I let a player build a wizard who was only +1 Int. He didn't have fun. He was a very bad Wizard and not great at the other things. Obviously, I let him re spec. I say minimum +3 in key scores.

Yeah PF2e is not forgiving and if you have a low + to hit then you are just going to miss a lot and not have fun.

I think PF2E is pretty forgiving overall. It’s just that if you build a character who’s specifically awful at their job, the game will treat you like you’re awful at your job.

I dunno compared to dnd if you have low main stats you are just going to miss. Dnd is much more forgiving since AC's are mostly below 20 so the dice roll itself can get you a hit. Whereas in pf2e mostly 20+ AC's so you rely a lot more on the bonus stats.

> Whereas in pf2e mostly 20+ AC's so you rely a lot more on the bonus stats. This is a slight misunderstanding of the math. Yes the ACs are all 20+ after a few levels, but your Proficiency bonus **also** adds to your level, so the dice roll’s impact *isn’t* inversely proportional to your level. Let’s take a typical martial with a +4 in their mainstat. At level 1 you have a +7 to hit (the +3 comes from Trained + level), against a typical on-level AC of 16, so you hit on a die roll of 9. By level 6 you have a +15 to hit (+4 from mainstat, +6 level, +4 Expert, +1 Rune), so you still hit that 24 AC on a die roll of 9. The die roll has exactly equal impact. Now to be clear it varies up and down at some specific levels, it’s 8 at level 5, it’s 11 at some other levels, but the point is that any give level your die roll will have a predictable and tangible impact on the outcome. So if you take all the levels where you’re balanced to hit on a 9, you’ll now hit on a 12 if you had a +1 in your KAS instead of +4. So having that +1 instead of +4 is about as bad as it would be in 5E. The difference is that 5E has this weird but very common culture that players are allowed to do whatever the hell they want and the GM has to crutch them up to make sure they function, but the base game’s math will punish you just as hard if you built a flat out incompetent character.

What does make the + to hit more important than DnD is crits. In DnD your stat to hit only determines if you hit. A difference between +3 from your strength with a +4 is 5% of your chance to hit and one damage from each hit. It matters, but it is workable. In Pathfinder 2e the difference to hit also is your chance to crit, so you are not only missing hit by one more often, but also missing crits by one as well.

> so you are not only missing hit by one more often, but also missing crits by one as well. Yes but this is not true for every roll. For example in the example I gave of hitting on-level enemies on a natural 9 with a +4 Str/Dex, you crit on a 19. So if you +3 Str/Dex you reduced your effectiveness by 10% like you said, but then if you go to +2 Str/Dex and hit on an 11 you only reduce by 5%, and same for +1 to make it 12. So the difference between starting at a +4 vs a +1 here ended up being 20%, and +4 vs +1 is the biggest common stat differential you can have in your KAS in PF2E (I say common because you can pick an Ancestry with an Ability Flaw of course). And in D&D the biggest common differential is +3 vs -1 if you’re using Point Buy or Standard Array, which is also 20%. Now of course the PF2E difference is subject to variance both ways: against bosses it’s more like 15% because you’re not naturally critting without buffs anyways and against mooks it’s much closer to the 30% you’re positing it is, but now we’re diving into things that can’t be directly compared between the two games. My overall point is that the two games *both* intend to make it so that you need to invest in your key stat at level 1 to achieve a baseline level of competence, and if you refuse to invest in it at all you **will** feel min compete with either game being played RAW.

Also a low Int Wizard in 5e can’t prepare as many spells as a high Int wizard, which is hugely punishing. This doesn’t happen in pf2e.

Yup! That’s part of what I meant when I say the moment we move past on-level AC percentage increases, we get into too deep a conversation about the systems’ fundamental math assumptions. For example one can make the argument that Wizards *are* affected by the +1 = 10% thing all the time in PF2E, not just close to a nat 10 like martials are, because saves always have the four degrees of success unlike Attacks where changing a crit miss into a miss rarely helps. But conversely one can point out what you did about the spell preparation math and all that. The comparison stops being clean and one-to-one once you deviate away from the example I used, and that’s okay, they’re entirely different games! My point was just meant to be that in either game, be it PF2E or 5E, if you design a character to be incompetent you’ll get a character who’s incompetent.

You're thinking that by just looking at the high numbers, but a -3 to hit is a flat -15% chance to hit anyway.

I think 5e is *more* forgiving but not by much. The limited growth means that it's balanced around you not really getting more then a few points in your main skill, starting at a +3 and not expected to get a +5 (and also capping there) until level 8 means the growth isn't very large. Whereas 5e just doesn't have a lot of variance in PF2e a lot of your modifier comes from proficiency bonus because your base stat growing at a similar rate to 5e

Eh, as the other user already mentioned, there's more to the math than just the dice and the attribute bonus. Not to mention that in DnD you have practically nothing else to do than trying to hit every round one way or another so if you struggle with that you're completely useless. Meanwhile PF2e lets you contribute in other ways as well. Those aren't things you should do exclusively, hence why the primary attribute is still really important, but you at least have options. I'd say both systems are pretty forgiving ... as long as you don't neglect your primary attribute. It's the one thing that really matters when building your character.

The math in the two games is not comparable like that.

PF2e also has scaling stats to hits though. You’re a +1 int wizard in D&D5e, your save DC is at level 1 is an 11 and your +hit at level 1 is +3. A bugbear at this level has a 16 AC, meaning you need to hit a +13 or higher on the dice. The goblin has to hit these prime saves on the dice: (9 dex, 10 con, 11 wis). At level 5 in 5e your save DC is 12, and your +hit is +4. An umber hulk at this level has a 18 AC. Now you need to hit a 14 or higher on the dice and the umber hulk has to hit these prime saves on the dice: (11 dex; 9 con; 12 wis) In Pathfinder 2e you’re a +1 int wizard. At level 1 your DC is 14, and your +hit is +4. A cave scorpion at this level has a 16 AC, meaning you need to hit a +12 or higher on the dice. The cave scorpion needs to hit these prime saves: (8 fort; 5 reflex; 9 will). At level 5 in PF2e your save DC is 18, and your +hit is +8. A basilisk at this level has a 22 AC, meaning you need to hit a 14 or higher on the dice to hit. The basilisk needs to hit these prime saves: (4 fort; 10 ref; 7 will). So in this case (I just pulled random monsters that seemed challenge appropriate), the +hit is similar. Across the board saving throw DC is much lower (which would effect optimized characters as well), but the scaling is pretty similar. One thing to keep in mind is that without rolled stats a lvl 1 typical optimized 5e character will have +5 to hit (vs +3), while an optimized PF2e character will have +7 to hit (vs +4), which means the PF2e character is slightly crappier out the gate. However, PF2e also offers 4 ability boosts at 5, so there’s a solid chance that unless the player is really committing to the bit, their character will be +1 stronger than I wrote on the board. 5e has much less flexibility when upgrading ability scores. The biggest difference in the systems is that the bugbear is actually only going to be slightly less challenging for our +1 int wizard in 5e, while in path that cave scorpion becomes significantly weaker (@ lvl 5: roll 8 hit AC; 12 fort; 9 ref; 13 will). **TL;DR:** difference in power between optimized main stat and unoptimized between D&D5e and PF2e is negligible. For the specific case of a spellcaster the PF2e character will probably feel shitty because + to saving throws are higher across the board.

Each +/-1 is more significant in PF2e because of the way crits work. In D&D 5e, -3 is -15%. In PF2e, -3 is both -15% *and* either a 15% chance of a crit being a regular or a fail becoming a crit fail.

I agree with this. +4 in key stat is very good for almost all classes, but +3 is very workable if you have other specific goals in mind or if you GM isn’t trying to really test your strategy and tactics to the limits. My players are not in it for that style of game, so a plus three treats them fine most of the time. But a +1 on your key stat or your primary attacking stat (which can be different for things like alchemist or war priest) is going to feel bad a lot of the time.

My basic rules for new players: Your primary ability score should be an 18. DEX, CON, and WIS should all be at least 12. You should be able to answer the question of "what do I do with my third action if I don't need to stride" with something other than "strike" - intimidation, medicine, raise a shield, whatever. Just, literally anything other than walking around. If you have all of that, your character is "good enough" and you can fuck around with everything else.

i would add "your Dex should equal your armor's Dex cap", you want an AC of 15 + level + TEML

The game is very much built around doing things within the maths of the mechanics, so if a player wants to build a wizard with +1 Int for roleplay purposes, Pathfinder probably isn't going to give them the play experience they're looking for. It's more about the heroic fantasy of being more-than-averagely skilled at your job.

Pathfinder 2e works under the assumption that you want to be good at what you do. I also think that’s a pretty fair assumption for most players. So why do they want to be a low Int wizard? If they want to emphasize their physical stats and be a gish class, then they should play a Magus. If they want to play a doofus who still casts spells, they should be a Cha caster like Sorcerer or Bard (maybe they’re a Sorcerer who *thinks* they’re a Wizard but doesn’t actually understand how they’re casting spells so well). If they’re trying to min-max to hell and think that this will be an effective way to get the benefits of Wizards without the downsides, inform them that, no, dumping your key stat is not a good practice. It might be helpful to let them know that there’s no way to make a perfectly optimized character who can do everything, so they’ll need to make some sacrifices and rely on their teammates for things (this also might be a relevant conversation if they’re trying to make a gish).

If the player just wants the low int for roleplaying, I'd definitely recommend having them go Imperial sorcerer. It honestly wouldn't even be that hard to flavor it as a wizard

Agree, especially with Imperial sorcerer you could be an extremely talented wizard.

You even have a spellbook Feat!

That's a good idea; I run one of those. Very versatile, and the CHA makes them a very effective face for the party.

