|
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.
"Powering up" a Human Fighter with TWF by changing him into a Dwarven Halberdier pretty much is a "to the hilt" approach, at least in my book. I mean, you just made a completely different PC! :D
So, for the sake of the rest of us, mevers will you please shut the [expletive deleted] up!
What's wrong with him voicing his opinion? Whether you agree with it or not it's still his opinion and he's entitled to it. Yes he stated that he didn't like the builds and then offered alternatives. I don't think anything in what he has said has been insulting to either Paizo or anyone else reading this...you included.
I happen to think the Paizoians are probably quite pleased that there has been so much interest generated by this thread. James pretty much said so earlier. It means people care enough about the iconics to voice their opinions. Plus it gave them a chance to respond to those opinions, and now we all know why the iconics are built as they are, and how they will be built for future products.
For the record, I probably wouldn't have designed the characters quite as they were, even with the concept art restrictions on the character, but that's just me and my opinion. I wouldn't have designed them like mevers did either. But despite that, they're all good ideas. Like someone said above, about the only "bad" build you can really have is when you give a spellcaster a low stat in their required area (int for wizards, etc.) since they can't cast spells with low stats. Everything else is a good build if you roleplay it up that way.
My 2 cents =
1) Like the focus on Role Play not Roll play
2) That being said I am still not the biggest fan of elite array (but understand its utility)
3) so I stick to the character themes, Valeros as a two-hander, theif as a dagger throwing elf, etc but just alter the stats a bit, still keeping the 25 point buy.
meh
I don't often agree with Mevers, but in this case his analysis of some of the feat choices has merit (Dodge for a feat-deficient missile combatant?). I don't agree with any need to totally rework the iconics, but to tell the truth, I never understood the point of "statting them up" either--I see them as mascots for the magazine, in a way.
I also agree with Dr. Jacobs that flawed characters can be more fun--but then again, I wouldn't intentionally undermine a character for that reason (and I especially wouldn't do that to a character meant for a Paizo AP, in light of Paizo's propensity for repeated TPK-fests like the AoW).
Bare with me as I am going somewhere with the following questions:
My point is that a rogue wants as many ranks in as many skills as they can get.
My question is: why should a rogue have (want) as many ranks in as many skills as possible?
…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.
What job?
My issue with what you suggest is the idea or impression I get from you that characters have a specific role or position to play and that they should be the best at that position.
In my opinion, there are no roles to fill in an adventure and if you take a feat, try and have at least some kind of RP reason for taking the feat.
The big thing with iconics, I believe, is that they should be easy to play. All desirable attacks should be able to be listed, all of your bonuses should be static (not dynamic), and each character should be focused to a few things that are their contribution to the party.
Take Two Weapon Fighting verses Combat Expertise, for example. Two Weapon Fighting allows for another option for the player that is described in a single additional line of text. Its penalties to attack are static, or unchanging, from round to round. If you decide to fight with two weapons, you know exactly what that means for your character. Combat Expertise, on the other hand, is a dynamic bonus. Granted, at first level it is just as static as Two Weapon Fighting, but at further levels it can become confusing. Even changing from +2 AC, -2 attack to +1 AC, -1 attack to +0 AC, -0 attack presents options that need to be calculated by the player on a round by round basis. Also, Combat Expertise has interactions with fighting defensively that further complicate the math. Calculating a figure every round may be fun and challenging for a veteran player, but for a novice its just annoying.
The same is true for Dodge vs. Point Blank Shot vs. Improved Initiative for the rogue. Dodge is a relatively easy feat to execute - every turn you desigate a single enemy that you gain a static bonus to AC against. Point Blank Shot can become annoying if you're playing a thrower, because you will likely be dealing with range penalties. Instead of applying all penalties, you've also got a bonus to worry about, which means math. Simple math, granted, but math every round all the same. Improved Initiative is a nice, static bonus, but its interaction with Sneak Attack can confuse a new player, as you are likely to get the extra damage on round one for going first in the round, but not on round two when you go first in the round. It may seem a simple explanation of the rules, but that's an explanation that's going to happen during combat, and will bog down the game, slowing the action and lessening the effect of the event.
