A player with poorly made character.


Advice

1 to 50 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. A friend and I were discussing the playability of a monk. I know it's not a very good class but I really enjoy playing the class. Always have. I understand there are better options. I say it's my character I'll play it how I want. His argument is that other players shouldn't have to suffer because someone wants to play an un-optimized character. I assume he means in combat. So here's the question...

Lets say someone in a game you were DMing is playing a truly terribly built character that they enjoyed. Would let it be? Tell them to make a better one or version of that character? What would you do.

Dark Archive

i would let the player play the character, since if a character is truly bad, then they'll likely die pretty quickly, so i doubt the other characters would suffer much, and it would be a good learning opportunity for the player with the bad character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would find out what they want from their character, see if there were any options that did that better from both a flavor and mechanics perspective, make some suggestions, and then proceed, adjusting overall encounter difficulty as necessary.

Taking Monk as an example, I'd check what the player wants. If it's "beating people up by kicking them while playing the flute, I'd suggest Brawler and write up a list of handy combat feats to draw on. If it's "being a mystical master of mixed martial arts", I'd suggest the Unchained Monk. If it's having all good saves, I'd point to Pummeling Style to quickly boost offensive skill. Of course, some games Monk would be fine without any special treatment.

In any case, I wouldn't ever consider class choice to be too sub-optimal by itself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. The Monk is not that bad of a character. I built up a mobile monk character was doing damage on par with a typical fighter and my AC was much higher than the same fighter.

2. this is a ROLE playing game. not a ROLL playing game. players should be allowed to play whatever they want and not really worry about optimization unless they want to.


Unless his concept is "I want to suck at the stuff I do" he absolutely should worry about optimization on some level. Otherwise, what he wants to roleplay and what he is actually playing doesn't align.


Monks have never been terrible. Original core monks were a little weak at 15-point buy, but it's easy enough to make a good one now using Unchained or archetypes.

Four possible problems caused by 'bad characters':
(1) The player of the bad character gets frustrated because he's not useful.
(2) The player of the bad character gets upset because the bad character gets killed by enemy threats designed for tougher PCs.
(3) The GM does not scale down the threat level to allow for the bad character, and the bad character is so useless that other members of the group will get killed.
(4) The rest of the group wrongly perceive they are in the above situation, and resent the bad character for holding them back.

If you are confident none of these problems will occur, go for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nobody should be forced to optimize. Is the GROUP able to handle an encounter with a CR equal to the party's APL?

If the answer is, "Yes."

Then he's optimal enough.

Most "optimized" characters can handle APL+3 encounters without breaking a sweat. They aren't supposed to be able to and that's not the avg encounter.

Optimized isn't the average, or the benchmark.

If he's level 4 and can handle a CR 4 encounter he's fine.

If players optimize out and whine because encounters are too easy just roll your eyes and explain that the entire point of optimizing is to make combat easier.


I don't think this is about terribly built characters. Those are characters that just don't work. You know like wizard with 12 int. Sure you can do it but it's terrible. Playing a monk is not terrible. It's harder optimize but not impossible. You can make monk that just doesn't work though just like you can any other class.


HWalsh wrote:

Nobody should be forced to optimize. Is the GROUP able to handle an encounter with a CR equal to the party's APL?

If the answer is, "Yes."

Then he's optimal enough.

Most "optimized" characters can handle APL+3 encounters without breaking a sweat. They aren't supposed to be able to and that's not the avg encounter.

Optimized isn't the average, or the benchmark.

If he's level 4 and can handle a CR 4 encounter he's fine.

If players optimize out and whine because encounters are too easy just roll your eyes and explain that the entire point of optimizing is to make combat easier.

What if the group isn't able to handle an encounter with a CR equal to the party's APL? A useless party member will cause that to happen unless their role overlaps with the role of another party member, in which case the useless character is truly useless.

Monks in general don't fall under this category (it is very possible to build a viable DPR monk) but if your Monk is the only one who's supposed to do damage and the Monk fails at that role then nothing is going to die.


Anybody who says that you're playing BADWRONGFUN is wrong them selves.
Monks are not terrible. If I DMd for a group with one terrible character in the party, I'd adjust according to that (why would I adjust encounters to fit for a full party when they're not a full party?).
I think it's lame when people think that nobody should play a weak character. Not that it's always a good idea, some just seem to think that it's always wrong. And again, the Monk is not weak, the Unchained Monk with Dragon Style can do some nasty damage already at early levels.

