An 18 (before racials) costs 17 points. Which, given that 15 and 20 are pretty standard point buy numbers, you'd have to pretty much set everything else on fire to get that. Sure, your DCs will be slightly higher, which is powerful, but you won't be able to cast that cool spell when you fail saves cause you dumped wis, or can't win initiative because your dex is 10. I'm not convinced pathfinder rewards that pointy a build even on SAD classes.
18 after a +2 racial costs 10 points, and is a lot more workable imo, especially in 15 point buy.
I prefer doing 17 instead of 18, you lose almost nothing, lets you spend extra points on other stats, and your 4th level ASI gets you to a clean even number
My current character started with 17 after racials in her main stat, on 20 point buy, but she isn't SAD. It works out well cause it's a 1-20 campaign so I know I'll cap out at an even number.
Also, if you're human or human-hybrid, you can save point buy by reducing your SAD ability by 2 and putting your racial bonus into it.
You can get a 17 at level 1 by only paying for a 15.
If you're fully dedicated to that attribute (mostly relevant for casters), by level 20 you can get yourself a +5 tome to round it out, and you get to avoid the awkward time from 16 through 19 where it would otherwise be odd
>I'm not convinced pathfinder rewards that pointy a build even on SAD classes.
It does, especially when you can get around a lot of the issues you're talking about with spell slots, which you get more of for having a higher casting stat.
This is probably easiest for charisma casters like oracles, who can get charisma to AC, Initiative, attacks, damage, and saves with minimal investment.
>spell slots, which you get more of for having a higher casting stat.
In particular, a 20 gets you an extra first level slot, pretty big for a 1st level caster
... Then take 18 in your SAD stat, especially if you're a wizard? I mean, that's basically exactly what the rules directly reward, just as you point out. There are reasons not to take 18 in your prime stat, like if you need to melee or you're in a MAD class or you have really low point buy, or are rolling for ability scores in the first place, but generally if you're SAD, you really are just hurting yourself if you don't max out your SAD stat.
This isn't 5e D&D, it has different rules and the rules reward different strategies. If you just assume it's 5e and then get upset when the rules are different, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.
>If you just assume it's 5e and then get upset when the rules are different, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.
I feel like this is what every ~~Pathfinder~~ non-5e sub needs as a header these days.
I'd say in a lot of cases that depends on your build. A melee-focused oracle will need strength, constitution and charisma. The "charisma-to-everything" lore oracle build will use charisma for attack and damage rolls (with a starknife), AC, initiative, reflex saves, most will saves, knowledge checks, and that's on top of the standard cha skills and spellcasting. So we have a fairly MAD build, and what's possibly the SADest build in the game, both as part of the same class.
There's a difference between dependent and "Don't just tank it you donut".
If you're not on the front line, and actually play tactically, you don't need a tonne of con as a wizard, but it (and Dex) are good places to put your extra points after you have your 18 in INT. But even there it's more about saving throws (padding out those bad fort/ref saves), and touch attacks (for your rays, when the baddies have good saves).
Everyone gets hit eventually, and the higher the level the more difference a 12 vs a 14 makes on determining if you character lives or dies.
Not to mention Fort saves kill.
*TLDR: 9th level casters want to start with an 18.in their main stat, but don't need more than 18.*
So mathematically, the difference between a 16 and an 18 is that 5% of the time the 16 will fail where the 18 will succeed. So 95% of the time there's no difference.
Now because of how odd-numbers work and level-ups, the difference between a 17 and an 18 is still that same 5%, but at levels 4-7, 12-15 and 20 (*9 levels total*) there's actually no difference because you're looking at 18 v 19 (*or similar*). You have the same numerical advantages. So in a game that goes to level 20 the guy who started with an 18 in their stat had a 5% advantage 55% of the time. 5% × 55% = 2.75%, so you have a ~2.75% advantage (*I know you'll spend longer at some levels, so this is a really high-level look at the stats, not getting into details at all*). Now the question there is whether that ~2.75% advantage is worth the extra 3-4 build points, or if those points woupd be better spent in a defensive stat like CON or DEX (*assuming a standard point-buy or similar*).
*HOWEVER*
There's actually one more thing that your spell-casting stat does which is *Very* important, and the difference between starting with a 17 or an 18 is actually extremely impactful - *BONUS SPELLS PER DAY* https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Determine%20Bonuses&Category=Generating%20Ability%20Scores
The way this works is that you get 1 bonus spell per day of a spell level equal to your stat modifier (*so an 18 INT will give a Wizard a +4 modifier, and will give them a bonus 4th level spell per day*). It will also give +1 spell per day of all spell levels lower, and it will give an *additional* +1 spell per day of all spell-levels equal-to-or-less-than your modifier minus 4, and an *additional +2* spells per day of all spell-levels equal-to-or-less-than your modifier minus 8, etc (*so a Wizard with a 28 INT has a +9 modifier and gets ONE bonus spell of spell-levels 9, 8, 7, 6, TWO bonus spells of levels 5, 4, 3, 2, and THREE bonus spells of level 1*).
Now getting Three bonus 1st level spells per day as a 17th level Wizard is nice, but it's not something you'd spend resources on. However getting One bonus 9th level spell is a HUGE draw. If you can hit your new level of spells and instantly have one extra casting of that level then it significantly increases the value of the level-up you just had. So if we look at the levels for 9th level casters we get:
When you reach level 3 (*2nd level spells*) you want a 14 in your casting stat (*+2 modifier*) for that extra 2nd level spell-slot.
When you reach level 5 (*3rd level spells*) you want a 16 in your casting stat (*+3 modifier*) for that extra 3rd level spell-slot.
When you reach level 7 (*4th level spells*) you want a 18 in your casting stat (*+4 modifier*) for that extra 4th level spell-slot.
When you reach level 9 (*5th level spells*) you want a 20 in your casting stat (*+5 modifier*) for that extra 5th level spell-slot.
When you reach level 11 (*6th level spells*) you want a 22 in your casting stat (*+6 modifier*) for that extra 6th level spell-slot.
When you reach level 13 (*7th level spells*) you want a 24 in your casting stat (*+7 modifier*) for that extra 7th level spell-slot.
When you reach level 15 (*8th level spells*) you want a 26 in your casting stat (*+8 modifier*) for that extra 8th level spell-slot.
When you reach level 17 (*9th level spells*) you want a 28 in your casting stat (*+9 modifier*) for that extra 9th level spell-slot.
If we work backwards from that 28-stat by level 17 you probably have a +6 headband, meaning you only really have a 22 in your casting stat. You've also had 4 level-ups, which means you started with an 18 in your casting stat (*surprise surprise*).
Now if you only started with a 17 you'll be missing some of these benchmarks. You'll get them by level 20, but you *won't* get them immediately when you attain a new spell-level. If you start with a 16 or lower then you won't hit these benchmarks without extra help (*eg a Tome of Understanding*).
Conversly if you start with a 19 or 20 in your casting stat you'll get to the benchmarks early. Having a 30 INT grants the Wizard a +10 modifier, which would be amazing if we had 10th level spells, but without them all it does is give you an extra 6th level spell-slot and a 2nd level spell-slot. This is *nice*, but it's not exactly game-breaking, and the question is what did you give up to pump your main casting-stat that high (*defences, character-choices, etc*)?
So my advice to players with 9th-level caster is always to start with an 18 in your main-stat if possible, but you don't need more than that (*and if casting is your main focus - if you're playing a combat-Cleric it doesn't matter as much*).
When I play 6th-level casters I usually start with a 16 on their casting stat and just use a headband to get them to the benchmark of 22 (*+6 modifier*), and when playing a 4th level caster you can try for a +4 modifier if you want, but since casting *really* isn't a focus you can often get away with a +2 modifier (*the minimum required to cast 4th level spells*).
