Tired builds


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Just looks for builds you see a lot (to often) that your kinda bored with and tired of seeing.

Mine:
1. Small race mounted combat characters, the rules on this are so broken it's practically cheating.

Halfling dual welding rogues. So tired of seeing this character.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the reason you see small race mounted combat characters is that it is just impractical to play a large race mounted combat characters given how much of it takes place indoors. If your mount is a class feature and your mount can't join you in the pub then your class is problematic.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I think the reason you see small race mounted combat characters is that it is just impractical to play a large race mounted combat characters given how much of it takes place indoors. If your mount is a class feature and your mount can't join you in the pub then your class is problematic.

Not looking for explanations for why people play what they play. Just wanted to start a discussion about builds you feel you see to often. That are over done and lack any originality. Do you have any of those Mr. Pitt?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Shocking Grasp Magus? This is why I haven't played any magi.


Any Witch build that "either turns the encounter into a slaughter or is completely useless that encounter."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Axolotl wrote:
Shocking Grasp Magus? This is why I haven't played any magi.

Shocking Grasp is so passé, everyone is on Frostbite now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't find builds tired. People tend to roleplay a variety of characters, I try to look past the mechanics. As long as they synergize well with the rest of the party and have a bit of depth as a character, it's fine by me.


We keep things varied in my group. The only build we've ever seen twice is a ranged focused Fighter, because the guy didn't feel done after he had to stop playing the last first one. I guess that's the only one I'd be a bit dissapointed if a player brought to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My problem is the builds that seem designed to get all of the glory while have the rest of the party be mop up. Although nine time out of ten it is ultimately a player problem.


I've only managed to GM once and play once in Pathfinder campaigns that haven't disintegrated, so I have no tired builds. [And my D&D 3/3.5 experience isn't any better.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if I'd really single anything out, but with all the options out there it's kind of sad to see really banal or repetitive stuff. Just for one example, a Magus can wear mithral heavy armor by level 7, and yet there seems to be some kind of consensus that they must be dex-based or they'll perish in their light armor.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

fighter/barbarian builds with 2hander weapons who decimate everything in their path.

the rogue who is useless for everything but finding/opening traps.

and I agree about the shocking grasp Magus.

I am sure there are a few others if I thought about it. I have been playing Pathfinder off and on almost 4 yrs now and you see these same tired builds played over and over. I am excited to see new builds, but usually they only appear when someone is trying to break the game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Spellbane wrote:

usually they only appear when someone is trying to break the game.

Arguably the single most fun thing to do with a build is to start out with a concept that 'shouldn't work' and then make it work well. Ideally, instead of unique builds coming from trying to break the game, they should come from a creative concept trying to break even. And then only maybe breaking the game by accident...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Rage-Charge-Pounce still a "thing"? Because that was getting a bit boring too.


Diffan wrote:
Is Rage-Charge-Pounce still a "thing"? Because that was getting a bit boring too.

It is if you built that way. But I think there's enough variety in the Barbarian class to say that not all of them do this.

Some archetypes are just magnets for this, though. Like the Invulnerable Rager barbarian coming at you with a twohanded weapon foaming at the mouth. But half the fun is making that your own -- for example, in my group, that angry barbarian is also the party chronicler.

This also leads back to another thread here, titled 'Why the Small Race Melee Hate?'. If you're punished, whether by the game or your fellow gamers, for doing an unusual build ...


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards with high intelligence.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Schrodinger's "God" wizards. Admittedly more of a problem here on the boards than irl. I've never seen a campaign with enough downtime or at high enough levels to abuse things like gate, simulacrum, wish, or the various iterations of create demiplane.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, that Wizard isn't as much the build as it is the system mastery.


Qaianna wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Is Rage-Charge-Pounce still a "thing"? Because that was getting a bit boring too.

It is if you built that way. But I think there's enough variety in the Barbarian class to say that not all of them do this.

Some archetypes are just magnets for this, though. Like the Invulnerable Rager barbarian coming at you with a twohanded weapon foaming at the mouth. But half the fun is making that your own -- for example, in my group, that angry barbarian is also the party chronicler.

