Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

What's the most annoying character ever?


Advice

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber Subscriber

My group is periodically degenerating into competing about making the most annoying character - from a gamemaster perspective. It's not about making overpowered characters who can eat any opponent your GM sends your way for dinner, but more about shutting down his thunder in annoying ways. I want to end this by bringing a character so annoying that noone can beat me. So I need your advice. What is the most annoying character you can create. It's PFS, and we're not talking just annoying personality. I was thinking Pugwampi-summoning Witch/summoner with Ill Omen for endless bad luck, but i believe we can do better. Give me your best shot.


Large sized character with a reach weapon and all of the trip feats. It can be quite capable in combat, but the schtick gets old fast.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just do everything to make the DM work harder.

S~%& ton of Summoning, everyone plays pet classes, and spend lots of time on s&~% you know is useless.

He will be fuming pretty fast.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Does you GM allow things from D&D? If so, play a Kender.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Does you GM allow things from D&D? If so, play a Kender.

Not everyone hates Kender. I love the little kleptomaniac Halflings and think they and their culture to be spectacular.


Thinking about it, it has always ended going back to the player succeeding or failing to pull off the character. I've even been in a campaign where the Kender was great, if a bit insane. Ok that one time was the only time a Kender failed to have an ally encouraged accident.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Does you GM allow things from D&D? If so, play a Kender.

LMAO haha man I love Kender. Annoying if played by the right person.

I played one for my Dragonlance 5th age game. Was fantabulously awesome


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Large sized character with a reach weapon and all of the trip feats. It can be quite capable in combat, but the schtick gets old fast.

No, large sized character, with pushing assault. Take a 5' step back, push enemy 5' back, and then wait for AoOs. Trip stuff is optional, but preferred.

I am sure some of you have experienced being kited by trolls before, but that was usually caster/archers, and not literal trolls.

Another suggestion- first world summoner. Focus on pugwampis. This has the problems of summoning (ie- more bodies to keep track of), but they are also all essentially nodes of a no save misfortune hex due to their 20' range unluck auras. So you are encouraged to throw them out and let the party wizard make the GM regret that d20s are used for saving throws (another advantage- he has to roll twice for everything- MORE TIME WASTE!).

The GM can try to have his monsters eat the pugwampis... but even that still works out for you. The enemies are too bush chasing around the annoying little things to attack you, spreading around the battlefield. Easy pickings.

One trick pony that is both good and monotonous. Bonus points if you make your GM turn the entire campaign into a 'gnoll and animal' campaign to avoid this tactic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ask the name of every single NPC you interact with. Ask what color hair they have, do they have visible scars, etc. Ask the NPCs questions for the purpose of collecting irrelevant information. Maybe you're a writer, or home invader, or have a peculiar mental condition.


According to my fellow players, it's anything that I play.

Most recently, it was a Vanaran Druid with the Fire Domain, Barbarian VMC, able to summon Augmented Kitty-Cats, with a level dip in Monk.


Well, I'd say the character that annoyed my GM the most was my Beloved Enchantment Wizard. When I first brought up the idea to the GM, he said it sounded absurd. He romanced the Evil warlock who was meant to be the final boss, led him to renounce his evil ways, and eventually retired to a large cottage in the countryside where they adopted three children.

On top of that, I was essentially nullifying any encounters that weren't with mindless creatures. Eventually, most of our encounters had to be oozes or undead just so my wizard didn't charm them too.

Seriously, if annoying is what you're going for, build the character that can settle any fights before they even begin.


Sarvis the Buck wrote:
On top of that, I was essentially nullifying any encounters that weren't with mindless creatures. Eventually, most of our encounters had to be oozes or undead just so my wizard didn't charm them too.

"Whelp, time to roll up a mesmerist. I shall romance as no man has romanced before!"


My first instinct was a Dragon Yapper Kobold Bard...

A dedicated blaster wizard can be super annoying to other players. The kind that replaces the fighter and just makes other characters worthless.

Summoning is pretty much the way to go in terms of management. Maybe some sort of uber cheesy build that is super questionable. That also sounds pretty annoying to me.


kazzoo playing bard? or a barbarian that sunders every building you come across


Lawful Stupid or Awful Good-aligned paladins can produce some terrible headaches for a GM.


avr wrote:
Lawful Stupid or Awful Good-aligned paladins can produce some terrible headaches for a GM.