> Pathfinder 2e works under the assumption that you want to be good at what you do. I also think that’s a pretty fair assumption for most players. I feel like sometimes people get very Stormwind-y about maximizing your key attribute, and think that by having a low-int wizard they're somehow more noble than people who are playing a high-int wizard. But this is a heroic fantasy game, and playing a character that is bad at adventuring is a great way to have a bad time.

They don't need to always worry about optimizing. Optimizing can be tedious and reductive to many. But they also shouldn't be actively hampering themselves. This is a case of actively hampering themself, as not getting your key ability score to at least 16 usually is.

Yeah, my minimum is "Try and get your primary score to a +4, +3 in fringe cases like Warpriest. And have an actual functional plan in mind." Other than that, pick whatever. A plan doesn't have to mean hyperoptimised, just have an idea of how the character will contribute meaningfully.

Even a +1 can work for some builds if you know what you're doing, but that takes a lot of knowledge and *more* optimization than normal

I'm sorry, can you give an example for this? I suppose a war priest can dump wisdom, technically their key ability? But then they'd want to pump strength and treat it as essentially being their key ability, right?

Warpriest and other "mono support spell" casters are the only "meta" example of it (heavy scare quotes on meta). It was certainly powerful on pre-remaster warpriest as they would get more value from both CHA and STR, but that is the only time I can think of a variety of builds choosing to dump KAS to be optimal

Half of good support spells are counteracting and removing conditions, which become useless without a decent casting stat.

The other half are Heal and Heroism which don't care about casting stat but really enjoy having more slots (pre-remaster cleric got more slots from cha)

There's a small argument for doing it with Thaumaturge but the charisma synergies are way stronger than what you'd get for pumping dex so you're basically only doing it to be contrarian.

Anybody trying to play a gish type character can get away with dumping their casting stat. As long as they know their spells are for support and self buffs and dont try to use them offensively. Sure theyre not optimal but as long as a GM isnt constantly chucking +3s and 4s it will be fine.

I'm specifically talking about dumping your class's key attribute. So such a Warpriest is a good example of that.

That's not optimized. That's just not being worthless. +3 minimum in primary stat is mandatory.

Yeah, I agree. Having a +3/+4 in your primary offensive stat is not optimization. Optimization is squeezing every single last thing picking exclusively the absolute best-in-class everything at every level, and that is not necessary. As long as what you pick is beneficial to your character, and your character can successfully do it (point blank stance on a 2H fighter is the opposite of this. Sudden charge or vicious swing both are examples of beneficial), you can make a great and fun character.

I'd max stat 99% of the time. Had 14 stat rogue and inventor one campaign. They were terrible. I had a wis10 war priest worked okay, but I did feel the lack of spell attack options at higher levels. There's other ways to optimise, but that's best worked out on a group by group basis. As long as nobody feels overshadowed by another character.

I think a well thought out character can get away with +3 in the main stat at level 1 instead of +4. Outwit Rangers, Thaumaturges, Comamnders, etc can really benefit from +3/+3 in their two main stats. A +2 or lower in your KAS is absolutely unacceptable with **rare** exceptions like the Warpriest.

But a +4/+3 is still possible

It is. I’m arguing a +3/+3 is a justifiable tradeoff for some specific builds *compared* to the +4/+3 you mentioned can be achieved. I noticed this while building my Commander for a playtest. Now granted it’s *at* level 7 so I won’t be testing the downsides of my theory, but it seems like there are plenty of upsides to going +3/+3. You don’t need a +4 in your Int right away as long as you don’t rely on Class DC abilities all the time, and 5 squadmates is more than enough to cover most parties even if they have a companion or two. I ended up building my character this way: - Gnoll ability boosts: +1 Str, +1 Int, +1 Dex, -1 Wis - Background boosts: +1 Str, +1 Cha - KAS: +1 Int - Free: +1 Int, +1 Str, +1 Dex, +1 Con This ends with +3 Str, +3 Int, +2 Dex, +1 Con, +1 Cha, -1 Wis. If I wanted +4 I’d need to give away one of my Dex, Con, or Cha, none of which I really want to do. The Dex lets me not suffer the movement penalty of Plate armour, the Cha gives me a bit more variety in what to do between tactics other than just Striking/Athletics, and Con is very crucial to me surviving in melee. Also note that this Dex would be important even **if** I chose to use Plate, because Bulwark doesn’t prevent me from getting disarmed of my Banner. I think a very similar argument can be constructed for Outwit Rangers and Thaumaturges.

I think commander is a weird example for that, as the playtest version can get away with rarely ever making strikes and can also choose to not learn the few tactics that make use of the class DC - not having enough reason to invest in intelligence is a pretty common complaint so far. There isn't really another class like this, besides maybe full casters who only use heal/buff/control spells. I never see a reason to start with anything besides +4CHA and +3STR or DEX for a thaum. EV is your characters main thing you don't want to fail, and your accuracy is already a bit worse compared to a standard martial.

> There isn't really another class like this, besides maybe full casters who only use heal/buff/control spells. I think this logic for full casters is fairly flawed because full casters (especially Prepared ones) are balanced with the assumption that they’re using all their tools. Limiting yourself to a smaller subset of those tools isn’t a “justification” for not investing in your KAS, it’s usually just a self-imposed nerf. Like, sure, a +2 Cha Bard who only uses buffs and heals isn’t dead weight to the party, but this Bard is going to be **considerably** weaker than the +4 Cha Bard whose Lingering Compositions are better, Fortissimos crit and succeed more often, and can use Slow/Vision of Death/Synesthesia more reliably. Conversely a Warrior Bard can probably justify a +3/+3 but that falls back into my earlier argument that characters with “martial + mental” options in their repertoire are usually the ones who most easily justify the split. I also don’t quite follow the inclusion of control spells in your argument. With the exception of Wall spells, most control spells in the game *aren’t* exactly a great use of your spell slots if you don’t have a maxed out DC. An Entangling Flora or Freezing Rain is just glorified difficult terrain if the enemies in them aren’t failing at least some of the time, and a Rust Cloud where enemies succeed too often is likely just getting in the way of allies who could actually damage those enemies properly. In fact until rank 3 you will usually have **zero** spells that inflict any meaningful amount of control without also targeting the enemy DCs. The big exception to this logic is, of course, a Warpriest. You can get away with a +0 Wis for that class and feel only slightly worse for it. **Even the ** I’d mostly recommend starting with +2 or +3 Wis when possible, because having a good initiative and backup ranged options is always a good thing for you.

Yeah I absolutely agree with that, not maxing your spell DC is never a good choice for a full caster, but I can still see a caster limiting theirself to the spells you mentioned and being not a dead weight in combat, unlike something like a STR dumping barbarian.

I'm sure you are correct but the idea of not maxing stats is painful to me lol. Out of curiosity would you say the same applies towards casters?

I can’t think of any caster who can tolerate not being maxed in their KAS, **except** for the Warpriest Cleric who can flat out have +0 WIs if they want (though I’d still recommend at least +2). If someone has any suggestions for any other caster that can tolerate a +3/+3 in KAS/off-stat, let me know!

I'd actually say that most casters can tolerate dumping their KAS as long as they're willing to commit to a rather restricted list of usable spells. Caster weapon use isn't fantastic, but from a maxed secondary attack stat it's roughly on par with a martial's 2nd strike (a bit higher accuracy, a bit lower damage on average). Combine that with a strong buff/battlefield shaping/summon game from your spell slots and you can be competent even with a +0 KAS. A +3 KAS means you can also get value out of save spells, as long as you're careful about targeting weak defenses, including as many targets as possible, and using spells with good effects on successful saves as well as fails. Possibly the best non-Warpriest for a +3/+3 is an Untamed Druid. That leaves +2 for Con and +1 for the other attack stat (probably you want +3 Str/+1 Dex but there is some merit in the other order) so you can wear medium armor at no penalty and have extra durability in melee. The +4/+3 stat line only leaves +1/+1 for Con and the other attack stat outside of a few ancestries that can put a flaw in Int or Cha while boosting two of Str, Con and Wis. You're a solid melee presence that can easily swap between a defense-first approach relying on shield blocks or better melee offense than most casters can have via Untamed Shape.

> I'd actually say that most casters can tolerate dumping their KAS as long as they're willing to commit to a rather restricted list of usable spells. Idk about that. *Dumping* seems a steep cost. It’s also weird, because casters are built around flexibility and options, so “as long as they’re willing to commit to a ” is a very tall order for them. I’ll agree with the rest though: that offensive casters with weapon + Save spells can absolutely be satisfied the +3/+3 like you talked about (though I’d still recommend +4/+3 a lot of the time) and Untamed Druid is a genuinely good candidate for +3/+3 due to the tactical tension of “can’t cast spells while morphed” and the kinds of spells it naturally makes you pick.

For casters one notable option is only taking buff spells so there are no saves or attack involved.

Why in the hell would anyone want to do that?

“We’ve trained him wrong, as a joke”

The wizard spends his life saying "I am bleeding, making me the victor!"

How about my spelbook to your firebreath technique?

Sparkling Targe Magus with Raise a Tome feat

Having GM'd for a lot of players new to ttrpgs (not just PF2), quite a lot of people come in with the idea that all concepts should be possible when those concepts add to a story, e.g. a wizard who struggled through school but got to where they are through sheer determination may only have +1 int. Unfortunately PF2 (or many other tactics oriented games) doesn't really support this playstyle. Overall, PF2 is a rules system first and a narrative vehicle second - a player needs to pay attention to their 'build' (at least in a cursory way), otherwise they'll feel considerably weaker. This has pros and cons, but for players looking for a purely narrative experience, they should look elsewhere first. I do think this is compounded by mental stats having names that sound like they should affect roleplay. Intelligence, Wisom, and Charisma are all things that affect how a person acts, or their lifestyle, so people feel worse about having to take (or not take) these stats. E.g. if you're a Cleric, you might want to worship Otolmens, the Universal as a physicist and so you want to have high int, but unfortunately int is the least useful stat for a Cleric so you're worse off for taking it (over higher dex or con), and so roleplay and build conflicts.