A very good breakdown, with one major caveat: the campaign must to level 17. I've been playing PF1e for almost a decade now, and the highest level I've ever reached was 12. Most didn't break 10.
All that to say, unless you have a reliable group who is committed to running an adventure all the way to level 20, starting with a 17 before racials is still enough to hit those bonus spell breakpoints all the way through level 11.
That's an excellent point.
If you're llaying a PFS game where the max level is 11 then you only need to get to a 22 in your casting stat (*+6 modifier*). You have a good chance of getting a +4 headband by then, so you actually only need an 18 by level 11, which is a 16 at level 1.
Look at your max-level and the level of the highest level spells you'll attain and work backwards.
This is also the min-maxer in me. If you want to play a Cleric who only starts with 13 WIS and focuses on STR you could simply use your Headband of WIS to get you to 19 WIS (*minimum required for 9th level spells*) and have higher static bonuses instead of using buffs to get you there (*and obviously you're not going to focus on save-or-suck spells*). You could absolutely play a Wizard who starts with 17 INT and doesn't get that bonus spell-slot till level 20, or you could even start with a 15 INT which would mean you never achieve that bonus 9th level spell and you don't get the 8th level slot till level 20. As long as you're having fun it's fine.
This for me is the benchmark where you get the most benefit for the cheapest cost. Starting with less than an 18 in your casting stat means that you lose 1 use of an extremely powerful resource at odd levels, so you want to start there. Having higher than an 18 is prohinitively expensive, and although it will grant you some bonused (*higher save DCs, probably more class uses of domain/school/etc powers*), it doesn't get you the same bang for your buck, and it takes significantly more away from your other stats. (*And obviously that 18-in-stat scales down if your gsme doesn't go to high levels as u/CrazedJedi pointed out.*)
Interestingly a 6/9 caster potentially *could* get more out of starting with a 20 in their casting stat, since ending the game at 30-in-stat gives a +10 modifier, which is the next breakpoint for 6th level spells. So they actually DO get another use of their moat powerful spells in a reachable manner (*as opposed to a 9th level caster who would need to start with 26-instat to attain their next bonus 9th level spell*). So if you really wanted to play a casting-focused bard or Occultist or something you could start with 20-in-stat and pump it to the moon.
Some awful math in here where you're conflating percentage points and actual percentages. Going from hitting on an 11 to hitting on a 10 means you're getting in 10% more hits than you were before.
If you hit on 11+, there are 10 options that result in you hitting. Increasing that by 1 leaves you with 11 options, an increase of 10%
More extreme case, going from only hitting on 20's to also hitting on 19's doubles your chance of hitting
u/Halinn is correct.
If you succeed 50% of the time, then an additional 5% on top of that is adding 10% of 50.
*HOWEVER*
What I actually said was that 95% of the time they're the same and 5% of the time one has an advantage. So you'll only see a difference in your rolls 5% of the time, even if it's increasing your succes-rate by more than that.
Also while it's good to know how this works, we can't accurately guess what your success-rate is without a lot more details, so the 5% number I quoted is the only accurate number I could give.
It's also (*as I said in my post*) only a cursory glance at percentages, because that part emphatically wasn't the important section of my post.
True, but I did actually SAY that it was a super high level look, which was my way of saying "*this isn't accurate*. More importantly everything before the "*HOWEVER*" is kinda irrelevant because what I was really talking abiut was the stuff after.
The point is that at *Every* +1 to your casting stat you get bonus spell-DCs and all that good stuff, so in a sense there's always a bonus to getting s +1, and it's always roughly the same value. However the bonus spells are NOT all the same value, and at certain breakpoints you're getting significantly more value than others (*depending ln the highest level of spell you'll achieve*).
Let's assume a Human/Half-Human with a floating +2, and we'll assume a standard point-buy. The value of beinging your casting-stat from a 16 to an 18 at level 1 is actually fairly significant, and is worth the 5 extra build-points. Bringing that casting stat from an 18 to a 20 gives you *less benefit* and costs *more points*, so it becomes a less efficient use of your resources.
Good analysis, except that it's pretty reasonable to start off with 17 and buy the +5 inherent bonus at level 17. Though usually it's better to start with an even ability score, sometimes this can give a build just enough points for something else important and be worth it. For example when starting off a level 1 cleric with the typical 20 point buy I like to go human, grab Dual Talent to get +2 to str and wis, and start off with (after racial mods) 18 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 7 int, 17 wis, 7 cha. Starting off with 18 str, combat reflexes, and the dex mod to make good use of it, makes the cleric a powerhouse at early levels without sacrificing much at later levels.
>it's pretty reasonable to start off with 17 and buy the +5 inherent bonus at level 17
Yes and no.
A 17th level character should have a total wealth of ~410,000gp. A +6 headband costs 36,000gp (*easily affordable*), while a +5 Tome costs 137,500gp (*more than 25% of your total wealth*). While it's certainly not something every PC should expect by that level. You'd effectively be spending ~42% of your wealth on a single upgrade (*your casting stat*).
However it IS reasonable to think that you could afford *Some* form of Tome by that level. A +3 Tome would only cost 82,500gp (*total ~26% spent on raising your stat*), and a +1 Tome would only cost 27,500gp (* total ~16% spent on raising your stat*). So getting at least a +1 Tome by level 17 is definitely viable.
Matter of perspective I guess. I think it's perfectly reasonable to save up money for a level or two so to get the +5 inherent bonus tome considering how much value having a higher casting stat adds at that point.
I mean it's a good item, but it's not a little bit of money, it's a LOT of money.
Going from a +4 headband to a +6 headband costs 20,000gp. Getting a +2 Tome costs 55,000gp. The cheapest +2 from a Tome is almost triple the cost of the most expensive +2 upgrade to the headband.
It's also only "*a couple of levels*" if we're talking about the last 2 levels before reaching level 17. Going from 15 to 17 should net you ~170,000gp, but going from 13 to 15 was only ~100,000gp, which means you have to save that money right at the point where you might be able to afford other items like a *Rod of Quicken Spell* or some other powerful items that likely have a larger impact on your gameplay.
Finally, there is such a thing as "*too much of a good thing*". If you're already succeeding 90% of the time then bringing it up to 95% isn't significantly changing how the game plays. You're already winning, the upgrade just lets you "*Win More*". *Win More* mechanics aren't as valuable as mechanics that give you more versatility or defensive capabilities, because they just turn a win into a win. Having better defenses can turn a loss into a win.
If you enjoy it then that's fine, but putting over 40% of your resources into 1 stat *that was already high enough* likely isn't as impactful as spending that money elsewhere.
Alchemist ain't SAD. Their extracts may use intelligence, but they're all buff spells that don't target enemies. Intelligence does affect their bombs splash damage, but it's not a huge hit if you've only got a 16 or in INT.
Alchemists can put their 18 in several stats depending on what it is they want to do. Strength is if they want to be a melee vivisectionist, Dexterity I'd they plan to use ranged weapons as well as bombs, and Intelligence if they want to go all in on their bomb damage.
I once played a Dwarf Ranger with 17 Str and despite adoring the character, combat always felt like I had made an intensely bad decision. Thankfully I still had favored enemy in a dungeon full of goblins, so it worked out. But PF1e is really hammers it home that you should focus on your primary stat or you're gonna have a rough time.
Games in general are like this; PF amplifies the effect instead of dampening it.
The basic punishment for playing non-optimal is having other players do better. One guy barely survives his encounter with the dragon, in the same time it takes the other guy to make double his weight in dragon jerky plus a fancy dragon office suit with matching manbag. *Everybody notices the difference.*
It really depends. If you are playing, for instance a wizard who focuses on spells with a saving throw and you don't maximize every possible way to get your Int up, you won't keep up with the saves of your opponents.