What about baby goblins that are on a quest to make the paladin fall, and have the backing of an all powerful, all knowing, all rocks falling being? I am sure they are annoying too.


lemeres wrote:
avr wrote:
Lawful Stupid or Awful Good-aligned paladins can produce some terrible headaches for a GM.
What about baby goblins that are on a quest to make the paladin fall, and have the backing of an all powerful, all knowing, all rocks falling being? I am sure they are annoying too.

Oh yes, there's ways for a GM to be annoying as all hell.


Sorcerer Grappler. Not only does it make me actually have to learn grapple rules, he is immune to rocks falling


Just making sure someone mentioned kender that is all.


Heavens Oracle/Crossblooded Sorcerer specializing in pattern spells.

When you are forcing CR+3 monsters to save or die via color-spray you know you are doing it right.


One where you don't now the rules of the class abilities and spend a lot of time looking them up to see how they work, especially when it is your turn to act.


Particle_Man wrote:
One where you don't now the rules of the class abilities and spend a lot of time looking them up to see how they work, especially when it is your turn to act.

Occultist then I still have so much trouble with that class.


Wildrager multiclass Ragechemist.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Ask the name of every single NPC you interact with. Ask what color hair they have, do they have visible scars, etc. Ask the NPCs questions for the purpose of collecting irrelevant information. Maybe you're a writer, or home invader, or have a peculiar mental condition.

Yeees. I made a villain-squad for my players to fight, and I consider myself fortunate they never asked ^^ I was considering making the ones who escaped reoccurring, but they just hunted down the last demon-worshipping cleric and fireballed them in their tent, so no need!

I also realized I re-used an NPC name recently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what i've seen so far, a well-optimized-build Synthetist.

Literally destroys the game.


The one that is a constant source of party conflict.

Special props to the rogue who decides the best way to join the party is to steal from them and lead them on a chase into a dangerous area... then continues to steal from other party members even after inexplicably being invited to join. Triple score in a game where PvP is completely banned.


Scythia wrote:

The one that is a constant source of party conflict.

Special props to the rogue who decides the best way to join the party is to steal from them and lead them on a chase into a dangerous area... then continues to steal from other party members even after inexplicably being invited to join. Triple score in a game where PvP is completely banned.

Kender rogue boom! thread.

Dark Archive

So can I just say that I find it annoying how opening post mentioned they are talking about character that is mechanically annoying from gm perspective AND that it was Pathfinder Society character?

Like a lot of advice post just one of those points either giving personality/behavior advice or stuff not available in PFS <_<

That said, I find this an evil thing to do in purpose anyway :P Seriously, its easy to be annoyed as gm without people even trying to do it on purpose!


A friend of mine and i were discussing this sort of thing yesterday.
Of course it depends on how high of a level we're talking about.

PC made of a mix of all caster classes, including the Oracle, for a load of color spray (augmented), so said PC could spam them vs high levels. Includes crossblooded sorcerer.

Barbarian specced on dirty tricks.

Bard focused on augmenting the team like mad, and antagonize to insult/debuff the enemies's attacks.

PC specced on sunder or disarm. Oh hey, that looks like a nasty sword [smacks it out of the hands]

Neat full plate [sunders it]

Do this as a group of 4, and be a band called ["The Trolling Stones"]


Many of us are more interested in our take on the concept, rules sleazes get dull fast.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:

So can I just say that I find it annoying how opening post mentioned they are talking about character that is mechanically annoying from gm perspective AND that it was Pathfinder Society character?

Like a lot of advice post just one of those points either giving personality/behavior advice or stuff not available in PFS <

Maybe people are aiming to annoy?


Entropi wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

So can I just say that I find it annoying how opening post mentioned they are talking about character that is mechanically annoying from gm perspective AND that it was Pathfinder Society character?

Like a lot of advice post just one of those points either giving personality/behavior advice or stuff not available in PFS <

Maybe people are aiming to annoy?

I mean it really only does seem fair.

Silver Crusade

With the inability of a GM to adapt a scenario to the players at the table most optimised characters will walk over most PFS scenarios.

The Pugwampi summoning character sounds interesting but in my experience a grappling focused character is just as bad. Most PFS opponents just cannot handle that crap and it's GG, unless the player rolls a 1 I guess.

P.S. Please link Pugwampi build. I have been meaning to look into it as a couple people in my group have talked about it and I would like to at least be prepared to be deflated if this shows up at a local table.

