| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been having a lot of fun lately playing characters that are intentionally not fully optimized. The first was a Sorcerer who (still, even at level 5) knows nothing about Spellcraft. This led to some funny situations where the party found a magic item and her response was simply "Yep...that's magical." It's fun to break out of the mold just a little bit, and it's not crippling to gameplay at all.
A riskier example is that I recently sat in on a friend's Beginner Box game at my FLGS and played an elven Wizard. I rolled some pretty good stats...and a 6. Now, the obvious choice would be to stick the 6 in strength, but for some reason I thought it'd be funny to put it in Wisdom. So my absent-minded Wizard, who didn't know when to shut up and generally lacked common sense was a blast to roleplay during the game. The other players, who were new to the game, had the opportunity to define themselves in opposition to her ("I'm an elf, but we're not all like *her*...")
Best of all, both characters experienced cool, dramatic moments when they actually succeeded at something. The Sorcerer who doesn't really study magic was one hell of a badass when she started tossing out Elemental Rays and magic missiles at the creatures that the melee characters couldn't hurt due to DR or high AC. And I truly wish I could have gotten a photo of the table's reaction the first time my Wizard hucked a longsword right into the gut of some lizardfolk we were fighting, or rescued the Rogue (who was unconscious and drowning) by casting sleep on her attackers and wading into the water to drag her to the surface.
The last benefit is, I'll admit, merely superstition: I've noticed that when I intentionally forgo maximum optimization, I tend to roll better. Seriously, my best optimized characters will get saddled with terrible rolls, but my flawed protagonists always come through in a clinch.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a friend in our group once who played a dwarf fighter that happened to end up with a pretty high intelligence and a supper low wisdom (rolled the stats not point buy). He role-played him as grumpy brute who wasn't to bright. You told him to watch the door, he watched the door and didn't pay to much attention to the goblin sneaking out of it...hey he was told to watch the door not watch for goblins. It made for a lot of interesting mishaps based on the way he interpreted the rest of the party or NPC's conversing with him. The best was when we would get into planing phases, and suddenly his High INT popped up and the dwarf laid out the best tactical solutions to are problems and the rest of the party is then dumbfounded....aren't you supposed to be watching the door?
Low stats and flaws can make for great role-playing and for a fun story based campaign, but it requires gamers and DM's who don't exploit the weaknesses but use them as tools to tell the story together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Funny" aside, I think that intentionally avoiding combat optimization for the sake of roleplaying becomes ever more important to me as both a player and a DM/GM. I've had campaigns grow so tired because of combats devolving into complete boredom.
Lately, with getting into Pathfinder, I've attempted to infuse more and more life into characters, and I think that the wealth of options really helps Pathfinder succeed here. A recent example is an oracle of Pharasma who's nearly blind as a bat (well ok, not quite, he's got the "clouded vision" curse), has most of his skills stacked up as a scholar, and with a relatively low strength score, is destined primarily to be relegated to utility use.
...however, he fits very well in the dark fey campaign of which he is a part, and since the campaign intentionally places combat as a secondary emphasis, I find myself having all kinds of fun designing, playing, and explaining the character.
My witch is an alcoholic, drug addicted, whoring, gambling mass of destructive addictions who has fallen asleep on watch.
He has a poor wisdom and I am in the practice of making wisdom checks on many decisions. It's become a major source of group fun to watch him fail.
I've been having a lot of fun lately playing characters that are intentionally not fully optimized. The first was a Sorcerer who (still, even at level 5) knows nothing about Spellcraft. This led to some funny situations where the party found a magic item and her response was simply "Yep...that's magical." It's fun to break out of the mold just a little bit, and it's not crippling to gameplay at all.
A riskier example is that I recently sat in on a friend's Beginner Box game at my FLGS and played an elven Wizard. I rolled some pretty good stats...and a 6. Now, the obvious choice would be to stick the 6 in strength, but for some reason I thought it'd be funny to put it in Wisdom. So my absent-minded Wizard, who didn't know when to shut up and generally lacked common sense was a blast to roleplay during the game. The other players, who were new to the game, had the opportunity to define themselves in opposition to her ("I'm an elf, but we're not all like *her*...")