Also: Most of the time when I've had a problem with the rest of the party suffering because of one guy, it's because of the player, not the build of the character. I've actually seen poorly built characters out-perform optimized characters due to this more times than I've ever seen a weak character cause a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Is the GROUP able to handle an encounter with a CR equal to the party's APL?

If the answer is, "Yes."

Then he's optimal enough.

A group 'should' be able to handle CRs above APL. A level 5 PC is supposed to be a CR 5 encounter. Two level 5 PCs would be a CR 7 encounter. If your group of four PCs can't handle a CR APL+2 encounter (e.g., the equivalent of a fight where the numbers are two to one in their favor), they're a weak group and will struggle with published material. Which is fine, if you've got an easygoing GM who is willing to give you easy mode, or you're OK with frequent character deaths.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

start with a serving of suitably vague baseline
pour in an undefined amount of optimization
add in some monk class discussion
use only premium rollplay vs roleplay
flavor with wrongbadfun

bake until the tires in the dumpster are properly on fire

serve and enjoy


While on other threads my hatred of Bards is well known. I have also read how some people swear by them and can make them powerful. To me it isn't about classes although I have seen a few I do think suck. It's more about how you make you character. I have seen worthless fighters and I do mean worthless. I have seen Clerics be absolutely frightening in play. Wizards be the most dangerous class in a campaign and where a Rogue one shots an upper level demon.
While our group does role play about a quarter to a half of home made adventures and modules we usually design our characters to survive in combat when it happens. It's one thing to have a thinking fighter, it's another when everyone but him can fight. I have seen it where the character is a nightmare in combat but a blast to Role Play with because the player wants him to be.
When it comes to building a character I suggest skim all the classes. The one that catches your eye read about it, hell study it. Once decided level him in your head thinking what do I want from him or her at higher levels. That's the nuts and bolts of my character. Most times I don't have a theme with him which usually develops or comes to me as I make him. I never depend on magic items but I do think of what I want him to have as he levels. Example archery guy Bracers of Falcon's aim of Bracers of Archery. Belt of str and dex. Now some people have a taste and gift for certain classes and others don't. Depending on how the game is going I and the group suggest ideas to help him or her get better with their character or if worse comes to worse design another class for them. I said class we often attempt to stick with the original idea for the character if possible.
One thing our group is usually good about is being polite enough to tell in the easiest way possible if a character just sucks and maybe a new one is needed. It happens and we do this for everyone's benefit. No one wants to play a character that he or she hates but also sucks that everyone hates it. We also usually even in home grown campaigns have some idea of what is needed so players are not screwed by playing a useless class. Example Fire user under water. Had a DM screw me by telling me nothing then dropped us off in his version of Ravenloft. He told his friends but since he didn't like me left me to pick a character without any clue what I might face. Fortunatelly crap like that got his ass kicked out. The biggest reason most players get together is to socialize and have fun. If no one is having fun then no one wants to get together.


What's the point of playing a terrible character? Is it somehow unfun to be competent?


Matthew Downie wrote:


A group 'should' be able to handle CRs above APL. A level 5 PC is supposed to be a CR 5 encounter. Two level 5 PCs would be a CR 7 encounter. If your group of four PCs can't handle a CR APL+2 encounter (e.g., the equivalent of a fight where the numbers are two to one in their favor), they're a weak group and will struggle with published material. Which is fine, if you've got an easygoing GM who is willing to give you easy mode, or you're OK with frequent character deaths.

You are incorrect good sir.

From Paizo -

-----

Step 1—Determine APL: Determine the average level of your player characters—this is their Average Party Level (APL for short). You should round this value to the nearest whole number (this is one of the few exceptions to the round down rule). Note that these encounter creation guidelines assume a group of four or five PCs. If your group contains six or more players, add one to their average level. If your group contains three or fewer players, subtract one from their average level. For example, if your group consists of six players, two of which are 4th level and four of which are 5th level, their APL is 6th (28 total levels, divided by six players, rounding up, and adding one to the final result).

Table: Encounter Design
Difficulty/Challenge Rating Equals…
Easy/APL–1
Average/APL
Challenging/APL +1
Hard/APL +2
Epic/APL +3

-----

For a 4 player PARTY an average difficulty encounter is a SINGLE CR 4 enemy.

That is the INTENTION of the system.