This also leads back to another thread here, titled 'Why the Small Race Melee Hate?'. If you're punished, whether by the game or your fellow gamers, for doing an unusual build ...

Well I definitely see the benefits of Rage/Pounce, it's one of the first Barbarians I made (back in 3.5 days) that was pretty darn amazing. As PF came out and it became more common-place, I guess to me it sort of lost it's "ohhh....ahhh" luster. And I'd never punish players or even look down on ones that go for the usual build. I have a rather warm spot in my heart for Halfling Cavalier/Paladins because I once played a Mounted Human Paladin who sunk many of feats into his Class feature and was almost always denied it's uses because of tight spaces and dungeons/buildings. Shame really.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

On the boards, "Scimitar Dervish Dance Magus" and "Greatsword Power Attack Human Superstitious Barbarian" both pop up an awful lot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I think the reason you see small race mounted combat characters is that it is just impractical to play a large race mounted combat characters given how much of it takes place indoors. If your mount is a class feature and your mount can't join you in the pub then your class is problematic.
Not looking for explanations for why people play what they play. Just wanted to start a discussion about builds you feel you see to often. That are over done and lack any originality. Do you have any of those Mr. Pitt?

Whether you like the reason or not it's true - normal sized mounted characters are basically told 'Time to leave your combat effectiveness outside the dungeon.'

But I am willing to bet many of the 'overused' builds are because one option has been made far superior to everything else.

It's the same reason why the Dervish Dancing magus never goes away - it's as if there is an unwritten rule of Paizo's that if a new supplement makes a finesse weapon equal to the scimitar then it must be nerfed into oblivion.

Also why so many pounce builds exists - "You moved? Please deposit you combat effectiveness on the table until next round."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Shocking Grasp Dex to Damage Magus
Superstitious Beast Totem Barbarian
Mounted Lance Builds (regardless of size)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Schrodinger's "God" wizards. Admittedly more of a problem here on the boards than irl.

Probably due to the lack of magic in real life. Typically, people talking about wizards on the Paizo.com forum aren't referring to non-existent "real life" wizards, they are referring to wizards in Pathfinder.


Spellbane wrote:
fighter/barbarian builds with 2hander weapons who decimate everything in their path.

Until they fail their Will Save and turn on the party.

I've seen enough of those!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
But I am willing to bet many of the 'overused' builds are because one option has been made far superior to everything else.

Yeah, a lot of them are optimal simply because they patch holes in the foundations of Pathfinder. The problem is not Pounce or Dex to damage, the problem is the need for those options. It's a basic principle of pretty much all RPG style games (P&P or video game): Necessities reduces diversity.


Derklord wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
But I am willing to bet many of the 'overused' builds are because one option has been made far superior to everything else.
Yeah, a lot of them are optimal simply because they patch holes in the foundations of Pathfinder. The problem is not Pounce or Dex to damage, the problem is the need for those options. It's a basic principle of pretty much all RPG style games (P&P or video game): Necessities reduces diversity.

At its most basic level, it's just convergent evolution.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

I would be fine if I never saw dual wielded shields again, the idea just annoys the hell out of me.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I take issue, not so much with character builds, but with players who see their or every character purely as their builds.

I've seen a bunch of wizards, and played a few, but regardless of how they've been put together, I have fun with ones whose players get into the group dynamic and characterization; I don't have fun with the ones whose back story amounts to, "I've got this, guys. You just take hits for me so I don't have to waste all my spell slots on summons."

Also, Musket Master Gunslingers. Mainly because every single one who's been a team-mate with me seems to have wanted to shoot everyone, all the time. That's why most of my PFS characters now carry earplugs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
But I am willing to bet many of the 'overused' builds are because one option has been made far superior to everything else.
Yeah, a lot of them are optimal simply because they patch holes in the foundations of Pathfinder. The problem is not Pounce or Dex to damage, the problem is the need for those options. It's a basic principle of pretty much all RPG style games (P&P or video game): Necessities reduces diversity.

However, the necessity of doing things one way is often more imagined than real.

