Tired builds


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh Comeliness.
Those rules are truly child of the time.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
If you want more variety in the class yell at the devs.
We tried. They weren't listening.
Quoted For Truth
And why would they?

because when they don't it makes us sad. D:

HyperMissingno wrote:
Darkbridger wrote:

Reach clerics of Desna with a Summoning focus... again and again and again.

To be fair, what else is a cleric supposed to do?

well if you're not in PFS, be a necromancer and break the game.

MannyGoblin wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:


Charisma and physical appearance are not tied together. This would imply you'd need to be fairly good-looking to be much good at disguise or playing guitar or scaring the bejeezus out of someone. Hell, even that you need to be good-looking to be any good as a liar.

Charisma is people skills. That's the beginning and the end of it, in my book. Knowing how to trick someone into believing your lies, knowing how to talk someone around to your point of view, knowing how to sell a disguise or work a crowd or how to hoodwink a device you weren't meant to use normally. Someone with low charisma could be fairly attractive, even, they'd just be bad with people. Without extensive practice, they're not very good liars or don't present their views well, and they can't work a crowd like...

AD&D 2nd edition had Comeliness. So you could be a stunner but a complete butthead in social situations. Think of some pretty noble trustfund kid who treats others like servants and grovels to those of higher station.

yeah, I remember those rules, who exactly actually used first impression tables though? Didn't happen in my group anyway...


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Leitner wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:

My usual problem with low CHA characters is that they always try to force their way into diplomacy despite the presence of someone with...

I have the exact opposite problems with players in my group. They dump charisma down to single digits(sometimes even down to 5) and then just try to sit invisible any time it isn't time to swing a greatsword.

This despite the fact that a general description of that charisma score is: Uninteresting, rude, boorish, and generally unpleasant to be around

This is why NPC social interactions should take into account the presence of low CHA types from time to time.

Consider two characters who are buddies and always hang out together -
The Dusky Mouser, a rogue/bard type with maxed out charisma
Far-thump*, a barbarian built purely for combat who has dumped CHA through the floor

In any social situation Dusky does all the talking, Far-thump says as little as he can. Even so, in some cases his low cha (and lack of associated skills) should still have an impact.

- they are at an inn and Dusky is attempting to charm the aloof noble lady eating at the next table. Even though he says nothing, Far-thump's belching, starring, scratching or just plain sitting there like an awkard lump is going to hinder Dusky's attempts to get her to join him for a drink.

- Dusky & Far-thump just happen to be in an alley near a very recently burgled shop carrying heavy sacks. The watch turn up and ask a few pointed questions. Dusky has great bluff and is quick with a story, but it would be much easier for him if the watchman weren't able to turn to Far-thump and say 'is that true?'

*for those who spot their inspiration, Far-thump's player didn't read the books beyond 'big northern barbarian'


Snowlilly wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

@Atarlost: I find your analysis flawed.

Doomed Hero wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
If you want more variety in the class yell at the devs.
We tried. They weren't listening.
Quoted For Truth
And why would they?

The developer working on kinetesist interacted more with the community than any other.

He made many adjustments to the original class based directly on community feedback.

What I meant was: I think that Mark is smarter than to bend over, just because some people want a specific (problematic) design. Yelling won't change that.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Hehateme wrote:
I agree with Squig, the penalty for CHA dumping is simple: you're locked out of basically all social interaction in the game.

Except this isn't remotely true.

Your main interaction with other characters is diplomacy, not charisma. Charisma has only a very minor effect on your diplomacy score: raw that's all it does.

So Dullard the stale is only 5% less good at talking as Sir Perfluous the Average, to start with.

So, if you have a character with an 8 charisma and a 12 int, and one with a 12 char and an 8 int, the one with the 12 int can put an extra point into diplomacy. At level 1 they'll have the same diplomacy score, at level 5 he'll be 5 points ahead, at level 10 9 points ahead etc. A stat has VERY little impact over what it's supposed to control and thats exactly why that stat get's dumped so hard: it isn't even that important for doing the job asignet to it, much less anything else.

