, and it has a save DC... which gets a +2 only for having 18 instead of 15, or a +3 if you got a 20... You can use the same + items at the same level. So the difference here is... do start with a few extra points, and do you invest your level up points... which are not gonna give you ANYTHING until elvel 8, at which point +1... whoo!


If you can't get at least the additional ninths, you're missing out on something worth 81,000 GP. As well as the sum total of all the others. Basically, the extra ninth is the important part.
At that level it ISN'T that much money anymore...


I did 16 wis, 16 charisma, 12 strength, 12 con. All day fast healing means I don't need a lot of con. Massive buffs to strength and trickery domain meant I didn't need strength or dex. At early levels, I used heal and knowledge devotion for encounters.
Good, you got a typical cleric, not what I am talking about.



You can't make divine power permanent.
Sorry, slip of the tongue, I meant get it in item form.


At level 12, highest level spell is 6. A 26 wisdom lets you use an additional level 6 spell, which is your top of the liners, such as flame strikes, or something. A flame strike with a decent (for the level) DC of no less than 24.

If at level 12 you... started with 5 more wisdom (wis 20), and spent all 3 attribute increases on wisdom, you are at 23... add to that a ... +4 item for 27 wis? you now got 4 spells per day instead of 3. If you assume starting wis of 18 and a +6 item than the distance shrinks... Your counterpart is casting 3 spells a day at this level, but is a much more effective fighter due to having 27 STR.



Clerics can't really use tower shields without a feat, and I don't think people argued that you should use a sword and board cleric either.
I know, but they could use a regular shield, or waste a feat... I don't like tower shields anyways, a two handed weapon is just BETTER. Oh so much better...




I made a geek cleric, which was fairly good in melee, actually. Yes, but it could be BETTER

quick_comment
2009-09-22, 10:50 PM
At that level it ISN'T that much money anymore...


At level 20 its more than 10% of your WBL

taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:54 PM
Well:
1) If you are polymorphing, heyzor, no need for Str.
Nerfed or banned outright in most campaigns.


2) You say 'not a lot of spells' and 'lower level' but that's not exactly true. For example, let's look at the difference between 14/14/20 Cleric vs a 18/16/16 version:

Level 1: 1 vs 2 bonus spells. That's a 25% increase over base.

Level 8: 24 vs 20: 1 extra second and third.

Level 13: 29 vs 25: 1 extra 4th and 5th level.

Level 20: 36 vs 32: 1 extra 8th and ninth.

Now is that always better? For a Cleric, no. But there is no reason to privilege Con over Int as a wizard, without even getting into skill points.
Yes, I agree with your calculations. For some playing types those extra few spells help... at level 1 spells are of extremely low utility... you use melee or ranged most of the time. higher levels, you do get one extra spell of your highest level... basically that is what it amounts to, you give up one extra spell of highest level (and maybe level below it, and a bunch of much lower levels). Every "step" gives you exactly 1 extra spell per day at first, and 2 later on.
It is certainly USEFUL, but you can play a role where you sacrifice that utility for other things... Things you can do all day long, like hit with a sword.


As for wizards, yes, it hurts them much more than sorcerers... and yes, you write off a lot of versatility of you NEVER cast things with saving throws, but you can still cast them, it is just easier to resist. You are falling behind... and as you level it will be harder and harder to keep up, so you will stop using saving throws based spells. not very effective use for your RAW wizard or sorc, but useful in some more limited settings.
I admit, it is not the "ideal" build for a wiz/sorc, they will not be "well optimized" with this approach... but they will not be UNPLAYABLE either. And you get an easier PATH to power. At low levels when the difference is minute, its no big deal, but the con sure is. At high level you are a high level wiz/sorc, a god among lesser creatures, and while slightly weaker than you COULD have been, at least you SURVIVED to that point, you can now refocus your efforts on your primary stat.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-22, 10:55 PM
Oh, another thing about healers...pure healers are pretty worthless until someone in the party actually takes damage. If you're not doing *something* else effective until then, it slows your party's ability to deal with the threat, ensuring that your party would need more healing than it otherwise would.

Don't heal until people are pretty well pounded, in other words, focus on damage first. Often, this means saves.

Even if you like to heal, having more spells per day and higher DCs on your offensive spells makes you a better healer. The same can't be said of most other stats(so long as you have enough con to not die).

Kelpstrand
2009-09-22, 10:56 PM
Yes, but it could be BETTER

No it couldn't. At all.

The best melee Cleric at high levels (level 11+ depending on game) has a starting 8 Str.

The best Archer Cleric has starting dex and str 8.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-22, 10:58 PM
It is certainly USEFUL, but you can play a role where you sacrifice that utility for other things... Things you can do all day long, like hit with a sword.

You can cast spells all day long. Way more than you can hit things with a sword.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 10:58 PM
At level 20 its more than 10% of your WBL

right, so you can buy 10 of them... or 5 and some other gear.


No it couldn't. At all.

The best melee Cleric at high levels (level 11+ depending on game) has a starting 8 Str.

The best Archer Cleric has starting dex and str 8.

such spells are banned almost universally... if you play by the raw, then sure...


You can cast spells all day long. Way more than you can hit things with a sword.

no, you cast a few spells, they run out, now you have to wait for a day... you can hit things with a sword all day, and cast the occasional spell to uber yourself when needed.

Also, self healing tank.


Oh, another thing about healers...pure healers are pretty worthless until someone in the party actually takes damage. If you're not doing *something* else effective until then, it slows your party's ability to deal with the threat, ensuring that your party would need more healing than it otherwise would.

Don't heal until people are pretty well pounded, in other words, focus on damage first. Often, this means saves.

Even if you like to heal, having more spells per day and higher DCs on your offensive spells makes you a better healer. The same can't be said of most other stats(so long as you have enough con to not die).

NOT pure healer... a healer / tank / melee damage dealer / buffer... only thing he doesn't do AS WELL AS HE COULD is spells with save DC, and can cast 1 less max level spell per day. and a few lower level ones.

quick_comment
2009-09-22, 11:00 PM
right, so you can buy 10 of them... or 5 and some other gear.


Or you can buy none, and get it for cheap through a high ability score instead of a pearl of power.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-22, 11:00 PM
Yes, I agree with your calculations. For some playing types those extra few spells help... at level 1 spells are of extremely low utility... you use melee or ranged most of the time. higher levels, you do get one extra spell of your highest level... basically that is what it amounts to, you give up one extra spell of highest level (and maybe level below it, and a bunch of much lower levels). Every "step" gives you exactly 1 extra spell per day at first, and 2 later on.
It is certainly USEFUL, but you can play a role where you sacrifice that utility for other things... Things you can do all day long, like hit with a sword.

You're not really sacrificing hitting with a sword. You're sacrificing a +1 to hit and damage with that sword for those spells. That tradeoff is huge.

The +1 spell only applies to bonuses up to and including 18. You start getting two spells at 20. If you've never gotten your primary casting stat to 20, you're doing something terribly wrong, and the first time you take significant stat damage to that stat, you'll be nigh useless until it's healed. Given that you're the healer, this could be awkward.

So, since you HAVE to have a 19 to cast everything, *every* +2 of your caster stat will give you at *least* two bonus spells.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:03 PM
Or you can buy none, and get it for cheap through a high ability score instead of a pearl of power.

you can only get ONE through ability score.. and to boost your ability score you are already buying much MORE expensive items than a pearl of power.. a pearl of power is way cheaper than increasing your enhancement bonus yet another increment, or increasing your inherant bonus. Well, not at FIRST, but it quickly becomes it.. because pearls of power have a linear return, spend 81000gp, get 1 9th level spell slot.
wis boost costs for the same boost are increasing exponentially.. not to mention that to get MORE Than +1 to max level you need to increase it by about TEN, not by 2.

basically: 1 pearl of power = 10 attribute bonus.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:05 PM
You're not really sacrificing hitting with a sword. You're sacrificing a +1 to hit and damage with that sword for those spells. That tradeoff is huge.

The +1 spell only applies to bonuses up to and including 18. You start getting two spells at 20. If you've never gotten your primary casting stat to 20, you're doing something terribly wrong, and the first time you take significant stat damage to that stat, you'll be nigh useless until it's healed. Given that you're the healer, this could be awkward.

So, since you HAVE to have a 19 to cast everything, *every* +2 of your caster stat will give you at *least* two bonus spells.

I disagree, it is +1 to hit per attribute point 1.5x to damage because of two handed weapon...

BTW, in this instance I Would like to compare it to a WARRIOR, or better yet, a paladin! not to another cleric. Not every cleric has to be a god. A palading is exactly what i had in mind actually... not make the ultimate cleric, but make the ultimate paladin, using the cleric class.

ugh, ok I admit, I am flip flopping between "this is a legitimate optimization" and "this is a creative way to play that is not crippling and is fun, but not the best"... Ok... lets try to do it both ways...
1. Can it be played
2. Can it actually be better?

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 11:09 PM
At low levels you are casting one useful spell a day max, its probably grease, and it has a save DC... which gets a +2 only for having 18 instead of 15, or a +3 if you got a 20... You can use the same + items at the same level. So the difference here is... do start with a few extra points, and do you invest your level up points... which are not gonna give you ANYTHING until elvel 8, at which point +1... whoo!

Grease is actually important because it's not too save DC dependant. It's because people without 5 ranks balance are auto shafted.


At that level it ISN'T that much money anymore...

It's almost an 8th of your wealth. :smallconfused:


Good, you got a typical cleric, not what I am talking about.

On the contrary, as I'll demonstrate below.


Sorry, slip of the tongue, I meant get it in item form.

Most DMs will rightly ban that item, as its value is far higher than the already high DMG guideline price.


If at level 12 you... started with 5 more wisdom (wis 20), and spent all 3 attribute increases on wisdom, you are at 23... add to that a ... +4 item for 27 wis? you now got 4 spells per day instead of 3. If you assume starting wis of 18 and a +6 item than the distance shrinks... Your counterpart is casting 3 spells a day at this level, but is a much more effective fighter due to having 27 STR.

Not much more, sadly. You'd see mine with persisted divine and righteous might, which I assume yours has as well. I'd have strength 24, you'd have strength 35. A difference of 7 damage and 5 to hit, which will disappear at later levels. My extra spell is a likely extra 42, minimum 21, and good chance of doing more by hitting multiple targets.


I know, but they could use a regular shield, or waste a feat... I don't like tower shields anyways, a two handed weapon is just BETTER. Oh so much better...

I agree, but just because a cleric has say, 14 strength, they still shouldn't use a 1 handed weapon.


Yes, but it could be BETTER

On the contrary, it was fairly heavily theoretically optimized. Because I took trickery devotion and DMM persist, I didn't need strength at all.

grey elf cloistered cleric 17
Domains were trickery, knowledge and planning. Stats after persisted buffs were 43, 23, 22, 24, 34, 30.

Started with 10, 12, 12, 16, 16, 15.

Used persisted greater visage of the diety to turn into a half celestial which let me PAO into a planetar, which then had divine and righteous might cast on it via DMM. Starting with higher strength would add nothing to this.

At level 9, I had a huge boost due to persisted divine might, and another huge leap at 11 due to righteous might, and a bit of a huge boost at 13 from PAO, which got bigger at 17, which let me PAO into outsiders.

Out of my original stats, I only needed charisma and wisdom.

Early on int boost from grey elf let me max the knowledges a bit faster, though it would have been a bit better with human in that regard for the human feat. I chose elf because knowledge devotion + longbow + decent in and knowledge focus meant I was a good early ranged fighter.

Technically, I used this character as an archer, but you can see how it could /have been used in melee instead.

Douglas
2009-09-22, 11:11 PM
Sorry, slip of the tongue, I meant get it in item form.
Can't do that either without a custom item and a very generous DM.

If you plan to exclusively cast buffs, heals, and other spells that do not allow saves, then focusing on other ability scores while keeping the primary just high enough to cast your highest level spells is a reasonable choice. It runs the danger of ability damage removing your ability to cast a lot of your spells, but mental ability damage is usually pretty rare. Whether doing this is actually the better choice depends on the particulars of the build and campaign. The big thing about focusing on the primary casting stat is that it is always a good choice and does not permanently make all spells with saves worthless for you, so if you decide to change your spell selection later for any reason you do not have a gigantic portion of your class spell list irrevocably removed from consideration.

quick_comment
2009-09-22, 11:11 PM
Lets take the worst wizard in the world. He enjoys fighting in melee. Lets say he is level 10.

What is better - +1 attack and damage, or an extra casting of tenser's transformation which gives +5 attack + 4 AC and +4 strength, dex and con, for a total of +7 attack, +2 damage +6 AC and +20HP?

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:16 PM
Used persisted greater visage of the diety to turn into a half celestial which let me PAO into a planetar, which then had divine and righteous might cast on it via DMM. Starting with higher strength would add nothing to this.

Banned or nerfed almost everywhere

And no, I am not taking houserules into account, for example right now I am playing in a game where i can take destruction doman to gain full bab... This doesn't count because it is not a standard thing to do... Not allowing polymorph exploits is.
Otherwise EVERYONE will be polymorphing up the wazoo... to really exotic creatures, and nothing matters anymore.
You can just polymorph into something that gives high wisdom while you are at it.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:18 PM
Lets take the worst wizard in the world. He enjoys fighting in melee. Lets say he is level 10.

What is better - +1 attack and damage, or an extra casting of tenser's transformation which gives +5 attack + 4 AC and +4 strength, dex and con, for a total of +7 attack, +2 damage +6 AC and +20HP?

lets not, I will never argue that it is a good idea to cripple your wizard (the class that benefits the absolute least from my suggestion) and then SEND him into melee... the idea of con focusing was to compensate for damage taken DESPITE avoiding combat...

I should add that as a ground rule, absolutely no polymorphing, for anyone... otherwise none of the stats even matter, since anyone can have the same uber stats from the same polymorphed creature. including your primary casting attribute

Tyndmyr
2009-09-22, 11:21 PM
you can only get ONE through ability score.. and to boost your ability score you are already buying much MORE expensive items than a pearl of power.. a pearl of power is way cheaper than increasing your enhancement bonus yet another increment, or increasing your inherant bonus. Well, not at FIRST, but it quickly becomes it.. because pearls of power have a linear return, spend 81000gp, get 1 9th level spell slot.
wis boost costs for the same boost are increasing exponentially.. not to mention that to get MORE Than +1 to max level you need to increase it by about TEN, not by 2.

basically: 1 pearl of power = 10 attribute bonus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the pearl basically allow you to use a memorized spell twice? While still powerful, it isn't quite as flexible as another slot of that level.

