A question about optimizing vs generalist capability.


Pathfinder Society


Ok, so the question comes from whether it is better to have a character that is focused on doing one thing and doing it well, or making a character that can do a wide variety of things decently well.

On the RP side of things, I have never been a fan of the "strong like ox, smart like ox cart" type of characters. But the ones that focus all their effort into doing one thing can do that one thing really well most often, but are almost allways boned when it comes to doing things other then their speciality.

Now the character I have now, is a Elven Gunslinger from Tian Xia who will be picking up alchemist at lvl 2 and leveling up fairly evenly on both till lvl 10,when I focus purely on Alchemist for the rest. the basic concept behind the character is going to be using a variety of alchemical weapons and his pistol and bombs to resolve any situations that come along.

Now the question is, would it be silly to try and continue using this concept, or should I scrap it and try something a bit more focused?

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Somewhere in between?

It's good to specialize but not so much that you are a one-trick-pony. You should be really good at one thing, good at something else, and decent at a third thing.

If you build an archer:

  • An archer is great at ranged combat
  • If cornered or can't use ranged (wind wall, etc) are decent enough with a melee weapon you can step up and get some solid swings in (Maybe just Power Attack, and a decent Two handed weapon)
  • As a final backup perhaps you can grapple or trip. If you are a ranger you have some offensive spells.

    I consider this a decent guide (link) for this sort of thing.

    The more varied your alternative options are, the more chance you have of being a solid contributor in every combat.

  • Grand Lodge 4/5 *

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Note that alchemists are one of the least PFS-friendly classes there are. I saw this because often other players like to participate in combat too, and with splash weapons you pretty much run into voluntary PvP every round with the melee types. The only worse "non-group" class is anything with a large animal companion, which blocks the melee types out completely in any underground or indoor situation (in other words, most of the time).

    It's a group game, with the added complication that you don't always know the composition of the group in advance. My suggestion is to choose something general that lets you shine in a few different areas, doesn't just do max damage/AC/ubergrossness in one situation (no matter how common), and something that you like the concept of. As Painlord says, "Have something to do every round" in every situation.


    Alchemists are fine. Just get precise bombs discovery.

    Silver Crusade 2/5

    Darkalleycat wrote:

    Now the character I have now, is a Elven Gunslinger from Tian Xia who will be picking up alchemist at lvl 2 and leveling up fairly evenly on both till lvl 10,when I focus purely on Alchemist for the rest.

    Keep in mind, lvl 11 is the cap for PFS at the moment. Once a character goes beyond 11, he is retired except for very specific modules.

    The combo you are looking at is very feat heavy, and will suffer from MAD (multi attribute disorder). At a minimum you'll need a good dex (16+), good wisdom, and a decent int. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for anything else. Can you tell me what type of alchemist you are going for (any archetypes etc)?


    I was thinking a rather general alchemist. I didn't see any of the archtypes that really seemed to be exceptionally suited for what I had in mind.

    But the level cap of 11 makes it seem like this might be a set up better used for home play.

    Is there a character redesign grace period by chance?

    The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Darkalleycat wrote:
    Is there a character redesign grace period by chance?

    I know what you mean, DAC. (Living Arcanis used to allow rebuilds for the first couple of levels.) There is no such allowance in Pathfinder Society, unless you've played (a) pre-gen characters, or (b) characters exclusively through PFS-approved modules instead of scenarios.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    The focused character is better. Your fighter should have a bow as a backup, and with a high bab he'll do "ok" even in a ranged fight, but that's better than only doing "ok" in every. single.fight.

    Bomb chucking alchemist doesn't synergize well with anything. You're also not getting a whole lot of versatility here: both the bomb chucker and the gunslinger are ranged touch attackers.

    Alchemist 2 gunslinger x can be pretty good, two pepper boxes with a third hand reloading can get nasty fairly quickly.

    Lantern Lodge

    hmmm, well it is still only one xp and 2 prestige. Not an incredible amount of time invested yet.