Then what would you say of those who say that if they have a sixteen instead of an 18 in their prime stat, their build is absolutely RUINED? After all. It's only a five percent difference. It doesn't matter. Why do you need to min max it?

Just to do devil's advocate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally just tired of the stereotypical LotR toons, elf archers, dwarf wars/pals etc.. just my 2cents on the subject.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I could do without any character that is referred to as a 'toon.'

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
berserker444 wrote:
I'm personally just tired of the stereotypical LotR toons, elf archers, dwarf wars/pals etc.. just my 2cents on the subject.

I solve this problem by allowing non-Core races.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
berserker444 wrote:
I'm personally just tired of the stereotypical LotR toons, elf archers, dwarf wars/pals etc.. just my 2cents on the subject.
I solve this problem by allowing non-Core races.

I'm sorry, but I cannot allow that.

You see, svirfneblin are too anime for Pathfinder.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
berserker444 wrote:
I'm personally just tired of the stereotypical LotR toons, elf archers, dwarf wars/pals etc.. just my 2cents on the subject.
I solve this problem by allowing non-Core races.

Maybe its my local community but it feels like in every Society game there's always at least one of them per party/game. Not saying its wrong but I'm just not a fan of it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's probably you. Humans are pretty dominant here in Phoenix.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
It's probably you. Humans are pretty dominant here in Phoenix.

I though the Rigelliana or Arcturans had colonized Phoenix.


Rub-Eta wrote:
What I meant was: I think that Mark is smarter than to bend over, just because some people want a specific (problematic) design. Yelling won't change that.

No, the specific problematic design is the one that was published. Unhealable scaling burn exacerbates the daily resource problem and the damage math is wrong because he balanced it to trivial fights rather than significant fights. Damage falls off too fast against significant enemies because the first derivative of damage with respect to AC is too low when using high damage low accuracy. This is a problem well known from the rogue. The touch blasts are simply way below par. These problems compound themselves making the kineticist weak late in the day to a greater degree than other casters and weak against bosses that usually are encountered late in the day.

An infatuation with novelty over both balance and providing the concepts the community asks for is a chronic problem with Paizo's non-core classes.

Most of what the community has asked for is extremely conservative. Something that plays more or less like a warlock is not a problematic design. It's a tested design space that was never unbalanced. It just needs the math done right and the design to actually play like a warlock.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Human characters are the most common concept of all time. If they weren't masters of all classes/races (master race), then maybe other people would play other races. Sometimes though, you just want to enjoy a good story and steal as many things as possible. Thus, you have the catfolk rogue.

I actually had a DM give my catfolk rogue mythic powers. +40 to sleight of hand checks and stealth checks, because mythic points don't really benefit the rogue either. Pump up those skills baby and steal everything; you're mythic!


Human characters grow to bore me. Hence why I prefer exotics, because they're not just Joe Bob or Sally Sue the wizard/barbarian/rogue/cleric with the extra feat.


RDM42 wrote:


Then what would you say of those who say that if they have a sixteen instead of an 18 in their prime stat, their build is absolutely RUINED? After all. It's only a five percent difference. It doesn't matter. Why do you need to min max it?

Just to do devil's advocate.

RUIIINED over 5% isn't true, but it's even more untrue for the charisma dumping fighter than the more well rounded sorcerer.

There is a vast difference at being 5% less effective at something that isn't your job and 5% less effective at something that IS your job, most likely if you're weighing a 16 or an 18 casting spells. Being (at most) 5% more likely to make a diplomacy roll that one time McBeardy the 8th dwarf is far different than a save or suck sorcerer having their spells be resisted an extra 5% of the time.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If stat maxing is your concern, just play a rogue with all 10's. That way, you won't even have to worry about people complaining about your character's perceived "Abilities". And you get to play the "bestest" rogue ever, the one that doesn't always succeed...and the other players can have their super cool high fantasy adventure without needing you around (which is normal for parties with rogues in them).