Best of all, both characters experienced cool, dramatic moments when they actually succeeded at something. The Sorcerer who doesn't really study magic was one hell of a badass when she started tossing out Elemental Rays and magic missiles at the creatures that the melee characters couldn't hurt due to DR or high AC. And I truly wish I could have gotten a photo of the table's reaction the first time my Wizard hucked a longsword right into the gut of some lizardfolk we were fighting, or rescued the Rogue (who was unconscious and drowning) by casting sleep on her attackers and wading into the water to drag her to the surface.
The last benefit is, I'll admit, merely superstition: I've noticed that when I intentionally forgo maximum optimization, I tend to roll better. Seriously, my best optimized characters will get saddled with terrible rolls, but my flawed protagonists always come through in a clinch.
Glad you had so much fun, and fun is what this hobby is meant to be about. Not rules arguments, not DPR, not optimisation. My favourite characters are still those that were not the best optimised and had a weak ability score. They didn't walk around with all 15+s and no weaknesses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it really depends on the GM. For instance, a low wisdom character can be fun, but if you get into fights...I've been having a lot of fun lately playing characters that are intentionally not fully optimized. The first was a Sorcerer who (still, even at level 5) knows nothing about Spellcraft. This led to some funny situations where the party found a magic item and her response was simply "Yep...that's magical." It's fun to break out of the mold just a little bit, and it's not crippling to gameplay at all.
A riskier example is that I recently sat in on a friend's Beginner Box game at my FLGS and played an elven Wizard. I rolled some pretty good stats...and a 6. Now, the obvious choice would be to stick the 6 in strength, but for some reason I thought it'd be funny to put it in Wisdom. So my absent-minded Wizard, who didn't know when to shut up and generally lacked common sense was a blast to roleplay during the game. The other players, who were new to the game, had the opportunity to define themselves in opposition to her ("I'm an elf, but we're not all like *her*...")
Best of all, both characters experienced cool, dramatic moments when they actually succeeded at something. The Sorcerer who doesn't really study magic was one hell of a badass when she started tossing out Elemental Rays and magic missiles at the creatures that the melee characters couldn't hurt due to DR or high AC. And I truly wish I could have gotten a photo of the table's reaction the first time my Wizard hucked a longsword right into the gut of some lizardfolk we were fighting, or rescued the Rogue (who was unconscious and drowning) by casting sleep on her attackers and wading into the water to drag her to the surface.
The last benefit is, I'll admit, merely superstition: I've noticed that when I intentionally forgo maximum optimization, I tend to roll better. Seriously, my best optimized characters will get saddled with terrible rolls, but my flawed protagonists always come through in a clinch.
I'm pretty sure I'm going to be laughing the first time that wizard gets hit with Cause Fear or whatever. The only way it would stop being fun is if the GM was spiteful and just focused on ways to punish the character/player, and in that case I'd just stop playing with them.
No amount of optimization would fix that problem, though. I feel sorry for players/GMs who get caught up in an arms race to see who can break the system harder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being the GM I don't have many examples of characters to choose from, but my 7-Wis Paladin is probably near if not at the top of my favorite PCs of all time. Her lack of sense and any social graces whatsoever - no social skill ranks period save Intimidate, leaving her CG Warlock and NG Rogue siblings to be the party talkers - as well as wretched cooking ability led to some seriously funny scenes.
I just yesterday began playing a Sorceress who likewise, due to only having 10 INT and not being Human, doesn't have the skill points to spare for Knowledge OR Spellcraft. She's much more focused on her day job as an investigator and detective to worry too overly much about knowing her way around magic's in-and-outs, and besides her spells just come to her naturally with practice, she doesn't need to know the theory behind it. Does she look like a Wizard to you?
Bro-fist, I had a 7 wisdom fighter/barbarian. Good times.
Just be aware that, while being the odd one out who is really not cut out for adventuring is fun, when the whole group turns out this way, you are making things way, way harder on yourself, especially when running an official AP.
Boy, is my face red remembering how many times I said on these boards how cake-walkey the APs are. Having two groups run the same AP, one with four un-optimized characters and one with six optimized ones ( well, five, the bard in group two just plays buff-bot so far ) has shown me how different the same adventure can be with different power levels. I owe the Paizo writers an apology, I do. ^^
There are degrees of optimization. The wizard in question still has her highest score in Intelligence; my decision was simply to put the 6 in a useful stat (Wisdom) instead of into the wizard's dump stat (Strength). Similarly, a Sorcerer without Spellcraft isn't really held back at all; they just aren't able to identify magical items for the group.