    The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    Scott Young wrote:
    Note that alchemists are one of the least PFS-friendly classes there are. I saw this because often other players like to participate in combat too, and with splash weapons you pretty much run into voluntary PvP every round with the melee types. The only worse "non-group" class is anything with a large animal companion, which blocks the melee types out completely in any underground or indoor situation (in other words, most of the time).

    There are multiple ways you can work around that and they are generally not that big a deal to do. Precise bombs is one discovery, people playing any class that blocks/ disrupt the rest of the groups.

    Quote:
    It's a group game, with the added complication that you don't always know the composition of the group in advance. My suggestion is to choose something general that lets you shine in a few different areas, doesn't just do max damage/AC/ubergrossness in one situation (no matter how common), and something that you like the concept of. As Painlord says, "Have something to do every round" in every situation.

    Definitely good advice.

    Lantern Lodge

    Well, Alchemist gives the option of using wands for clw,so can be a back up healer. The bombs are as much a Thematic thing as anything else.

    Grand Lodge 1/5

    Throw some points at knowledge and social skills. Even if you never break +5 (I think some of the high tier games have DCs of 30 if the APs are any yardstick), you can at LEAST aid another.

    Only played 2 games of PFS but they do a great job of making it about what you know and who you know as it is about the mission and the fights.


    BigNorseWolf wrote:

    The focused character is better. Your fighter should have a bow as a backup, and with a high bab he'll do "ok" even in a ranged fight, but that's better than only doing "ok" in every. single.fight.

    Bomb chucking alchemist doesn't synergize well with anything. You're also not getting a whole lot of versatility here: both the bomb chucker and the gunslinger are ranged touch attackers.

    Alchemist 2 gunslinger x can be pretty good, two pepper boxes with a third hand reloading can get nasty fairly quickly.

    I can vouch for this. My first character was an Elf Barbarian and had pretty good AC, pretty good damage, pretty good skills, and pretty good HP. I learned a lot from that character. For one, character concept has to take a back seat to functionality, sadly. And, more relevant to this topic, if you're not VERY good at any one thing (or if you're not one of the more popular players that nobody would give a hard time to even if they made a gnome barbarian*) it's not that much fun, and people don't see you as an important member of the party.

    This also came into play in a 4.0 campaign when I never got a word in edgewise because the show was stolen by the popular guy with the ok fighter, the guy who maxed out his bluff stat in every way possible, and the guy who did ridiculous damage with a bow. While I was the sap again who tried to be good in AND out of combat, thus creating another "meh" character.

    *seriously, this guy made a whip fighter and everybody marvels at how he has a +12 to hit and +8 damage at level 5. If I tried to do that, everyone would say I was retarded since you can get those same modifiers on a weapon that doesn't use a D3 (and before you ask, no, he hardly ever uses combat maneuvers). But since he's such a cool guy (I mean I don't want to sound like I'm putting him down or anything, he's one of my friends), everybody looks at what he does in a positive light. So instead of "underpowered" it's "out of the ordinary" and "interesting". I don't know how he does it...

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Alabama—Birmingham

    I think this is one of those debates with no right answer, but everyone will have an opinion about.

    I think for ye olde random pick-up PFS groups, Dennis has it right: Be really good at one thing, good at something else, and decent at a third. You never know what you will be up against in a scenario, and who will be with you when you try. I'd also suggest those "things" not be similar. Stabbing people with a stick, shooting people with a stick, and bashing people with a stick don't count as separate things.

    If you have a regular-ish play group, you can specialize a little bit more. When you know your back is covered by someone on a regular basis you can drag out the weird concept characters. If you are a one-trick pony and everyone knows your trick, they can cover for your weak spots.


    Darkalleycat wrote:

    But the level cap of 11 makes it seem like this might be a set up better used for home play.

    I am surprised no one else caught this and corrected it, but the current level cap is 12, not 11. And from recent posts by the folks in charge, that may be going up in the future. But for now there are also sanctioned high-level modules where you create an appropriate version of your character to play in the module. So for example, for a sanctioned 14th level module, you would create a 14th level version of your character and play it, then on finishing apply the appropriate awards to your character for it's real level.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Grolloc wrote:

    I think this is one of those debates with no right answer, but everyone will have an opinion about.

