What's the "baseline" of the Pathfinder community?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Jack of Dust wrote:
A party who is okay at everything is definitely viable, it's just not optimal. Also I would point out that in many cases, the most optimal choice is the most versatile one, which is exactly why wizards are considered the "optimal class" and why there's no such thing as a "perception guy" (most rolled skill in the game). An optimal party would be a party that can completely steamroll everything, otherwise chances are, they're pretty shoddy as far as optimal goes.
The Wizard is cheating because his specialization is utility. Wizards don't count.

Let's be honest, the wizard is always cheating! ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To put it into greater perspective:

The party should face an average of 4 encounters per adventuring day, sometimes higher if some are easier than others. Usually I find 4-6 is around the sweet spot.

If your party of 4 level 10s, comes across a single CR 10 enemy, then your party should burn around 20% of their resources defeating it. If your party comes across a level 10 and steam rolls it in 1 round... Which if all of your party is optimized as per the pre-discussed Barbarian will happen... Then your party is operating at a level of ability and efficiency way above what is expected.

That isn't the baseline.

Which is the point.

Its FINE to play in a high powered game. There is nothing wrong with it. It is wrong to not realize though that those games aren't the baseline or the intended baseline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So how about that CL 8th Belt of Giant's Strength +4?

Also if you really decide to have a Crimson Death and Barbarian fight by full attacking eachother then I don't know what to tell you. In a one on one fight the Crimson Death has a very high chance of outright winning on round one of the combat due to the Engulf+con damage per round.

Also supposedly game resources are balanced around 4 equal CR encounters per day and supposedly each encounter should drain about a 4th of your resources. In the case of the crimson death lying in ambush (DC 50 Perception check to notice) I can definitely see it taking up a decent chunk of a party's resources. Basically in the surprise round it engulfs a party member, occupies their square to gain a soft cover bonus, then plays a game of chicken against the rest of the party. Who will die first? The engulfed dude taking 1d6 damage and 1d6 con damage every round or the Ooze that can't be crit, has DR bypassed by Silver, and possibly just removed your highest DPR character from the fight.


It's a good tactic Insain. It's going in my little black book for special occasions.

That said, this would be a fairly rare occurrence. I had never thought of using CL of magic items as a guide to what should be given out, I use price. That said I like that too!


In a Party of 4 you'll likely have

1. The utility guy. Let's say a Wizard. If he's not engulfed he likely wont be able to help much in freeing his ally.

2. The melee guy. In this case the Barbarian and likely the one who would be best at clearing this encounter.

3. The support Guy. Let's say Cleric. Depending on build he may or may not be able to help. If he's a battle Cleric then maybe he can clear out the monster in 4-5 rounds.

4. Whatever the heck else guy. Let's go with Bard since they're always great. Depending on build he could probably contribute about as much as the Cleric.

Yeah against this party the Crimson Death is actually a pretty scary depending on who it lands on. It could land on the Barb and turn this into a frightful race against the clock. It could land on the Wizard and possibly kill him in 2 rounds. It could land on one of the others and then manage to get off a round or two of con damage. Assuming the little guy doesn't kill a player it still caused quite a bit of GP worth of damage. The monster is also like int 17, so it would probably pick the best possible target.

HWalsh, look at more than just a full attack routine when determining the value of something in Pathfinder. Be it a PC, NPC, or monster.

Edit: Additionally the CR system is not appropriate for all parties. It was created using an unknown party composition and optimization level as a loose guideline for GMs who don't quite grasp what makes an encounter challenging for a party of players. A CR 7 Aboleth in its natural environment is actually far more scary than just about any other CR 7 creature.


The belt was a math error on my part. My brain went "My +2 is worth x and has CR 8 and the price is 8k the +4 is 16k so I just doubled it. It is 6am in my neck of the woods.

You still shouldn't have a +4 belt at level 10 on average.

The general rule of thumb is 25% of your WBL between all of your Wonderous items.

Level 10 is 62,000 the maximum you should have in Wonderous items is around 25%

15,500 GP - Between all of them added together.

Same for weapons and armor.

Generally that shouldn't be concentrated into 1 item. Then 18,000 GP in a single weapon is way above what is recommended.

So while its possible, it shouldn't be common because the rules don't intend for it.

So I stand by the statement that at level 10 that item loadout is extreme and well above the average intention and baseline.

As for your comment on the enemy...