As far as spells go, the same is true - you want nice, static effects like magic missile or mage armor. Sleep and Color Spray have effects that are variable, and depend on something the caster cannot contol (saves). If such a spell fails to gain the desired effect, the spell's first impression could easily be that of a wasted action that was out of the players hands to affect. That is bad for the novice and the game.
As to the Int 8 of the rogue, there are two things happening here: 1) the character is focused on a few central skills, which makes for less lines of text and a less dizzying array of skills - they don't as easily invoke the "what skill does action X fall under" question. 2) Even with the penalty to Intelligence, the rogue still gets more skills than anyone else, which is one of the highlights of being a rogue. In addition, by shafting the rogue's strongest unnecessary ability, none of the other abilities have a penalty associated with them, making a more rounded character overall. This is one of the things you want to encourage in character building - well rounded characters and by extension a well-rounded party.
Once the novice player has adventured once or twice with the iconic, they'll be ready to start exploring the rules a bit more and making their own characters. But the iconic should stick in their minds as a nice, easy baseline character that showed them the initial fun of roleplaying.
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!
Ah, I see. I figured that as a cleric of a healing goddess she would be much more interested in keeping her party alive than going up there to beat baddies down. I like your explanation better.
Ah, I see. I figured that as a cleric of a healing goddess she would be much more interested in keeping her party alive than going up there to beat baddies down. I like your explanation better.
She kicks their ass...then heals them...so she can kick their ass again. :)
So, for the sake of the rest of us, mevers will you please shut the [expletive deleted] up!
Comments like this are unacceptable. I have suppressed the post this occurred in and am warning everyone to keep this thread civil.
Don't make us add this warning to the "Submit Post" button:
Note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.
I will pull this thread over and kill it entirely. Play nice, please.
Creative Director
|
Although Sarenrae's clerics are into scimitars, she is not a warlike deity. She'd rather have her clerics solve problems without killing folk, in fact. Eilistraee (from the Forgotten Realms) is as into swordfighting as Sarenrae, and she doesn't grant the War domain either.
Personally... I think that a feat that grants proficiency in your deity's favored weapon + grants some other bonus (perhaps a +2 bonus to an associated skill) would be a great feat. There's plenty of deities who have favored weapons that clerics can't automaticaly use, after all...
Personally... I think that a feat that grants proficiency in your deity's favored weapon + grants some other bonus (perhaps a +2 bonus to an associated skill) would be a great feat. There's plenty of deities who have favored weapons that clerics can't automaticaly use, after all...
By my powers of clairvoyance I suspect we'll see that feat in Pathfinder sooner or later. ;)
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.
maybe you should look into putting gorillas on your covers, James. I heard a rumor that DC comics found that putting a gorilla on the cover of thier comics increased sales of that issue, it didn't matter which comic, or if having the gorilla on the cover made sense at all. For a while after they discovered this gorilla's were poping up on all of thier covers very frequently, but eventualy they put some limitations in place to prevent overdoing it.
|
Personally... I think that a feat that grants proficiency in your deity's favored weapon + grants some other bonus (perhaps a +2 bonus to an associated skill) would be a great feat. There's plenty of deities who have favored weapons that clerics can't automaticaly use, after all...
In the last homebrew campaign I ran, I gave Clerics automatic proficiency in their deities favored weapon. To me, that just made sense.
Maybe some cool feats (if they don't already exist) would be something that allows a Cleric to expend Turn undead attempts to gain some kind of weapon bonuses with a favored weapon...
-Skeld
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.maybe you should look into putting gorillas on your covers, James. I heard a rumor that DC comics found that putting a gorilla on the cover of thier comics increased sales of that issue, it didn't matter which comic, or if having the gorilla on the cover made sense at all. For a while after they discovered this gorilla's were poping up on all of thier covers very frequently, but eventualy they put some limitations in place to prevent overdoing it.