And of course, the +10 attribute bonus ignores all the lesser spells. Lets see, going from 20 to 30 literally gives you +1 to all ranks of spells(+2 to 6th). While ninth level spells are quite powerful, you shouldn't discount the value of the lesser ones.

By my calculations, that many pearls of power would be worth 321k gold. Not counting the additional flexibility added by slots. That's over 40% of wealth by level. Not a trivial value, and this is JUST the bonus slots.

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 11:22 PM
Banned or nerfed almost everywhere

And no, I am not taking houserules into account, for example right now I am playing in a game where i can take destruction doman to gain full bab... This doesn't count because it is not a standard thing to do... Not allowing polymorph exploits is.
Otherwise EVERYONE will be polymorphing up the wazoo... to really exotic creatures, and nothing matters anymore.
You can just polymorph into something that gives high wisdom while you are at it.

Polymorph doesn't grant wisdom. PAO grants intelligence if it's higher than yours, and only intelligence.

Besides, even if it were banned, I'd simply have used quickened spells via rods instead, which simply means extra spell slots are more imperative, not less.

Lastly, it's broken because it completely removes my need for strength and other physical scores. There isn't much reason to ban that if it didn't replace my strength score.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:23 PM
Polymorph doesn't grant wisdom. PAO grants intelligence if it's higher than yours, and only intelligence.

Besides, even if it were banned, I'd simply have used quickened spells via rods instead, which simply means extra spell slots are more imperative, not less.

to match my strength?

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 11:24 PM
Depends on whether or not you banned that extra shape change my theoretical cleric would get. If you didn't, then there is no reason to match yours, as opposed to surpassing or matching it.

Edit: If your arguments are going to go in the direction of "If it disproves me, it's clearly broken" then I'm done here.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:27 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the pearl basically allow you to use a memorized spell twice? While still powerful, it isn't quite as flexible as another slot of that level.

And of course, the +10 attribute bonus ignores all the lesser spells. Lets see, going from 20 to 30 literally gives you +1 to all ranks of spells(+2 to 6th). While ninth level spells are quite powerful, you shouldn't discount the value of the lesser ones.

By my calculations, that many pearls of power would be worth 321k gold. Not counting the additional flexibility added by slots. That's over 40% of wealth by level. Not a trivial value, and this is JUST the bonus slots.

yes, but all those spells are available 5 - 7 times a day already, so getting another casting of a low level spell you have 5+ of is not gonna make or break you. you have enough for a few combats, you just get spent a little earlier.
besides which, i didn't say the other cleric IS 10 levels ahead. I said will NEED another 10 levels to gain another level 9 slot. I was wrong, you need to go from 28 to 36... each +8 increment gives another 9 level slot.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-22, 11:28 PM
I have trouble seeing how an addition +5 bonus to your strength modifier could ever do more damage than an additional casting of gate(or other level 9 spell of choice), not to mention all the lower level spells.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:29 PM
Depends on whether or not you banned that extra shape change my theoretical cleric would get. If you didn't, then there is no reason to match yours, as opposed to surpassing or matching it.

Edit: If your arguments are going to go in the direction of "If it disproves me, it's clearly broken" then I'm done here.

that is not at all the case; i assure you. I WANT to be proven wrong. But all I am trying to show is that there is more than one "valid way to play"... I think I will actually go ahead and stat it out.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:31 PM
I have trouble seeing how an addition +5 bonus to your strength modifier could ever do more damage than an additional casting of gate(or other level 9 spell of choice), not to mention all the lower level spells.

it couldn't. I was thinking that you can continue to focus on it forever, but I admit I was wrong (in terms of optimization that is, it is still playable - but than again, anything is "playable"... I mean the cleric isn't useless, just not AS GOOD as it could be).

It is, however, nice at low levels, but I wasn't thinking about how at higher levels melee becomes less useful, and eventually magic completely breaks the world at level 21 exactly. (infinite mitigation, ice assassin, you are now a greater god.)

But it helps at lower levels at a low cost, and you can start focusing on wisdom again at a high level. I am gonna make some stats here soon.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-22, 11:31 PM
yes, but all those spells are available 5 - 7 times a day already, so getting another casting of a low level spell you have 5+ of is not gonna make or break you. you have enough for a few combats, you just get spent a little earlier.
besides which, i didn't say the other cleric IS 10 levels ahead. I said will NEED another 10 levels to gain another level 9 slot. I was wrong, you need to go from 28 to 36... each +8 increment gives another 9 level slot.

Well, your argument for melee was that it was something to do after the spells ran dry, no?

Why not just make sure the spells don't run dry?

KellKheraptis
2009-09-22, 11:31 PM
but they already HAVE all those spells... what they get is extra castings per day... aka spell ENDURANCE... which, by those levels, they have a ton of from caster levels.

to clarify, you get bonus SPELL SLOTS PER DAY. not bonus spells known...
score of 15 = +1 level 1 through 2.
score of 18 = +1 level 1 through 4.

score of 25 = +2 level 1, +2 level 2, +2 level 3, +1 levels 4 through 7.

By the time you are high enough level, and have fully invested in those abilities, you are getting some extra level "so low it doesn't matter" spells and exactly ONE spell per level of your not maxed out levels.

Find me one Wizard who wouldn't love to dump one more charging uberchargidy chargabarb on his keister with that extra grease spell (complete with debuff lite, possibly), or a cleric who wanted just a little more edge from another divine favor because he persisted divine power and righteous might already. Even entangle can screw someone at high levels if you dispel/suppress their spells/magical gear first. And if we go into 3rd level spells, that's another ally with +10 damage from thorns, another enemy eating -6 Str and Dex from ray of exhaustion, and another breath weapon laughed at from protection from energy. And that's just core (other than Thorns). Other than maybe Con, primary stat is your only real concern with a full caster.

quick_comment
2009-09-22, 11:33 PM
lets not, I will never argue that it is a good idea to cripple your wizard (the class that benefits the absolute least from my suggestion) and then SEND him into melee... the idea of con focusing was to compensate for damage taken DESPITE avoiding combat...

I should add that as a ground rule, absolutely no polymorphing, for anyone... otherwise none of the stats even matter, since anyone can have the same uber stats from the same polymorphed creature. including your primary casting attribute

And even one of the worst spells ever printed gives more benefit than +1 strength.

Flickerdart
2009-09-22, 11:34 PM
There's really only one class who doesn't need to invest into their main casting stat, and that's Warlocks. They're the only ones that can really work on 0 PB: just get Invocations that don't offer saves. Who gives a whit about bonus spells: you've got them At Will. Being able to hit with your Eldritch Blast is oftentimes more important than a point or two off your DC when all you're doing is casting Fly anyway.
Warlocks aren't casters in the traditional sense, though. So it hardly counts.

And then we get to the poor Truenamer, who needs to pour every point they have into INT and then some.

Kallisti
2009-09-22, 11:35 PM
It's your main attribute because it affects spells. Spells allow you to rewrite the laws of the universe.

Seriously. Melee cleric? +2 Str grants +1 attack and damage. +2 Wis grants +1 casting of bless, which gives more than the strength boost, and castings at other levels too, possibly. Strength is +1 attack and damage. Wisdom is +1attack, damage, saving throws (from Bless), and another +1 Will save, and more spell slots at second, and third, and...

chiasaur11
2009-09-22, 11:35 PM
Wait.

If it's cheesy and it supports your theory, it's fine and most DMs will allow it.

If it's cheesy and it blows your theory into little bits it's "Banned or nerfed almost everywhere".

We work by RAW, as insane as it is, because it's an agreed upon baseline. DMs differ, and most don't know half of the really nasty tricks, or they trust their players (whether naively or with good reason). RAW's stupid, but it's consistantly stupid

So... needing to assume bans kinda means the theory has a strike or two from the start.

taltamir
2009-09-22, 11:44 PM
Wait.

If it's cheesy and it supports your theory, it's fine and most DMs will allow it.

If it's cheesy and it blows your theory into little bits it's "Banned or nerfed almost everywhere".

We work by RAW, as insane as it is, because it's an agreed upon baseline. DMs differ, and most don't know half of the really nasty tricks, or they trust their players (whether naively or with good reason). RAW's stupid, but it's consistantly stupid

So... needing to assume bans kinda means the theory has a strike or two from the start.

not at all, the "as an item" was an honest mistake on my part. And I agree that it will not fly upon actual reflection. Actually at first i said permanent (it was a slip of the tongue, I meant a ring that gives it as a perma bonus). But you can still make a wand of it... everyone says how "cheap" wands are when it comes to things like using it as your ONLY means of healing spells instead of a cleric. Although, if you are using it THAT often that you should be fighting less opponent more powerful than your group per day, this isn't an MMO.

The only thing I said doesn't fly is shape changes / polymorphs / etc. Which, actually, comes from the fact that various re balancing I have seen all hit it hard. And my current DM outright bans it. And various threads here say how broken it is, and many other DMs ban it. If I am not mistaken that is the basis of the PUN PUN!
Notice, again, ONLY ONE THING have I said this about, don't make a pattern out of a single case. especially because I also admitted that if it IS allowed as per the RAW than my argument is indeed invalid. And in such games, don't bother.

There are many house rules that greatly HELP my "argument" as it is that I do not try to apply. I am not trying to "win". I wish to learn, maybe teach on occasion. Please don't assume the absolute worse about me and give me a little bit of benefit of the doubt.

arguskos
2009-09-23, 12:02 AM
There are many house rules that greatly HELP my "argument" as it is that I do not try to apply. I am not trying to "win". I wish to learn, maybe teach on occasion. Please don't assume the absolute worse about me and give me a little bit of benefit of the doubt.
Then you should read what they say.. These fine folks have pointed out, numerically, why taking more casting stat points is ALWAYS better than not doing so. Spells are greater than points in Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

The ONLY statistic that is even SEMI decent that isn't your primary casting stat is Con, and that's only if you don't watch your spell defenses frequently.

It's fine to be proven wrong. Just realize when you've been so disproved. :smallwink:

Thrawn183
2009-09-23, 12:04 AM
There's really only one class who doesn't need to invest into their main casting stat, and that's Warlocks. They're the only ones that can really work on 0 PB: just get Invocations that don't offer saves.

Druids also work on 0 PB, it just takes them longer to become absurdly awesome.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 12:09 AM
Then you should read what they say.. These fine folks have pointed out, numerically, why taking more casting stat points is ALWAYS better than not doing so. Spells are greater than points in Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.

The ONLY statistic that is even SEMI decent that isn't your primary casting stat is Con, and that's only if you don't watch your spell defenses frequently.

It's fine to be proven wrong. Just realize when you've been so disproved. :smallwink:

for the absolute most optimized character. under core raw. for certain amount of daily encounters. (just enough to to make you run into the red with the spells, not enough to run out completely).

I admitted to being wrong about several things in this thread already. But there are ways to make it work... or is any caster that starts with less than 20 on primary attribute is doomed to be a failure forever?

I made two contentions:
1. Under some scenarios, putting some more points in a non "primary casting stat" can be a good idea from power optimization levels. (especially, higher survivability at lower levels, for lower power at higher levels)... if this was always a mistake, then there is never a point to play anything but a squishy wizard.

2. Putting some more points in a non primary casting stat will not cripple your character. just make it a little weaker then it could have been.

I don't think anyone made any headway into #2. but the amount of scenarios I thought possible for #1 has been significantly diminished, just not entirely eliminated, yet. And it could very well be because of me making a wrong assumption that renders it null and void.

NOTE: Ill get to stating. heck I might come back here with a stated example showing why -I- was wrong.

arguskos
2009-09-23, 12:17 AM
is any caster that starts with less than 20 on primary attribute is doomed to be a failure forever?
No, but if given the choice between an 18 and a 20, why would you NOT pick the 20?


1. Under some scenarios, putting some more points in a non "primary casting stat" can be a good idea from power optimization levels. (especially, higher survivability at lower levels, for lower power at higher levels)... if this was always a mistake, then there is never a point to play anything but a squishy wizard.
And, by optimization standards, there never IS a reason to play anything but a squishy mage. In a reasonable game, yeah, there are other builds, but the fact of the matter is that spells rule over everything, and the squishy 8 Str, 20+ Int wizard is the king of the castle.


2. Putting some more points in a non primary casting stat will not cripple your character. just make it a little weaker then it could have been.
If given a chance between pumping the power of your best skill (spells) and being a little tougher, why in the name of all the gods would you EVER pick the latter?! Especially when you can do the latter WITH the former.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 12:18 AM
If given a chance between pumping the power of your best skill (spells) and being a little tougher, why in the name of all the gods would you EVER pick the latter?! Especially when you can do the latter WITH the former.

Role playing. As long as it is not TOO painful that is... role playing a "truenamer" or a monk is too MUCH of a sacrifice... the greatest mistake I ever made was to roleplay a mute wizard. Not only was he much weaker (silent spell to get cantrips at level 1). It caused an amazing amount of inter party / DM tension, and argument over what is, and isn't, possible to "say" with a raven familiar + sign language.

Obviously there has to be clerics who are NOT the most giften ones in the church... And playing one can be interesting if done right.

arguskos
2009-09-23, 12:21 AM
Role playing can happen WHILE optimizing to a reasonable level. This is a fallacy that many many MANY folk make. What about ensuring you are mechanically strong hurts your role playing potential?

PhoenixRivers
2009-09-23, 12:25 AM
Having Decent Con is always good, and having a good enough strength to qualify for the good feats is nice also. When possible, for CoDzillas, I try to put Con > Wis > Str, in that order. Because Con protects you from the hit you don't see coming.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 12:29 AM
for the absolute most optimized character. under core raw. for certain amount of daily encounters. (just enough to to make you run into the red with the spells, not enough to run out completely).