If your PARTY of lvl 4's can handle 4 CR 4 enemies that is a CR 8 encounter. That is BEYOND epic difficulty.

And optimized, even semi optimized, groups can do this. With ease. That also skews, as it has yours, the perception of expectation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you play adventure paths, I would not be so concerned.
It is not so punishing that optimization is required.


HWalsh wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:


A group 'should' be able to handle CRs above APL. A level 5 PC is supposed to be a CR 5 encounter. Two level 5 PCs would be a CR 7 encounter. If your group of four PCs can't handle a CR APL+2 encounter (e.g., the equivalent of a fight where the numbers are two to one in their favor), they're a weak group and will struggle with published material. Which is fine, if you've got an easygoing GM who is willing to give you easy mode, or you're OK with frequent character deaths.

You are incorrect good sir.

Stuff

You aren't reading what he said good sir.

Foundation
An PC class with NPC wealth CR is level -1
An PC class with PC wealth CR is level.
So each PC should be a CR = level.
if you have 2 creatures the CR = CR+2
So 2 PCs is a CR+2 encounter.
Conclusion
A party should be able to deal with a CR+2 encounter. If they can't then they are a weak group.
His example would be "a PARTY of lvl 4's should be able to handle 2 CR 4 enemies that is a CR 6 encounter. That is BELOW epic difficulty."


Johnnycat93 wrote:
What's the point of playing a terrible character? Is it somehow unfun to be competent?

When every character you've ever played is hands down best in his area no matter what, it's boring to keep doing it in every game. Just let me play a Kobold once in a while and I'll be happy.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
What's the point of playing a terrible character? Is it somehow unfun to be competent?
When every character you've ever played is hands down best in his area no matter what, it's boring to keep doing it in every game. Just let me play a Kobold once in a while and I'll be happy.

But kobolds aren't terrible. They're bad, sure, but very little effort is required to make them work.

So, again, what's the point of someone insisting on creating a terrible character? Pathfinder is not a difficult game and there isn't a lot one has to do to make a functional character. Mind you I'm under the assumption that one would have to actively try to build a totally useless character, like some kind of bizarro anti-optimization.

It's forgivable, I suppose, if someone is just generally ignorant of how the game works but beyond that I fail to see why someone would want their character to be terrible while simultaneously ignoring all means to better themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone has "fun" in different ways.

Some people need highly optimized killing machines to have fun. Other people don't care if they're largely useless in combat if they manage to re-create their favorite shoujo manga character to role play.

The vast majority of us exist somewhere in between those two extremes. None of us on that spectrum are having fun wrong.


You can make friendly suggestions to a player when the time comes for him or her to make choices, but don't get upset when the suggestions are not taken. I played with someone for years who never quite fully got the knack building characters (oracle of battle who spends most rounds in combat healing?), and in the end you need to let it go. Basically, if you push the matter they will end up resenting you.

It's a game, and your friend needs to remember that. Is your GM tossing out challenges that cater to what you are good at?

Scarab Sages

Crimson172 wrote:
His argument is that other players shouldn't have to suffer because someone wants to play an un-optimized character. I assume he means in combat.

If your choice of character class is the only thing that's causing him to accuse you of playing an un-optimised character then he really has issues.

Alright, so some classes might be better than others at some thing. The monk isn't bad. It's bad starting out but then grows exponentially. It's like the Wizard. You know you don't start out with much but it's all about the long term investment here. Wizards and Monks gain most of their power in the later levels. They just need to be careful and patient along the way so as not to perish early to the many threats that will be strewn along the way to those glorious high power levels of play.

Other classes (typically high Bab classes or divine spellcasters) tend to be much more powerful than other classes during the early levels and then things balance out over time.

If your fellow player is calling your choice of character class a mistake then he's wrong. If he's actually challenging how you choose to play the class then that's another issue and he might actually have a point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:
I don't think this is about terribly built characters. Those are characters that just don't work. You know like wizard with 12 int. Sure you can do it but it's terrible. Playing a monk is not terrible. It's harder optimize but not impossible. You can make monk that just doesn't work though just like you can any other class.

The funny thing is, you can play a wizard with 12 Int just fine. You just don't play like a traditional wizard, using fewer save-DC spells. Instead you focus on spells that have always-working effects, dispels, buffs, and things that don't require saving throws.