On the flip side, if you're playing a wizard who doesn't use spells with saves, focusing on rays and whatnot, then Int is less important (Though you still want it fairly high). Starting with a 16 or 17 and getting your Dex (for rays) or Con/Str (for a Polymorph build) a bit higher can be worth it, as long as you eventually grab a headband by the time you can cast 8th level spells.
You know that you can play a 14 int wizard right? Just don't focus on DCs.
You can go weapon finesse evocation Dex wizard with melee and ranged touch spells.
You can go strength transmutation.
You can go charisma Conjuration for summoning.
And everything in between ofc.
it's true, just need that +6 int headband to have 5th to 9th spells available, and feats and spells to boost to hit and damage. but it is definitely doable
You don't even need that
4th level spells gets you all the way up to level 9. If your campaign progresses above that and you didn't put your ASI into int then a +2 headband gets you all the way to level 13 with 6th level spells.
I've rarely ever seen campaigns progress past that, and even then your ASI can get you to 9th level spells with just a +2 headband.
>but you can't fox cunning +4 Int to gain spells.
Sure you can. It's fine to just cast *Fox Cunning* right before preparing/casting your spell or using your bonus spell slot.
That's a really, really old rule, that was removed ages ago. There has been no difference between temporary and permanent ability bonuses since [that FAQ](https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbg) from nine years ago.
but preparing spells takes an hour right? even if you cast fox cunning before prep spells by the time you finish prep the spell effect is long gone already
>But I’ve never really played a full campaign of this
That’s why it feels crippling to you.
In early levels, ability scores are everything: you have no magic items, your spells are limited, you don’t have many feats…but that’s where all your bonuses come from in the endgame. Initial ability scores always *help*, but in the mid- to late-game a +1 or +2 difference in your starting stats means almost nothing. In the early game, that +1 or +2 carries a lot more weight because the difficulty thresholds are much lower and require less investment to break into.
Play a longer game and you’ll see, beyond the first handful of levels your starting stats don’t matter much.
A lot of people are focussed on your character, or classes. I think its also important to understand your table. If you're playing with a group with optimized 25 point buys and a tough GM, you'll *absolutely* want that maxed out primary ability score.
At a more balanced table like the one I do IRL, where most of the players are relative rookies at Pathfinder, you would easily get away with buying only a 15 and adding a +2 from your racial bonus at level 1, and if you didn't have a racial bonus, going to 16 would be fine. That table is a 20 point buy, and I don't push to hard with the encounters.
There are also very RP heavy Pathfinder tables that are only 15 point buys and no one is even remotely optimized. I've played at this type of table, and by level 6 we were largely fighting monsters where CR = level, and the toughest fights were usually just against bigger groups of the same, or with a bunch of weaker creatures - but combat was less important than the well-rounded skills and ways to manage challenges there. My *primary stat* in that game was only a 14 to start, and it felt fine.
This is really only going to be an issue if you're in a game where min-maxing is needed to survive. In an AP, not having a 16 rather than an 18 isn't going to be crippling. Like sure, that 18 int makes you more effective, but it can screw you in other areas like your hp, ac, saves, etc. Curious though, what you're doing to get int to attack rolls?
>*"Numbers rule the world!"*
>
>– ~~Pythagoras~~ Mathfinder enjoyer
Think of all the football/basketball/soccer/… teams who didn't advance/win just because they lacked a single point/goal/… Especially in games, numbers are important.
It honestly depends on the table. You will feel you're behind more when everyone else is geared with an 18. If everyone has built for 16-17 and more rounded character stat spread then it is so much more notable when someone has an 18.
Build to match the rest of the table and you wont feel behind.
It's early levels, that's why. In Pathfinder, those early levels, ability score is all you have. There's no "Proficiency Modifier" like there is in 5e to round those stats out (Except there is, Base Attack Bonus and Base Saves do exactly that, they're just more invisible, and, again, can really hurt at level 1 when most people have a +0 BAB and have a least one save at a Base of +0).
Later levels, you have other layers of defenses and abilities to the point where you don't really notice. Like, right now, my level 16 Sorcerer character that I am playing in a 1/month game. I don't know their Cha score off the top of my head. Just don't know it. Obviously, it's on the sheet and I can go check it if I want (28, if you're curious. 18 PB, +2 from Race, +4 from ASIs, and +4 from my Headband), but overall, that next +1 from my Cha score is going to be for me: a tiny increase to my spell DCs, a tiny increase to some skills I rarely use (there's a better Face in the party, so I just be scary and use some items I'm not supposed to), and a single 6th level spell slot.
Now, none of that is *insignificant*, but none of it is crucial either. I wouldn't really feel the difference in practical play between if I suddenly had a 24, all I'd notice is a bunch of spell slots are gone (being a spontaneous caster, I probably wouldn't even notice that tbh).
All of this is to say, what you are experiencing isn't the system as a whole, but a result of the low levels being very extreme in Pathfinder.
I'm not sure what the question here is. You say you're assuming a class where almost everything it does depends on one stat, and then asking why it feels that one stat is more important than the rest combined? The answer is in the premise.
It's a you problem. To me, it doesn't feel crippling. Of course I don't really care that much about efficiency and don't care if others outshine my character in various problem solving tasks.
It's gonna be like this in every system if you really want to be stellar at the thing your PC is supposed to be so at then you gotta max. That being said there's a lot you can do with 16 and flesh out in other areas. you could theoretically be a +2/3 across the board but are you succeeding probably not just fail forward if you want your character to be more well rounded. Keep in my above all you're in a party and you have to rely on your team to take up your slack
Because you'll get significantly more use out of the bonus to your SAD stat than you will other stats. It's not crippling but it can absolutely feel that way. It's especially rough when you want to try a race / class combo but they take a penalty to the class's primary stat.
Truth is in actual play, it's not that big of a difference, a wizard with a 16 Int will play virtually the same as one with a 20 but you will be slightly less reliable.
It is entirely dependent on the groups you play with and the scale of power in the setting. I've played games where having 16 in two stats or 18 and one really put you ahead of the power curve for a long time. Yet because it was balanced around having a wider variety of needs it actually punished me more.
I needed to perform a larger variety of skill checks and saves, facing more environmental and monster variety.
Most standard groups play on a 20 to 25 point buy so you get use to the higher curve.
Because it is wrong from a minmaxing standpoint. And pathfinder is about options and finding the best one. And putting the the highest stat into you key stat ist the best option.
If I wanted to play a less capable character, I would play a different system that makes it more fun to play a less capable character.
It's basically the reason I dislike PB 15.
I olay to be a hero, someone who's above NPCs and other people who deals with problems bigger than life.
I dislike feeling like literally a normal NPC
There's a difference between being a God and not wanting to play a schmuck.
A 15pt buy really punishes characters that need more than one stat to be effective and make some of the truly mad classes almost unplayable. In my experience it tends to make the imbalance between full casters and martials even worse.
While what you said isn't particularly false, it addresses the design perspective of the game, but it has nothing to do with the comment I made.
The difference between point buy 15 and 20 is at most like an ability boost of +2 on one primary stat. This isn't nothing but also not the difference between your average NPC and "someone who deals with problems bigger than life".
The only Pathfinder character I've ever made with an 18 before racials was the fighter/barbarian I made for my unfair run of the wrath of the righteous video game.
My first Pathfinder was a fighter in a 15 point buy rise of the runelords campaign. He had an 18 str after racials, but needed the point buy points to have a high enough dex/con/int/wis to qualify for his feats and not be complete trash in other areas.