    I think for ye olde random pick-up PFS groups, Dennis has it right: Be really good at one thing, good at something else, and decent at a third. You never know what you will be up against in a scenario, and who will be with you when you try. I'd also suggest those "things" not be similar. Stabbing people with a stick, shooting people with a stick, and bashing people with a stick don't count as separate things.

    If you have a regular-ish play group, you can specialize a little bit more. When you know your back is covered by someone on a regular basis you can drag out the weird concept characters. If you are a one-trick pony and everyone knows your trick, they can cover for your weak spots.

    I want to chime in with Grolloc and several others.

    everything said here has a grain of truth in it (sometimes a boulder of truth).

    Now for my 2cp. Why build one PC? Build an Alchemist & build a Gunfighter, and heck - build a Sorcerer too. then when you sit down at a random table you can reach into your stable of characters and pull out the one that fits, the "one trick pony" (with a few secondary tricks) that has the one trick the party needs. Unless you are playing in a regular group. If you are, then see Grollocs advice above.

    4/5

    Grolloc wrote:
    I think this is one of those debates with no right answer, but everyone will have an opinion about.

    Grolloc hit it on the nose. Both types of characters work depending on the rp group your in. I've played a 2H ftr that can do outrageous damage, but is a moron in social settings.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Shivok wrote:
    Grolloc wrote:
    I think this is one of those debates with no right answer, but everyone will have an opinion about.

    Grolloc hit it on the nose. Both types of characters work depending on the rp group your in. I've played a 2H ftr that can do outrageous damage, but is a moron in social settings.

    and one of my characters is a "Face", with little or no combat skills. We would fit well together. Which to me, is what RP games are all about.

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    I like and agree with the be really good at one thing, good at another, ok at a third thing, but how do you divide that?

    ~Really good in combat or really good at melee, and pretty good at ranged?
    ~Really good at being diplomatic (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive all together) or really good at Diplomacy?
    ~Really good at Knowledges or Really good at Know: Nature, and ok at Know: Geography?

    If its the latter choice for those examples, then I cant imagine that anyone has a character that isnt at least decent at something other than their primary thing? If your a combat beast, you still have to have put your skill points someplace. Unless they all went into Profession: Basketweaver, you're probably going to be handy in some other capacity at some point that isnt combat.

    Dark Archive 2/5

    For fighting classes, pick melee or ranged and be really good at that.

    For casting classes, be versatile.

    I believe this applies to non-PFS as well.

    Dark Archive 2/5

    godsDMit wrote:

    I like and agree with the be really good at one thing, good at another, ok at a third thing, but how do you divide that?

    ~Really good in combat or really good at melee, and pretty good at ranged?
    ~Really good at being diplomatic (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive all together) or really good at Diplomacy?
    ~Really good at Knowledges or Really good at Know: Nature, and ok at Know: Geography?

    If its the latter choice for those examples, then I cant imagine that anyone has a character that isnt at least decent at something other than their primary thing? If your a combat beast, you still have to have put your skill points someplace. Unless they all went into Profession: Basketweaver, you're probably going to be handy in some other capacity at some point that isnt combat.

    For PFS, I think the classes with poor skill points should be good at one of their Knowledge skills, especially the ones that are not as popular like engineering, nobility, history, geography. Usually the ones that don't ID opponents.

    I'd say for diplomatic, the character should be good at 2 of those skills, Diplomacy and something else.

    Perception is always important, but it just gets cut out due to lack of skills. I try to pump this as much as possible, but it gets passed over a lot of it's not a class skill or if the character doesn't have high WIS.

    Combat is usually be great at your thing, and keep weapons that allow you to be okay the other. Without STR, being good at melee just isn't going to be possible.

    The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    nosig wrote:
    Why build one PC? Build an Alchemist & build a Gunfighter, and heck - build a Sorcerer too. then when you sit down at a random table you can reach into your stable of characters and pull out the one that fits...

    This is nice if you are either playing a LOT or are in a large group of people and don't mind playing low level for three times as along. For many players what you are suggesting will mean having a handful of perpetually low level characters and frustrating those around you who want to start leveling up and player higher level stuff.