At 12 base Int, you can craft (and upgrade) your +Int item over the course of the game to bring you to 18 Int without ever investing any level-up points into it. That's high enough to cast planar binding and grant an Efreeti to bring you to 19+, allowing you access to all the spells you'll ever need to cast.

The only thing you're really losing out on is your save-DCs aren't ever going to be good and you might lose a couple of bonus spell slots over the course of your career, but the bonus spell slots take a backseat to things like school spells, mnemonic enhancer, pearls of power, and so forth.


Ashiel wrote:
That's high enough to cast planar binding and grant an Efreeti to bring you to 19+, allowing you access to all the spells you'll ever need to cast.

Or craft the relevant bonus Tome of Intelligence to avoid all the fuss that Planar Binding for Wish generally entails.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Crimson172 wrote:
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this matter. A friend and I were discussing the playability of a monk. I know it's not a very good class but I really enjoy playing the class. Always have. I understand there are better options. I say it's my character I'll play it how I want. His argument is that other players shouldn't have to suffer because someone wants to play an un-optimized character. I assume he means in combat. So here's the question...

I'll put it like this. If you insist on playing a bad character who should really just be left on the side of the road rather than brought along and given an equal share of treasures on adventures, and people in your party die because you couldn't pull your weight, you owe them an apology.

Quote:
Lets say someone in a game you were DMing is playing a truly terribly built character that they enjoyed. Would let it be? Tell them to make a better one or version of that character? What would you do.

"But I enjoy sucking" is not an appropriate answer, so I would work with them to do something that wasn't a huge drain on the party. If they insisted on using the stuff that was "the same but worse", I'd tell them that they should probably pick a different concept or not get upset when the party treats them like a cohort rather than a team member.

Because I have only one fundamental unbreakable rule when it comes to making characters for my games. Your character has to be able to work with others. Now this rule generally reads as "No antisocial loner psychopathic racists or theo-nazis" but it can just as well be interpreted as "Stop making characters who cannot contribute to the party but exist only to suck up treasure and experience points from the people who are doing all the work".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
That's high enough to cast planar binding and grant an Efreeti to bring you to 19+, allowing you access to all the spells you'll ever need to cast.
Or craft the relevant bonus Tome of Intelligence to avoid all the fuss that Planar Binding for Wish generally entails.

Those things are super overpriced though. It costs you the full material component for the ability to cast wish but you're limited to a very specific subset of options that wish allows. There's almost always a better way of going about it, even if it involves forcing an efreeti to give you an uncorrupted wish through abusive combinations of geas and mind control. >_>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there is a difference between creating a terrible character because you don't understand the game mechanics for or doing it because you want to have fun with a particular build.

in the first instance I would expect the party to give advice and make suggestions while at the same time accepting that sometimes new players need to learn for themselves, and not have a play style dictated to them.

In the second case other players should say 'hey man, are you sure' and then let you get on with it. It helps that our group always discusses builds and party synergy before starting a campaign anyway.

Sometimes suboptimal is extremely good fun. I have a dwarf sorcerer3/oracle3 in a campaign I'm playing. I chose him because I loved the reaper Derro sorcerer mini I had just painted and wanted to play a mad dwarf. Yes I miss 2nd and 3rd level spells and he is potentially a lot less powerful. However he has a shed load of abilities and can help on lots of small ways. I wouldn't take him all the way to level 20 sure but I can have fun for a bit longer.

Enjoy yourself, as long as you aren't trying to actively screw over your players or DM it is groovy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Malice from ignorance is definitely a thing. You can screw over other players without realizing that's what you're doing, and if they get upset then you (generic "you", not calling out anyone in particular here) should be willing to listen to what they're saying and consider changing what you're doing.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every class is viable by the presented system. Not every class is optimal. So long as you make intelligent decisions in building and playing your character, you'll be fine. Full Stop.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Malice from ignorance is definitely a thing. You can screw over other players without realizing that's what you're doing, and if they get upset then you (generic "you", not calling out anyone in particular here) should be willing to listen to what they're saying and consider changing what you're doing.

Absolutely. Like, there's lots of traps in the game. Which is part of the reason I'm so willing to work with players to make concepts work without getting left in the dust by normal gameplay.

However, in some cases I've met players who seem to get off on the fact they're making bad characters and even if the option is essentially "the same but better" they're very resistant to it (such as an effect that gives a +1 but getting it made into a +2 or something), it becomes obvious that they're trying to be disruptive and it's not their concept it's the sheer fact that they suck and want to suck for reasons.