Nah...it doesn't have to be just core, or even just raw for this to apply. It does need to be something vaguely close to raw, though, since with enough arbitrary house rulings, you can make anything work any way you want to, making most discussions pointless. As for daily encounters...once you run dry on spells, your limiting resource is hp. That will run out relatively rapidly as a caster in melee(since we're assuming no polymorph type shenanigans), and thus, will not be usable as long as the extra set of spells will be.


I admitted to being wrong about several things in this thread already. But there are ways to make it work... or is any caster that starts with less than 20 on primary attribute is doomed to be a failure forever?

Doomed, no. They would be better off with a 20, if possible. Starting conditions vary, and it may not be possible to start off with a 20...but an 18 is a safe minimum, and definitely grab the 20 if you can without throwing your con into the negatives.


I made two contentions:
1. Under some scenarios, putting some more points in a non "primary casting stat" can be a good idea from power optimization levels. (especially, higher survivability at lower levels, for lower power at higher levels)... if this was always a mistake, then there is never a point to play anything but a squishy wizard.

This *might* be the case for gishes. Dunno, I haven't played gish in some time. It might also be good if you allow retraining of those stat choices later. In the latter case, con and dex exclusively.


2. Putting some more points in a non primary casting stat will not cripple your character. just make it a little weaker then it could have been.

It's a pretty significant weakening. What exactly you call weakening and what you call crippled is pretty subjective, though.

Is there some non-power related reason you want this sort of build?

ericgrau
2009-09-23, 12:36 AM
It takes a 28 to get a bonus 9th level spell, which is doable: 18 + 6 (item) + 4 (levels). But it takes a 36 to get the next bonus 9th level spell. So unless you have a method to go all the way, there's not much point to having a caster stat higher than 18... or lower if you have a way to boost it more. Unless you need a high save DC of course. But if you're focusing on save free spells, then ya the high stat is almost entirely useless.

As for the value of the bonus spell, ya it's worth something. But it's an additional spell. You already have one. Sometimes you need to endure longer, but not always. That does need to be weighed against, say, having a bajillion more hitpoints. It's not always one way or the other, but you really can't ignore the possibility that pumping another stat into the stratosphere may also be worth a great deal, maybe even more.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 12:50 AM
I will agree that certain levels make more sense to stop at than others. Still, starting with 20 isn't at all bad(though it may not make sense with certain point buys).

Still...its not a bajillion hit points. And its never just one spell. At worst, you get an additional level 2 and a level 6 spell. Nothin to sneeze at.

Also, 36 is doable with access to wish. The additional +5 is quite nice. Not easy, mind you, but possible.

So, with con, compare at level 20, an additional 20hp vs an additional 2 spells, one of which is decently high. Keep in mind that con boosts almost nothing else, while int boosts more skills, save dc, and gives addtl skill points.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 01:10 AM
It takes a 28 to get a bonus 9th level spell, which is doable: 18 + 6 (item) + 4 (levels). But it takes a 36 to get the next bonus 9th level spell. So unless you have a method to go all the way, there's not much point to having a caster stat higher than 18... or lower if you have a way to boost it more. Unless you need a high save DC of course. But if you're focusing on save free spells, then ya the high stat is almost entirely useless.

As for the value of the bonus spell, ya it's worth something. But it's an additional spell. You already have one. Sometimes you need to endure longer, but not always. That does need to be weighed against, say, having a bajillion more hitpoints. It's not always one way or the other, but you really can't ignore the possibility that pumping another stat into the stratosphere may also be worth a great deal, maybe even more.

that... is exactly my whole entire point.
Question, considering the seriously high saves of high level encounters... how valuable are spells that allow saves in the first place?


It's a pretty significant weakening. What exactly you call weakening and what you call crippled is pretty subjective, though.

Is there some non-power related reason you want this sort of build?

I got the idea from coming up with a character concept, and then thinking "wait a minute, this isn't as bad as I assumed it would be" when I started stating it. The character concept in question isn't really applicable here though because it is full of house rules that tip things in its favor. (str domain giving a progressing enchantment to str, starting at +2 at second level and ending at +10 at 18th) and either the war or destruction (don't remember which) giving a cleric full BAB. Plus 3 spells per level per domain... But base spells known has been trimmed to almost nil. And sorcs and wizards are flat out banned (there are single school wizards who can ONLY cast within their school, plus a few select spells outside it, and nice abilities to compensate).

But no, what I am trying to figure out is, can it be an intelligent investment to sacrifice some wis for a cleric for other attributes under certain conditions.
However, actually stating and testing it seems a daunting task, especially because I SHOULD be studying for school (but I am not :p).
but heck, ill do. I will go ahead and make some clerics.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 02:27 AM
3 paths of a cleric. the warrior, the warrior turned caster, and the caster.

1. All are single classed clerics, no PRC.

2. All are assumed to have 10,10,10,15,15,18 to distribute as they wish

3. All are assumed to get +2 attribute booster of choice at level 5, +4, +2, and +2 at level 10, and +6, +6, +4 at level 15. +6,+6,+6 items on level 20 and +5 inherant bonuses to everything... (not exploiting genie or anything, just taking your time and getting +5 to each stat at level 17 before continuing to level, aka, stay level 17 for a while... if the party advances, you are still gaining in strength, but not levels, so you can keep up, yet you gain bonus XP for being lower level; accelerating process)

4. First I will just make them all human for simplicity... will try another type later. I will only include things that differ, HP is always the same since they all considering it secondary. (although, another that focuses on con instead of str might also be an interesting build).

5. All also have power attack giving (+2 damage per -1 attack)
spells are (Amount lvl X, X = 1 on first). So 3 means 3 level 1 spells, I am not gonna put cantrips to save some effort.

6. if I am not mistaken, the two handed wield damage bonus is about the only one that rounds up, correct me if wrong... This really seems like it should be wrong, but I somehow remember it being the case...

Warrior cleric (my original intention, I ADMIT this is not a good plan, and now think warrior turned caster is better):
18 str
15 con
15 wis
10 everything else

Weapon = Greatsword 2d6 + str x1.5

@ lvl1:
attack = +4, damage = 2d6 + 6 damage
spells: 3

@ lvl5:
19 str + 2 item = +5
15 con = +2
15 wis = +2
attack = +8, damage = 2d6 + 8 + enchantments and feats bonuses
Spells: 5, 4, 2

@ lvl10:
20 str + 4 item = +7
15 con + 2 item = +3
15 wis + 2 item = +3
attack = +14, +9, damage = 2d6 + 11 + enchantments and feats bonuses
spells: 6,6,5,4,3

@ lvl15
21 str + 6 item = +8
15 con + 6 item = +5
15 wis + 4 item = +4
attack = 19,14,9, damage = 2d6 + 12 + enchantments and feats bonuses
spells: 7,7,7,6,5,4,3,2

@ lvl20
28 str + 6 item = +12
20 con + 6 item = +8
20 wis + 6 item = +8
attack = 27,22,17, damage = 2d6 + 18 + enchantment and feats bonuses
spells: 8,8,8,8,7,6,6,6,5


Warrior turned caster (my revised plan, after being shown the folly of my original plan):
18 str
15 con
15 wis
10 everything else

Weapon = Greatsword 2d6 + str x1.5

@ lvl1:
attack = +4, damage = 2d6 + 6 damage
spells: 3

@ lvl5:
18 str + 2 item = +5
15 con = +2
16 wis = +3
attack = +8, damage = 2d6 + 8 + enchantments and feats bonuses
Spells: 5, 4, 3

@ lvl10:
18 str + 4 item = +6
15 con + 2 item = +3
17 wis + 2 item = +4
attack = +13, +8, damage = 2d6 + 9 + enchantments and feats bonuses
spells: 6,6,6,4,3

@ lvl15
18 str + 4 item = +6
15 con + 6 item = +5
18 wis + 6 item = +7
attack = 17,12,7, damage = 2d6 + 9 + enchantments and feats bonuses
spells: 8,8,8,6,6,5,4,2

@ lvl20
24 str + 6 item = +10
20 con + 6 item = +8
24 wis + 6 item = +10
attack = 25,20,15, damage = 2d6 + 15 + enchantment and feats bonuses
spells: 9,9,8,8,8,7,6,6,6


Caster cleric (my revised plan, after being shown the folly of my original plan):
15 str
15 con
18 wis
10 everything else

Weapon = Greatsword 2d6 + str x1.5

@ lvl1:
attack = +2, damage = 2d6 + 3 damage
spells: 3

@ lvl5:
15 str = +2
15 con = +2
19 wis = +4
attack = +5, damage = 2d6 + 3 + enchantments and feats bonuses
Spells: 5,4,3

@ lvl10:
15 str + 2 item = +3
15 con + 2 item = +3
20 wis + 4 item = +7
attack = +10, +5, damage = 2d6 + 5 + enchantments and feats bonuses
spells: 7,7,6,5,4

@ lvl15
15 str + 4 item = +4
15 con + 6 item = +5
21 wis + 6 item = +8
attack = 15,10,5, damage = 2d6 + 6 + enchantments and feats bonuses
spells: 8,8,8,7,6,5,4,3

@ lvl20
20 str + 6 item = +8
20 con + 6 item = +8
28 wis + 6 item = +12
attack = 23,18,13, damage = 2d6 + 12 + enchantment and feats bonuses
spells: 9,9,9,9,8,7,7,7,6

Myrmex
2009-09-23, 03:36 AM
No, but if given the choice between an 18 and a 20, why would you NOT pick the 20?

If it comes at cost to physical scores in a low level, lethal, low wealth campaign, I could see picking an 18 over a 20, or even a 15 over a 20, assuming standard point buy.

Carrying capacity is a big deal at low levels when every level 1 arcane caster is packing ray of enfeeblement & you're in plate. Heck, just hauling loot around can be a big deal!

ericgrau
2009-09-23, 10:11 AM
that... is exactly my whole entire point.
Question, considering the seriously high saves of high level encounters... how valuable are spells that allow saves in the first place?

If someone has the average monster saves by CR graph, now would be the time to post it. I have a table, and IIRC monsters have about a 50:50 chance of failing their low save at most levels. A higher CR BBEG might only have a 25% chance, while a mook might have a 75%. Drop those by about 25% each if you use a low level spell, but then you often hit multiple targets. However, I just came from the thread where everyone thought it was no big deal when someone got a +3 to their save DCs from various sources. That means the BBEG fails 40% of the time instead of 25%. Or more with a bigger boost. That's huge, unless the DM remembers to boost baddies to match his stronger PCs.

So, assuming some powergaming, spells with saves can be real encounter enders. But w/o it, the only thing worth targetting makes his save for 3 out of 4 rounds, and often has SR as well. Despite the common myth, on average you'll take down a high HP dragon faster with direct damage than SoD's. And that's assuming you don't use one of the 101 spells he's immune to. In the last dragon thread I saw, people kept suggesting spells that don't work. So, ya, with powergaming, SoDs end BBEG fights in an unsatisfyingly quick manner, but without it they usually aren't worth very much except against weaker enemies whom you could kill fast with damage anyway. Best to not bother with them except in very specific situations. The AoE SoS's are still nice because then at least one of the baddies will probably fail.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 10:11 AM
Starting at 18 is quite possible given starting points. You definitely don't want a negative con modifier at low level, or the risk of getting one shotted by a lucky crit is significant. Strength is less of a problem. If it's ten, you have a medium load max of 66 lbs. Sure, weapon and armor takes up most of that, but you've got enough for the bare necessities. And, after all, if its a low wealth, low magic campaign, you likely dont have all that many cool gadgets and stuff to carry around anyhow.

And medium load lowers your max dex to a +3....if you're wearing full plate, that's the least of your worries. The penalties just frankly aren't that big of a deal.

chiasaur11
2009-09-23, 10:31 AM
Carrying capacity is a big deal at low levels when every level 1 arcane caster is packing ray of enfeeblement & you're in plate. Heck, just hauling loot around can be a big deal!

That's what henchmen are for.

Cyclocone
2009-09-23, 10:48 AM
That's what henchmen are for.

Agreed, a donkey is... what? 8gp?

arguskos
2009-09-23, 10:54 AM
If it comes at cost to physical scores in a low level, lethal, low wealth campaign, I could see picking an 18 over a 20, or even a 15 over a 20, assuming standard point buy.

Carrying capacity is a big deal at low levels when every level 1 arcane caster is packing ray of enfeeblement & you're in plate. Heck, just hauling loot around can be a big deal!
Ok, I will grant that, at times, this situation does crop up and is reasonable. So, in Dark Sun. :smalltongue:

taltamir
2009-09-23, 12:57 PM
Agreed, a donkey is... what? 8gp?

assuming either a henchmen or a donkey is available... or that cheap... or will follow you through the portal made out of fire and death...

useful for "encounter appropriate" challanges...
but a lethal game where you leg it, often... a hench/donkey isn't gonna cut it.

chiasaur11
2009-09-23, 01:15 PM
assuming either a henchmen or a donkey is available... or that cheap... or will follow you through the portal made out of fire and death...

useful for "encounter appropriate" challanges...
but a lethal game where you leg it, often... a hench/donkey isn't gonna cut it.

Nodwick disagrees.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 01:25 PM
Nodwick disagrees.

nodwick is a hillarious comic... it also has him bound up to a year after his death in a magic contract, an awesome cleric that reses him, and level appropriate encounters.
the guys in nodwick send him into the dragon lair before slaying the dragon... they do not run for their lives and have him fall unrezzed by the wayside as he can't keep up when under heavy fire.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 02:45 PM
Agreed, a donkey is... what? 8gp?

But undead require only the death of the living. Clearly, a bargain(shh, onyx doesn't count).

Another_Poet
2009-09-23, 03:49 PM
If your DM loves you, and your other players are on a par with you as far as not liking to optimise too much, then the DM will make sure you feel like a hero no matter what kind of backwards cleric or wizard you make.

But if you are looking at what is most useful and effective, even most powerful, putting your highest stat into your casting stat will always be the best choice. That includes melee clerics, wildshape-focused druids, nova sorcerers and don't-use-save-or-suck-spells wizards. More spell slots = more chances to excel at melee, ranged, blasting, and utility. Batman's toolbelt, remember?

ap

taltamir
2009-09-23, 05:55 PM
If your DM loves you, and your other players are on a par with you as far as not liking to optimise too much, then the DM will make sure you feel like a hero no matter what kind of backwards cleric or wizard you make.