Wes, did you ever read Alan Moore's Promethea comic? I'm thinking about the in-joke I never got w/ the Weeping Gorilla advertisements spread liberally throughout the world. Maybe Alan was poking fun of just that DC comics rumor/experience.
More on topic: I think everything's been said that could be on this topic, but I'll add only this. I had a cleric who, for roleplaying purposes only, deliberately took Iron Will as a 1st level feat, even though she would have been "better served" w/ another feat :)
And where did I say this is what I would do? Where was I telling anyone how to build their characters?
Maybe I was making this too personal, but while reading your comments I couldn't help imagining the same comments being made to me about my characters. While I would admit choices for my characters have been suboptimal imagining your comments like "Why oh why" makes me feel like you are judging my characters unworthy.
And I would say that this entire thread is you, to a certain degree, telling people how to build their characters.
Don't make human fighters. Don't make two-weapon fighters. Don't waste a feat giving your cleric proficiency with thier diety's weapon.
Your comments are directed at the iconics, but it is hard for me to not feel as if my characters are being attacked.
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?
The "Why oh why" and "I just have to sow, wow, she is really a badly built rogue" seem quite insulting when they are directed at your character.
|
Creative Director
|
maybe you should look into putting gorillas on your covers, James. I heard a rumor that DC comics found that putting a gorilla on the cover of thier comics increased sales of that issue, it didn't matter which comic, or if having the gorilla on the cover made sense at all. For a while after they discovered this gorilla's were poping up on all of thier covers very frequently, but eventualy they put some limitations in place to prevent overdoing it.
Not really a rumor, actually. The gorilla theory is for real. Not sure how much it helps sell RPGs, though... It certainly didn't help "Throne of the Gorilla King," as far as I know. So for now... no gorillas on the cover of Pathfinder.
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. ...
Exactly the point. The choices made in creating these characters clear was - and absolutely should have been - one of personal choice and role playing value, rather than maximizing power. No argument that a dumb rogue is an unusual choice, and I can't fault you for questioning that, but the other choices clearly seem to have been made to illustrate something central to the character itself, or to their society (keep in mind we don't know much about their respective cultures yet, we presumably will learn more once the player's guide comes out...)
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.
No, they don't have to be weak, but I have already pointed out that IMO, these iconics aren't weak. They might not be totally optimized, but they'll do fine.
And in any case, I never said they have to be weak, you said that. What I said is they have to be simple. That means that Improved Trip, for example, is a poor choice. Both because the rules for trip are relatively obscure, seldom used except by dedicated trip-masters, fairly complicated, and not easy to incorporate into the stat block in such a way as to make it immediately obvious how it works.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Mevers, thanks for this thread, and for presenting your suggestions.
The contentions here are, sure, a matter of play style. Some people think that a sub-optimal character is interesting (like sub-optimal characters in fiction) and some players think that sub-optimal characters are to be avoided (like sub-optimal M:tG deck designs).
And mevers, your attitude seems to be closer to WotC's 3rd Ed / 3.5 design strategies. Anybody remember those "Power Play" sidebars in DRAGON, telling us how a 1st level character could, with a certain race / class / stat / skill / feat mix, get gawdawful overbalanced in some area or another?
Anybody think that the term "build" is itself a little biased? (One builds decks, but writes-up fictional characters.)
|
Not really a rumor, actually. The gorilla theory is for real. Not sure how much it helps sell RPGs, though... It certainly didn't help "Throne of the Gorilla King," as far as I know. So for now... no gorillas on the cover of Pathfinder.maybe you should look into putting gorillas on your covers, James. I heard a rumor that DC comics found that putting a gorilla on the cover of thier comics increased sales of that issue, it didn't matter which comic, or if having the gorilla on the cover made sense at all. For a while after they discovered this gorilla's were poping up on all of thier covers very frequently, but eventualy they put some limitations in place to prevent overdoing it.