Sometimes the 18 in a stat is a result of another person's min-maxing. I've had to toss away almost half my feats and luck out with an 18 to even have a chance of keeping up with the bullshit that is a kitsune fey sorcerer on my flame oracle.

What I'm trying to say is don't go crazy with the min-maxing unless the rest of the party is ready to go crazy with min-maxing. Remember that they're facing the same crap that you are and it would help if they could F@%%ING HIT THE DC, AC, WHATEVER that you're so super optimized for!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread has actually increased my minmax knowledge by a lot, and now I have new things to piss off my DMs with, thank you :P

my tired builds:

anyone who knowingly and intentionally cuts their own balls off by taking terrible options in the name of flavor. All this does is hamper both their own character's usefulness and the party's overall power. Honorable mention to Paizo for making those options in the first place.

Builds that used to be fun and interesting and different, before paizo cut their balls off (Scarred Witch Doctor, looking at you). Nerfs suck, this isn't a competetive game, stop it. If you don't want something in PFS, BAN IT IN PFS AND LEAVE HOME GAMES OUT OF IT.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Darkbridger wrote:

Reach clerics of Desna with a Summoning focus... again and again and again.

To be fair, what else is a cleric supposed to do?

We've had a few variations over time thankfully. There was an experiment with a touch spell/negative channeller, a dual wielding priest of Pharasma that hunted undead (actually, he followed two deities... it was odd, but fun), a Cayden Cailean drunkard (was a lot like a Desnan though), and one Gorum follower who liked using Intimidate in combat.


Frogsplosion wrote:

This thread has actually increased my minmax knowledge by a lot, and now I have new things to piss off my DMs with, thank you :P

my tired builds:

anyone who knowingly and intentionally cuts their own balls off by taking terrible options in the name of flavor. All this does is hamper both their own character's usefulness and the party's overall power. Honorable mention to Paizo for making those options in the first place.

Builds that used to be fun and interesting and different, before paizo cut their balls off (Scarred Witch Doctor, looking at you). Nerfs suck, this isn't a competetive game, stop it. If you don't want something in PFS, BAN IT IN PFS AND LEAVE HOME GAMES OUT OF IT.

The weapon cord nerf was the worst. Martials can't have nice things.


RDM42 wrote:


Then what would you say of those who say that if they have a sixteen instead of an 18 in their prime stat, their build is absolutely RUINED? After all. It's only a five percent difference. It doesn't matter. Why do you need to min max it?

Just to do devil's advocate.

I'd say that they should go find a Wizard so he can give them a brain.


MannyGoblin wrote:

The weapon cord nerf was the worst. Martials can't have nice things.

yo yo gun was silly and it deserved to be phased out.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

The weapon cord nerf was the worst. Martials can't have nice things.

yo yo gun was silly and it deserved to be phased out.

Yeah, now you have to wait 5 levels until you can do it with a glove of storing, play a tiefling with a tail, or take the Gun Twirling feat. Thank goodness they nerfed those silly cords that obviously have no real life equivalents, so that gunslinger players could focus on less silly solutions, like growing tails, wearing a magic Michael Jackson glove, or learning to juggle guns.

That one always makes me feel a little testy, because it reminds me of the other occasions when symptoms get errata'd instead of addressing the problems at their source. "Master of Many Styles is allowing people to get Crane Wing at level 1 and it's destroying encounters!" "What's that you say? People are grabbing a 5th level feat that normally has 3 feat prerequisites associated with it at 1st level? Quick, nerf Crane Wing and give all the other 5th level feats a stern talking to while you're at it. Then wait two years, and come back and nerf Master of Many Styles when he's not expecting it." Or, "What's that? People are using Vital Strike while mounted?!?!? They know damn well that Vital Strike isn't supposed to work with anything! Now go make it so the rider has to take the charge action as well, then send a fruit basket to the barbarian and congratulate him on being the highest DPR mounted combatant once more, and tell him we're sorry about taking ragelancepounce away for a while, but we hope he's happy to have it back."