But if you are looking at what is most useful and effective, even most powerful, putting your highest stat into your casting stat will always be the best choice. That includes melee clerics, wildshape-focused druids, nova sorcerers and don't-use-save-or-suck-spells wizards. More spell slots = more chances to excel at melee, ranged, blasting, and utility. Batman's toolbelt, remember?

ap

why? I think I just built 3 clerics that show otherwise.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 05:59 PM
Ok, we need Tidesinger in here to make some of his optimization-fu challenges, but I'll step in.

You give me your three clerics. I play them *exactly* how you want them to be played, but with maxed out casting stats. We run through a dungeon, long enough that our spell slots will run out (not hard) and see who does best. Fair enough?

Hell, even that's not giving the "casting stat is better" a fair chance, because that still requires me taking a suboptimal build with feats and such that are useful for noncasters.

So... you up for it?

jiriku
2009-09-23, 06:21 PM
Taltamir, despite what the hard-core optimizers are telling you, you're right.

Certain types of builds, especially divine caster builds, can be successful when focused on buffing and healing spells, and for these casters, spreading the ability points around can be a successful tactic.

I presently play a 5th-level cloistered cleric with a 15 Wis (and that's actually my highest stats, all the others range from 12-14) who is focused on tanking, melee damage dealing, and being the party sage/knowledge skill monkey. I need Dex to boost my AC and Ref saves, Con for hitpoints and Fort saves, and Int for extra skill points. I use my buff spells to improve my melee damage so Str and Cha aren't as important, but I haven't cast a spell that allowed a saving throw for the past six encounters. Despite spreading myself around like this, I'm the anchor of our party in combat and I ALWAYS have something useful to do in any encounter that doesn't involve social interaction.

However, the optimizers are right too. I miss those bonus spells. I miss them bad. I only get 2 third levels spells right now, counting my domain slot. I wish I had twice that many. When I get 4th levels spells, I'm only going to have 3 of those as well, and I'll sorely miss that bonus spell slot.

But that painful feeling that my second-best choice is almost as good as my current choice? That's balance.

Edit: Also, what the optimizers are missing is that you're not necessarily trading ability points on a 1-for-1 basis. If you swap your 18 Wis for an 18 Str, sure. But with point buy, bidding your 18 Wis down to a 14 gets you ten points. Those ten points can add up to a total +5 bonus if spread among your lower attributes. For example, I bidding my Wisdom down from 18 to 14 at character creation let me increase Dex and Int from 10 to 14 and Con from 10 to 12. +2 AC and Ref save, +2 skill points per level, +1 Fort save, and +1 hp per level all together stack up competitively against +2 save DC, +2 Will save, and 2-4 bonus spells.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 06:25 PM
I... I can't see that build working, if only because you can't actually ever get ninth level spells with 15 wisdom at level 5.

jiriku
2009-09-23, 06:27 PM
Milk...use yer noggin, amigo. There's an item of Wis +2/+4/+6 in my future.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 06:35 PM
I... I can't see that build working, if only because you can't actually ever get ninth level spells with 15 wisdom at level 5.

with 15 wis at level 1 you can cast up to level 5 spells... level6 spells require CL11.
CL 4, +1 wis choice. he is now set till CL13
CL 8, +1 wis, he is set till CL15
CL 12, +1 wis, he is set till CL17
CL 16, +1 wis, he can cast level 9 spells...

His progression is a little slower... at level 15 he would need a +2 item to get his wis high enough to cast... at level 16 he will make it up. at level 17 he will again need a +2 item. which he will need until level 20.

his progression (CL5, 15 wis):
CL 8, +1 wis, he is now set till CL13
CL 12, +1 wis, he is set till CL15
CL 15, he needs a periphet of +2 to cast 8th level spells.
CL 16, +1 wis, he no longer needs the priphet
CL 17, he needs the periphet of +2 again
CL 20, +1 wis, he no longer needs the periphet to cast lvl9 spells.

By level 15 he should be able to easily get a +2 periphet of wisdom...
So, without a single item, he is always able to cast his highest level spells. And he WILL be getting items.

And yes, my examples were for when you get a statblock, not for point buy... point buy you DEFINITELY need to sacrifice some primary casting attribute for other stats... it should be your highest attribute, but not an 18. because you spend a ton of points that you sorely need to survive.

I'd be glad to playtest a game where we compare the three classes i put forth above...

I posit that the pure warrior will be the best early on, but under powered later.
The warrior turned caster will start out almost as good, and maintain his dominance
and the pure caster one will start out the weakest, and at the end game will be the best by a too small to really matter margin.

olentu
2009-09-23, 06:43 PM
with 15 wis he can cast up to level 5 spells... level6 spells require CL11.
CL 4, +1 wis choice. he is now set till CL13
CL 8, +1 wis, he is set till CL15
CL 12, +1 wis, he is set till CL17
CL 16, +1 wis, he can cast level 9 spells...

So, without a SINGLE item, he is always able to cast his highest level spells. And he WILL be getting items.

And yes, my examples were for when you get a statblock, not for point buy... point buy you DEFINITELY need to sacrifice some primary casting attribute for other stats... it should be your highest attribute, but not an 18. because you spend a ton of points that you sorely need to survive.

15 wis at level five means that the stat point at level 4 would have already been used. Though counting the ones at levels 8, 12, 16,and 20 one could still get 19 wis with just those but one would also have to wait to 20.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 06:44 PM
15 wis at level five means that the stat point at level 4 would have already been used. Though counting the ones at levels 8, 12, 16,and 20 one could still get 19 wis with just those but one would also have to wait to 20.

or get a +2 periphet of wisdom at level 15... with NO ITEMS he will have to wait for 8th level spells until CL16 instead of 15... and for 9th level spells until CL20 instead of CL17

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 06:45 PM
Edit: Also, what the optimizers are missing is that you're not necessarily trading ability points on a 1-for-1 basis. If you swap your 18 Wis for an 18 Str, sure. But with point buy, bidding your 18 Wis down to a 14 gets you ten points. Those ten points can add up to a total +5 bonus if spread among your lower attributes. For example, I bidding my Wisdom down from 18 to 14 at character creation let me increase Dex and Int from 10 to 14 and Con from 10 to 12. +2 AC and Ref save, +2 skill points per level, +1 Fort save, and +1 hp per level all together stack up competitively against +2 save DC, +2 Will save, and 2-4 bonus spells.

Actually, I believe I already mentioned point buy as an exception.

Still, in that case, you'd probably be best served by taking wisdom to 16. 18 is a heavy price to pay, and I wouldn't fault you for passing on the 18 in order to get some survivability elsewhere, but the difference in value of the bonuses is such that sticking to at least a 16 in your primary casting stat is generally a good idea. Keep in mind that thanks to racial stats, you can often still get it to 18 at the beginning without taking a bath via point buy.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 06:48 PM
why 16?

as an interesting aside... the ONLY way to get a SECOND bonus level 9 spell (one bonus level 9 spell is available to practically anyone) pre-epic is to:
1. Start with a wis of 20.
2. Invest your 5 level up bonuses into wis
3. get a tome of +5 wis
4. Get a +6 periphet of wisdom

Remember, tome bonuses are CAPPED at +5. And periphet of wisdom 8+ are epic! A starting wis of 19 or less means you will NEVER see that second bonus 9th level spell without epic.

I will, however, admit that:
1. You should not have a primary casting attribute below 14
2. You should not use your level up attribute gains on anything but your primary casting attribute.

Douglas
2009-09-23, 06:52 PM
why 16?

as an interesting aside... the ONLY way to get a bonus level 9 spell (ONE bonus level 9 spell!) pre-epic is to:
1. Start with a wis of 20.
2. Invest your 5 level up bonuses into wis
3. get a tome of +5 wis
4. Get a +6 periphet of wisdom
No, that's what you need to get two bonus 9th level spell slots. You get the first one at 28. Adding up all of what you listed gets 36.

olentu
2009-09-23, 06:54 PM
or get a +2 periphet of wisdom at level 15... with NO ITEMS he will have to wait for 8th level spells until CL16 instead of 15... and for 9th level spells until CL20 instead of CL17

Like I said with just those. I was attempting to imply that there would be a difference if one did not use just those.

tyckspoon
2009-09-23, 06:54 PM
why 16?

as an interesting aside... the ONLY way to get a bonus level 9 spell (ONE bonus level 9 spell!) pre-epic is to:
1. Start with a wis of 20.
2. Invest your 5 level up bonuses into wis
3. get a tome of +5 wis
4. Get a +6 periphet of wisdom

Remember, tome bonuses are CAPPED at +5. And periphet of wisdom 8+ are epic! A starting wis of 19 or less means you will NEVER see a bonus 9th level spell without epic. And a wis of 17 or less means you will NEVER see a bonus 8th level spell without epic.


Erm? I don't think you're looking at the same bonus chart as the rest of us? You get a 9th-level bonus at 28. You can expect to get +16 if you really focus a stat (+5 Levels +5 Inherent +6 Enhancement), so you can get that bonus slot with a starting value of 12.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 06:55 PM
No, that's what you need to get two bonus 9th level spell slots. You get the first one at 28. Adding up all of what you listed gets 36.

yea, oops, i immediately caught my error and fixed it, but you already saw it and posted this :)

for the majority of your career (aka, pre tome of +5 bonus, aka, below level 17) you will be gaining mostly lower level spells... as can be seen from my comparison clerics.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 07:35 PM
why 16?

as an interesting aside... the ONLY way to get a SECOND bonus level 9 spell (one bonus level 9 spell is available to practically anyone) pre-epic is to:
1. Start with a wis of 20.
2. Invest your 5 level up bonuses into wis
3. get a tome of +5 wis
4. Get a +6 periphet of wisdom

Remember, tome bonuses are CAPPED at +5. And periphet of wisdom 8+ are epic! A starting wis of 19 or less means you will NEVER see that second bonus 9th level spell without epic.

I will, however, admit that:
1. You should not have a primary casting attribute below 14
2. You should not use your level up attribute gains on anything but your primary casting attribute.

Well, you've got enhancement and inherent bonuses there. I'm pretty sure there are other means available. I coulda sworn there's a perfection bonus somewhere. Mind you, enhancement and inherent are the two easiest to get.

Im pretty sure it's also possible to gain templates that offer stat boosts as well. Those should stack with anything.

But yeah, the higher you start, the easier it is to get that second bonus 9th level spell.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-23, 07:38 PM
Certain types of builds, especially divine caster builds, can be successful when focused on buffing and healing spells, and for these casters, spreading the ability points around can be a successful tactic.

That's all the point was? That these builds can be successful? Even with "suboptimal" scores, you're playing a cleric. Of course you can afford not to wring every drop of power out of your stat array. Your spells will make up for it.

Lamech
2009-09-23, 07:52 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the pearl basically allow you to use a memorized spell twice? While still powerful, it isn't quite as flexible as another slot of that level.

And of course, the +10 attribute bonus ignores all the lesser spells. Lets see, going from 20 to 30 literally gives you +1 to all ranks of spells(+2 to 6th). While ninth level spells are quite powerful, you shouldn't discount the value of the lesser ones.

By my calculations, that many pearls of power would be worth 321k gold. Not counting the additional flexibility added by slots. That's over 40% of wealth by level. Not a trivial value, and this is JUST the bonus slots.

Err... pearl of power lets you recover a spell you prepared and then cast. Any spell you have prepared and cast. Ever. That may or may not be more useful then an extra spell slot. For example if you're spell book is destroyed? More

taltamir
2009-09-23, 07:58 PM
That's all the point was? That these builds can be successful? Even with "suboptimal" scores, you're playing a cleric. Of course you can afford not to wring every drop of power out of your stat array. Your spells will make up for it.

it is not suboptimal. You contribute more to the party and have a much easier time for the majority of game play, only to be slightly behind at levels 15 to 20... (which doesn't matter at level 21+ when you become pun pun)

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 08:05 PM
Err... pearl of power lets you recover a spell you prepared and then cast. Any spell you have prepared and cast. Ever. That may or may not be more useful then an extra spell slot. For example if you're spell book is destroyed? More

That's an interesting reading of it...given the "once per day" part of it, and the fact that it allows the spell to be "prepared again, as though it had not been cast" seems to make it pretty clear that they are talking about spells prepared that day.

Korivan
2009-09-23, 08:06 PM
While i agree that your primary spell casting stat isnt not the only stat to keep tabs on, I cannot agree that its not important enough to go full out on.

First, you need at least a 19 in most cases to fully cast from each spell level for one thing.

Two, those low level bonus spells that you causually scoffed at are a huge boost for those who know how to make them count. After all, "the best mages can do the most with the least" -Unknown quote. That and in a long encounter or a high encounter day, those bonus spells alone make the stat worth it. Not to mention if you start with an 18-20, get a stat book and item, put points in as you level, you'll get a good number of bonus high level goodies later on.

Three, if you don't use ANY spells with DC's, sure, then its not as important. But really thats cutting a huge amount of spells out of your list. Ok if your going for a very focused thing like summoning, but in my experience our DM's like to have our enemies learn from us, adapting. Its crucial to make everyday a surprise. For us, spellcasters and the DM play a private game not unlike a chess match within the gaming session.

Four, most often the primary stat goes hand-in hand with usefull skills. Sorcerers and Bards make for some great leaders and negotiaters. Not to mention serve as the partys face in case if you have alot of optimised melee damage dealers like beserkers. For clerics and such, having a good wisdom also helps with sense motive and spot checks to keep someone from pulling the perverbial sheeps wool over your eyes. Wizards benefit from intelligence for those booksmart types that like to roll knowledge checks and help the party's tactics. Not to mention good for spellcraft checks for counterspells. This is especially good if you have a DM that likes you to use decipher script to translate plot stuff(not to mention its a good non-magic way for the party to pass coded notes to eachother).

Fifth, and this is intelligence based only, MORE SKILL POINTS!!! Very important for builds that require them, especially when you tend to get 2+INT only. Why not build on your casting and skill sets at the same time.

Sixth, and this is for wisdom based only, BETTER WILL SAVES. Ok, you have a good ST for this already right? Meh, a +12 against 10+spell level+stat bonus+misculanious bonuses like feats is not gonna cut it on its own against a build focusing on its casting attribute.