Combine a lack of imagination on the character concept side with a lack of imagination on the mechanical side. Add in paranoia about not being 'optimized' crossed with the inability to do some simple comparisons or math to check. Season with some absurdly broad optimization 'rules'. You now have the cookie-cutter, and are ready to bake some stale, stale cookies.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Tattooed half-orcs who have been favored by the fates.


BadBird wrote:
Add in paranoia about not being 'optimized'

Do please tell more.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Spellbane wrote:
fighter/barbarian builds with 2hander weapons who decimate everything in their path.

Until they fail their Will Save and turn on the party.

I've seen enough of those!

Honestly, that's not really an overused "build" IMO. You can't even call it a "build". It's the bare bones of melee character. Strength, two-handed weapon, power attack.

This is really due to the fact that two weapon fighting is generally worse than the two handing (unless you build for it really well) due to the problem of moving and only being able to make 1 attack and because of the attack penalties from TWF and because you have to spend more feats to get the extra attacks. Unless your class gives you a lot of flat bonuses to attack and damage TWF is usually worse. This isn't so much a build issue as it is a problem of the mechanics of the system.


Claxon wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Spellbane wrote:
fighter/barbarian builds with 2hander weapons who decimate everything in their path.

Until they fail their Will Save and turn on the party.

I've seen enough of those!

Honestly, that's not really an overused "build" IMO. You can't even call it a "build". It's the bare bones of melee character. Strength, two-handed weapon, power attack.

This is really due to the fact that two weapon fighting is generally worse than the two handing (unless you build for it really well) due to the problem of moving and only being able to make 1 attack and because of the attack penalties from TWF and because you have to spend more feats to get the extra attacks. Unless your class gives you a lot of flat bonuses to attack and damage TWF is usually worse. This isn't so much a build issue as it is a problem of the mechanics of the system.

And spend additional money for weapon bonus and effects.

Although if the rest of the party includes multiple buffers than 2 weapon fighting can pick up some of the slack.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps is due to players that have never player that build? I mean you can find it boring, unimaginative, tiresome etc. but for that player maybe is new experience.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

All of them, honestly. Optimized, unoptimized, seen all the builds for the most part. Now I just look to see characters.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Schrodinger's "God" wizards. Admittedly more of a problem here on the boards than irl. I've never seen a campaign with enough downtime or at high enough levels to abuse things like gate, simulacrum, wish, or the various iterations of create demiplane.

That's actually not what the term "Schrodinger's Wizard" refers to, nor what the term "God Wizard" refers to.

The term "God Wizard" comes from a building guide in which it was the title of particular style of wizard. The name "God Wizard" is a reference to the God of Biblical stories, in which God would very rarely intervene directly into affairs, and instead lead and empower his followers. The "God Wizard" is one who operates in a similar style, focusing most of his spells and abilities on enabling his partymates rather than attacking the opposition directly. In short, "God Wizard" refers to a wizard who focuses on party buffs and other indirect contributions to success.

The term "Shrodinger's Wizard" refers to a hypothetical or theoretical wizard being used to demonstrate the ability to overcome various obstacles. To call this wizard a "Schrodinger's Wizard" is to claim that the only reason the wizard is able to overcome so many different obstacles is because his author is always assuming he has just the right spell prepared rather than accounting for the possibility of having allocated his spell slots elsewhere. The use of the term "Schrodinger's Wizard" typically indicates a certain level of system ignorance on the part of the accuser, including (but not limited to) a failure to realize how many obstacles can be overcome by the same handful of spells (which the wizard would simply prepare every day) and how many of the truly "too situational to prepare all of them" spells can be put in scrolls via class feature at trivial cost and still remain effective.

So, you'll need a new term for the "wizard who relies on abusing the highest-level spells". Sorry.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:

Just looks for builds you see a lot (to often) that your kinda bored with and tired of seeing.

Mine:
1. Small race mounted combat characters, the rules on this are so broken it's practically cheating.

Halfling dual welding rogues. So tired of seeing this character.

Honestly, I could name more concepts I'm tired of than "builds".