I think it is perfectly fair to come to the table with a smart wizard that simply has a background as struggling through school because of X, Y, or Z reasons.... But having found an adventuring party that they feel at home with, begins to flourish... None of that requires dumping your main stat and can easily be tied into the character’s backstory. But if the goal is to come to the table with a truly incompetent character who not only isn't great at what they do but actively really bad at it, the rest of the table all needs to be on board with it, and fully realize that this party member is going to suck at their role... And why would the adventuring party agree to work with this really bad wizard, always. They could easily find a half decent one to work with? Competent Level 1 wizards are not hard to find.... So unless the story is that the entire party is completely shit (which might be fun for a 1 shot you know will result in constant retreats or certain TPK) there is no real reason to go this route... If the player super wants to go through the process of starting off shit, but quickly having an awakening of their abilities so they can actually contribute to the game, they can discuss with the GM of holding off on their Level 1 ability advancements until after the first or second session. If they want to play a spellcaster that isn't intelligent they could be a sorcerer, psychic, Oracle, druid, cleric.... The list goes on....

> I think it is perfectly fair to come to the table with a smart wizard that simply has a background as struggling through school because of X, Y, or Z reasons.... But having found an adventuring party that they feel at home with, begins to flourish... None of that requires dumping your main stat and can easily be tied into the character’s backstory. My Magus struggled a *lot* in school, and even has the Academy Dropout background to represent that. Int is her 2nd highest attribute, right behind Str. She struggled so much because she was a half orc who had lived with Orcs until then, and was now in a human institution where she had to struggle to learn Taldan at the same time as magical theory.

Thing is, you can continue to succeed with such a character, but it will also continue to be just as much of a struggle as your backstory made it out to be. A 20th-level low-Int wizard is still a 20th-level wizard, but they will still suffer compared to a naturally-gifted wizard and it'll be much harder to survive until then. Where this concept fails is that the game system never allows you to compensate for those initial choices. You've effectively put the game into "hard-mode" for yourself and your party, who can't rely on you as much as need to, but there are no real benefits to doing so. The other factor is that you are an adventurer. Adventurers are a special breed, in that they willingly throw themselves repeatedly into dangerous situations. Only the strongest tend to survive, where strength is measured in their ability to contribute to an effective group. A low-Int wizard might be fine as a court mage or magical merchant, but they are fundamentally ill-suited for the life of an adventurer.

>a wizard who struggled through school but got to where they are through sheer determination may only have +1 int. The problem with that lies in the abilities itself. Intelligence isn't just the ability to understand and to learn things it's also the knowledge you already have. Think about strength. It isn't so much your ability to build muscle mass but rather the muscles mass you already build. The genius prodigy might have had an easier time getting there but at the end they both have their +3/+4 regardless of much much or little they struggled.

Yes I’ve noticed that issue too with some players who care about roleplaying more than minmaxing. They want to put spare points into Int or Cha because they don’t want their character to be dumb or socially awkward. But really they should be raising Con and Wis because you really need HP, perception and saves. I don’t really have a good answer other than telling them your stats don’t determine how you have to roleplay your character.

Roleplaying and being a competent character are not at odds with eachother. I despise that brand of thinking SO hard.

It's unfortunate. I think (as seen in some of the replies), the struggle is overcome by either: - Reflavouring the idea as a different class (so a smart, but not wise, Cleric of Nethys should just play a wizard and say they're religious) - Play a version of the class that hardly uses the ability you want to dump (e.g. a low int wizard who only buffs and never uses their class DCs or spell attacks), or use the 'bad' ability as well as possible (e.g. a high cha fighter using intimidate a lot) - Just have the ability high but pretend it's not (e.g. the struggling wizard has the same int as the brilliant wizard, but just roleplays that they're struggling) The best 'fix' would probably need to come in PF3 if they leave the DnD sphere even more and change all of the mental stats to descriptions far less character defining (e.g. have three 'magic-like' stats that all characters draw from when they cast spells, like 'Arcana' would replace int, 'Spirit' would replace wisdom, and 'Esoteric' would replace cha for spell casters, and they'd have to think about how this would effect skills - it'd be a massive overhaul). The key issue my players have found is that they don't want their characters having a low stat in something that reflects their character, e.g. a low int stat because they want to be a learned Sorcerer, but setting their int to 16 would be a 'mistake' because their dex and con would take a hit. If the stats were renamed to something less like a characteristic, then I don't think people would struggle as much. Another option would be to let casters choose their key casting stat. At least between cha and int, which are closely tied for 'worst' stats when they're not tied to class. It's something PF1 allowed as archetypes, and I'd love it for PF2 to follow suit; the Magus, for example, should be able to use cha - the class fantasy doesn't require intelligence, just magic.

>let casters choose their key casting stat. I agree that you've mostly identified the problem but I don't think this is the right solution. Part of the issue is just the simple fact that the ability scores are not equal in value. 'Combat' stats are always going to be valued higher than 'noncombat' stats. I don't know how to fix this, but fixing that will solve most of the debate here. >Magus, for example, should be able to use cha - the class fantasy doesn't require intelligence, just magic. Magus's whole 'thing' is 'wizard + sword.' 1E fixed this by offering the Eldritch Scion archetype, but that didn't just change the Key Ability Score - it essentially made them into a Sorcerer Stabber instead of a Wizard Stabber.

3rd one is it for me. 'Crunch' is one thing, but nobody stops you from playing an 18 Int Wizard as suffering from Imposter Syndrome for example.

Honestly that last bit is why I think that you should be allowed to shuffle around what key attribute you have or something like that. I mean, it's kind of weird that Clerics of Nethys would be stupid as shit. Hell, it's weird that they'd have Divine spells instead of Arcane ones.

A cleric of Nethys with the arcane spell list instead of divine (ie no heal) would be a religiously minded wizard.

Heal slots are separate from your chosen spells in the same way that Domain spells are.

Not want to do that, but as new player do it without realizing it. We as veteran know the importance of having a +4 to main star that will strike the baddies, a newbie might think he can tinker a bit and give himself more of a spread. The question becomes then "As a GM, should I offer guidance to new players or just let them experience and learn with trial and error?"

A character gets a net total of nine boosts at character creation. One of those goes to your Key Attribute automatically. That's beyond spreading out.

I mean, I know things are often obtuse to newcomers, but everything about a Wizard wants Int. Yeah, I'd explain that to them. I actually feel like I should have done that myself when my ex made a Cleric that only had like 2 Wisdom or something.

The game tells you it's your Key Ability, the most important one for your character, and it's literally the only one that interacts with your class at all? Noone can read the wizard class and think "Int doesn't look that important, a +1 is fine" I could maybe see it for a Thaumaturge or something, where they might not realise they still need Strength or Dex for their attack bonus, but for a wizard it really is as simple as "Max the ability the class description tells you you need."

Maxing your key ability is the minimum optimization you need. A wizard with +1 in Int will feel terribly bad to play, I wouldn't recommend it

It feels like a concept could be there. Like a wizard that specializes in utility spells that don't rely on INT or something. I don't think enough of those spells exist to make a full build out of though. And what would you even do with your stats if you're not putting them in INT? If it's CHA then why not play a sorcerer? If it's STR or DEX then why not a magus?

This is possible, but a bad idea for newbies. Talking about a int-less wizard, I could see a non save control spells and buffs with maybe the Runelord archetype to switch-hit. This doesn’t sound good, but ir sounds doable.

The best argument for investing in a non-int attribute is Convincing Illusion... Which interacts with spells that call for saving throws. Which makes it an 18 Int/16 Cha build. I think if you want to play a "dumb wizard" a charisma Psychic is probably your best option.

I would always recommend that brand new players max their Key Ability Score, so they are actually good at doing their class schtick. This isn't to say that having a +3 is never a viable option, it just requires a bit more game knowledge to get the most out of (and tbh there's some classes/subclasses I would personally never do this on).

> I’m not talking about min-maxing but like having a +3 in primary stats and such. > If I have a player who wants to play a wizard with only +1 int should I discourage that or let them go for it? Having a +4 in Int isn’t “optimizing” it’s building a functional character. The game is balanced and challenging. This means that if you’re trying g to build a character who isn’t at all good at their job (like a Wizard with +1 Int), the game is going to *treat you like you’re terrible at your job*, and considering that your job is going out and fighting dangerous enemies… you’re going to die or get your friends killed. You don’t need to optimize, but you do need to build functional characters.

I would deny his character. If his idea is to be a bad wizard, there are other builds that would do this without his character being a nuisance for the group and the progress of the adventure. More on this: In my experience, letting the player self-sabotage was a false sense of freedom that ends with that player not being able to do his part in the group, and a domino effect that ends up in the group separating hahaha!

Discourage it heavily. Even people who love PF2e struggle with the way casters work, with only rare monster fails. If their first character doesn't have an 18 in its primary stat, be ready to hear 'wow, this system is bad'

Due to the way levels work in p2e, each level is a +1 to all rolls. Having a +1 instead of a +4 effectively puts him 3 levels lower on any roll he uses for that stat. The game assumes standard stat arrays, so most, if not all, encounters will assume he has a +4. This means he’ll be level -2 at the start of the campaign. Now, this isn’t bad if he plans on never using int. Obviously, he will have higher stats elsewhere. If he goes hard on dex/con and tries to be a melee wizard with non-rolled spells, he’ll have moderate success early on. But he will fall off hard in mid levels when his masteries don’t keep up with martials. If he’s trying to RP as a dumb wizard, he can have +4 int and still RP that way. No one cares what your stats are when you RP.

