You know, many people plan the progression of a character even though they start at 1st level.
Also in my experience played characters tend to become more powerful than "built" characters at high levels.
I generally play at low levels so this is not a problem with my npcs. Yeah I have players that have said to me shopping for magic items starting at 5th level takes too long. Hell building high level characters takes too long. It depends how they started. Let see for an 7th level human ranger I could start out with pbs precise shot then get rapid shot at level 2 and deadly aim at level 3 get some feat at level 5 improved precise shot at 6 manyshoot at 7 is not exactly going to suck on the way there Then it could get weapon focus at 9 and then point blank master at 10. That is not exactly sucking on the way there.
I understand your point, but the optimized character is the "worse case" example in regards to power, and is the only reliable method you can re-create without much effort. It is not trivial for a developer to take into account all the character choices as part of the balancing act, as those may vary to a large degree. Therefore, it is best to choose sweet spots in regards to class progression, although what levels are chosen, along with feats and abilities, can be argued. The only other thing that can be done is to be consistent and don't change how classes are being compared over time (such as damage output, utility, etc.)
It doesn't bother me too much really:
When I run games, I usually run Adventure Paths, which start at level 1. I am somewhat strict with dropping characters in favour of new ones because a character that sticks with the group for the whole time really belongs to the party, and it's sometimes problematic to introduce new characters. Plus, I had to stop one player from playing a new character every session. Maybe not quite that much, but he wanted frequent changes. I think he put less effort into the character's, well, character, and just wanted to try stuff out. Now that he knows he can't just switch them like underwear, he puts more effort and thought into the fluff side of the character.
The other GMs I play with usually start low, too, so the characters will mostly grow rather than just appear on the spot.
The game designers will usually look at all levels to see how classes fare. At least I'm quite sure that's the way Paizo does things. They seem to know the game quite well, being players themselves, so they know about the way being part of the goal and all that.
Adventure writers, on the other hand, will probably often just create a character for the level they need rather than going through several iterations to have a more "organic" feel to them. They might have some general understanding about the character, but it's not the same of course. And that might not be great, but it's probably necessary! They usually have some sort of deadline by which they need to deliver. They probably won't always have the time to carefully create "authentic" characters. And I'd rather they have somewhat artificial characters than shoddy work because they only got 4 hours of sleep this week.
For GMs creating their own adventures and NPCs, it's the same: Many of these people actually have lives outside of RPG, with families and jobs and all that stuff. Many won't even find the time or energy to write their own adventures (which is a reason why Pathfinder is so successful - they do a lot of our GM work for us). And of the rest, many might have time to do it themselves, but probably not enough to go into such detail.
Most of my group will plan their characters either 1-20 or at least 1-10 at the point of creation, regardless of what level we are starting at. Feats and talents and the like are all planned well in advance. So for us it makes perfect sense. And for those that dont plan their characters, unless there is some very considerable campaign focus (such as hoard and hoards of undead or a focus on enchanters) most people will choose feats, skills and other options. The same way as they are leveling up as they would if they planned the character (assuming they take time to make the choice each time they level). I have never met a player that though 'oh i keep failing will saves, i better put +1 in wisdom to change that[given it probably wont make much difference]'. Usually its more 'maybe i should look for a cloak of resistance, or ask the cleric to buff me to protect me from enchantment spells'.
Most of my group will plan their characters either 1-20 or at least 1-10 at the point of creation, regardless of what level we are starting at. Feats and talents and the like are all planned well in advance. So for us it makes perfect sense. And for those that dont plan their characters, unless there is some very considerable campaign focus (such as hoard and hoards of undead or a focus on enchanters) most people will choose feats, skills and other options. The same way as they are leveling up as they would if they planned the character (assuming they take time to make the choice each time they level). I have never met a player that though 'oh i keep failing will saves, i better put +1 in wisdom to change that[given it probably wont make much difference]'. Usually its more 'maybe i should look for a cloak of resistance, or ask the cleric to buff me to protect me from enchantment spells'.
Few builds last contact with play, in my experience. As such, characters that grow are usually more powerful with regards to the campaign (properly aligned skills, skill feats, taking options they wouldn't think of like Step Up), but less powerful if looked at for a different metric, like DPR. Classes more focused on a play style, like Fighters and Barbarians, are less susceptible to this that rogues and casters though, I find, but they are also usually easier to plan out over time.
