I don't want to tell you that you're doing it wrong, but...


Advice

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Say this:

"I know you are new, so I will give you a one time rebuild, if you start to feel your build isn't working for you. If you ever want advice, or need help, just ask. Good luck."

There you go.

Drop a little extra loot for him, maybe something Fighter exclusive, like a Sash of the War Champion, or Manual of War, and you're good.

This is the route I would choose as well, with the minor alteration that I don't really mind rebuilds in any case.


Fergie wrote:
I just don't see why a decently built fighter can't keep up.

Because the odds are very, very good that the Fighter won't be decently built. That's the idea behind the thread.

Just promise everybody (not just the Fighter) a one-time rebuild and you should be good.


Play with psionics


kestral287 wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I just don't see why a decently built fighter can't keep up.

Because the odds are very, very good that the Fighter won't be decently built. That's the idea behind the thread.

Just promise everybody (not just the Fighter) a one-time rebuild and you should be good.

The premise is that this is an inexperienced player, with english as a second language, and as such they have trouble working with more than 1 book. That also limits their choice of feats, which could potentially add a lot to their build (again, I like Cornugan Smash and Riving Smash for a decent save debuffer via head smashing). And the paladin is made by a much more experienced player.

So yeah, rebuild and offer some nice advice if he gets stuck (with a nice little selection of key feats that can help- walk him through the feats so he doesn't have to decipher them.).


kestral287 wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I just don't see why a decently built fighter can't keep up.

Because the odds are very, very good that the Fighter won't be decently built. That's the idea behind the thread.

That is hardly a fighter issue. You can have bad build with every class.


Nicos wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I just don't see why a decently built fighter can't keep up.
Because the odds are very, very good that the Fighter won't be decently built. That's the idea behind the thread.
That is hardly a fighter issue. You can have bad build with every class.

I'm... not claiming that it is a Fighter issue?

This is the basis of the topic, as I understand it:

1. We have a player (about to be) playing their second campaign ever, and happens to be doing so with a Fighter. English is also their second language.
2. This player did not build an effective character in the first campaign and was not having fun because of it.
3. The GM of this second campaign is worried that the player will be overshadowed.
4. There is a Paladin in the group, built by a more experienced player. This is the character most likely to overshadow a melee-based Fighter (which seems to be the default assumption). There is also a Ranger in the group, again built by a more experienced player (if intentionally built for simplicity), who is in turn more likely to overshadow this Fighter in ranged combat.

So, whether a well-built Fighter can match or beat a well-built Paladin doesn't really seem germane. This particular Fighter is not likely to be well-built, hence the thread and my point.

An additional option, if you can fit in the time (and I think I recall somebody else mentioning this earlier), would be to offer a 'dry run' for their concept, a short one-man session to see how they like it. If they do, fair enough. If not, you get a chance to look at the build and offer advice.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM has a huge impact on this sort of thing. I recall one campaign I ran for several years (in 3ed). I had players of vastly different levels of system mastery, but at the time was completely oblivious to this. Sure the druid decimated an army by himself and the rogue got beat up by the town guard, but the rogue also grabbed an artifact from the hands of a monologueing villain and bolted with it before they could react, which became an important turning point in the story. I think that because their relative combat prowess didn't matter to me, that I gave them equal weight as characters in the story, that it didn't matter much to them either. Combat is only one aspect of playing an RPG, and many good fantasy stories are told featuring the guy who isn't that great but perseveres nonetheless. If on the otherhand players' relative combat prowess is important to the GM and they make a big deal about balance with their players, then the players will also feel that it is important and will be dissatisfied if their character falls behind.


Balance is a two-way street. What about tailoring the adventures so as to minimize evil foes? Populate those adventures with elementals and animals, and the paladin's smite evil becomes less useful. Or have an adventure that's a grind in which the paladin's daily abilities are depleted.


kestral287 wrote:

Because the odds are very, very good that the Fighter won't be decently built. That's the idea behind the thread.