I am magnetically drawn to anything with gorillas/baboons/howlers, dinosaurs, or tentacles on the cover.
I disagree with the statement that the iconics are "badly built" and with the assertion that these characters should be "optimized" in any way. In fact, I'm glad to see that the choices made are different from any norm. The idea that there is one acceptable way to play a given character is completely against the way I choose to play D&D; more power to you and your preferred style of game, though. I would rather see variety in the characters.
So, while I concede that you can eke out a higher modifier here or there by choosing a different feat, I disagree that the iconics should be treated in this fashion. I *love* that the cleric wields a scimitar and that the default fighter is a two-weapon fighter. This latter model, for instance, adds variety and creates new possibilities for that two-weapon fighter that, simply using a rogue or ranger, you wouldn't be able to achieve.
Lastly, I would like to suggest that certain phrases, such as "so badly built," are not as neutral in tone as you might have hoped.
Happy gaming!
|
|
I haven't seen anyone else comment on this particular point yet, so I thought I'd jump in with my two cents...
mevers wrote: "avoiding terrible feats (Iron Will for the Cleric) would be a good start"
I personally think Iron Will is an excellent feat for the cleric. It takes a good stat and makes it outstanding. While there's something to be said for using a feat like that to compensate for a weakness, it's still quite beneficial to take a good stat stat and make it even better.
Not only does it create a noteworthy point of interest about the character for roleplaying purposes, it also helps to ensure that the party's healer doesn't get dominated by a vampire or seduced by a demon or panicked by a dragon's aura, or fall prey to some other fight-loosing circumstance. A lot of will save spells can take a character out of the picture as surely as if they had died; with this stat maximized, the players can rely on this healer to remain stalwart in the face of the most dire and terrifying situations.
And on the unlikely occasion that she does fail a will saving throw, that event becomes all the more memorable.
I am magnetically drawn to anything with gorillas/baboons/howlers, dinosaurs, or tentacles on the cover.
You were in heaven with the recent Demogorgon cover I'm betting. ;)
I personally think Iron Will is an excellent feat for the cleric. It takes a good stat and makes it outstanding. While there's something to be said for using a feat like that to compensate for a weakness, it's still quite beneficial to take a good stat stat and make it even better.
I like the feat for all the reasons you've listed, Chris. It really comes through in a pinch.
|
|
I haven't seen anyone else comment on this particular point yet, so I thought I'd jump in with my two cents...
Beat you to it on page 1 Chris! But I'm glad people agree with my take on it.
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.
I like these four iconics, but then I have a tendency to create supposed "sub-optimal" characters regularly. I would like to address a few thing brought up by mevers:
Valeros- I played (almost) exactly this character in an online game years ago. I loved it. I believe a fighter that concentrates on two-weapon fighting will outstrip a ranger easily, just because of the number of feat options. I have no interest in playing the dwarf fighter designed by mevers. This is partly because it's a dwarf, and partly because the numbers/mechanics were given higher importance than anything else.
Leoni- I hate magic missile. I really, really hate that spell. It's too good. Everyone wants to take it. (In my Savage Tide game, I convinced my players to not use it by promising I wouldn't use it against them.) That said, I think it's a great choice for Leoni. While the other characters have ranged weapons, they are more likely to be in melee. Leoni gets to be the artillery/support. She can cast magic missile into melee without worrying about attack penalties or cover.
Kyra & Merisiel- On one hand, mevers says Iron Will is a waste because Kyra already has the best Will save. On the other, he says giving Merisiel an 8 Int is a waste because she needs more skill points, even though she gets the most skill points of anyone. Isn't this a bit of a double standard? I do understand where he's coming from- I've never seen a rogue with an Int penalty, and I've never seen anyone take Iron Will with one of their regular feat slots. However, I think if a rogue can always use more skill points, then a cleric can always use a higher Will save. (In my Savage Tide game, I gave everyone a bonus feat at first level. This feat had to be one of the Sasserine feats, or one of the save bonus feats, or one of the skill boosting feats. Several of them took either Great Fortitude or Lightning Reflexes. It didn't help. They can't make saves. Period.)
