Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
There are only three 1-5 scenarios my wife and I can play together, because I have specifically reserved Faithless and Forgotten from our schedules. If I look at what I can run for her and our one friend's raptors, I add...a single table. Trust me, I know how to schedule tables, but Table Tetris still conspires against teamwork builds.
Bret and I have been able to play our partners together most of the time, but they're all competent enough to be also played separately.
Our biggest issue with playing our teamwork builds is not available games but other GM duties calling us in to GM rather than play.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
5 ranks 3 training 4 wisdom 5 eyes= +17
Druids have some of the highest perception scores in the game, even vs traps. And they can afford to spend their gold on equipment like eyes of the eagle and still be relevant in combat.
Yeah I did the math on that and was wondering if you just did the hypothetical max wisdom which probably doesn't happen that often namely because of the whole reduction in combat capability if you aren't caster focused.
|
Yeah I did the math on that and was wondering if you just did the hypothetical max wisdom which probably doesn't happen that often namely because of the whole reduction in combat capability if you aren't caster focused.5 ranks 3 training 4 wisdom 5 eyes= +17
Druids have some of the highest perception scores in the game, even vs traps. And they can afford to spend their gold on equipment like eyes of the eagle and still be relevant in combat.
That's only an 18, 16 starting and either level 8 or a headband and you have it.
|
I consider skill points spent in climb or swim wasted skill points as they are easily replaced by a potion or scroll for the rare instance it matters in early levels (1-3ish). However, a general player without dozens of PFS scenarios under their belt may not realize that and can easily be forgiven for thinking they are worth the investment.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Perception is the first skill you take, unless you have prereqs for something, or if you have some roleplaying requirement for your character...
No. Not really. Unless you really optimization into skill monkey territory which is what everyone is arguing you do it doesn't help as much as you expect it would.
What do you mean +50? DC 50? OK? I mean, any class with Acute Senses is going to be able to find it.. and I would be lying if I said that I didn't have characters with that spell, but other than that you're hosed. And the consequences for being hosed are usually a save. So try to have good saves? Falling to your death? (boots of the cat or be flying when the spell goes off)
I've played through scenarios where they are specifically designed to negate those tactics. In fact I almost TPK'd a party by accident with your logic.
However, bad Perception leads to going top of turn 2.
Mechanics wise no. Bad perception and going in the surprise round are strangely unrelated.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I would guess this is another regional thing.I'm not sure I've seen a wis based character without max ranks in perception in my life playing PFS.
So all the Druid/clerics I've seen have max ranks.
Maybe, but I'm a 3-5 con a year GM and player (GenCon, Dragoncon, Origins, often PaizoCon, and other smaller.) So my "local" is thousands of miles and hundreds of players/GMs.
|
|
I was actually surprised in a couple of scenarios to have my rogue's max'd level Disable Device *do* something for a change.Usually it doesn't come up, but when it does, it's amazing.
I get the same thrill when my brawler's maxxed out Sense Motive comes up somewhere (though I rarely need to even roll anymore the bonus is so high... I just do it for the look on the GM's face if they haven't played with him yet), or when my Paladin's Perform(Sing) comes up... which is a shockingly large number of scenarios...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess this would be a good time to (once again) repost my PC building criteria:
When I make a new PC, I try to answer 4 questions (used to be 3, but I ended up with a couple of boring PCs, so added a 4th):1. What's this character's specialty in combat? As long as the PC can do something that helps the party succeed in a fight, this can be anything, not just dealing damage, but make sure you're actually good at whatever this is. You don't have to be uber-optimized, but make sure you can contribute.
2. What does this character do in combat when they're specialty isn't an option? This is things like having a ranged weapon even though your character is a melee beast, or an enchantment based character having something they can do when facing mindless foes. Also, everyone should try to get some splash weapons for use against swarms, though that might have to wait until after your first adventure to be able to afford it.
3. What does this character do outside of combat? This isn't just for personality, this is also making sure you have something useful to contribute between fights. Sometimes, it's diplomacy or other face skills, even if it's just enough of a bonus to be the "aid another" guy behind the main face. Sometimes, it's knowledges, sense motive, stealth, or whatever other skills could come in handy between fights.
