I know the stats for the 4 Iconic Characters that come with DO have been out for a while, but I only just had my first look at them the other day, and I mus say they are some poorly built characters (and that is being generous I think.)
For those who haven't seen them, check them out here.
Now, I assume the guys at Paizo actually do know how to make effective characters, they have been immersed in the game for many, many years after all. So I have to assume that these Iconics suck (for want of a better word) on purpose.
This makes absolutely no sense to me, but reflects what I often see in "official" or "sample" PCs (or NPCs). Wizards does it all the time, and I was hoping Paizo would avoid doing it, but is there some (unwritten) rule that says pre-built characters have to suck?
I would have thought pre-built characters would have been great opportunities to show new players (and those who aren't as "skilled" in character building), how to build strong, effective characters.
These are the Paizo Iconics for crying out loud, they should be great, well built, solid characters. Not characters that will be easily outclassed by any halfway optimized class.
They should be characters that anyone can pick up and play in a "normal" party. I would like to see them as a great option for those who don't want to spend time building their own characters. They should be able to just plug one of these characters in and go (maybe changing a few feats here and there, and some skill points). If you want to play a fighter, take Valeros, swap a couple of feats and skill points, and you are right to go.
But you can't realistically do that, as they are so badly built. If you want them to match up power wise, you really need to do some serious tweaking, and when it gets to that stage, you may as well just build your character yourself.
Well, after ranting about how poorly built the Paizo Iconics are, I figured I should show how they could easily be powered up, without optimising them to the hilt. I am going to assume Elite Array, and only Core books available, as I am pretty sure that is what the iconics are built using, as it is the only thing you can count on all groups having access to.
I'll include the current build of each Iconic in spoiler tags to avoid cluttering up the post.
Valeros
Male Human Fighter 1
Str 14
Dex 15
Con 12
Int 13
Wis 8
Cha 10
Feats: Improved Initiative, Two Weapon Fighting Weapon Focus(Longsword)
Why oh why is he a two weapon fighter? If you want to make a two weapon fighter, make them either a Rogue or a Ranger, they do it much better.
And why is he human? The advantages of being a human are and extra feat, and an extra skill point. You know what, Fighters already get a ton of feats, and don't really care about skill points, so the advantages of a human are lost.
Looking at the fighter class, all they get over every other class is feats. This to me suggests we should build a tactical fighter instead. One who actually makes use of all those feats, and does things the other classes can't do. And so we will make him a Halberd Specialist. (I would prefer to make him a spiked chain specialist, but I realise that is too cheesy for some). And since he will be wearing heavy armor, let's also make him a dwarf.
I give you the new and improved Valeros.
Male Dwarf Fighter 1
Str 15
Dex 12
Con 16 (14 +2)
Int 13
Wis 10
Cha 6 (8 -2)
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip
Skills: Some combination of Climb, Intimidate, Jump and Ride
Future Feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack (and Cleave and Great Cleave), your choice of the "Improved" feats (Improved Sunder, Disarm etc), and the Weapon Focus Line (with a Halberd of course).
This build I think better showcases the strengths of the fighter class, and gives new players a chance to see tactical combat. It also set up nicely to take advantage of some of the new fighter feats that have been published (eg. Melee Weapon Supremcy from PHB2, or Spinning Halberd from CW).
What is your actual complaint?
You keep saying how bad it is but you don't specifically say what has you so troubled.
What Dithering said.
Just thought I'd point out that all those feats from the other supplements aren't open content so Paizo can't use them.
Also I think (but I haven't checked so...) that the iconics are based on the players' characters (at least they were for the adventure path), so the players might have avoided power gaming and built characters for fun.
Now it is Seoni's turn to get a power up.
Str 8
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 13
Cha 15
Feats: Dodge, Skill Focus (Concentration)
Spells Known: 1st (4/day): mage armor, magic missile
0 (5/day)—acid splash, daze (DC 12), detect magic, read magic
This time it actually makes perfect sense for her to be a human. The two things that Sorcerers lack are feats and skill points, so human is a great choice.
However, then they go and waste her feats on Dodge and Skill Focus (concentration)?? At least it wasn't combat casting, that's a start. But dodge is a complete waste of time. Eschew materials would be better, as would any Spell Focus, or Improved Initiative. If you are a caster you really want to go first.
But the big problem is the spells known. Mage armor is a good spell, but not at first level. If you spend your first action every combat casting it (because there is generally more than an hour between combats by the time you loot the room, deal with traps etc), then it is the only spell you will cast, or you don't worry about casting it, in which case you would be better off with a different spell. Much better to wait until level 3 to pick this up.
Magic Missile is terrible at first level. Wow, use one of my first level spells to deal 1d4+1 Damage. Casting this at first level is a wasted action, and just encourages people to see Sorcerers as "blasters" Why not take spells that can actually turn the tide of battle at this level, like Sleep, or Color Spray, or Grease, and show people that to be an effective mage is NOT about blasting, but about controlling the battlefield?
Leave the blasting until you can actually do it effectively (usually when you get access to level 3 spells and above).
What Seoni needs is to change spells known to Grease and Color Spray, and maybe swap Int and Wis for ranks in Know:Arcana, and swap Dodge for Improved Initiative.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But you can't realistically do that, as they are so badly built. If you want them to match up power wise, you really need to do some serious tweaking, and when it gets to that stage, you may as well just build your character yourself.
How dare you violate the sanctity of Gamemastery modules by building your own characters. Do you think you are free to do anything you want?
BOW BEFORE GM!
OK, onto Kyra
Str 13
Dex 8
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 15
Cha 12
Feats: Iron Will, Martial Weapon Proficiency(Scimitar)
Again, not a bad race choice as human. Clerics have a great skill list, and need all the skill points they can get.
But the feats!!! Why oh why? Iron Will? For a Cleric? The class with the best will save in the game? I think ANY feat in the players handbook would be better than this. For a cleric, Skill Focus (Concentration) actually makes sense, since they will be in melee ALOT.
And Martial Weapon Proficiency (Scimitar)? What? A feat to go from a Mace (1d8 20 x 2) to A Scimitar (1d6 18-20 x 2)? That is so not worth it. This is possibly the one feat more worthless than Iron Will. If you want to use a scimitar that much, use the stats for sickle and call it a scimitar. For this feat, I would probably prefer Extend Spell. Sure you can't use it yet, but there are that many good feats to take later (Item Creation, more metamagic, even Power Attack), that I would grab it now. Failing that, what about Die Hard, great for keeping the cleric up and ensuring you don't lose your healer as easily (especially at low levels).
