Noncombat-focused PFS PCs


Pathfinder Society

3/5

So, with a little over a week until First Steps and Ultimate Combat shoot their way into Society play, it's about time to think about a new PC. I've got two characters already, both well on their way towards retirement, and I would like to do something different with this new PC.

As the title says, I would like to create a PC who is focused on noncombat situations. My experience with PFS has told me that, in nearly every table I've sat down at, the rest of the table has been able to trounce a given module's combats without my help. In addition, I do not get as much enjoyment out of combat as the figurative guys with the 20-Str, 7-Int Two-Handed Fighters.

So, now free from the burdens of BAB progression and feat trees, it's time to work out a different kind of Pathfinder, one optimized to deal with all the other situations Pathfinders find themselves in. Of course, I will have to account for the realities of the modules, though, and the amount of focus they do place on combat. Thus, this thread.

For the respondents:
What has been your experience with noncombat-focused PCs in Society play? Are such PCs viable? What makes for effective ones? Or am I a lunatic for even considering making one?

-Matt

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I generally don't ask people about the details of their characters, but to my knowledge I have not yet encountered a PC who seemed to be aiming primarily for noncombat capabilities. Closest I've seen was a level 1 paladin whose ability scores I happened to see (he was right next to me) and that were not what I expected.

That being said, off the top of my head I could think of a few different ways to go:

First, Knowledge: local seems really important in PFS. Having that as a class skill would be nice, and adding Skill Focus and a decent INT could potentially help the group a lot.

Diplomacy and Bluff have their uses as well, so a CHA guy could be a good skill user.

Perception and Sense Motive are another obvious pair, and getting good at them would obviously have the added benefit of good will saves.

Or you could be the "physical" skill monkey, using things like Acrobatics, Climb, Swim, Disable Device, and so forth to help the party. For instance, I recently played a scenario that involved climbing about 30-50 feet or so, then whoever was up top could tie a rope off and let it down for everyone else. Same thing in another scenario with getting across a river and tying a rope, and in yet another with jumping across a pit and tying a rope. Being the guy who always succeeds at that could be really strong when his moment arrives.

One last thing to consider: a nice thing about Pathfinder seems to be that even if your focus is outside of combat, you can still be helpful in combat. Captain CHA could be casting compulsion spells, for instance, or Acro-Guy could simultaneously be a high-AC weapon finesse guy. Occasionally I see people on these boards who seem to think that failing to contribute in combat is a prerequisite to playing an interesting character, and that's a dangerous trap to fall into. It's very easy to play a super-fun middle ground where your real glory is not combat related, but you still help. My PFS cleric is a fun, non-optimized character (only 14 WIS and 10 CHA, for instance) who still manages to pull his weight both in and out of battle.

Have fun, and good luck! :)

*

My experience with noncombat-focused PCs in Society play has generally been "Diplomacy guns". It's so easy to get a ludicrously high Diplomacy bonus that a focused PC can, per the rules, talk just about anyone into anything.

The problem is that many DMs don't like it, and they sideline the Diplomacy rules with workarounds like "well, he attacks anyway, he just doesn't attack *you*", or "his friends immediately convince him you're wrong", or "you're just not getting through to him."

I haven't ever played a "Diplomacy gun," but some of my friends have, and they are generally delighted when a DM rolls with them on it, and frustrated otherwise when their supermaxed skill does absolutely nothing (other than waste an action). So I caution against "Diplomacy gun" PCs, (just as I caution against most Illusion and Enchantment spells for the same reasons; many DMs don't like and won't work with, for example, a charmed NPC or have NPCs react sensibly to an illusory wall).

There are lots and lots of other ways to play a noncombat-focused PC in Society play, but I thought I'd extend this caution about becoming Diplomacy-focused.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I may a Bard like that, and that character is my most requested character in the games I play because of his uses outside of combat that many PCs can't do.


If you're talking about a PC who will literally contribute nothing to the combat encounters (e.g. "I cower invisibly in a corner doing nothing"), I'd probably roll my eyes at that, particularly if it was one of the harder modules.

On the other hand, it's nice to have someone who has all of the annoying fiddly skills that scenario writers seem to love in faction missions (Sleight of Hand and Disable Device, I'm looking at you...). But it's not worth dying to have those skills available.