Seventh, what else are you gonna put it in? Case: A wizard only needs to take care of INT, DEX, CON. STR and CHA is taken care of by your comrads leaving WIS as something to take it or leave it. By everyone taking this example and going with the bare minimum, you leave a group that falls flat when reaching thier potential. You wouldn't want to travel with a fighter that has a 12STR, 12DEX, 10CON, 16INT, 17WIS, 18CHA would you?

taltamir
2009-09-23, 08:48 PM
While i agree that your primary spell casting stat isnt not the only stat to keep tabs on, I cannot agree that its not important enough to go full out on.
Do you mean in terms of upgrade after creation? or in terms of having it higher at the cost of other stats at creation?


First, you need at least a 19 in most cases to fully cast from each spell level for one thing.
At level 1 you aren't casting 9th level spells.
With a 14 wis, you will only need a +2 item at level 15 to have access to all spells ASAP. with a 15 wis you will never need an item, and could cast any spell as soon as you get it.


Two, those low level bonus spells that you causually scoffed at are a huge boost for those who know how to make them count. After all, "the best mages can do the most with the least" -Unknown quote. That and in a long encounter or a high encounter day, those bonus spells alone make the stat worth it. Not to mention if you start with an 18-20, get a stat book and item, put points in as you level, you'll get a good number of bonus high level goodies later on.

Listing the ADDITIONAL spells gotten for every bracket of casting stat:
12 gives you +1 SL1 (spell level 1) at CL 1.
14 gives you +1 SL2 @ CL3
16 gives you +1 SL3 @ CL5
18 gives you +1 SL4 @ CL7
20 gives you +1 SL1 @ CL1 and +1 SL5 @ CL9

Anyone and their dog will have at least a 12 in primary casting stat. So 12 through 19 means you all get the +1 SL1 @ CL1. most people will also get the +1 SL2 @ CL3. and can get a +2 item by CL5 to push it another bracket. They might start running a little behind by CL7 when SL4 spells become available. If they have a low wis/int/cha they will not get that bonus spell level 4 spell...

The ones with the 20 have a distinct advantage at level1, and get another level 2 spell at CL5 with the + item... Generally speaking 12 - 19 get the same bonus spells while their CL is in the single digits.


Three, if you don't use ANY spells with DC's, sure, then its not as important. But really thats cutting a huge amount of spells out of your list. Ok if your going for a very focused thing like summoning, but in my experience our DM's like to have our enemies learn from us, adapting. Its crucial to make everyday a surprise. For us, spellcasters and the DM play a private game not unlike a chess match within the gaming session.
Summoning, AoE, Buffing, Healing... you could do a lot of things.. All you are doing is lowering the effectiveness of a very specific SMALL portion of your abilities. And by lowering the effectiveness I mean "the enemy gets 10% better chance of resisting". 4 points = +2 = 10% difference.

What is better, having greater spell focus (all spells), or a +2 modifier bonus (4 attribute points) extra of con?


Four, most often the primary stat goes hand-in hand with usefull skills. Sorcerers and Bards make for some great leaders and negotiaters. Not to mention serve as the partys face in case if you have alot of optimised melee damage dealers like beserkers. For clerics and such, having a good wisdom also helps with sense motive and spot checks to keep someone from pulling the perverbial sheeps wool over your eyes. Wizards benefit from intelligence for those booksmart types that like to roll knowledge checks and help the party's tactics. Not to mention good for spellcraft checks for counterspells. This is especially good if you have a DM that likes you to use decipher script to translate plot stuff(not to mention its a good non-magic way for the party to pass coded notes to eachother).
That is completely wrong. A sorc or cleric who converts +2 cha or wis to a +2 to int is gonna get 8 extra skillpoints in level 1, and 2 more skill points per level. Which is a much greater boon in skills. Not to mention they still get those +2 points in non things that are int based. If they move it to something like con or str, they get the skill bonus to those skills instead of the cha or wis based skills, so what?

If using point buy, than it is far more extreme.


Fifth, and this is intelligence based only, MORE SKILL POINTS!!! Very important for builds that require them, especially when you tend to get 2+INT only. Why not build on your casting and skill sets at the same time.
Yes, the wizard is the absolute WORST class to take this approach with, it works best with clerics, meh with sorcerers, and not well with wizards... there are some classes like warlocks that don't even need it.


Sixth, and this is for wisdom based only, BETTER WILL SAVES. Ok, you have a good ST for this already right? Meh, a +12 against 10+spell level+stat bonus+misculanious bonuses like feats is not gonna cut it on its own against a build focusing on its casting attribute.
As a cleric your will save is already great... moving that +2 bonus elsewhere can give you a better fort or ref save, which you need more.


Seventh, what else are you gonna put it in? Case: A wizard only needs to take care of INT, DEX, CON. STR and CHA is taken care of by your comrads leaving WIS as something to take it or leave it. By everyone taking this example and going with the bare minimum, you leave a group that falls flat when reaching thier potential. You wouldn't want to travel with a fighter that has a 12STR, 12DEX, 10CON, 16INT, 17WIS, 18CHA would you?

I actually build demo CLERICS. they are in this thread.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 08:58 PM
You don't seem to understand how probability works for a +2 increase in a save DC A 10% total change is not an actual 10% increase in how often a creature makes their save.

Consider a creature that has, say, a +X-1 to saves against your DC X spells. They only fail on a natural one, or 5% of the time. Now add +2 to your DC. They fail 15% of the time, or are affected three times as often.

But that's an edge case, you might say! But let's take something more reasonable. Let's assume the default cleric with just enough wisdom to cast the spells of his level can beat an enemies save 25% of the time across the board. Add 10%, and that's 35%. 35%/25% winds up being a net forty percent increase in failed saving throws.

Compare that to +2 HP per level. That's... not particularly amazing, if only because at decent levels of optimization you're going to be one or two shotted by pure HP damage and HP damage is inefficient anyway; with extra spells, you can flat out ignore the possibility of being damaged by HP damage if you are cautious, or at least make it so that +2 HP/level doesn't matter as much as your extra spell slots and higher save DCs do.

Also, probability works against your argument of getting a +2 better reflex or fortitude save. You either want to optimize something to be maxxed out, or dump it. A +2 to reflex saves when you fail 75% of them only means you fail 65%, which isn't even a 20% increase in the chance of passing your save. Compare to going from a 15% to a 5% chance of failing will saves.... that means you are three times less likely to fail a save.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 09:01 PM
You don't seem to understand how probability works for a +2 increase in a save DC A 10% total change is not an actual 10% increase in how often a creature makes their save.
I am an expert in probability. I did not feel I had to specify that it is a 10% change in "absolute" chance, aka going from 15% chance of success to 25% chance. Rather than a 10% increase over previous value (from 10% to 11%)

It is also more practical to say it that way because otherwise you have to account for every single starting value, including values 20 points apart, critical failures, critical success, and crit ranges.

How would YOU have said it?

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 09:03 PM
I am an expert in probability. I did not feel I had to specify that it is a 10% change in "absolute" chance, aka going from 15% chance of success to 25% chance. It is also more practical because otherwise you have to account for every single starting value, including values 20 points apart, critical failures, critical success, and crit ranges.

As an "expert" in probability, you should know that a 10% change in "absolute" chance is not a good way of describing things. Making it so that your enemies fail their will saves three times as often means that, even if it's only a 10% increase absolutely, your enemies are A: three times as susceptible to your spells and B: have high saves. Even with my conservative 40% increase, it's still far more than your 10% absolute would account for.

Your 10% absolute ignores the fact that optimizing your reflex save as a cleric is an endeavour that, even ignoring the other associated bonuses with dex and wisdom (of which wisdom has far more for a cleric), is less efficient than optimizing your will saving throw.

EDIT: As for how I would have said it... I stated it. A 10% absolute change means a lot when you go from 5 to 15%, 50 to 60%, 80 to 90%, etc.

On the extremes, things are good. When you have a low base reflex save and the armor proficiency to where Dex isn't required for AC... well, increasing your reflex save is a fruitless endeavour. Getting it to the middle ground is much less efficient than getting your wisdom from the middle ground to the absolute highest it can be.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 09:12 PM
As an "expert" in probability, you should know that a 10% change in "absolute" chance is not a good way of describing things. Making it so that your enemies fail their will saves three times as often means that, even if it's only a 10% increase absolutely, your enemies are A: three times as susceptible to your spells and B: have high saves

As an expert in probability, i'd be an idiot to cast a spell on someone with only a 1/20 or 3/20 chance of succeeding... :)
The "absolute" (not a proper term) change is 10%, the value triples, that means my chance went from 5% to 15%, both extremely poor. I would instead use something useful, like a buff that works 100% of the time, or a spell that does not allow a save...

And yes, the change IS valuable... which is why moving it to STR is a good idea and what i did with my cleric examples... where i decrease absolute chance of success with spells that allow a save (for a character that can buff, heal, etc with spells), to give a 10% absolute increase in chance of hitting with a sword AND a +3 to damage, and the ability to convert that +10% chance to +4 damage (two handed weapon + power strike).

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 09:15 PM
As an expert in probability, i'd be an idiot to cast a spell on someone with only a 1/20 or 3/20 chance of succeeding... :)
The "absolute" (not a proper term) change is 10%, the value triples, that means my chance went from 5% to 15%, both extremely poor. I would instead use something useful, like a buff that works 100% of the time, or a spell that does not allow a save...

Ignoring the point, I see. Well, let's consider this. If an enemy has an 80% chance of failing their save, and you up it to a 90% chance.... their chances of suceeding on the save have halved. That's pretty good, is it not?

And it also ignores the entire point of "high saves and low saves are better than all mediocre saves;" going from 15% to 5% triples your chances of making your save, while 25% to 35% doesn't help nearly as much. And bonus spells. In fact, this didn't, in fact, help much with your case, because all you've done is negated one point I made, while still leaving the rest of the arguments standing.

EDIT: Also, if you are using your To-Hit modifier to fuel power attack, as anybody, you are doing it wrong or already have a AB well above the enemies AC... you use your AC to power attack.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 09:18 PM
What is better, having greater spell focus (all spells), or a +2 modifier bonus (4 attribute points) extra of con?

Well, lets look at the comparative feat value. Getting GSF in all schools would take...a lot of feats. The extra fort save is worth two feats(we're ignoring epic feats here, since by then, it doesn't much matter). It's also worth two thirds of a Toughness per level. Unfortunately, Toughness is well known for being a pretty lame feat. It looks pretty unbalanced from that perspective.

I'd kill to have GSF in all schools, honestly.


That is completely wrong. A sorc or cleric who converts +2 cha or wis to a +2 to int is gonna get 8 extra skillpoints in level 1, and 2 more skill points per level. Which is a much greater boon in skills. Not to mention they still get those +2 points in non things that are int based. If they move it to something like con or str, they get the skill bonus to those skills instead of the cha or wis based skills, so what?

Well, we can't very well compare the wis against con and int and dex very fairly, now can we? Tends to be one or the other.

As a cleric or sorc, ALL you get from int is skills. That's nice, sure, but hosing your casting for a few extra skill points is a poor trade. You'd probably get more by taking a dip of rogue(not that I reccomend that).


If using point buy, than it is far more extreme.

How would it ever be extreme without point buy? Yes, if you're trading three points of con for one point of wis, that's a hard choice to make. If it's one for one, meh. Max the wisdom without thinking twice.



Yes, the wizard is the absolute WORST class to take this approach with, it works best with clerics, meh with sorcerers, and not well with wizards... there are some classes like warlocks that don't even need it.

I agree that clerics suffer less by doing this. This is mostly because throwing points into stuff like str for wizards and sorcs is an unmitigated waste. At least a cleric has a possibility of getting something back, even if it isn't as much as you traded away.

I don't think anyone's really arguing the warlock, honestly.


As a cleric your will save is already great... moving that +2 bonus elsewhere can give you a better fort or ref save, which you need more.

I actually build demo CLERICS. they are in this thread.

You need them all, honestly. A failed will save can lead to a TPK just as easily as a failed fort save. Possibly easier, since party-wise, a mind-controlled PC can be significantly more dangerous than a dead one.

Look at it this way, it's very rare that DCs are so low that you will pass them on a 2+, even with your strong saves. So, an additional +2 is another 10% chance to pass, with any save. It doesn't really matter *which* save is strong in comparison with how dangerous the saves are.

With a cleric, Id be inclined to worry less about +fort, honestly. Diseases and poisons are much less of an issue with a cleric in the party, making fort saves less problematic. Once you get Death Ward, fort saves are easily the least dangerous save to you.

jiriku
2009-09-23, 09:25 PM
Mils and Korivan, you both make several good points. I can bear them out, as I've been playing clerics or building NPC clerics for as long as there's been a third edition. I can think of several cleric builds, such as the cheater, the twice-betrayer, the zilla, where your build preference is obviously superior to any alternative. Wizard builds benefitting from high Int and Wis-dependent druid builds are so prevalent that it would be silly to list them.

Taltamir has asked us a very insightful question -- is it possible to build a caster who gains sufficient advantage from a secondary stat that it would be worthwhile to balance your stats?

Heck yeah! 3.5 has the most flexible character-building environment of any version of D&D. You can build stealth-focused casters or TWF gish casters who need as much Dex as they can get. You can build dual-progression casters who have two casting attributes to manage. You can build multiclass characters who abuse Cha-to-X class features from a variety of classes... you can build Wis-based casters who are dedicated skill monkeys and need all the Int they can get...you can do ten other things that magnify the importance of a normally insignificant stat.

Now, I love a towering save DC as much as the next guy (my wizards regularly nail their Int scores to the roof by level 15). but when my casting progression for the first three rounds of battle is blessed aim, bless, close wounds, and dispel magic, and I spend the next three rounds after that throwing javelins at flying opponents while taking heavy enemy fire, a high save DC won't help me at all, and I'm REALLY glad that my Dex is 14 and not 10.

Perhaps we can agree that D&D had a broad enough character creation system that both types of point allocations can produce effective characters?

taltamir
2009-09-23, 09:25 PM
How would it ever be extreme without point buy? Yes, if you're trading three points of con for one point of wis, that's a hard choice to make. If it's one for one, meh. Max the wisdom without thinking twice.