But even though Kyra has the worst feat selection of all the Iconics, for her it probably matters the least, because clerics are just that good.
So basically just change the feats to some combination of Extend Spell, Skill Focus (Concentration), and Diehard, and she is good to go.
And finally we come to Merisiel.
Str 12
Dex 17 (15 +2)
Con 12 (14 -2)
Int 8
Wis 13
Cha 10
Feats: Dodge
I just have to sow, wow, she is really a badly built rogue. First, rogues are about the skill points, (perhaps even more so than dex), and she has an Int of 8. yep, 8! That's seven skills maxed. Assuming a "normal" rogue selection, thats Disable Device, Search, Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, and 1 more (probably open lock, or tumble).
And she carries 6 daggers, obviously she is concentrating on throwing them, ie not getting into melee, so she has.... dodge. Actually, if the future plan is to go Spring Attack, then dodge makes sense, but that is a long way off, as Weapon Finesse is needed as well, meaning it isn't a possibility until level 9. In the menatime, you are stuck throwing daggers, without the benefits of point blank shot or precise shot.
Rogue (along with the arcane casters) is one of the classes that really benefits from being a small race (+1AC, +1 to Hit, and most of your damage comes from Sneak attack, so the strength penalty doesn't matter), so why not make the rogue a halfling? The +1 bonus with thrown weapons will also come in handy.
So a halfling, specialising in throwing daggers. The feats we want are Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot (so we can throw into melee), Quick Draw (so we can throw more than one dagger), Rapid Shot, Weapon Finesse (for when we do get caught in melee), and weapon focus dagger.
But it is hard to set up sneak attacks with ranged weapons, so maybe we should concentrate on melee sneak attacks, and go with a TWF rogue fighting with two short swords. Feats will be TWF, Weapon Finesse, Weapon focus (Short sword).
Stats (assuming halfling)
Str 10 (12 -2)
Dex 17 (15 +2)
Con 13
Int 14
Wis 8
Cha 10
Feats (Dagger Thrower): Point Blank Shot
Feats (Spring Attack): Dodge
Feats (TWF): Two Weapon Fighting
Skills (10 to max): Search, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, UMD, Listen, Spot, Disable Device, Open Lock, Balnce (or anything else that will give you synergy bonuses on your "important" skills).
Considering they're built using the standard set of stats rules, and not rolled out, they don't seem that bad to me. I mean none of them are going to take on Acerak any time soon, but they're first level.
Great name, DWW.
What is your actual complaint?
You keep saying how bad it is but you don't specifically say what has you so troubled.
I hope I addressed this in my following posts, but basically, these characters should be examples of how to build solid characters. New players (or anyone) should be able to say "I want to play a fighter, but couldn't be bothered building one, so I'll just play Valeros." And do so confident they are not going to be overshadowed by the other characters.
Alternatively, they should be able to say "I want to play a sorcerer, I'll look at Seoni's list of spells known to get an idea of what spells I should take at each level"
They should open players minds to other ways to play the game. Fighters can do more than full attacks (tactical fighting, trip, disarm, sunder etc), Sorcerers can do more than just blast things (and are more effective and helpful to the party when they don't just blast).
Basically, the iconics are a great tool for teaching people about the game. How to build strong characters, other options for character creation, good spell / feat / skill choices.
Plus, they are the Paizo ICONICS. I don't want them to suck. I want them to be cool, flavorful, and well built. Not necessarily unstoppable optimised machines of death, but solid, well built, strong characters, that also teach others how to build a solid character. They don't need to be optimised to within and inch of their lives, but it would be nice if they were at least partly optimised and didn't look like they were made by someone who has only ever skimmed the players handbook and never actually played. Basically, I want them to not suck. At at the moment, unfortunately, as written, they suck (mechanically at least, the artwork is all kinds of awesome).
Just thought I'd point out that all those feats from the other supplements aren't open content so Paizo can't use them.
Yeah, I know.
I probably wasn't clear in my post. I didn't mean that they should be built using those feats, but that they should be built so that those who can (and want to) use those feats can easily add them. So when Valeros gets to level 8, instead of taking Greater Weapon Focus (Halberd), as the Paizo Iconic does, the player instead takes Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing).
Also I think (but I haven't checked so...) that the iconics are based on the players' characters (at least they were for the adventure path), so the players might have avoided power gaming and built characters for fun.
Umm... Powergaming and Fun aren't mutually exclusive. And before anyone says it, neither are powergaming and roleplaying. But I don't want to thread jack my own thread, so I'll leave it there.
But I don't think these are the characters the guys at Paizo are using. I know James uses the picture of the Dungeon Iconic cleric as the inspiration for his character in Age of Worms, but apart from that one instance, I am pretty sure this is the first time any of the Paizo Iconics have had stats.
And even if they were existing characters, that doesn't mean anything. These are the Paizo Iconincs, they should be awesome. That Wayne Reynolds Art deserves better from the mechanics.
I know the stats for the 4 Iconic Characters that come with DO have been out for a while, but I only just had my first look at them the other day, and I mus say they are some poorly built characters (and that is being generous I think.)
What the...?
Whosa whatsa now?
The stats for the four iconics all use the elite array...i.e., 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8...with racial adjustments calculated in for Merisiel, the lone elf in the party. What's so poorly built about them?
Are you objecting to the use of the elite array for ability scores? That's cut-and-dried standard when designing for D20. That's because the harmony of the game mechanics and the Challenge Rating system have built-in balance checks with the party of four PCs designed with the elite array. So I don't see a problem there.
Are you objecting to the placement of the ability scores...e.g., Merisiel the rogue has an 8 Int, Valeros the fighter has a 15 Dex vs. a 14 Str? Again, I don't see a problem there. It's quite refreshing to see some non-traditional, less hack-and-slash optimized iconics this go-around. It gives Valeros the opportunity to select Two-Weapon Fighting. And it gives Merisiel the opportunity to focus on rogue skills that aren't as heavily dependent on Intelligence. These characters aren't sub-par as a result of these choices. They're merely optimized in a different direction...and one that's just as viable...and just as balanced...as any other standard group of 4 PCs that you can playtest against any encounter with predictable results.
...is there some (unwritten) rule that says pre-built characters have to suck?