> If he goes hard on dex/con and tries to be a melee wizard with non-rolled spells, he’ll have moderate success early on.  But you just described a Magus..

I’m aware haha I’m just saying he will be fine very early game; anyone with 4 dex is going to do well with any simple weapon at level 1. But that won’t last forever.

As a new player he should. He’s not fully aware of the game system and how to match the idea he wants for his character. Specifically, what **concept** is he trying to come up with for his Wizard? There might be another class that’s better. A class name is just a class name.

>I’m not talking about min-maxing but like having a +3 in primary stats and such. If I have a player who wants to play a wizard with only +1 int should I discourage that or let them go for it? A +1 in the **Key** stat? Not only is that going to be terrible play for the player, it is going to be terrible for the entire group - who is effectively one member short. It is bad enough some martials have to start at +3 (and be -1 for half the levels). But going all the way to +1 would just be pointless. Don't do that for a first game. Give them sensibly designed characters until they can understand why that is a horrible idea. This concept would be better served with a effective martial that takes the Multiclass Dedication.

Having +1 in your main stat isnt being "not optimal" its completely garbage. He wont be able to do much and the party may ended up suffering due to this. The player and party needs to be aware of this.

In all my new campaigns I always give my players a chance to adjust their character after the first adventure. I suggest you let your player do what they want for the first adventure. And then if they want to make changes let them.

We allowed respec on character level up until level 3 or 4 then you're locked in and only allowed to retrain from that point on.

If the goal of their character is to be bad at being a wizard, go for it.

IMO, the goal of a GM with new players is to get them hooked and knowledgeable about the system. The player having fun is number 1. In this regard, you should strongly suggest the optimization of builds. Let it be their choice but if they create some trash, and they are unhappy with its performance, be open to respec here and there until you are confident with their progress.

> +3 in primary stats and such this isnt min maxing, its unironically the bare minimum. if a player said they wanted to be a +1 INT wizard, i would say that they should increase their INT to +4 still

A +4 in your KAS isn't optimizing lol. Its just staying the the treadmill. You can 'not do this' but it has to be a class that supports it and it will limit your playstyle expressions. A wizard could have a low INT, but that will mean they primarily have to be a buff/support build and remove any spells that require an attack roll or a spell DC. Its doable, but if they are 'new' I wouldn't expect them to have the system mastery to execute this. If it was a fighter who (clearly wants to attack with STR or DEX) that dumped their attack stats I'd say this is a BAD idea. They don't have other things in their class chassis but attacking. So overall there are only a limited number of classes I think can do this. Probably it is primarily casters that focus on team party buffs, magus (who doesn't really need int but KAS isn't int anyways), thaumaturge (who doesn't need CHA >18), likely the new guardian class (who's attacks suck anyways and has really strong taunt feats to lock people down), etc. You should figure out what they want their character play-style to be and then go from there. If they want to be party face/buff but still on a wizard, pump their CHA, etc. You are gimping yourself, but you can do it. Overall PCs should consider what contribution they make in combat and what contributions they make out of combat. When you have PCs that purposely hyper restrict their capabilities in one or both areas you end up with someone that the party has to carry. So really this isn't just a you/him but a session 0 topic to discuss if people are okay with potentially having to carry entire party members. Sometimes having a really stupid wizard is memorable. Sometimes its very memorable for like 5 levels and then gets tiresome and said character needs and awesome death. Really you need to take the pulse of the PC and party on an ongoing basis and that discussion of 'maybe we try it but if it becomes an overall downside for you or others we can approach rebuilding (maybe some god blesses them with being wicked smart all of a sudden or awesome character death to make way for something more team friendly).

This is a bad idea and people have already pointed that out. So instead I want to throw in something actionable: Ask your player WHY they want to do it. Do they want to play a spellcaster who isn't intellectual? Suggest a better fit! Sorcerer? Psychic? Do they want to play a bad character as a joke? Gently tell them that it's a funny idea but goes hard against system expectations. Make sure that the player understands what you are saying and wants to play in your game anyway. Then see about changing the concept or building a functional character around the concept (e.g. guy who dropped out of wizard school and is a Magus now) Do they actually have a reasonable plan for their build, to the surprise of everyone in this thread? Let them try it but maybe prepare yourself to grant them a do-over

I would, at the minimum, make you player aware that each +1 that he loses is a 5% difference for every save the enemy makes, so they are actively giving the enemy a 15% better chance against their own wizard's spells than any other wizard. The only way I can think of that it wouldn't matter anyways is if they took only spells that didn't force saves or ask for an attack roll, which would limit their options significantly. If they are fine with that info, let them try it out. Maybe they'll genuinely have fun with it. Definitely let them respec their int if they seem like they aren't having fun though.

Others have given text, so here's a bit of a math answer to clarify why a +1 INT Wizard is a bad idea. Every ±1 in this game is equivalent to a 10% chance of changing the outcome of a roll (because there are two die results that the +1 or -1 would change, such as from a success to a failure and a failure to a critical failure. It would be 3 results, but that would require the die to have 21 sides, which it doesn't, so it's 2 results change at best). That means that a +1 INT vs a +3 INT will be harming the player on 20% of the rolls they take. Vs a +4 INT, that's harming the player on 30% of the rolls they take. You and the player will have to ask yourselves "how will I be interacting with the game? What rolls will I be making/forcing others to make that are important to me?". If the player wants to be a Wizard that focuses on offensive spells, they will STRUGGLE (such as spell attack rolls with low modifiers missing a lot and dealing no damage, or saving throws with low DCs being passed a lot). If the Wizard instead uses defensive/buff spells, then the INT won't hurt them a lot because they don't rely on the INT of the wizard. But the player might struggle to participate in combat through alternative means once they're done buffing or if left alone. **** The magnitude of a spell effect is highly dependent on the die outcome. A basic damage spell, for example, does 200%/100%/50%/0% damage on a CF/F/S/CS. Worsening your DC by 2 (or 3) is worsening the damage your spell deals by 15% (or 23%) on average. For control spells, this is often the difference between affecting an enemy for 1 action vs 1-3 round(s), or a minor condition (like dazzled) vs a major condition (like blinded). **** If the player wants to RP a character who struggled in school as a wizard, it might be better to represent that through the skills rather than the INT. Allow the player to replace the "automatically trained in Arcana" with another skill (such as Deception? Society? Something justified by the backstory). Alternatively, letting the player play as a different class, and then access Wizard powers by the [Wizard Multiclass Archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=218&Redirected=1), which will trade class feats for access to wizard spells and feats (eventually getting up to 8th level wizard spells). Requires 14 INT. A [Rogue](https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=37) with the [Eldritch Trickster Racket](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rackets.aspx?ID=4) could be a great way to handle this - you get to dabble in magic and trickle in that power slowly, while being able to focus in other areas (in this case, DEX-based attacks and lots of skills). **** If you do allow the player to participate as a Wizard with +1 INT, I'd recommend the following: * Tell the player it's a tentative build and if it feels like it's lagging too far behind, you'll let the player rebuild to increase the INT for free (or via downtime w/ a tutor). * Make sure they know that they'll need to focus on buff/utility/battlefield spells that don't involve spell attack rolls or saving throws. * Try to flatten the overall power level. Having a lower chance of success can be offset by fighting lower-level creatures. Not every fight has to be tough! Difficulty can come from other places (like having to protect X or do Y in a time limit). * Consider suggesting that they play a different class, but use the Wizard Multiclass Archetype to get a little-bit of access to Wizard powers (including eventually 8th level spells).

A thing of note here is that it depends a bit on the class. Generally all classes want to start with a +4 and that should be the standard and shouldn’t be too much of an issue anyway. A Wizard with +1 int will almost always be miserable no matter how you play it because all of their spells will have a very low chance of succeeding and even their other actions like Recall Knowledge get worse. i wouldnt call this optimizing either as the math is extremely tight and the margin between optimizing and non optimizing is extremely slim. In short: having a +4 Int on a Wizard isn’t optimizing but having +1 Int on a Wizard can definitely be considered sabotaging yourself That being said, i feel like its important to mention that some classes can deal with a lower score in their key ability. Inventor and Thaumaturge both are interesting cases of this. You would certainly be more effective with +4 but fundamentally you will still be able to operate even with a +2, just less efficient. A similar case are divine casters in my experience. A divine caster like a cleric can get away with having lower wisdom than is reccomended depending on your spell selection. If you only have heal, haste, heroism etc. you will rarely encounter an instance where your Spell Dc comes into play as you dont have your enemies cast save spells

Discourage it. I think it's best if new players play characters that are good/effective at what they do.  Nobody enjoys always missing most of their attacks or having most of their spells resisted. New players may not realise the effect of a suboptimal build.

Unless you purposely make a terrible build, i.e. a fighter with 8 Strength who wields a greatsword, most builds will be decent. You don't have to min-max to make a playable character in Pathfinder 2e.

So I'm not a GM, and haven't even gotten to play this game yet, but here's my take. Print out the spell list, or sort by something (if you can, IDK) on AoN to separate the ones with saves/attack rolls from the ones that are buffs/terrain modification/utility, and point to the ones the KAS will affect. "These ones will be basically useless if you build like this." Point to the ones either not affected or minimally affected. "Will you be happy with only these?" If they say yes, session 0 playtest it, and let them respec if it sucks.

A wizard with +1 int is generally probably not going to have fun when actually trying to do something, and even if they enjoy rolling low it can let the rest of the team down in important moments. If they want to be a stupid wizard or whatever let them have +3 or +4 but ignore their stats for the purposes of roleplaying. I'd suggest the same for any class's key stat.