    We had a guy in our group who wanted to run 3+ characters and it drove everyone nuts, we were all at 3-4th level and he was juggling 3-4 1st/ 2nd level characters and basically dragging the whole group down. Now we're big enough the rest of the group is just moving on without him.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Dennis Baker wrote:
    nosig wrote:
    Why build one PC? Build an Alchemist & build a Gunfighter, and heck - build a Sorcerer too. then when you sit down at a random table you can reach into your stable of characters and pull out the one that fits...

    This is nice if you are either playing a LOT or are in a large group of people and don't mind playing low level for three times as along. For many players what you are suggesting will mean having a handful of perpetually low level characters and frustrating those around you who want to start leveling up and player higher level stuff.

    We had a guy in our group who wanted to run 3+ characters and it drove everyone nuts, we were all at 3-4th level and he was juggling 3-4 1st/ 2nd level characters and basically dragging the whole group down. Now we're big enough the rest of the group is just moving on without him.

    so, when new people showed up to play, the only person who could play at the table with them was the guy you feel was "basically dragging the whole group down"?

    Having a limited selection of PCs works - if you are playing in the same small group regularly. but then the question of Specialist vs. Generalist (what this tread is about I thought) doesn't impact as strongly either. If I am only ever playing with the same 5 guys, why generalize? as If I'm playing in group "A" I play the healer cleric, which means I should have "X" abilities/skills/role, 'cause the other characters are expecting me to have them. I have a group of friends that do that. we have characters we all play when we sit together (in that group I run the Rogue/Trapmaster).

    as Grolloc said "If you have a regular-ish play group, you can specialize a little bit more. When you know your back is covered by someone on a regular basis you can drag out the weird concept characters. If you are a one-trick pony and everyone knows your trick, they can cover for your weak spots."

    For example, I am going to go play (or run) a game this evening. I know I will not have the problem of sitting at a table with 3 clones of my character at any sub-Tier up to thru level 5. It wont happen. Because I have a characters level 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 I can select the role I like to play THAT ISN'T ALREADY THERE. I guess I could have a character at 11th level and another at 6th and one at 1st. Why is this better? It would get me into some high tier games, but it would bar me from others, and I might get stuck in a game either dominating or playing in another PCs shadow.

    My wife often also plays (not as much as me though). She has 4 characters in levels 1 thru 5 (1,2,3 and 5 I think). So when we sit at a table with you and someone else who only has one character available to play the mod being run, we can see what you are running and ensure that we have a workable party at the sub-tier you two have picked. If you both have 5th level characters, we have multiple combinations that can "fill out" a party. (Wizard&rogue, Wizard&Face, Wizard&Cleric, etc) The one that hurts is when one guy has a level 6 (only) and the other guy has a 2nd (only) and the 6 level is upset that he has to play down.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    Personally, I think it is a poor party design if you only have one person who can do something well and no one else can do it at all (or is at least extremely poor at it). I don't like "one trick pony" characters. There are always cases where the "face" or whatever, fails at their intended task and at least one backup would be nice to prevent a catastrophe. I also, dislike when everyone's abilities/skills/whatever are so high that success is a foregone conclusion. I prefer to see what I would call "well-rounded" characters with some moderate overlap in abilities so the group does not have to completely depend on one character for their success/failure. of course, this is just my preferred gaming style and YMMV.

    In organized play, I have a wider tolerance of play styles. You have to in order to accommodate all the players and styles you will be exposed to. However, in a private, home-style game, I seek out players with similar styles to maximize my enjoyment level. Fortunately, I have only ever met one private player I refuse to game with (even leaving my own home group for a time) and only a couple in OP.

    The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    nosig wrote:
    so, when new people showed up to play, the only person who could play at the table with them was the guy you feel was "basically dragging the whole group down"?

    Considering at the time it was frustrating he was 1/3 of the 'new people' in the group and the rest were moving up in levels, it was sort of a moot point. We *could* play that tier 3-7 module but johnny doesn't have any third level characters.

