Is this a dumb idea? People are just ripping it apart.


Advice

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I posted this over on the PFS boards, but I'd like everyone else's take as well.

I play my characters more for story and feel/theme/mood than mechanical benefit, if I can find a mechanic that's in theme and works well I won;t discard it, but I'd rather focus on the *character* rather than the crunch.

Thoughts:

- I <3's Commoners

- Most GM's (or PFS) aren't a fan of NPC classes on PC's, cause they suck.

- In a few Pathefinder threads, people have said that a Wizard with no spellbook is effectively a commoner once they cast the spells they have prepared, since they can't prepare anymore...even cantrips (they're at will, but still need to be prepared, to change them, otherwise you're locked into the same set of 3 at lvl 1)

- So I could play a Wizard...who's spellbook is either lost or stolen....and only has a few spells prepared, barring cantrips. Basically a commoner with a very limited resource, and the ability to use scrolls and such (if they're spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list)...I like this idea ALOT.

- or I could have my spellbook, but leave slots open (meaning needing 15min to prepare a spell before casting it) to represent a more....ritual style of magic..

I'm trying to find a way to show a character that, while he's capable of magic, is *very* hesitant to use it, due to past problems, or even an innate fear of it. The magic would be a last resort/hail mary type thing, that, while powerful...I'm not sure if I can describe the feeling.

posted the idea to facebook for my gaming friends to talk over and everyone is basically ripping it apart :(

Concept-wise...he's pretty awesome.

It's not like I'd be ripping the spells out of a character built as a caster, he'd be designed with this in mind. Hell Scrolls could be a viable way for quicker magic...

Ideally people won't suspect him of being a caster at all, he seem more like a weaker fighter or a rogue maybe, crossbow at range, lots of skills, heavy on spellcraft, knowledge arcana and similar things.

I can't think of another way to show this style of character, if there's a archetype or build that would give the same feel with better mechanics, by all means toss it out. There's just so much in Pathrfinder, so many options. I could be missing something obvious.

Can you see the theme I'm shooting for? Not necessarily a do nothing commoner, a combat focused guy that uses his abilities with magic as a last ditch/Hail Mary thing. Maybe he made a horrible mistake with magic in his past and has vowed not to use it unless absolutely necessary.

Does this makes sense? Basically a Wizard that's more physically focused, but still semi-capable of magic, if he has to.

Thoughts?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Play whatever the you like but just because a concept intrigues you does not mean that it would or even should survive an adventure.

Adventurers lead very dangerous lives. Why the hell would they ever go out with one member of their team being useless? What would make them take you to begin with?

Being at least effective at what you do means you get to live to do what you do more. In a job where danger and death are constants those who engage in those activities quickly learn to excel in combat or die/leave that proffession.

You can create the War and Peace of character backgrounds but if that character cannot actually do anything effectively then not only will it most likely perish in the extremeley dangerous proffession it finds itself in, if it does get lucky enough to live a while word will quickly spread that they are useless in dangerous situations and the other adventurers will (rightly so) shun you like a curse.

It's a team oriented game. Pull your weight in and out of combat and your fine. When the groups lives are on the line though folks won't mind a boring character who keeps them alive but just may dump (or allow to die) an interesting one who is useless.

Pathfinder is a heroic sword and sorcery RPG. Not all stories are suited to the world settings or the system. If you play a commoner or a wizard who will not cast spells and go adventuring then don't be suprised if that character dies. They should not have been there in the first place.

In a home game where the GM and group can cater to individual whims maybe this character will be able to flourish. In PFS where there are design assumptions for the adventures based on assumed power in a group, not pulling your weight is not only uncool to the GM but the other players as well who expect players to be usefull and not get the group killed by not doing anything.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Gilfalas.

While there's nothing wrong with your concept per se, being a member of an adventuring party is a job, and you have a job to do. If you are fully capable of doing that job, but just choose not to (for whatever reason), then what's the point of you?

Why would anyone choose you to be the party wizard? Or to fulfil any role in the party?

What about a cleric who chooses not to worship a god in Golarion, so doesn't get any spells?

What about a skilled fighter who refuses to fight, until the rest of the party are nearly dead?

While all of these might be cool concepts in and of themselves, in an adventuring party they are self-indulgent to the point of risking the lives of their friends. It would be insane to travel with this group, when you are tasked with missions that involve violence.

In PFS, you are given missions. Imagine a special forces demolition specialist who tells his superiors that he refuses to use explosives any more. What would their response be? 'Fair enough, sergeant! Just do your best and try to have fun!'

At the very least, they would not send that man on a mission to blow up the bridge!