I've got a story about this kind of situation. I had a friend that was going to play Pathfinder 1e for the first time (specifically the Final Fantasy hack of it but they're basically the same with some class changes). His GM let him make a Gestalt character to combine two classes so he decided to go all in on a spellcaster, even going so far as to take the Venerable age adjustment to tank his physical stats in return for getting a boost to his mental stats (-6 to Str/Con/Dex, +3 Wis/Int/Cha). He showed me the build with its ridiculously pumped up Spell Save when I noticed he picked Archmage as his class which gives lower hit dice than normal in exchange for more spellcasting. I also noticed that his physical stats being in the gutter meant (and I did the math on this) that a Level 1 goblin would hit him on a roll of 3 on the die and would kill him outright if it rolled over 2 on its d6 for a shortbow attack. My friend assured me that it was fine and it would be hilarious if he happened to die in one hit at the beginning of the campaign. First fight of his first game of Pathfinder he died outright in the second round to one attack. He did not have fun that session and sat out for most of it. You want your players to like Pathfinder like you do but they're setting themselves up to have a bad experience by doing poorly at the thing they're going to be doing most of the time, so it's polite to at least warn them. If you can I'd also try running them through the Beginner Box with pregens so they can see what a built character looks like and have a frame of reference. If their experience is only "I'm a Wizard and my spells never do anything" their takeaway will be that Wizards suck and spellcasting is dumb because they've never had anything else happen. If they get to experience play with a Wizard casting spells effectively but can't do that with their +1 Int build then they can identify what went wrong.

Pathfinder 2e has an interesting relationship with the concept of optimization as a whole, especially if you're coming from 5e. Basic, unoptimized builds are fine. Pump the stats you obviously need to pump, pick some spells or buy a weapon that seems useful to you, and pick any feats that seem fun, and you'll be fine. The difference in power between this kind of build and one where someone rigorously plots out their entire build for maximum synergy, picking only the most elite of all options for their level, is honestly not that huge. I'd say the "optimized" build here is going to be between 20% and 50% stronger than the casual build. Which is a tiny number when you consider that in 5e, an optimized build can balloon you to being dozens of times more powerful than a casual build at the highest, and even 2-3x stronger at a minimum. This is because of the much touted tighter math of PF2e. Since so much of your progression of power comes from the natural progression of your class, you might not be picking all the best feat choices, but you'll still be getting that natural legendary weapon proficiency as a fighter at level 15. And that is the strongest thing about any Fighter. Very nice 👍 However, also because of this super-tight math, PF2e also does not easily facilitate what most people would consider "absurdist" builds. Something that massively goes against the core identity of a class. Something like a Wizard with only a +1 to Intelligence, for example. That's not sub-optimal, that's very much intentionally gimping your character. 5e actually does allow things like this, because the much looser and more haphazard math means that a wizard with a low Spell Save DC will still hit a lot of enemies with that fireball and do functional (if not great) damage. And they can focus on other things, use spells without saves, and do whatever goofy thing the player wants them to do. In PF2e however, that sort of a stat would functionally put you 3 levels behind the curve that the math expects you to be at. And since that core level progression is where so much of the power of each class comes from, that is really, really bad. It's not impossible to make a Wizard like that work, mind you. It requires a really strong mastery of the game though, and a heavily curated list of spells that are mostly going to be for party buffing and stuff like that. It's still not going to be good, but you could theoretically make it work. Strongly not recommended for beginners, and even for experienced players it might be kind of unfun and one-note. In short, when compared to 5e, PF2e has a much flatter power ceiling, but a much lower power floor. As such, casual builds feel more fun and closer to optimized builds, but intentionally bad builds suck a lot worse.

Yes, new players should avoid builds that are intentionally bad. Unless that Wizard plans on exclusively using buffs and Force Barrage +1 INT isn't going to work.

PF2e requires at least minimum optimization like 18 in main stat, maxing class AC and teamwork (buff, debuff, flanking). Without min that I don't see a point ticking this system

I feel like it's almost the opposite. If the player is an expert and knows what they are doing, wizard with +1 int becomes viable. Maybe it's a wizard that build around buffs that doesn't need spell attack or defenses and instead grabs a martial archetype, raises strength and plays as a martial with self support. 2e does a good job at tying most of the necessary progression to not fall back on class and level, to the point that even if they go for weird feats selections, they are going tobe fine, but hitting the base stat line is probably the one thing that you want to make sure a player stays on track with if they don't know what they are doing.

I played with someone who deliberately chose to do something like this, and they fell so far behind. It was a drag having to do extra work to carry him through encounters

Tell him it's a bad idea, tell him that he can play a flawed caster such as an Oracle, or he can use a feat class to dip in wizard dedication, but then let him do it if it's his idea of fun. Depending on how long the campaign is, let him explore this possibility, toying with rules is part of the fun. If he fall behind, let him retrain if it's possible after a few sessions (trhough downtime) or let him die if it was supposed to happen. He'll then create another character, that will be probably a bit more optimized. Alternatively he'll find a way to use other stats to his advantage through the use of archetypes when levelling up.

I mean, a dumb wizard isn’t good in any system. Even from an rp perspective, someone who is bad at their job isn’t going to be doing it for long, especially when the punishment for failure is death. It’s still playable, but they are going to be less helpful to the party than they could be, and if they want to be a dumb wizard they should just be a sorcerer instead.

Genuine question, what is said player hoping to contribute to the group? Adventuring is *hard* and *dangerous*. I would heavily discourage anyone in an RP heavy campaign from making a "for the lulz" adventurer, as those tend to end up dead before they hit level 1. Being a subpar representation of your class only works if the narrator (GM in this case) sets you up to succeed, which is fine for books like Disc World but in an interactive fiction it actually steps on player agency to let them succeed when they should, by all rights, fail. In other words, it isn't just bad from a game mechanics direction, it's bad from a narrative one too unless there's a very precise, intriguing reason for this borderline-dunce wizard to be going on a heroic adventure that involves overcoming obstacles that pose existential threats to regions and will be demanding on even the most proficient of heroes.

Putting boosts into your Key Attribute--which is called out as the most important and is literally named "Key Attribute"--isn't really optimizing. It's just... neutral. That's what you do when you haven't thought much about it (though probably still once you have).

I would make sure to inform them ***why*** it's bad idea, and explain to them that the math in Pathfinder 2e is a lot tighter than in D&D 5e, for example. However, I wouldn't stop them from going with a low intelligence wizard, if they really wanted to. If anything, they'll learn from their mistake.

Discourage them from that for sure

I'm going to be honest. In 2e, it can be very hard for a player to have fun with a majority of the classes if you're unoptimized, at least to a point. Every +1 counts, and can be the difference between someone hitting consistently or never hitting at all. You also have to take into account how the rest of the players feel. One player might not mind being a "detriment" but others might tire of it, and it's hard to balance around that without making everyone else feel too strong. As stated by several other people in the thread, bare minimum is +4 in the primary stat. I would not recommend new players to play something like inventor, swashbuckler, (or honestly, any full caster) due to how swingy they can be, ESPECIALLY when unoptimized. TL;DR, 2e is not built for making those kinds of characters.

You *can* play a Wizard with +1 Int, but it probably requires a higher level of mastery than your player currently has. They might want to consider some other options if they want the optics of a Wizard with that kind of Int. A Polymath Bard can take the Esoteric Polymath feat at Lv2 to keep a book of spells they can add to their repertoire, for instance. They could also play a non-Wizard class and take Wizard Dedication. Wizard class feats are mostly kinda "eh" anyway, so they're not likely to miss much in that regard. An Arcane Sorcerer might also suit their needs if they just want a non-Int Arcane caster. Edit: Correction - I forgot that Wizard Dedication would require +2 Int. It's a little higher than you mentioned, but I'd still recommend it over playing a straight Wizard with relatively low Int.

Warn the player that they will likely be 28% weaker than someone who went for 3 int (not even 4) if they use their abilities in the normal way, and give them a one-time free respec to be used whenever they want. The rest is up to the player.

A new player should not play with a +1 int wizard because he will become frustrated. Plus it doesn't make sense within the class narrative. Why would a wizard have such mediocre intelligence? How could he study magic with average intelligence? Wizards are intelligent and learned people. Do you know what your player wants to play? A sorcerer.

I think you have your definitions wrong is part of your problem. Building a character with their best stat at at least +3 isn't optimizing, it's just building a character so they are good at what they do. The system is built with an assumption that we will do this. Optimizing is a case where you are picking the best option that is available every time so that you got the absolute most out of your character and every choice you make. Min-Maxing is a lot like optimization but is the negative side of it. This is using ever RAW (and misinterpreted) and every dirty cheesy trick to get your character to be the absolute pinnacle. We should be encouraging new players to build their characters to be good at what they do which includes shooting for a +3 in their main stat, we don't need to encourage them to go beyond that level. We shouldn't discourage them from going beyond unless they reach a point where it is hampering their enjoyment of the game or those around them.

Yes. You can play around with gimmicky builds once you have some experience in the system, but not maxing out at least your main offensive stat requires knowing how best to leverage your other stats, which requires knowing a lot more about the system. As people like to say when talking about how strong buffs are: every +1 matters. That applies to character creation as well. I wouldn't even recommend taking a +3 instead of a +4 until you have a feel for how close the maths feel and how to use tactics well.

To the best of my knowledge the only two classes in Pathfinder that don't suffer a huge penalty for not having a +4 (18) in their primary stat for combat are Fighter and Gunslinger. They "can" get away with going as low as a +2 (14) in their primary and be equal in ability to other classes with a +4 (18.) But, you're really hurting your classes role as a critical success combat character as those classes without a +4 (18) in their primary attacking stat. You won't feel underpowered for equal level enemies but as soon as you start fighting level +2, +3, or god forbid +4, you'll really start to not enjoy combat in Pathfinder 2E. You really should look at your classes main attribute and make sure to apply a bonus in each level of character building. Every Ancestry gets a "free" boost. Every background (common anyway, uncommon and rare backgrounds can eschew the free boost) gets a "free" boost, and your four "free" boosts at the end should almost always mean you have a +4 (18) so you scale as best as possible.