• The grumpy, Klingon-minded, beer-swilling dwarf who is either a fighter or cleric, generally dislikes elves, and has a last name which references some mix of hammers, shields, and/or stone.

• The greasy-palmed thief who sits in the darkest corner of the tavern with his cloak and hood pulled up at lunchtime expecting nobody to think that's suspicious and call the guards. Typically has a name like "Vic" or "Lefty" and probably a surname/nickname involving fingers or hands.

• Brooding loners or anyone else with a mysterious past.

The list goes on. Interestingly, I've never encountered any Drizz't clones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, concepts are far more tiresome than builds. I'm probably going to kick the next player who plays a "CN" rogue who tries to smart-ass his way into some cheap loot (while also stepping on the other players' toes and screwing the party by pissing of every NPC in their vicinity because he's acting like a f#@~ing idiot and doesn't understand that there are consequences). Or the next druid character who probably should have been built with the commoner class instead (the guy who does f*&$ing nothing).

Dark Archive

Druid doing nothing sounds like a player problem, not a concept problem. I've had 2 players like that, both introverted girls dragged into the game by their boyfriends.

One concept I hate is the orphan. Then again, I handled that pretty well the last time...


The last dwarf I played was in the Forgotten Realms back in 2nd edition. A...uh....cleric of Torm named Liam Axegrinder, but he wasn't overly grumpy, instead playing the part of father figure to the party paladin.

I even did a 'brooding loner' type, but since he ended up being party leader he didn't have any time to get past the brooding and act like an actual loner. But it also helps to have a source for the brooding, I suppose.

It also helps that I don't stick to those types exclusively, so when I do hit one it is less likely to produce groans from around the table.

The Pixie Mage Adept I play in Shadowrun, on the other hand, was able to get them just from a request to the troll tank to grab her a small espresso when he was picking up coffee at the local Stuffer Shack....ok, so it was more like panicked shouting and a big NOOOOOOOO from one player.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm tired of all the builds that have a positive con mod ;)

Oh no wait, it's really that I'm tired of all the builds that don't have a 5 in a stat. People just aren't dumping hard enough ;)

Seriously though, I'm not a fan of all these "non-combat" builds I see.
I'm a rogue, I don't need to do combat, I do skills.
I'm a bard, I inspire courage and skills, I don't need to do combat.
I'm a cleric, I heal, I don't need to do combat.

Because these people all have horrible combat stats, and after a few sessions or level realize that the game is a lot of combat and they feel useless during combats and then ask for help in increasing their combat and are stuck because they don't have the stats for combat.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Druid with a Tiger/Lion companion is way too common; unfortunately for a reason, given how much better they are than the majority of ACs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Yeah, concepts are far more tiresome than builds. I'm probably going to kick the next player who plays a "CN" rogue who tries to smart-ass his way into some cheap loot (while also stepping on the other players' toes and screwing the party by pissing of every NPC in their vicinity because he's acting like a f!#$ing idiot and doesn't understand that there are consequences). Or the next druid character who probably should have been built with the commoner class instead (the guy who does f@!%ing nothing).

I'll agree, the concepts behind the numbers might be the greater offenders. Look up any thread full of hate of people using Chaotic Neutral to cover up Chaotic Stupid (or Evil) for some, and its good 'friend' the Lawful Stupid 'paladin', both of which stand out despite many others being able to carry off the alignments in question without being a problem.


Qaianna wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Yeah, concepts are far more tiresome than builds. I'm probably going to kick the next player who plays a "CN" rogue who tries to smart-ass his way into some cheap loot (while also stepping on the other players' toes and screwing the party by pissing of every NPC in their vicinity because he's acting like a f!#$ing idiot and doesn't understand that there are consequences). Or the next druid character who probably should have been built with the commoner class instead (the guy who does f@!%ing nothing).
I'll agree, the concepts behind the numbers might be the greater offenders. Look up any thread full of hate of people using Chaotic Neutral to cover up Chaotic Stupid (or Evil) for some, and its good 'friend' the Lawful Stupid 'paladin', both of which stand out despite many others being able to carry off the alignments in question without being a problem.

