What Is The Min Combat Help Needed?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Why do you want to do it would be the overwhelmingly important reaction as a fellow player? Why would determine what my expectations of a player would be.

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, realize combat can be chaotic. Bruno make helpful flowchart!
I'm a little concerned about the right side of the chart.
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori, is very versatile.

O.O

Bruno can grapple me anytime! (wink! O.V) I may even have a couple "grapple moves" I could show him myself.

usually that costs extra, but we'll make an exception for Bruno. ;)

Sovereign Court 4/5

"I am Special Agent Baronet Alistair Quinnell, of the Lion Blades. I am well trained in finding and disabling traps, identifying the abilities of the opposition, finding said opposition when it is trying to hide, and uncovering obscure bits of information about the places we as Pathfinders are sent on missions. In addition, I am a trained negotiator and am competent with utilizing almost any type of magical device. In the unfortunate circumstance of combat, I will be in the rear with my bow engaging the foes we see and watching out for any additional foes we don't see. If I enter melee, something has gone terribly wrong."

This is a (slightly embellished) version of my usual introduction of my least combat capable character, an Empiricist investigator with point blank shot, precise shot, focused shot, and weapon focus (shortbow) for his only real combat utility. His main use in combat is spotting the foe (makes perception DCs of 40+ regularly and often has a see invisibility extract running,) identifying what the foe is (all knowledges trained, and inspiration is useful,) and telling the party what to do about it (inspirational expertise talent.) As a skill character, he might not add much directly to the fight, but the last time he hit the table I had a 5 star GM flipping me off for wrecking his fun.

The Exchange 5/5

I glance around at the other players and say...

"Hi! I'm Friendly! But you can call me 'Fire' if you want to! And I'd like to take this time to formally apologize for setting y'all on fire! Just on the off chance that it should happen." Big grin!

change of voice to be OOC - "I'm running an Ifrit Alchemist who's a fair "Face" PC, so I can handle most of the Social Skills, as well as the standard Alchemist stuff - Fire Bombs, Alchemical items, etc..."

this added with my table tent let's the other players know a good bit about my PC, and what he "brings to the party..."

Scarab Sages 4/5

Ok, here it is...

lengthy anecdote:
I built an Investigator that was largely centered around skills. He started out at 4th level thanks to GM credit and AP chronicles. I played him for all of 4th level through Destiny of the Sands. He was, from the beginning, extremely effective at skill checks. With Breadth of Experience, his high Int, Expanded Inspiration, and Underworld Inspiration, he could pretty regularly top 30 in the knowledge skills, perception, and several other skills. Not a specialist in any one skill, but more than competent in about 2/3s of the skills, and easily the skill monkey of the group.

I did devote a little bit to combat. I had Weapon Finesse as a feat, and my extracts were generally centered around having a combat option. As a gnome with a strength penalty, though, it took him a couple of rounds to really get going. Move action to study a target, standard to cast Stone Fist. Standard on the next round to cast Chill Touch (from Gnome spell-like ability) Touch attack for 1d6 cold. On subsequent rounds, punch with Stone Fist and stack Studied Combat and Chill Touch. All told, somewhere around 10 damage on average if he hit, on one attack per round. But with a limited duration. He did keep a Wand of Recharge Innate Magic around to recover Chill Touch. Surrounded by combat characters, though, it wasn't an issue in the 1-5 scenarios.

At 5th level, another AP chronicle kicked in. I took Alertness to qualify him for Sleepless Detective, then took a level of Sleepless Detective at 6th. This boosted skills even farther, adding Int to Perception, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy to Gather Information. It also gave him Detect Magic. And it also gave him 1d6 Sneak Attack.

Now, after not playing him for all of 5th level, I went into a subtler 6-7 season 6 scenario that did not involve robots. It was a 3 player group, plus a Kyra pregen. The group was myself, a Lunar Oracle with an animal companion (can't remember what), who might have been 5th level, and a 6th level ninja. Cool. The animal can tank, Kyra can heal, Oracle can buff his pet, and the ninja can help with melee. I'll handle the skills and bak the ninja up on traps, and the ninja will be the backup on some of my stuff.

We struggled through the first fight, which ended up being tougher than we expected, but there were unusual circumstances (fighting without a majority of our equipment). We made it through without any serious damage. When we got to the boss fight, however, things went bad fast. There were three enemies, if I remember it right. One caster, a lesser melee type, and a Ranger. We focused and took the caster out. I did contribute a Studied Strike to that. Basically, I did my burst of damage, then I was out of options. I think the pet dropped the lesser melee enemy.

But the Ranger was hitting hard and dealing significant and consistent damage to the group. He was in position to take the ninja down, so we had Kyra step up to run interference, while Channeling to heal. The Ranger took Kyra from full hit points to dead with one round of attacks (favored enemy human). That's when things really went bad.

The Oracle kept healing his pet, trying to keep it standing. I was using a Wand of CLW to help. It dropped once or twice with us healing it enough for it to pop back up for a round or two. The problem is, we weren't doing any significant damage to the Ranger, and he was doing a large amount to whoever he hit. I stepped up at some point and got my Studied Strike in, but Chill Touch was gone at this point. The Ranger hit me, dropping me to single digits. He dropped the animal for good not long after (or possibly just before).