At the interviews for a PFS party, a candidate for the Arcane Specialist position steps forward. The interviewers ask, 'What can you bring to the party?'

'I know all sorts of spells, but I refuse to cast spells on principle!'

*crickets chirp*


6 people marked this as a favorite.

For PFS: This sort of thing can only be okay if you speak with your fellow players first. It's official play, meaning the characters are recorded and tracked. If you end up getting one of them killed because your character can't pull his own weight, you've cheated them out of time and effort spent on their character. If you let everyone know you've chosen a route that is full of flavor but light on power and inform them that you'll need to lean on them, and they agree, then have at it. However, it's unfair to suddenly bring it on them out of the blue. If they don't want to play with it, I'd start working on another concept you can get just as attached to, one with a bit more to bring to the table combat wise.

For a home game: Go for it, man. I mean, yeah, let your friends know what you're doing, but if that's what you want to play, then do it. And if no one enjoys playing with you, do a one-on-one thing with your GM. My buddy and I did that, and he played a merchant. It was an entirely different sort of game, with very little combat, but it was heavy on roleplay, which sounds like something you'd like.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The fluff is great.

The solution is simple.

Play a magus.

You've already said that spell books are optional, that you want to melee, that you want spells on stand-by.

You could play with utility spells: "We spent an hour trying to climb that thing and now you tell us you can fly!" Or with damage boosters: "Don't make me have to hurt you."

Simple.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In home game: sure, as long as everybody including the GM is on board with this idea.

In PFS: HELL NO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

THERE IS ONLY COMBAT, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.

Seriously, play your character. He is your character, not the parties. If PFS or your home game were that, it would be one GM and one player with a whole party to himself.

(I once played a campaign through 17 level or so, that knew only 34 spells. There was absolutely no down time to learn and write new spells into his spell book. I won't play in any campaigns that GM runs anymore.)


You could play a half-elf ranger (for the combat ability and skills) with the Arcane Training Racial Trait. This would allow you to use scrolls and wands as a wizard.

Arcane Training: Half-elves occasionally seek tutoring to help them master the magic in their blood. Half-elves with this racial trait have only one favored class, and it must be an arcane spellcasting class. They can use spell trigger and spell completion items for their favored class as if one level higher (or as a 1st-level character if they have no levels in that class). This racial trait replaces the multitalented racial trait.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you don't want to play a "commoner."

If you want magic to be a few and far between ability for your otherwise capable fighter character, I'd suggest multiclassing. Maybe start out as a lvl 1 wizard, and then start taking levels in fighter, ranger, or whatever other combat class seems appealing to you, only grab another wizard level occasionally. You can still have your wizard skills, and casting capability, but if you gear your feats more towards your hand to hand, you'll still be useful without them.

Of course, not taking levels in wizard will mean that you won't have very strong spells when you do choose to use them. Perhaps you could take levels in a prestige class like Eldritch Knight that lets you keep learning spells, but also gives you a good BAB for your hand to hand.

Another idea would be to just take levels in a class that can cast spells, but doesn't necessarily rely on them. Paladins and Rangers get full BAB and also get some spells, though their selection is very limited. Take a look at those classes and their spells, and see if those suit you.

Bards, Clerics, and Druids don't get as good BAB, but they can be effective melee combatants, though that's largely because of their ability to buff themselves with their magic.

Take a look at all of the classes with casting capabilities, and think about if you can make your character idea fit as any one or combination of them. You might have to tweak your idea a bit, but you can still have fun with it. Watching an idea blossom into something new is part of the beauty of character design.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on the GM. The GM should take into account the below-average contribution you'd be making to combat when designing encounters. And will the other players resent it, or enjoy it?


Durinor: Thanks for helping me with the idea, I like that trait. It could work, the spell-casting in his past could literally be gone now and all the remains are his abilities to use Scrolls/Wands like he used to.

Perhaps going Ranger with the Witchguard archetype...maybe too far in the other direction. Being a Ranger could show his comfort with his former arts becoming more normal as he slowly rediscovers them (when he gains spells as a Ranger..

thinking along the wizard lines still...

His strength and weakness are the same thing, Magic. While he might not use it all the time, the "oh s4!t" moments of combat would press him to break his word to himself. He wouldn't volunteer it, and odds are his magic would be violent and pretty deadly (there are some traits that could really help with that).

The combat heavy nature of the PFS/Pathfinder/DnD world would force him to constantly struggle against his own word. Now most would say this the RPing his his self-loathing/disgust with is actions is somewhat moot in PFS as long as he bucks up and casts the dammed magic.. Maybe a Sorcerer would work better than a wizard?