Well... with a str of 8 you are practically guaranteed to be encumbered which can lead to your death.
With a dex of 8 you are not gonna do well on a "reflex save or die", or worse, make a DEX check.
with a con of 8... well, no need to expound.

You need decent scores.
Of course, my overall argument was that it doesn't have to be your HIGHEST stat... so those examples are not very valid... It is more of a comparison of 18 wis, 14-15 others, to 15 wis and the 18 in somthing else. I think the 18 in something else can increase your low level survivability in exchange for a trivial penalty in later levels.

tyckspoon
2009-09-23, 09:41 PM
Perhaps we can agree that D&D had a broad enough character creation system that both types of point allocations can produce effective characters?

Certainly, yes. Especially in lower-level games, when spell power hasn't quite taken off enough to cover every flaw (just most of them.) I personally don't like to point-buy over a 16 unless the buy value is very generous (for reference on 'generous', I won't buy an 18 on 32 points unless chasing a particular optimization challenge; I would prefer to have several 16s.) Those 8 points that get you to 18 are just too expensive for me, especially when they can be split into the other two priorities for most casters (ie, Staying Alive and Going First.) The part I can't agree on is deliberately assigning another stat to be higher than your primary casting stat; that's not viable in a long-term outlook, and only some specific situations favor it in the short-term. The only way I'd do that is if racial modifiers made it 'free', for example if you were a Dwarf Wizard and you'd bought 16 Int and 16 Con, when your racial bonus would bump that to 18.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 09:46 PM
Well... with a str of 8 you are practically guaranteed to be encumbered which can lead to your death.
With a dex of 8 you are not gonna do well on a "reflex save or die", or worse, make a DEX check.
with a con of 8... well, no need to expound.

Str 8 = Handy Haversack. Boom bam bippity bop, you're done.
Reflex save or die? What reflex save or dies are there? Everything does HP damage. The worst one is Earthquake (I think) where it's a reflex save or make a fortitude save or die.
Con 8: Who would ever have con 8? Even in 24 point buy you can have 18 in your casting stat and 14 con.


You need decent scores.
Of course, my overall argument was that it doesn't have to be your HIGHEST stat... so those examples are not very valid... It is more of a comparison of 18 wis, 14-15 others, to 15 wis and the 18 in somthing else. I think the 18 in something else can increase your low level survivability in exchange for a trivial penalty in later levels.[

An increase in save DCs and gaining two or three spell slots is not "trivial." An extra, say, ninth level spell is, quite frankly, more world shattering than 40 HP or +7 to damage and 2 to hit will ever be.

EDIT: Also, it's only six points extra to buy from a 16 to an 18, not 8. In 32 PB, I'm fine with taking an 18 on SAD classes (Psion, Druid, Wizard), but yes, I would take several 16s on a cleric because at lower levels they are at least somewhat viable in melee combat.

Myrmex
2009-09-23, 09:50 PM
Starting at 18 is quite possible given starting points. You definitely don't want a negative con modifier at low level, or the risk of getting one shotted by a lucky crit is significant. Strength is less of a problem. If it's ten, you have a medium load max of 66 lbs. Sure, weapon and armor takes up most of that, but you've got enough for the bare necessities. And, after all, if its a low wealth, low magic campaign, you likely dont have all that many cool gadgets and stuff to carry around anyhow.

I don't know what sorts of groups you play with, but every D&D group has at least one party member (typically 2 or 3) who carry off anything that isn't... well, they tend to carry of everything.

Also, lucky crits can bring down relatively high HP characters at levels 1 through 3. After 3rd level, d10 HD and 14+ con pulls you ahead.


And medium load lowers your max dex to a +3....if you're wearing full plate, that's the least of your worries. The penalties just frankly aren't that big of a deal.

Only being able to move 5 ft as a full round action sucks.



useful for "encounter appropriate" challanges...
but a lethal game where you leg it, often... a hench/donkey isn't gonna cut it.

Agreed. Convincing the donkey or henchman to sit tight can be hard. They also make nice targets. Every ambush I have ever run, the enemy always aim for the things moving the things they want to take.

That's why Mount is such an awesome spell.


Reflex save or die? What reflex save or dies are there?

Touch attacks can get pretty brutal.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 09:50 PM
Well... with a str of 8 you are practically guaranteed to be encumbered which can lead to your death.
With a dex of 8 you are not gonna do well on a "reflex save or die", or worse, make a DEX check.
with a con of 8... well, no need to expound.

You need decent scores.
Of course, my overall argument was that it doesn't have to be your HIGHEST stat... so those examples are not very valid... It is more of a comparison of 18 wis, 14-15 others, to 15 wis and the 18 in somthing else. I think the 18 in something else can increase your low level survivability in exchange for a trivial penalty in later levels.

Con is also an important stat in...pretty much every class. Secondary or tertiary choice at worst.

What sort of point buy could possibly make you have all stats at 8 except for one? Seems kinda ridiculous.

Also, how many reflex save or dies exist? In general, fort tends to lock down the death effects, reflex tends torward damage and traps(which isn't usually the primary caster's job to manage anyhow), and will tends torward mind affecting. Sure, damage can eventually kill you, but if you're putting yourself in "make a reflex save or die" positions with any frequency, you've made a mistake somewhere along the way.

Stay away from the front lines, the traps, and keep enough HP to deal with the fireballs the usual way.


And no, an 8 str does not automatically lead to death. It does result in a low carrying capacity, and if you're exceeding this, it limits dex bonus and skill checks and so forth. So? You're in full plate. It's not as if your dex bonus is all that relevant, and you probably have a significant armor check penalty already. It's not as if another few points of Str will magically make you able to swim competently in that.

tyckspoon
2009-09-23, 09:51 PM
Reflex save or die? What reflex save or dies are there? Everything does HP damage. The worst one is Earthquake (I think) where it's a reflex save or make a fortitude save or die.


There's a few Reflex save-or-leave-the-fight, like Telekinetic Sphere. The only actual Reflex save/die I know of is a Druid spell in the Spell Compendium, and that's only because if the target fails the Reflex save you can then cast one of a short list of other save-lose/dies into it and they'll hit the target no save.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 09:53 PM
There's a few Reflex save-or-leave-the-fight, like Telekinetic Sphere. The only actual Reflex save/die I know of is a Druid spell in the Spell Compendium, and that's only because if the target fails the Reflex save you can then cast one of a short list of other save-lose/dies into it and they'll hit the target no save.

Ah. I was unaware of those. I can concede that reflex saves do now have a *chance* of being useful, although being Druid only they are still far more limited than Will or die and bring the party with you saves or Fortitude or Die saves. Still, a 25% to a 35% chance of failing a reflex save, or an 85% chance to a 95% chance (or even just a 90% chance) of failing a will save... I'd prefer the will save.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-23, 09:56 PM
I don't know what sorts of groups you play with, but every D&D group has at least one party member (typically 2 or 3) who carry off anything that isn't... well, they tend to carry of everything.

Only being able to move 5 ft as a full round action sucks.


For a char with 10 str, that means you're carrying over a hundred pounds of gear.

Leave the kitchen sink at home, you seriously should never need to carry more than that in combat anyhow(If you're lugging out sacks of gold, drop to kill people, resume lugging). Once you get to a decent level, bags of holding are pretty common anyhow.

One of my current wizards has 4 str. Trying to keep everything within 13 lbs to avoid taking any check penalties actually requires a lil bit of work and forethought, but it's still doable. No caster should need over a hundred pounds of gear.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 09:58 PM
Str 8 = Handy Haversack. Boom bam bippity bop, you're done.
At level 1?


Reflex save or die? What reflex save or dies are there? Everything does HP damage. The worst one is Earthquake (I think) where it's a reflex save or make a fortitude save or die.
You can die from things OTHER than a spell you know... fighting on a cliff, above lava, near the falls of a river, etc... It comes up surprisingly often.


Con 8: Who would ever have con 8? Even in 24 point buy you can have 18 in your casting stat and 14 con.
Hence why I said that this example, while countering what you said I said, does not counter what I actually said because what I actually said was less extreme than what you said I said. :)



An increase in save DCs and gaining two or three spell slots is not "trivial." An extra, say, ninth level spell is, quite frankly, more world shattering than 40 HP or +7 to damage and 2 to hit will ever be.
The only way to get an "extra" level 9 spell before epic is, is if you go from an 11 to a 20. Every caster naturally has at least a 12, and the vast majority don't have the option for a 20... thus they will get the exact same amount of level 9 spells.


EDIT: Also, it's only six points extra to buy from a 16 to an 18, not 8. In 32 PB, I'm fine with taking an 18 on SAD classes (Psion, Druid, Wizard), but yes, I would take several 16s on a cleric because at lower levels they are at least somewhat viable in melee combat.

Ah, so you at least see SOME merit in not maxing out your caster score for higher low level survivability. :)


There's a few Reflex save-or-leave-the-fight, like Telekinetic Sphere. The only actual Reflex save/die I know of is a Druid spell in the Spell Compendium, and that's only because if the target fails the Reflex save you can then cast one of a short list of other save-lose/dies into it and they'll hit the target no save.

Leave the fight often means die in a brutal game...
If you have the luxury of "level appropriate encounters" than go right ahead and dump every last possible point into your primary casting attribute. Low level survival is GUARANTEED!

It is the "OMFG I AM GONNA DIE" games where low level survival is king where sacrificing primary casting stat becomes attractive.

Vangor
2009-09-23, 09:58 PM
I think the 18 in something else can increase your low level survivability in exchange for a trivial penalty in later levels.

While you shouldn't hinder your early game survivability to hope for the later advantages of additional spell slots and increased DCs at higher levels, you shouldn't hinder your later advantages of additional spell slots and increased DCs at higher levels simply to feel more than survivable. The increase in ability with the 18 compared to 15 Strength is fairly static, with basically receiving an addition of two to-hit and damage. The increase in ability with the 18 compared to 15 Constitution is fairly static, with receiving an additional two hit points per level, two to concentration, and two to fortitude saves. However, because of the way additional spell slots are and how absurdly powerful each additional spell slot of greater level is, Wisdom is not quite as static, not to mention the DCs and will save.

This is suboptimal, but don't believe suboptimal means abysmal. Merely, the most optimal build is the highest Wisdom. If we are discussing having two 15s and an 18, the 18 should not be in anything but the primary casting stat. If you want to wade into melee combat early on, want to be a strong cleric, feel free because you won't be hamstrung by this choice.

Everyone seems to be discussing the question of why you would want to except to be rail against tradition; however, tradition in d&d is with good reason.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 09:58 PM
Myremex, touch attacks aren't reflex saves or die. They are "Attack rolls versus dexterity and a magic items or make a save or die." Generally, they are still doing damage... but it's not really a reflex save, and it's never really an "or die" unless the "or die" aspect has a save to it.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 10:06 PM
While you shouldn't hinder your early game survivability to hope for the later advantages of additional spell slots and increased DCs at higher levels, you shouldn't hinder your later advantages of additional spell slots and increased DCs at higher levels simply to feel more than survivable. The increase in ability with the 18 compared to 15 Strength is fairly static, with basically receiving an addition of two to-hit and damage. The increase in ability with the 18 compared to 15 Constitution is fairly static, with receiving an additional two hit points per level, two to concentration, and two to fortitude saves. However, because of the way additional spell slots are and how absurdly powerful each additional spell slot of greater level is, Wisdom is not quite as static, not to mention the DCs and will save.

This is suboptimal, but don't believe suboptimal means abysmal. Merely, the most optimal build is the highest Wisdom. If we are discussing having two 15s and an 18, the 18 should not be in anything but the primary casting stat. If you want to wade into melee combat early on, want to be a strong cleric, feel free because you won't be hamstrung by this choice.

Everyone seems to be discussing the question of why you would want to except to be rail against tradition; however, tradition in d&d is with good reason.

I most certainly AGREE with you that the benefits to points in any stat other than your main casting attribute (although not as quickly with con and int) will quickly evaporate as you level, while the benefits to having extra points in your primary casting attribute will remain with you no matter how high you climb.
This is why in my 3 clerics examples i said id rather be the one that starts with STR18 and wis 15 but puts everything into wisdom, instead of the one who puts everything into str, or the one who starts with wis 18 str 15 and puts everything into wis.

By having a lower primary casting attribute you are dooming your character to be forever less powerful than he could have been; you never "catch up"... but do you play a character forever? bulk of play is at low levels, where survival is actually difficult... and very high levels often mean a retired character.

From a role play perspective the same thing happens... NOT DYING means a lot... being slightly weaker then you could have been when you are godlike in power? meh... besides at which point you also might retire (say, to start a family, rule a kingdom, become a GOD, etc)

Yukitsu
2009-09-23, 10:08 PM
In the case of some characters, I wonder what on earth you need those other stats for. You can make a deceptive argument for clerics (the reality is, they don't need those other stats, because you can replace them later) but what do you really need those other stats for as a wizard?

I play my wizards low con, because HP is for wusses. I don't die often at all despite that because I keep out of range, and keep things between myself and enemies, have day long buffs etc. As early as 5, I can keep away from melee range due to high movement, level 7 I can get an undead screen and by level 9, I can get an outsider spotter team. For strength, if I don't have a haversack, which I usually do, I can ride around on a phantom steed, which can carry plenty of gear. Dex is usually OK because I play a lot of grey elves. Charisma is usually my second highest stat, but I certainly don't advocate that. Wisdom? Don't need it.

I can't really fathom what you actually need other stats for as a wizard.

You keep saying "more powerful", but more spells=more power. It's one of those tests that you can check with PvP in my opinion, and frankly, I'd be up for that.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 10:12 PM
In the case of some characters, I wonder what on earth you need those other stats for. You can make a deceptive argument for clerics (the reality is, they don't need those other stats, because you can replace them later) but what do you really need those other stats for as a wizard?

I play my wizards low con, because HP is for wusses. I don't die often at all despite that because I keep out of range, and keep things between myself and enemies, have day long buffs etc. As early as 5, I can keep away from melee range due to high movement, level 7 I can get an undead screen and by level 9, I can get an outsider spotter team. For strength, if I don't have a haversack, which I usually do, I can ride around on a phantom steed, which can carry plenty of gear. Dex is usually OK because I play a lot of grey elves. Charisma is usually my second highest stat, but I certainly don't advocate that. Wisdom? Don't need it.