What followed was us all trying to keep our distance from the Ranger to at least limit him to a single attack. The Ninja would run to me or the Oracle. We'd heal him. The Ranger would run up and hit him. On the rounds that I wasn't healing, I was doing the only thing I could from range, using UMD on a Wand of Magic Missiles to do 1d4+1. I'd figured out that my chance to UMD was better than my chance to hit with a ranged attack, and as a small character, it did more damage.

A few rounds of that, and the Ranger had dropped both the Oracle and the Ninja, leaving me. If I stepped up to him, he'd drop me in one round. I'd drunk an extract of Expeditious Retreat earlier, so I would run far enough that he couldn't get to me in a single move, and I'd try to get behind something so he couldn't charge. If that didn't take my full round, I'd either heal myself or Magic Missile him. Somewhere in there, he'd get a hit in and drop me to single digits again. I'd withdraw and start the whole process over.

After all of that, though, I don't think he was even down half his hit points. I was a 6th level character, and I couldn't do more than 1d4+1 a round to him or take more than one attack from him.

I found a way out of it by luring him away and enlisting an NPC's assistance (likely a kind moment from the GM taking pity on the other players). It probably should either have been a TPK, or I should have run leaving the other characters to die (I had an extract of Invisibility left, which ultimately I used to avoid dying myself).

So, the lesson I took away from that is, even in a group that seems to have combat covered, you can find yourself in a position where your ability to contribute to combat can be the difference between success and a TPK. If I hadn't been able to do any damage at all, the Caster might have still been up when Kyra dropped, and that would have been really bad. If I hadn't been able to help heal, the pet and Ninja would have been down much faster. But even with being able to contribute those things, I still ended up in a situation where I needed to do damage or run away and abandon my team. I did not like the way that felt.

After a couple of more GM credits, I devoted the gold from that scenario and those GM chronicles to improving my offense. I took Mutagen with my 7th level Feat. I bought an Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists. I bought a Belt of Dexterity. I started using Alter Self to maximize my Studied Combat by getting to apply it to three attacks per round. I'd already been drinking a Heroism Potion and recovering it with Alchemical Allocation. And I started being liberal with drinking my Shield extracts when I suspected combat was near, since my duration was getting up there.

All in all, I went from running around with an AC around 22 to buffing to an AC around 30.

My attacks went from one attack at +8(+10 with Heroism) for 1d4+2 with Studied Combat, occasionally stacking 1d6 cold and/or 1d6 sneak attack, to claw, claw, bite +13/+13/+13 (1d4+8/1d4+8/1d4+8) plus a 2d6 studied strike at the end if I thought the target was close to dropping. Plus 1d6 sneak each attack if I had a flank partner, plus 1d6 cold on the first 7 attacks if I had time to cast Cold Touch. Not two-handing power attacking Barbarian territory, but more than respectable.

At 8th level, I picked up Monstrous Physique and started turning into a Charda, and my attack sequence went to bite, claw, claw, claw, claw +15/+15/+15/+15 (1d6+9/1d4+9/1d4+9/1d4+9/1d4+9) and my AC went to 32. At that point, I started being able to serve as a main frontliner, and that continued through 9th level, when I took Quick Study allowing me to further burst damage by adding a Studied Strike each round if needed. I'm starting 10th level now. This on a character that I was told on the Advice board would never be an effective combatant, because my physical stats were STR 8 DEX 14 CON 12.

All it took was an 8,000 gold investment, a feat (or 2, if you add in Weapon Finesse), and learning how the Investigator works. My skills didn't suffer at all, but the character contributes much more to the group now than he used to.

That's not to say there aren't still things that can cause him problems. DR is one, as he doesn't have a good way to overcome it other than stacking lots of small attacks that just barely overpower it. He can switch to a cold iron rapier and use the Studied Strike cycling for a while. I need to pick up an Adamantine one as well.

Anyway, I know not every class has access to the buffs that the Investigator does, but every class has something in its design that can help in combat. Becoming an optimized combat character might take a lot of investment. Getting to a point that you can contribute something doesn't. If you fail to make even the small investment necessary to help the team, you might find yourself facing off alone against a high level Ranger with the whole team's lives at stake.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Going Full Defense is a valid tactic if you're not sure how hard the opponent is hitting and you don't want to end up a blood smear to a Langfordian axe.

There have been at least two or three situations my -1 has been in where if he had *not* gone Full Defense, he would have gotten *mauled*, and he still contributed by 'plugging a gap'.

More often, though, he Fights Defensively, because again, not sure how hard the folks we're fighting are hitting and he's been what I refer to as a 'pocket tank with stealth capabilities'.

If it looks like he can open it up, he'll do so, but to eschew defenses to go 'all out' (and risk the Flurry of Whiffs Syndrome) to no benefit isn't very smart. Sure, combats might *gasp* take a round or two longer, but typically more folks come out of the fight *healthier* from the conservative approach vs. Team BURN IT ALL NAO!

Silver Crusade 5/5

*Enters thread, looks around.*

*Facepalm*

*Backs away slowly, avoiding all eye contact.*

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

If you don't want to be all combaty then do things your skills will support. Intimidate is a good one. Aid another, flank. Go invisible and pour oil on the floor near the enemy so it will fall down when it moves. Lay cantrips out. Just do something productive, even its just being a bag of hit points. Nothing irritates players faster than someone who seemingly contributes nothing to the game whether that be combat, non combat, whatever, especially if it's being done under the auspices of "that's just what my character would do"

Dataphiles 3/5

Didn't we just do this thread? Like a week ago? I personally don't care if you're built for combat so long as you are contributing. I don't really even care how much the character is able to contribute as long as they are participating. If you want to make the character, and you think you'll enjoy playing it. Go for it. I would just suggest, as others have said, to get a feel for the expectations of the other players when you sit down to play.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This another reason I build characters as powerful as possible. If you have a character that does little or nothing in combat(or out of combat
).Let the group know what your character can do so the group can decide before hand.