4. What personality traits will you be able to actively portray at the table? The above 3 questions are designed to make a playable PC by giving them something useful to do in most situations. This question was added afterwards to make a fun character. I had a couple of PCs that were mechanically interesting, but didn't have a personality. Or they had a detailed back story, but that didn't really give me something to role play at the table. This is about giving your PC personality, whether it's a distinctive voice, an obsession that you can play up, or whatever other quirk makes the PC fun to play.
Or to answer the original question of what builds don't work in PFS: One trick ponies. As noted above, all of my characters have at least 3 things they can do at least moderately well - two in combat, and one out of combat. That's bare minimum. But I also make sure I'm actually good at at least one or two of those things, rather than going too generalist and spreading myself too thin.
One other thing that doesn't work in PFS: Single class, non-archetype mediums. Ok, maybe a strength based build that only channels the champion spirit can be a passable front liner. But other than that, single class mediums fail the "Is it better than level 7 Harsk in subtier 10-11?" standard. Which sucks, because from a strictly fluff perspective, it's my favorite class from Occult Adventures.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
I played an Overrun specialist (Elephant Stomp, Charge Through, Greater Overrun) and found nearly every GM ruled differently on how these all worked.I still don't know how overrun works and I've made multiple threads on the rules forum asking how it does.
Yuuup.
How EXACTLY overrun works is something that has eluded me.
Most importantly, it has eluded the players. I've seen a cavalier whose human had all the feats and another whose mount had all the feats - not sure which is right.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
As someone who is trying to figure out how to build a medium: how do you build a good medium? I love the fluff and the character I've built, but I am struggling with how to make it viable. Going relic channeler because anything else seemed insane.
Champion Spirit seems to be the way to go. You're like a bard whose mojo is always active and who can spend their actions actually fighting or casting or using expendables depending on how you want to play it.
Just assume you'll always have the main archetype you want on you and jive with it.
In the case of my Champion, I get a free Exotic Weapon Proficiency which I used on a Gnome Hook Hammer and abilities that make me a pretty decent two weapon fighter even with only have 3/4ths BAB, since with your spirit bonus you end up even with the curve at every level except for 4, 8 and 12 where you are ahead of it. You end basically with pounce via Champion too at 11th level, so I like the idea to do it with a Toothy Half Orc or if you have access to a Tiefling boon their bite. You can add that helmet that gives you a gore at 11th too to really milk the most out of that. This works equally well with Archery or Vital Striking too.
Aside from that, it does provide you with an incredible amount of flexibility via archmage, trickster and divine surge too if your table needs it and doesn't need you to frontline. Frankly, I think Medium may be the best support class in the game for this reason.
As for archetypes, mine is a Relic channeler but you could also look at the Fiend Keeper that they just approved, you trade away most of the classes situational abilities for an ability that gives the ability to naturally fly at 7th and some other minor bonuses.
|
|
For medium you pretty much need to pick one spirit and run with it, changing spirits day by day, while sounding cool, isn't so feasible in PFS. (Like sure, if you're going to a dinner party it might not be a bad idea for you champion to do the trickster, but you shouldn't be thinking that you'll switch off the parties needs.)
If going caster medium you need an archetype like the storyteller. Note that the heirophant makes a possible cha based negative energy channeler in PFS that isn't the cleric.
If going champion you work fine and can do damage well.
If going guardian, trickster, or martial you probably should consider a level of barbarian and extra rage feat to help your combat. 1 level of rage class and guardian gives you a spellcasting invulnerable rager.
The big issue is that most spirits are weaker than the class they emulate, so you really need to find out why you're not just that class but are instead a medium.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
I mean the reason to play one is shared seance, which is why Marshal can be a pretty good one at times.
Medium also makes an excellent dip because of how good shared seance and spirit bonus are.
Really if you wanted to play a character who did nothing but provide passive bonuses to his allies you could go Medium 4/Bard 7 or Medium 2/Bard 9, making sure to take Flagbearer somewhere along the way and channel the Marshal all the time and be pretty effective if not necessarily taking a lot of actions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I am seeing a whole lot of negativity toward non-combat-maximized character builds in this thread. Sure, if everyone in the party is a min-maxed rage-charge-pounce character or blaster, you may not need in-combat healing, but as far as I'm concerned, that makes for very boring play. If the lead person has a good enough perception check, you may be able to avoid setting off a trap until you can control who is in the area, but there are times that you need to avoid setting off the trap at all to keep from alerting the bad guys to your presence or you need to open a lock without destroying it.