In the end, to each his or her own. My players are a mixed bag, mostly leaning toward the "sub-optimal build", but with a couple who are usually sure of what's going to work out best mechanically. We all have fun. If mevers and the others who agree with his suggestions are having fun when they play, then that's cool.
Randy
|
As unpopular as it may be, I'm going to agree with mevers (somewhat).
I will say that as soon as I saw the stats for the four iconics, I was disappointed. Why? Not because they weren't "uber" but because they didn't live up to the coolness of the concept art.
I don't agree with mevers idea of recreating Valeros as dwarf. A human two weapon fighter is a very cool concept, even though TWF is generally crap, unless you have some sort of bonus damage. At first level, however, it's manageable and worth the hit for the style. He's as good a human two weapon fighter as can be (even if that's not as good as a dwarf halbardier).
Same thing with Kyra's scimitar proficiency. It's cool, even if not very optimal. Iron Will? Not so much. Same with all of Seoni and Merisiel's feats. Dodge tells me jack about a character and does nothing to realize the picture's potential. And it's a crap feat, taking up a slot that at 1st level could be the difference between life and death -- for everyone on the team.
This is something I stress in games I run. While I encourage players to come up with unique, quirky (and flawed) characters to role-play, I also work with the less experienced players to choose effective feats, classes, etc. to realize that vision. In a party where every character fills an essential role, failing -- whether through inexperience or willful disdain for "roll-playing" -- to fill that role affects everyone's survivability. I would be about as likely to allow a fighter who blew every feat on Skill Focus (knowledge) and insisted on fighting unarmored with a quarterstaff as I would be to allow a CE rogue bent on murdering the rest of the party, or a megamaniacal necromancer who kills villagers to create a personal zombie retinue. It's just disruptive, to tell the truth, selfish, because it brings the whole team down so that player can get off "role-playing" an inept character.
Using the example above, if you really want to play a studious, unarmored warrior, why not play a monk? Or a even a clumsy swashbuckler (who can at least apply his smarts in combat after a few levels?). Every style or choice doesn't have to be optimal, but, thanks to the plethora of options out there, nearly every concept can be effective, if some care is taken.
So, why not give Seoni Improved Initiative and Toughness? Both require even less effort than Dodge to use and make her infinitely more surviveable. She's from a nomadic people, so Toughness makes sense. And maybe magic has sharpened her senses, or all that eldritch power trapped by her tattoos enhances her reaction time. Same with Merisiel. Why not Point-Blank Shot? It's an all-around better feat and has more flavor because of the tactics it encourages -- She's best at range, but relatively close range, stalking and running circles round her victims.
Anyway, those are my couple coppers. Honestly, it's unlikely I'd ever use the pregens for anything more than on-the-fly NPCs. The art provided is cool enough that I'd want to, however, so it would be nice if they could at least hold their own.
I admit I don't really have much to add to the discussion, I do want to voice a small complaint to Mr. Jacobs. You said that you've made sure a dwarf, gnome, and halfling make it into the iconics line, while most will be of human/elf lineage. That's all well and good, but...I do believe you've left something out. Out in the cold, if you will. We half-orc fans will not be denied! I know there's not many of us, and most of us smell poorly, but we're not asking to party with you. We just want to kill a few monsters, and take some of their stuff. We'll even take a small share, I promise. Won't you please let us join you?
...you're not going to, are you? Well that's just not nice!
*runs to corner to cry*
Oh, and if it's not too much trouble, could we come inside every once in a while? It looks like you're having so much fun through the window, and the rain gets cold....
|
Creative Director
|
In some cases, the feat selections were chosen simply because we needed to fit the feats into the limited space we had. I think that might by why Merisiel has a 5 letter feat and not a longer one. Kinda a lame reason, I guess, but until we figure out how to fine-tune the stat blocks...