If we know your weak points the group can make plans and adjust for them. If I ask the human how you deal with darkness and say it does not bother you, and then it turns out you are fine with 50% miss chance and guessing where the bad guys are, it is bad form as I could picked darkvision as wizard spell.

Let the group know what you plan to bring and let them decide for themselves how things will be. More than a few games other players were very scared, but I was more than able to pull extra weight to keep the party safe.

Vice versa if you have a combat machine no skills, awesome. I will dink around in combat using guidance and intimidating the bad guys in clever joking ways while you mow them down. And I will do the talking.

If you have both great! I will sit back and make jokes!

Just let the party what to know to expect so they can prepare and are not blind sided when things get serious.


Alistair Quinnell wrote:

"I am Special Agent Baronet Alistair Quinnell, of the Lion Blades. I am well trained in finding and disabling traps, identifying the abilities of the opposition, finding said opposition when it is trying to hide, and uncovering obscure bits of information about the places we as Pathfinders are sent on missions. In addition, I am a trained negotiator and am competent with utilizing almost any type of magical device. In the unfortunate circumstance of combat, I will be in the rear with my bow engaging the foes we see and watching out for any additional foes we don't see. If I enter melee, something has gone terribly wrong."

This is a (slightly embellished) version of my usual introduction of my least combat capable character, an Empiricist investigator with point blank shot, precise shot, focused shot, and weapon focus (shortbow) for his only real combat utility. His main use in combat is spotting the foe (makes perception DCs of 40+ regularly and often has a see invisibility extract running,) identifying what the foe is (all knowledges trained, and inspiration is useful,) and telling the party what to do about it (inspirational expertise talent.) As a skill character, he might not add much directly to the fight, but the last time he hit the table I had a 5 star GM flipping me off for wrecking his fun.

The mathematics of skills and checks are not designed for hyper specialisation (where the dice roll become irrelevant even for difficult tasks). If you are standing back in combat because you have channeled all your class and racial abilities, skills, feats, equipment and traits into a small number of dice rolls you are managing to both let down and overshadow the party.

Winning Pathfinder, is not 'Wrecking' the DM's 'fun'!


The Sword wrote:
Alistair Quinnell wrote:

"I am Special Agent Baronet Alistair Quinnell, of the Lion Blades. I am well trained in finding and disabling traps, identifying the abilities of the opposition, finding said opposition when it is trying to hide, and uncovering obscure bits of information about the places we as Pathfinders are sent on missions. In addition, I am a trained negotiator and am competent with utilizing almost any type of magical device. In the unfortunate circumstance of combat, I will be in the rear with my bow engaging the foes we see and watching out for any additional foes we don't see. If I enter melee, something has gone terribly wrong."

This is a (slightly embellished) version of my usual introduction of my least combat capable character, an Empiricist investigator with point blank shot, precise shot, focused shot, and weapon focus (shortbow) for his only real combat utility. His main use in combat is spotting the foe (makes perception DCs of 40+ regularly and often has a see invisibility extract running,) identifying what the foe is (all knowledges trained, and inspiration is useful,) and telling the party what to do about it (inspirational expertise talent.) As a skill character, he might not add much directly to the fight, but the last time he hit the table I had a 5 star GM flipping me off for wrecking his fun.

The mathematics of skills and checks are not designed for hyper specialisation (where the dice roll become irrelevant even for difficult tasks). If you are standing back in combat because you have channeled all your class and racial abilities, skills, feats, equipment and traits into a small number of dice rolls you are managing to both let down and overshadow the party.

Winning Pathfinder, is not 'Wrecking' the DM's 'fun'!

*does quick bit of math on Empiricist and their skill capabilities*

20 Int, 5 ranks, and a +3 class skill bonus is +13. Average inspiration roll(rounded down) is +3. The Investigator probably has Heightened Awareness for a +2 (and they should, because HA is amazing), and if they feel like it they can get +10 from Acute Senses.

That is a total of...+28. Take 10 gets 38.

Yep, I could believe the PC is hitting DC40 checks routinely. The above isn't even hyperspecialized. It's just a skill focused class when they wake up and say "you know what, I want to be really good at *this* skill today.". Guess this is a case of "don't hate the player, hate the game".

Besides, if a GM is miserable because a support PC is beating a bunch of skill checks, then that does not say good things about the GM.


Just out of interest, how is Intelligence being applied as the skill stat for all skills and where was it mentioned that the character was 5th level?

Even were these the case, taking Acute senses and Heightened awareness to get a consistent further +12 on a check that is already +16 is hyper specialisation that is breaking the mathmatics of the game.

I don't hate anyone, I do dislike players that think winning is about guaranteed success and breaking the machanics of the game. That is not heroic, or satisfying for DM or other players. I suggest you go and read the current thread about benchmarking monster abilities.

A GM should not be expected to run a written campaign for players that tool their players to achieve results on all but a 1, single hit kill all enemies and SOS them unless they roll a 20 on a save. At that point you may as well handwave the results and scrap the mechanics. In fact why not just hand the player the book and say fill your boots, let me know when you've finished reading the adventure and then we can start the next book.