I've GMed for groups where every combat lasts less than a round, and all too often the players start complaining that it isn't challenging enough. That leads to things like Season 4, where parties that were not min-maxed were destroyed on a regular basis. Personally, I'd rather that folks stop with the idea that unless you're a combat monster, you're useless - it leads to bad ends, in my opinion. Yes, everyone should make sure that their character can contribute in some significant way during combat, as well as outside of combat. However, I've seen plenty of low-level groups where a Bless can make the difference between hitting and missing and every little bit of damage counts and, in my experience, the folks at those tables seem to be having more fun than the groups where it's a race to see which PC goes first and ends the combat before anyone else can act. Of course, your mileage may vary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I am seeing a whole lot of negativity toward non-combat-maximized character builds in this thread.
The only negativity i'm seeing is towards "I do skills, i'm useless in combat". It is ridiculously easy to be fairly competent at skills and combat, there's really no reason to not be combat capable.
|
|
I really wanted to make Medium work, but only see two really viable Medium builds: Champion Spirit, or Storyteller Medium. Champion is about on par with other martials. Storyteller is about on par with a Bard, with the option for a divine, arcane or skill focus instead of the bard spell list.
Medium is a viable 1, 2 or 4 level dip. Shared Seance is a nice group buff and Legendary Influence can give a lot of flexibility to other builds. It's possible that if you're starting a campaign at 11 or 17th, a Marshal Spirit build could work somewhat better than an equivalent Bard.
For what it's worth, I think Unsworn Shaman is more viable as a swiss army knife. I've got an Unsworn Shaman 8/Medium 1 that actually feels on par with a specialist in whatever he's up to that day.
Agreed. That was my point. The medium class just doesn't work, unless you're focusing on the champion spirit or going with one of the better archetypes. And even with champion spirit, it's strength builds only.
I'm trying to figure out how to make the Fiend Keeper archetype from Blood of the Beast work, since I've got the grippli boon and love the archetype's fluff. I figured Weapon Finesse with the racial rapier proficiency, and maybe a dagger in the off hand once I can pick up the TWF feat at level 3. The Champion spirit should give some extra damage, right?
As a dex based build with 10 str (tossing in 2 points to make up for the racial str penalty), I'll be doing 1d4+3 damage at level 1. And there's no convenient way to get dex to damage, so that's really only going up as the spirit bonus increases. I figure with all the extra attacks from TWF, Improved TWF, the Champion spirit, and getting Haste at level 7, I can be up to 6 attacks per round at level 9, so I should do ok when I can full attack, and get pounce at level 11. But against anything with DR, I'll be like an archer without Clustered Shots.
Mediums can work if you multi-class. As noted above, they're a great single level dip for any martial class, or 2 level dip if you want to share your sceance with the party. But the spirits other than Champion just suck, and are almost never worth using. Which is a shame, because the fluff for the class is among the best in the game.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Success is often the result of DPS characters + support characters.
In easier battles, DPS + DPS is often enough.
But the higher you get, and the more difficult combats get, DPS + Support becomes a more stable equation for victory.
You need someone to counterspell, provide static scaling bonuses to hit, mitigate incoming damage, and in general "support" your DPS or they can't DPS.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Compared to actually deadly traps, I have seen many more "skill monkey" rogues with two weapon fighting that can't contribute to combat effectively. At times, even causing the table to play up and get slaughtered.
Actually, I would argue that it happens more often than not with a lot of classes to the point where complaining about it is completely moot because at some point your going to be useless even the two handed wielding barbarian. Its really one of the things that slightly irritates me and others about PFS because it violently spikes to the point where I'd argue Season 4 scenarios aren't the hardest ones I've seen.
|
|
The only negativity i'm seeing is towards "I do skills, i'm useless in combat". It is ridiculously easy to be fairly competent at skills and combat, there's really no reason to not be combat capable.
It's more than being combat capable. Or perhaps your idea of combat capable and mine are at odds. Two-weapon fighters, combat maneuver specialists, sneak attackers, and teamwork builds have all been dismissed. You yourself said that pure healers were not worth playing. In my opinion, all of them can still contribute significantly to combat, even if they aren't putting out the damage levels that the optimized characters can do. I think it would be a great shame if players new to Pathfinder organized play were to see this thread and limit their character choices based on some of the opinions expressed here.