The Barbarian will kill it, alone, in 2-3 rounds. Even if it's engulf does work the other 3 will kill it before it can do anything significant if they are all similarly optimized.


How? So is this party 4 Barbarians? In which case, sure! They are amazing at dealing with Crimson Deaths! How about a Dragon? Heck a Wizard? Spectres?

Why are you resorting to a Schrodinger's party more often than I am?

Also those "guidelines" for character WBL are purely for characters created over level 1. A character who grows organically is entirely able to spend and save their money however they please. In other words that item load out is entirely all right at that character level.

It's kind of funny that you assume you know the rules so well, but leave out incredibly vital bits of information when making your arguments.


The difference between an optimised character and an 'OK' character can be pretty extreme.

In my current campaign I encouraged my players not to over-optimize.

I wound up with an Investigator who (when he hit) would hit for 1d4 damage or so. (The character is being retired because this is clearly pathetic.)

I've got a Warpriest who attacks with something like +7 to hit, 1d8+4 to damage.

I've got an unchained Monk with a slightly weaker attack (but more of them).

And now I've carelessly allowed a Barbarian with something like +10 to hit, 2d6+13 to damage.
The Barbarian does around three times as much damage per round as the Warpriest. This really throws off the balance I had going.


Matthew Downie wrote:

The difference between an optimised character and an 'OK' character can be pretty extreme.

In my current campaign I encouraged my players not to over-optimize.

I wound up with an Investigator who (when he hit) would hit for 1d4 damage or so. (The character is being retired because this is clearly pathetic.)

I've got a Warpriest who attacks with something like +7 to hit, 1d8+4 to damage.

I've got an unchained Monk with a slightly weaker attack (but more of them).

And now I've carelessly allowed a Barbarian with something like +10 to hit, 2d6+13 to damage.
The Barbarian does around three times as much damage per round as the Warpriest. This really throws off the balance I had going.

Having the warpriest buff himself up a bit with Divine Favour plus other spells should help. Might not get rid of the problem but I thought I would mention it.


Insain -

Iam looking at more than full attack routines. I've been in optimized parties. The Wizard, you dismissed, is going to summon one or more things in that situation.

The monster isn't likely to engulf the Barbarian. It's only a DC 18 to avoid it, for one, for two the Barbarian will have his dex bonus even in the surprise round, for three the mentioned Barbarian can break out, easily, based on his CMB vs the enemy's CMD.

The Barbarian is also likely going to be hasted and/or boosted by another party member. This party should (easily) be able to beat the DR as well.

You are clearly reaching for an excuse to make this more challenging than it would be. Also, again, writing off the Wizard is really not fair here considering this is an optimized party with optimized characters.

Heck... Our party, at level 8, could carve this same critter up like a Turkey. My character could likely solo it. So I know a party would have little issue with it.

(Heck, I don't think I can fail the reflex save by the time I'm level 10.)

The BarBar only needs to roll an 11 to beat the CMD to escape in this scenario at the most.


So the Crimson Death engulfs him, does the con damage, then the Barb Breaks out, then the Crimson Death engulfs him again and does the con damage, then the barb breaks out again, repeat ad nausea.

Didn't you just say earlier that monsters are a lot worse at doing damage than the optimized Barbarian? So the Wizard spends a round summoning a creature for it to do significantly less DPR than the Barbarian. Ok.

It's not that I'm reaching for an excuse to make this monster threatening. You're reaching for an excuse to make it a non-threat.

Also I don't believe you've been in an optimized party since what you described last page is not an optimized party.

you from last page wrote:
Now, run an AP with 4 optimized PCs and watch the look of terror that happens when something goes terribly wrong. When the Ogre in Ft. Rannik lands a critical hit on the party cleric and drops him in one shot. Watch as the party scrambles, in complete back peddle mode, begging to retreat to get to somewhere they can raise dead. ........However, watch when something goes wrong. One little snag sidelines someone important. There isn't enough to proceed and watch the party grind to a halt.

and because of various things you've stated in other threads.


Once again, you play at a very different table than most people on these forums. We've been over this in other threads.

Most people see Barbarian and think "Strength" so they start with an 18 strength. They want more strength so they buy that belt of strength. They see furious and realize it was made for them.