EDIT: I also would also be somewhat disappointed with a diplomancer/"diplomacy gun" who wanted to defuse every encounter; I like bashing heads in, for the most part. :-)

The Exchange 2/5

I think a good way to go with this is a combination of bard and oracle of lore. If you take the revelations that let you use your charisma instead of your int for knowledge skills and your charisma for armor class, you can rock the skills and still have a decent ac when combat rolls around so you don't go squish.

Also, I've never heard anyone complain about a helpful bardsong, so at least you contribute to combat in that fashion.

I made a character like this, but just haven't gotten to play her yet.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

hogarth wrote:
On the other hand, it's nice to have someone who has all of the annoying fiddly skills that scenario writers seem to love in faction missions (Sleight of Hand and Disable Device, I'm looking at you...). But it's not worth dying to have those skills available.

See, I think you could get into those skills without killing yourself. Most likely as a rogue. If you make a half-elf rogue, you could do something like this:

STR 14
DEX 16 (14+2)
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10
You'd get 8 skill ranks per level (9 if you use your favored class bonus), and have an AC of 17 for his first session. After gaining enough gold for a masterwork buckler (no ACP, so no penalty for nonproficiency) you'll have an 18, and two places to drop 1k gold for +1 AC each. You'll have a +2 or better to all your saves, and have a feat in addition to Skill Focus (maybe go for Knowledge: Local, since you have no INT bonus). At level 2 you can take the Finesse Rogue talent to up your to-hit, depending on how much you want to focus on skills (there are some good talents for Acro, as well as others).

This rogue would have a +7 to the skills you mentioned at first level while still being very survivable. He could also spend a feat getting Skill Focus or one of the "+2 to a pair of skills" feats at first level and still be good.

Honestly, you're making me want to play this character...

EDIT: Here are some of the total skill bonuses this guy could have at first level:
+7 Acro
+6 Climb
+7 Disable Device
+7 Escape Artist
+4 Knowledge: Local
+8 Perception
+7 Sleight of Hand
+6 Swim
And that's not accounting for the favored class skill rank you could use, the racial Skill Focus as a bonus feat (I'd probably go Knowledge: Local), or your regular first-level feat (could take Alertness to up Perception to +10 and Sense Motive to +4; +8 if you put a rank in it).

1/5

This is something I've considered. I made it a goal to never make a straight attack roll against AC (CMB checks and Aid Another were allowed) I think the best way to do it would probably be as a bard, going for high intelligence and Charisma, to leverage Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance. Use of the whip (so you can stand back and Aid at a distance) to complement your Performance of choice rounds out most of your combat contribution, and you could potentially end up with more effective skill ranks than most Rogues.

2/5 *

Quote:
What has been your experience with noncombat-focused PCs in Society play?

Whenever you have a 6-7 person table, they're perfectly fine. Maybe even desirable.

However, the first non-combat PC I saw, the guy did literally nothing in a 3 hour scenario. No damage, none of his skills mattered, no spells; the scenario was 100% combat. So he must have been really bored.

However, in a 4 person party, one non-combat guy can can mean death or a TPK. The second non-combat PC I saw, the guy did nothing and because of his non-contribution, we got trounced.

Quote:
Are such PCs viable?

Sure, but it depends on how non-combat orientated he is and how many players are at the table.

Quote:
Or am I a lunatic for even considering making one?

Nah, it could be fun. I like slightly non-combat orientated characters myself, but I consider them to be more "well rounded". Not combat optimized, but still useful.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I created a 2nd level wizard with GM credit who has a decent bonus in all the knowledge skills and with a song bird familiar also rocks at Diplomacy, though not vs a true diplomacy monkey admittedly. With a bit of wisdom and the familiar providing alertness she's reasonably perceptive too. She's still a wizard, so she can do stuff in combat, but I feel like her primary focus is getting the backstory out of her skill rolls so I know more about what's going on in the scenario - fleshing it out and providing some meat to plot lines.

The sad thing is at 1st level she doesn't have enough skill points to get even 1 rank in all the knowledges, indicating a well rounded education, so I had to start her at 2nd level just for her to make sense.