Just promise everybody (not just the Fighter) a one-time rebuild and you should be good.

In my opinion, there is a big difference between decently built, and optimized. If the fighter has a good strength, decent dex and con, and doesn't dump wis, he will be off to a good start. If he has power attack and the option to use a two handed weapon or a great shield and full plate, he is going to kick ass in melee. A composite long bow, and he will be good at ranged. That is really all it takes to be a viable combatant.

You don't need to win the DPR Olympics or have a specific set of feats, you just have to not deliberately gimp yourself or attempt some kind of bare knuckle brawler using core. If he has full plate and two handed or sword and board, he won't have a problem.


One more point about convincing him to play a Cavalier:
they are still quite strong even without their mount, the Challenge ability let's them AT LEAST keep up with a fighter, if not surpass.


gnoams wrote:
The GM has a huge impact on this sort of thing. I recall one campaign I ran for several years (in 3ed). I had players of vastly different levels of system mastery, but at the time was completely oblivious to this. Sure the druid decimated an army by himself and the rogue got beat up by the town guard, but the rogue also grabbed an artifact from the hands of a monologueing villain and bolted with it before they could react, which became an important turning point in the story. I think that because their relative combat prowess didn't matter to me, that I gave them equal weight as characters in the story, that it didn't matter much to them either. Combat is only one aspect of playing an RPG, and many good fantasy stories are told featuring the guy who isn't that great but perseveres nonetheless. If on the otherhand players' relative combat prowess is important to the GM and they make a big deal about balance with their players, then the players will also feel that it is important and will be dissatisfied if their character falls behind.

So the Rogue won initiative (not a Rogue thing) grabbed something out of someone's hands (hilariously, depressingly not a Rogue thing) and ran away (not a Rogue thing). The Druid could have done this, and done it better with Wildshape.


Not to mention it's kinda hard to talk about balancing poor system mastery with out-of-combat options when the player in question is using a Core-only Fighter for their character. Core-only Fighter is the worst class in the game at out-of-combat.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
gnoams wrote:
The GM has a huge impact on this sort of thing. I recall one campaign I ran for several years (in 3ed). I had players of vastly different levels of system mastery, but at the time was completely oblivious to this. Sure the druid decimated an army by himself and the rogue got beat up by the town guard, but the rogue also grabbed an artifact from the hands of a monologueing villain and bolted with it before they could react, which became an important turning point in the story. I think that because their relative combat prowess didn't matter to me, that I gave them equal weight as characters in the story, that it didn't matter much to them either. Combat is only one aspect of playing an RPG, and many good fantasy stories are told featuring the guy who isn't that great but perseveres nonetheless. If on the otherhand players' relative combat prowess is important to the GM and they make a big deal about balance with their players, then the players will also feel that it is important and will be dissatisfied if their character falls behind.
So the Rogue won initiative (not a Rogue thing) grabbed something out of someone's hands (hilariously, depressingly not a Rogue thing) and ran away (not a Rogue thing). The Druid could have done this, and done it better with Wildshape.

LOL Why would the druid bother. His animal companion can learn tricks to do all that. The rogue made it all the way up to the usefulness of a highly trained pet; You should feel happy for him. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
gnoams wrote:
The GM has a huge impact on this sort of thing. I recall one campaign I ran for several years (in 3ed). I had players of vastly different levels of system mastery, but at the time was completely oblivious to this. Sure the druid decimated an army by himself and the rogue got beat up by the town guard, but the rogue also grabbed an artifact from the hands of a monologueing villain and bolted with it before they could react, which became an important turning point in the story. I think that because their relative combat prowess didn't matter to me, that I gave them equal weight as characters in the story, that it didn't matter much to them either. Combat is only one aspect of playing an RPG, and many good fantasy stories are told featuring the guy who isn't that great but perseveres nonetheless. If on the otherhand players' relative combat prowess is important to the GM and they make a big deal about balance with their players, then the players will also feel that it is important and will be dissatisfied if their character falls behind.
So the Rogue won initiative (not a Rogue thing) grabbed something out of someone's hands (hilariously, depressingly not a Rogue thing) and ran away (not a Rogue thing). The Druid could have done this, and done it better with Wildshape.