Even new players get it. If they ask me a question it's usually along the lines of "Ok, so how do I do more damage?" If they wanted to be a graceful dancer why did they roll a Barbarian? If they wanted to be a bookish strategist why did they roll a Barbarian? If they wanted to do less damage, why did they roll a Barbarian? For a player who wants to do damage my estimate is pretty damn close to the baseline, no matter what you or Paizo says.

Heck even assuming they decided to build a character by your house rules they'd still have a +1 Furious Weapon, +2 belt of Strength, and still trounce all over your low ball expected damage per level.

Not ad-hominem at all. You stated you did X then gave us information that conflicted with your statement of X. If that's ad-hominem then everyone who uses evidence to come to conclusions is a vile harasser.


You do realize that dropping +2 off of your strength and +1 damage and attack bonus is statistically relevant, right?

Also when you have to dismiss Paizo it doesn't help you.

+10 BAB
+6 Strength
+3 Enhancement Bonus
+2 Rage Bonus

Vs

+10 BAB
+7 Strength
+4 Enhancement Bonus
+2 Rage Bonus

Is the difference between a +21 and a +23.

Or a +18 and +20 after power attack is considered.

While +2 May not sound like much it makes a bigger difference than you think.

Vs AC 24, for example, a Full Attack becomes:

+18/+13

A 70% to hit and a 50% chance to hit vs an 80% and 60%

Not to mention the damage. Going from 2d6+23 (25-35 dmg. avg 30) to 2d6+25 (27-37 dmg. avg 32) is a 6.66...% damage increase.

Over 10 attack cycles the less optimized vs more optimized difference is pretty severe.

360 dmg vs 448 dmg

The "less optimized" character does 80.35% the damage of the more optimized character.

Now, imagine how far it drops if the Barbarian started with a 16 Strength? It's a LOT worse.

(Because they only have a +5 strength they lose 2 more damage due to two handed weapon mechanics and an additional +1 to hit and they drop to around 65% the damage output.)

That is the kind of dramatic difference we are talking when we come up with a Baseline. I, personally, feel Paizo's baseline is closer to the third option. At the 65% damage of the optimized build the math lines up with the APL to CR heuristic as outlined by Paizo.


"Belts o' Giant Strength, get your belts o' giant strength here. Five fo' a pound"

When every character over level 5 has a stat boosting item it cheapens the wonder of magic.


Level 1 wizards and clerics and bards casting spells routinely also cheapens the wonder of magic.

Use one of the inherent bonus variants if magic items bother you. Characters can still get the expected strength bonus, and no need for a belt.


Except when the stat boost items ar taken for granted as described above, PCs steamroll the adventure paths.

Suggesting that casting spell reduces wonder is nonsense. Literature is full of spell casters but a belt of giant strength is still special. You get stat increases already as you level up.

Pathfinder was a game built around adventure paths, they should form the baseline of difficulty. If the AP is too easy the characters are above the baseline. If the party can't succeed then they are below the baseline.

The CR charts given above demonstrate that it is far too easy to build characters that invalidate the core CR system of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Basically the character is spread so thin that, while they'll be passably competent at a lot of things, they won't actually be good at anything. They'll always lose to someone whose feats/class abilities/ability scores are more focused.

Gaaaah!!!!! Ye gods. I feel like some people aren't listening. Define "lose." Do you mean not be as fightery as the optimal fighter you're describing? How is that "losing" at the game of Pathfinder? Is the build suggested playable? Will the character be able to defeat CR appropriate encounters in the midst of a party? Even if the rest of the party was made up of likewise built (which is a word I hate btw) "master of none" characters, they could still work together to defeat CR appropriate challenges.

Not to mention the fact that everyone in the thread has somehow, again, become entirely focused on combat challenges. The game is made up of a LOT more than just combat. Yes, I get that combat is a major part of it, but there are a lot of other challenges in the game. Damage output =/= viability =/= playability (should not equal) a targeted baseline. The baseline should be, can you play this character, survive, AND HAVE FUN!!! I'm guessing that's where a lot of the debate comes in. Some people only have fun if they are "winning." And to those people "winning" means decimating every CR appropriate encounter as if it were a bunch of goblin babies in a 30' pit waiting for a fireball to end their pathetic miserable lives.


HWalsh wrote:

To put it into greater perspective:

The party should face an average of 4 encounters per adventuring day, sometimes higher if some are easier than others. Usually I find 4-6 is around the sweet spot.