Like Durinor has suggested, the "Arcane Training" alternative racial trait for half-elves appears to be right up your alley.


I actually had a very similar idea to yours! I'm in a home game and right now, playing a wizard that tries not to use spells unless either she needs to use them to survive, or she feels it's absolutely necessary. Though she doesn't fear it. Her religion is on Boccob, the god of magic, and she believes that magic is a gift, and shouldn't been thrown about and used in selfish and demeaning ways, such as; prestidigitation to clean, Mage hand to pick things up, detect magic to see what aura is on an object, if any etc..

So she believes in bettering her understanding of all things in the world, and believes with enough knowledge, she can overcome a situation without having to "waste" magic. Such as; being trapped in an empty house, with no way out, windows are barred shut, and you don't seem to have the strength to budge it.. Well, you could use the spell "break" or use your knowledge in engineering to take apart the door hinges. It might also tell you, that the way the house is built from the outside, it doesn't make since on the inside that it is too small, which could reveal, maybe a secret room, and never needing to use magic in the process. In combat, she uses her knowledges to assess the monsters' weak points, and is ready to counter spells, or create a situation favorable to the party, if need be.

For pathfinder society, this build may work, though I would say don't be afraid to use magic, just use it more cunningly and keep to the fact that you don't spam it, especially for personal gain. It's for combat, if need be, and life or death situations that you can't seem to find an alternative answer to.

Anyway, best of luck with your future endeavors!


ok..

What about switching it to a sorcerer with the Brutal bloodline that focuses on using his claws and weapons, and blasting the crap out of things when it gets down to the wire?

Take Gifted Adept and...crap forget the name of the other one to boost the caster lvl of his go to spell...having the extra damage from the bloodline and the extra damage from the lvl boosts should make his magic potent, but limited.

If i focus his build around his natural attack, maybe go Ranger from then on, or fighter for more feats, leaving his magical past behind him.

Liberty's Edge

I like your character concept and played something similar in a Shadowrun game once. I was an investment banker. I was epic in my mediocrity.

Like others have said however, PFS is an entirely different animal and requires more combat and utility capable characters. I love your concept but I would be hard pressed to let that character sit at any of my tables. In a home game I would let that character join in a heartbeat.


Of course this is being torn apart. PF and more so PFS is not a solo game. Other players have an interest in progressing and their C's have an interest in staying alive.

If my life counted on my comrades I would sure as hell never bring the guy that wants to bring an airsoft gun.

Sczarni

So just make a ranger with 1 level of wizard/sorcerer then. What's the big deal.

A low level wizard has to conserve magic energies in either case. Going through entire scenario often without rest isn't anything new in PFS.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some campaigns have the 'heroes' actually be relatively ordinary people going about their ordinary (non-adventuring) lives, when they are overtaken by events beyond their control, being swept up into adventure. I like that kind of campaign. I can imagine being at the ambassador's ball when assassins abseil through the giant skylight, forcing us to protect the prince and embarking on adventure like that.

Your concept would be great for that kind of campaign. But not for the kind of campaign where the heroes are meant to be a party of professional adventurers, or a special forces team, or (and this is the point) a team of Pathfinder Society investigators.

In PFS, you must start at 1st level. Not like a home campaign where if your PC dies when the party are all high level then you can roll a new PC at that level (or thereabouts). So, if your fellow PFS players have taken their PCs all the way up the levels and you get them killed out of sheer selfishness then they'll have to start again at first level. It's not just your own PC you're risking, it's everyone else's.

Keep your cool concept for an appropriate campaign, but know that PFS will never be appropriate for that concept.


Hmm maybe a Wizard/Rogue --> Arcane Trickster could do the trick. You could play as a rogue all the time and only use magic in very few situations.

Another problem that could ruin your flavor though would be the if there are other casters in your group. Your powerful last resort won't seem impressive at all if there is another caster, who tosses fireballs every round. Your character would work best as the only caster in a low magic campaign.

If you would use 3.0 stuff you could give your character the
Spellfire ability from the Forgotten Realms. The Spellfire Wielder Feat would give you acess.

Spellfire allows you to absorb one caster level per point of Constitution bonus you got. You can use those to either blast your enemies for D6/casterlevel spent or heal yourself for 2/level. Shure this isn't all that powerful but quite nice for one feat. If you play a rogue you can still be the normal dude with this hidden power. There was also a PrC based solely on Spellfire, but I cannot find it online.


Unfortunately, PFS isn't really much of a place for extensive role playing. I mean, people say it is, but I've yet to sit at a table where anything other than necessary role play happened (and this is very minimal when it does).