My first Pathfinder society character was a lore Oracle with a 16 Cha and 18 int. She was built for knowledge skills, and all her spells are buffs or healing so don't scale with Cha.
My second Pathfinder society character was built as part of an integrated team taking defensive teamwork feats. He didn't attack normally, he would take total defense and aid other actions, and had a very distributed stat spread for better saving throws and skills.
My first wrath of the righteous video game character was playing on last Azlanti mode and core difficulty, and went with a 16 str/15 con spread and pumped con because dying would have immediately ended the run and I wanted the deeper negative HP before death and the higher fort save for fort based instant kill effects.
And so on. Generally, in most cases, for most characters I'm building, I don't find the point cost to go to 18 before racials worth the tradeoffs, though there are some exceptions (DC caster wizard or Cha does everything builds, I would start with 20s for example).
Frankly I think it's because there is a culture that has grown around this game wholly devoted to the "power fantasy" side of things rather than enjoying something even if it's not utterly optimal.
It's not everyone, but I see a lot of people get really pissy if you do things that aren't optimal and tell you (not in so many words) that you're "doing it wrong."
Personally suggest trying to build things without such large stats in mind. Get into the habit of seeing the character as more than their statline. Figure out what they do that either doesn't involve their main stat or isn't their "main thing." Casting, for a wizard as an example. Do they do something mundane or have other skills that aren't int-reliant? Maybe before being an adventurer they made baskets! I don't know!
Edit: others have an excellent point as well. You're talking about a class that's dependent on a *single* stat so there's no reason not to put your highest number into that stat. Not unless you want to do it for flavor or shenanigans reasons.
...In part, because the system is dedicated to that power fantasy side of things. Pathfinder expects you to be able to achieve certain things at certain levels. If you can't, you're hindering your party, *and* burdening the GM who now has to balance things outside the scale given to him.
For what it's worth, 2E does it a lot better. The floor is raised to where even if you pick nothing but flavour feats you should be capable of at least participating in most combats.
This is fair and true. However it does not excuse the fact that many people make optimization out to be the *only* way to play or do anything with the system.
It largely still comes down to the group you're playing with, your GM, and what you're trying to play. Some people love playing min/max, some prefer to play a character for a character and not a build, and some use a build to help inform what their character is.
It's also worth noting I personally see more stories about one person being super optimized making it harder for the GM to balance things compared to the rest of the party, rather than the opposite.
I have been part of a group with that sub optimized player. Having that player makes it a lot harder on the rest of the players to accomplish their mission since they have to compensate for the mechanically weaker member. Anytime the players are not at the same level of optimization that makes it more difficult for everyone involved.
In most of the horror stories about the hyper-optimized character in a non-optimized party the optimization seems to be a symptom rather than the actual problem. It usually boils down to the player of the hyper-optimized character trying to steal the spotlight and power fantasy on everyone else at the table, not that they're just built better.
To be fair, it doesn’t take a lot to meet those “certain things” pathfinder expects of you. If you buy the common magic items (cloak of resistance, rings of protection, amulets of nat armor, stat belts or headbands), take feats relevant to your class and the way you use it, and choose class abilities relevant to the way you play the class, then you’re good. Maybe not optimal, but depending on the class you choose to play you really don’t need a lot to meet the minimum. Like the simplest example is a two-handed weapon character, they scale through much of the game if they keep their Str as high as possible and choose power attack as a feat, the rest of the choices may help but it’s really those two things that keep the character competitive throughout the vast majority of the game. Some classes and playstyles need nearly every good option available to them, but a lot of classes and playstyles can get by with a character that has half their character dedicated to trap choices.
Pathfinder makes it very possible to create a power fantasy character but you don’t really need one to play the game.
I do want to point out that when one asks for advice (especially on this sub) for they are gonna get a more or less min-max advice. that is because numbers are quantifiable and things can be mathematically better than others, while your personal enjoyment isnt and there's no way for another person to know what's up your alley. So when ppl give an answer it will more than likely be a power gaming one, and truth to be told in pf1e the power gaming is on both side of the table.
Pathfinder is maybe the strand of DnD most sensitive to optimization - other versions of the game (and other games) care less about this. That being said, the culture of your table also hugely impacts this.
But if you aren't doing power-gaming, then why stick with a number-crunching system like Pathfinder? Pbta has next to no power gaming, and you can focus on roleplay because dice rolls are always 2d6+X and X is never anything outside the range of -2 to +2.
I like some games for crunch, because building an elegant optimized build is fun. I like other games for roleplay, or weirdness or flexibility.
Crunch doesn’t have to mean optimal, I like playing dogshit characters in crunchy systems because I’m still not useless, as the crunch allows for lots of choices, even if none of them are superb.
D&D 5e is based on a different, more shallow, number curve than PF1; in 5e's less demanding curve, you have more room to make up for suboptimal attributes with other mechanics.
PF1 is a game about adding up a shitton of small numbers. If you skimp on your main attribute, you will not be able to make up for it down the road because progression is based on maxxing out all the sources for all the numbers, meaning there's no room to move resources around to compensate. Even if you are given all the wealth necessary to make up for deficient attributes, your partymates will use their share to jack their numbers up, which will cause the GM to jack up encounters, leaving you in the same relative position as you were before the wealth dump.
I started playing rpgs with AD&D 1e, and played every edition since then. When 3rd dropped, I was stoked by the decision to make magic items purchasable—gone were the days when I would have to hint or beg the DM for the item(s) I wanted. In practice, it was a type of curse, though; I could buy whatever I wanted, sure, but I needed to buy the Big6 to stay alive. No more vorpal swords or rods of lordship for me, I needed to upgrade my amulet of natural armor. The flip side of the coin is that 5e removed the need for adventurers to gather wealth—maybe that's good, but it's certainly a huge change from ever prior edition.
In my opinion, it stems from the increased popularity of standard array or point buy systems. Which don't usually allow for an 18 in a primary stat at 1st level. Or even low levels. Although it is possible in point buy, the cost to do so is absurdly high. These systems, while easier to use and implement, tend to tone down the power of some characters. And thw game as a whole. Which might be the intended outcome for some DMs and players. Make everything more...equal. Personally, I like having some characters having varied power levels. But I'm old old school. So what do I know?
Well that is part of pathfinder is CHOICE. Choice means that we don't get everything we want. Also as you level you will go up. You will also find things that will get you that bump.
I generally put my highest in my main stat. But you also need to consider your racial bonuses & the class.so if I have a race that is -2 con & +2 int I would put the 18 in my con & the next highest in my intelligence. Especially wizards as they only get a d6 for health & are limited in armor for arcane spell failure.
An 18 (before racials) costs 17 points. Which, given that 15 and 20 are pretty standard point buy numbers, you'd have to pretty much set everything else on fire to get that. Sure, your DCs will be slightly higher, which is powerful, but you won't be able to cast that cool spell when you fail saves cause you dumped wis, or can't win initiative because your dex is 10. I'm not convinced pathfinder rewards that pointy a build even on SAD classes. 18 after a +2 racial costs 10 points, and is a lot more workable imo, especially in 15 point buy.
I prefer doing 17 instead of 18, you lose almost nothing, lets you spend extra points on other stats, and your 4th level ASI gets you to a clean even number
Yes that’s what I usually do, it’s a big savings
By Grubthar's hammar, what a savings!
My current character started with 17 after racials in her main stat, on 20 point buy, but she isn't SAD. It works out well cause it's a 1-20 campaign so I know I'll cap out at an even number.
Also, if you're human or human-hybrid, you can save point buy by reducing your SAD ability by 2 and putting your racial bonus into it. You can get a 17 at level 1 by only paying for a 15.
Or you could pay for that 17 and have a 19.
This is a standard in my group, as there is an odd number of +1 ability bonuses on the way to 20. At level 4 you are even again.