As for me, I stopped playing my cleric/wizard/mystic theurge character because I felt he wasn't working very well. However, I am reluctant to tell others not to make one because they might have better experiences with it. Perhaps such a character might be made to work well enough to be playable, even though I think my attempt failed.
|
|
The only negativity i'm seeing is towards "I do skills, i'm useless in combat". It is ridiculously easy to be fairly competent at skills and combat, there's really no reason to not be combat capable.It's more than being combat capable. Or perhaps your idea of combat capable and mine are at odds. Two-weapon fighters, combat maneuver specialists, sneak attackers, and teamwork builds have all been dismissed. You yourself said that pure healers were not worth playing. In my opinion, all of them can still contribute significantly to combat, even if they aren't putting out the damage levels that the optimized characters can do. I think it would be a great shame if players new to Pathfinder organized play were to see this thread and limit their character choices based on some of the opinions expressed here.
Yeah, I disagree with a lot of those opinions. I have rogues, combat maneuver specialists, and two weapon fighters, and haven't had problems contributing. But as noted above, I always make sure I have a backup plan for when my primary shtick doesn't work. Also, I agree that teamwork builds without a way to provide your own teammate are a bad idea. But for two people who always play together, or classes that have a way to share their teamwork feats with any random group, they can be ok.
For instance, if my reach weapon tripper is facing something without legs, he's still got 18 str and a pole arm for direct damage, and a ranged weapon against flying things. And my level 2 rogue will be up to 1d4+9 base damage by level 4, so even though most of my damage comes from two weapon fighting and sneak attacks, I'm not totally useless when I only get a single non-sneak attack.
And of course, there are plenty of non-damaging ways to contribute. I have a sorcerer who tosses out Haste and Glitterdust every fight. The one and only time anyone ever complained that he couldn't do direct damage was around level 2, and he's a lot more flexible with higher level spells these days.
I actually had problems contributing with my pacifist, casting focused druid last week, due to terrain constraints making most of my spells useless, and enemies that were immune to non-lethal damage (Weather domain's level 1 power). But I was still able to contribute to a couple of tough fights by keeping the damage dealers standing with a CLW wand and a couple of scrolls of Cure Moderate. At one point, I just helped by tanking, which druids can do better than most pure casters, and I had Windy Escape (yes, she's a sylph). Kinda scary for a level 3 with d8 HP to take the hits in a boss fight in sub-tier 4-5, but I managed to take some pressure off the fighter for a round or two, and we all survived.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, my examples for useful in combat went down to aiding attacks and providing flanking while not dying.
But the thing is, the difference between 14 str and 18 int vs 18 str and 14 int at mid to high levels is basically one is bad at combat and good at skills, and the other is good at combat and good at skills. Plus it's far easier to boost skills cheaply then to cheaply be better at combat.
So I don't think anyone is advocating max damage combat ending beasts are a must. But that you make sure you have a plan to be helpful and useful in combat.
EX.
A character lv8 providing 6 DPR is not helping.
A character lv8 providing cure light from a wand in combat is not helping.
A character lv8 that can shaken opponents for a few rounds is helping.
A character lv8 that can provide buffs is helping.
A character lv8 Draws AoO, uses aid another and provides flanking without getting close to dying is helping.
|
|
It's more than being combat capable. Or perhaps your idea of combat capable and mine are at odds. Two-weapon fighters, combat maneuver specialists, sneak attackers, and teamwork builds have all been dismissed.
That isn't negativity. "Why are you doing this" "what the hell are you doing.." would be negativity.
The question is "what doesn't work" (given a normal level of optimization.) and I'm sorry but some builds are more supported by the game than others, some take more optimization than others.
You yourself said that pure healers were not worth playing.
And I've seen nothing to change my mind.
In my opinion, all of them can still contribute significantly to combat, even if they aren't putting out the damage levels that the optimized characters can do.
There is a vast gulf between useful and optimized. Those are not the only options. Some options work so badly that they fail to be useful unless you optimize the heck out of them. Almost any concept can work (Heck, I have a wild empathy druid that can cuddle dungeons into submission) but knowing which options have a low baseline of optimization is good for knowing which character concepts to avoid or to get extra help tricking out.