Can you be more specific here? What exactly about these PCs "sucks" so badly. You were wanting a fighter with a high Strength and Power Attack-Cleave, perhaps? Or a rogue with the highest possible ranks in Disable Device, Open Lock, and Tumble? If these PCs don't match your playing style, that's one thing. But, in my opinion, to say they're somehow subpar is a complete misrepresentation.
I would have thought pre-built characters would have been great opportunities to show new players (and those who aren't as "skilled" in character building), how to build strong, effective characters.
Hello? Maybe they're using these pre-built characters to show new players that there's more than one way to skin a cat? And yet the resulting PCs can be just as effective in play. You can have finesse warriors; rogues that can run, jump, tumble, hide, and move silently better than they can open locks and disable traps; and so on.
These are the Paizo Iconics for crying out loud, they should be great, well built, solid characters. Not characters that will be easily outclassed by any halfway optimized class.
I'm starting to get the sense that by "optimized" you mean "min-max'ed"...could that be the case?
They should be characters that anyone can pick up and play in a "normal" party.
I posted an earlier thread on the gaming experience I've had with running a group through D0 with these exact pre-gen iconics and it's going perfectly well. They are a "normal" party. Fighter. Rogue. Cleric. Sorceress. You've got every base class covered. Just because the Fighter isn't a min-max'ed brute, doesn't make him "abnormal." In fact, in our game, Valeros has been flat-out deadly...equally skilled with bow and blade.
Same goes for Merisiel. She's deadly with those thrown blades...and a fiercely active combatant with all of her physical skills...and a great scout with her high scouting skill ranks, too. With her high Dex, she's still decent at picking locks and finding traps...not perfectly "optimized" of course...but she's still got 2nd level to add more ranks there, if necessary.
And I've found Kyra and Seoni to work just fine as well. In fact, Kyra's cool in that she's not your typical mace-wielding cleric. And Seoni's got plenty of punch too with a good defensive spell and a potent offensive one.
So this party is perfectly balanced and "optimized" for use with any adventure, in my opinion...and in my experience.
I would like to see them as a great option for those who don't want to spend time building their own characters.
That's exactly what they provided for us. We didn't adjust them one single bit. And D0 has played out just fine. In fact, they came through the first two major battles nearly unscathed. So, if anything, we're finding they're a little too good at how well they balance one another out.
But you can't realistically do that, as they are so badly built.
If you haven't gotten the tone of my rebuttal...I sorely beg to differ.
If you want them to match up power wise, you really need to do some serious tweaking, and when it gets to that stage, you may as well just build your character yourself.
I honestly don't think you'll be satisfied with just about any pre-gen using the elite array then...or any PC that departs from your image of what an iconic fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard must have on their character sheet. So, I agree with you here. You might as well build your character yourself. I don't think anything less will satisfy your own expectations. For me and most everyone I know, however, these iconics do just fine.
My two-cents,
--Neil
Considering they're built using the standard set of stats rules, and not rolled out, they don't seem that bad to me. I mean none of them are going to take on Acerak any time soon, but they're first level.
Yeah, I know they are built using Elite array. My point isn't that their stats suck. It was that they have made strange choices for the way they have built them. This includes stat placement (8 int for a rogue?!?), Feat Selection (TWF Fighter, Martial Wepon Proficiency(scimitar) for the cleric, Dodge for the sorcerer, it just goes on and on), Spells Known for the Sorcerer and the list goes on and on.
Have a look at my suggested rebuilds of the Iconics. That is the sort of thing I am suggesting. Choices that actually make the characters stronger at what they are supposed to do. Characters that I would actually want to play. Mechanics that match the awesome art. choices that show / teach people how to make strong characters.
All the suggestions I have made have been using the same "rules" as the Paizo guys used (Elite Array, Core Books only), and the character builds I suggest make for much stronger characters.
I'm interested to hear from the Paizo guys why they made their iconics so weak. Elite array, Core Only is already pretty wussy as far as a lot of campaigns go, but the Iconics are weak compared to any number of elite array Core only character builds. I would like to know why they are (intentionally) so weak.
I think you're confusing "iconic" ("Having a conventional formulaic style." - American Heritage Dictionary) with "paragon" ("A model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example" - American Heritage Dictionary).
The Pathfinder iconics presented are built according to the Revised (v.3.5) System Reference Document. Attributes for each were generated using the Elite Aray (which provides an average attribute of 12; 3d6x6 will give you an average result of 10.5). They do not include anything from outside the core rules. In all ways, the characters presented live up to the definition of something "iconic."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering they're built using the standard set of stats rules, and not rolled out, they don't seem that bad to me. I mean none of them are going to take on Acerak any time soon, but they're first level.
Yeah, I know they are built using Elite array. My point isn't that their stats suck. It was that they have made strange choices for the way they have built them. This includes stat placement (8 int for a rogue?!?), Feat Selection (TWF Fighter, Martial Wepon Proficiency(scimitar) for the cleric, Dodge for the sorcerer, it just goes on and on), Spells Known for the Sorcerer and the list goes on and on.
Have a look at my suggested rebuilds of the Iconics. That is the sort of thing I am suggesting. Choices that actually make the characters stronger at what they are supposed to do. Characters that I would actually want to play. Mechanics that match the awesome art. choices that show / teach people how to make strong characters.
All the suggestions I have made have been using the same "rules" as the Paizo guys used (Elite Array, Core Books only), and the character builds I suggest make for much stronger characters.
I'm interested to hear from the Paizo guys why they made their iconics so weak. Elite array, Core Only is already pretty wussy as far as a lot of campaigns go, but the Iconics are weak compared to any number of elite array Core only character builds. I would like to know why they are (intentionally) so weak.
This isn't an MMORPG where placing things in a certain prescribed way is practically required. Outside of a few hard and fast rules (a wizard with a low int or a cleric with a low wisdom can't cast spells, duh) not placing scores in OPTOMIZED places requires the players to ROLEPLAY WEAKNESSES and encourages DIFFERENCES in individual members of the same class beyond, oh say, which weapon they use.
D&D is NOT a game of min-maxing, though certainly it is easy to do with the system. It's a game of storytelling and role-playing. I'm not saying there is anything inherently wrong with building in an optomized way, but bravo to Paizo for NOT doing so.