Related and somewhat more on subject, I find mounted pouncing barbarians to be a pretty tired build. Yes, we all get that you can make a triple damage lance attack followed by 4 more standard attacks, all with two-handed strength and Power Attack modifiers, plus whatever damage your raging mastadon mount can stack on. Now go roll up another character, and I swear by all that is holy Jim, if you come back with a wizard who has the word "simulacrum" written anywhere on his character sheet, we are not friends anymore.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

The weapon cord nerf was the worst. Martials can't have nice things.

yo yo gun was silly and it deserved to be phased out.

True, but the problem I see is that Paizo doesn't know how to nerf just one thing. If there's a corner case that's abusing a rule or an item Paizo will hit everything related to it instead of just saying "guns don't work with weapon cords".

Also, I always saw that as a DM problem. I never saw a yo yo gunslinger played but wasn't it about taking a whole mess of free actions to shift pistols around? DM could, and should, have limited the number of free actions in a round.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Thaine wrote:


Also, I always saw that as a DM problem. I never saw a yo yo gunslinger played but wasn't it about taking a whole mess of free actions to shift pistols around? DM could, and should, have limited the number of free actions in a round.

The issue is, in part, that they tried that, and it led to other issues. Like all of the free actions that an archer or pet class character just naturally takes over the course of a round. It's hard to draw that free action limit, especially since "how many free actions makes sense" can vary by group and level.

Some of the later steps they took, like making firing both barrels of a double-barrel simultaneously a standard action, made a bit more sense, and would have made way more sense if they'd just done them in the first place, addressing the issues at the source. Gunslinger currently is actually pretty underpowered, with the exception of highly optimized builds, and even those are generally very reliant on fighting foes with high disparity between their normal and touch AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Gunslinger currently is actually pretty underpowered, with the exception of highly optimized builds,

That would be all of them, because they're very cookie cutter.

Quote:
and even those are generally very reliant on fighting foes with high disparity between their normal and touch AC.

That would be just about all of them. Armor class doesn't scale very well in this system, touch armor doesn't scale at all.

Armor is meant to be stopping iteratives, but high level fighter opponents are almost non existant because your party caster can just roflstomp them. Humanoid enemies are spellcasters and fighting enemies are large critters that don't use iterative attacks, and their full attacks will hit all but the most optimized tank on a 2.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Gunslinger currently is actually pretty underpowered, with the exception of highly optimized builds,

That would be all of them, because they're very cookie cutter.

Quote:
and even those are generally very reliant on fighting foes with high disparity between their normal and touch AC.

That would be just about all of them. Armor class doesn't scale very well in this system, touch armor doesn't scale at all.

Armor is meant to be stopping iteratives, but high level fighter opponents are almost non existant because your party caster can just roflstomp them. Humanoid enemies are spellcasters and fighting enemies are large critters that don't use iterative attacks, and their full attacks will hit all but the most optimized tank on a 2.

The gunslinger in general could certainly be lumped into the "tired builds" category, in no small part because it now really only works at the highest or lowest optimization levels. Plus it's so feat intensive... I think every gunslinger I've ever seen in play (and that's a really large number) falls into 1 of 5 builds, with very little variation within each build: Pistoleros, Musket Masters, Mysterious Strangers, the Iconic gunslinger, and Bumbles McBoomstick, whose firearm hurts him more consistently than any enemy. And Mysterious Stranger is usually more of an add-on to another build rather than a 1-20 build in its own right.


Ssalarn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Gunslinger currently is actually pretty underpowered, with the exception of highly optimized builds,

That would be all of them, because they're very cookie cutter.

Quote:
and even those are generally very reliant on fighting foes with high disparity between their normal and touch AC.

That would be just about all of them. Armor class doesn't scale very well in this system, touch armor doesn't scale at all.

Armor is meant to be stopping iteratives, but high level fighter opponents are almost non existant because your party caster can just roflstomp them. Humanoid enemies are spellcasters and fighting enemies are large critters that don't use iterative attacks, and their full attacks will hit all but the most optimized tank on a 2.