3/5

Katisha wrote:
Nathan Hartshorn wrote:
Katisha wrote:

so - why not just run a different PC? when you set up the party, if there are two support characters, why play another?

Because this isn't always possible. When my old group was first getting started no one had more than one PC and with a small number of people that irregularly rotated it wasn't always possible to have all of the basic roles covered, which can lead to 3 support character situations.

??? Please don't take this wrong, but why not just run an Iconic then?

edit: (bolding above mine)or just pull out another PC that you built. Or did you just build one PC? Everyone only built one? What do you do when everyone shows up with just one weapon - and they all happen to be great swords?

Minor derail:
I was part of the greater PFS in my area and was slowly getting this group into it. Because of that every new scenario was a good teaching moment about being a versatile Pathfinder. It wasn't until about level 6 that anyone wanted to make a new character. I was running the games more often than not and couldn't bring any of my characters to games. It's always thinking back to these new groups that makes me unappreciative of advice to "play a different character". And I understand pregens are a thing, but some of them are not the best for helping fill weaknesses. Example: if the group was missing a healer and someone was willing to take that on themselves they'd pick up Kyra. Later they find out that they need ranged weapons to hit REDACTED who's standing on the ceiling casting spells at them. Kyra is not the best for ranged attacks at lower levels and the group as a whole were melee focused. It took stacking furniture towers to be able to do anything (small room, high ceiling) worthwhile.

I mean no offense with any of this derail, just trying to explain the situation.

Dark Archive 3/5 **

Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, realize combat can be chaotic. Bruno make helpful flowchart!
I'm a little concerned about the right side of the chart.
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori, is very versatile.

But can Bruno grapple true love?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To burno grappling IS true love

Sovereign Court

I expect every character to contribute something in combat. It's fine if most of your skills are out-of-combat, but you can still aid another, spam a crossbow or throw alchemist fires. Cowering in a corner using total defense is unacceptable for me.

1/5

The Sword wrote:

Just out of interest, how is Intelligence being applied as the skill stat for all skills and where was it mentioned that the character was 5th level?

Even were these the case, taking Acute senses and Heightened awareness to get a consistent further +12 on a check that is already +16 is hyper specialisation that is breaking the mathmatics of the game.

I don't hate anyone, I do dislike players that think winning is about guaranteed success and breaking the machanics of the game. That is not heroic, or satisfying for DM or other players. I suggest you go and read the current thread about benchmarking monster abilities.

A GM should not be expected to run a written campaign for players that tool their players to achieve results on all but a 1, single hit kill all enemies and SOS them unless they roll a 20 on a save. At that point you may as well handwave the results and scrap the mechanics. In fact why not just hand the player the book and say fill your boots, let me know when you've finished reading the adventure and then we can start the next book.

The empiricist archetype of the investigator class switches many skills to int. There is a trait that switches diplomacy to int as well. At that point there is little reason not to pump int as high as possible which does break the DC's of many scenarios. My 8th level empiricist has been making perception rolls well over 40 for some time. I cannot remember the last time he failed a disable or knowledge check.

Sovereign Court 4/5

The Sword wrote:
Alistair Quinnell wrote:

"I am Special Agent Baronet Alistair Quinnell, of the Lion Blades. I am well trained in finding and disabling traps, identifying the abilities of the opposition, finding said opposition when it is trying to hide, and uncovering obscure bits of information about the places we as Pathfinders are sent on missions. In addition, I am a trained negotiator and am competent with utilizing almost any type of magical device. In the unfortunate circumstance of combat, I will be in the rear with my bow engaging the foes we see and watching out for any additional foes we don't see. If I enter melee, something has gone terribly wrong."

This is a (slightly embellished) version of my usual introduction of my least combat capable character, an Empiricist investigator with point blank shot, precise shot, focused shot, and weapon focus (shortbow) for his only real combat utility. His main use in combat is spotting the foe (makes perception DCs of 40+ regularly and often has a see invisibility extract running,) identifying what the foe is (all knowledges trained, and inspiration is useful,) and telling the party what to do about it (inspirational expertise talent.) As a skill character, he might not add much directly to the fight, but the last time he hit the table I had a 5 star GM flipping me off for wrecking his fun.

The mathematics of skills and checks are not designed for hyper specialisation (where the dice roll become irrelevant even for difficult tasks). If you are standing back in combat because you have channeled all your class and racial abilities, skills, feats, equipment and traits into a small number of dice rolls you are managing to both let down and overshadow the party.

Winning Pathfinder, is not 'Wrecking' the DM's 'fun'!

Number 1, a lot of parties like the idea of the enemy not having a surprise round. Number two, using a bow with the proper archery feats and giving the whole party a +4 to hit for the first round of combat is not exactly just hanging in the back, and neither is handling the wands of bull's strength, barkskin, mage armor, or whatever else the party wants to have activated but doesn't have the action economy for. (yes, investigators require UMD to work wands, so I put the points in it.)

3/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

To be a little more specific, I'd suggest these benchmarks for "minimum contribution" for people who focus most of their resources on out-of-combat stuff:

Level 1-4: Aid Another, plinking with a crossbow/cantrip/Magic Missile wand, or topping off hp with a CLW wand

Level 5-8: Wands of minor buff spells (Vanish, Feather Step, Bear's Endurance); a problem-solving toolbox* for things like invisibility, darkness, difficult terrain, putting out fires, etc.; medium/long-duration pre-buffs (Heroism, Barkskin, Darkvision, etc.)