- Ashavan
mevers:
You raise some good points, and I really like all of your suggestions regarding how to best improve the iconics. I don't really see these changes as "powergaming" so much as just using common sense. My only gripe would be the dwarf with CHA=6. I don't usually allow scores lower than 8 - but that could be fixed easy enough. I suspect they generated the original stats with some kind of random PC generator. Have you seen the stats for the PCs provided with the "world wide dnd game day" last year? Sheeesh - makes these guys look good!
Um, have you guys read his critiques of the iconics? They are based on the elite array and the 3.5 SRD. Not only that, I think his analysis and suggested changes are both convincing and reasonable.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
No offense intended mevers, but I think you are designing the spirit and intent right out of the iconics.
James and the gang have said, repeatedly, that the iconics will be mostly human, using mostly core classes. Making Valeros a dwarven fighter that uses the halberd is - well, it's a totally different character. Valeros is a TWF human fighter.
I complained on other threads about using (what I perceive to be) the "cookie cutter" elite array. But, given that this is the standard that Paizo has adopted for all the iconics, I think they've done a good job at arranging the stats. I questioned on another thread the wisdom of giving Merisiel an Int. of 8 - but NSpicer (wisely) pointed out that as an elf, she already gets a bonus to spot, search, and listen checks. As a rogue, she already gets a heap of skill points. So, giving her an 8 in Int. sets her apart and makes her unique, without really hurting her.
Give the Paizo folks a chance to write their backstories and explain the characters first, it will probably explain the stat placement.
And for Kyra - her stats indicate the flavor of the character. She is not built for "optimal" munchkin-use. Her goddess, Sarenrae, espouses the use of the scimitar. So, this is a natural feat choice for her. James has hinted that Sarenrae's clerics are really cool swordsmen (and women). So, using a mace doesn't fit the character.
I love it when a character has an unexpected score (like a Rogue with an 8 for Intelligence) or some interesting feat choices (like a cleric that uses a scimitar).
I think they're all pretty cool as designed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mevers, please don't take this the wrong way, but for some people there is a lot more to the game than coming up with the most uber, most optimized, by-the-numbers characters. Some people, myself included, create characters because we think the *concept* is cool.
Let's take Valeros, for instance. One of your criticisms is that he is human. Another is that he is a two weapon fighter. You say that a dwarf halberdier would be superior. Now, by the numbers you may be right. But (and I'm really not trying to sound snarky), what if the person playing Valeros wanted to be a human fighter with two weapons and a lot of feats? And for no reason other than he or she thought it would be cool? Why not go for it? I know, I know, Ranger seems more attractive for that build, but what if the player had a different character concept in mind?
I would submit to you that not only is it okay to choose races, classes, feats, etc. that are sub-optimal, sometimes it is a lot of fun. The rules have such depth that one can come up with all kinds of character concepts and play them. And no, they are not all created equal.
And as for the cleric spending a feat so she can use a scimitar...well, that's her deity's weapon of choice. I'd call that a great roleplaying choice for a feat. Maybe it isn't as good as a mace, maybe it is comparable. But it is cool and fits the character.*
I don't know. I'm just kind of surprised that you are surprised. And not everyone who plays the game approaches character creation as a chance to create the most powerful character possible. I know these pre-gens would fit in just fine at my game table. Oh, sure, we have one guy who always tries to make characters that are over the top powerful, but the rest of us see our characters as more than a combination of attributes, feats and skill points. They are characters in our collective story. And they have powers, to be certain. But they also have flaws. And goals. And hopes. And fears. And dreams. And we wouldn't have it any other way.
*Edit* Ack! Beaten to the punch by Eyebite.
I'm not going to respond to every critique you made in your posts. I'm just going to point out that the purpose of the ionics is not to teach our fans how to build optimized characters. We've gone over this before, but I'll lay it out for you just to be clear. Our goals with the ionics are:
1. To look cool. Since they are the PCs that go on our adventures, we illustrate them a lot. And since we use them to make the task of illustrating the core classes easier on our artists, they have to be instantly recognizable as the class that they are. The race/class/genders that we chose for them are designed to allow our artists to show off how cool those classes can look. Ideally they can identify with these heroes and get excited about doing the things they are doing.
2. To sell our products. That means that the more people recognize them, the more individual they look, the easier people will remember them, and the better they will work.
3. To allow people to play through our modules instantly, without needing to generate their own characters. That means that we have to use feats, spells, and abilities that people will recognize immediately, and be able to use at once, without having to open up a book to figure out how they work.
4. To provide a good introduction to gaming for new players that might not be comfortable creating their own characters. This ties into the previous point as well, but obviously it means that we want them to be as simple and easy to use as possible. We do not anticipate veteran and experienced players getting much use out of these stat blocks. They are almost always going to create their own characters anyway. These are for the beginners, who need us to come up with stats for them, until they figure out how to do it for themselves.
5. They have to fit within the rules. And here, I'm talking about the limitations of the OGL. We can only use things that are in the SRD, or that we print ourselves in whatever product these characters appear in. That means that feats from CW, or spells from the Spell Compendium are off limits.
6. They have to fit in the space we have. That's not really a problem for D0, but for some of our future modules, we occasionally were prevented from choosing some feats and spells simply because we could not fit the names on the page.
7. The PCs should be capable of preforming well in the adventure. This is a concern for us, but as you can see by where it falls on the list, it is not exactly a priority.
I would also like to respond that I have played a few characters over the years, and while its true that there certainly are things we could have given the characters that would make them more powerful in combat, they are by no means helpless. Each of these characters is an interesting, fun, and capable combatant, perfectly able to hold his own throughout a long and prosperous adventuring career.
While you might quibble about some of our decisions, overall I really like the way the ionics turned out. I think they are unique and fun, with a lot of personality.
And rogues don't need good Int scores, they get plenty of skill points already. The are much better off putting their good stats elsewhere.
Nspicer, thanks for your detailed reply. Judging by the detail of your reply, you probably posted it as I was posting my further thoughts on each class in detail, so check my earlier posts for the details of what I see as the weaknesses of each of the Iconics.
Are you objecting to the use of the elite array for ability scores? That's cut-and-dried standard when designing for D20. That's because the harmony of the game mechanics and the Challenge Rating system have built-in balance checks with the party of four PCs designed with the elite array. So I don't see a problem there.
My problem is not with the choice of elite array. Check my suggestions for characters, they all use the elite array.