The gunslinger in general could certainly be lumped into the "tired builds" category, in no small part because it now really only works at the highest or lowest optimization levels. Plus it's so feat intensive... I think every gunslinger I've ever seen in play (and that's a really large number) falls into 1 of 5 builds, with very little variation within each build: Pistoleros, Musket Masters, Mysterious Strangers, the Iconic gunslinger, and Bumbles McBoomstick, whose firearm hurts him more consistently than any enemy. And Mysterious Stranger is usually more of an add-on to another build rather than a 1-20 build in its own right.

Kind of related but this is why most guides say to drop gunslinger after 5. I love the class but it is pretty obvious that Paizo does not.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think all those issues are inevitable problems when you build a whole class around a single gimmick: The monk, swashbuckler and cavalier all have pretty similar problems too.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

The weapon cord nerf was the worst. Martials can't have nice things.

yo yo gun was silly and it deserved to be phased out.

That suddenly made me think of one of those Hong Kong movie weapons, the killer yo-yo! Blades pop out of the edges.


Ssalarn wrote:
That one always makes me feel a little testy, because it reminds me of the other occasions when symptoms get errata'd instead of addressing the problems at their source. "Master of Many Styles is allowing people to get Crane Wing at level 1 and it's destroying encounters!" "What's that you say? People are grabbing a 5th level feat that normally has 3 feat prerequisites associated with it at 1st level? Quick, nerf Crane Wing and give all the other 5th level feats a stern talking to while you're at it. Then wait two years, and come back and nerf Master of Many Styles when he's not expecting it." Or, "What's that? People are using Vital Strike while mounted?!?!? They know damn well that Vital Strike isn't supposed to work with anything! Now go make it so the rider has to take the charge action as well, then send a fruit basket to the barbarian and congratulate him on being the highest DPR mounted combatant once more, and tell him we're sorry about taking ragelancepounce away for a while, but we hope he's happy to have it back."

Ragelancepounce is legal again?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Buri Reborn wrote:


Ragelancepounce is legal again?

You only get multiplied damage on the first hit, but otherwise yeah.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:


Then what would you say of those who say that if they have a sixteen instead of an 18 in their prime stat, their build is absolutely RUINED? After all. It's only a five percent difference. It doesn't matter. Why do you need to min max it?

Just to do devil's advocate.

Your request to play Devil's Advocate has been denied.

Our records indicate that you have requested to play devil’s advocate for either “just a second here” or “just a minute here” over fourteen times in the last financial quarter. While we appreciate your enthusiasm, priority must be given to those who have not yet played the position.

It is our hope that future holders of the devil’s advocate position will be able to carry on your legacy: smiling as they argue for positions they only half-believe themselves with people who are attempting to discuss something sincerely and in good faith.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every barbarian is a tired build for either 1 minute or twice the duration of their Rage until they get immunity to the Fatigued condition.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Serisan wrote:
Every barbarian is a tired build for either 1 minute or twice the duration of their Rage until they get immunity to the Fatigued condition.

unless theyve been cursed by the gods with a bad leg, which is a different kind of tired.


MeanMutton wrote:


Two-weapon fighting rogue

I didn't get into Pathfinder (or any other tabletop RPG) until just over 2 years ago, so I had the benefit of making my first character (a Grippli rogue) carte blanche. I had some very basic input from the experienced people in the group and points of reference from rogues in movies/books/etc., but beyond that I had no guidance in regards to build, so I just read through the classes, feats, and whatnot on the PFSRD and just assembled my rogue that way. I ended up using a single rapier and maxing charisma (to my party's initial dismay, since they thought I was going to specialize in being the tool monkey). He ended up being an absolutely fantastic character and because of that I try to steer clear of looking for cookie-cutter builds as much as possible (though it's sometimes inevitable, like when I try my hand at a Mindblade Magus in Hell's Vengeance next year) since even if you arrive at the same build, coming to that build's conclusion through your own research is satisfying in itself.