Oh God... how is this turning into another rogue hate thread?

His point was NOT about "who could do X better", his point was that playing characters is more important than balancing stats. If you get into the mindset that "every player must optimally fill their combat role", it limits their choices in how they build their character, because 99.9% of choices will be non-optimal. If you say "some people will excel in combat, and some will not, and that's ok" then you don't shoehorn people into making all of these super-specific build choices.

It's the difference between treating Pathfinder as a combat game, or treating it as a storytelling game.


The Fighter's character is rather compromised if he's outdone at fighting.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
The Fighter's character is rather compromised if he's outdone at fighting.

Oh right, because every fighter is EXACTLY the same character, and if that fighter is not the best at killing everything with the biggest sword he can find, he is TERRIBLE and NOT WELCOME TO PLAY. Actually having a backstory or character ambitions that don't involve GREATSWORD POWER ATTACK is WRONG.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
The Fighter's character is rather compromised if he's outdone at fighting.

Truth. A core-only fighters' non-combat options are pitiful. Low skill points and a pitiful list of class skills (and no way to get better ones, since he's core-only). No non-combat class features either.

And that's not to mention that getting good out-of-combat options is also a part of system mastery anyway. Generally speaking, someone who knows all the tricks to bump their damage is a lot more likely to know all the ways to improve their skills as well, and which spells/abilities have the best utility.


RumpinRufus wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
The Fighter's character is rather compromised if he's outdone at fighting.
Oh right, because every fighter is EXACTLY the same character, and if that fighter is not the best at killing everything with the biggest sword he can find, he is TERRIBLE and NOT WELCOME TO PLAY. Actually having a backstory or character ambitions that don't involve GREATSWORD POWER ATTACK is WRONG.

Sometimes I miss /tg/'s policy on manners. Not often, though.


RumpinRufus wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
The Fighter's character is rather compromised if he's outdone at fighting.
Oh right, because every fighter is EXACTLY the same character, and if that fighter is not the best at killing everything with the biggest sword he can find, he is TERRIBLE and NOT WELCOME TO PLAY. Actually having a backstory or character ambitions that don't involve GREATSWORD POWER ATTACK is WRONG.

The problem is, if you want to play a fighter that isn't good at fighting, there are MUCH better classes to do that with and still keep your flavor. Why not play a rogue and get the extra skill points, or a slayer, or a spell-less ranger? If you are a fighter who is bad at fighting, you aren't GOOD at anything, they dont have skills or spells to back up a lack of fighting, no one is saying he has to play a power attacking greatsword user, but it would be good for him to be competent at the ONLY thing he CAN be competent at.

Also, if you want "a backstory or character ambitions" that doesn't involve a particular class pick at all, you can do that with a wizard, rogue, magus, cavalier, cleric, etc, so there really is no reason to bring it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fighter (or anyone) does not need to be the best at killing to be good at it.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:
gnoams wrote:
The GM has a huge impact on this sort of thing. I recall one campaign I ran for several years (in 3ed). I had players of vastly different levels of system mastery, but at the time was completely oblivious to this. Sure the druid decimated an army by himself and the rogue got beat up by the town guard, but the rogue also grabbed an artifact from the hands of a monologueing villain and bolted with it before they could react, which became an important turning point in the story. I think that because their relative combat prowess didn't matter to me, that I gave them equal weight as characters in the story, that it didn't matter much to them either. Combat is only one aspect of playing an RPG, and many good fantasy stories are told featuring the guy who isn't that great but perseveres nonetheless. If on the otherhand players' relative combat prowess is important to the GM and they make a big deal about balance with their players, then the players will also feel that it is important and will be dissatisfied if their character falls behind.
So the Rogue won initiative (not a Rogue thing) grabbed something out of someone's hands (hilariously, depressingly not a Rogue thing) and ran away (not a Rogue thing). The Druid could have done this, and done it better with Wildshape.