Perhaps non-optimization would be a better term. I think having a full party of characters that each have a weakness is perfectly viable. Surviving the early levels in an AP depends on player tactics and blind luck (crits, etc.) more than a point here and there, IMO.
It is important that even a character with a "weakness" still be heroic. While it can be fun on occasion to play a bumbling idiot, doing so in a potentially lethal module is just going to annoy the rest of the players.
The best way I have found to deal with it is to have weaknesses that are significant enough to create role playing opportunities but don't create an unplayable character in combat.
My witch is highly competent in combat, but once he rolls into town, he is all sorts of trouble/fun. His main weaknesses are for wine, women and song. As he likes to say, he's spent the vast majority of his money on drugs, alcohol, women and gambling, and he regrets wasting the rest of it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, this thread brings back memories of an old 2E character of mine, a gnome fighter named Bobbo Hollysbrooke, who was rolled up old school style (3d6 in order). He was partially lame and was missing a few fingers (DEX 7) and apparently was dropped on his head as a young one (WIS 6). However, he made up for it with an infectiously positive attitude (CHA 14), the insight of an idiot savant (INT 13), relentless endurance (CON 17), and the ability to dish out an absolutely frightening amount of damage with a two handed sword (STR 18/94!)
He was a character of extreme scores, both low and high, but a blast to play. I wish I could recreate him in Pathfinder, but alas, the system has changed a bit too much. Gnomes now have a STR penalty, and fighter saves are pathetic compared to what they used to be. I suspect he wouldn't be a even minimally viable character in the current rules set.
Ah well, he'll always live on in my memory, and in my heart.
I like quirky characters but I think what can often doom games is when you have un-optimized characters operating with highly optimized characters. There is a tendency for GMs to put the difficulty level equal to the toughest PC and this can make for a brutally lethal game if you've got one player doing the ultra-optimized rocket tag builds and another messing around with a highly organic but completely unoptimized multiclass build.
I also don't feel like unoptimized = good and optimized = bad which is sometimes the opinion of some. I think adhering to the social norms of your group is much more critical.
So for example if you want to do a campaign with all children that would totally be worth doing but if 1 person plays a completely optimized wizard or cleric in the same group the joint expectations can be violated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you and your fellow players are enjoying your interesting not-fully-optimized characters. I can't say I've had such luck. No luck at all.
One comment after one table flipping fiasco was "The only trick to your trick fighter is that he can't fight!" --Implying that I had tricked them all into thinking that I would be playing a fighter.
I knew a player (who also dmed) that never had a character with a low dex or wisdom. I suggested some chars with those low stats and he looked at me like I was crazy. Ended up playing a low dex scout with a great speed in his games. Brilliant.
I dub him, enjoy another wizard with 14 starting dex, guy.
I create all of my character with some kind of flaw - sometimes it is born of a low ability score, sometimes it is strictly personality.
I played a Tengu rogue with a low wisdom and horrible perception. It drove my party crazy when the rogue couldn't detect things. And he squaked.
A lawful good knight I played refused to step into a flank. Never did it once in 8 levels. And he was vocally suspicious of "little people" such as gnomes and halflings. Didn't trust them.
An Orc barbarian rogue, who was intelligent but otherwise a mental midget, had a mouth that didn't know when to shut, even when he was sorely wounded and spit on a passing noble dandy with a rapier... The ensuing duel ending in me surrendering to a previously unnamed NPC.
My warforged fighter would keep his party awake at night rambling endlessly, often trying to get them to play his toy soldier tabletop wargame with him.
Yet another rogue was supposed to simply have a somewhat low intelligence, until the DM rolled randomly on a bunch of tables for all of the players. I ended - by his chart - as a noble. Another player ended up - again from the charts - being from the same land as I. He became my wizard advisor (aka babysitter). Obviously I had to re-evaluate his personality. He was arrogant, condescending, vocal in all matters, and all to cover his complete lack of self-esteem. He though him self more intelligent than anyone, and engaged often in flights of fancy and was an emotional wreck.
Good roleplaying of the knight. Not sure if you were using the knight class, but to take a flank or flat footed was dishonourable for them.