I can't really fathom what you actually need other stats for as a wizard.

uh huh... so... when was the last time your level 1 party faced 6 ECL4-6 creatures at once? (set the building on fire, make a barricade, and leg it! ... or jump into the river and hope you make your saves... or bull rush them into the lava... etc)

As I said, no point at all to increasing your "survivability" when it is guaranteed by "level appropriate" encountered.
But when the world is actually DANGEROUS and you need to pick your battles... Con 17 wizard just doesn't seem high enough..

Vangor
2009-09-23, 10:14 PM
From a role play perspective the same thing happens...

I would say from a roleplaying perspective, if my character was strong my character would probably be a Barbarian, Warblade, or similar. If my character was wise, my character would probably be a Cleric or Druid. Being a strong Cleric or Druid (less druid, I mean...Wild Shape) works, but being stronger than you are wise while still being wise means you should, from a roleplaying perspective, choose to be a Paladin, Ranger, or Monk, with a divine calling being the first two generally.

The way the statistics are presented, primarily Intelligent adventurers become Wizards and primarily Charismatic adventurers become Bards. Of course, we possess the ability to position our highest rolls, thus we might be an Intelligent Bard. The problem comes with...why would the adventurer who has wonderful study habits and is not absurdly extroverted pursue the path of the Bard?

taltamir
2009-09-23, 10:16 PM
I would say from a roleplaying perspective, if my character was strong my character would probably be a Barbarian, Warblade, or similar. If my character was wise, my character would probably be a Cleric or Druid. Being a strong Cleric or Druid (less druid, I mean...Wild Shape) works, but being stronger than you are wise while still being wise means you should, from a roleplaying perspective, choose to be a Paladin, Ranger, or Monk, with a divine calling being the first two generally.


Wise characters don't choose monk... :)
And plenty of people dream to be something that they are not the most suitable candidates for...

Kylarra
2009-09-23, 10:18 PM
uh huh... so... when was the last time your level 1 party faced 6 ECL4-6 creatures at once? (set the building on fire, make a barricade, and leg it!)

As I said, no point at all to increasing your "survivability" when it is guaranteed by "level appropriate" encountered.
But when the world is actually DANGEROUS and you need to pick your battles... Con 17 wizard just doesn't seem high enough..TBH, if my level 1 character was going to be going against 6 ECL 4-6 critters, I'd be pumping my casting stat to the max for a better chance of actually being able to do something rather than hoping that +2 hp is going to be the difference between dying and dying horribly.

Vangor
2009-09-23, 10:18 PM
uh huh... so... when was the last time your level 1 party faced 6 ECL4-6 creatures at once?

This was a similar argument proposed in the Sorcerers being a lower tier thread about the lack of access of scrolls or wealth limiting Wizards. Simply, a level 1 party should not be facing such an encounter. The party might be facing a set of six CR1 creatures with a CR2 or 3 leader, but the CR is meant to be the moderate difficulty rating of the single monster against a party of four moderately built adventurers. A single CR 2 or 3 should be difficult, but CRs are not always accurate and optimization can wreck those ratings, but this is such an absurd instance where the DM is being represented as a menace to demonstrate a point which shouldn't really occur.

Yukitsu
2009-09-23, 10:23 PM
uh huh... so... when was the last time your level 1 party faced 6 ECL4-6 creatures at once? (set the building on fire, make a barricade, and leg it! ... or jump into the river and hope you make your saves... or bull rush them into the lava... etc)

The last time was when I decided to solo ambush a group of merchants. I set up a barricade to create a narrow choke point on the road by getting a mule to drag rocks onto the road. Then I hit the group of them with sleep in the surprise round, then colour spray in the second. I coup de grad the lot of them with a scythe, and the mule got the others.

I was actually level 2 at the time, and the spread was 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, but whatever.

I recently survived a spat with my level 9 wizard with all of 29 hit points against a dozen cleric 5s, a level 18 cleric and a level 15 cleric. The 15 used holy word on me, and I was playing evil. Solo. I should mention I survived this.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 10:24 PM
This was a similar argument proposed in the Sorcerers being a lower tier thread about the lack of access of scrolls or wealth limiting Wizards. Simply, a level 1 party should not be facing such an encounter. The party might be facing a set of six CR1 creatures with a CR2 or 3 leader, but the CR is meant to be the moderate difficulty rating of the single monster against a party of four moderately built adventurers. A single CR 2 or 3 should be difficult, but CRs are not always accurate and optimization can wreck those ratings, but this is such an absurd instance where the DM is being represented as a menace to demonstrate a point which shouldn't really occur.

where is the fun in that? I could be grinding levels in any CRPG... but creative use of the world, diplomacy, escaping, etc... that you can only do in PnP... And when facing those odds you run the hell away and live to fight another day.


The last time was when I decided to solo ambush a group of merchants. I set up a barricade to create a narrow choke point on the road by getting a mule to drag rocks onto the road. Then I hit the group of them with sleep in the surprise round, then colour spray in the second. I coup de grad the lot of them with a scythe, and the mule got the others.

I recently survived a spat with my level 9 wizard with all of 29 hit points against a dozen cleric 5s, a level 18 cleric and a level 15 cleric. The 15 used holy word on me, and I was playing evil. Solo. I should mention I survived this.

YOU attacking THEM is a totally different story... and in that case you could have just made scrolls of whatever you needed.

Vangor
2009-09-23, 10:24 PM
Wise characters don't choose monk... :)
And plenty of people dream to be something that they are not the most suitable candidates for...

In every mention of Monk please replace with Swordsage.

As well, plenty of people dream, but you're an adventurer. People who dream of a role they cannot fulfill are servants, statues, and piles of ash for Beholders.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 10:26 PM
TBH, if my level 1 character was going to be going against 6 ECL 4-6 critters, I'd be pumping my casting stat to the max for a better chance of actually being able to do something rather than hoping that +2 hp is going to be the difference between dying and dying horribly.

there aren't all that many spells at low level that are:
1. worth casting
2. Have a save.

My favorite by far is grease... then set it on fire :).

Yukitsu
2009-09-23, 10:27 PM
YOU attacking THEM is a totally different story...

The latter wasn't me attacking them, it was them attacking me.

I was also attacked at 5 by 3 druid 6 with their animal companions. I survived by fleeing on a steed that could readily out pace them.

However, I am crazy prepared. One player commented that: "When you ask if there are any small animals around the house with the hostages, and the DM says "yes" and your reaction is to cast wrack on it then stomp on it to death, and this wrecks the DMs plan, then you're too prepared."

Korivan
2009-09-23, 10:29 PM
Perhaps we can agree that D&D had a broad enough character creation system that both types of point allocations can produce effective characters?

Very true, 3rd edition is extremely vast. My points of debate were based on a very narrow type of play. In gestalt and multiclassing options, diversifying your attributes is often key to being effective in both areas. Or simply even playing a different style of one class too.

The fact is that character creation/builds as a whole takes in account not only attributes (still very important though), but also feats, skills, multiclassing, and so forth. To the point that in some areas, devoting yourself to only one atribute can be more powerful, but yes, spreading out your stats can be key to reach that PrC class, feats, or style that can't be reached effectivly otherwise. This discussion is exactly what I love so much about 3rd then previous editions (no edition bashing, learned on 2nd, still love it), is that two clerics of the same exact diety can stand side by side and offer completely different advantages to the group.

Yukitsu
2009-09-23, 10:30 PM
there aren't all that many spells at low level that are:
1. worth casting
2. Have a save.

My favorite by far is grease... then set it on fire :).

Actually, grease can't be lit on fire, since it doesn't say it can be, and because the second level spell incindiary slime is grease that can be lit on fire.

As for low level spells with DCs, the most common ones in theory op for demonstrating wizard overpowerdness are colour spray and sleep, which are the first save or dies.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 10:34 PM
The latter wasn't me attacking them, it was them attacking me.

I was also attacked at 5 by 3 druid 6 with their animal companions. I survived by fleeing on a steed that could readily out pace them.

However, I am crazy prepared. One player commented that: "When you ask if there are any small animals around the house with the hostages, and the DM says "yes" and your reaction is to cast wrack on it then stomp on it to death, and this wrecks the DMs plan, then you're too prepared."

and I take it that having a lower int would have prevented you from escaping?


Actually, grease can't be lit on fire, since it doesn't say it can be, and because the second level spell incindiary slime is grease that can be lit on fire.

As for low level spells with DCs, the most common ones in theory op for demonstrating wizard overpowerdness are colour spray and sleep, which are the first save or dies.

Reading it over, it doesn't explicitly says it can be... however it creates grease, and the component is pork rind / butter...
Either it covers the area of with flammable grease, or it covers it with NON flammable grease, in which case it can be used to put fires out... Generally i find that the "flammable" option is taken... but if not, than it is still ridiculously useful, and it can be used to put out flames.

if need be you can take other spells...

Yukitsu
2009-09-23, 10:41 PM
and I take it that having a lower int would have prevented you from escaping?

The druids would have put me a spell down at that point. Coupled with having to use more spells during the day due to lower DCs, I'd likely have been out. Against the clerics, the higher int certainly let me phantasmal killer more of them succesfully before I had to get carried away by a distraction summong I had called up.

Which brings me to my next point. A 1 level dip in mindbender is awesome.

Kylarra
2009-09-23, 10:50 PM
I've still seen no particularly good arguments as to why as a primary caster your highest stat shouldn't be your casting stats. I've seen arguments that maybe gishes should have more physical stats. I've seen arguments that you can afford to slot down an 18 to a 16 in order to bring the rest of your stats up a bit more.

Still waiting for a good argument on why a primary caster needs to put that 18 elsewhere.

jiriku
2009-09-23, 11:00 PM
I've still seen no particularly good arguments as to why as a primary caster your highest stat shouldn't be your casting stats. I've seen arguments that maybe gishes should have more physical stats. I've seen arguments that you can afford to slot down an 18 to a 16 in order to bring the rest of your stats up a bit more.

Still waiting for a good argument on why a primary caster needs to put that 18 elsewhere.

I doubt you'll ever see one, Kylarra. "Primary" casters need their best stat in their casting attribute.

The OP's question was whether a gish character truly needed a maxed out casting stat, since such a build would be casting fewer save-or-x spells and more buff spells, and would be spending more time making melee attacks and less time casting than a typical "primary" caster.

Kylarra
2009-09-23, 11:02 PM
I doubt you'll ever see one, Kylarra. "Primary" casters need their best stat in their casting attribute.

The OP's question was whether a gish character truly needed a maxed out casting stat, since such a build would be casting fewer save-or-x spells and more buff spells, and would be spending more time making melee attacks and less time casting than a typical "primary" caster.That's what I thought initially, but it seems to have devolved into a discussion on casting stats in general, which is why I said what I did, hoping to get an actual response from the OP.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 11:06 PM
I've still seen no particularly good arguments as to why as a primary caster your highest stat shouldn't be your casting stats. I've seen arguments that maybe gishes should have more physical stats. I've seen arguments that you can afford to slot down an 18 to a 16 in order to bring the rest of your stats up a bit more.

Still waiting for a good argument on why a primary caster needs to put that 18 elsewhere.

low level survival at the cost of high level power. moving that 18 elsewhere can save your life at low levels, and does not deny you spells until level 7 at the earliest. (or even later depending on how low you go)

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 11:10 PM
low level survival at the cost of high level power. for specific casters... for specific campaign types...

Lots of specifics there... so your argument is that "in low PB where getting even a 16 in your casting stat sacrifices your ability to have anything decent in any other stat, in campaigns where you fight massively overpowered encounters, at low levels, for clerics and other classes that have a some ounce of combat capability, having higher physical stats can be useful."

Sure, in that situation... but it's so specific that it doesn't disprove that a higher or equal primary casting stat is still better for almost all gish builds in almost all campaigns, let alone all builds in general.

Kylarra
2009-09-23, 11:10 PM
low level survival at the cost of high level power. moving that 18 elsewhere can save your life at low levels, and does not deny you spells until level 7 at the earliest. (or even later depending on how low you go)Uh sure. Given Schrodinger's campaign I'll grant that it's possible to have rules set up such that saying you'd rather be good at something other than what your class is based on is a good thing. Which, doesn't really change the generalization that in the majority of cases it's not a good thing.

taltamir
2009-09-23, 11:14 PM
actually I would go a bit further...

On LETHAL campaigns. moving that 18 elsewhere can save your life at no real cost until level 7 at the earliest. Now you wouldn't be as powerful at level 7+ as you otherwise would... but hi... surviving level 1-3 on a lethal campaign is quite an achievement...

Kylarra
2009-09-23, 11:16 PM
I'm unfamiliar with the term "LETHAL campaign". :smallconfused:

Is there an acronym here or are we just talking 2e style? If it's just 2e style, then no, you're better of priming your rocket and playing smart, rather than pretending you can actually be tanky.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 11:16 PM
Lethal campaigns is a meaningless term. Lethal can mean "lots of challenges with no rest," "The DM metagames and does whatever your build can't do, so going as a generalist with decent melee, ranged, and magic is the only way to survive", and "High CR fights for no reason" are all lethal campaigns.

Even then, I'd take an optimized DMM Quicken route with high save DCs AoE stunning enemies (at level 3) rather than hit things better as a cleric.

Yukitsu
2009-09-23, 11:19 PM
actually I would go a bit further...

On LETHAL campaigns. moving that 18 elsewhere can save your life at no real cost until level 7 at the earliest. Now you wouldn't be as powerful at level 7+ as you otherwise would... but hi... surviving level 1-3 on a lethal campaign is quite an achievement...

I can honestly say, as one of 2 original characters in a campaign that's gone 1-9, having lost 1 monk, 1 fighter, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 druid, 1 barbarian, this isn't really true. In characteristic fashion, con is my 4th highest stat.

Vangor
2009-09-23, 11:28 PM
On LETHAL campaigns. moving that 18 elsewhere can save your life at no real cost until level 7 at the earliest. Now you wouldn't be as powerful at level 7+ as you otherwise would... but hi... surviving level 1-3 on a lethal campaign is quite an achievement...

You appear to consistently operate under the assumption of a campaign which most greatly benefits your own ideas. However, I would never create such a lethal campaign until my players possess the greater versatility afforded by higher levels, at which point the higher Wisdom statistic is becoming effective.