and you missed the point by a mile. It didn't matter what the character's build was, anyone could have done that. It mattered what the character decided to do. It was fun because everyone was interested in the story, interested in developing their character's personality, and how they interacted with the npcs. The memorable moments in that game were all things that the characters decided to do, and had nothing to do with the numbers written on their sheets. That to me is what a roleplaying is, good fun interactive storytelling.

On the other hand, if combat is all the game is about for you (and there's nothing wrong with that, have fun however you want imo) then you should be very concerned about this player being underpowered.


Then why not make him a better class that does all the things a Rogue does and more. So he is the same exact character except he is also good in combat, because he loves to charge head first into things and start stabbing.

If no one cares then no one cares and they all have a good time, but this guy could be good at combat without giving up anything and that can only help.

Shadow Lodge

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Then why not make him a better class that does all the things a Rogue does and more. So he is the same exact character except he is also good in combat, because he loves to charge head first into things and start stabbing.

If no one cares then no one cares and they all have a good time, but this guy could be good at combat without giving up anything and that can only help.

Well it's a social choice. Yeah, you could build the character for them so much better at doing what they want it to do... but it's their character, part of the fun of roleplaying for a lot of people is building their character. Telling someone their doing it wrong can really put someone off. And if they are having fun, why chance ruining it?

Of course, if they aren't having fun and they ask for help in character building then by all means, help them. Again, in a story driven game combat prowess should not be a factor in how fun it is, in a combat driven game it is a primary factor. The combat vs story focus is largely on the GM, so it's really up to the GM to decide if balanced characters are important or not.


Tailoring the AP to feature fewer evil foes seems like cruel and unusual punishment for the Paladin when she’s not guilty of any crime. I hope the OP won’t use that advice.

Since mounts have come up several times I’ll mention that mounts are a great choice for Kingmaker since it involves a lot of wilderness adventures. Core Fighter doesn't have a lot of higher level mount options without Leadership though.

Anyhow, there's probably not much point in worrying about how bad the Fighter will be until the player actually makes the PC and reveals it. Maybe it will be great...well...great for a Fighter at least...


The player in question sounds like a really bad fit for this group.

I have seen more games wrecked by someone who is underoptimized than someone who is overoptimized.

I love being in parties like Barbarian, Paladin, Oracle, Magus, Wizard.

I also love being in parties like Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Sorcerer, Shaman.

I hate being in parties like Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Witch. Because three of these characters are powerful and two are not. The disparity is what causes the problem, not the power level.

It is a lot easier to hold back a powerhouse than to prop up a weakling.

I feel your pain OP, this does appear to be an unfortunate situation.


Personally, I think the OP is worrying too much over what may be nothing. I say go a few games, and only then if the guy feels frustrated should you offer a rebuild.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think he'll have the exact same issues with the fighter as he did with the rogue. Sure, he's got a paladin who will probably outshine him, but if there's plenty of things to hit, I doubt he'll feel useless. As mentioned, there's a gulf between 'not as effective' and 'rendered irrelevant.' And with plenty of things to smack around, he'll still have a purpose.

What were his issues with the rogue? As has been noted on these boards, the rogue isn't a melee class, and isn't even the best at skills. Were his issues simply being unable to contribute in combat? If so, having a big guy with a big weapon means he can easily contribute. Perhaps not as effectively as other classes, but still capable. I don't see him getting as frustrated because of that.


Gregory Connolly wrote:

The player in question sounds like a really bad fit for this group.

I have seen more games wrecked by someone who is underoptimized than someone who is overoptimized.