Silver Crusade

On a side note the most annoying characters I have played with have all been played by the most annoying person I have played with. Irrespective of the character build funnily enough.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber Subscriber

You can either gain access to summon Pugwampis from the feat Summon Evil Monster (not legal for PFS), or from the First Worlder summoner archetype. Add some Witch lvls for the Misfortune hex. Add on the spell Ill Omen, and the magic item Pugwampi Braid. It's ridiculous, but anyone with a luck bonus ignores it completely.


Gnomalypse wrote:

For what i've seen so far, a well-optimized-build Synthetist.

Literally destroys the game.

This. 100% this. Had to put up with this in a game. At level 10. He had 9 attacks, mid-30s AC, +25 on all saves, elemental immunity, flying so he couldn't be tripped... It just went on and on.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber Subscriber

Most recently, I ran afoul of a PFS Arcanist built to cast Glitterdust with a Save DC of 20 at level 4, through a Persistent Metamagic rod, forcing the victim to succeed at two saves to remove the effect. This effectively shuts down a large number of both melee and caster bad guys.


CorvusMask wrote:

So can I just say that I find it annoying how opening post mentioned they are talking about character that is mechanically annoying from gm perspective AND that it was Pathfinder Society character?

Like a lot of advice post just one of those points either giving personality/behavior advice or stuff not available in PFS <_<

That said, I find this an evil thing to do in purpose anyway :P Seriously, its easy to be annoyed as gm without people even trying to do it on purpose!

Different mechanics are situationally annoying, varying based on scenario and DM skill. Annoying behaviour is annoying all the time. If you want an annoying character, mechanics don't really matter if the character can be annoying without them.

That's optimizing annoyance.


Kithyrynthastrus al'Vanos wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

Does you GM allow things from D&D? If so, play a Kender.

LMAO haha man I love Kender. Annoying if played by the right person.

I played one for my Dragonlance 5th age game. Was fantabulously awesome

They're an instant no for me, if i sit down at a table and someones playing a kender im out. If people play a halfling or gnome like a kender...out. Fortunately most of the GMS around here are in agreement with that.

Dark Archive

Well, the OP definitely was talking about mechanically annoying, not having an annoying personality or constantly doing annoying things. It sounds like summoning the pugwajis, grappling, and sundering seem like the three of the most mechanically annoying things to do.


GhostPepper wrote:
Gnomalypse wrote:

For what i've seen so far, a well-optimized-build Synthetist.

Literally destroys the game.

This. 100% this. Had to put up with this in a game. At level 10. He had 9 attacks, mid-30s AC, +25 on all saves, elemental immunity, flying so he couldn't be tripped... It just went on and on.

were half of them manufactured weapon attacks? if not he was doing some ilegal stuff as even synth summoners are bound by max natrual attacks


There is a build dual cursed oracle 1 shaman (witch doctor / life spirit) x with fate full channelling that give out so many rerolls it will make a gm go batty.
Throw in slumber and misfortune hex.


An optimized Zen Archer.


Really high resistances, combined with a really long self-buffing chain.

I knew a character that was a wizard/ranger/monk, so chosen for extra high saves and AC capabilities. In combat, he'd take three rounds or so to self-buff, and once that was done? He'd draw his net to entangle the opponent. Only once all this was accomplished would the actual attempts to contribute to the party begin - and it was typically over by then.


Lady-J wrote:
GhostPepper wrote:
Gnomalypse wrote:

For what i've seen so far, a well-optimized-build Synthetist.

Literally destroys the game.

This. 100% this. Had to put up with this in a game. At level 10. He had 9 attacks, mid-30s AC, +25 on all saves, elemental immunity, flying so he couldn't be tripped... It just went on and on.
were half of them manufactured weapon attacks? if not he was doing some ilegal stuff as even synth summoners are bound by max natrual attacks

Yup, from memory there was a way to dip into Monk to have your natural attacks treated as manufactured attacks that got him around the limit. On the plus side it turns out that all that doesn't protect you from the old "Anti-magic shell + a huge stack of dynamite" trick.


GhostPepper wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
GhostPepper wrote:
Gnomalypse wrote:

For what i've seen so far, a well-optimized-build Synthetist.

Literally destroys the game.