I think it would be a great shame if players new to Pathfinder organized play were to see this thread and limit their character choices based on some of the opinions expressed here.
I think it's a greater shame when people get midway through their career and find out their character isn't working out at all. I've seen two weapon fighters just flail against the ubiquitous DR and get out damaged by the familiar with a wand, chained rogues that can't get more than 1 sneak attack to land, ever because of elementals, darkness, this years elementals, incorporeal, swarms, this years elementals...(season 8: year of the disappointed rogue) ,
Perhaps such a character might be made to work well enough to be playable, even though I think my attempt failed.
Almost any concept CAN work. Somehow. That wasn't the question though. With a normal level of optimization/resources available, avoid that concept.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I think it's a greater shame when people get midway through their career and find out their character isn't working out at all. I've seen two weapon fighters just flail against the ubiquitous DR and get out damaged by the familiar with a wand, chained rogues that can't get more than 1 sneak attack to land, ever because of elementals, darkness, this years elementals, incorporeal, swarms, this years elementals...(season 8: year of the disappointed rogue) ,
Incorporeal I know you can sneak attack but you need a specific support class. (EDIT: Or take a specific archetype that allows you too) Elementals are sneak attackable weirdly enough though massive spoilers. Darkness weirdly enough isn't that hard to counter especially when they gave out its counter like skittles this season.
|
|
The only negativity i'm seeing is towards "I do skills, i'm useless in combat". It is ridiculously easy to be fairly competent at skills and combat, there's really no reason to not be combat capable.It's more than being combat capable. Or perhaps your idea of combat capable and mine are at odds. Two-weapon fighters, combat maneuver specialists, sneak attackers, and teamwork builds have all been dismissed. You yourself said that pure healers were not worth playing. In my opinion, all of them can still contribute significantly to combat, even if they aren't putting out the damage levels that the optimized characters can do. I think it would be a great shame if players new to Pathfinder organized play were to see this thread and limit their character choices based on some of the opinions expressed here.
You're now mixing stuff up.
Thread asked, What has trouble working in PFS.
TWF, combat maneuver guy, sneak attack, and teamwork feat focused builds all have trouble working in PFS. Not that they can't work, just they have a harder time working or work sporadically. No one has said these builds can't contribute to combat.
Then thread went to, being useless in combat doesn't work well in PFS. Especially since it's quite easy to be useful in combat and still pull off all the OoC stuff you wanted to do. And because it's really easy to make yourself be useless in combat and then in a few levels you really feel how much of a dead weight you are and have no way of fixing it.
Useful in combat != optimized for combat
|
For medium you pretty much need to pick one spirit and run with it, changing spirits day by day, while sounding cool, isn't so feasible in PFS. (Like sure, if you're going to a dinner party it might not be a bad idea for you champion to do the trickster, but you shouldn't be thinking that you'll switch off the parties needs.)
If going caster medium you need an archetype like the storyteller. Note that the heirophant makes a possible cha based negative energy channeler in PFS that isn't the cleric.
If going champion you work fine and can do damage well.
If going guardian, trickster, or martial you probably should consider a level of barbarian and extra rage feat to help your combat. 1 level of rage class and guardian gives you a spellcasting invulnerable rager.
The big issue is that most spirits are weaker than the class they emulate, so you really need to find out why you're not just that class but are instead a medium.
I disagree. I think the Medium, as written, is the ideal back-up character for a party. He's able to basically become any core class, on a daily basis, allowing the party to fill gaps in their party desgin. Yeah, he does become a weaker version of that class, but it allows the party to have a back-up character in lots of roles.
Party needs more martial DPS, he takes the champion spirit and gives the party a bonus on damage rolls. Party needs another sword and board fighter, he takes the gardian spirit and the party gains a bonus on CMD. And so forth.
The challenge is that to take advantage of these spirits, you need a very diverse set of attributes, equipment, and feat selection becomes a huge challenge.