I love being in parties like Barbarian, Paladin, Oracle, Magus, Wizard.

I also love being in parties like Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Sorcerer, Shaman.

I hate being in parties like Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Witch. Because three of these characters are powerful and two are not. The disparity is what causes the problem, not the power level.

It is a lot easier to hold back a powerhouse than to prop up a weakling.

I feel your pain OP, this does appear to be an unfortunate situation.

O.O

So I take it you've seen some badly played shamans then? Or was that a typo? Shamans are fantastically powerful.


Wow, walk away for a little while, get a lot of comments.

Had a meeting today, finally found out what he had in mind.

Aside from getting the point-buy horribly wrong, he did...okay. Not "uber pwnag3" or anything, but solidly built. He didn't take Run this time around, at least, lol. He said the Portuguese link to the d20pfsrd really helped.

He's going with a sword-and-board two-weapon fighter. He grabbed the minimum dex for TWF, gave a decent con, threw the rest in strength, straight 10's in the mental stats. He took TWF, Imp Shield Bash, and...I forget, toughness maybe? I remember thinking "not bad, not bad...solid, definitely solid" when I saw it.

This is good for a few reasons.

1. The paladin is two-handing. This gives the fighter an opportunity to really be "the tank" others hide behind, while she takes more of a "beat stick" mode.

2. I'm proposing to the folks a house rule where you can move and full-attack. I think it closes the caster-martial gap in general, and this will give the fighter a specific boost early on in the game before iterate attacks kick in. It also boosts the ranger when she picks up rapid shot/many shot, and the pally when she finally gets BAB6, but until then it should make him feel special to be the only person getting multiple smacks every round...and to me it isn't unbalancing because everyone eventually gets it kicking in (except the casters, but they're the two most optimized players, they'll live) This may be voted down, however, as I did propose it as a house rule for EVERYONE, including badguys. (I try to be fair with house rules and vote on them as a group.)

3. It makes dropping specific loot for the fighter, should I choose to do so, pretty easy; nobody else will use a shield or 1-handed melee weapon.

The only problem I forsee is his lack of dex to take the subsequent two-weapon fighting feats...but I suppose we'll jump that hurdle when we get to it.

Oh, yeah, and I did tell him he can rebuild one time in the future should he change his mind about his character. He seemed a little relieved about that.

Grand Lodge

RumpinRufus wrote:


Oh God... how is this turning into another rogue hate thread?

Nobody really hates the Rogue.

It's just disappointment.

Seriously, this dang reaction just needs to stop.

I am tired of Rogue fans sticking their fingers in their ears, and yelling "NAH NAH NAH" every time someone mentions the faults of Rogue class.


I'm pretty tired of every single thread becoming about whether or not the rogue is or isn't crappy.

That bastard gets his dirty tendrils into everything.


thegreenteagamer wrote:


2. I'm proposing to the folks a house rule where you can move and full-attack.

I'd vote against even if I was the melee guy. This leaves a LOT of foes with multiple attacks every round, including animals/monsters. It's going to make the game much deadlier for lower AC characters. Everything having pounce will get ugly.

Take a giant mantis: It gets a full action on surprise, flies to any person then claw, claw, grab bite... Heck an a surprise + good initiative, they could fly off with someone before anyone else reacts...

Shadow Lodge

It should be simple enough to ask the company if they do license or sell the Pathfinder rules books in Portuguese. If they do, it won't be that hard for him to simply order it from Portugal and have it shipped; though that would be expensive. Though if they sell the book in Portuguese it seems reasonable that Paizo can sell the PDF in Portuguese. It seems like something worth asking if it really helps him out.

Grand Lodge

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I'm pretty tired of every single thread becoming about whether or not the rogue is or isn't crappy.

That bastard gets his dirty tendrils into everything.

It is weak. Seriously, we all just need to deal with it, and move on.

Also, it really only came up, because someone felt the need to defend the class, before it even became a part of the conversation.