Side story for the charisma debate: Charisma is the best stat, especially for a rogue. My party was in the process of trying to build our reputation in the city while also trying to build alliances for the big showdown. We needed to get across the lake to an island with some criminals (which is another story singing the praises of charisma) and the barge owner didn't want to go because he was scared of the criminals. We had to give him gold as collateral, so if his boat got damaged, he got to keep the money. Our party wizard gave him the collateral out of just his wallet, and off we went. Before leaving though, I successfully pickpocketed the barge owner and took all of the collateral except one gold piece. Upon returning with the undamaged barge, the barge owner reached in to his pocket to return the collateral but found all but one gold missing. As a "generous" act, I gave him the remaining gold pieces "out of the goodness of my heart" so that he could pay back the collateral to our wizard, on the condition that he tell others of our good deed. Cheeky bastard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
JiCi wrote:

VERY Low Str/High Dex/High Con Kineticists...

I get that the Kineticist is heavily focused on Constitution, but every single build resolves around high Dex for ranged attacks and being able to lift only a twig.

Why don't energy blasts add Intelligence modifiers to damage and why don't physical blasts add Strength modifiers to damage... is beyond me...

Lol because the Kineticist is already a factory of sadness. Why would they want to make it even worse?

I don't know what you're talking about, the Kineticist I'm playing in Legacy of Fire is a blast...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Thaine wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:

The weapon cord nerf was the worst. Martials can't have nice things.

yo yo gun was silly and it deserved to be phased out.

True, but the problem I see is that Paizo doesn't know how to nerf just one thing. If there's a corner case that's abusing a rule or an item Paizo will hit everything related to it instead of just saying "guns don't work with weapon cords".

This is really about making an elegant system. Systems shouldn't have exceptions here or there for specific things, or else it complicates matters and leads to real bloating of text.

for an example look at the U.S. Tax Code.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Casters with melee front-line envy. It never ends well.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Casters with melee front-line envy. It never ends well.

I never understood it either.

"I am a mighty wizard with the power to bend reality to my very will.....but id rather swing a pointy stick"


Bandw2 wrote:
for an example look at the U.S. Tax Code.

If you did, you'd be the first.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:


Two-weapon fighting rogue

I ended up using a single rapier and maxing charisma (to my party's initial dismay, since they thought I was going to specialize in being the tool monkey). He ended up being an absolutely fantastic character.

Side story for the charisma debate: Charisma is the best stat, especially for a rogue,.. because of story where I used slight of hand to steal and bluff to lie

So you're saying that you made a spell-less bard and had a fun time. That's nice, but doesn't show that charisma on a rogue is the best.

The bard is straight up better or equal at those skills as you, and gains combat effectiveness by his charisma and has spells, to make him even better.
Yes it's a playable character that you can have fun with. But it wasn't the best match for what you did.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:


Two-weapon fighting rogue

I ended up using a single rapier and maxing charisma (to my party's initial dismay, since they thought I was going to specialize in being the tool monkey). He ended up being an absolutely fantastic character.

Side story for the charisma debate: Charisma is the best stat, especially for a rogue,.. because of story where I used slight of hand to steal and bluff to lie

So you're saying that you made a spell-less bard and had a fun time. That's nice, but doesn't show that charisma on a rogue is the best.

The bard is straight up better or equal at those skills as you, and gains combat effectiveness by his charisma and has spells, to make him even better.
Yes it's a playable character that you can have fun with. But it wasn't the best match for what you did.

I was being cheeky, but in all seriousness it was the best option for me given the character's propensity to steal combined with his need for good burst damage, like when I later returned to the island of criminals and had to Metal Gear Solid my way through a few of them. Being able to stealth around and deal strong burst damage to one shot them was very important to my success.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The best mechanical match is not always the right one. This game isn't about winning or constant success because you figured your super build via 10000 hours of combing every supplement only to find it got nerfed in another supplement. It's about options you enjoy and your fellow players find enjoyable. Also, players pigeonholing you into a role because you play a specific class is silly. Play what you want, and you can have people take a dip in another class to gain class skills or use leadership to fill the holes you might have. The neverending mantra of optimization that pops up in all versions of D&D, even white box basic, is the best example of a tired build.