If your party of 4 level 10s, comes across a single CR 10 enemy, then your party should burn around 20% of their resources defeating it. If your party comes across a level 10 and steam rolls it in 1 round... Which if all of your party is optimized as per the pre-discussed Barbarian will happen... Then your party is operating at a level of ability and efficiency way above what is expected.

That isn't the baseline.

Which is the point.

Its FINE to play in a high powered game. There is nothing wrong with it. It is wrong to not realize though that those games aren't the baseline or the intended baseline.

The games says you should face 4 encounters per day at APL=CR, but as you level up you can actually take on more encounters so that 4 encounters does not really hold up. This varies based on the actual build, and the player's ability to make good choices.

Also on your post post about optimized characters who suck at everything except for one thing you were actually describing what we call hyper-specialized characters who are only built to do one thing well. You can be optimized for your primary role, and still do other things well. That way if you have to make a perception check as an example, you will still do be competent.

As for magic items CL has nothing to do with the value of a magic item. The restriction is based on price. As an example pearls of power have a CL of 20, but some items which are much more useful have lower caster levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i think part of this tendency comes from the expansion of computer games where concepts like farming, levelling, crafting, DPS become aims into themselves. There is also the expansion of fantasy style board games where the aim is to win.

Lastly I think there are a lot of very clever people who see crafting characters and testing the games limits as an intellectual exercise. Some (only some) of these people have few interpersonal skills or consideration for others and we see their posts on these boards quite regularly.


The Sword wrote:
Except when the stat boost items are taken for granted as described above, PCs steamroll the adventure paths.

Sometimes. Depends on player optimization. Aggressively decreasing WBL is one way of countering it, I suppose.

The Sword wrote:
Suggesting that casting spell reduces wonder is nonsense. Literature is full of spell casters

Very few resembling Pathfinder casters. The fantasy novels I've read recently (Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, The Name of the Wind, The Blade Itself...) don't show wizards casting a variety of powerful spells every few seconds or priests instantly healing the wounds of brutally maimed warriors.


MendedWall12 wrote:
Define "lose." Do you mean not be as fightery as the optimal fighter you're describing?

Losing: Every AP I play ending in an abrupt TPK to the point where I simply took it for granted that any character I made would die a meaningless death. That was my only experience of Pathfinder for a long time.


Matthew Downie wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:
Define "lose." Do you mean not be as fightery as the optimal fighter you're describing?
Losing: Every AP I play ending in an abrupt TPK to the point where I simply took it for granted that any character I made would die a meaningless death. That was my only experience of Pathfinder for a long time.

Okay, I would never argue that that definitely feels like losing at Pathfinder. Also, love your list of recently read fantasy novels. :) Sounds very similar to my own list. Great minds read alike?

Sovereign Court

Insain Dragoon wrote:


A character is unlikely to hit 28 unbuffed AC at level 10 unless they spend a lot of money on defense, picked a defense focused class, got some buffs from a spellcaster, or dipped around.

28 AC is really easy to get by level 10. My level 4 PFS character is sitting at 27 AC. (admittedly - a monk)

Even your Barb can without any trouble.

+3 mithril plate

+2 Dex

+1 ring

+1 AoNA

jingasa

dusty rose ioun

-2 rage/+3 beast totem

29 AC un-buffed - not that hard, and about 1/2 your wealth left for offense items and a cloak. Could easily go a bit higher with some effort or more of your wealth spent (the bulk of your wealth should generally go for defense).

(Of course - this illustrates how different people focus upon different things as their baseline.)

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Also on your post post about optimized characters who suck at everything except for one thing you were actually describing what we call hyper-specialized characters who are only built to do one thing well. You can be optimized for your primary role, and still do other things well. That way if you have to make a perception check as an example, you will still do be competent.

Yeah, sounds like HWalsh has only been dealing with a certain kind of 'optimizer', one who only had a single thing to contribute and once that was removed they couldn't contribute. Really goes against how practical optimization works to me, where it's a 70/30 mix of primary/secondary split of what you focus on.

Generally a moderately optimized party can do solidly in an AP. I call this this Core+APG level of optimization, since that seems to be the new combination of core to me. They make options that make sense (like what Insain has listed), but don't go looking for the absolute most out of the character (invul rager half orc w/ fate's favored and gear to compliment it + other things.)

Me personally, I like to step OVER the challenges to get to something harder, have the GM add some extra monsters or HP to things, feel like I'm doing better than the curve, but I'm not the baseline. We have baselines, and we have the 'optimizer' baseline with is generally just the baseline with some slightly better choices being made.