Actually, Jason Bulmahn's making "I wanna start a new campaign based in the Paizo world" noises around the office. I'm really tempted to base my character in his game on Merisiel's artwork. And I'm positive I'd build her stats differently. Not sure if that'll impact which set of stats we end up using in the adventures at all... but in any case, as I've said before, you can expect their stats to change now and then anyway.
Seoni, for one, has different feats in Pathfinder than she does in the GameMastery modules. All four of them do, come to think of it, since we included feats from the Player's Guide for them.
I was wondering when someone would notice that...
Yeah. No half-orcs in the first 12 Pathfinder covers. They'll be along soon thereafter, I guess. Blame their net negatvie ability modifiers if you must blame anything...
All is forgiven. Could you do me a favor though? I'd really love to see a half-orc iconic as something aside from a barbarian. You can keep the focus on martial classes if you want, all I ask is not barbarian.
Half Orc allways kinda struck me funny...
I don't think they leave many people laughing after they strike, though. ;-)
--Neil
|
|
Here's an AOW spoiler relevant to the Iron Will point made above.
I questioned the wisdom of our party cleric taking Iron Will as a feat in AOW (his name, ironically enough, was Will), but it absolutely saved the party's bacon when they ran headlong into Mr. Z in HoHR. He was the only one I couldn't consistently floor with a Mind Blast. Just goes to show you should never question the cleric's wisdom!
I'll just chime in to the Fighter TWF debate here, I feel.
To get the most from a fighter using two weapons, have them be different damage types (i.e. P & B, P/S & B). Reason: when you get nasty critters with DR5/Bludgeoning and your Cleric has just Turned his last undead for the day, you at least want to get in your bang.
Also, Two-Weapon Defence is available from the PHB, which would improve AC as well. It makes up for not having a shield (which using a halberd or other two-handed weapon won't).
In other words, it isn't necessarily a sub-optimal choice, and can be used to add flavour to a character's background.
The scar? Yeah, got sicked once by a skellie, wouldn't go down when I used my sword. Needed a carpenter's hammer to finish the sucker off. Learned to use one of these hammers in my other hand, now I never leave home without it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
All is forgiven. Could you do me a favor though? I'd really love to see a half-orc iconic as something aside from a barbarian. You can keep the focus on martial classes if you want, all I ask is not barbarian.I was wondering when someone would notice that...
Yeah. No half-orcs in the first 12 Pathfinder covers. They'll be along soon thereafter, I guess. Blame their net negatvie ability modifiers if you must blame anything...
Half orc Monk. I made one (never got to use him)
S: 8 (10)
D:13
C:12
I:15 (13)
W:14
Ch: 10 (8)
Maxed out on Diplomacy and sense Motive, first level feat improved init.
Picture a Half Orc, who wants to bring enlightenment to his fallen kin. Soft spoken, not very self confident, trying to reconcile his heritage...
Hardly optimal, but fun concept. (works better w/28 point array)
In a party where every character fills an essential role, failing -- whether through inexperience or willful disdain for "roll-playing" -- to fill that role affects everyone's survivability.
This is just my opinion, but I think that this is one of the worst views to have of a role playing game. I don't think there are any roles to be filled in a group and by assuming so it needlessly limits not only peoples choices of characters but also the opportunity for some incredibly creative and innovative ways of handling encounters. One of the best gaming experiences I have ever had was when a fighter, a paladin, and a rogue tried to figure out how to kill a particularly nasty undead wizard. I say, to hell with the idea of 'roles' in a group, let people play what they want, and let everyone (DM and players alike) come up with ways to make things work (there is a reason potions, wands, and magic items exist beyond adding a bonus to a stat).
**Edit: Sorry about the thread jack
|
Well, finally read through all of this, and had a couple things to say. I find myself leaning more towards the crowd of "they're fine characters" then Mevus's side of optimizing them, but I can understand where he's coming from.
That said, there were only two things I did want to disagree on:
Flawed charactes are ALWAYS more interesting.