This. 100% this. Had to put up with this in a game. At level 10. He had 9 attacks, mid-30s AC, +25 on all saves, elemental immunity, flying so he couldn't be tripped... It just went on and on.
were half of them manufactured weapon attacks? if not he was doing some ilegal stuff as even synth summoners are bound by max natrual attacks
Yup, from memory there was a way to dip into Monk to have your natural attacks treated as manufactured attacks that got him around the limit. On the plus side it turns out that all that doesn't protect you from the old "Anti-magic shell + a huge stack of dynamite" trick.

That's a bunch of crap. Off the top of my head, here are the "natural attacks" that player could have.

2 Hooves/Talons.
2 Tentacles.
2 Claws.
2 Slams.
1 Bite.
1 Gore.
1 Tail.
1-2 Wing Attack(s).
Unarmed Strikes (limited by BAB, minimum 1, maximum 3).

So, ~13 attacks, when all is said and done. Sure, that's a lot of attacks, but there are some major flaws here.

1. The character is using Unarmed Strikes. This puts all other Natural Weapons as Secondary Attacks, which means they get 0.5x Strength, and a -5 to the roll. This means that for the one extra attack, their other attacks are significantly weaker, and for what they gain (which is at best, 3 attacks), it's not worth it.

2. A lot of those attacks share the same limbs. Most Claws and Slams don't work together, most Bites and Gores don't work together, and so on, because they each occupy a similar limb (such as a hand/arm, or a head). In addition, an Unarmed Strike requires at least one limb (such as a knee, elbow, hand, foot, or even head), which runs into similar issues with the other Natural Weapons. There's also the matter of being able to even take Hoof/Talon attacks, when you're using those limbs to stand up straight, without a valid body form to support using them in the event of a Pounce. A Deinonychus, for example.

3. The Monk rule is that Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons and Manufactured Weapons, and only for the purposes of effects that improve one or the other, and that's it; not the other way around (i.e. Natural Weapons count as Unarmed Strikes). It also only applies to a Monk's Unarmed Strike, and not anyone else's (say, an Unarmed Fighter who gets Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat).

Also, most importantly (and I suspect this is the route he took), the Feral Combat Training feat only applies to one Natural Weapon per selection, and you would have to have Weapon Focus in the Natural Weapon he wanted to enhance with Feral Combat Training in order to select it to apply the benefits.

In other words, the Synthesist player followed the rules by ear, and the GM was too trusting to that player to not verify his claim. (I know that if I did anything like this at the table I play at, the GM and the other players will want to audit the character sheet/rules to make sure that's what it allows; and even then, the GM would adhoc nerf it to balance the game.)

**EDIT**

As a side note, it also doesn't necessarily protect you from the "Toss Helm of Brilliance/Radiance next to creature and Fireball it" tactic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Annoying characters are usually those run by annoying players. Or they are GMPCs foisted upon a group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Annoying characters are usually those run by annoying players. Or they are GMPCs foisted upon a group.

GMPCs foisted upon a group are characters run by annoying players. Those players just happen to be the GM.

Shadow Lodge

Louise Bishop wrote:

Just do everything to make the DM work harder.

S!*# ton of Summoning, everyone plays pet classes, and spend lots of time on s&!$ you know is useless.

He will be fuming pretty fast.

If you want do a ton of summoning (like I do with a pfs character) have your stat blocks ready and your dice ready to go (color coordinating is good for that).

But basically, being unprepared in any form is rude.

The Exchange

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Annoying characters are usually those run by annoying players. ...

this is so true.

Old story time.
Back in LG days the following occurred at a gaming table I was playing at.
5 players start the adventure.
4 are average players and one is a "socially challenged player" (SCP) that plays PCs with ... issues.

The game has hardly started and there is heard the statement "because that's what my character would do". 4 players grit their teeth and game on.

Then the plot takes a twist. The players are instructed to pass their PCs to the player to their left, who would now play that PC during the adventure. "Due to some 'weird magical effect' you are controlling a different PC..."

the result?

While we'd all like to think the SCP would magically become a fun player.

No, the player was STILL a (SCP), but he got to be that way with someone else's (normally fun) PC.
He (the SCP) was such a problem that the actual owner of the PC he was running threatened to kill the PC. (his own PC... the one he owned. He asked the judge if that would still count as PC vs. PC combat - or if it would count as suicide...).

It is worth noting that the SCPs PC, run in the hands of a different player, which was normally very annoying, was a lot of fun to have at the table.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / What's the most annoying character ever? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.