Level 9-12: Moderate-level buff spells (Haste, Blessing of Fervor, Stoneskin, Prayer, Freedom of Movement, etc.), a bigger problem-solving toolbox (for dealing with grapples, enchantments, poison, curses, etc.), minor blasting wands (Scorching Ray, Burst of Radiance)

4/5 *

Terminalmancer wrote:
The original numbers didn't make sense, but I didn't let that stop me! I hereby define the Hazuka/Lamplighter Law of Pathfinder PC Utility. (...)

Hah! You know I have to run some numbers now, just because... ;)

I tried doing this non-numerically, but was mostly met with vocal disapproval from those who hated it and private support from those who agreed. Different strokes for different folks, of course.

Bottom line: PFS is a game that doesn't work well around the "edges" of anything (rules, participation, whatever), because you play with different people each time and they may draw those edges in a different place than you do. That's the nature of an Organized Play campaign.

"Edge" characters are best in a home game or a stable PFS group that all has the same expectations.

Dark Archive

This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.

That could be true, but in my experience super optimized characters are not "played down" by their players. YMMV

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
The original numbers didn't make sense, but I didn't let that stop me! I hereby define the Hazuka/Lamplighter Law of Pathfinder PC Utility. (...)

Hah! You know I have to run some numbers now, just because... ;)

I tried doing this non-numerically, but was mostly met with vocal disapproval from those who hated it and private support from those who agreed. Different strokes for different folks, of course.

Bottom line: PFS is a game that doesn't work well around the "edges" of anything (rules, participation, whatever), because you play with different people each time and they may draw those edges in a different place than you do. That's the nature of an Organized Play campaign.

"Edge" characters are best in a home game or a stable PFS group that all has the same expectations.

Be my guest! And I agree, this sort of thing isn't easy to measure. Qualitative over quantitative and all that. Are you having fun? Are your compatriots having fun? Is the GM having fun? If yes, you're fine.

There are too many build variations and situational modifiers to make a really reliable calculation anyway. Equating 1 skill point with 1 DPR is almost as sketchy as equating a point in one skill with a point in another, different skill. And anything with bardic knowledge or a high Int score gets over-rated because there are so many knowledge skills. I've got a pre-investigator bard who'd come out as a 5 or a 6 while a 150 DPR barbarian probably only rates a 2. I think a kitted-out investigator would just break it.

Scarab Sages

plaidwandering wrote:

beating Imbicatus to this - noncombat chars get other chars killed

ie: bards who think turning on inspire and doing nothing else is enough

sure there are many scenarios that might work, but there's just as many where the combats are no joke

God, wasn't that a FUN scenario to play through? Between the mistakes in running the encounter and the non-contribution it's a wonder we didn't all die.

The Exchange 5/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.
That could be true, but in my experience super optimized characters are not "played down" by their players. YMMV

but if a "super optimized characters" was being "'played down' by their players" we're not real likely to notice right? I mean, unless things start to really bad and they pull out the stops... I would think it likely that we are only noticing the "bad apples".

I know I've been at a table a few times when things got real dicey and watched someone's PC pull off some surprising stuff... so I guess they were "playing down their strengths" before that. Inigo Montoya: I... am not left-handed.

I have also been at tables when the "super optimized character" cuts loose when it wasn't really welcome ("dominating the game") - but often that seems to be a function of the player not the PC (IMHO). Sometimes the same type of player really DOESN'T have the "super optimized character" he thinks he has, and that can lead to lots of eye-rolling and some un-fun play as they try to "dominate play" anyway (and do a poor job of it).

1/5

@nosig, I could not agree with that first sentence more.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My debuff Mesmerist has the Combat Advice feat so I can lay back during encounters where encounter-ending spells like Mental Block, Hideous Laughter or Oppressive Boredom would be fun for no one. Sure, it's not an optimal feat for a debuff specialist, but it lets me help other people be awesome and save the Stare-Intimidate-DC WILL Save-or-Suck for when it matters* as opposed to every battle.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


but if a "super optimized characters" was being "'played down' by their players" we're not real likely to notice right? I mean, unless things start to really bad and they pull out the stops... I would think it likely that we are only noticing the "bad apples".

Or you're seeing differences in how optimal characters "should" be, which is a highly subjective scale relative to (usually) the players space on the optimization bellcurve

There's also the matter of the bluff check. I've had DMs' catch on and point out what i was doing when i threw all my buffs on a monk instead of my critter, and then kept the critter out of combat space (till somebody dropped, then it was red mist time)

Silver Crusade 4/5

Sammy T wrote:

My debuff Mesmerist has the Combat Advice feat so I can lay back during encounters where encounter-ending spells like Mental Block, Hideous Laughter or Oppressive Boredom would be fun for no one. Sure, it's not an optimal feat for a debuff specialist, but it lets me help other people be awesome and save the Stare-Intimidate-DC WILL Save-or-Suck for when it matters* as opposed to every battle.

Kinda like my prankster bard I mentioned upthread. He usually just demoralizes or mocks enemies to debuff them, or maybe casts Grease. But I once saved a TPK with him by hitting the BBEG with Hideous Laughter before she could finish the entire party with (another) fireball.

22 charisma and Greater Spell Focus: Enchantment at level 5 FTW!!!