Then I discovered I was going to be playing up in The Dalsine Affair and played my barbarian instead to give me half a chance of surviving... :-)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

WelbyBumpus wrote:

My experience with noncombat-focused PCs in Society play has generally been "Diplomacy guns". It's so easy to get a ludicrously high Diplomacy bonus that a focused PC can, per the rules, talk just about anyone into anything.

The problem is that many DMs don't like it, and they sideline the Diplomacy rules with workarounds like "well, he attacks anyway, he just doesn't attack *you*", or "his friends immediately convince him you're wrong", or "you're just not getting through to him."

I haven't ever played a "Diplomacy gun," but some of my friends have, and they are generally delighted when a DM rolls with them on it, and frustrated otherwise when their supermaxed skill does absolutely nothing (other than waste an action). So I caution against "Diplomacy gun" PCs, (just as I caution against most Illusion and Enchantment spells for the same reasons; many DMs don't like and won't work with, for example, a charmed NPC or have NPCs react sensibly to an illusory wall).

There are lots and lots of other ways to play a noncombat-focused PC in Society play, but I thought I'd extend this caution about becoming Diplomacy-focused.

Not sure how this would work once initiative has been rolled, considering that Diplomacy takes 1 minute of continuous interaction to work.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Jason S wrote:

The first non-combat PC I saw, the guy did literally nothing in a 3 hour scenario. No damage, none of his skills mattered, no spells; the scenario was 100% combat. So he must have been really bored.

However, in a 4 person party, one non-combat guy can can mean death or a TPK.

The second non-combat PC I saw, the guy did nothing and because of his non-contribution, we got trounced.

Wow. I think those folks may have strayed from simple "not focused on combat" and into "focused on sucking at combat". I mean, you almost have to TRY to become useless in a fight.

For instance, lots of good skills are DEX-based, and DEX keeps your AC up (not to mention to-hit, if you use ranged weapons and/or Weapon Finesse). So DEX Dude just needs to carry a crossbow or something (at worst) and he can still contribute something to a fight.

If you go INT for knowledge and skill ranks, you could play a witch/wizard (possibly multiclassing with a class that gets more ranks per level - maybe cavalier?) and have some good combat options that way.

If you go CHA for social skills, you can be a CHA-based caster and rock people's socks off.

Basically, you'd have to deliberately mismatch your stats and class (like playing a 20 CHA fighter with 10 each on STR and DEX) in a concerted effort to suck in order to have nothing to contribute to combat.

So, Jason, either the people in your stories failed on purpose, or you labeled them as contributing "nothing" when "nothing" really means "less DPR than the cleave-monkey". Either option is still an outlier and fails to represent the myriad options available for characters to focus on non-combat abilities and still be able to lend a hand when the blades come out.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:


Not sure how this would work once initiative has been rolled, considering that Diplomacy takes 1 minute of continuous interaction to work.

Something else that is important about Diplomancy and a reason many times will not work in a situtation you are about to go into combat...

Diplomacy wrote:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.


Jiggy wrote:
So, Jason, either the people in your stories failed on purpose, or you labeled them as contributing "nothing" when "nothing" really means "less DPR than the cleave-monkey".

I can't speak for Jason, but I've seen things like a bard who stabs (and misses) with a rapier while declining to use Inspire Courage, or a rogue who spends most of combat trying to hide or climb a wall instead of actually attacking, or a wizard who only memorizes Expeditious Retreat and attacks (poorly) with a bow instead.

Whether those people were unfamiliar with PFRPG, or they were trying to "play on Hard Mode", I couldn't really say.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

I was looking at something like this with a summoner/eidolon. Instead of building your eidolon as the typical melee/facebeater beast you build a well spoken sage. Use the eidolon's stat bumps for INT and take the evolution to increase his INT further. Take the Skilled evolution for every skill too.

The summoner's combat contribution would be his meager selection of spells.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

hogarth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So, Jason, either the people in your stories failed on purpose, or you labeled them as contributing "nothing" when "nothing" really means "less DPR than the cleave-monkey".

I can't speak for Jason, but I've seen things like a bard who stabs (and misses) with a rapier while declining to use Inspire Courage, or a rogue who spends most of combat trying to hide or climb a wall instead of actually attacking, or a wizard who only memorizes Expeditious Retreat and attacks (poorly) with a bow instead.

Whether those people were unfamiliar with PFRPG, or they were trying to "play on Hard Mode", I couldn't really say.