Are you objecting to the placement of the ability scores...e.g., Merisiel the rogue has an 8 Int, Valeros the fighter has a 15 Dex vs. a 14 Str? Again, I don't see a problem there. It's quite refreshing to see some non-traditional, less hack-and-slash optimized iconics this go-around. It gives Valeros the opportunity to select Two-Weapon Fighting. And it gives Merisiel the opportunity to focus on rogue skills that aren't as heavily dependent on Intelligence. These characters aren't sub-par as a result of these choices. They're merely optimized in a different direction...and one that's just as viable...and just as balanced...as any other standard group of 4 PCs that you can playtest against any encounter with predictable results.
Not quite, but close. It is more to do with the "direction" or focus of each character. Two Weapon Fighting is mechanically a poor choice without a source of bonus damage (Rogue sneak attack, Ranger favored enemy etc.)
And the low INT does not let Merisiel focus on less INT dependent skills. The way skill work in 3.5, ranks very quickly (around level 3 or 4 I reckon) contribute more to skill checks than Ability bonuses. With only an 8 INT, she can focus on Less skills, or have less ranks in those skills. My point is that a rogue wants as many ranks in as many skill as they can get.
Can you be more specific here? What exactly about these PCs "sucks" so badly. You were wanting a fighter with a high Strength and Power Attack-Cleave, perhaps? Or a rogue with the highest possible ranks in Disable Device, Open Lock, and Tumble? If these PCs don't match your playing style, that's one thing. But, in my opinion, to say they're somehow subpar is a complete misrepresentation
I trust I answered this in my further posts. All those characters I posted are better at doing their job than the Paizo Iconics.
Hello? Maybe they're using these pre-built characters to show new players that there's more than one way to skin a cat? And yet the resulting PCs can be just as effective in play. You can have finesse warriors; rogues that can run, jump, tumble, hide, and move silently better than they can open locks and disable traps; and so on.
And the characters i posted still do that, while also at the same time showing them how to make solid choices for their own characters.
I'm starting to get the sense that by "optimized" you mean "min-max'ed"...could that be the case?
It's only semantics, but yeah, probably, but what is wrong with that. They don't need to be min-maxed to within an inch of their lives, but avoiding terrible feats (Iron Will for the Cleric) would be a good start.
I posted an earlier thread on the gaming experience I've had with running a group through D0 with these exact pre-gen iconics and it's going perfectly well. They are a "normal" party. Fighter. Rogue. Cleric. Sorceress. You've got every base class covered. Just because the Fighter isn't a min-max'ed brute, doesn't make him "abnormal." In fact, in our game, Valeros has been flat-out deadly...equally skilled with bow and blade.
Same goes for Merisiel. She's deadly with those thrown blades...and a fiercely active combatant with all of her physical skills...and a great scout with her high scouting skill ranks, too. With her high Dex, she's still decent at picking locks and finding traps...not perfectly "optimized" of course...but she's still got 2nd level to add more ranks there, if necessary.
And I've found Kyra and Seoni to work just fine as well. In fact, Kyra's cool in that she's not your typical mace-wielding cleric. And Seoni's got plenty of punch too with a good defensive spell and a potent offensive one.
So this party is perfectly balanced and "optimized" for use with any adventure, in my opinion...and in my experience.
I would like to see them as a great option for those who don't want to spend time building their own characters.That's exactly what they provided for us. We didn't adjust them one single bit. And D0 has played out just fine. In fact, they came through the first two major battles nearly unscathed. So, if anything, we're finding they're a little too good at how well they balance one another out.
I don't mean they are balanced with each other, but with characters made by real people. So you are just starting out a campaign. There are four PCs, 2 newbies and 2 old timers. The two old timers are building their own characters (Say a Rogue and a Druid), while the two newbies, one is building their own Wizard, while the other guys want to play a fighter and so just picks up Valeros and goes with him.
The guy playing the wizard looks at Seoni's list of spells known to get some idea of good 1st level spells, and so memorises mage armor and Magic missile. Are you telling me he wouldn't be more effective memorising grease and sleep? (or color spray).
And Valeros should be able to be basically plonked right into this party, but do you honestly think Valeros, as written will be anywhere near what the two experienced gamers can come up with?
I am not arguing the Iconics should be as strong as people with years of experience could build, but they should be closer to good, strong, solid builds than they are now.
honestly don't think you'll be satisfied with just about any pre-gen using the elite array then...or any PC that departs from your image of what an iconic fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard must have on their character sheet. So, I agree with you here. You might as well build your character yourself. I don't think anything less will satisfy your own expectations. For me and most everyone I know, however, these iconics do just fine.
As I said, the problem is not the elite array. And I would never use one of the Iconics myself, I quite enjoy building characters (if you didn't already guess). I want someone to see a spell / feat on an iconics character sheet, and say, "Hey, I didn't think that spell / feat / whatever was any good. I should try it out." And then when they do try it out, I want it to actually be a good choice, so they have learnt a bit more about the game. I don't want them to instead go, "Man that sucked, Valeros (or Seoni, or whoever) sucks. Shame too, they have such awesome art.
Or when they play one of the iconics in a game with other characters, I want the Iconic to hold their own, and do their job. Not be the weakest link in the party. I want them to be balanced against the vast majority of builds people play in their own games. I don't think that is too much to ask.
I don't want someone to come on these boards and post saying "Seoni sucks. My character died at the start of our session, and we needed a mage. I don't usually play mages, so instead of trying to build a new character and taking up half the session, I just played Seoni, and wow.. mages suck. I only did as much damage as a crossbow (1st level Magic Missile), that was if I hadn't alredy run out of spells for the day. And then was stuck using my crossbow the rest of the time. If this is what mages are like, I'm nevr playing one again."
I would much rather their raction was "Man, Seoni is Awesome. When i had to play her because we needed a mage and I didn't really have time to build one she rocked. I mean, it was my first time playing a mage, and I thought some of her spell selections looked a little weird (where was the blasting), but grease and sleep were the MVP for most encounters I cast them in."
Which reaction would you prefer. I prefer the second, you seem to be happy with the first.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Jeremy. And thankyou for laying out your goals with the iconics. I'm only going to responds to goals 4 and 5, as they are the only two that have anything to do with Mecahnics.
Goal 5 first.
5. They have to fit within the rules. And here, I'm talking about the limitations of the OGL. We can only use things that are in the SRD, or that we print ourselves in whatever product these characters appear in. That means that feats from CW, or spells from the Spell Compendium are off limits.
Yep, I understand that, and I think it is a good rule, and all my suggested characters follow this as well.