I'd be willing to bet that you probably wouldn't even have fun with your concept once you got there. People would just get OOG angry at you, complain about your build, and your character wouldn't even get a chance to show their colours.

I've realized (after putting way too much effort into personality and backstory :P) that PFS is the place for builds. Save your role play concepts for home games, where you really get to explore them. This is kind of the reason I'm finding it hard to return to PFS as well. I have all these great ideas, but they aren't optimized enough for society play.


In my first GM attempt at a game with my family. I have a GM controlled monk, who has taken a vow of peace. (to the point he will do no violent action, at all). But fully acknowledges your right to do so! to uh maybe that one over there?

At first they thought he was dead weight, one wanted to kill him and take his things :)

Then one almost drowned and the monk saved him, then when they failed to set guard or traps, the monk was the one who awakened them...

Add a few heals along the way, and Now he is their best friend, they always leave him slightly behind the party in some place not likely to compromise his morals lol

but we are all noobs, them at playing me at DM (or even playing in many years). so our play is all wrong :) but all good...

Liberty's Edge

I am with everyone else. This sounds like a fantastic role-playing concept for your home game, provided you can find a GM who would be on board with the idea. Characters who are naturally limited make for far more interesting characters, like the guy who rolls a couple 3s on his stats in classic character creation.

But people who are in PFS are most likely not going to be as intrigued by your sub-optimized character concept when it drags down the party during play. Their loss of potential prestige and/or getting killed in combat because the wizard they were adventuring with didn't have his spellbook is probably going to grate on them.


A friend and I once played as commoners, spending what feats we had on proficiencies and the like. I forget, but I think we gave ourselves completely average stats as well. We set out to fight some goblins, looking to earn a little extra gold, since those adventurers make it look so easy.

We got our asses kicked.

-

Your concept is interesting. The challenge would be playing something like that and still being consistently useful to your allies. I'm all for non-standard concepts, but I like making it work in a functional way.


It sounds to me like you want to play Rincewind. But w/ a sword I guess.

I'd be fine w/ it in a home game, but I have to say, you need to make sure the other players are on board, or they will just leave you to die and hope you roll up a better character. Sadly, this is a possibility.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup, like everyone as said, home game for sure, PFS hell no!

Here's my long-winded response from your other thread:

TL;DR: Bad idea for PFS:

To add to the above...

I presume you're interested in this concept because you're keen to explore the roleplaying opportunities such a concept will obviously bring. I dig that, and I enjoy playing with people who like to explore those kinds of situations.

But in doing so in PFS games, you're actually asking the other players to play their characters in a way that would be totally contrary to how they would probably react to your character. Let me use an analogy to present this idea.

I'm a musician IRL. I'm performing week in, week out, at a professional level. Let's say I happen to be hired for a gig at a jazz festival, the guitarist gets sick and we get a fill-in. if the sub isn't good enough and can't fill the role he's been hired for I don't really give a damn how nice he is. I'm pissed. And in a naturally irrational human way, that guy becomes the focus of my displeasure, at least in the moment. And apart from that, if I'm calling the shots (throwing solos, directing traffic), I'm gonna shut that guy down musically as a form of self-protection. I want him to play as little, and as quietly, as possible, so he doesn't totally wreck my gig.

Also, any other musos I respect and like will hear about this, not because I wanna screw the guy's chances of getting work, but because I don't want my friends and colleagues getting stung like I did.

Sounds harsh, but that's how people are in professional settings. Ask a doctor how s/he feels when teaming up with an incompetent surgeon. Any soldiers out their? How do you feel when someone in your squad doesn't put in and possibly puts you in danger? Even waiting staff turn on the waiter whose effort drops every time he has a bad day.

So, while your concept might work really, really well in a home game where the situation is often very different, the strictly professional PFS set-up kinda makes it a really bad idea. For the other PCs to accept you, the players need to portray their characters' reactions to yours in a very unnatural way.

So, mechanically, as a game-player, you cause a bad situation, yes, but that's not my point, nor do I really care about that if I'm at your table. What I care about is, roleplaying-wise, you create a bad situation that makes me feel like I have to misrepresent my character to accommodate yours.

It's not really winning from any angle in PFS.

But, just to reiterate, that concept is totally workable in a game with a different premise! And if I was a part of that home game as it was being set up and organised, I could really easily work with that as your concept :)

Shadow Lodge

TL;DR - I'm with the others, if the home game group is down with it, go for it. I'd suggest that you do not show up at a PFS game with this character though.