Most of my group will plan their characters either 1-20 or at least 1-10 at the point of creation, regardless of what level we are starting at. Feats and talents and the like are all planned well in advance. So for us it makes perfect sense. And for those that dont plan their characters, unless there is some very considerable campaign focus (such as hoard and hoards of undead or a focus on enchanters) most people will choose feats, skills and other options. The same way as they are leveling up as they would if they planned the character (assuming they take time to make the choice each time they level). I have never met a player that though 'oh i keep failing will saves, i better put +1 in wisdom to change that[given it probably wont make much difference]'. Usually its more 'maybe i should look for a cloak of resistance, or ask the cleric to buff me to protect me from enchantment spells'.
actually we tend to do both so we get a +2 (1 from bumping wisdom, 1 from cloak)
you will see alot of 14 wis fighters in our group and alot less 18 str fighters.
I don't force my players character building so yeah they will have exactly the character they want if they plan it out from level one at level ten. Some DM's make characters train for skills or feats or not take a prestige class or multi-class in the middle of a dungeon/adventure but not most. If one of my players wants to take a level of wizard in the middle underdark well the next room has a spell book and a bonded item for him.
One of the fun things as a player in 3.X/Pathfinder is character building it is like it's own game when you are not with your friends. You can sit down and make a character you want to play next time. It is a load of BS when the DM says you can't take X or Y while your character is leveling up in play.
Few builds last contact with play, in my experience. As such, characters that grow are usually more powerful with regards to the campaign (properly aligned skills, skill feats, taking options they wouldn't think of like Step Up), but less powerful if looked at for a different metric, like DPR. Classes more focused on a play style, like Fighters and Barbarians, are less susceptible to this that rogues and casters though, I find, but they are also usually easier to plan out over time.
This is why I tend to roughly plan 2 or 3 levels ahead with maybe 2 or 3 goals that extend beyond that, but don't worry about too much further than that. This way I have some idea of where the character is going, but still have freedom to adapt to the actual gameplay.
I have noticed a trend since the middle days of 3.x that continues into PFRPG. I am noticing that designers are utilizing built characters to determine class powers and growth curves and are ignoring the natural progression of playing a character to a "built" state.
I ignored the rest of the thread after this paragraph. I'm pretty much 100% sure that the Paizo staff has said that they playtest these things in the office before releasing them for public playtesting. There's probably a reason they open it for public playtesting: they are probably less inclined to discover ways to break the classes.
actually we tend to do both so we get a +2 (1 from bumping wisdom, 1 from cloak)you will see alot of 14 wis fighters in our group and alot less 18 str fighters.
Presumably you dont consider these fighters optimized correct? Usually in testing 'power curves' involves optimization on various levels. Well rounded and optimized are usually conditions that are at odds wit eachother no?
I totally agree with the OP as "Built versus Played" (great term) applies to the argument of classes being supposedly broken or overpowered.
The natural progression of a character in a particular setting, as he adapts to the challenges of his particular GM, mean he will likely always trump a "built" character encountered in the same setting, even if he appears weaker on paper at first glance.
To me, all of this stuff has always been relative, which is one big reason why you can almost always find me firmly in the camp of Imbalance is Your GM's Fault, not the Game's. I don't cotton to analysis based solely on numbers on a sheet: that's just an abstract that doesn't mean anything until it is exposed to a particular setting.
I would take this to its natural, though admittedly radical furthest, by saying there is no class so bad that a good player can't make it work.
Part of the problem in these things is perception. We all have a different idea of what a class ought to do. We don't all speak the same language as to what is "effective." As the most obvious example, some people think it has only to do with damage meted out per round or encounter. Clearly, the game is not designed with that in mind, yet we all continue arguing with people who use it to form the basis of their arguments.
That is not to say that all things should not in some way be equal. It's just an acknowledgment that the ways in which they are made equal may not always be immediately apparent to us, and we might benefit from keeping an open, positive mind, rather than trying to tear everything down as our first impulse.
Though, it must be noted, that in creating encounters and campaigns, a GM is not going to have the time to "play up" even a small number of his NPCs. It can't be helped, in that case, that they are "built." Only time and experience can create a GM who is especially good at building by eye, to match both tone and challenge adequately to the task.
actually we tend to do both so we get a +2 (1 from bumping wisdom, 1 from cloak)you will see alot of 14 wis fighters in our group and alot less 18 str fighters.