4. To provide a good introduction to gaming for new players that might not be comfortable creating their own characters. This ties into the previous point as well, but obviously it means that we want them to be as simple and easy to use as possible. We do not anticipate veteran and experienced players getting much use out of these stat blocks. They are almost always going to create their own characters anyway. These are for the beginners, who need us to come up with stats for them, until they figure out how to do it for themselves.
And it is here that I think that your characters fail to meet your goals. You yourself state that the pre-gens are for beginners, so they don't have to build their own characters. Well, why does that mean they have to be weak? If you are building characters for beginners to play, why not show them what a good character is built like? I fail to see how building weak characters for people accomplishes this more than building strong characters.
This is my question. Why are the Pre-Gens built so that anyone who has been playing for more than a couple of sessions could build a better character? Are new players not allowed to play strong characters?
Imagine if the pre-gens were decent characters. If you don't like character building, you no longer need to do it, you can just play a pre-gen. But you can't at the moment. They are so weak, that if you are playing with veterans, you will soon be left behind. They aren't even any good for teaching new players how to build decent characters.
I just fail to see how weak pre generated iconics accomplish more than strong pre generated iconics.
I think a lot of you guys sort of missed the point of my post.
I do not think that DnD SHOULD be all about min-,axing. I know it is possible to play without min maxing at all. (As an aside, I actually prefer to min-max / optimise, whatever you call it, but that's beside the point).
My point is this. Min-Maxing happens, in all groups,and to a different degree. I would like to see these Iconics be strong enough, that in a group with a reasonable amount of min-maxing (The Barbarian takes Power Attack and Uses a Greataxe), a new player (or someone who just couldn't be bothered building their character), can take an Iconic Pre Generated Character, and not feel like they are being completely overshadowed.
I am actually thinking of those who don't like to (or can't) min max, and new players. Why should they have to play sucky characters? Why not give them some characters that can compete with slightly optimised characters. Check my suggestions, none of them are completely over the top or anything. The accomplish the goals Paizo wants from their Iconics, and actually do more in helping people to learn how to create effective characters, and maybe opening their eyes to different options, and tactics and spells etc they may not have thought of.
|
Why should they have to play sucky characters? Why not give them some characters that can compete with slightly optimised characters.
After looking over the iconics, I think it's helpful to point out to new players that characters don't have to follow cookie-cutter designs. Otherwise, all fighters would be unimaginative halberd-packing dwarves. What's the fun in that?
-Skeld
|
All your points are fine...
What if I want to play a human fighter that focuses on two weapon fighting? You would probably faint if you saw how flawed my characters are!
I typically develop my character and then find some race/class/feats to make his/her story work. Especially if I start with first level. later I can justify optimizing my character based on the adventure.
I guess I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with your characters, but there is equally nothing wrong with the Iconics. I'm sort of enamoured with Valeros...plus he's hanging with three totally hot chicks! He's gotta be doing something right.
Valeros is a human because we didn't want to do a dwarf fighter (Tordek is well known). Wayne Reynolds gave him two swords in the picture, and since it looked cool that's how we decided to stat him up.
--Erik
Good enough for me. ~grins~ Not everything is about optimizing and powergaming. Yes, there is always room for improvement, but if you feel that way, have your players roll up their own toons. ~chuckles~ I know I will be rolling up my own toon.
All your points are fine...
What if I want to play a human fighter that focuses on two weapon fighting? You would probably faint if you saw how flawed my characters are!
I typically develop my character and then find some race/class/feats to make his/her story work. Especially if I start with first level. later I can justify optimizing my character based on the adventure.
I guess I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with your characters, but there is equally nothing wrong with the Iconics. I'm sort of enamoured with Valeros...plus he's hanging with three totally hot chicks! He's gotta be doing something right.
Yep, and that's a great way to develop your own characters. But I don't think it is necessarily the way to go for the Iconics. I am not saying the way the Iconics are built / developed is the way everyone has to do them, I am just frustrated that they ALL make such sub-optimal choices. Especially when they could accomplish everything Paizo wants, and more by instead making better choices.
Valeros is a human because we didn't want to do a dwarf fighter (Tordek is well known). Wayne Reynolds gave him two swords in the picture, and since it looked cool that's how we decided to stat him up.
--Erik
And this may surprise everyone else, but this good enough for me as well.
Let me restate. I am not against "weak" builds in totality. I am against what seem to be weak builds for the sake of making weak builds. All else being equal, why not make some stronger builds that people don't outgrow after a couple of months playing? That is my main question.
And no seems to have answered, why they seem to have intentionally built the iconics to be weak. What is gained by building weak characters instead of strong ones?
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Minor threadjack (Sorry) - Does anyone know (or is anyone at Paizo willing to comment) if all 12 iconics have been chosen/designed already?
Any chance of Paizo opening up an iconic slot for the messageboards to select? Maybe race and class could be voted on in one of the famous polls? Thereafter, feats, character backstory, name, etc. could be chosen from the polls too.
Basic rules would apply - OGL stuff only, keeping in mind the simplicity exhibited by the previous iconics, elite array only, etc. Even the Paizo staff could submit their bids ('cause I'd like to see that thought process too.)
Don't meant to stir anything up - I just really like seeing what people on the boards can come up with.
|
The thing is Mevers, I think a lot of us, while acknowledging your point that the characters are not "optimal", do not see them as weak.
Yes, it's generally accepted that a two handed weapon is a better mechanical choice in terms of damage output than TWF, but that doesn't make TWF a weak or even poor choice. Even leaving the question of flavour aside (and that can be a big arguement for creating a "non-optimal character"), TWF while perhaps not as "Strong" as two handed weapon is not weak.
Why not Iron Will for a cleric? Maybe you want to play a character who has, well, an iron will? Someone who will almost never succumb to mind affecting magic, impure impulses or whatever, rather than just the fairly good chance of resisting that the average first level cleric would have. And as for the choice of weapon, well melee damage output is not the most important thing for a cleric, but (from a RP point of view) using their dieties signature weapon might be.
The rogue with Int 8. Well, to be honest, that wouldn't be my ideal build either, but some people prefer their rogues to be very good at a fairly narrow group of skills, rather than more generalist skill monkeys, which this build should allow. Not my choice, but it's not necessarily weak.