I want to add one other thought though even for the home game. From a roleplaying perspective, would your group actually adventure with you? This has come up in a number of games I've played (very notably, Shadowrun). While your concept may seem interesting, what are the real chances that 1) your going to survive long enough in the wilds against horrible creatures and 2) due to the risk of (1) to their own hides, that the adventuring party is going to want to adventure with you. If you're that sub-optimized, even an everyday home game adventuring party will look at your mangy little self and say..."uh yeah, we're going to go talk to that wizard over there in the corner, good luck...".

My person verisimilitude in a game is broken just as much by the completely inept adventurer or completely unethical companion simply because I as an adventurer know I'd rather be surrounded by the best and brightest that are there to help me as much as I'm there to help them.

Something to consider.


The concept is interesting for a solo adventure. It has a "the story is all about me" vibe to it.

But if you are playing a PFS or pickup game as part of a team of intrepid adventurers it would be out of place. Taking the spotlight overmuch is bad enough. But doing so because of how useless you are in many situations compounds the problem.

As stated above anything goes with a group of friends in a home game.


"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

This is a useless character. Nobody wants that around.

Even worse, it is a SELFISH character, because it forces the other players to cover for him and the GM to pull his punches lest he die in the first session.

As well, the aforementioned "Why would a group of elite adventurers, out to save the town/city/nation/world bring this useless schmuck with them?" aspect DEFINITELY applies.

It's a bad idea. In game, out of game, crunch-wise, AND roleplay-wise.

Rincewind is a cool character. In a book that's only about him, where narrative causality makes him viable (quite explicitly, mind you), and a comedic setting makes him a possible protagonist choice to begin with.


There is a reason commoner is a NPC class. Your concept sounds cool for a NPC not a player character. Adventuring is as other people have pointed out a dangerous occupation. Why on earth would a character that is unwilling to use magic, and avoids training in combat ever want to put themselves in danger on regular bases? Why would anyone want to hire this person to solve any problems? Being an adventure is like being a professional athlete many people may dream about it, but few have what it takes to make it.

I used to play in a super hero role playing game and before a character was allowed the player had to answer a question. The question was “Why is your character a hero”. If the player was unable to answer this question he was not allowed. The question was about backstory and motivation not powers and abilities. This was done so that the GM would be able to figure out plot hooks and ways to get your character involved. So my question to you is why is your character an adventurer?

Not all concepts should be written up as player characters. If you are constantly coming up with cool concepts that don’t quite work as a player character you may want to consider starting your own campaign. Use all the ideas you come up with to create memorable NPC.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do what you and your group will have fun with. Ignore anyone who says anything different.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

This is a useless character. Nobody wants that around.

Even worse, it is a SELFISH character, because it forces the other players to cover for him and the GM to pull his punches lest he die in the first session.

As well, the aforementioned "Why would a group of elite adventurers, out to save the town/city/nation/world bring this useless schmuck with them?" aspect DEFINITELY applies.

It's a bad idea. In game, out of game, crunch-wise, AND roleplay-wise.

That would be true... if everyone thought, and enjoyed the same things in their RPGs, as you do.

But it's not true. It's just your opinion, presented as fact because you're extrapolating your interests and mode of thought onto everyone else.

But, I'm sure there are more than a few RPGers that think the same way you do, so this concept really needs to be presented to a group for consideration in the interest of group fun times. In some groups, this PC would be fine. In others, not so much.

In PFS, I wouldn't even try :)


Rynjin wrote:

"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

This is a useless character. Nobody wants that around.

Even worse, it is a SELFISH character, because it forces the other players to cover for him and the GM to pull his punches lest he die in the first session.

As well, the aforementioned "Why would a group of elite adventurers, out to save the town/city/nation/world bring this useless schmuck with them?" aspect DEFINITELY applies.

It's a bad idea. In game, out of game, crunch-wise, AND roleplay-wise.

Rincewind is a cool character. In a book that's only about him, where narrative causality makes him viable (quite explicitly, mind you), and a comedic setting makes him a possible protagonist choice to begin with.

I once played w/ a player who had a druid w/ stats 17, 17, 16, 15, 15, 12 (we rolled stats, we all agreed to it, let's not argue the merits of lack there of, it's irrelevant to the current discussion) who was completely useless due to the player choosing to do useless things. Meanwhile, I've played w/ people who played the equivalent to a commoner (but a different game system) who was invaluable due to clever actions and using his limited resources wisely.