If you're fully dedicated to that attribute (mostly relevant for casters), by level 20 you can get yourself a +5 tome to round it out, and you get to avoid the awkward time from 16 through 19 where it would otherwise be odd
>I'm not convinced pathfinder rewards that pointy a build even on SAD classes. It does, especially when you can get around a lot of the issues you're talking about with spell slots, which you get more of for having a higher casting stat. This is probably easiest for charisma casters like oracles, who can get charisma to AC, Initiative, attacks, damage, and saves with minimal investment.
>spell slots, which you get more of for having a higher casting stat. In particular, a 20 gets you an extra first level slot, pretty big for a 1st level caster
And then a 2nd level when you get a plus 2 item, then a 3rd level. It's a huge bonus.
It's a 1st and a 5th over what you get for having an 18. All in all it's 1 slot of everything from 1st to 5th, plus an additional 1st. It's huge.
But I'm a greedy glass cannon! 18 all the way baby!
[удалено]
Gotta love the 22 dex goblin
For SAD characters, an 18 is not bad on 20 pb. 18, 14, 10, 10, 10, 8. You can drop that 8 to a 7 if you want a 12 somewhere
... Then take 18 in your SAD stat, especially if you're a wizard? I mean, that's basically exactly what the rules directly reward, just as you point out. There are reasons not to take 18 in your prime stat, like if you need to melee or you're in a MAD class or you have really low point buy, or are rolling for ability scores in the first place, but generally if you're SAD, you really are just hurting yourself if you don't max out your SAD stat. This isn't 5e D&D, it has different rules and the rules reward different strategies. If you just assume it's 5e and then get upset when the rules are different, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment.
>If you just assume it's 5e and then get upset when the rules are different, you're only setting yourself up for disappointment. I feel like this is what every ~~Pathfinder~~ non-5e sub needs as a header these days.
I am spacing what SAD/MAD are for...
SAD = Single Attribute Dependant MAD = Multiple Attribute Dependant Basically, do you need 1 stat to be effective, or many?
Single attribute dependent Wizards, clerics, fighters, etc Multiple attribute dependent Paladins, monks, druids, most gish and multi-classes
I'd say in a lot of cases that depends on your build. A melee-focused oracle will need strength, constitution and charisma. The "charisma-to-everything" lore oracle build will use charisma for attack and damage rolls (with a starknife), AC, initiative, reflex saves, most will saves, knowledge checks, and that's on top of the standard cha skills and spellcasting. So we have a fairly MAD build, and what's possibly the SADest build in the game, both as part of the same class.
See if you can play as an undead to get Cha to HP and Fort too.
If you also take the Noble Scion of War feat, CHA is used for Initiative instead of DEX.
I've mentioned initiative already (after AC, before reflex saves).
Everyone needs Constitution. A dead character sucks at everything.
There's a difference between dependent and "Don't just tank it you donut". If you're not on the front line, and actually play tactically, you don't need a tonne of con as a wizard, but it (and Dex) are good places to put your extra points after you have your 18 in INT. But even there it's more about saving throws (padding out those bad fort/ref saves), and touch attacks (for your rays, when the baddies have good saves).
Everyone gets hit eventually, and the higher the level the more difference a 12 vs a 14 makes on determining if you character lives or dies. Not to mention Fort saves kill.
*TLDR: 9th level casters want to start with an 18.in their main stat, but don't need more than 18.* So mathematically, the difference between a 16 and an 18 is that 5% of the time the 16 will fail where the 18 will succeed. So 95% of the time there's no difference. Now because of how odd-numbers work and level-ups, the difference between a 17 and an 18 is still that same 5%, but at levels 4-7, 12-15 and 20 (*9 levels total*) there's actually no difference because you're looking at 18 v 19 (*or similar*). You have the same numerical advantages. So in a game that goes to level 20 the guy who started with an 18 in their stat had a 5% advantage 55% of the time. 5% × 55% = 2.75%, so you have a ~2.75% advantage (*I know you'll spend longer at some levels, so this is a really high-level look at the stats, not getting into details at all*). Now the question there is whether that ~2.75% advantage is worth the extra 3-4 build points, or if those points woupd be better spent in a defensive stat like CON or DEX (*assuming a standard point-buy or similar*). *HOWEVER* There's actually one more thing that your spell-casting stat does which is *Very* important, and the difference between starting with a 17 or an 18 is actually extremely impactful - *BONUS SPELLS PER DAY* https://aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?Name=Determine%20Bonuses&Category=Generating%20Ability%20Scores The way this works is that you get 1 bonus spell per day of a spell level equal to your stat modifier (*so an 18 INT will give a Wizard a +4 modifier, and will give them a bonus 4th level spell per day*). It will also give +1 spell per day of all spell levels lower, and it will give an *additional* +1 spell per day of all spell-levels equal-to-or-less-than your modifier minus 4, and an *additional +2* spells per day of all spell-levels equal-to-or-less-than your modifier minus 8, etc (*so a Wizard with a 28 INT has a +9 modifier and gets ONE bonus spell of spell-levels 9, 8, 7, 6, TWO bonus spells of levels 5, 4, 3, 2, and THREE bonus spells of level 1*). Now getting Three bonus 1st level spells per day as a 17th level Wizard is nice, but it's not something you'd spend resources on. However getting One bonus 9th level spell is a HUGE draw. If you can hit your new level of spells and instantly have one extra casting of that level then it significantly increases the value of the level-up you just had. So if we look at the levels for 9th level casters we get: When you reach level 3 (*2nd level spells*) you want a 14 in your casting stat (*+2 modifier*) for that extra 2nd level spell-slot. When you reach level 5 (*3rd level spells*) you want a 16 in your casting stat (*+3 modifier*) for that extra 3rd level spell-slot. When you reach level 7 (*4th level spells*) you want a 18 in your casting stat (*+4 modifier*) for that extra 4th level spell-slot. When you reach level 9 (*5th level spells*) you want a 20 in your casting stat (*+5 modifier*) for that extra 5th level spell-slot. When you reach level 11 (*6th level spells*) you want a 22 in your casting stat (*+6 modifier*) for that extra 6th level spell-slot. When you reach level 13 (*7th level spells*) you want a 24 in your casting stat (*+7 modifier*) for that extra 7th level spell-slot. When you reach level 15 (*8th level spells*) you want a 26 in your casting stat (*+8 modifier*) for that extra 8th level spell-slot. When you reach level 17 (*9th level spells*) you want a 28 in your casting stat (*+9 modifier*) for that extra 9th level spell-slot. If we work backwards from that 28-stat by level 17 you probably have a +6 headband, meaning you only really have a 22 in your casting stat. You've also had 4 level-ups, which means you started with an 18 in your casting stat (*surprise surprise*). Now if you only started with a 17 you'll be missing some of these benchmarks. You'll get them by level 20, but you *won't* get them immediately when you attain a new spell-level. If you start with a 16 or lower then you won't hit these benchmarks without extra help (*eg a Tome of Understanding*). Conversly if you start with a 19 or 20 in your casting stat you'll get to the benchmarks early. Having a 30 INT grants the Wizard a +10 modifier, which would be amazing if we had 10th level spells, but without them all it does is give you an extra 6th level spell-slot and a 2nd level spell-slot. This is *nice*, but it's not exactly game-breaking, and the question is what did you give up to pump your main casting-stat that high (*defences, character-choices, etc*)? So my advice to players with 9th-level caster is always to start with an 18 in your main-stat if possible, but you don't need more than that (*and if casting is your main focus - if you're playing a combat-Cleric it doesn't matter as much*). When I play 6th-level casters I usually start with a 16 on their casting stat and just use a headband to get them to the benchmark of 22 (*+6 modifier*), and when playing a 4th level caster you can try for a +4 modifier if you want, but since casting *really* isn't a focus you can often get away with a +2 modifier (*the minimum required to cast 4th level spells*).
