Do you need high stats to be an effective character?

[Elder-Basilisk]

I can think of a lot of reasons to make a wizard with less than an 18 int on point buy. (Not nearly as many if I'm given 36+ points to play with, but plenty nonetheless). A wizard who wants to focus on ranged touch attacks will need a decent dexterity. All wizards need a decent con. [A wizard with a 10 con is 1hp/level behind the damage of an equal level wizard's typical area affect spell. A wizard with a 14 con is 1 hp/level ahead--that's the difference between failing a save against fireball and being on death's door or failing the save and still being able to drink a potion of cure serious wounds or reply in kind]. A wisdom penalty means a bad will save (and a wisdom bonus opens up a few options for things like Arcane Disciple). And even a wizard needs to be able to carry his staff and his spellbook so dumping strength entirely isn't a good plan.

Mechanically, all wizards don't benefit from casting stat increases in the same way either. A wizard focussing on battlefield control, ray, summoning, and other no-save spells only gets bonus spells from a high int. A fireball jockey or an enchanter, however, need their DCs to be as high as they can get them.

Multiclassed wizards or odd wizard builds (the fighter/mage, paladin/sorcerer, rogue/wizard, arcane trickster, or mystic theurge types) also benefit a lot from different ability scores and tend to focus less on spells with saves.

So there are a lot of mechanical reasons for spellcasters not to max their casting stats.

With casters, it matters even more. A barbarian with two less Str has 2 more Dex or Con. A wizard with less than 18 Int? If you have a point buy it would make very little sense mechanically not to power up your all-important casting stat as much as was feasible.

 

[DM JOE]

When I make a character I need to be "good" at something so at least one 16 is nice, high stats help but they are not the end all when determining your characters effectiveness.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

In general, an "effective" character depends upon the power-level of the game. (It also depends upon the player's willingness to dump stat, etc). A 22 point buy character in a party of 28 point buy characters will either be the runt of the litter or will have to really min-max in order to keep up. I've played a lot of characters in a lot of different environments, and I've found that I can make a Living Greyhawk cohort (22 point buy) as effective as some characters, if I cut all the fat in character construction and focus on just the mechanical attributes of the character (how high can I make combat/search/disable device/etc rolls?). However, the 22 point buy cohort will never be as good as a 28 point buy character that was similarly constructed for effectiveness, and in a party of optimized 28-32 point characters, I wouldn't have a lot of fun playing such a character.

I would say that it's quite possible to have an effective character with very low stats, but effective is determined in comparison with the other characters at the table and the NPCs of the game world. If they all have significantly higher stats and take advatage of them, it's not possible to be as effective. If the power gap grows too large, it's no longer fun.

 

[Ogre Mage]

It really depends on the campaign and the class. Generally speaking, at a minimum I would want a 16, two 14s and 3 stats in the 10-12 range. A cleric with these stats could look like this:

STR 14
DEX 10
CON 14
INT 11
WIS 16
CHA 12

In a higher powered campaign, I might have stats like this --

Rogue
STR 11
DEX 18
CON 14
INT 16
WIS 14
CHA 13

I like my total stat modifiers to fall in the +8 to +12 range, depending on the character and the power level of the campaign.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I play depends on the campaign.

If I'm to buy stats, I'll min-max, but I've been in campaigns where we still use 3d6 rolled 7 times, take best 6. It stretches your play, that's for sure.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think this is one of the problems, people think some classes need all sortsof high abilities to be effective. Monks get good unarmed damage, they don't need high strength. They get great saves so that lessons their need for high Dex, Con, and Wisdom. They get good skills so that also helps them overcome some low stats. HD is good, another reason not to need a high con.

d6 isn't really "good" unarmed damage.

The saves... yeah, sure. The hit dice, ok, perhaps.

The fact that they can't wear armour... ouch.

A ranger (to make it even on the skills front...) with all 10s does 2d6 damage, has an ac of 15 and 8 hitpoints and a +1 to hit. His saves are 2 at +2 and 1 at +0.

A monk with all 10s does 1d6 damage, has an ac of 10 and 8 hitpoints, and a +0 to hit. His saves are 3 at +2.

There's just a tad bit of difference there. Mostly that other characters can use gear to help their weak points, and that's not really an option for a monk.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The power of a character is not the most important thing. I think peopkle forget that.

Then look at it this way. Why would someone born with a solid intelligence but other good ability scores want to be a wizard, a wuss with no skills outside of book knowledge and no combat ability? Rogue would make a lot more sense for such a character.
Sure there are exceptions to this, but it's hard to multiclass casters, I avoid multiclassing whenever possible, and ultimately if I'm playing a pure caster, I want one who is really focused on his spells, not some kind of dabbler.

That said, my last two characters were a wizard/fatespinner who was a tremendous athlete with huge Dex and Con and a druid who had exceptional Int and Cha. I managed to use their non-casting stats to great effect, made that element a large part of the portrayal, and I enjoyed both, but I still maxed their casting stats first.

 

[Gez]

If you're a pure spellcaster (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, and other 9th casters from other books), you need at least a 15 at first level if you want to be able to use all your class abilities as soon as you get them. A 15 lets you reach 19 at 16th level, just in time for the 9th-level spells you get to cast at level 17 or 18.

If you start with a 14, you'll get level 9 spells only at level 20, and your 8th-level spells will be delayed to level 16 rather than 15. With a 13, you'll never get 9th-level spells, and will be delayed for spells of level 6 (not before 12th), 7 (not before 16th!), and 8 (at level 20). With a 12, you'll be delayed for 4th-level spells onward, and you'll have to wait level 12 for casting level 5 spells, level 16 for level 6 spells, before culminating with level 7 spells at level 20.

Of course, if your DM let enhancement bonus count toward the spells you are able to cast, then this is less true. But it can still hamper you.

Especially for dual-builds, like for a mystic theurge, where you'll have to boost two ability scores -- you better start up with two 17, or a 18 and a 16, if you want your spellcasting in time.

See also classes like the healer and the warmage, who need two abilites for their spellcasting.

 

[Crothian]

Some options do reward higher abilities scores. Also, it is interesting to see so mnay people worried about getting high level spells when other threads on how high of levels people get indicates people more then not don't get that high.

 

[Harmon]

Negitive Mods bother me, but low stats do not.

I would rather play a character that fits his concept. A really smart, wise, charismatic wizard, or a playboy double blade using ranger, a former soldier ranger archer, the stats of such characters should fit the character concept.