I'm not saying this particular character will be great or even good, but wanting to play a particular character concept is not in and of itself selfish. I agree the player may die quite quickly, but in my opinion the GM should not be pulling punches to keep him alive, and not go out of his way to punish the player for an odd character concept. Allow the dice to roll, allow the character to die if it happens, and the player might learn why most people don't play such characters.

Or, the group could be surprised by how oddly useful the character ends up being.

Of course, that's in a home game where presumably the GM and group would be OK w/ the concept. My group would be fine w/ trying it out b/c we are willing to allow our fellow gamers some room to try ideas they find fun. We don't demand optimized builds each and every time.

Just my 2 CP, YMMV.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Kthulhu wrote:
Do what you and your group will have fun with. Ignore anyone who says anything different.

Emphasis mine.

If this is for a PFS character, then his "group" is a random assortment of players who he may not have met before, and which may include the people posting. For all I know, I could be part of his group the next time I show up to play somewhere. And the consensus of the thread seems to be that no, his group will probably not have fun playing with this character.

Of course, if it's for a home game, and the other players are interested in the roleplay opportunites of adventuring with this character, then go crazy.


Rynjin wrote:

"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

This is a useless character. Nobody wants that around.

I think it would fit in just fine in a party full of useless PCs, for instance (e.g. a fallen paladin, an ex-cleric, an ex-druid, etc.).

But yes, this is a concept that the other players should have veto power against including it in a party, IMO.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RainyDayNinja wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Do what you and your group will have fun with. Ignore anyone who says anything different.

Emphasis mine.

If this is for a PFS character, then his "group" is a random assortment of players who he may not have met before, and which may include the people posting. For all I know, I could be part of his group the next time I show up to play somewhere. And the consensus of the thread seems to be that no, his group will probably not have fun playing with this character.

Not all PFS is randomly assembled players. Sometimes they are regular groups who just decide to play a PFS scenario. I really have no interest in playing with a bunch of randome people wno I don't know.

Some people play the game to have fun, instead of to "win" the game. Even in PFS play. I've only played one PFS character, and he was far from optimized. He's a gnomish fighter whose favorite tactic involves jumping off the highest point he can find directly into the bad guy. And you know what? Both groups I've played PFS with have found him to be entertaining.


What I have had expressed to me, time and time again: is that PFS is mechanics-focused. That is, highly so.

...now, this being true or not, I do not know. However, keep in mind that:

1. Your concept is awesome
2. There are a majority of people, especially in organized play, to whom the mechanics are very important; it is just their style of play

It is not that your concept is wrong at all. ...you're just running into differences of style. Now, someone with this focus will probably say things like:

- You're a danger to the group
- Your concept is weak
- Why would my character spend time with you
- You're forcing me to 'compensate' for you
- ...etc.

...when what they're really trying to say is: we play differently than you do. They're trying to express a discomfort or dislike of someone not matching a certain community "standard." In PFS, this standard is going to be more mechanically focused.

To be blunt, I wish we were better at this kind of expression.

Just keep that in mind, though. When you run into "ripping it apart" it's really saying: we play a different way. They're just really, REALLY bad at expressing it, and it can come across as social shaming.


I agree with Vendis. In a Homegame... do whatever. As long as the other players/GM are cool with it. Bringing a waste of space to PFS is a bad idea though. Its official and you could get others characters killed.


If I were a fellow player in your game, a few things would need to be true for me to be on-board with your character concept:

1. My PCs are usually Good-aligned and interested in the survival of the group, regardless of campaign circumstances. This means that you couldn't be so inept in combat that you were a danger either to the group as a whole, or to yourself. If so, my PC would almost certainly be unwilling to adventure/quest with you, since your presence would likely get somebody killed.

2. You'd have to at least appear to be trying your best to contribute. Now I suppose circumstances could alter this (the aforementioned prince being forced to journey with a retinue, for instance) but in most cases, PC life being so dangerous, my PC's wouldn't logically travel with someone who has the ability to contribute but--for whatever reason--chooses not to.

3. The DM would have to be experienced enough to adjust encounters to account for your character's weaker build/playstyle. And that doesn't mean assuming the other PCs will constantly prioritize buffing your PC with spells, healing, taking defensive feats, etc. to keep you alive. That's not a fun way to play when forced on a player. It means having foes that are weaker for you to deal with while other PCs face tougher foes, etc.

So long as these three things were true, allowing me to RP my own PC logically without compromising his personality and enjoy the combat aspect of the game without having to build my PC to protect yours, I'd be good with it. :) Too many players with PC concepts such as yours assume/demand that other players RP their PCs stupidly to accomodate them, that's the only time low-powered/weak character concepts bother me as a fellow player.