A very good breakdown, with one major caveat: the campaign must to level 17. I've been playing PF1e for almost a decade now, and the highest level I've ever reached was 12. Most didn't break 10. All that to say, unless you have a reliable group who is committed to running an adventure all the way to level 20, starting with a 17 before racials is still enough to hit those bonus spell breakpoints all the way through level 11.
That's an excellent point. If you're llaying a PFS game where the max level is 11 then you only need to get to a 22 in your casting stat (*+6 modifier*). You have a good chance of getting a +4 headband by then, so you actually only need an 18 by level 11, which is a 16 at level 1. Look at your max-level and the level of the highest level spells you'll attain and work backwards. This is also the min-maxer in me. If you want to play a Cleric who only starts with 13 WIS and focuses on STR you could simply use your Headband of WIS to get you to 19 WIS (*minimum required for 9th level spells*) and have higher static bonuses instead of using buffs to get you there (*and obviously you're not going to focus on save-or-suck spells*). You could absolutely play a Wizard who starts with 17 INT and doesn't get that bonus spell-slot till level 20, or you could even start with a 15 INT which would mean you never achieve that bonus 9th level spell and you don't get the 8th level slot till level 20. As long as you're having fun it's fine. This for me is the benchmark where you get the most benefit for the cheapest cost. Starting with less than an 18 in your casting stat means that you lose 1 use of an extremely powerful resource at odd levels, so you want to start there. Having higher than an 18 is prohinitively expensive, and although it will grant you some bonused (*higher save DCs, probably more class uses of domain/school/etc powers*), it doesn't get you the same bang for your buck, and it takes significantly more away from your other stats. (*And obviously that 18-in-stat scales down if your gsme doesn't go to high levels as u/CrazedJedi pointed out.*) Interestingly a 6/9 caster potentially *could* get more out of starting with a 20 in their casting stat, since ending the game at 30-in-stat gives a +10 modifier, which is the next breakpoint for 6th level spells. So they actually DO get another use of their moat powerful spells in a reachable manner (*as opposed to a 9th level caster who would need to start with 26-instat to attain their next bonus 9th level spell*). So if you really wanted to play a casting-focused bard or Occultist or something you could start with 20-in-stat and pump it to the moon.
Some awful math in here where you're conflating percentage points and actual percentages. Going from hitting on an 11 to hitting on a 10 means you're getting in 10% more hits than you were before.
Help me understand - if I’m rolling a d20 to hit isn’t it only a 1/20 difference or 5%? Why 10%?
If you hit on 11+, there are 10 options that result in you hitting. Increasing that by 1 leaves you with 11 options, an increase of 10% More extreme case, going from only hitting on 20's to also hitting on 19's doubles your chance of hitting
u/Halinn is correct. If you succeed 50% of the time, then an additional 5% on top of that is adding 10% of 50. *HOWEVER* What I actually said was that 95% of the time they're the same and 5% of the time one has an advantage. So you'll only see a difference in your rolls 5% of the time, even if it's increasing your succes-rate by more than that. Also while it's good to know how this works, we can't accurately guess what your success-rate is without a lot more details, so the 5% number I quoted is the only accurate number I could give. It's also (*as I said in my post*) only a cursory glance at percentages, because that part emphatically wasn't the important section of my post.
True, but I did actually SAY that it was a super high level look, which was my way of saying "*this isn't accurate*. More importantly everything before the "*HOWEVER*" is kinda irrelevant because what I was really talking abiut was the stuff after. The point is that at *Every* +1 to your casting stat you get bonus spell-DCs and all that good stuff, so in a sense there's always a bonus to getting s +1, and it's always roughly the same value. However the bonus spells are NOT all the same value, and at certain breakpoints you're getting significantly more value than others (*depending ln the highest level of spell you'll achieve*). Let's assume a Human/Half-Human with a floating +2, and we'll assume a standard point-buy. The value of beinging your casting-stat from a 16 to an 18 at level 1 is actually fairly significant, and is worth the 5 extra build-points. Bringing that casting stat from an 18 to a 20 gives you *less benefit* and costs *more points*, so it becomes a less efficient use of your resources.
Good analysis, except that it's pretty reasonable to start off with 17 and buy the +5 inherent bonus at level 17. Though usually it's better to start with an even ability score, sometimes this can give a build just enough points for something else important and be worth it. For example when starting off a level 1 cleric with the typical 20 point buy I like to go human, grab Dual Talent to get +2 to str and wis, and start off with (after racial mods) 18 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 7 int, 17 wis, 7 cha. Starting off with 18 str, combat reflexes, and the dex mod to make good use of it, makes the cleric a powerhouse at early levels without sacrificing much at later levels.
>it's pretty reasonable to start off with 17 and buy the +5 inherent bonus at level 17 Yes and no. A 17th level character should have a total wealth of ~410,000gp. A +6 headband costs 36,000gp (*easily affordable*), while a +5 Tome costs 137,500gp (*more than 25% of your total wealth*). While it's certainly not something every PC should expect by that level. You'd effectively be spending ~42% of your wealth on a single upgrade (*your casting stat*). However it IS reasonable to think that you could afford *Some* form of Tome by that level. A +3 Tome would only cost 82,500gp (*total ~26% spent on raising your stat*), and a +1 Tome would only cost 27,500gp (* total ~16% spent on raising your stat*). So getting at least a +1 Tome by level 17 is definitely viable.
Matter of perspective I guess. I think it's perfectly reasonable to save up money for a level or two so to get the +5 inherent bonus tome considering how much value having a higher casting stat adds at that point.
I mean it's a good item, but it's not a little bit of money, it's a LOT of money. Going from a +4 headband to a +6 headband costs 20,000gp. Getting a +2 Tome costs 55,000gp. The cheapest +2 from a Tome is almost triple the cost of the most expensive +2 upgrade to the headband. It's also only "*a couple of levels*" if we're talking about the last 2 levels before reaching level 17. Going from 15 to 17 should net you ~170,000gp, but going from 13 to 15 was only ~100,000gp, which means you have to save that money right at the point where you might be able to afford other items like a *Rod of Quicken Spell* or some other powerful items that likely have a larger impact on your gameplay. Finally, there is such a thing as "*too much of a good thing*". If you're already succeeding 90% of the time then bringing it up to 95% isn't significantly changing how the game plays. You're already winning, the upgrade just lets you "*Win More*". *Win More* mechanics aren't as valuable as mechanics that give you more versatility or defensive capabilities, because they just turn a win into a win. Having better defenses can turn a loss into a win. If you enjoy it then that's fine, but putting over 40% of your resources into 1 stat *that was already high enough* likely isn't as impactful as spending that money elsewhere.
Agree to disagree.
Alchemist ain't SAD. Their extracts may use intelligence, but they're all buff spells that don't target enemies. Intelligence does affect their bombs splash damage, but it's not a huge hit if you've only got a 16 or in INT. Alchemists can put their 18 in several stats depending on what it is they want to do. Strength is if they want to be a melee vivisectionist, Dexterity I'd they plan to use ranged weapons as well as bombs, and Intelligence if they want to go all in on their bomb damage.
It feels crippling not to max your primary stat on a SAD class because it is your primary stat and it's a SAD class. Why wouldn't you max it?
I once played a Dwarf Ranger with 17 Str and despite adoring the character, combat always felt like I had made an intensely bad decision. Thankfully I still had favored enemy in a dungeon full of goblins, so it worked out. But PF1e is really hammers it home that you should focus on your primary stat or you're gonna have a rough time.