Presumably you dont consider these fighters optimized correct? Usually in testing 'power curves' involves optimization on various levels. Well rounded and optimized are usually conditions that are at odds wit eachother no?
we Generally do not tend to make optimized characters, too much meta gaming, characters come out boiler plate and all seem the same, and the game breaks around 8-13th level and no one wants to play anymore. Then we start over.
All the characters tend to be more 'organic' for that reason.
That being said, there are always 'terminal' stats... like int for wizards, so they are usually much higher, and youll never see a 16 str wizard in our group unless hes multiclassing.
But for example, when my dwarf pally got wiped out by a spriggan in our current campaign (crit hit took me way below the negatives to kill me)
I rolled up a fighter (3d6 re roll 1s)
and got stupid high stats, especially when i made him an elf, and added 1 point from being 5th level to start.
Str 17, dex 18 con 8 int 18 wis 10 chr 9.
So yea i could have moved them around, got better con and optimized the fighter, but the character made a better elf. Figured id pick up some eldritch knight along the way, but for a few sessions he was just a fighter with alot of skill points.
We reconceptualized him as a magus when that play test came out.
During the course of play, we found a magic sword no one had that proficiency in to use (began with a T) and we didnt have the source book it was in either. So the GM made it a falcata. Next Level I took a proficiency in it to use it. It's a pretty cool sword, but thats pretty much how we play. I didnt have the feats all figured out ahead of time.
nor did i try to optimize his stats, they are all organic characters.
Ok, so some groups have a more 'organic' playstyle. I would certainly conceede that. But how exactly does one accurately apply that play style to a playtest? It is literally impossible. You dont have time to play a character 1 to 20 during the course of a playtest. It has to be 'built'. So even people who normally play 'organically' have to 'build' in order to playtest, there is literally no way around it (short of taking a week or two off from work and playing 9 days of 16 hour sessions I guess).
I also think if you have the mentality of 'the dm will fix it' then organic play is far less likely to uncover actual issues. A 'built' and optimized character will put imbalances front and center as opposed to a character that is redirected by a campaign.
We are constantly comparing our organically grown characters to genetically modified NPC freaks.As far as not having the time to play test a full level progression, well why not? What is the rush to get these things out?
Basic business practices? You cant have a 2 year playtest for every book. I am confident paizo staff need to you know, eat. Therefore there is a practical timeline for product conception to release (where the company starts making money on it). It just isnt possible. And as for NPC's exactly what is your plan there? Only having npcs that are former characters in other games? I get you think the 'organic growth' of characters is 'better' but how exactly to you propose to apply this in a practical way to NPC creation and to playtesting?
Well I don't think it's just a matter of some groups having a more organic play style I think the game assumes an organic play style. I think built NPCs (as well as PCs) are what causes a large part of the Class arms race. If I, as DM, can sit down and BUILD a very powerful 10th level Cleric/Fighter but never had to play that NPC through those 10 levels it may seem to the players that their characters are underpowered when they meet my NPC because of the organic choices they HAD to make during their adventures. This causes the players to say the Fighter class is underpowered and needs to be buffed. When in reality I "cheated" the system by never playing my NPC through those levels and if I would have he most likely would NOT have survived to exist in his final incarnation.
Um huh? I have plenty of characters that have been planned exactly from 1 to 20 and the vast majority have survived the length of the campaign. In fact, they tend to be more survivable then 'organic' characters because of a greater degree of optimization. I think the game doesnt assume any playstyle. The developers have often stated they try to cater to many different styles.
Especially since the actuall NPC building guidelines are in fact 'building' them, in a non organic way in the core rules. There is no section in there that says 'Step 4.A Determine what events in this NPC's career caused him to take which feats/ability score increase/gear'.
The arms race is caused by antagonism and desire to 'win' between players and dm, and has nothing to do with how the characters are created.
This is just an age and experience arguement.
If you started with a game ( ie 3.xx, shadowrun etc. ) that offered choices then you tend to plan to reach a goal.
If you started with 1st ed or 2ed or games with limited choices you tend to play more organic with seeing what comes to the character.
Of course this is just my opinion.
I agree the type of system you have played may influence a style of play, but your own personality and the people you play with tend to push your character making process more often. Having a firm grasp of the rules also influences these decisions.
The game overall is ruled by dice, and therefore certain choices will be better in regards getting the most out of those dice.
I think built characters are fine. If I sit down to play I always have my progression planned out in advance. It is no different than someone realizing they want to go to a school for X amount of years before transferring to another school to get the best combination of an education for a future field.
Every once in a while I have to drop or delay a pre-planned feat.