"Oh, I'll play a one-armed mute low-int commoner, let's adventure together!"

*groan*

I don't play PFS so I can't comment about the concept's viability there.

The Exchange

Detect Magic wrote:
Like Durinor has suggested, the "Arcane Training" alternative racial trait for half-elves appears to be right up your alley.

Yeah, I really like that also...Maybe take a level in wizard to get the cantrips and maybe have only burning hands/magic missile prepped for 1st level spells to shoot off when he is being hounded badly, but mostly just use the cantrips to detect magic, read magic, etc... but mostly rely on scrolls....

Or take no levels in wizard with that trait and just use wands and scrolls, perhaps you could even boost up your Use Magic Device and try using most types of items/scrolls that way.


Your character concept is horribly ineffective. But you knew that.

I personally think playing ineffective characters is a lot of fun.

I think it's fun when other players play ineffective characters as well. It makes the story more interesting. Not everybody has to be a hero in every story, sometimes there are bit players, sometimes there are cowards or other folks who contribute in some way to a story. All that makes for fun story telling. Some of the most fun I've ever had roleplaying was when one friend of mine played a Gully Dwarf named "Wonk Bonk Hole-In-Sock, RATSLAYER," who was basically terrible at everything. The GM would feed him pertinent story line info to keep the rest of the party from killing him off.

But that's not for PFS, it's for playing with friends to create a storyline. PFS is more like a sport. I would not enjoy playing on a soccer team where one guy tied one foot behind his back because he thought it was funny.


Kthulhu wrote:


Not all PFS is randomly assembled players. Sometimes they are regular groups who just decide to play a PFS scenario. I really have no interest in playing with a bunch of randome people wno I don't know.

That's true, but I think the general background of being specialists within the Pathfinder Society, sent on potentially dangerous missions, kind of argues against the character concept. In character, why would the Venture Captain send a less competent adventurer when he's got better resources at his command? That's like sending a green recruit up the cliffs at Point du Hoc rather than a better trained Ranger.

But for non-PFS games at home, there could be any number of reasons an adventuring group falls together and sticks together. They could all be from the same home town, relatives, have other backstory obligations toward each other. That's why anything goes for a home game - the hooks can be tailored to work for any type of character, even the relatively incompetent ones.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Ruggs wrote:

...what they're really trying to say is: we play differently than you do. They're trying to express a discomfort or dislike of someone not matching a certain community "standard." In PFS, this standard is going to be more mechanically focused.

To be blunt, I wish we were better at this kind of expression.

Just keep that in mind, though. When you run into "ripping it apart" it's really saying: we play a different way. They're just really, REALLY bad at expressing it, and it can come across as social shaming.

It's not an issue of "Someone is having fun in a different way than me, and that makes me uncomfortable!" In a home game, if my character dies, I can make a new one at the same level and continue on. In PFS, I have to start from scratch. So if my ally decides that it would be fun or a great roleplay opportunity to refuse to cast that spell that could save my character's life, then they might effectively be denying me the chance to continue playing my character at all.

So it's not about "shaming" other people for their play style; if you want to run a character like that with people you know, who will accept it and have fun with it, then go nuts, and I hope you have a great time. But when I sit down to a PFS table, I'm placing my character's life in your hands; don't make me regret it.

*This isn't to say that all characters must be rampaging monsters of death with no personality. My PFS cleric has a +12 bonus in Knowledge (engineering) and carries a shovel as his weapon, because it fit his character concept. There is a middle ground.


GeraintElberion wrote:

The fluff is great.

The solution is simple.

Play a magus.

You've already said that spell books are optional, that you want to melee, that you want spells on stand-by.

You could play with utility spells: "We spent an hour trying to climb that thing and now you tell us you can fly!" Or with damage boosters: "Don't make me have to hurt you."

Simple.

I am a magus and I approve this message.


Being a wizard takes years of experience and countless hours studying spellbooks. Why would someone who doesn't like casting spells do that?

The concept doesn't make sense to me.

A sorcerer on the other hand would make far more sense... maybe take something like infernal bloodline and rationalize your decision to not cast spells due to shame of your heritage.

Make sure to talk to your group before intentionally gimping your character though. While a party shouldn't require a character to be optimized, it's entirely rational for them to expect you to be at least competent.


Blindmage wrote:

I posted this over on the PFS boards, but I'd like everyone else's take as well.

I play my characters more for story and feel/theme/mood than mechanical benefit, if I can find a mechanic that's in theme and works well I won;t discard it, but I'd rather focus on the *character* rather than the crunch.

Thoughts:

- I <3's Commoners

- Most GM's (or PFS) aren't a fan of NPC classes on PC's, cause they suck.