MendedWall12 wrote:

Not to mention the fact that everyone in the thread has somehow, again, become entirely focused on combat challenges. The game is made up of a LOT more than just combat. Yes, I get that combat is a major part of it, but there are a lot of other challenges in the game. Damage output =/= viability =/= playability (should not equal) a targeted baseline. The baseline should be, can you play this character, survive, AND HAVE FUN!!! I'm guessing that's where a lot of the debate comes in. Some people only have fun if they are "winning." And to those people "winning" means decimating every CR appropriate encounter as if it were a bunch of goblin babies in a 30' pit waiting for a fireball to end their pathetic miserable lives.

Fun is not quantifiable and therefore not a valid means of measurement.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
i think part of this tendency comes from the expansion of computer games where concepts like farming, levelling, crafting, DPS become aims into themselves. There is also the expansion of fantasy style board games where the aim is to win.

Oh man, here's the old 'computer games ruined my pure tabletop RPGs' again, never tire of seeing this one, although adding board games into it is a nice change.

Really 3rd ed has a far larger amount of numbers in it than 1st/2nd did, and because of this, it's easier to game the system, that's just how it works when numbers are in place, people enjoy working to increase them, and that's their playstyle.

The Sword wrote:
Lastly I think there are a lot of very clever people who see crafting characters and testing the games limits as an intellectual exercise. Some (only some) of these people have few interpersonal skills or consideration for others and we see their posts on these boards quite regularly.

The statement in bold is entirely unnecessary though and mean spirited. So you've decided that you're going to try to correlate these two points? There was no reason to bring this into the conversation, there are those who don't like powergamers that also don't have many interpersonal skills, but for some reason you've decided that you're going to try and connect this lack of interpersonal skills to those who enjoy pushing the boundaries of the game?

Seriously not cool.


We never cast spells like Bear's Endurance.

Liberty's Edge

It's not that hard to make a character that does more than others. It does not require optimization. If one Fighter takes what I call the bread and butter feats. Such as Weapon Focus, Specialization etc. Compared to one who focuses on skills. One usually is better at hitting and damaging stuff and the other in social situations. It's how the game is built imo. It comes down to one accepting that they will be weaker in one area and stronger in the other. The Fighter focuses on combat feats can contribute in social encounter. Just not as good as a Fighter who specializes in being the party face and vice versa.

What I see though is one or the other wanting to do both. They system at least this one is not setup to allow you to do both. Or it makes you the jack of all trades master of none. If one wants to be the best combat character at the table then your not going to be as effective in social encounters. A skill based fighter who takes few if any combat feats. Can still hit and do damage. Just not as good as one who invested in being good at combat.

I agree with N.Jolly. So because we don't agree with a posters opinion on Pathfinder we don't have social skills. Really someone went there. Do you tell a parent or a friend that you can't love or care for them like you used to because they don't agree with your opinion as well.


captain yesterday wrote:
We never cast spells like Bear's Endurance.

Its a great in combat healing spell at higher levels.


HWalsh wrote:
You are clearly reaching for an excuse to make this more challenging than it would be.

He's playing a 17 Int monster as if it had a 17 Int. If I were in a game and the crimson death stepped out and announced itself politely prior to attacking, I'd get up and walk out -- unless it was somehow made clear that this was a lobotomized crimson death with a much lower CR.


Woah woah woah. I wasn't saying that all posters didn't have interpersonal skills. It isn't personal or specific to anyone. I am saying that some people, some, are unable to separate an intellectual exercise from one that affects the people around them, work as a team rather an individual and listen and empathise with other people. There are recognisable people around our gaming tables who act is way. In fact there are pages and pages given over in DMGs to dealings with these people. Please don't characterise my words as an attack when instead it is just acknowledging a trait in some players.

Also I did not say computer games, or board games ruin game. However they have changed them and the crossover can be seen in several pathfinder sub rules. I don't think this is good or bad, it's just a particular play style.

Lastly The Wheel of Time and The Belgariad arr full of casters healing and using magic regularly. The Lord of the rings, ASOIAF and the blade itself could all be considered low magic (Ditto on the great reads btw). Gandalf is a 5th level wizard after all.