If you go that route, expect no sympathy if the rest of the party do what is reasonable, such as not splitting the enemy's loot with you, or outright leaving you at an Inn somewhere to go on about their adventure without the character who never contributes to the party in any form or fashion other than bumbling and alerting all the goblins in the tunnels to come try to murder you - which they then proceed to be unable to help you deal with.


The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Just like everyone else has said, the question here is, "Does your character work well within the party? Is everyone having fun?" If the answer is yes to both, your character is probably just fine.

There may be situations where a very weak character may not be terribly fun. Your situation may or may not be one of them. Seems like something you would figure out pretty easily while playing the character.

...a serious attempt at a functional 12-Int wizard build is an interesting case. It seems like something where yeah, you could build it, but wouldn't it be easier to use another class?


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

The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

The best advice I have for those who want to play an antipaladin is to synergize with your allies and don't play like a Paladin, play like an enabler. An antipaladin can give a net -6 to saves vs Fear effects (have them open a fight with a foe with an Intimidate check and then get them in Aura range) and let your caster's drop a phantasmal killer or something on the foe.

They're considerably worse at tanking than Paladins and their spell list sucks, but with a retinue of bloody skeletons (they get animate dead on their spell list so a scroll or something is helpful) and perhaps the Ability Focus feat, they can destroy high-profile targets while clogging up enemy lines nicely.


Ashiel wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

The best advice I have for those who want to play an antipaladin is to synergize with your allies and don't play like a Paladin, play like an enabler. An antipaladin can give a net -6 to saves vs Fear effects (have them open a fight with a foe with an Intimidate check and then get them in Aura range) and let your caster's drop a phantasmal killer or something on the foe.

They're considerably worse at tanking than Paladins and their spell list sucks, but with a retinue of bloody skeletons (they get animate dead on their spell list so a scroll or something is helpful) and perhaps the Ability Focus feat, they can destroy high-profile targets while clogging up enemy lines nicely.

And if you're looking to emulate the Paladin's party role, the Insinuator archetype is excellent for this while still keeping much of the debuffing the Antipaladin has. Plus you get bonus feats instead of spells, which considering how bizarrely terrible the AP list is (why does a 4th level caster need so many save-or-sucks?!?) is probably an upgrade.

Liberty's Edge

If playing a published adventure how optimized you are matters a little, but that usually requires only minimal optimization to be decent. So don't worry too much about absolute level of optimization. Put a 16+ in your attack/casting stat, don't dump Con, buy a couple of necessary Feats depending on build, and don't take one of the truly terrible archetypes, and you'll generally be fine.

What you should be very concerned with is relative levels of optimization. Are you roughly as effective as your other party members at the tasks you're supposed to be effective at? If yes, then you'll be fine, almost no matter how high or low that effectiveness is in absolute terms. But if you're vastly less effective than the other PCs? That's probably not gonna be a lot of fun. And they probably won't enjoy it if you're at a much higher level of optimization either. A GM can adjust challenges to the party...but only very effectively if the party are roughly on par with each other to start with.

So that's what I'd be concerned about.

This is all for non-PFS play, obviously. PFS is a very different beast and you should probably care a bit more about optimization in absolute terms in that environment.

As to the OP's original question: Unchained Monk is a fine martial class. Qinggong Corebook Monk is potentially fine with the right other Archetypes and hopefully Pummeling Style. Go with one of those and you'll be adequate, possibly much more than adequate. I'd go Unchained, myself. That, Str 16, and high Wis and you'll do alright.


Ashiel wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

The best advice I have for those who want to play an antipaladin is to synergize with your allies and don't play like a Paladin, play like an enabler. An antipaladin can give a net -6 to saves vs Fear effects (have them open a fight with a foe with an Intimidate check and then get them in Aura range) and let your caster's drop a phantasmal killer or something on the foe.

They're considerably worse at tanking than Paladins and their spell list sucks, but with a retinue of bloody skeletons (they get animate dead on their spell list so a scroll or something is helpful) and perhaps the Ability Focus feat, they can destroy high-profile targets while clogging up enemy lines nicely.

This is all true, but the Anti-paladin didn't synergize well with the party. We were a Hunter, Beatstick Cleric, Necromancy Wizard, and Crossbowman Bard. DM didn't like us having large numbers of minions, so preference kept bloody skeletons out. Our Necromancy Wizard basically was allowed to keep one undead minion with as high hit-die as we could find around.