Well, naturally any newbies get a free pass on this. They could copy a super-optimized build and still potentially fail to make meaningful contributions to combat due to inexperience (no fault of theirs or anyone else's).

As for "playing on Hard Mode" - especially in PFS where you can't clear it ahead of time with an established playgroup - that's incredibly selfish. Deliberately increasing (by any significant margin, mind you) other players' chances of death, mission failure, expenditure of resources, etc just because you feel like a change of pace is completely inappropriate for Society play.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would much prefer playing with an interesting unoptimized character and deal with the potential failure/death over a cookie-cuttered optimized character, where success is practically guaranteed, any time.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Feral wrote:
I would much prefer playing with an interesting unoptimized character and deal with the potential failure/death over a cookie-cuttered optimized character, where success is practically guaranteed, any time.

Agreed. If perchance your post was a reply to anything I've said, let me stress that there's a difference between "unoptimized" and "deliberately bad".

For instance, most people would consider a pre-racial array of 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10 to be unoptimized, but with a decent matching of race and class (like the rogue I described up-thread), he's not going to cause a TPK. But taking a min-maxed array and putting the "max" into a stat you barely use and the "min" into stats you need all the time goes WAAAAY past "unoptimized".

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


Not sure how this would work once initiative has been rolled, considering that Diplomacy takes 1 minute of continuous interaction to work.

Something else that is important about Diplomancy and a reason many times will not work in a situtation you are about to go into combat...

Diplomacy wrote:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.

I think Bluff would be the appropriate skill...

"These are not the droids you are looking for..."

4/5

From my experience having someone focused on skills is a great addition to the party. My partner plays a lore oracle with crazy +29 knowledge checks and has every knowledge and he can still heal the party and fight if needed.

He also uses CHA for everything... AC bonus from DEX, spells and skills that normally have an INT modifier.

Sovereign Court

I think Bluff would be the appropriate skill...

"These are not the droids you are looking for..."

That quote is actually the Suggestion Spell, at least imho.

Some modules have the tendency to feel like CSI:Pathfinder so having a bard or rogue or any number of classes with good skills is wonderful at the table.

Bards while not always combat monsters in themselves can very quickly turn a mediocre table into one that can kick tail and take names. They can also do this without any loss to non combat abilities.

Bards can be difficult and frustrating for people who are not good at role-playing a smooth talker or Sherlock Holmesian investigator. Not many judges will allow for a dice roll to get you past situations you can't talk out of even if your die roll is good. So if you are up for playing that role then it is loads of fun. Just remember that sometimes talking doesn't work.

Also remember player rule 0 - You are there to have fun, so play something you will enjoy.


If I were looking to play a not-particularly-combat PC, I'd probably go with an alchemist (maybe the Mindchemist archetype from Ultimate Magic, if I had that book). They have a decent list of skills, some useful non-combat formulae and discoveries, and when all else fails they can be toss a few bombs.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Witch-Hunter wrote:

Not many judges will allow for a dice roll to get you past situations you can't talk out of even if your die roll is good.

I don't think it is so much about the Judges, but rather how the encounters are written.

The diplomacy skill is pretty clear that it cannot be used without time and when the enemy isn't basically in the mood to destroy immediately already.

Many encounters are written that the badguys attack before words are even spoken.

Once combat has started, diplomacy doesn't work.

Grand Lodge 3/5

I play a rogue, primarily diplomacy-based, and have fun with him. The only time he was really a liability was in Heresy of Man I in a 4-PC party (Baird GMing), but we all survived.

My brother plays a bard who carries no weapons, just a sack of lingerie. I don't know how keen other players are to have him in their group, but he usually amuses GMs :) (BTW, he is not useless in combat: focuses more on spells and Performance).

Dark Archive 3/5 **

Dragnmoon wrote:
I may a Bard like that, and that character is my most requested character in the games I play because of his uses outside of combat that many PCs can't do.

That Bard is the only reason the party got through the social interaction gauntlets when I ran for you at ChimaeraCon.

My Summoner is, thanks to traits, focused on social interaction with a smattering of useful knowledge skills. I've seldom played at a table where this didn't make him useful; and with appropriate feats, he's also still useful in combat.