Silver Crusade

The Sword wrote:
Woah woah woah. I wasn't saying that all posters didn't have interpersonal skills. It isn't personal or specific to anyone. I am saying that some people, some, are unable to separate an intellectual exercise from one that affects the people around them, work as a team rather an individual and listen and empathise with other people. There are recognisable people around our gaming tables who act is way. In fact there are pages and pages given over in DMGs to dealings with these people. Please don't characterise my words as an attack when instead it is just acknowledging a trait in some players.

No one said that you said this about all posters, the statement being made here is that you drew a parallel between poor social skills and those who enjoy the more mechanical side of the system. It was unnecessarily antagonistic and a personal attack against those who enjoy that side of the game that didn't need to be drawn into the conversation.

No one else is trying to say that someone else's preferences reflects in any way upon their social skills because that is irrelevant to the conversation as well as inappropriate.

The Sword wrote:
Also I did not say computer games, or board games ruin game. However they have changed them and the crossover can be seen in several pathfinder sub rules. I don't think this is good or bad, it's just a particular play style.

From the tone of your previous post, it's fair to assume that you yourself do not care for this style of play. That's fine, it's your decision. But again, you're talking with some people who do enjoy that side of things, and as we all know, there's no wrong way to play the game as long as you're enjoying it.


HWalsh wrote:

This is actually completely incorrect.

The person who is okay at A, B, and C is going to be solidly viable in any situation. He's the universal party backup. When the guy who is great at B, fails at B because the dice gods say so, then the guys who are okay at B are great for backup.

He will always be there to save the party's bacon when a roll goes south. He will always be able to contribute. That is NOT less than viable.

Also, have you EVER played an AP with 4 people who are all "okay" at just about everything? I have. They steam roll the AP so hard it isn't even funny. Nothing you can throw in their path even starts to slow them down.

Now, run an AP with 4 optimized PCs and watch the look of terror that happens when something goes terribly wrong. When the Ogre in Ft. Rannik lands a critical hit on the party cleric and drops him in one shot. Watch as the party scrambles, in complete back peddle mode, begging to retreat to get to somewhere they can raise dead.

Watch the look of horror on a GM's face when, for the party to proceed, someone has to make a roll and the guy who was the "perception guy" just rolled a 1. Who suddenly has to pull something completely out of his rear so the game can continue.

The Optimized party is better... When everything goes right. I admit, it...

This is just false.

Yes having backups for things is good. In fact my hypothetical specialized party had backups, skill guy with secondary combat ability, combat guy with secondary skill ability, buff/healer/support with secondary combat ability, primary caster with secondary buffing and nuking ability. As far as when a AP of average characters steamrolls lets be honest AP's are laughably easy and the most common reason you see the optimized party get killed is because the DM overreacts to him not "winning" in combat and upleveling the encounters without taking into account the party dynamic.

Also your example of the paladin makes no sense. Look at my subsections for specialization 3 out of the 4 things you list as reasons a Paladin is good are Combat abilities and 1 of them is secondary healing this is an example of specializing. The real reason the paladin is better than a fighter is two fold, 1) He's a better combatant than the fighter. The reason for this is that he's more resilient overall. Has better saves, some healing, and better burst damage on smites. and 2) Because the paladin can have secondary abilities in addition to his primary ones with more skill points and spells to fall back on while Fighters generally can't do this with the same amount of investment.

This does not mean that the Paladin is not specialized, in fact he should also specialize. If he's an archer he should pick up archery feats, if he's going into melee he should pick those feats, yeah keep a bow on hand even if you're a greatsword weilder and vice versa because any damage is better than no damage if you have to use it but trying to play a switch hitter mystic theurge or bard for all the characters in a party is not good.


If this is what HWlash thinks an overpowered damage-optimized level 10 character looks like, he'd probably have a stroke if we show him something actually high-powered.


N. Jolly wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Also on your post post about optimized characters who suck at everything except for one thing you were actually describing what we call hyper-specialized characters who are only built to do one thing well. You can be optimized for your primary role, and still do other things well. That way if you have to make a perception check as an example, you will still do be competent.

They make options that make sense (like what Insain has listed), but don't go looking for the absolute most out of the character (invul rager half orc w/ fate's favored and gear to compliment it + other things.)

I like that you said that. What I listed was actually what someones 3rd chatacter was reaching for. The dude literally just wanted to be a strong Barbarian. He didn't scour a mountain of splat books or look up an optimization guide. Heck he was a Human Armored Hulk Barbarian.