I have never seen a Lawful Stupid Paladin run by a player in all my years of gaming. I have seen a couple of Lawful Stupid NPC's and a couple of crap choices where the GM felty the paladin in question was Lawful Stupid for not turning a blind eye(the non LS alternative was to watch an innocent get tortured and killed in front of us - the ENTIRE party objected, the paladin merely won initiative).

And more than a few players who try to run as close to eveil when they see a paladin in the party and insist that lawful stupid is how the class should be played - mainly because they get caught when the slightest bit of intelligence is displayed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do not like making builds i see other people use.

I see lots of builds I see:

Dex to damage shocking grasp magus
Bow classes built the same(being an inquisitor instead of zen archer is not different enough for me)
gunslingers
Slumber witch

Now i do not care if people build these, I just will not because it is not original enough for me.

There are some personality types jiggy came up with I totally agree with are over done, but my problem is not that peple build characters like them, but they do not roleplay past that part of their character and break out of character when it comes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:


Bow classes built the same(being an inquisitor instead of zen archer is not different enough for me)
gunslingers

Eh, you really can't fault ranged characters for all being the same build. There are really no interesting or unique options in that style and even if there were it is too feat intensive for them to be usable until high level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chaoseffect wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:


Bow classes built the same(being an inquisitor instead of zen archer is not different enough for me)
gunslingers
Eh, you really can't fault ranged characters for all being the same build. There are really no interesting or unique options in that style and even if there were it is too feat intensive for them to be usable until high level.

It's true that ranged attack builds largely require the same set of feats to pull off due to many feats that mitigate the initial drawbacks of ranged attacks or simply being "too good" to pass up.

Point Blank Shot - required by other feats
Precise Shot/Improved Precise Shot - negate penalties
Rapid Shot - Extra attack with -2 to all attacks (too good to pass)
Deadly Aim - power attack for ranged attacks
Many Shot - extra arrow for free (too good to pass)
Point Blank Master - too good to pass if you can get it

However, there have been some feats to come out that make ranged combat slightly more interesting with Overwatch Style or Empty Quiver Style, but they're still pretty secondary to those feats mentioned above.


I cannot avoid to see as a very weird thing, if not abhorrent, to not do a built that I may be interested in play or lose interest just because someone else already did it


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Shocking Grasp Dex to Damage Magus

If there were any other spells on the magus list that were as good as Shocking Grasp for a first-level slot, you'd see more variation, but there's a grand total of three melee touch attacks on the magus spell list at first level. Chill Touch, Frostbite, and Shocking Grasp.

The frostbite STR magus is just as good in most cases, people just get ants in their pants about dex to damage for no good reason.

Quote:
Superstitious Beast Totem Barbarian

If they wanted to make Beast Totem less mandatory they should probably have made even the slightest bit of effort towards making it more workable to move around while fighting. Can't blame a guy for taking one of the only existing cures from "stand still or suck syndrome."

As for superstition, it's the prerequisite for so many rage powers, not all of them part of the Uberbarbarian, that a lot of people are going to take it anyway.

Quote:
Mounted Lance Builds (regardless of size)

Yeah, how dare that guy that's playing a knight use the knight's iconic weapon. You don't see rangers going around with longbows!

As was said earlier, for a lot of people it's their first time using something. The fact some billion people neither you nor they have met or ever will meet have used a similar build should not make it a faux pas to use something effective.

Like Jiggy, I am more tired by concepts, including things such as:

-The utter mercenary that needs to be bludgeoned over the head with sacks of gold to remain involved in the story and will usually have to be bribed to go anywhere near the plot hooks.

-The "seen it all" wizard whose vast education apparently means nothing ever frightens, impresses, or interests him.

-The loner that has no interest in or respect for the rest of the party, but for contrived reasons is forced to stay near them so the player is still able to y'know, play the game. Ostensibly this is often meant for character development, but in practice I typically see it resulting in the character being replaced by a more sociable one before long.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

How about the CN thiefish type who uses class features to steal from and swindle other PCs, and then gets upset when the barbarian uses his class features on the thief.

1 to 50 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.