As useful as a rogue, wizard, or fighter dishing out horrendous amounts of damage? No. But it's a matter of playing to the strengths he does have: Buffs & Battlefield Control.

Everyone loves a character throwing out at Haste, after all.

Dark Archive 3/5 ***

I played (reasonably successfully) a non-violent Sorceror/Bard in PFS. He hated violence (though wasn't a pacifist) and so had no direct damage-causing spells and never carried a weapon. He defused more than one potential fight through casting Hypnotism at a crucial moment...

3/5

Welby: I know I do not want to play a "Diplomacy gun" PC. Optimizing for one skill is much less useful than optimizing for multiple abilities which cover a broad range of situations. Also, I do not want to deny the combat-monsters their fun by defusing every encounter.

Hogarth: My logic going into this is x-fold:
-Other players with PCs optimized for combat over everything else (ex: a 7-Int/7-Wis/7-Cha Two-Handed Fighter) want to have fun.
-At most tables I sit at, the combat portion of the module is very easy for the table and is over way too quickly, to the point where I do not find the combats enjoyable. I have realized that it's a very simple matter to create a PC which overwhelms most combat sections of Society scenaros.
-Thus, by helping the party defeat an encounter that they are already easily able to defeat, not only do I not have fun, but I do very little to increase the fun level of the Fighter's player.

However, I have played enough PFS, and sat at enough tables, to know that every once in awhile, my combat contributions are sometimes relevant.

So here's the real trick: to create a PC who can rise to the challenge of combat when necessary, contributing in a way which tips the balance of a given combat just enough so that the party can defeat it, but without tipping it to the point where the party just wins easily. Additionally, the goal is to use as few build and wealth resources as possible to accomplish this amount of combat ability. So, the question becomes... Instead of optimizing for maximum combat ability, how do I optimize to spend as few resources as possible on combat while still having sufficient combat ability?

My initial thoughts on this matter are:
-Favor debuffing enemy offense and buffing PC defense over buffing PC offense and enemy defense. The latter helps the party win faster, which is not what I want. However, the former helps the party last longer, which is more in-line with what I want.
-So, initial ways of doing this which come to mind are the spell Ray of Enfeeblement, the Disarm maneuver, the Shaken and Sickened conditions, and the Diplomacy aspect of the Antagonize feat. I'm sure there are more.
-Having a high AC and saves. I definitely do not want to be a liability when I am watching the party crush every foe they meet.
-I'm sure there are more ways. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of PC?

Teribithia9, Mortifier: A bard/oracle of lore... I have considered one, but it seems too straightforward. Also, I am pretty sure that, in PFS, being able to reliably make any Knowledge DC more than 25 is unnecessary. Being able to make DC 50 Knowledge checks is most likely entirely unnecessary. Plus, Kyle Baird has already done one anyways.

Stormfriend: The Dalsine Affair is my favorite PFS module, for more than one reason.

Jiggy: I do wish PFS had a "Hard Mode." Unfortunately, the only option that does exist, playing up a Subtier, the ability to make that choice is not in my control, but based on the APL of the table. On that note, I find currently find myself disappointed whenever I don't get to play up a Subtier, because I know that the party will most likely crush the module, and so far I have been right.

Feral: I've just realized that I'm opening up a new form of Pathfinder optimization here: optimizing for minimum cost towards a fixed level of combat ability instead of optimizing for maximum combat ability!

So, thanks everyone for the discussion so far. Given this new direction in optimizing a PC, the question I'd like to ask is:

What is the ideal level of combat ability for a PC to be able to rise to combat challenges without going overboard and totally crushing the combats?

-Matt

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mattastrophic wrote:

-So, initial ways of doing this which come to mind are the spell Ray of Enfeeblement, the Disarm maneuver, the Shaken and Sickened conditions, and the Diplomacy aspect of the Antagonize feat. I'm sure there are more.

-Having a high AC and saves. I definitely do not want to be a liability when I am watching the party crush every foe they meet.
-I'm sure there are more ways. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of PC?

Well, this won't be exactly what you're after, but could serve as a starting point:

My PFS fighter (currently level 3) is very versatile and well-rounded. I think you can look at his profile that I gave him ("Cledwyn") if you click on my name and then on his.