What you want is to say in the situation where a Level 1 Orc Barbarian while Raging (26 Strength) confirms a critical with a Falchion on Power Attack who happens to roll all 1s on his d4, the second level Cleric who happened to receive max health on his d8 with an 15 Constitution would die, but the Cleric who "wisely" placed the 18 into Constitution would not. I don't see the point in discussing character creation while simultaneously crafting a campaign and a situation to the fit the needs of demonstrating why your premise is superior. May as well possess an antimagic campaign with a constant, overly powerful calm emotions effect and talk about the superiority of Fighters.

Milskidasith
2009-09-23, 11:30 PM
You appear to consistently operate under the assumption of a campaign which most greatly benefits your own ideas. However, I would never create such a lethal campaign until my players possess the greater versatility afforded by higher levels, at which point the higher Wisdom statistic is becoming effective.

What you want is to say in the situation where a Level 1 Orc Barbarian while Raging (26 Strength) confirms a critical with a Falchion on Power Attack who happens to roll all 1s on his d4, the second level Cleric who happened to receive max health on his d8 with an 15 Constitution would die, but the Cleric who "wisely" placed the 18 into Constitution would not. I don't see the point in discussing character creation while simultaneously crafting a campaign and a situation to the fit the needs of demonstrating why your premise is superior. May as well possess an antimagic campaign with a constant, overly powerful calm emotions effect and talk about the superiority of Bards.

Fixed it for you; in a campaign with no magic and no fighting, only diplomancers can survive (or, well, not, since nobody kills each other... but you know what I mean.)

tyckspoon
2009-09-23, 11:32 PM
YMay as well possess an antimagic campaign with a constant, overly powerful calm emotions effect and talk about the superiority of Fighters UNDERWATER BASKETWEAVERS

...couldn't resist.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 12:06 AM
I can honestly say, as one of 2 original characters in a campaign that's gone 1-9, having lost 1 monk, 1 fighter, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 druid, 1 barbarian, this isn't really true. In characteristic fashion, con is my 4th highest stat.

maybe that is why you keep loosing characters.. ;p

Yukitsu
2009-09-24, 12:08 AM
maybe that is why you keep loosing characters.. ;p

You're not listening. I haven't lost any. Con high people, barbs, fighters, monks have all died.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 12:08 AM
You appear to consistently operate under the assumption of a campaign which most greatly benefits your own ideas. However, I would never create such a lethal campaign until my players possess the greater versatility afforded by higher levels, at which point the higher Wisdom statistic is becoming effective.

What you want is to say in the situation where a Level 1 Orc Barbarian while Raging (26 Strength) confirms a critical with a Falchion on Power Attack who happens to roll all 1s on his d4, the second level Cleric who happened to receive max health on his d8 with an 15 Constitution would die, but the Cleric who "wisely" placed the 18 into Constitution would not. I don't see the point in discussing character creation while simultaneously crafting a campaign and a situation to the fit the needs of demonstrating why your premise is superior. May as well possess an antimagic campaign with a constant, overly powerful calm emotions effect and talk about the superiority of Fighters.

because my assertion specifically applies to abnormal campaigns.I didn't name this thread "you should always put your highest attribute in your non primary casting attribute" did I?
In a "normal campaign" as you have it, put your highest in your casting attribute and be done with it.


Lethal campaigns is a meaningless term. Lethal can mean "lots of challenges with no rest," "The DM metagames and does whatever your build can't do, so going as a generalist with decent melee, ranged, and magic is the only way to survive", and "High CR fights for no reason" are all lethal campaigns.

Even then, I'd take an optimized DMM Quicken route with high save DCs AoE stunning enemies (at level 3) rather than hit things better as a cleric.

Those are indeed some of the options where you might want to consider such an unusual stat allocation option.


You're not listening. I haven't lost any. Con high people, barbs, fighters, monks have all died.

Ah, you mean OTHER people died...
ok so...
1. what is your con
2. what was the con of the dead characters
3. what is your class.

Yukitsu
2009-09-24, 12:14 AM
Ah, you mean OTHER people died...
ok so...
1. what is your con
2. what was the con of the dead characters
3. what is your class.

1: 12 (no con item, low money campaign.)
2: Monk, 15, fighter 1, 14, fighter 2 (Edit: this should read druid), 17, barbarian, 21. As they died, levels and wealth increased, making it seem as though those stats are arbitrarily inflating. The last is at level 9.
3: Wizard.

I'll note that this was one of my only casters to dump charisma, because I wanted to play someone nearly catatonic (charisma 5.)

Vangor
2009-09-24, 12:28 AM
because my assertion specifically applies to abnormal campaigns.I didn't name this thread "you should always put your highest attribute in your non primary casting attribute" did I?
In a "normal campaign" as you have it, put your highest in your casting attribute and be done with it.

You never specified abnormal campaigns, merely buffing/healing Clerics. The abnormal campaign types were being included in order to justify the thought of switching Wisdom as the primary initial statistic to Strength or Constitution, usually from the aspect of early survivability. You are asserting a character which isn't played thoroughly enough, in campaigns which are not standard, precluding any rules which are banned or nerfed for you, and trying to say "Voila! My build isn't pointless."

Milskidasith
2009-09-24, 12:31 AM
By the way, I made this totally awesome Cha 18 Barbarian... except in this campaign diplomacy is played by RAW and combat is settled by RPing, not rolling dice, so Str doesn't matter. Also, Barbarians get Diplomacy as a class skill now. :smalltongue:

Armond
2009-09-24, 12:33 AM
RAW cleric is badly designed. Your holy man caster class should never be considering frontlining. Why is it ok for the divine caster - the important guy, who heals and buffs and prevents damage? - to be on the frontline taking hits with the fighter/paladin/etc (and dealing out just about as much damage), but the arcane caster blows up as soon as something looks at him?

Vangor
2009-09-24, 12:41 AM
RAW cleric is badly designed. Your holy man caster class should never be considering frontlining. Why is it ok for the divine caster - the important guy, who heals and buffs and prevents damage? - to be on the frontline taking hits with the fighter/paladin/etc (and dealing out just about as much damage), but the arcane caster blows up as soon as something looks at him?

You have bad Wizards/Sorcerers and horrible preconceptions about Clerics needing to heal. Played properly, with higher levels, you should need to mend wounds after the fact...maybe.


By the way, I made this totally awesome Cha 18 Barbarian...

I am not trying to be insulting to him, this is merely the unfortunate problem of such heavy influence of statistics on spellcasting and many class abilities. You can create a variation, but diverging off from the primary attribute, unless you leap through hoops with feats or PrCs, and only with select classes, you may as well simply select a different class.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-09-24, 12:42 AM
You have bad Wizards/Sorcerers and horrible preconceptions about Clerics needing to heal. Played properly, with higher levels, you should need to mend wounds after the fact...maybe.

And you do the wound-mending with wands of CLW -- No need to waste spells.

quick_comment
2009-09-24, 12:55 AM
I am not trying to be insulting to him, this is merely the unfortunate problem of such heavy influence of statistics on spellcasting and many class abilities. You can create a variation, but diverging off from the primary attribute, unless you leap through hoops with feats or PrCs, and only with select classes, you may as well simply select a different class.

18 cha barbarian can be workable if you go the intimidating rage/imperious command route

Milskidasith
2009-09-24, 01:02 AM
18 cha barbarian can be workable if you go the intimidating rage/imperious command route

Great... I start snarking one time and somebody points out it's reasonable.

quick_comment
2009-09-24, 01:05 AM
Great... I start snarking one time and somebody points out it's reasonable.

Its worth noting that this barbarian is just a poor man's dread witch

taltamir
2009-09-24, 01:14 AM
You never specified abnormal campaigns, merely buffing/healing Clerics. The abnormal campaign types were being included in order to justify the thought of switching Wisdom as the primary initial statistic to Strength or Constitution, usually from the aspect of early survivability. You are asserting a character which isn't played thoroughly enough, in campaigns which are not standard, precluding any rules which are banned or nerfed for you, and trying to say "Voila! My build isn't pointless."

because my build really isn't pointless...
And after playing deadly, I don't think I can go back... I am hooked :)


1: 12 (no con item, low money campaign.)
2: Monk, 15, fighter 1, 14, fighter 2 (Edit: this should read druid), 17, barbarian, 21. As they died, levels and wealth increased, making it seem as though those stats are arbitrarily inflating. The last is at level 9.
3: Wizard.

I'll note that this was one of my only casters to dump charisma, because I wanted to play someone nearly catatonic (charisma 5.)

that is some huge disparty between the types of characters played.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=21479288d97bd2362f44db54c483bd 58&topic=1002.0
Although... not that I am attributing their death to it mind you...

But everyone who died is a front liner.

nightwyrm
2009-09-24, 01:22 AM
RAW cleric is badly designed. Your holy man caster class should never be considering frontlining. Why is it ok for the divine caster - the important guy, who heals and buffs and prevents damage? - to be on the frontline taking hits with the fighter/paladin/etc (and dealing out just about as much damage), but the arcane caster blows up as soon as something looks at him?

Legacy effect. The original cleric (pre-3e) wasn't modelled after frail holy man but was modelled after medieval crusading orders such as knights templar and hospitalars (therefore the use of heavy armor, blunt weapons, etc. pre-3e).

When 3e was made, no one really took a good look at it and redesigned it from the bottoms up. I'd say that a majority of design decisions in the system that looks terrible from a modern perspective was due to legacy effects from earlier editions that were never re-examined when editions are updated.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 01:30 AM
Legacy effect. The original cleric (pre-3e) wasn't modelled after frail holy man but was modelled after medieval crusading orders such as knights templar and hospitalars (therefore the use of heavy armor, blunt weapons, etc. pre-3e).

When 3e was made, no one really took a good look at it and redesigned it from the bottoms up. I'd say that a majority of design decisions in the system that looks terrible from a modern perspective was due to legacy effects from earlier editions that were never re-examined when editions are updated.

I remember reading some article on WOTC website by the developers, where they basically said that in playtesting. Nobody wanted to play it. So they just buffed it up until enough people did. And the result is your cleric being a god.

nightwyrm
2009-09-24, 01:35 AM
I remember reading some article on WOTC website by the developers, where they basically said that in playtesting. Nobody wanted to play it. So they just buffed it up until enough people did. And the result is your cleric being a god.

Yeah, I guess that's pretty much it. They didn't re-design or carefully re-examined the design behind the class but just buffed it up until people who were playing it sub-optimally thought that it was an attractive enough class to play.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 01:41 AM
Well that, and the totally false assumption that healing & HP is a real resource past level 3.

Yukitsu
2009-09-24, 10:27 AM
that is some huge disparty between the types of characters played.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=21479288d97bd2362f44db54c483bd 58&topic=1002.0
Although... not that I am attributing their death to it mind you...

But everyone who died is a front liner.

I listed off others not mentioned as well actually in an earlier post. Among them were a cleric and a wizard, but both of them had low con.

The prime cause of death actually is most heavily correlated to playing like an idiot. Not front line, HP totals or anything like that. If you run into an area with heavy enemy fire, and you don't prepare for things, expect to die. If you only fight on your terms, and you are basically crazy prepared, not really much can stop you.

Yeah, I've read the article before. I used to pipe in on the arguments that JaronK used to get into on the wizos forum with tangential support to it. Particularly on the issue of fighters sucking.

Indon
2009-09-24, 10:40 AM
I see little problem with making a Cleric focused on melee stats, provided judicious use of Divine Metamagic is used to stretch the effect of base spell slots to their maximum.

That's what casting's about, after all - exploit an ability to make a weakness irrelevant, and then take an advantage that has as a downside the weakness you made irrelevant. In this case, you would be using DMM persist/extend to cover the weakness of having fewer spell slots, so you could have beefier base melee stats.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-24, 10:48 AM
uh huh... so... when was the last time your level 1 party faced 6 ECL4-6 creatures at once? (set the building on fire, make a barricade, and leg it! ... or jump into the river and hope you make your saves... or bull rush them into the lava... etc)

As I said, no point at all to increasing your "survivability" when it is guaranteed by "level appropriate" encountered.
But when the world is actually DANGEROUS and you need to pick your battles... Con 17 wizard just doesn't seem high enough..

Well, if you're a level 1 party facing 6 ECL 4-6 creatures at once, you're already well off the rails as far as standard D&D is concerned. Optimization assumes more or less standard play, because if you start adding tons of exceptions and special rules, you can make *anything* sound good.

A level 1 primary caster is not going to bull rush an ECL 4-6 creature into the lava, btw.

Kylarra
2009-09-24, 10:54 AM
Well, if you're a level 1 party facing 6 ECL 4-6 creatures at once, you're already well off the rails as far as standard D&D is concerned. Optimization assumes more or less standard play, because if you start adding tons of exceptions and special rules, you can make *anything* sound good.

A level 1 primary caster is not going to bull rush an ECL 4-6 creature into the lava, btw.Well, a level 1 anything isn't going to be bullrushing most ECL 4-6 creatures that matter, since taking that AoO is going to drop you.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-24, 10:55 AM
I can honestly say, as one of 2 original characters in a campaign that's gone 1-9, having lost 1 monk, 1 fighter, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 druid, 1 barbarian, this isn't really true. In characteristic fashion, con is my 4th highest stat.

Im with you there. I tend to play with DMs that take a very casual attitude torward reccomended ECLs, and frequently pack days full of non-stop encounters. In such an environment, having high save DCs and more spells becomes MORE important, not less. A wasted turn of casting can kill you, but an extra two hit points won't save you.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-24, 11:02 AM
Well, a level 1 anything isn't going to be bullrushing most ECL 4-6 creatures that matter, since taking that AoO is going to drop you.

This is also true. It's not really something you *should* be fighting at that level, it's something you talk very nicely to, or run away from. Creativity is all well and good, but there are just some things that *will* kill you, and a couple hp usually matters surprisingly little in determining what sort of things you can take on.

Kylarra
2009-09-24, 11:05 AM
This is also true. It's not really something you *should* be fighting at that level, it's something you talk very nicely to, or run away from. Creativity is all well and good, but there are just some things that *will* kill you, and a couple hp usually matters surprisingly little in determining what sort of things you can take on.Agreed, otherwise toughness would be everyone's feat.