The sorcerer. What if your first level adventure was going up against an elven thieves guild? Grease and Sleep might be sub-optimal spell choices there, whereas magic missile and mage armour would be viable. OK, I know D0 and D1 do not involve elven thieves guilds, but the point is the spells you mention, whilst very good in many situations, can be totally useless in others, whereas mm and ma, whilst perhaps never superb, can serve in a wide range of combat situations. And as for Dodge, well sure, you might want to do your best to protect your mage from melee, but sometimes it happens, best to be able to survive it if it does.
|
Let me first say that I think this is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but I'm going to weigh in anyway.
Yes, these builds are probably sub-optimal. I was shocked when I saw Merisiel had an Int of 8. I have played a lot of rogues and I have *always* wanted more skill points, but I'm willing to chock that up to a difference in playing style.
I think that for pregenerated character stats, the number one goal should be making them easy for new players to use, and in some respects the Paizo iconics do that better than your examples. Valeros just attacks, which is easier for a new player to than more complex tactics like tripping. Similar with Seoni's spells.
I am going to gripe a little about the dodge feat though. Not only is it a sub-optimal feat for just about everybody, but it is further hampered by the need to declare it every round, something that new players will forget 9/10 times. Even if they do remember they have to keep track of different ACs depending on who is attacking them.
(Really my complaint is more with the feat than the people who gave the character the feat, but I'm making it here anyway.)
Director of Games
|
It should be noted that every one of these characters have builds based off their artwork, so while it might not have made for the most optimal choices, it is better than turning Valeros into a dwarf when the art is clearly a human.
Just thought I would throw that out there.
Jason Bulmahn
GameMastery Brand Manager
|
|
...They should be characters that anyone can pick up and play in a "normal" party. I would like to see them as a great option for those who don't want to spend time building their own characters...
I certainly see where my doppelgänger is coming from, however, comma...
Does anyone actually use the pregen PCs? I've always thought they were for show. I have never, in more than 20 years of gaming, played or DMed a group that actually used pregen's.
Editorial afterthought:
The more I think abut it, I don't imagine I'd even allow players to use pregen's. Rolling up your character has always been part of the magic, at least to this old timer.
I pretty much agree with mevers -- his arguments are thoughtful and politely phrased. By the way, LOVE the Wayne Reynolds art. And, I think the the Iconics all have great names.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Does anyone actually use the pregen PCs? I've always thought they were for show. I have never, in more than 20 years of gaming, played or DMed a group that actually used pregen's.
Over the years I've used a great many pre-gen PCs but pretty much only for limited run games: one nights and short series which I may do with D0/D1.
For the record in actual play these guys work very well as a team. I had the chance to play in one of the Pathfinder preview games at Origins and the used the D0 builds for our characters. I played Valeros and had a lot of fun with the two weapon fighting and switched it up using my longsword two handed a few times.
Maybe the characters don't have the best builds, but there are different schools of thought on how to build characters. Then as far as having a good time I thought the party worked pretty well.
The thing is Mevers, I think a lot of us, while acknowledging your point that the characters are not "optimal", do not see them as weak.
Only one thing to add to this--some people don't like to play big brute fighters. I know I don't. It's just a preference of character style. In one of our most effective parties, the main tanks were a swashbuckler and a ranger with TWF. All togethor, on a full round attack they got something like 2-5 attacks each with a minimum damage of aproximately 10 pts each. The pure damage output is balanced by the sheer number of attacks.
Sarenrae's clerics have a near mystical bond with their weapons. I think James compared her to a Pelor/Elistraee hybrid. Therefore, it's completely logical for the cleric to have profiency with the weapon, even if she doesn't get to use it very often.
I disagree with mevers for many of the reasons other people have given. I admit many of the feats are could be replaced with feats that make the character more effective overall, but they do not make them unplayable nor do they make them weak.
Also I would say that your feat choices for the Cleric are not "better" than the ones the Iconic has. Extend Spell? Give the player a feat that they are not going to get any real use until 3rd level and wouldn't achieve signifcant use, in my opinion, until a while after that. I would also note that Diehard requires another feat that is not on that list.
Overall I find your changes fine, but the changes you suggest would make the Iconics into different characters when how they are right now is perfectly acceptable for the characters they are.
I would be quite angry if the player next to me looked over at my character sheet and started telling my that my character build is wrong or "Your fighter shouldn't be a two-weapon fighter" or "Why oh why did you give your cleric proficiency in that weapon?" or "Are you just trying to build a sucky character?" or "Come on! How long have you been playing? You are setting a bad example for the new player!". I'd even walk out if this happens during character creation.
While I'm ranting and not stopping to think about what I say...
I pretty much agree with mevers -- his arguments are thoughtful and politely phrased.
I wouldn't say that his arguments have been polite. To me they seem to be insulting.
|
Creative Director
|
First point: There will likely eventually be more than 12 Iconics... we'll be putting them on the cover of Pathfinder one at a time, after all, and we don't intend to stop Pathfinder at 12.
Now... taking that in strde, we have decided on the race, class, and basic description for all of these first 12. We leave the exact look up to Wayne. We're going mostly with humans, elves, and half elves because they're all scaled about the same and, to be blunt, they look sexier and thus make for better covers. There was a thread at one point over on the WotC boards about how dwarves on covers don't help sales. For better or worse, they're pretty much right.
That said, we made sure that we've got at least one dwarf, halfling, and gnome coming up in the first 12. They'll probably not show up until later down the line, once we've got Pathfinder and the GameMastery adventures more firmly entrenched as products.
So no, we're not really interestd in opening up an iconic slot for the messageboards; these characters are chosen for more reasons than just "what would make the most bad-ass, number crunched character." They have more masters to serve than that. They have to sell product. They have to give our world a personality. And they have to fit in the world we're designing.
The stats for the iconics aren't meant to be the Best Possible Characters. As someone said earlier in this thread: they're iconics, not paragons. Merisiel's low Intelligence score may not be the best choice for a character who needs a lot of skill points, but that one little choice has done more for me to define her personality than anything else (except for Wayne's drawing, of coruse). She's not the sneaky mastermind type rogue. She's the type who does a few things really well, but usually ends up getting frustrated and using her daggers to solve problems. And as it turns out, that method probably gets her into a lot MORE trouble than if she had a 15 Intelligence and three or so more high-rank skills. To me, that makes her a MUCH more interesting character. Flawed charactes are ALWAYS more interesting.