Anyway, he has a 13 INT for Combat Expertise, and has Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, and Iron Will (among other things), meaning he has a lot more options than just smashing people and doesn't have the same glaring weak points that some fighters do. His AC is 25 right now, soon to be more once I grab enough gold for a ring of protection and amulet of natural armor. So he breaks the norm quite nicely.

He's still combat focused, so it's not exactly what you're looking for, but he does serve as proof that you can play alternate strategies effectively - for instance, he recently saved someone's bacon by getting a squishy un-flanked via Disarm (and that enemy spent the entire combat either disarmed, prone, or both). The next-biggest contributor to that battle, the ranger, credited Cledwyn with being the MVP of the fight.

Again, fighters aren't the best for non-combat-focused PCs, but I can say from experience that doing something other than Power Attacking can be very viable.


Matt,

You had a few things in your post that I wanted to comment upon.. namely these three:

Mattastrophic wrote:


Instead of optimizing for maximum combat ability, how do I optimize to spend as few resources as possible on combat while still having sufficient combat ability?

Plus, Kyle Baird has already done one anyways.

What is the ideal level of combat ability for a PC to be able to rise to combat challenges without going overboard and totally crushing the combats?

In order:

1. People get a bad impression about consumables because they don't use them well. Consumables typically come in 3 categories: everyday, special case and emergency. These categories are tied to your current wealth/income and thus change as you level. If you manage consumables well this is a great area in which your character can shine without being blinding (as seems to be your goal). Thus I would stress that you overcome whatever aversion/bad experience with consumables that you might have had in the past.

2. Gamers always want to do something 'different' and 'new'. Pathologically so. My suggestion to overcome this is pick something that sounds as generic and bland mechanically as you can. Then make the character unique even while mechanically they are perhaps the most overplayed/stymied build out there. If you achieve this I think that you'll find it freeing.

3. From playing LG from almost start to finish I'll tell you that this mythical creature does not exist. It varies from mod to mod and table to table. Writers are players as well, and react accordingly. Thus you'll see trends, overuse of ideas, and the like just as you see with characters that players build. You will also see spurts of an 'arms race' from time to time.

This #3 is problematic because you cannot always judge a situation correctly, and even if you can wild dice swings can go the other way to alter it even if you could do so. I don't think that you would feel too great if another player's character were killed because you decided to say 'hold back' would you? I know that felt absolutely horrible and to blame when I found myself in those shoes.

So I think that what you want is some sort of 'perfect' balance, and it just doesn't exist. What I suggest is that you make a character that is fun for you to roleplay, then make the mechanics for this character that includes being able to contribute to a group. Come prepared with a deal of consumables that you have 'for emergencies' when you are in a smaller, less optimized, group so that you will still fully pull your weight when every hand is needed.

-James

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

james maissen wrote:
1. People get a bad impression about consumables because they don't use them well. Consumables typically come in 3 categories: everyday, special case and emergency. These categories are tied to your current wealth/income and thus change as you level. If you manage consumables well this is a great area in which your character can shine without being blinding (as seems to be your goal). Thus I would stress that you overcome whatever aversion/bad experience with consumables that you might have had in the past.

I don't think he was talking about consumables. I think he was talking about his feats or other variable class features (rogue talents, cleric domains, etc) and how to spend as few of them as possible on combat-oriented things (feats like Power Attack) and more of them on non-combat things (feats like Skill Focus) without becoming dead weight when fights do come up.


Mattastrophic wrote:
Hogarth: My logic going into this is x-fold: [etc.]

Yes, I understood your reasoning behind it. I was looking for your (excellent) explanation below:

Mattastrophic wrote:

So here's the real trick: to create a PC who can rise to the challenge of combat when necessary, contributing in a way which tips the balance of a given combat just enough so that the party can defeat it, but without tipping it to the point where the party just wins easily. Additionally, the goal is to use as few build and wealth resources as possible to accomplish this amount of combat ability. So, the question becomes... Instead of optimizing for maximum combat ability, how do I optimize to spend as few resources as possible on combat while still having sufficient combat ability?

[etc.]