This guy wasn't some sort of Dirty Filthy optimizer, just a very simple character concept.


memorax wrote:


What I see though is one or the other wanting to do both. They system at least this one is not setup to allow you to do both. Or it makes you the jack of all trades master of none.

It does allow you to do both, with very little investment. You take the ranger or the hunter instead. For most combat styles the ranger is better. (everything but two handed i think(


It's pretty easy to do both.

Sorcerors and Bards make great faces with minimal feat investment.

Rangers, Hunters, Slayers, Inquisitors, Alchemists, and more can do a lot out of combat, but not socially.

The Investigator is the best at skills in the entire game with quite decent combat ability in almost all situations.

Really most classes in the game have multitudes of ways to contribute both in and out of combat. The ones that don't contribute to other areas are either rewarded by being very reliable at their one thing (Barbarian) or are just left in the dust.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
memorax wrote:


What I see though is one or the other wanting to do both. They system at least this one is not setup to allow you to do both. Or it makes you the jack of all trades master of none.

It does allow you to do both, with very little investment. You take the ranger or the hunter instead. For most combat styles the ranger is better. (everything but two handed i think(

Eh somewhat but the real investment is in your primary stats. A ranger with a focus on combat and switch hitting is going to have a high Str or Dex a moderate Str or Dex a moderate Con and moderate Wisdom with low Int and/or Cha.

He will have a plethora of skills assuming he didn't dump Int but that's probably his dump stat which drops him to 4 or 5 skills per level that's not bad out of combat but it's not as good as a bard in out of combat situations or say a wizard. And he'll have some rudimentary spell casting. Aka he will do one thing very well and some other stuff passably but not great.

This character would be a great Frontliner for a well rounded party. But he is not going to be the frontliner, the party face, the skill guy, and the spell caster all at once. He could really benefit from having someone else as a primary character in at least some of those other roles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Once again, you play at a very different table than most people on these forums. We've been over this in other threads.

Most people see Barbarian and think "Strength" so they start with an 18 strength. They want more strength so they buy that belt of strength. They see furious and realize it was made for them.

Even new players get it. If they ask me a question it's usually along the lines of "Ok, so how do I do more damage?" If they wanted to be a graceful dancer why did they roll a Barbarian? If they wanted to be a bookish strategist why did they roll a Barbarian? If they wanted to do less damage, why did they roll a Barbarian? For a player who wants to do damage my estimate is pretty damn close to the baseline, no matter what you or Paizo says.

Heck even assuming they decided to build a character by your house rules they'd still have a +1 Furious Weapon, +2 belt of Strength, and still trounce all over your low ball expected damage per level.

Not ad-hominem at all. You stated you did X then gave us information that conflicted with your statement of X. If that's ad-hominem then everyone who uses evidence to come to conclusions is a vile harasser.

Maybe they thought that a barbarian was a librarian that also moonlights as a barber? :)

...okay, fine, I replied only so that I could say that. Carry on, everyone.


Pounce wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Once again, you play at a very different table than most people on these forums. We've been over this in other threads.

Most people see Barbarian and think "Strength" so they start with an 18 strength. They want more strength so they buy that belt of strength. They see furious and realize it was made for them.

Even new players get it. If they ask me a question it's usually along the lines of "Ok, so how do I do more damage?" If they wanted to be a graceful dancer why did they roll a Barbarian? If they wanted to be a bookish strategist why did they roll a Barbarian? If they wanted to do less damage, why did they roll a Barbarian? For a player who wants to do damage my estimate is pretty damn close to the baseline, no matter what you or Paizo says.

Heck even assuming they decided to build a character by your house rules they'd still have a +1 Furious Weapon, +2 belt of Strength, and still trounce all over your low ball expected damage per level.

Not ad-hominem at all. You stated you did X then gave us information that conflicted with your statement of X. If that's ad-hominem then everyone who uses evidence to come to conclusions is a vile harasser.

Maybe they thought that a barbarian was a librarian that also moonlights as a barber? :)

...okay, fine, I replied only so that I could say that. Carry on, everyone.

There are plenty of reasons to roll a Barbarian besides "damage" heck I have a Cat-Folk Rogue/Fighter/Barbarian (that works surprisingly well) that acts as a well... Feral cat. Toss in a bit of extra fluff and you have things like Canny Tumble, Circling Mongoose, 3+ natural attacks, nearly full BAB, the ability to trip humanoid opponents easily, the ability to sneak attack almost everything...