All that said, you can expect their stats to change at times, especially in the first few installments of Pathfinder. As we introduce more crunch into our world, we'll probably be hooking our iconics up with more specialized choices. For example: In the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide, we introduce a half-dozen new feats that people who are native to Varisia can take. In the Pathfinder version of the iconics' stat blocks, we've given each of them one of these feats as a bonus feat. In some cases, that means we've had to redesign certain elements of their characters. If we use any of these four again for some adventure path in the future, we'll redesign them even more. If, for example, we're doing an Adventure Path set in the frozen south, they'll be built with that in mind.
We're still sorting out who these characters are ourselves, after all. Starting with Pathfinder #2 (hopefully) we'll be doing half-page writeups for them all rather than quarter page writeups. Which means we'll have more room to write about their personalities, their histories, their goals. I'd like all of our iconics to be memorable and quirky enough that they could all star in a movie or a novel, and giving them unexpected stats or feat choices makes them stand out more. If that means that they aren't as number-crunched as we could have made them, excellent! And judging by this thread, which has generated a LOT of traffic in a few short hours, their non-perfect character builds are doing a much better job at getting people interested and/or intrigued about Pathfinder than would a robot-perfect paragon-style writeup.
|
Creative Director
|
Sarenrae's clerics have a near mystical bond with their weapons. I think James compared her to a Pelor/Elistraee hybrid. Therefore, it's completely logical for the cleric to have profiency with the weapon, even if she doesn't get to use it very often.
A cleric of Sarenrae WOULD be using her scimitar a lot. Doing martial exercises with her scimitar is probably how they prepare spells in the morning, for example. A cleric of Sarenrae spending a feat for Martial Weapon (scimitar) might not be number-crunched, but she's certainly more interesting for the choice than if she hadn't.
Who knows... we may just have plans for a line of feats revolving around scimitar swordplay that enhances turn undead rolls! I wouldn't put it past us!
|
Creative Director
|
All this reminds me of my current Savage Tide game I'm runnng. One of the players is playing a half-elf rogue. He wanted this character to be a sniper who uses a longbow, and so he spent one of his feats to gain Martial Weapon Proficiency (longbow).
He could have made a human and used his bonus feat for that chocie. Or he could have just taken a level of fighter to get the feat for free. Or he could have just made the character an elf, which also would have gotten him the feat for free. Another player in my group actually got pretty insulted that the guy playing the half elf rogue DIDN'T make the more "logical" choice. His reply was, basically, "If it's that important to you, you should make an elven archer too. Let me make my character the way I want to make it."
We're now nearing the end of Tides of Dread, and guess what? The half-elf who "wasted" a feat on Martial Weapon (longbow) is still going strong. She's not as bad-ass as she might have been, but she's certainly more entertaining for her choice. I'm glad the player stuck to his decision.
Not all choices should feed the number cruncher. It's role play, after all, not roll play.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Now... taking that in strde, we have decided on the race, class, and basic description for all of these first 12.
So no, we're not really interestd in opening up an iconic slot for the messageboards;
That's A-OK, the first 4 look awesome, I'm confident that the next 8 will be great too. Can't wait to see what you guys come up with! (And, Wayne's art is, of course, awesome.)
Also, really glad to hear that there will be even more than 12 eventually.
I am confused about the iconics skill points at 2nd level (from D1). If this has been answered on a different thread, could some one redirect me. I figured out most of it i believe, but Merisiel seems to have 10 to many ranks spent.
6 Charisma...woof...that eats it. Social retard. Could be fun to roleplay though.
Oh, I'm alive again Wes, but thanks a lot for the level loss man. Much appreciated. ugh.
I think the important thing to grasp here is that, while the iconics are certainly less than ideal within the context of WOTC's D&D products, the Pathfinder iconics can only be judged within the context of Pathfinder... and we loyal readers simply don't have the necessary data (both mechanically and thematically) to be able to make any kind of meaningful evaluation of the Pathfinder iconics at this time. Remember, these aren't builds within the framework of the OGL - they're also within the framework of Vecna knows how much Pathfinder-specific material that exists and is planned.
Having said that:
- Character-defining flaw or not, I think it's generally a really bad idea to have a negative dex mod.
- It seems odd to me that the scimitar is an integral part of Sarenrae's religion, and yet her clerics don't actually have any natural proficiency with it.
- I've made characters where I've developed a build and then a concept, and characters where I've developed a concept and then a build. I can say, unequivocally, that build-first characters always work out better in the long run. Just because something sounds cool doesn't mean it'll be any good at all. Remember, there's the kind of optimization where you make your character better than everybody else's... but there's also the kind where you're just trying to make your character work out at all.
I disagree with mevers for many of the reasons other people have given. I admit many of the feats are could be replaced with feats that make the character more effective overall, but they do not make them unplayable nor do they make them weak.
Also I would say that your feat choices for the Cleric are not "better" than the ones the Iconic has. Extend Spell? Give the player a feat that they are not going to get any real use until 3rd level and wouldn't achieve signifcant use, in my opinion, until a while after that. I would also note that Diehard requires another feat that is not on that list.
Oops. I did miss the pre req on Die Hard. Didn't even notice it. I just assumed such a weak feat wouldn't have any pre reqs. That'll learn me to just assume stuff.
I was suggesting Extend spell because I was under the (mistaken) impression that these iconics were going to have only 1 official build that would not change, just "develop" as they went through the levels. In that case, extend spell as an early feat makes sense.
But as James said earlier, the only thing staying the same is personality and goals etc, but they will basically be rebuilt for every module / pathfinder they are released for. And so, it therefore makes sense to build them with only the specific level range in mind. Also, since their builds can (and will) change, I can see how not building number crunching characters of doom makes perfect sense as it allows people to connect with the personalities, and not with the mechanics.
I would be quite angry if the player next to me looked over at my character sheet and started telling my that my character build is wrong or "Your fighter shouldn't be a two-weapon fighter" or "Why oh why did you give your cleric proficiency in that weapon?" or "Are you just trying to build a sucky character?" or "Come on! How long have you been playing? You are setting a bad example for the new player!". I'd even walk out if this happens during character creation.
And where did I say this is what I would do? Where was I telling anyone how to build their characters?
While I'm ranting and not stopping to think about what I say...
I pretty much agree with mevers -- his arguments are thoughtful and politely phrased.I wouldn't say that his arguments have been polite. To me they seem to be insulting.
Maybe you should have stopped to think about what you said, because I fail to see how I have insulted anybody in this entire thread. I have tried to be polite, and clearly articulate my points. Where have I been insulting?