By the end of the day he wanted to player a Bloodrager, Warpriest, Magus, or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terminalmancer wrote:
...a serious attempt at a functional 12-Int wizard build is an interesting case. It seems like something where yeah, you could build it, but wouldn't it be easier to use another class?

Depends on what your intentions were. For example, it might be a very practical build for someone intending to go down the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer routes and wanting more Strength and Constitution. Or if you're intending to be a focused blaster, raising Dexterity may be more helpful to hitting with Rays and such than Intelligence would be.

You might intend to be making a very survival focused wizard, so you have way more Dex, Con, and Wisdom than your typical wizard.

You might be intending to with conjuration/necromancy/abjurations as a primary focus and really don't care about most of the other things. If you're not intending to charm/dominate/polymorph enemies, many CC spells that manipulate terrain either have no saving throws or don't really care if you make them (wind wall, wall of fire, wall of stone, etc).

Spells like haste, summon monster, animate dead, and virtually all buff spells (including illusions like greater invisibility, mirror image, blur/displacement, and stoneskin don't have save DCs) don't care about your saving throw DCs in the least.

It's not much different from making low-Wisdom clerics which is something I do all the time (clerics have less incentive to have high Wisdoms than Wizards do to have high Int).


Ashiel wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
...a serious attempt at a functional 12-Int wizard build is an interesting case. It seems like something where yeah, you could build it, but wouldn't it be easier to use another class?

Depends on what your intentions were. For example, it might be a very practical build for someone intending to go down the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer routes and wanting more Strength and Constitution. Or if you're intending to be a focused blaster, raising Dexterity may be more helpful to hitting with Rays and such than Intelligence would be.

You might intend to be making a very survival focused wizard, so you have way more Dex, Con, and Wisdom than your typical wizard.

You might be intending to with conjuration/necromancy/abjurations as a primary focus and really don't care about most of the other things. If you're not intending to charm/dominate/polymorph enemies, many CC spells that manipulate terrain either have no saving throws or don't really care if you make them (wind wall, wall of fire, wall of stone, etc).

Spells like haste, summon monster, animate dead, and virtually all buff spells (including illusions like greater invisibility, mirror image, blur/displacement, and stoneskin don't have save DCs) don't care about your saving throw DCs in the least.

It's not much different from making low-Wisdom clerics which is something I do all the time (clerics have less incentive to have high Wisdoms than Wizards do to have high Int).

12 int meeans you can only cast 2nd level and lower spells. A 12 int wizard cant cast haste....


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I assume Ashiel intends to start with 12 Int, and raise that to keep pace with spellcasting requirements. Just the "only enough to cast your spells" that you often times see with divine casters going martial.


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

The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

The best advice I have for those who want to play an antipaladin is to synergize with your allies and don't play like a Paladin, play like an enabler. An antipaladin can give a net -6 to saves vs Fear effects (have them open a fight with a foe with an Intimidate check and then get them in Aura range) and let your caster's drop a phantasmal killer or something on the foe.

They're considerably worse at tanking than Paladins and their spell list sucks, but with a retinue of bloody skeletons (they get animate dead on their spell list so a scroll or something is helpful) and perhaps the Ability Focus feat, they can destroy high-profile targets while clogging up enemy lines nicely.

This is all true, but the Anti-paladin didn't synergize well with the party. We were a Hunter, Beatstick Cleric, Necromancy Wizard, and Crossbowman Bard. DM didn't like us having large numbers of minions, so preference kept bloody skeletons out. Our Necromancy Wizard basically was allowed to keep one undead minion with as high hit-die as we could find around.

By the end of the day he wanted to player a Bloodrager, Warpriest, Magus, or something.

Yeah, it's one of those classes that really thrives on teamwork. To my chagrin, when I was playing in Reign of Winter, one of our party was playing an antipaladin. An antipaladin who had the potential to be grossly good (he was undead and had Charisma prime with Strength secondary) and he was the reason that I took the psionic equivalent of phantasmal killer (because his aura + intimidate pushed my DCs into the auto-kill territories) but in virtually every encounter he never used Intimidate, slowly marched towards enemies and never did anything except attempt to hit them with his axe (rather than crush foes with the despair of bestow curse on touch of corruption touch attacks).