There are tons of reason to go Barbarian for things besides damage... Flavor in my case... And it works surprisingly better than you'd think. Its not optimized... Its very fun though...


Multiclassing is a completely separate issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

Except when the stat boost items ar taken for granted as described above, PCs steamroll the adventure paths.

Suggesting that casting spell reduces wonder is nonsense. Literature is full of spell casters but a belt of giant strength is still special. You get stat increases already as you level up.

Pathfinder was a game built around adventure paths, they should form the baseline of difficulty. If the AP is too easy the characters are above the baseline. If the party can't succeed then they are below the baseline.

The CR charts given above demonstrate that it is far too easy to build characters that invalidate the core CR system of the game.

...

Um...

Pathfinder was a game built around houseruling D&D 3.5 and still trying to have it be compatible with the previous edition. Wax poetic about the wonder of magic all you want but as long as 3e has been around magic items are in fact specifically to be taken for granted. The core of the CR system has always been laughable. Case in point look at the CR of an NPC wealth class leveled humanoid and look at the level of a party it's supposed to provide a 'challenge' for.

Now factor in every class is improved over its 3.5 version while monsters and their CR had little change made to them between the bestiary and the Monster Manual.

PC on classed opponent encounters have got a bit of a wider gulf than before but thanks to action economy and the greater resources of PCs but it's still ludicrously slanted towards the party.

3.x designers have either been historically bad at grasping the fundamental math the system runs on since day one or the game is designed so that sucking at making a character doesn't get your whole party wiped by making everything laughably easy as a baseline.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VargrBoartusk wrote:
3.x designers have either been historically bad at grasping the fundamental math the system runs on since day one or the game is designed so that sucking at making a character doesn't get your whole party wiped by making everything laughably easy as a baseline.

Pretty much this. The designers made the CR system newbie-friendly, because they figured it's a lot easier for an experienced GM to kick the encounters up a notch than for a new group to tone things down.

Plus, of course, the fact that CR is an art, not a science. After all, a CR 3 Shadow is technically a valid (though challenging) encounter for a level 1 party. It's also quite likely to be a TPK unless the party has some sort of special advantage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:


Oh man, here's the old 'computer games ruined my pure tabletop RPGs' again, never tire of seeing this one, although adding board games into it is a nice change.

It's a natural continuation of the pattern in the usual argument. Videogames predate OD&D, but that hasn't stopped the bizzare claims that somehow the non-existent pre-videogame TTRPGs were better than the actually-existent post-videogame TTRPGs.

Of course, board games are thousands of years older than either video games or TTRPGs, so the idea that somehow board games "ruined" TTRPGs is just as funny. Obviously, anyone touting the superiority of pre-video game TTRPGs doesn't thing chronology matters in determining what caused what, so blaming the "new" invention of board games is a natural next step.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Human only. Fighter only. No feats, no armor, no shields, longsword only. Final destination.

On a slightly more relevant note, I've run the numbers for a specialist versus a generalist. This was for a jack-of-all build which had something like straight 14s across the board and spread their skill points around before building up any one skill. At level 1 the jack's actually pretty solid in ones they put skill points in. For everything else they're like 4 behind (class skill bonus). By level 5 the difference is noticeable (4-6 difference) even for skills the jack is getting the class skill bonus for (it's like 10 for ones that aren't class skills). I didn't even run it to 10 but the gap is going to get much, much worse. Skill focus improves, you can upgrade +skill items, etc. Once the gap becomes +20 the jack literally cannot "be the backup" because if the primary failed the jack is incapable of doing it. That can easily happen at level 10 (+skill item, class skill, skill focus, higher stat (+ headband), class bonuses, maybe traits).

Also, the "baseline" damage calculations all seem to be assuming that all party members are wading into combat. Does the wizard cast a buff or summon spell? Because that round they're not contributing damage (remember, this is an idiot wizard without standard action summons). Ditto the cleric, bard, and every other class with buff spells except possibly the magus. If you want a party to defeat a CR=APL fight in one round where any of the members does anything but full attack, either the action they take needs to add up to their share of damage (and I can't think of any buff spell that does that except haste... below level 6) or the other party members need to pick up the slack. So, unless the default assumption is that all party members use weapons and full attack, the default assumption for damage should be higher than 25%.

151 to 200 of 226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's the "baseline" of the Pathfinder community? All Messageboards