    Quote:
    Having a limited selection of PCs works - if you are playing in the same small group regularly.

    It's funny, when I show up to a game I pick characters based primarily on subtier. I don't think I've ever picked my character based on the rest of the party. My characters are self sufficient, they pull their weight in combat, and they generally do decently on skills. I have had sessions where there has been too much overlap in character strengths and weaknesses but even then it becomes a bit of a challenge and none of my characters are so one dimensional they flounder completely.

    I think your idea is kind of cool, but while it will let you play some fairly niche characters, it is absolutely not necessary for most players, and if you are in a smaller group it can be downright irritating to the rest of the players.

    The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Fortunately, I have only ever met one private player I refuse to game with (even leaving my own home group for a time) and only a couple in OP.

    Hey, I told you it was only that one time, I don't bring my sword to most games and your cat was fine after the veterinarian stitched him up. That fish tank should have been on a better stand, the cat barely grazed it and it fell over.

    Don't you have renters insurance for stuff like that!?

    The Exchange 5/5

    Dennis Baker wrote:
    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Fortunately, I have only ever met one private player I refuse to game with (even leaving my own home group for a time) and only a couple in OP.

    Hey, I told you it was only that one time, I don't bring my sword to most games and your cat was fine after the veterinarian stitched him up. That fish tank should have been on a better stand, the cat barely grazed it and it fell over.

    Don't you have renters insurance for stuff like that!?

    this is great - I kept trying to come up with a cool response, and I failed.

    I take my hat off to you sir. best laugh I have had all day.

    The Exchange 5/5

    Dennis Baker wrote:
    nosig wrote:
    so, when new people showed up to play, the only person who could play at the table with them was the guy you feel was "basically dragging the whole group down"?

    Considering at the time it was frustrating he was 1/3 of the 'new people' in the group and the rest were moving up in levels, it was sort of a moot point. We *could* play that tier 3-7 module but johnny doesn't have any third level characters.

    Quote:
    Having a limited selection of PCs works - if you are playing in the same small group regularly.

    It's funny, when I show up to a game I pick characters based primarily on subtier. I don't think I've ever picked my character based on the rest of the party. My characters are self sufficient, they pull their weight in combat, and they generally do decently on skills. I have had sessions where there has been too much overlap in character strengths and weaknesses but even then it becomes a bit of a challenge and none of my characters are so one dimensional they flounder completely.

    I think your idea is kind of cool, but while it will let you play some fairly niche characters, it is absolutely not necessary for most players, and if you are in a smaller group it can be downright irritating to the rest of the players.

    I always try to pick my character based on the rest of the party mix. I'm not sure if I am playing niche characters - these are characters that I would play in an established regular group.

    And I do realize it is not necessary for most players. In fact, part of the reason I do it is because almost no one else does. I couldn't say - "what do we need" if most of the rest of the players aren't stuck with one PC.
    And because I am filling the party gaps, I don't have a problem in a smaller group - with the same PC party mix, I play the same gap filler. And if I go off to a Convention that most of the other players can't attend - I do not come back 2 levels higher than everyone else (as I ran different characters at the Con).

    The Exchange 5/5

    I like to think of a RPG as a game of specialists. The classic picture of a D&D adventuring party has a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Rogue. Each has their area of expertise, each has their part to fill.

    Like any team, they cover for each other when they need to, but the best at fighting is the fighter, the best at healing the cleric, etc.

    This is a social game. I expect the PCs to need each other and to work together during the adventure. I have played with a player that trys to be sure that he can do everything - he hated depending on another player for anything. The rest of us were there just to provide extra "Targets" for the monsters, to fill the roles of extras in HIS adventure. (He actually developed the art of hiding behind another PC). He's not as much fun to play with as the team member who saves my butt cause he knows I'll save his later. (Not to say Generalist characters are like that. That's a PLAYER problem, not a character issue).

    Liberty's Edge 5/5

    nosig wrote:
    I like to think of a RPG as a game of specialists. The classic picture of a D&D adventuring party has a Fighter, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Rogue. Each has their area of expertise, each has their part to fill.