Arrogant nobles are a bit over-done though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was the knight class. I just choose to not give my rogue flanks though. He hated that.
And you're right about arrogant nobles being overdone, but he was the only one I've done. He was a blast to play too. Ali K'shenta Reyhan ibn Mushin Shadid, second son to the Sultan of Tahlip, and a genuine spoiled brat. The wizard and I had the entire table in stiches the first session, and it was nearly impossible to get anything done. The RP was more for comedy than anything else. Only one player didn't like him, but thats all of his characters were, and the new guy didn't know how to deal with the chaos. He looked like he wanted to leave. I toned him down after that. He was extremely needy emotionally. Probably my favorite side campaign character ever.
Most of my characters are more subdued than that, so it was a good experience.
|
I love playing against type. I have a rogue with a 12 in STR and a DEX of 16. I never bother giving him Weapon Finesse, and he fights with two short swords. I also give up Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge (albeit to get sneak attack damage on a charge or with just 10' of movement with the Scout archetype).
What that does, though, is make me REALLY think about his positioning in combat. If I want to start dealing out that damage, I have to earn it just by rolling well. It makes it that much sweeter for me if my dice happen to be on fire. I also don't mind taking the hard hit or two when he's flanked, because that's the intentional way I built him - when the need arises, I'll even run right into the thick of things.
My sweetest moment ever - rolling enough crits to gain 2nd place in the Archery Contest at PaizoCon 2012. He's not built to roll crits, or even be an especially effective ranged combatant. I then used the proceeding shock arrows on the Shadows tossed at us during the main event. My dice were on fire all night :)
It was the knight class. I just choose to not give my rogue flanks though. He hated that.
And you're right about arrogant nobles being overdone, but he was the only one I've done. He was a blast to play too. Ali K'shenta Reyhan ibn Mushin Shadid, second son to the Sultan of Tahlip, and a genuine spoiled brat. The wizard and I had the entire table in stiches the first session, and it was nearly impossible to get anything done. The RP was more for comedy than anything else. Only one player didn't like him, but thats all of his characters were, and the new guy didn't know how to deal with the chaos. He looked like he wanted to leave. I toned him down after that. He was extremely needy emotionally. Probably my favorite side campaign character ever.
Most of my characters are more subdued than that, so it was a good experience.
Zakhfar Al-Assad remains my favourite noble melee char. Tower shield and scim wielding marshal. The man was a sex god, warrior, fearless leader and poet in one form.
I've been having a lot of fun lately playing characters that are intentionally not fully optimized.
I like making fully optimized characters out of races that don't line up well with the class I pick.
My halfling barbarian is so weak compared to a medium-sized barbarian could be, but about 91x funnier to play.
They need to FAQ the cannonball special :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why i love to play with inexperienced players, they don't know how to max out a character, and something as simple as the damage bonus from power attack feels tremendous. And of course I don't have to throw APL+4 encounters at them to even make it remotely challenging.
I've been having a lot of fun lately playing characters that are intentionally not fully optimized.I like making fully optimized characters out of races that don't line up well with the class I pick.
My halfling barbarian is so weak compared to a medium-sized barbarian could be, but about 91x funnier to play.
I once played a Kobold barbarian. Great time, but the character only lasted for a short while as I used him only to bridge two sessions and then start up with my new Goblin Samurai.
|
|
Just be aware that, while being the odd one out who is really not cut out for adventuring is fun, when the whole group turns out this way, you are making things way, way harder on yourself, especially when running an official AP.
Boy, is my face red remembering how many times I said on these boards how cake-walkey the APs are. Having two groups run the same AP, one with four un-optimized characters and one with six optimized ones ( well, five, the bard in group two just plays buff-bot so far ) has shown me how different the same adventure can be with different power levels. I owe the Paizo writers an apology, I do. ^^
Just tone down the AP if the PC's are below par.
How is that playing against type?I love playing against type. I have a rogue with a 12 in STR and a DEX of 16. I never bother giving him Weapon Finesse, and he fights with two short swords. I also give up Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge (albeit to get sneak attack damage on a charge or with just 10' of movement with the Scout archetype).
I agree. Playing a rogue with high dex doesnt sound 'against type' to me... More like a rogue who puts his highest stat into intelligence so he can have more skills 'as if he needed them' and a low dex...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is that playing against type?I love playing against type. I have a rogue with a 12 in STR and a DEX of 16. I never bother giving him Weapon Finesse, and he fights with two short swords. I also give up Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge (albeit to get sneak attack damage on a charge or with just 10' of movement with the Scout archetype).