The Rogue can't help himself. He just does what the succubus tells him to.

I'm not sure if I'd give free Pounce+ to everybody, but maybe that's right for your group. If you make sure the Fighter finds magic shields it should help his AC stand out. He also only needs +2 Dex to get ITWF.

Shield Slam could also be a pretty cool feat later on, especially if you make sure to include obstacles like trees on your battle maps so the Fighter can bash people into them.

Shadow Lodge

And a quick search of the Paizo web site found this bit of information for your Portuguese friend. Is he speaking Euro-Portuguese or Brazilian Portuguese? It looks like just under two years ago a Portuguese PFS group started up in the city of Porto. If anybody would know about how to get a hold of the rules in Portuguese they would. They even have a facebook page where he could ask for advice in his native language which really is a big help.

Society Portugal


Usual Suspect - Brazillian, IIRC.

Devilkiller - Yeah, but it's yet another +2 for greater, and he's certainly going to have the BAB to take advantage of it. At standard +1/4 levels, he won't qualify for improved until 8th instead of 6th, greater until 16th instead of 11th. IF they vote up pseudo-pounce, it would be a good thing to have, that's for sure. If not...well, -2 to ALL his attacks for 1 extra attack, and none on the iterative hits is...not nearly as good, I think.

BBT - Seriously, whether we "deal with it" or not, can we do so in a more relevant thread?

Graystone - That's why I put it to a vote for all the players. I leave it at their feet. If it turns out a troll can move in and go apecrap on them, well, they asked for a challenge.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
BBT - Seriously, whether we "deal with it" or not, can we do so in a more relevant thread?

If people didn't try to defend the rogue then there would be no "arguments". It's a lot like debating which number is bigger.


I think the fighter is that class for those of us who are ADD DnD players…

TRUE CRB only fighter is a bit limited ,especially since feats is the fighters "thing" and CRB feats are limited enough that the "regular" martial classes can collect the good ones.

But take for example the martial master archetype with martial versatility feat.

for those of us who play in a world where you can't taylor your own weapons like a video game, this type of character can morph through an AP/campaign into whatever he feels like at the moment.
TWF? sure.
Whip master, today, yes.
Find a cool exotic weapon that's really only going to be useful to fighter the undead dragon outsider? Sure I can use it at full effect for now, and then abandon it on aw whimsy.

THAT type of higher can shift his feats around nearly at the whimsy of a wizard and his spells.
So every time you get bored with a certain combo…you can try something else… if it's really lame, you can do something else.

In fact, when the PF MMO comes out, Im really hoping I get to have this option, it's something Id really like to have when I played DDO.

IF all the classes themselves are limited to CRB as well, MOST of them suck in comparison to themselves with the options they have as well.

CRB only games are kinda fun actually, because it was a time in the game when you still saw a lot of rogues and fighters (and clerics) still played.

I personally don't like the paladin's mercies…. I like it better now that there are a few options for trading them out.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Good on the newbie for figuring out a decent build that fills a unique niche in the party. I wouldn't worry too much about his Dex, some inherent or enhancement bonuses will take care of it enough.

As far as the "Rogue" discussion is concerned neither side will really convince the other. I had a discussion the other day with a fellow at my FLGS, and he outright said that the 3.5 druid (yes, the other half of CoDzilla) was only a so-so class that could never outshine any other, more focused class. I still don't understand how he could come to that conclusion, but in the end we had to agree to disagree; our play experiences were just drastically different and no amount of rhetoric from me would change his mind. It wasn't even that he didn't know how to optimize, just that he didn't see things the same way as me.

Grand Lodge

thegreenteagamer wrote:


BBT - Seriously, whether we "deal with it" or not, can we do so in a more relevant thread?

That's what I am saying. This is not the place to go on some Rogue defense rant.