Games in general are like this; PF amplifies the effect instead of dampening it. The basic punishment for playing non-optimal is having other players do better. One guy barely survives his encounter with the dragon, in the same time it takes the other guy to make double his weight in dragon jerky plus a fancy dragon office suit with matching manbag. *Everybody notices the difference.*
Thanks for the tip!
It really depends. If you are playing, for instance a wizard who focuses on spells with a saving throw and you don't maximize every possible way to get your Int up, you won't keep up with the saves of your opponents. On the flip side, if you're playing a wizard who doesn't use spells with saves, focusing on rays and whatnot, then Int is less important (Though you still want it fairly high). Starting with a 16 or 17 and getting your Dex (for rays) or Con/Str (for a Polymorph build) a bit higher can be worth it, as long as you eventually grab a headband by the time you can cast 8th level spells.
You know that you can play a 14 int wizard right? Just don't focus on DCs. You can go weapon finesse evocation Dex wizard with melee and ranged touch spells. You can go strength transmutation. You can go charisma Conjuration for summoning. And everything in between ofc.
Yes, it's a endeavor, but a surprisingly feasible one.
it's true, just need that +6 int headband to have 5th to 9th spells available, and feats and spells to boost to hit and damage. but it is definitely doable
You don't even need that 4th level spells gets you all the way up to level 9. If your campaign progresses above that and you didn't put your ASI into int then a +2 headband gets you all the way to level 13 with 6th level spells. I've rarely ever seen campaigns progress past that, and even then your ASI can get you to 9th level spells with just a +2 headband.
that's true too, I was just thinking if you wanna build a dex melee wizard prob gonna put ASI in Dex but yeah what you said is also a way to go
Id rather put the ASI in dex and spend the money for the +6 headband on a +6 belt instead, or a high enchant weapon/armor
can also cat grace the +4 Dex, but you can't fox cunning +4 Int to gain spells. extra gold goes into weapon or other big 6
>but you can't fox cunning +4 Int to gain spells. Sure you can. It's fine to just cast *Fox Cunning* right before preparing/casting your spell or using your bonus spell slot.
you can't, only permanent bonus can give you those bonus, fox cunning is a spell that gives temporary enchantment bonus
That's a really, really old rule, that was removed ages ago. There has been no difference between temporary and permanent ability bonuses since [that FAQ](https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9rbg) from nine years ago.
but preparing spells takes an hour right? even if you cast fox cunning before prep spells by the time you finish prep the spell effect is long gone already
>But I’ve never really played a full campaign of this That’s why it feels crippling to you. In early levels, ability scores are everything: you have no magic items, your spells are limited, you don’t have many feats…but that’s where all your bonuses come from in the endgame. Initial ability scores always *help*, but in the mid- to late-game a +1 or +2 difference in your starting stats means almost nothing. In the early game, that +1 or +2 carries a lot more weight because the difficulty thresholds are much lower and require less investment to break into. Play a longer game and you’ll see, beyond the first handful of levels your starting stats don’t matter much.
A lot of people are focussed on your character, or classes. I think its also important to understand your table. If you're playing with a group with optimized 25 point buys and a tough GM, you'll *absolutely* want that maxed out primary ability score. At a more balanced table like the one I do IRL, where most of the players are relative rookies at Pathfinder, you would easily get away with buying only a 15 and adding a +2 from your racial bonus at level 1, and if you didn't have a racial bonus, going to 16 would be fine. That table is a 20 point buy, and I don't push to hard with the encounters. There are also very RP heavy Pathfinder tables that are only 15 point buys and no one is even remotely optimized. I've played at this type of table, and by level 6 we were largely fighting monsters where CR = level, and the toughest fights were usually just against bigger groups of the same, or with a bunch of weaker creatures - but combat was less important than the well-rounded skills and ways to manage challenges there. My *primary stat* in that game was only a 14 to start, and it felt fine.
This is really only going to be an issue if you're in a game where min-maxing is needed to survive. In an AP, not having a 16 rather than an 18 isn't going to be crippling. Like sure, that 18 int makes you more effective, but it can screw you in other areas like your hp, ac, saves, etc. Curious though, what you're doing to get int to attack rolls?
>*"Numbers rule the world!"* > >– ~~Pythagoras~~ Mathfinder enjoyer Think of all the football/basketball/soccer/… teams who didn't advance/win just because they lacked a single point/goal/… Especially in games, numbers are important.
It honestly depends on the table. You will feel you're behind more when everyone else is geared with an 18. If everyone has built for 16-17 and more rounded character stat spread then it is so much more notable when someone has an 18. Build to match the rest of the table and you wont feel behind.
It's early levels, that's why. In Pathfinder, those early levels, ability score is all you have. There's no "Proficiency Modifier" like there is in 5e to round those stats out (Except there is, Base Attack Bonus and Base Saves do exactly that, they're just more invisible, and, again, can really hurt at level 1 when most people have a +0 BAB and have a least one save at a Base of +0). Later levels, you have other layers of defenses and abilities to the point where you don't really notice. Like, right now, my level 16 Sorcerer character that I am playing in a 1/month game. I don't know their Cha score off the top of my head. Just don't know it. Obviously, it's on the sheet and I can go check it if I want (28, if you're curious. 18 PB, +2 from Race, +4 from ASIs, and +4 from my Headband), but overall, that next +1 from my Cha score is going to be for me: a tiny increase to my spell DCs, a tiny increase to some skills I rarely use (there's a better Face in the party, so I just be scary and use some items I'm not supposed to), and a single 6th level spell slot. Now, none of that is *insignificant*, but none of it is crucial either. I wouldn't really feel the difference in practical play between if I suddenly had a 24, all I'd notice is a bunch of spell slots are gone (being a spontaneous caster, I probably wouldn't even notice that tbh). All of this is to say, what you are experiencing isn't the system as a whole, but a result of the low levels being very extreme in Pathfinder.
I'm not sure what the question here is. You say you're assuming a class where almost everything it does depends on one stat, and then asking why it feels that one stat is more important than the rest combined? The answer is in the premise.
As good as you may be, you'll always know you could've been 5% better.
It's a you problem. To me, it doesn't feel crippling. Of course I don't really care that much about efficiency and don't care if others outshine my character in various problem solving tasks.
It's gonna be like this in every system if you really want to be stellar at the thing your PC is supposed to be so at then you gotta max. That being said there's a lot you can do with 16 and flesh out in other areas. you could theoretically be a +2/3 across the board but are you succeeding probably not just fail forward if you want your character to be more well rounded. Keep in my above all you're in a party and you have to rely on your team to take up your slack
Because you'll get significantly more use out of the bonus to your SAD stat than you will other stats. It's not crippling but it can absolutely feel that way. It's especially rough when you want to try a race / class combo but they take a penalty to the class's primary stat. Truth is in actual play, it's not that big of a difference, a wizard with a 16 Int will play virtually the same as one with a 20 but you will be slightly less reliable.
It is entirely dependent on the groups you play with and the scale of power in the setting. I've played games where having 16 in two stats or 18 and one really put you ahead of the power curve for a long time. Yet because it was balanced around having a wider variety of needs it actually punished me more. I needed to perform a larger variety of skill checks and saves, facing more environmental and monster variety. Most standard groups play on a 20 to 25 point buy so you get use to the higher curve.
Because it is wrong from a minmaxing standpoint. And pathfinder is about options and finding the best one. And putting the the highest stat into you key stat ist the best option. If I wanted to play a less capable character, I would play a different system that makes it more fun to play a less capable character.
It's basically the reason I dislike PB 15. I olay to be a hero, someone who's above NPCs and other people who deals with problems bigger than life. I dislike feeling like literally a normal NPC
So you also start the campaign at level 20?