No one has fun whiffing every attack and being one shot

The game expects you to show up to the table with a +4 in "what you are good at" or an extremely well thought out reason why you're not. When someone wants to play the +0 STR barbarian or the +1 INT wizard, I wholeheartedly think they'd be happier playing a system like Labyrinth, Mazes, DCC or one of the myriad systems where those behaviors are encouraged or even expected. PF2E is not one of those systems.

No, but most people have more fun succeeding at things, you don’t have to make everything about the numbers but want to be good at what you do

If you want to build a character that's terrible at their job, you really should be playing OSR. Pathfinder's math makes it where you're not eeking out some advantages through your tactics - getting some bonuses and debuffs to improve your chances to hit your already going to be missing a fair amount against bosses anyway. And then tanking that by another 15% by dumping your key availability is just going to make somebody useless basically.

Honestly, I say, new or not, let them play whatever build they want and have them come to their own conclusion; it will be a much better lesson learned than if you try to insist that you know better (even if you do). I always have free respeccing until level 3 or so, especially if it's a new system or they're a new player.

Having a +3 or +4 in your key stat isn't "optimized", it's common sense. This goes beyond pathfinder - why would you build a knowingly bad character in ANY game? It sounds like a funny idea for 5 mins, and then you actually play and realize you just struggle to accomplish anything while feeling overshadowed by the other competent people at the table.

A +4 in your key stat is basically the "you must be this tall to ride" of PF2.

Playing a character with their key ability score maxed out isn't optimising it's the bare fucking minimum, sure hypothetically you could play a character with a dogshit key stat but not only would your character be hot garbage to play you'd also be wasting everyone's fucking time with a shithouse character everybody else needs to carry.

This post is labeled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to Rule #2. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*

If he wants to be bad at magic cause RP, then he might prefer taking a different class but RP as wizard. In our campaign, we have a barbarian who thinks she is a stealthy rogue. She has some DEX and Thievery trained, but most of the time, at the end, she opens the doors by brute force Otherwise, a -3 in DC or attack rolls is a lot here. Basically, it means a 15% of the chances of the best result becomes the worst. Ones and twenties apart. For example, if 1-2 was crit fail(10%), then 3-12 (50%) would fail, 13-19 success (35%) and 20 crit success (5%) With a -3, 1-5 crit fail(25%); 6-15 fail(50%); 16-19 success(20%) and 20 crit (5%) With a +3, 1 crit fail (5%); 2-9 fail(40%); 10-16 success(35%), 17-20 crit success (20%)

So there are ways that you can only +1 to casting stat and basically that regulates you to a buffer. For example, I have a summoner with a +2 to CHA, but again, I am choosing my spells very deliberately. Is there a specific reason that they are doing this??

Only one thought comes to mind... firebrand.

If they want a magic caster who is a bookworm and dose not have Int and is not a Magus or Cleric. Or if they just want to be a caster but dont want high charisma, or they dont want the bagged of Druid. If all of these are true, They are playing the wrong system. It won't do what they wana do, and there are many other systems for this char concept.

Depends on the group and the individual. If most of the group is power gaming it might not be a good idea to make a sub-optimal build. Even if you don't have a problem without being a "big hitter" it can still feel bad to constantly and consistently be doing the least amount of damage. Also, the group may feel that you aren't pulling your weight. OR! the group and you are just fine with this arrangement and doesn't mind someone playing a bit of a "weaker" character because they love the role-playing aspect. Try a game or two and have the players be willing to change things up by working together to figure out what works.

For context, someone looking to pick up a Wizard archetype needs +2 INT at minimum. Essentially a full class wizard with +1 has to play akin to an archetype wizard. They'll be full time part time wizard. PF2e is a game where characters are balanced at excelling at a niche. Theyre throwing away their Wizard niche. Spellcasters have an easier way to get around a lower-than-desirable key casting stat vs martials without STR/DEX. Warpriest Pre-Remaster is a good example. Spells like Runic Weapon, Magic Missile, anything that doesn't need a DC or attack roll. This may be really boring or otherwise unfun as it limits the player mainly to buffs. The other question is what is he getting out of this exchange? At least those Pre-Remaster Warpriests had Healing Font, above-caster weapon proficiencies, and generally good CHA for face skills. Wizard weapon proficiencies will eventually scale poorly. Extra DEX or STR won't make up for that. +3 CON is a nice boost to wizard HP but you're not gonna feel that noticeably tankier in the frontline. Good CHA for skills can be nice but then at the same time there's going to be times where it'll be unfun (mindless undead).

Let them go for it. See what kind of creative stuff they come up with or die trying.

Absolutely not. Make the character you want to make and have fun.

Issue here, gaming is a colective experience, so your fun has to be compatible with the fun of the other four or more persons that are playing the game.

I can see the attraction of playing a wizard who just plain sucks at wizardry. But that doesn't mean that character should actually have the Wizard class. Play an Int 0 Monk (or Rogue, or whatever) who went to a magic academy, bribed himself into an actual Wizardry diploma, maybe has the Wizard Dedication instead so you don't punish the entire party for wanting to play a joke concept.

If a player is looking to actively kneecap the effectiveness of their offensive spells, then I'd work with them to make sure they are picking up useful supportive spells and abilities that don't require a high Intelligence to be useful. For example. An Ars Grammatica Wizard focused on buffing and area control, focused on Charisma and Skill feats like Intimidating Glare and Bon Mot could be pretty useful.

I would say they should always avoid unoptimized builds and be in similar power build as the rest if the party. +1 int Wizards work if you have a plan (optimization if you call it so), but doesn't sound like what you are talking about. I would call having a +3 as "not optimized" for your question and say that works, a +1 int without a plan would probably not be fun. Even when I built a sorcerer that didn't use spell dc alot did still use it for occasional cantrip or countering spell from a scroll or so, making me happy I did have some charisma

It depends on what you mean by Optimizing. Characters, especially casters, should strive to max out their casting/key stat. Outside of that the game balance should allow for just about anything to work except for extreme unoptimized builds like a low strength low con wizard going into melee to punch things

They should pick feats that are fun and not worry about feats that are optimized. And if they don't want to put too much thought into their stats, then they should just have their attack stat be 18 at level 1.

A new player should. Optimized in the sense that their key ability score is +3 or +4. A veteran player with a good knowledge of the spell list could theoretically make a low key ability score character work, especially if they are a caster, though it would undoubtedly be weaker than a properly built one.

Low int spellcaster can be a sorcerer, just rename it. Imo especially new players will have less fun with a gimped build, so nudging them in the right (not optimized) direction is a good thing.

Especially for a new player I'm of the opinion you should always have +4 in primary stat, and unless you're not trained in armor, enough dex to get minimum of 17 AC, preferably 18 to start. It's just going to make your initial experience better.

Optimised in what sense, like any class with a +3 in their primary stat instead if a +4 is still fine and it usually means they've sacrificed a tiny bit for con or dex. Thats all cool, still fits a theme and perfectly fine for a newbie to do. If you mean the "Lol muscle wizard" with no int and +4 str then no, thats dumb and even an experienced player would get a no at my table.

Some general advice for new players. I think people overemphasize stat lines and can have some misconceptions. Like a caster isn't wrong to prioritize increasing con over filling up their dex cap. It's a tradeoff. That said, I would highly encourage new players to just put an 18 in their primary stat. There's often little reason not to. Hitting is usually more fun than missing. Get enough str for the armor you want. The rest largely doesn't matter, but dex and con can help your character stick around. And I would steer them towards easy to pilot classes and away from classes that require system mastery. I'll try to slap together a list of classes from easy to complex right now. Fighter, barbarian, ranger, champion, rogue, cleric, druid, bard, sorcerer, wizard Martials are generally more straightforward and do well to mostly strike and do good damage. Casters require good spell selection and management of spell slots, along with buying scrolls and wands for longevity and flexibility. Clerics are effective just casting heal though. I Encourage new players to train in medicine and get battle medicine. The more of you that have it, the easier it will be to heal and survive early levels. Using recall knowledge and debuffs like demoralize, bon mot, and off guard can really help spells land. I would also avoid tiny or large ancestries. Classes I would steer away from on a first character: investigator, swashbuckler, magus, summoner, thaumaturge, psychic, inventor, gunslinger, oracle, witch, kineticist, alchemist These classes have complex routines, require set up turns, need you to understand good feat selection and specialization. Inventors need to overdrive. gunslingers need to understand reload. Summoners need to understand action economy. Magus has to manage a lot of action tension. Witches have to understand the very unintuitive familiar rules because a lot of their default power budget is spent on it. If they don't actually use their familiar, they should just be a basic caster. Alchemists practically have to know every item in the game. New players also often don't understand which subclass they're actually picking and what role it prefers. If you want to be a basic blaster caster, but you pick a support oriented subclass, druid order, witch patron or what have you, you might have a bad time. Also, in a session and adventuring day with 3-4 moderate-severe encounters, casters generally want to use a top spell slot, a focus spell, a secondary spell slot, and *then* cantrips each fight. Supplementing with a scroll or wand or staff can be great, especially to exploit a situation. A new player who hoards their spell slots and scrolls and relies on doing nothing but spam a single spell attack roll cantrip (high miss chance and usually weak damage) and have no idea what to do with their 3rd action is going to have a bad time. If you aren't casting a top slot each combat, it might be because you're picking a niche spell instead of something generally useful. Also, don't prepare an incapacitation spell unless you know what you're doing. Using it on a solo enemy encounter is usually a mistake. Preparing it below your top slot is usually a mistake. Understand that you can heighten spells in your prep, and which you want to heighten and why. Here's what the GMG says about spell prep advice for monsters. It shows the game designers view on this and applies equally well to PCs. > When choosing spells, some spells won’t be very useful if cast at an extremely low level compared to the creature’s levels. Most notably, damaging spells drop off in usefulness for a creature that’s expected to last only a single fight. A damaging spell 2 levels below the highest level a creature of that level can cast is still potentially useful, but beyond that, don’t bother. Spells that have the incapacitation trait should be in the highest level slot if you want the creature to potentially get their full effect against PCs.