I find this quite untrue. Flawed characters *can* be more interesting, but they are by no means *always* more interesting. The amount of interest a character possesses is based on the player, the background, and flavor. That's like telling me that a character with the mechanical stats of Tiny Tim will always be more interesting than a character with the mechanical stats of Hercules. I'm not saying flawed characters can't be more interesting than non-flawed ones, I just like to avoid using the word 'always'.
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 agree on this, it makes sense for the cleric to have proficiency with the weapon. However, proficiency is, typically, for use in a battle sense. My question is, why does she need it? It's not as if she still can't wield it, or use it in her morning rituals. She only takes a -4 to it. While that seems like a lot, if she isn't using it in combat, then why does it matter? The feat that it spares could be more useful for feats that enhance the kinds of things she wants to make use of, not something that she never really plans to use in combat. Heck, when she gets up to level 5 or 6, I imagine she'll have a positive modifier in it, maybe earlier. So it's not like she'll always be fumbling around with it. It will just take a little longer than those who specialize in combat.
Both of those said, I otherwise agree with what James and a lot of the other guys have said. The iconics don't need to be the best of the best, but they should be interesting. I do sympathize with Mevus's opinion as well, and he has a few good ideas, but overall, I'm kind of in the middle camp here. :)
|
Creative Director
|
Flawed characters *can* be more interesting, but they are by no means *always* more interesting.
I'm actually mostly talking about fiction characters here, to be honest. Look at your favorite characters from novels or comics or movies. The most interesting ones are the ones who aren't perfect. Indiana Jones loses his very first treasure and has to run for his life in his debut. Batman has some big-time mental hangups. Ash can't remember the right words and ends up unleashing the army of the dead. And so on. The same goes for D&D characters, I think. Sure, the "flaws" don't always have to be sub-optimal design choices, but in many cases they do. And although we don't have plans to set our iconics loose in any novels, comics, or movies yet... that'd be cool! I want them to have personality more than the "best" stats the OGL can build, to be honest.
IMy question is, why does she need it?
She doesn't necessarilly need proficiency in the scimitar, and I would guess that many clerics of Sarenrae (or any cleric whose deity has a non simple weapon and doesn't grant the War domain) DON'T bother with proficiency, and that more solve the problem by multiclassing and taking a level of fighter. That said, a cleric that's (in theory) a PC is going to be in a lot more fights more often than most clerics. So taking the proficiency is actually a good choice for her, especially since we're avoiding having any of the iconics take prestige class levels or multiclassing. That role's gonna go to whoever comes after our first 11 iconics, I suspect.
|
Creative Director
|
But isn't this the view taken by "standard" adventure design in 3.0/3.5? And it's based in the history of the game. 4 character party, filling archetypes of fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard (regardless of the exact class selection)?
Clearly the game is playable using different combinations of characters, but the baseline assumption is that each role will be somehow represented in the group. If not, it does provide a new angle on some encounters.
While it's important to bear in mind when designing adventures the old warrior/divine/arcane/adventurer archetypes (and that's why we chose the four classes we did for our first party of iconics, after all), when I run D&D games or make characters for them, I don't really care about party composition. I'd much rather have the group make the characters they want to play. If everyone ends up making elven rogues, so be it! In fact, that sounds kind of fun... lots of story opportunities for a campaign that just has elven rogue PCs. You'll need to take into account what the party's composed of when designing or adapting adventures, of course... but that's what being a DM is all about.
We're avoiding having any of the iconics take prestige class levels or multiclassing. That role's gonna go to whoever comes after our first 11 iconics, I suspect.
Interesting. I take this to mean that after we have our iconic [insert class name here], there's going to be a group of iconic [insert multi- class combination here]. If that's the case, it should be very interesting. If I'm wrong, I'm sure that whatever you do will still be interesting.
|
|
Thanks for such a quick response, James!