The end result is he always felt like a slow weenie and my psion never actually manifested her phantasmal killer equivalent because he never actually debuffed anything (which debuffing is what the antipaladin is king at).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seconding that the character should be competent for the campaign. After that, optimization is gravy. Character should be able to handle level appropriate enemies, with a couple of caveats. If combat is less of a focus you don't have to worry about that so much, but they ought to be competent in what the campaign is about, E.G. mystery solving. The other exception would be if you are filling a necessary non-combat hole in the party. That being said, its very group dependent. As long as everyone is happy, no problem. If someone is unhappy, then discussion and probably compromise is in order.

And RE: the "what's fun about incompetence" crowd...holy straw man, batman! No one (in this thread at least) is arguing for incompetence. Just that they don't need to be 'optimized' if their build or concept is not optimized.(to whatever value they feel is being foisted on them) And that, to the optimization resistant crowd, is the point. Not incompetence, but freedom to take the character they want to play and run with it.

Liberty's Edge

Insain Dragoon wrote:
12 int meeans you can only cast 2nd level and lower spells. A 12 int wizard cant cast haste....

Well, a Headband fixes that, and if you're going with Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight X you might well have the money for a +2 headband by the time you have 3rd level spells. And can certainly have used a level up point for Int 13 by then. From there, upgrading the headband takes care of it.

Personally, that seems really low even for a Wizard who doesn't give a damn about Save DCs but it works in theory.

EDIT: Ninja'd, ah well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I assume Ashiel intends to start with 12 Int, and raise that to keep pace with spellcasting requirements. Just the "only enough to cast your spells" that you often times see with divine casters going martial.

Yeah exactly. I prefer to start with a 13 in most cases (gives a nice 6 level window before you need to raise your stats with magic items and lets you hit 19 with just your enhancement item).

Now, I won't say that you couldn't still contribute better than most characters with a sub-19 Int at high levels. RAW, you don't have any issues casting metamagic versions of lower level spells (because it uses a higher level slot but doesn't change the spell level for any other effect) so a high level wizard with a 13-15 Int could load up on Metamagic feats and just use their 6th-9th level slots to metamagic the hell out of low-level spells (you still get your higher level slots even if you can't cast higher level spells).

Which means your loadout would be 1st-5th level spells, then lots of 1st-5th level spells loaded up with metamagic feats like quickened, intensified, echoing, rime, empowered, and maximized.


Ashiel wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

The best advice I have for those who want to play an antipaladin is to synergize with your allies and don't play like a Paladin, play like an enabler. An antipaladin can give a net -6 to saves vs Fear effects (have them open a fight with a foe with an Intimidate check and then get them in Aura range) and let your caster's drop a phantasmal killer or something on the foe.

They're considerably worse at tanking than Paladins and their spell list sucks, but with a retinue of bloody skeletons (they get animate dead on their spell list so a scroll or something is helpful) and perhaps the Ability Focus feat, they can destroy high-profile targets while clogging up enemy lines nicely.

This is all true, but the Anti-paladin didn't synergize well with the party. We were a Hunter, Beatstick Cleric, Necromancy Wizard, and Crossbowman Bard. DM didn't like us having large numbers of minions, so preference kept bloody skeletons out. Our Necromancy Wizard basically was allowed to keep one undead minion with as high hit-die as we could find around.

By the end of the day he wanted to player a Bloodrager, Warpriest, Magus, or something.

Yeah, it's one of those classes that really thrives on teamwork. To my chagrin, when I was playing in Reign of Winter, one of our party was playing an antipaladin. An...

Ahh that must have been frustrating!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
...a serious attempt at a functional 12-Int wizard build is an interesting case. It seems like something where yeah, you could build it, but wouldn't it be easier to use another class?

Depends on what your intentions were. For example, it might be a very practical build for someone intending to go down the Eldritch Knight or Arcane Archer routes and wanting more Strength and Constitution. Or if you're intending to be a focused blaster, raising Dexterity may be more helpful to hitting with Rays and such than Intelligence would be.

You might intend to be making a very survival focused wizard, so you have way more Dex, Con, and Wisdom than your typical wizard.

You might be intending to with conjuration/necromancy/abjurations as a primary focus and really don't care about most of the other things. If you're not intending to charm/dominate/polymorph enemies, many CC spells that manipulate terrain either have no saving throws or don't really care if you make them (wind wall, wall of fire, wall of stone, etc).