Not sure if the OP has acknowledged this, but I couldn't find it in the thread:

OP, you know paragon surge got FAQ'd, right? And it doesn't work like it used to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not the place to go on some anti-rogue rant either. Some people think the rogue class is underpowered and some people don't. A thread about somebody playing a fighter isn't the place for either 'side' to try and 'prove' how right their opinion is.


Blakmane - Yeah, I know about paragon surge was nerfed a bit. IIRC the feat you get cannot be changed per-casting, but it still can be changed per-day. He's aware of this, and fine with it. It still is a very solid choice to be able to 1/day add a spell to your list of your max level, or two of below-max.


@OP: Don't you have your own character to play? If he didn't ask for character "help", shaddap and let the man play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blahpers wrote:
@OP: Don't you have your own character to play? If he didn't ask for character "help", shaddap and let the man play.

Did you even read the post? The OP is the GM.

I know the crusade against the subhuman Rollplayer scum must be carried on until they are purged from the face of the world and the True Roleplayers inherit the earth, but reading comprehension is still your friend.


Quote:
Also, it really only came up, because someone felt the need to defend the class, before it even became a part of the conversation.
Quote:
If people didn't try to defend the rogue then there would be no "arguments". It's a lot like debating which number is bigger.
Quote:
That's what I am saying. This is not the place to go on some Rogue defense rant.

It came up because someone was making a post about roleplaying, and someone else completely missed the point and started bashing rogues for not being "optimal" enough. When the entire point of the original post was that you DON'T need an optimal build to create an interesting story. NO ONE in this thread has even tried to defend rogues, so I'm a bit confused about what you two are referring to. All that's happened is someone chimed in saying basically "You don't need an optimal build to have fun" and then people started saying, "Wait, but your build isn't OPTIMAL, you should do it this way."


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Blakmane - Yeah, I know about paragon surge was nerfed a bit. IIRC the feat you get cannot be changed per-casting, but it still can be changed per-day. He's aware of this, and fine with it. It still is a very solid choice to be able to 1/day add a spell to your list of your max level, or two of below-max.

Or, he could take a feat and change it as a standard action

Also, you may want to point out that he can still get human fcb as a half-elf. See here.


I think both Fighters and Rogues can be fun to play in a campaign which doesn't target their weaknesses. An AP can be nice for that if the DM sticks to running mostly the encounters from the book. They're generally set up so that the PCs don't have to be awesome just to survive, and they probably won't put a laser focus on low Will saves. Heck, my Mad Bomber Alchemist only failed a Will save and another party member once during 3 levels of RotRL (he probably would have killed more than one, but most were smart enough to run and hide)

@thegreenteagamer - I don't know anything about +1/4 levels for ability score enhancements. Is that a house rule or just some guideline I missed? An ioun stone would be good enough for ITWF, and by the time GTWF comes around I think Two Weapon Rend is probably better.

My Kingmaker PC eventually got pseudo-pounce via Mounted Skirmisher, and it was a pretty big boon even at 15th level. I guess that the monsters having similar abilities would theoretically balance it out though the PCs had better tighten up on their defenses and dragon battles could be even scarier than usual.

Would you allow somebody to full attack on a Spring Attack or a Flyby Attack? Also, are your players aware of the Frigid Touch spell? If so it and Terrible Remorse would be even more compelling than usual in a move and full attack enabled game.


Really? RotRL has been pretty brutal to me as far as Will save go, and my Barbarian has a pretty good one. There's usually enough things with Dominate Person or something to spam at you that you have a good chance of failing in the best case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Really? RotRL has been pretty brutal to me as far as Will save go, and my Barbarian has a pretty good one. There's usually enough things with Dominate Person or something to spam at you that you have a good chance of failing in the best case.

Not sure if this is relevant, but: remember Dominate Person takes a whole round to cast (unless you're a vampire,) so it's really tough to cast Dominate in combat without being disrupted. I've seen people forget this and think it's a standard action casting time, so I just thought I'd mention it.

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / I don't want to tell you that you're doing it wrong, but... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.