Sovereign Court

bdk86 wrote:
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Jessex wrote:
Bruno Breakbone wrote:
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, realize combat can be chaotic. Bruno make helpful flowchart!
I'm a little concerned about the right side of the chart.
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori, is very versatile.
But can Bruno grapple true love?

Bruno doesn't grapple true love, true love can't escape Bruno (nothing escapes Bruno).

5/5 5/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.
That could be true, but in my experience super optimized characters are not "played down" by their players. YMMV

I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience, "optimized characters" and "effective characters" are two very different things that don't often overlap. What makes someone effective has much more to do with how they play than what they've built - some of the most ineffective characters I've ever seen are ones that look like they googled "[class] optimization guide" and copy & pasted what they found there.

The less effective players are the ones who approach every in-game obstacle with, "I walk up and I hit it with my big number," whether the obstacle is a combat/combatant (with the big number being to hit or damage (not necessarily both)), a skill challenge (big number being relevant skill bonus), or a roleplay encounter (big number being the bonus to Diplomacy).
The more effective players are those that think strategically, with awareness of the situation and awareness of the other players they are with. All it takes is something as small as taking one diagonal on your way into melee so that your character is not standing directly between the opponent and the rest of your party when you know you have two archers and a ray caster.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
TheFlyingPhoton wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.
That could be true, but in my experience super optimized characters are not "played down" by their players. YMMV

I don't know about anyone else, but in my experience, "optimized characters" and "effective characters" are two very different things that don't often overlap. What makes someone effective has much more to do with how they play than what they've built - some of the most ineffective characters I've ever seen are ones that look like they googled "[class] optimization guide" and copy & pasted what they found there.

The less effective players are the ones who approach every in-game obstacle with, "I walk up and I hit it with my big number," whether the obstacle is a combat/combatant (with the big number being to hit or damage (not necessarily both)), a skill challenge (big number being relevant skill bonus), or a roleplay encounter (big number being the bonus to Diplomacy).
The more effective players are those that think strategically, with awareness of the situation and awareness of the other players they are with. All it takes is something as small as taking one diagonal on your way into melee so that your character is not standing directly between the opponent and the rest of your party when you know you have two archers and a ray caster.

Although I personally prize creativity and problem-solving in a player, there are times--especially in PFS--when what you really need is about 150 damage and there aren't too many creative ways to come up with that if your character is level 12 and doing 1d8+6 per successful attack. Or maybe you really need to make that DC 35 Disable Device check, or that DC 30 Spellcraft check, or you're trying to make friends with someone through Diplomacy and you've creatively bought time for the 1-minute check but now you need to roll and it's a DC 30.

In my mind, an optimized character is one that best enables the player to do what they want to do. Sometimes that's doing awesome, creative things, sure--but sometimes what a player really wants is a Swordlord with the mechanics to match and the damage that makes you feel like you're effective.

Whether or not that person takes over everything is a whole 'nother kettle of fish! I must be lucky, because I only know a couple of players who go full speed with hugely-optimized characters near me, and they're getting better about turning it off sometimes and letting everyone contribute. There are a lot of us who could maybe be called optimizers who don't, though.

1/5

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.

You'll excuse the eye rolls won't you?

Should every PC be able to contribute in combat? Yes. I'd even go further and say that every PC should have some way to do damage in combat. Nothing is worse than getting into a game with 3 or 4 one trick ponies none of which do any damage. Sure the bad guys never have a chance but if the GM insists on playing out every battle its going to be a long night.

But death incarnate? Nonsense. That would rule out my very playable and fun empiricist who wasn't much more than a tank until 5th level and countless other builds that work just fine.

As to hyper competent outside of combat, here we run into Paizo's failure to update some of the older classes. You are basically saying any number of classes, fighter and cleric to name two, cannot be played simply because of their skill point progression. Being able to contribute in some aspects of out of combat activity is good enough.

5/5 5/5 *

Terminalmancer wrote:

Although I personally prize creativity and problem-solving in a player, there are times--especially in PFS--when what you really need is about 150 damage and there aren't too many creative ways to come up with that if your character is level 12 and doing 1d8+6 per successful attack. Or maybe you really need to make that DC 35 Disable Device check, or that DC 30 Spellcraft check, or you're trying to make friends with someone through Diplomacy and you've creatively bought time for the 1-minute check but now you need to roll and it's a DC 30.

In my mind, an optimized character is one that best enables the player to do what they want to do. Sometimes that's doing awesome, creative things, sure--but sometimes what a player really wants is a Swordlord with the mechanics to match and the damage that makes you feel like you're effective.

Whether or not that person takes over everything is a whole 'nother kettle of fish! I must be lucky, because I only know a couple of players who go full speed with hugely-optimized characters near me, and they're getting better about turning it off sometimes and letting everyone contribute. There are a lot of us who could maybe be called optimizers who don't, though.

I think the disagreement here may be that you and I have different ideas on what the definitions of "optimized character" and "well-built character" are and what the difference between the two are.

Dark Archive

Jessex wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
This right here is why I say that all PFS characters should be simultaneously hyper-competent and also death incarnate. People who make weak characters get other people killed. It's much easier to play down your strengths in game than it is to play up strengths you don't have.

You'll excuse the eye rolls won't you?

Should every PC be able to contribute in combat? Yes. I'd even go further and say that every PC should have some way to do damage in combat. Nothing is worse than getting into a game with 3 or 4 one trick ponies none of which do any damage. Sure the bad guys never have a chance but if the GM insists on playing out every battle its going to be a long night.