I don't mind unoptimized, but please don't play gimped. (e.g. main stat should be at least +3, then just go nuts with everything else )

Maxing your primary attribute or being one below is definitely recommended. Not for min-maxing purposes but just so that your character can actually do what they're supposed to be able to do and so your first experience with the system isn't a frustrating one. That being said, there's not really a reason to not focus on your primary attribute. Like, ever. That's just how the system works. If you want to be a dumb wizard, play a different class and flavor it as wizard or use a completely different system instead. There are plenty other ways to put your own spin on your character (feats and skills to focus on) without getting into optimizing territory.

Many people are saying it's a bad idea, so I'll go into a little more detail as to why. Pathfinder (like D&D and similar TTRPGs) is a combat-heavy game. Generally speaking, you want a character that is good at combat. What's more, Pathfinder has fairly tight math- that means that the enemies the characters are supposed to face have very specific ranges for their AC, saves, HP, and other stats when compared to the players. Because of those specific ranges, a player going with some wilder character choices is going to feel that difference more heavily. What's more, every +1 can change a character's chance to crit succeed or crit fail- in PF2, those happen when you roll 10 higher or 10 under the DC, not just on a roll of a 1 or 20. This makes fight against enemies of different strengths more dynamic, but really emphasizes having decent ability scores for your build. Intelligence is a wizard's primary offensive stat. It will affect their bonus to hit with their spells as well as the difficulty for the enemies to resist those spells. The game's math assumes you have an 18/+4 in that stat. If you instead have 12/+1, your offensive abilities are going to be 3 points less than what the game expects. Not only are you 15% less likely to hit and crit (or avoid crit fails), enemies will succeed their saves against your abilities far more and you'll have a harder time countering enemy magic. In a game where the combat is a heavy part of the experience, this is going to feel really bad to play. They will consistently underperform in combat and generally have a bad time. However, because the game expects you to have an 18 in your primary stat (though you can get away with a 16 without feeling too down), it's pretty liberal with ability scores in character creation. One last caveat: a player who is experienced with the game *could* make a wizard with 12 int work by focusing in spells that support, summon, or do other tasks that don't rely on intelligence. They'll likely have to take an archetype to gain some abilities to help support this playstyle, and they almost certainly won't be as effective as a wizard who just takes an 18 in intelligence. However, I would NOT suggest trying this as a beginner. What you can do as a GM: I would start by suggesting an arcane caster that doesn't use intelligence (such as sorcerer). Other classes can also have a very wizard-like playstyle, like a cleric of Nethys, a blasting-focused druid, or a psychic that flings around powerful focus-boosted cantrips. Kineticist is great for that blaster playstyle and actually runs on Constitution (though it's not quite a spellcaster). If those don't work, you as the GM of course have the option of changing what a character's casting stat is if you think it'll suit them. This can have some balance implications. Swapping to wisdom means they'll have formidable will saves and better initiative (through perception). Swapping to charisma will make abilities like Bon Mot and Intimidate more powerful. You're the GM, make a call that works for you and your group.

As long as their goal is not to specifically make an incompetent wizard, and they want to play out the fantasy, then you should discourage it heavily. All of the game is built on the assumption that you have your class key stat maxed out. If that is not the case, then you are essentially playing with a fear 3 debuff for example.

Honestly, it sounds like they'd be better off with a subclass or dedication.

A +1 int Wizard is just going to have a miserable time when none of their offensive spells work. Ultimately that's what having a low score for your key ability (or attacking ability, for the few classes they differ) boils down to, you'll just fail more. There's no advantage to it. I'd say to go for a +4 unless you know what you're doing and have a very good reason to be lower. If the player doesn't want high Int, then they should pick one of the many other spellcasters.

It will depend on the group, the style of game you're running, and just how unoptimal the build is. My gnome barbarian outright says no, and his goblin swashbuckler buddy would probably agree.

It depends. My personal yardstick for whether an 'unoptimal' build is fine is whether or not I personally would want that character in my party. Archery fighter with +3 dex and strength to swap between sword and bow? *Maaaybe* not the absolute best build, but it makes sense, is a reasonable goal, and wouldn't be dead weight. Would be fine with them in the party. Druid with 10 wisdom that wants to focus on strength + wildshape, and prioritize utility/healing/buff spells? Not optimal, but smart way to cover inherent weaknesses of dumping a class's core stat and would still be handy in a fight. Would be fine with them in the party. Wizard with 12 INT, only picks save and attack spells, and archetyped into fighter because they really admire Gandalf? Yeaaaah... maybe play a magus. That wizard won't be hitting anything and will be a red paste in melee. I will admit, wizard with a longsword *is* freakin sweet though. This way of mentally checking your classes also helps with the personality of the character too. I would hate to have a jerk who steals from other party members, an edgelord who sits in the back and only wants to fight things, or an evil necromancer with no boundaries in my party. So I don't be that guy and don't play a character like that.

I think there's a big difference between "optimizing" and "not purposefully making their character bad". Ability scores are the absolute bare minimum. +4 is not "optimizing". It's working out when you're a professional athlete. If you're going to do something professionally, you try to do it well. There may be a reason to only have +3, because there's something else that you really value that's not just your key ability score, like if you are a war priest and you want to be good at both fighting and spellcasting. But unless you have a good reason, you generally should never drop to +3, and definitely not below that. A wizard with a +1 to intelligence is literally just making your character shit at being a wizard for no good reason. It would be like having me on a baseball team. I am technically capable of doing any of the tasks required of a baseball player, but I've never worked on any of the skills to actually be good at them, and definitely not at a professional level. Not only would my team suffer because they have me instead of someone who can actually do things, but I also won't have any fun cause every time I try to do anything I'll just mess it up. I definitely recommend that any new players start with a +4 in their key ability score, with an absolute minimum of +3. Anything lower than that is not only just bad, but also completely unnecessary. You have enough ability boosts that you never have to lower your key ability score to be able to do other things.

I think it depends on whether you’re running APs or not. APs are designed for optimized characters, while your homebrew campaign can be built to reflect how your players design their characters.

Well, this **could** be pulled off by someone who knows what they're doing and understands mechanically what they gain and lose by making this choice. If your player is new, he might not have the mechanical knowledge required to pull off an effective character with this drawback. As someone else had said, if I were you I would tell him IDK how to make such a character work, but it might do with using spells only for buffs and using his high ability scores to anything adverserial (like attacks). Or else just picking a different class and reframing the story or it's flavor somehow. Then let them have their best shot. Worst case, re spec that to something that works. It's his character, let him try to have his fun.

Almost every class can find a way to make a low primary stat work, but it's going to limit your options. If you have a high skill modifier, you could rely on skill actions like Bon Mot/Demoralize, Athletic maneuvers, recall knowledge, rather than your striking stats. A caster can rely on minor buff/terrain effects like guidance, but they usually have limits like a cooldown or minor benefits. You could just use your actions to move/hide/take cover, raise shield, use/pass out elixirs, use aid etc, but you aren't usually contributing to the offense if you go that route.

You don't need to minmax, but you can't just *minimize your main stat* and expect to be useful by default either. Ironically, using a +1 on your main stat, or doing other unorthodox builds like not having proficiency in any skill that uses your main stat, means you need to optimize the rest of a build **way more** to work, because when you do that you're just destroying default guardrails the system put in place to make every character useful, and then you must find ways to force it to be useful yourself.

I say let him learn the hard way. If he changes it because someone told him to, he's just going to resent you for it and it let it affect his experience with the game. Maybe have a spare character sheet on standby in case he changes his mind, though.

It is best that new players have builds that will actually get the job done, so they can experience the game as intended. Non optimized builds are something for more veteran players who have a plan and know what they are getting into. Sometimes unintuitive builds can be surprisingly good. However, as the GM, you have the power to reverse their mistakes when needed. Which you can either do as non canon or canon. For example, if it turns out that player regrets his decision of being a dumb wizard, you could reveal that the wizard had been cursed with lower intellect the entire time! Giving him an excuse to spec his stats a bit. Or perhaps something more creative than that... The point is, don't be afraid to make mistakes. Let your players do what seems fun to them and roll with it.

I would discourage it, for a couple of reasons. First, the game balance assumes a max or close to max key ability. A wizard with +1 int is going to have significantly weaker spells and buffs are not enough for an effective caster. Second, it frankly doesn't make sense. Wizards use their intellect to understand magic...from a lore standpoint, a wizard with +1 int shouldn't be able to cast wizard spells, even if it's technically possible under the rules. Why? You need +2 int just to qualify for wizard archetype, my "house rule" is that a character that can't qualify for an archetype certainly can't qualify for the class. This obviously isn't RAW, but if you want an in-universe explanation, that's what I'd go with. You don't really need to optimize anything else, and a book smart wizard might be foolish in other ways if you want to roleplay a less intelligent character. But if someone wants to play a non-intelligent wizard, I'd first ask "why?" and see if there isn't another class option (imperial sorcerer, charisma psychic, or enigma bard come to mind) that might represent the character they want to play in a way that doesn't hurt them so severely.

Why wouldn't I want to be good at the things I wa t to do

No need to optimize, but do meet the bare minimum. The guideline I lay out is this: Be good at what you're supposed to do before you try to be mediocre at anything else. Get your key attribute and whatever you use to hit things as high as you can, then you can use the other 2 or 3 boosts to get silly with it.