He's got a high dex rogue who intentionally doesn't have all the dex specific stuff you'd expect from that type of character (weapon finesse, uncanny dodge, etc).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I've been exclusively GMing for about 2 years now, but my last PC (in a 3.5 game) was a sword-and-board fighter who...
-- Started out as an NPC class (aristocrat). For all subsequent levels, he was a fighter.
-- Was Lawful Good.
-- Stats were Str 15, Dex 9, Con 12, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 12
-- Maxed out cross-class skills in Knowledge (history) and Bluff.
-- Had an item creation feat (a re-worked version of "Ancestral Relic" from Book of Exalted Deeds-- allowed a non-caster to "enhance" a single specific magic item.)
-- Took the feat "Improved Feint" to represent his backstory as an accomplished fencer, even though he would never have Sneak Attack.
-- Specialized in an exotic weapon (bastard sword)
-- Deliberately sent three quarters of all treasure back home to his impoverished barony-- making him very under-equipped for his level.
Baron Drax von Stryler was one of the most fun PCs I've ever run!
Well, that latter example is against type. You're wasting Thumper's skill advantage, and it'll be a lot harder for him to get sneak attacks with a low Dex.
Stealth and Acrobatics are probably the two chief ways of getting sneak attacks. Other techniques, such as Feinting, also work, but they're not quite as widespread and not as convenient as just putting some ranks in a skill. So yes. It does affect his sneak attacks, and it does affect his movement.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though, I wish players would find a nice middle-ground, I am quickly finding that I much prefer unoptimized characters over optimized characters both as a player and as a DM.
Stories about heroes struggling through trials and emerging victorious (or even failing) are much more interesting than a group of super-humans that walked through everything.
Though, I wish players would find a nice middle-ground, I am quickly finding that I much prefer unoptimized characters over optimized characters both as a player and as a DM.
Stories about heroes struggling through trials and emerging victorious (or even failing) are much more interesting than a group of super-humans that walked through everything.
Urgh, those players that want to play unbalanced spellcaster classes (in comparison to the rest of the party) with no flaws and all high ability scores.
This is why i love to play with inexperienced players, they don't know how to max out a character, and something as simple as the damage bonus from power attack feels tremendous. And of course I don't have to throw APL+4 encounters at them to even make it remotely challenging.
Experienced players don't necessarily know either. ;)
I have this one player at my table that frustrates me to no end. When starting a new game, he will come up with these really great character concepts. Then, as we get closer to the first session he will have second thoughts because his idea isn't 'efficient' enough, and inevitably abandon everything cool about the character, to replace it with a shallow set of "optimized" statistics that doesn't make sense.
He does this every. Single. Time.
On top of that, he's really bad at optimizing, so he will abandon a really cool but "inefficient" character idea for some sad attempt at a lifeless but optimized character.
And you can't really talk to him about it.
This is why i love to play with inexperienced players, they don't know how to max out a character, and something as simple as the damage bonus from power attack feels tremendous. And of course I don't have to throw APL+4 encounters at them to even make it remotely challenging.Experienced players don't necessarily know either. ;)
True that. I should have yoused a different word there. What I really mean, is players with limited overview of the options i guess.
This results in them coming up with a style first and then searching for the classes, archetypes, feats and spells that let them give crunch to the fluff.
One newish player, over three games played the same thing. Elf ranger, archery main, two hander secondary.
Lol. If I saw another one of those again, I would just have to spam the monks with snatch arrows.
Which makes me think in combination with the above, that what seems like optimisation, isn't always optimised for the setting. I recall a Sargava game I ran, which was heavy combat and adventuring, but to be truly optimised, you also needed a strong diplomacy so as to win people over, not have to fight everything, and get yourself in a really bad way. One char had an absolute destroyer, monk, drunken master variant, but their diplomacy was bad so it didn't always go well for them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if you would call this unoptimized but I once had a halfling monk with a crazy A.C. who would just run through the battlefield drawing all the enemy's attacks of opportunity for the round so the rest of the players could move about freely.
Let's just say that monsters began having Combat Reflexes all the time. His combat skills where very poor by the way.