As for the Archetypes, I think the Kami Medium presents an interesting option, as it allows you to lose the back-up arcane role, in exchange for a more constant taboo, which is a lot more managable than many of the other Taboos. He also gains an interesting option, where he can dismiss his spells before they'd normally be able to end, by tearing his Ofuda off the target.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two-weapon fighters, combat maneuver specialists, sneak attackers, and teamwork builds have all been dismissed. You yourself said that pure healers were not worth playing. In my opinion, all of them can still contribute significantly to combat, even if they aren't putting out the damage levels that the optimized characters can do. I think it would be a great shame if players new to Pathfinder organized play were to see this thread and limit their character choices based on some of the opinions expressed here.
To put this in context, here was the OP's question:
Obviously with enough system mastery and additional resources you can make almost any character build or concept work. However, considering a casual player with average system mastery, what character builds or concepts work poorly or, alternately, scale poorly into the 7-11 tier?
I myself have seen many of the builds you have listed flourish. I have also, however, seen a number of new players give up on the game because they created a character that simply doesn't work. I've even seen players give up because they chose to play a terrible pregen and didn't have any fun at all.
So the context in which I have taken this entire conversation was that some builds are more difficult to make work, require more system mastery, or are a poor fit for PFS play. That doesn't mean that you can't build them, like you said! But if someone with a few games and a character under their belt asked me if it was a good idea, I'd probably try to gently steer that person away from some of these.
"Teamwork feats seem really cool. Do you think my fighter should take a teamwork feat this level?" "Most people don't have teamwork feats, so it's probably not going to do much for you. Do you have a friend you always play with who might pick them, too?" "I mean, there's Rob, but he's playing a wizard and he says he's already got his next three feats picked out." "You might have a really hard time making that work, then. There are some other ways to make them work with anyone if you're interested, but they require some planning, like..."
"I want to build a healer. What do you think? I want a cleric with huge wisdom and not much else. He'll be a wise old man and walk around doing nothing but healing people." "Well, that sounds like a great concept! You might want to broaden his horizons at least a little bit, though, because a lot of games he plays in aren't going to need a lot of healing. Maybe he's heard it all before, and has a way of noticing things other people don't? Maybe he's good at helping his party in other ways, too, like blessing them in combat, or..."
"I just got my first race boon! It's awesome. I want to make this tiefling girl who drops Darkness every combat and then shoots people with her bow and gets lots of sneak attack." "Well, that's an awesome idea, but you may not want to rely on Darkness so much. A lot of your party members won't be able to see in it so you have to be careful not to make everyone else feel useless. Why don't you try..."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the context in which I have taken this entire conversation was that some builds are more difficult to make work, require more system mastery, or are a poor fit for PFS play. That doesn't mean that you can't build them, like you said! But if someone with a few games and a character under their belt asked me if it was a good idea, I'd probably try to gently steer that person away from some of these.
Yes, your point is excellent and the examples you gave of how to talk to someone about possible pitfalls were very well put. Perhaps I was reading too much attitude into some of these responses. My apologies for misinterpreting some of the comments here. Thank you.
|
|
So the context in which I have taken this entire conversation was that some builds are more difficult to make work, require more system mastery, or are a poor fit for PFS play. That doesn't mean that you can't build them, like you said! But if someone with a few games and a character under their belt asked me if it was a good idea, I'd probably try to gently steer that person away from some of these.Yes, your point is excellent and the examples you gave of how to talk to someone about possible pitfalls were very well put. Perhaps I was reading too much attitude into some of these responses. My apologies for misinterpreting some of the comments here. Thank you.
Thanks.. I think we all know tone is an easy thing to misunderstand online. Even so, your reminder to keep it positive and constructive is a good one!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is everyone playing this game in a vacuum?
Style matters. I'll take 1d6+7+Style over 2d8+22 any day. (Especially if someone else in the party is slinging 2d8+22s around).
And, as people have suggested, always have a backup way to influence combats. (I've got a soft spot for Steal combat maneuvers. Ripping headbands and belts off of foes is a special kind of 'invalidated tactics.')
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I think everyone is going to have a different idea of what is optimized for combat, but I think it's super easy to be in a bad spot at level 8 with a rogue TWF.
I feel like that is a problem with a rogue and not TWF. I can easily build something that does 5d6+6 (Bypass Adamantine) and 1d6+5 two weapon fighting and not give up much.
EDIT:Darn it. I don't need any more PFS character ideas.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think the Medium, as written, is the ideal back-up character for a party. He's able to basically become any core class, on a daily basis, allowing the party to fill gaps in their party desgin. Yeah, he does become a weaker version of that class, but it allows the party to have a back-up character in lots of roles.