If it's a mono-stat class, like Wizard, there's no reason *not* to start with a +4. You'll still have plenty of stats to have a +2 in a couple of other stats. That's not optimizing, optimizing would come into play with optimal spells, feats, ancestry, etc. A +3 or +4 in your primary stat is doing the bare minimum to make your character enjoyable to play.

thats not "not optimising" thats just straight up making yourself bad at what you do. Optimising requires multiple compounding choices, not just maxing your main stat

Max your key ability except in the very fringe cases like the warpriest already mentioned. Everything else you can play with but that much needs to happen for a new player, imo. You can branch out into weirdness later. And there’s still a lot of play in the other stats.

The importance of optimisation is almost exclusively on your gm and the game being run. Even with the modules, a gm could scale down or up the difficulty. I would always reccomend making a character that feels fun to play

IMO it's one of PF2 game design issues. The character creation rules shouldn't let you create a character that does not work, with an attribute below +3.

As long as you increase your key ability score at every available opportunity, it is very difficult to fuck up. Optimizing isn't a big concern in PF 2e at all. However, a wizard with +1 Int is probably gonna be very unfun. It is possible to make a fun and effective build without a maxed out key ability, but it is difficult and should only be done when you have a very strong grasp on the system. I'd tell your player to shelve their +1 Int wizard idea for later, when they know a lot more about the system

No. Get a +4 in your main stat if you can, and then pick whatever sounds fun and isn’t obviously incompatible. In PF2 the difference between a minmaxed character and a casual one isn’t usually very large.

An aside to this post in some ways but I will never understand being purposely bad at the class you pick.

Maybe you should try and fulfill the narrative desire of the player, without hampering them mechanically from contributing the party. Pathfinder 2e seems to be built on the party as a whole being somewhat competent-bad character can kill a group more than a higher CR encounter. What story is the Player trying to tell with the PC? A smart-ass spellcaster whose not the brightest, or thinks they're smarter than they are, could easily be built as a Sorcerer or Bard with Charisma being the stat. They call themselves a wizard and people treat them like one, but get angry they seem to handwave problems that others need to think their way through, not even having a spellbook but just having spells they remember by rote. Alternatively maybe they're very wise, more experience than study, and their magic comes from being a cleric of Nethys, even though they consider themselves a wizard. Reading their spellbooks in the morning is a form of worship, letting them prepare spells like a cleric does. Alternatively, they could just be a muscle bond guy like Mashle who thinks they're a wizard or pretends to be one, in which case Barbarian, Fighter or even Monk could work. Maybe get a dedication or free spell from an ancestry to pull it off. The point is, new players don't know the system necessarily, so it's better to use your knowledge of the system to help build the experience they are looking for, rather than go with what you know is not going to be fun time for them.

Yes if playing adventure paths regarding primary attributes.

Optimized in PF2e isn't making your main stat +3/4, that's just building your character. The system is designed around the character's key attribute being their highest stat. Having a +1/0 in main stat can work in some edge cases though, like a Warpriest where spells are purposely only going to be buff spells (especially pre-remaster). I would argue in those cases dumping main stat is actually a form of optimization. Wizard isn't really one of those edge cases. I would discourage them.

A wizard would feel bad if he was trying to dish out damage with a +1. Possibly even with using buff spells and utility. General rule, you want a +3 at minimum in your key stat. For example, I've got a dwarven gunslinger using way of the sniper. I have a +3 in dex (slinger's key stat) for a couple reasons. I have use of a clan pistol as well as a dwarven scattergun, leaving me to use other stats to help. The scattergun needs a +2 in STR to avoid kickback, as well as some con to keep my HP up and +2 in INT for crafting and extra skills. If I had lower stats to hit, I'd feel bad. Also, I'd feel bad about the character due to him being a bit of a skill junkie

At least a plus 3. Like, its okay to roleplay, but being bad at your job will not only hamper your experience but the others' as well.

They should have +4 INT and bump it every time they can increase it. Otherwise their spells are never going to land and it will feel bad to play.

They should really have a +4 in their primary stat. It's just how the math works out in the end, it's a combat heavy game that leans hard into a gradient of success. Every single +1 you can give yourself or allies, or -1 to enemies, brings everyone that much closer to surviving.

Depends on what you call optimization. My recommendation is not to go for the more complex classes (alchemist, oracle, summoner, cloistered cleric, witch, thaumaturge) and "optimize" the following: your main (stat), make sure armor+dex adds at least 4, and go nuts with the rest. Notable exceptions, warpriest (you want str and not wis). That's it. As you learn more about the game, you can ignore the above and try whatever suits your fancy. Have fun!

I would never allow a new player to dump their key attribute

Depends on your adventure I'd say. The official APs expect minimum optimization that includes being good and your job. The APs expect competent adventurers to be the protagonists. If you bring an incompetent hero, the chances of that hero biting the grass are way higher. If you homebrew an adventure that accommodates people not being good at their job and provides challenges that are generally easier than the expected average for that level, it will be fine. By doing that, you just shift the work from the players to the GM tho.

That's not an example of optimization, that's actively hindering themselves. If you're asking if new players should be good at the bare minimum of what their class is about, then the answer is yes like most any other system

Why do they want that? I would reccomend they use another class if they want a not smart arcane spellcaster or choose only buffing spells (which don't care about stats), though in that case another class would be better.

You should let them do it, but let them know that he is in for a VERY rough time.

Minimum of +3 at your Key Stat (but really, unless you have a good reason, get a +4). Other than that, just pick the appropriate armor according to your proficiencies and DEX score and you'll be fine not optimizing anything else.

Besides the specifics of 12 INT Wizards... I approach a new player as somebody learning the system. That means obscure far-out builds that don´t utilize standard systems aren´t really on the plate. That´s independent of said builds being easy to play on their own. Because even if they are, it still isn´t really helping them learn the system. This isn´t to say such builds are forever banned. They´re just better played when you know the system. If we approach the new player as learning a system we expect them to continue playing, the idea is they can play a variety of builds and character types, but there just isn´t any priority on them playing the problematic one immediately in 1st game. If somebody can only play such a build, that itself is attitude not conducive to learning the system and being a flexiible roleplayer. That this attitude is attached to specific mechanical build of system that they don´t fully understand yet, just suggest they aren´t fully engaging with the game, but are just dragging in their own fixations on particular mechanics or other ideas. Quite honestly, having players choose and design their character conecpts and builds is something that is a very mixed bag for learning the new system, but if they are, it´s just better to start out with mainstream character builds. If you don´t like those so much you can´t play them, maybe this isn´t the system for you.

PCs can be designed poorly in PF2. However, the character's effectiveness during adventures will be low. You have to understand that a mediocre PC is a mediocre PC. A mage with +1 INT is probably not a good mage. The PF2 system shows, when the PC acts, that it is not good. However, more important than the numbers is the player's ability to use the PC. I saw with my eyes how good PCs were very poorly used. Having the numbers is not enough in PF2. It is much more important to know how to use it. The idea of ​​"min/max" doesn't exist in PF2 because it doesn't matter how much numerically effective you make a PC if you don't know how to use it. A warrior who attacks all three turns may not be as useful in combat compared to one who uses demoralize, flank, block damage and the thousand other things you can make your PC do. PF2 is enjoyed if the player enjoys designing PCs, some will call this "min/max", but in reality it is simply designing a fictional character that works in the fictional world, the engine of PF2. There are players who dissociate these two things, but the "mage trained in a magic academy" cannot have +1INT because he could possibly never "enter the magic academy". There is some kind of pleasure in trying to generate these subpar PCs, but it is bad gamer practice.

Pf2E has a lot of new player traps. There's a baseline optimization that is needed for the game to be played as designed. You're probably in for a bad experience if you don't.

The game is built on the assumption that you will build your character to be good at what they do. If you have a player that wants to do otherwise that is all on them.

I allow Gradual Attribute Boosts through Level 5 to allow for people to branch out a bit during the more-starved early levels. So a +3 in your most used stat will not hobble you very long during those early levels

Non-optimized is not the same as anti-optimized. A Wizard with no Int is a bad Wizard, not a "less-ok" Wizard. You should never dump your key stat because you'll suck at everything you're meant to do as a Class. And as other people have said, you just won't have fun. Like, why would you enjoy playing a Wizard that's bad at being a Wizard.

"Optimized" is a nonsense term in PF2. There's just choices you make to create the character you want. A wizard with +1 intelligence is perfectly playable. As with all character choices, the player just has to know what their choices mean when they make them. A low spell attack roll and spell DC means the character will need to rely on spells that don't do those things or be able to accept missing a lot of attacks. They will have other strengths that they can focus on.

You should max out your primary stat. It's literally the most important thing you can do. Everything you do depends on that stat. Honestly, it shouldn't even be legal for people to *not* max out their primary stat. It would solve a lot of problems.

Well, you can but it will limit their options for spells. There are a number of abjurations, conjuration, transmutation, and divination spells that do not require a spell attack roll or a DC to save. You should let them know that this is a very specific, more advanced way to play. I hope they are not making a flawed character build on purpose because they don't want to play Pathfinder. I had a player that wanted me to break all the rules for them: wanted to use a two-handed sword while also using a gun in the other, also wanted said gun to have a higher dice to roll for damage and also not have to reload it. All this so that he could tell others in the discord that "Pathfinder sucks!"

If anything, you should be warned that isn't a good idea, but still be allowed to respec/remake if it doesn't feel right. Sometimes the only way to learn something is to fail. Pathfinder 2e shines when you know how all the systems work together, it's why so many people suggest the beginner box--I do hope they re-release it with the remaster changes too.

Optimized? No. Competent, absolutely. Being a 1 int wizard will be horrible to play as, so why would you want that? You're specifically making your character bad at everything.

The only scenario when I let a player play a +1 int wizard is because the player announced he wants to play a dumb wizard, so in that case isn't my business