The place that breaks down is in combat. You can be a very charismatic rogue who wants to reduce risks on a mission, but if you run into a whole tribe of ARBBLAGGHH!BLOODFORTHEBLOODGOD! orks then one can be regretting not getting weapon finesse. The BBEGs at the end of adventures tend to be the uncooperative types so beating them into the dirt is pretty much the only option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:

I was being cheeky, but in all seriousness it was the best option for me given the character's propensity to steal combined with his need for good burst damage, like when I later returned to the island of criminals and had to Metal Gear Solid my way through a few of them. Being able to stealth around and deal strong burst damage to one shot them was very important to my success.

Charisma contributes very little to your success. You're arguing with math here. What you have is player inginuity and a bluff check, of which charisma is only a very small part. It is very easy to up that bluff check by less intensive means than pumping charisma all the way to 18.


Mask of Stony Demeanor anyone?

Eventually the bonus provide to skill checks from stats becomes mostly irrelevant. The difference between a 10 in a stat and an 18 is only +4. There are easier ways to make that up than pumping charisma up to 18 without damaging combat capabilities.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
You're arguing with math here.

That would be the cheeky part.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What you have is player inginuity and a bluff check, of which charisma is only a very small part. It is very easy to up that bluff check by less intensive means than pumping charisma all the way to 18.

I think the disagreement here is largely based on table differences. The group that I play with (always some combination of the same 7-8 guys/gals) is fairly loose and more thematically-focused when it comes to skill checks than we are strictly rules-based. I fully recognize that a charisma mod of 3 can be easily replaced with 3 ranks in the related skill, but thematically it doesn't make much sense (to our group) for a character without high charisma to make high rolls based on that same attribute. Sure, you'd be correct if you argued that skill ranks are representative of increases in ability based on experience and practice, but to me (and my group) that doesn't jive well RP-wise with someone who isn't also almost linearly increasing the attribute tied to that skill. So if on the path to being a level 20 god among men, my rogue quadruples or quintuples (or more) his initial bluff and diplomacy scores but only gets moderately more charismatic through 1 point of increase every 4 levels and items, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or feel really natural. I get that there is always going to be a disconnect between mechanics and RP since there's really no perfect way to fluidly merge the two, so because of that I do feel an obligation to build my character in a way that makes him seem like who I want him to be, rather than what the best way is to allocate stats/skills for a similar mechanical effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:
The place that breaks down is in combat. You can be a very charismatic rogue who wants to reduce risks on a mission, but if you run into a whole tribe of ARBBLAGGHH!BLOODFORTHEBLOODGOD! orks then one can be regretting not getting weapon finesse. The BBEGs at the end of adventures tend to be the uncooperative types so beating them into the dirt is pretty much the only option.

That comes down to a matter of good planning on the part of the PCs and hopefully a GM who allows it, rather then it turning into move the minis across the board wargaming or your latest MMO. Most rogues and other non-crunch characters have built in combat capability in any case (sneak attack, craft alchemy, rogue tricks, and so on) and your charisma based sneak meister (rogue, ninja, bard, investigator, angry expert, slayer, etc) should be going out and baiting the orcs into traps, posing as potential allies, etc. The same thing applies with BBEGs. Once you get into medium to high level mode, UMD with one-shot use items such as potions, 1 charge wands, scrolls, and so on supplement the negotiation and sneak builds without going combat monster only.

The beat stick murder hobo lot gets cut down the same way because they encounter something that they can't kill. That's the way it has been in a lot of the games I have played or ran (especially with deadlier systems then PF), but other people's experiences vary. Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying. Hence why I regard characters based only on mechanical considerations a "tired build", especially Rage/lance/pounce or many arrow/rapid shot/shoot or battlefield control/blasting/summon spam.

251 to 300 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Tired builds All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.