But death incarnate? Nonsense. That would rule out my very playable and fun empiricist who wasn't much more than a tank until 5th level and countless other builds that work just fine.

As to hyper competent outside of combat, here we run into Paizo's failure to update some of the older classes. You are basically saying any number of classes, fighter and cleric to name two, cannot be played simply because of their skill point progression. Being able to contribute in some aspects of out of combat activity is good enough.

Countless other builds that work just fine, if you happen to have a well built party to support them. My point is that relying on a party of unknowns to keep you alive is asking to spend money on a Raise. If one of my characters cannot essentially solo most scenarios, he's not trying hard enough. And that's combat and out of combat abilities.

Fighter is a horrible joke of a class, and much like the rogue, should not be played by anyone given how many other things can do the job better, plus other jobs besides. Cleric on the other hand is a 9th level spell caster, and very much can contribute outside of combat, even with limited skills.

A player should have access to a way to either complete or bypass most skill checks, and a way to not just contribute in combat, but to win most combats without assistance. Does this mean that things heavily favor people who can cast spells? Well, yeah, but I think that the most honest among us already knew that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Legio wrote:
A player should have access to a way to either complete or bypass most skill checks, and a way to not just contribute in combat, but to win most combats without assistance. Does this mean that things heavily favor people who can cast spells? Well, yeah, but I think that the most honest among us already knew that.

I have no earthly clue why you think that is necessary in a cooperative-six player game? In fact it seems the very antithesis of tabletop roleplaying. If the other players feel the same way as you the DM might as well hand you all the script and go and watch a film. If the other players disagree then they might as well not be there as you can do it all yourself. If you want to play a solo campaign I say go for it. I've had a lot of fun with that. Just don't make other players spectators to your vanity exercise.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:


Fighter is a horrible joke of a class, and much like the rogue, should not be played by anyone given how many other things can do the job better, plus other jobs besides. Cleric on the other hand is a 9th level spell caster, and very much can contribute outside of combat, even with limited skills.

So if Fighter and Rogue are that horrible of a joke of classes, would you support a petition to (in the future) prohibit their play from PFS, as it is incapable of contributing in a way that you feel 'helps' at a given table?

If such a thing could be employed, would there be other classes on your 'completely worthless' list?

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The statement above about fighters and rogues is both unfair and untrue. I've played alongside excellent characters made out of both classes in PFS who have saved the party with what they could do.

___

This thread made my Kitsune duettist bard, Jasmine, really anxious. She's absolute rubbish at melee. I usually as a bard try to be a bit more competent at melee / archery, but in Jasmine's case there were other things I wanted to do with her. (Like infiltrating enemies by becoming them with Realistic Likeness.) Yes, she uses weapons. She just sucks at them!

So in the last adventure that I was in I paid attention to all the stuff that I did in combat. And here's what I did at level 4 in one round:

  • Opened up combat with my monkey inspiring courage, while I held my flag: +2 to hit and damage for the party;

  • Identified the monster so others knew how to fight it;

  • Cast glitterdust to blind one of the monsters, allowing others to move in on it without getting attacks of opportunity, and making it that much easier to hit.

Throughout the adventure, I served as a face, skill monkey, and problem solver. I'm an acrobat and can UMD scrolls and wands. I took out one hard-hitting combatant by myself by approaching him with a pair of manacles and the spell Beguiling Gift, asking him, "Hey, Baby, want to play with me? You wear the manacles, and we can have fun."

But no one in the last scenario that I was in had cause to complain about my contributions to the party.

Hmm

Dark Archive

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:


Fighter is a horrible joke of a class, and much like the rogue, should not be played by anyone given how many other things can do the job better, plus other jobs besides. Cleric on the other hand is a 9th level spell caster, and very much can contribute outside of combat, even with limited skills.

So if Fighter and Rogue are that horrible of a joke of classes, would you support a petition to (in the future) prohibit their play from PFS, as it is incapable of contributing in a way that you feel 'helps' at a given table?

If such a thing could be employed, would there be other classes on your 'completely worthless' list?

I would rather support a petition to fix them than ban them. Pretty much any purely martial class without some sort of extraordinary or supernatural boost doesn't contribute much. Compare a Barbarian and a stock Fighter. They are both full BAB pure martial classes, and the Barbarian is better than the Fighter in every way that matters. More skills, to the extent that skills matter, and a better selection of class skills. Better damage through rage, and more varied class features through Rage Powers. Sure, the fighter gets a lto of feats, but a Barbarian gets Rage Powers, and trades in feats to get more of them.

Rogues have a similar issue, even though they don't have a competing pure martial class, they're also sharing work with a number of other 3/4 BAB classes that get to augment their abilities with a wide array of magical and semi-magical abilities.

Rogues and fighters both need a boost to be able to stand on their own, instead of relying on help from the rest of the party to be vaguely competent at their jobs.

3/5

Pulling your weight in combat really doesn't take much. You don't have to be keeping up with Am Barbarian, you just need to reliably add something.

The nastiest thing you're likely to meet in PFS is going to have a CR of the low end of the subtier +4 (so in subtier 1-2 you might see a CR 5, in subtier 5-6 you might see CR 9, and so on). Worst case scenario is you're playing out of tier and you're level X while the rest of the party is X+3or4 and you're facing a CR X+7.