- In a few Pathefinder threads, people have said that a Wizard with no spellbook is effectively a commoner once they cast the spells they have prepared, since they can't prepare anymore...even cantrips (they're at will, but still need to be prepared, to change them, otherwise you're locked into the same set of 3 at lvl 1)

- So I could play a Wizard...who's spellbook is either lost or stolen....and only has a few spells prepared, barring cantrips. Basically a commoner with a very limited resource, and the ability to use scrolls and such (if they're spells on the sorcerer/wizard spell list)...I like this idea ALOT.

- or I could have my spellbook, but leave slots open (meaning needing 15min to prepare a spell before casting it) to represent a more....ritual style of magic..

I'm trying to find a way to show a character that, while he's capable of magic, is *very* hesitant to use it, due to past problems, or even an innate fear of it. The magic would be a last resort/hail mary type thing, that, while powerful...I'm not sure if I can describe the feeling.

posted the idea to facebook for my gaming friends to talk over and everyone is basically ripping it apart :(

When you play a group game like Pathfinder, you need to take the other players' views into account. In other words, you don't always get to play what you want to play. Pathfinder is only that flexible on paper.

The PC you want to play can't be dead weight, as that negatively affects fun for other PCs. A wizard who doesn't want to use magic shouldn't be adventuring. Similarly, playing a cleric who refuses to use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds after battle (or heal a fallen comrade during battle) will justifiably get the other players upset.

I would suggest playing another class, take one level of wizard, and have your character concept include "trying to be good at magic, but failing". I'm thinking of Rincewind, who is probably a Wizard 1/Rogue X, with a built-in curse.


littlehewy wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

This is a useless character. Nobody wants that around.

Even worse, it is a SELFISH character, because it forces the other players to cover for him and the GM to pull his punches lest he die in the first session.

As well, the aforementioned "Why would a group of elite adventurers, out to save the town/city/nation/world bring this useless schmuck with them?" aspect DEFINITELY applies.

It's a bad idea. In game, out of game, crunch-wise, AND roleplay-wise.

That would be true... if everyone thought, and enjoyed the same things in their RPGs, as you do.

But it's not true. It's just your opinion, presented as fact because you're extrapolating your interests and mode of thought onto everyone else.

But, I'm sure there are more than a few RPGers that think the same way you do, so this concept really needs to be presented to a group for consideration in the interest of group fun times. In some groups, this PC would be fine. In others, not so much.

In PFS, I wouldn't even try :)

Well said. I see Rynjin's side, but some people are being aggressively opinionated. Maybe the stars are right and some country gentlemen and their servant save the world (where some Dunedain hardbutts might have failed).


Rynjin wrote:
"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

A home game is a group of friends who all come together to have fun in whatever way they like. Everyone knows the score and the game can have any twists and turns that they agree to.

There is no WRONGBADFUN in RPGs when friends agree that they are all having a good time.

Shadow Lodge

Stabbald wrote:
Being a wizard takes years of experience and countless hours studying spellbooks.

Or a spur-of-the-moment decision to multi-class.


TL;DR

A PC is a drain on the groups' economy in so many ways. You take a portion of the XP, a portion of the loot; you require healing and buffing and aid-anothers, and enhancement and condition removal, etc., etc....

... and you need to justify your costs.

I have seen PBP games that started the PC's in NPC classes, with 10 point buy for stats. The premise has always been that you are not heroes, but there are problems that need heroic solutions. You might try organizing such a game.

Otherwise, you are just a drain on the group... unfairly so.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Some people play the game to have fun, instead of to "win" the game. Even in PFS play.

I once played in a tier 7-8 scenario alongside a player whose idea of fun was to have his 7th level pregen wizard throw daggers at the bad guys while he still had un-cast spells and some wands/scrolls available.

We all died.

I would have preferred if he had cast spells or even used his wand of magic missile so he could contribute. Does that mean that I'm trying to "win" the game and that I'm not playing the game to have fun?

Quote:
I've only played one PFS character, and he was far from optimized. He's a gnomish fighter whose favorite tactic involves jumping off the highest point he can find directly into the bad guy.

So you wanted a character who engages the enemy physically, and you made him a fighter instead of a wizard-who-doesn't-cast-spells. So even you made a mechanical decision to help make your concept into something helpful to the party.

That is all anyone here is asking of the OP.*

To the OP: I mentioned this in your PFS thread, but I suggest an Eldritch Knight. :)

*Unless I missed someone; long thread. ;)

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is this a dumb idea? People are just ripping it apart. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.