Party needs more martial DPS, he takes the champion spirit and gives the party a bonus on damage rolls. Party needs another sword and board fighter, he takes the gardian spirit and the party gains a bonus on CMD. And so forth.
The challenge is that to take advantage of these spirits, you need a very diverse set of attributes, equipment, and feat selection becomes a huge challenge.
That might be what the class is intended to be, but it's not what the class actually is. Champion is the only spirit worth taking.
Archmage = "I wish I was half as good as a wizard."
Hierophant = "I wish I was half as good as a cleric."
Marshall = "I wish I was half as good as a bard."
Trickster = "I wish I was half as good as a Core rogue that most people on the forums consider the worst class in the game."
Guardian = "I'm a tower shield with legs. Damage? What's that?"
A couple of those do come on line and become useful later. The Marshall spirit seems like it could become useful at level 11. Still much worse than playing an average bard, but possibly worth playing.
And yes, some of the archetypes make the class work better. But for the most part, it's either strength based champion, or else just take it as a one or two level dip on another class.
|
|
You're talking worst case scenario for that rogue. Fighting something that is immune to sneak attack damage and has DR. Basically an elemental.
Same rogue two handing an Elven curved blade +2 would be 1d10+11 at +16, +18 with flank.
Full round with flank hits 90% on primary, 65% on secondary.
Avg damage: .9x30.5 + .65x30.5 = 47.275 not factoring crits.
So those are the best case situations for the two builds. ECB could afford to power attack, which would make a big difference on a single attack, but only brings full attack average up to 49.275. Factoring in crits it would have more of an impact.
Anyway, the point being, what you're getting when TWF is lower accuracy and lower damage on a single attack for higher burst damage when the best case situation comes up. The thing to caution a moderately experienced player about is that in PFS, you can't always rely on having a flank partner in the group. So having some way to get a sneak attack off without a flank is a good idea. And having some way to increase damage if what you're fighting is immune to sneak attack is a good idea.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when someone starts talking about making a pure noncombat character, I try to gently point out that combat is going to take a significant chunk of the OOC game time, and that it's good to have something fun and useful to do during combat.
|
|
I disagree. I think the Medium, as written, is the ideal back-up character for a party. He's able to basically become any core class, on a daily basis, allowing the party to fill gaps in their party desgin. Yeah, he does become a weaker version of that class, but it allows the party to have a back-up character in lots of roles.
Party needs more martial DPS, he takes the champion spirit and gives the party a bonus on damage rolls. Party needs another sword and board fighter, he takes the gardian spirit and the party gains a bonus on CMD. And so forth.
The challenge is that to take advantage of these spirits, you need a very diverse set of attributes, equipment, and feat selection becomes a huge challenge.
That might be what the class is intended to be, but it's not what the class actually is. Champion is the only spirit worth taking.
Archmage = "I wish I was half as good as a wizard."
Hierophant = "I wish I was half as good as a cleric."
Marshall = "I wish I was half as good as a bard."
Trickster = "I wish I was half as good as a Core rogue that most people on the forums consider the worst class in the game."
Guardian = "I'm a tower shield with legs. Damage? What's that?"A couple of those do come on line and become useful later. The Marshall spirit seems like it could become useful at level 11. Still much worse than playing an average bard, but possibly worth playing.
And yes, some of the archetypes make the class work better. But for the most part, it's either strength based champion, or else just take it as a one or two level dip on another class.
Medium becomes a good class when the party has all it's bases covered, and just needs an extra X class for a certain opponent, scenario, or situation. I do agree, that when directly comparing to a specific class, it is worse. You are focused in versatility, not in one specific form.
If I was playing PFS, the ideal situation for a Medium is to be the 7th player in a party. Then figure out what the party needs and become that role. With 7 players, the burden on the Medium to be equal to the class they are emulating is lessened and they should function better. In general, I think the Medium is a very good class for PFS, due to PFS's semi-random player selection.
As an extra note, the medium has stong potential as the Party's Face. It's a CHA based caster class, with access to two class abilities (Marshall Spirit) which stack on CHA skills (spirit boon and spirit surge). Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive are all class skills, too.