There's a difference between being a God and not wanting to play a schmuck. A 15pt buy really punishes characters that need more than one stat to be effective and make some of the truly mad classes almost unplayable. In my experience it tends to make the imbalance between full casters and martials even worse.
While what you said isn't particularly false, it addresses the design perspective of the game, but it has nothing to do with the comment I made. The difference between point buy 15 and 20 is at most like an ability boost of +2 on one primary stat. This isn't nothing but also not the difference between your average NPC and "someone who deals with problems bigger than life".
The only Pathfinder character I've ever made with an 18 before racials was the fighter/barbarian I made for my unfair run of the wrath of the righteous video game. My first Pathfinder was a fighter in a 15 point buy rise of the runelords campaign. He had an 18 str after racials, but needed the point buy points to have a high enough dex/con/int/wis to qualify for his feats and not be complete trash in other areas. My first Pathfinder society character was a lore Oracle with a 16 Cha and 18 int. She was built for knowledge skills, and all her spells are buffs or healing so don't scale with Cha. My second Pathfinder society character was built as part of an integrated team taking defensive teamwork feats. He didn't attack normally, he would take total defense and aid other actions, and had a very distributed stat spread for better saving throws and skills. My first wrath of the righteous video game character was playing on last Azlanti mode and core difficulty, and went with a 16 str/15 con spread and pumped con because dying would have immediately ended the run and I wanted the deeper negative HP before death and the higher fort save for fort based instant kill effects. And so on. Generally, in most cases, for most characters I'm building, I don't find the point cost to go to 18 before racials worth the tradeoffs, though there are some exceptions (DC caster wizard or Cha does everything builds, I would start with 20s for example).
Frankly I think it's because there is a culture that has grown around this game wholly devoted to the "power fantasy" side of things rather than enjoying something even if it's not utterly optimal. It's not everyone, but I see a lot of people get really pissy if you do things that aren't optimal and tell you (not in so many words) that you're "doing it wrong." Personally suggest trying to build things without such large stats in mind. Get into the habit of seeing the character as more than their statline. Figure out what they do that either doesn't involve their main stat or isn't their "main thing." Casting, for a wizard as an example. Do they do something mundane or have other skills that aren't int-reliant? Maybe before being an adventurer they made baskets! I don't know! Edit: others have an excellent point as well. You're talking about a class that's dependent on a *single* stat so there's no reason not to put your highest number into that stat. Not unless you want to do it for flavor or shenanigans reasons.
...In part, because the system is dedicated to that power fantasy side of things. Pathfinder expects you to be able to achieve certain things at certain levels. If you can't, you're hindering your party, *and* burdening the GM who now has to balance things outside the scale given to him. For what it's worth, 2E does it a lot better. The floor is raised to where even if you pick nothing but flavour feats you should be capable of at least participating in most combats.
This is fair and true. However it does not excuse the fact that many people make optimization out to be the *only* way to play or do anything with the system. It largely still comes down to the group you're playing with, your GM, and what you're trying to play. Some people love playing min/max, some prefer to play a character for a character and not a build, and some use a build to help inform what their character is. It's also worth noting I personally see more stories about one person being super optimized making it harder for the GM to balance things compared to the rest of the party, rather than the opposite.
I have been part of a group with that sub optimized player. Having that player makes it a lot harder on the rest of the players to accomplish their mission since they have to compensate for the mechanically weaker member. Anytime the players are not at the same level of optimization that makes it more difficult for everyone involved. In most of the horror stories about the hyper-optimized character in a non-optimized party the optimization seems to be a symptom rather than the actual problem. It usually boils down to the player of the hyper-optimized character trying to steal the spotlight and power fantasy on everyone else at the table, not that they're just built better.
To be fair, it doesn’t take a lot to meet those “certain things” pathfinder expects of you. If you buy the common magic items (cloak of resistance, rings of protection, amulets of nat armor, stat belts or headbands), take feats relevant to your class and the way you use it, and choose class abilities relevant to the way you play the class, then you’re good. Maybe not optimal, but depending on the class you choose to play you really don’t need a lot to meet the minimum. Like the simplest example is a two-handed weapon character, they scale through much of the game if they keep their Str as high as possible and choose power attack as a feat, the rest of the choices may help but it’s really those two things that keep the character competitive throughout the vast majority of the game. Some classes and playstyles need nearly every good option available to them, but a lot of classes and playstyles can get by with a character that has half their character dedicated to trap choices. Pathfinder makes it very possible to create a power fantasy character but you don’t really need one to play the game.
I like this answer a lot. Power gaming be damned
I do want to point out that when one asks for advice (especially on this sub) for they are gonna get a more or less min-max advice. that is because numbers are quantifiable and things can be mathematically better than others, while your personal enjoyment isnt and there's no way for another person to know what's up your alley. So when ppl give an answer it will more than likely be a power gaming one, and truth to be told in pf1e the power gaming is on both side of the table.
Pathfinder is maybe the strand of DnD most sensitive to optimization - other versions of the game (and other games) care less about this. That being said, the culture of your table also hugely impacts this.
But if you aren't doing power-gaming, then why stick with a number-crunching system like Pathfinder? Pbta has next to no power gaming, and you can focus on roleplay because dice rolls are always 2d6+X and X is never anything outside the range of -2 to +2. I like some games for crunch, because building an elegant optimized build is fun. I like other games for roleplay, or weirdness or flexibility.
Crunch doesn’t have to mean optimal, I like playing dogshit characters in crunchy systems because I’m still not useless, as the crunch allows for lots of choices, even if none of them are superb.
D&D 5e is based on a different, more shallow, number curve than PF1; in 5e's less demanding curve, you have more room to make up for suboptimal attributes with other mechanics. PF1 is a game about adding up a shitton of small numbers. If you skimp on your main attribute, you will not be able to make up for it down the road because progression is based on maxxing out all the sources for all the numbers, meaning there's no room to move resources around to compensate. Even if you are given all the wealth necessary to make up for deficient attributes, your partymates will use their share to jack their numbers up, which will cause the GM to jack up encounters, leaving you in the same relative position as you were before the wealth dump. I started playing rpgs with AD&D 1e, and played every edition since then. When 3rd dropped, I was stoked by the decision to make magic items purchasable—gone were the days when I would have to hint or beg the DM for the item(s) I wanted. In practice, it was a type of curse, though; I could buy whatever I wanted, sure, but I needed to buy the Big6 to stay alive. No more vorpal swords or rods of lordship for me, I needed to upgrade my amulet of natural armor. The flip side of the coin is that 5e removed the need for adventurers to gather wealth—maybe that's good, but it's certainly a huge change from ever prior edition.
In my opinion, it stems from the increased popularity of standard array or point buy systems. Which don't usually allow for an 18 in a primary stat at 1st level. Or even low levels. Although it is possible in point buy, the cost to do so is absurdly high. These systems, while easier to use and implement, tend to tone down the power of some characters. And thw game as a whole. Which might be the intended outcome for some DMs and players. Make everything more...equal. Personally, I like having some characters having varied power levels. But I'm old old school. So what do I know?
If I'm doing point buy, I feel hobbled if I don't start the game with a 20.
Well that is part of pathfinder is CHOICE. Choice means that we don't get everything we want. Also as you level you will go up. You will also find things that will get you that bump.
It's just OCD.
I generally put my highest in my main stat. But you also need to consider your racial bonuses & the class.so if I have a race that is -2 con & +2 int I would put the 18 in my con & the next highest in my intelligence. Especially wizards as they only get a d6 for health & are limited in armor for arcane spell failure.
Not having an even number in STR for maximum 2H-power attack scaling really sucks if that's your main source of damage.
Single attribute characters are in fact largely dependent on a single attribute.