    To each their own. I tend to play non-optimized generalists. If you ask me what you should play, I'll always respond by saying, "Whatever you feel like. We're playing sub-tier < insert sub-tier here >."

    My gnome oracle of battle may step in as a tank as needed, but will probably not be as good as someone who has maxed AC. Likewise, he's good, but not "the best" at healing, diplomacy, perception, a handful of knowledges, disabling devices, and is fluent in 25 languages. He does mediocre damage, but is very good with trip and disarm.

    Similarly, my elven archer bard doesn't strive to be the best at any one thing. Instead, he adapts to the situation and the party's needs in order to make certain needs are met and the party works at peak performance.

    I personally believe in making characters that are well-rounded and self-sufficient. Their various experiences and training have prepared them for nearly anything. So far, this has worked well.

    Dark Archive 4/5

    I tend to get a bit annoyed when people tell me concept and competent are mutually exclusive. They aren't.

    I can have a concept Lawyer PC who is a worshipper of Abadar etc, but he might still be a fully functional cleric who can heal etc.

    The main thing to consider, is DO YOU ADD VALUE?

    If the answer is no, then it doesn't matter if you have a concept or not, stop being wasted space.

    I think it is important to not confuse class with concept. I always like to think of concept first, and then allocate class in a manner that makes it work. Another way of viewing this is if you are asked the question in the ol' pathfinder briefing meet and great, 'what do you do' - do you actually do that?

    - If you say "I am a healer", can I rely on you to be able to heal? This doesn't mean you have to be a channel build.(See pet peeve about folks thinking you need channeling to be able to heal, I got by just fine in 3.5 without it thank you very much, learn to be able to survive one attack form a monster)

    - If you say "I am a Melee warrior" then make sure you can generally fight, or have high AC or do damage (telling the party your style is good too)

    All of my PCs can do more than one thing. This doesn't make them not 'optimized'

    Optimized = best at what you have decided for it to do. I would darn well hope your generalist is optimized at being a generalist, otherwise you are actively making it not competent! lets not get optimized and cheesy/min maxed confused.

    Decide a concept, then make it something that is beneficial to the party.

    If it isn't beneficial, then my view is don't play it in PFS - We are forced by the nature to assume that your PC can do something.

    Might sound harsh, but hey, I won't back down from this, your PC has to be able to do *something* and if you are a basketweaver ONLY you better be throw anything hurling baskets as an empty hand monk or something...

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 **

    I'm in the same boat as some of you. I tend to dislike playing as or playing with the super specialist - the physically helpless wizard, the fighter that's committed all of his feats into wielding one specific weapon, the cavalier with the absurd AC, and the rogue that is obsessed with getting the dual wielding sneak attack in, are all archetypes I avoid.


    I do get the team action belief strongly in the above comments. However, reliance on each player character to survive (or remain in the game for all of the event) is a chance we all take. If your cleric buys a dirt blanket, what happens to your party right then? With the recovery buy-in options, PFS is a kinder, gentler world, but for the specialist players without a healer in place, what will they do? The same is true of the tank who oversteps his common sense so many times that the healer has no spells left, etc. In my last game, the best healer kept track of players nearing collapse and stepped up to help them recover in battle. Great, except if both were killed on the next round. The the party would be down the tank and the healer. Not a nice situation halfway through the event. Fortunately, we had more than one healer type.

    A bunch of specialists relying on one other player to carry the load on job-tasking is wrought with difficulties. A group of generalists however might have some options. At least options that don't result in everyone being served with a spicy sauce, lettuce, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun.

    5/5

    Another thing to remember that since Pathfinder Society is organized play, there are a lot of circumstances when you don't know who you'll be playing with. If you end up with a party that consists entirely of fighters that can only hit things really hard, that group is going to suck when it comes to diplomacy, trapfinding, knowledge, healing, and, pretty much everything else.

    That's why I think it's good to generalize at least somewhat. By all means specialize in something, but be good at several other things as well. Traits or Prestige Awards (from the Field Guide) can be a great way to shore up some of the weak spots.

    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / A question about optimizing vs generalist capability. All Messageboards

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