If that was my goal, I'd go with a Mindchemist alchemist. There are lots of debuffing discoveries (entangle, nausea, blindness, contagion, etc.) and you would be well set up as far as skills go.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Jiggy wrote:
james maissen wrote:
1. People get a bad impression about consumables because they don't use them well. Consumables typically come in 3 categories: everyday, special case and emergency. These categories are tied to your current wealth/income and thus change as you level. If you manage consumables well this is a great area in which your character can shine without being blinding (as seems to be your goal). Thus I would stress that you overcome whatever aversion/bad experience with consumables that you might have had in the past.
I don't think he was talking about consumables. I think he was talking about his feats or other variable class features (rogue talents, cleric domains, etc) and how to spend as few of them as possible on combat-oriented things (feats like Power Attack) and more of them on non-combat things (feats like Skill Focus) without becoming dead weight when fights do come up.

I think he was asking for any advice, and James' advice here is very sound. Consumables will allow him to build his character in a manner he sees fit and fill in any gaps. For a less combat optimized character, this is more crucial than normal.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Ah, okay, I didn't read his response like that.

Yes, I agree that proper use of consumables can really help a character's usefulness in combat.

3/5

james maissen wrote:


If you manage consumables well this is a great area in which your character can shine without being blinding (as seems to be your goal). Thus I would stress that you overcome whatever aversion/bad experience with consumables that you might have had in the past.

You're right; I'm coming around to consumables more and more as I play more PFS, largely due to being able to spend PA on them instead of permanent wealth. However, I'm planning to re-evaluate my propensity to take them after the Season 3 guide comes out, and we get a new list of things that cost Prestige. Thus, I can re-evaluate the opportunity cost of spending Prestige on consumables. I'm also planning to go all-Slow-track with this character, which may effectively double the cost of consumables for me.

That being said, consumables frees me from having to spend permanent attributes, feats, wealth, etc. on having enough combat ability to contribute in those corner-case situations where a given encounter proves to be more challenging than the typical "the party stomps everything" ones. Like having one Scroll of Improved Invisibility, or a Scroll of Freedom of Movement.

Jiggy is right: I am looking at how to spend as few attributes, feats, and wealth on combat elements (i.e. Power Attack), which would then free up as much resources as possible to optimize for noncombat challenges (i.e. Skill Focus). Fortunately, consumables can cover the gap when one of those exceptional combat situations comes up. Consumables give me even more room to work with, as I don't have to cover that "exception gap" with, say, feats.

james maissen wrote:
Gamers always want to do something 'different' and 'new'. Pathologically so.

I'm one of those players. I like to take underused, "bad" rules elements and make them work. In Living Greyhawk, I had a ton of fun with a Wizard/Virtuoso. I posted this thread after thinking of the skeleton for a Geisha.

This doesn't mean I'm going to make an intentionally-bad PC; the Geisha is so terrible that I'm going to have to come up with a way to make Tea Ceremony really amazing, or find a solid use for a really high social skill modifier, or a Monk weapon would have to be published in Ultimate Combat that I can really use proficiency in it beyond Heirloom Weapon, to make a Geisha without having an intentionally-bad PC. I'm not one of those players.

Also, the Bard/Oracle is not off the table. It's just been my PFS experience that having Knowledge modifiers of +10 with Loremaster is about as far as you need to go with those skills, +15 if you really want to be a Knowledge machine. If you ever find yourself needing more than DC 20/25, just summon up a 30/35 and you're set. I might be wrong, of course... maybe a Bard/Oracle player can correct me?

james maissen wrote:
This #3 is problematic because you cannot always judge a situation correctly, and even if you can wild dice swings can go the other way to alter it even if you could do so.

You're right about that, but I'll say that the issue of varying combat difficulty has been less of an issue in PFS as it was when I traveled to various regions in LG. The spread of combat difficulty in PFS is just not as wide as, say, traveling from the Duchy of Urnst to the Shield Lands, or from Geoff modules to Geoff BIs. Society play has, in my experience so far, adhered closer to one baseline.

However, there are exceptions. Consumables can fill the gap. Also, I'm finding myself disappointed every time I don't get to play up a Subtier; I figure I've got a good amount of opportunity to "de-power" my PC and still be able to rise to the exceptional combat challenges. Every Weapon Focus or Power Attack or Spell Focus I don't take is an additional opportunity for Deceitful or Skill Focus or Cosmopolitan. Not buying a +1 weapon gets me 2000gp closer to my Circlet of Persuasion.

-Matt

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Noncombat-focused PFS PCs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
Red Mantis Archetype