Spells like haste, summon monster, animate dead, and virtually all buff spells (including illusions like greater invisibility, mirror image, blur/displacement, and stoneskin don't have save DCs) don't care about your saving throw DCs in the least.

It's not much different from making low-Wisdom clerics which is something I do all the time (clerics have less incentive to have high Wisdoms than Wizards do to have high Int).

12 int meeans you can only cast 2nd level and lower spells. A 12 int wizard cant cast haste....

Dude, Ashiel was just continuing a conversation about a 12 int starting wizard who raised his int via headband and one use of planar binding/tome to max out at 19...

Before you call someone on something please do your due diligence.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

The Way of the Wicked campaign I was a part of had a lot of problems due to character choices of questionable optimization. We had a Bard who's only useful ability was singing and occasionally casting a buff spell because he specialized in being a crossbowman.

One player selected Anti-Paladin and we all thought it was a great idea, till we realized Anti-Paladins are really bad compared to Paladins. By the time the campaign ended the player had more fun doing game stuff with his cohort instead of PC.

In a campaign that expects more out of you it's not possible to get through with poor choices like that.

...

This is all true, but the Anti-paladin didn't synergize well with the party. We were a Hunter, Beatstick Cleric, Necromancy Wizard, and Crossbowman Bard. DM didn't like us having large numbers of minions, so preference kept bloody skeletons out. Our Necromancy Wizard basically was allowed to keep one undead minion with as high hit-die as we could find around.

By the end of the day he wanted to player a Bloodrager, Warpriest, Magus, or something.

Yeah, it's one of those classes that really thrives on teamwork. To my chagrin, when I was playing in Reign of Winter, one of our party was playing an antipaladin. An antipaladin who had the potential to be grossly good (he was undead and had Charisma prime with Strength secondary) and he was the reason that I took the psionic equivalent of phantasmal killer (because his aura + intimidate pushed my DCs into the auto-kill territories) but in virtually every encounter he never used Intimidate, slowly marched towards enemies and never did anything except attempt to hit them with his axe (rather than crush foes with the despair of bestow curse on touch of corruption touch attacks).

The end result is he always felt like a slow weenie and my psion never actually manifested her phantasmal killer equivalent because he never actually debuffed anything (which debuffing is what the antipaladin is king at).

Ahh that must have been frustrating!

Oh it was. Psions have a very limited set of powers known so having picked up phantasmal killer specifically to synergize with his antipaladin was a fairly significant investment and meant I didn't get something else in its place.


voska66 wrote:
I don't think this is about terribly built characters. Those are characters that just don't work. You know like wizard with 12 int. Sure you can do it but it's terrible. Playing a monk is not terrible. It's harder optimize but not impossible. You can make monk that just doesn't work though just like you can any other class.

Ashiel was quoting this guy.... Didn't see any mention of headbands. In either post.

I assumed it was a case of focusing so much on the macro of a character build that one forgets the micro parts of it.

Like building a trip user and forgetting you can't trip something 2 size categories larger than you until you auto-fail 7 levels into the campaign.


Ashiel wrote:
voska66 wrote:
I don't think this is about terribly built characters. Those are characters that just don't work. You know like wizard with 12 int. Sure you can do it but it's terrible. Playing a monk is not terrible. It's harder optimize but not impossible. You can make monk that just doesn't work though just like you can any other class.

The funny thing is, you can play a wizard with 12 Int just fine. You just don't play like a traditional wizard, using fewer save-DC spells. Instead you focus on spells that have always-working effects, dispels, buffs, and things that don't require saving throws.

At 12 base Int, you can craft (and upgrade) your +Int item over the course of the game to bring you to 18 Int without ever investing any level-up points into it. That's high enough to cast planar binding and grant an Efreeti to bring you to 19+, allowing you access to all the spells you'll ever need to cast.

The only thing you're really losing out on is your save-DCs aren't ever going to be good and you might lose a couple of bonus spell slots over the course of your career, but the bonus spell slots take a backseat to things like school spells, mnemonic enhancer, pearls of power, and so forth.

This was earlier in the thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not that being ineffective in combat doesn't come with some perks.

Community Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A reminder that not everybody plays the game the same way, and one person's "poorly made character" is another's "just right for this adventure." Let's not skip ahead and make assumptions about player intentions—talk it out with your GM and group.

1 to 50 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / A player with poorly made character. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.