The Bestiary has a table that gives a rough guide of what to expect at each CR. Suppose you're level 1, a CR 8 BBEG might have a 21 AC and 100hp. If you can do 1/6 of its HP (16hp) in a reasonable amount of time you're pulling your weight. A wizard hiding in the back with a 2pp wand of magic missiles can do 16hp in 4 or 5 rounds. That's slow, but it's pretty good, and CR of level + 7 is literally the worst case scenario possible.

Cast Bless, fire magic missiles, provide flank, aid another, take out a mook, do *something* and you're fine.

Dark Archive

The Sword wrote:
Legio wrote:
A player should have access to a way to either complete or bypass most skill checks, and a way to not just contribute in combat, but to win most combats without assistance. Does this mean that things heavily favor people who can cast spells? Well, yeah, but I think that the most honest among us already knew that.
I have no earthly clue why you think that is necessary in a cooperative-six player game? In fact it seems the very antithesis of tabletop roleplaying. If the other players feel the same way as you the DM might as well hand you all the script and go and watch a film. If the other players disagree then they might as well not be there as you can do it all yourself. If you want to play a solo campaign I say go for it. I've had a lot of fun with that. Just don't make other players spectators to your vanity exercise.

Because this is a cooperative six player game that doesn't let you pick your team. I have no idea who I may be sitting down to a table with, and that means I may sit down with a group of brand new players with barely functional builds.

At the same time, the point is not to overshadow everyone, but to have the ability to pull a table gone wrong out of the pot. Unless you like spending the extra PP on a recovery AND a revive. A strong player always has the option to hang back, but a weak player does not ever have the option to go beyond what their sheet says they can do. Why would you possibly want to be a weak player, and burden your party? Everyone should be able to not only contribute to the party, but see a scenario through to completion when something has happened to the rest of your party. Scenarios are generally easy enough that the should not ever be a TPK for a party of well built characters barring extraordinary circumstances. Like five consecutive critical hits form a scythe extraordinary.

The Exchange 5/5

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
The Sword wrote:
Legio wrote:
A player should have access to a way to either complete or bypass most skill checks, and a way to not just contribute in combat, but to win most combats without assistance. Does this mean that things heavily favor people who can cast spells? Well, yeah, but I think that the most honest among us already knew that.
I have no earthly clue why you think that is necessary in a cooperative-six player game? In fact it seems the very antithesis of tabletop roleplaying. If the other players feel the same way as you the DM might as well hand you all the script and go and watch a film. If the other players disagree then they might as well not be there as you can do it all yourself. If you want to play a solo campaign I say go for it. I've had a lot of fun with that. Just don't make other players spectators to your vanity exercise.

Because this is a cooperative six player game that doesn't let you pick your team. I have no idea who I may be sitting down to a table with, and that means I may sit down with a group of brand new players with barely functional builds.

At the same time, the point is not to overshadow everyone, but to have the ability to pull a table gone wrong out of the pot. Unless you like spending the extra PP on a recovery AND a revive. A strong player always has the option to hang back, but a weak player does not ever have the option to go beyond what their sheet says they can do. Why would you possibly want to be a weak player, and burden your party? Everyone should be able to not only contribute to the party, but see a scenario through to completion when something has happened to the rest of your party. Scenarios are generally easy enough that the should not ever be a TPK for a party of well built characters barring extraordinary circumstances. Like five consecutive critical hits form a scythe extraordinary.

(Drat - I have to respond to this - so my bed time get's delayed) I almost always know one or two people (if not all) that are at the table I sit at. And even if I don't, I can always ASK what they are running, and then run what the table needs. But then, I have several PCs for every level - and have worked at being sure I have a selection to choose from. For example - this last Saturday I dropped in on the local Game Day (decided to attend the night before). The night before I had gotten a call from a friend of mine who asked if I'd like to - and as I hadn't gotten to play with him in a few months I decided to show up. My wife elected to join us that morning (3 hours before the game) so that gave us a Core of the table. The game was a Tier 5-9, and so I asked what everyone else was running.

Wife - Blaster Wizard with a lot of skills. (8th level)

Friend - Buffer Witch with almost as many skills. (8th level)

Guy I had never met before - "Classic Two Handed Fighter type" (8th level)

So... Looking over my stuff I had: two 9s, an 8, three 7s, a 6, two 5s... We needed a Face and Trapfinding - so I pulled my 8th Detective/Sound Striker Bard. (I could have pulled my 9th Tanky Cleric, or 9th Knife Fighter Rogue, or 7th level Crypt Braker Alchemist... But you get the idea).

And at the last minute we had a 6th level Alchemist added to the table... Which could have changed the mix completely (My friend had a Neg-Channel Cleric he could switch to, my wife had a Rogue, and a Flame Oracle ... And those were just in levels 7 to 9.)

OR one or more of us could have just switched off to Genarics if we needed to...

Party make up is in the players control. As long as we deal with it as a team, and not as a group of random individuals (though there are people that like that - thankfully they are in a minority and we can normally work around them).

Dark Archive

I have one character in that level range. He's a kineticist. Which is ok, because he has hilarious utility, and will get even more hilarious at the next level, but not everyone has a mass of characters to choose from at every level. Just because you have a wide variety of specialists to hand that go well with the sepcialists of the friends you often play with doesn't mean that everyone else has that luxury. If a character is built well enough, it doesn't matter if there's a shortfall in the party, everyone can take care of themselves.

51 to 100 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / What Is The Min Combat Help Needed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.