I'm actually mostly talking about fiction characters here, to be honest. Look at your favorite characters from novels or comics or movies. The most interesting ones are the ones who aren't perfect. Indiana Jones loses his very first treasure and has to run for his life in his debut. Batman has some big-time mental hangups. Ash can't remember the right words and ends up unleashing the army of the dead. And so on. The same goes for D&D characters, I think. Sure, the "flaws" don't always have to be sub-optimal design choices, but in many cases they do. And although we don't have plans to set our iconics loose in any novels, comics, or movies yet... that'd be cool! I want them to have personality more than the "best" stats the OGL can build, to be honest.
I can see where you're coming from on this, and I do agree, flawed characters (a lot of the time) are more interesting than those without. My only hangup was on the word choice of 'always'. I wasn't trying to say that your statement was otherwise untrue. :)
She doesn't necessarilly need proficiency in the scimitar, and I would guess that many clerics of Sarenrae (or any cleric whose deity has a non simple weapon and doesn't grant the War domain) DON'T bother with proficiency, and that more solve the problem by multiclassing and taking a level of fighter. That said, a cleric that's (in theory) a PC is going to be in a lot more fights more often than most clerics. So taking the proficiency is actually a good choice for her, especially since we're avoiding having any of the iconics take prestige class levels or multiclassing. That role's gonna go to whoever comes after our first 11 iconics, I suspect.
That's also true, she will be doing a lot of battle as an adventurer. However, I still question the choice of the proficiency. Don't get me wrong, I can still see it, a character that drives herself to perfection in both her weapon and her healing. My only problem with it is in its use with an iconic. A player that doesn't take it will have that -4 for the first few levels (if they aren't healing the others in all combats, like early level clerics tend to end up doing), but as soon as they hit 3rd level, hey, Bull's Strength! The flaw is then instantly made up for, and quickly countered once other spells like Divine Power and such come up.
Again, I'm not trying to say it wouldn't make sense in a story sense, and I have no problems with any of the other iconics' feat or skill choices. I only think that having a proficiency to justify useage is a bit silly, as a lack doesn't make the weapon unuseable, just hard to hit with. And really, how often will it come down to the cleric tanking at such early levels anyhow? :) Personally, I say go with another feat that helps her spellcasting, or something else the character wants to do, and accept the -4. She's not the best in melee, but she gets her flavor by her determined useage of the weapon.
Of course, the lack of decent feats in the SRD makes this difficult too, so I can see the benefit in having MWP as a feat. I eagerly look forward to seeing some of those scimitar casting feats in Pathfinder. ;)
|
Creative Director
|
Again, I'm not trying to say it wouldn't make sense in a story sense, and I have no problems with any of the other iconics' feat or skill choices. I only think that having a proficiency to justify useage is a bit silly, as a lack doesn't make the weapon unuseable, just hard to hit with. And really, how often will it come down to the cleric tanking at such early levels anyhow? :) Personally, I say go with another feat that helps her spellcasting, or something else the character wants to do, and accept the -4. She's not the best in melee, but she gets her flavor by her determined useage of the weapon.
Actually, of our four iconics, Kyra's the second best fighter. She's got more hit points, a better AC, and a better BAB progression than everyone but the fighter. And at low level, she's got a very limited number of spells and those will be used for healing almost exclusively. Focusing on swordplay's actually a pretty good choice for a low level cleric in this case.
|
|
That's good to hear. :) I actually did not know where to find the details of these characters, so was only going off of what I learned here. Negating that -4 to hit would surely make her a better warrior, along with the heavy armor useage. I was only under the impression that, as said earlier about how most of those clerics tend not to pursue battle, that combat wouldn't be a priority. Of course, by taking that MWP, I imagine she is already amongst the few that do take to battle. :)
All in all, I can't wait for that first issue, and the player's guide. Bring on some more blog posts to slake our thirst! :D
I'm actually mostly talking about fiction characters here, to be honest. Look at your favorite characters from novels or comics or movies. The most interesting ones are the ones who aren't perfect.
This is true, but I think it's also misleading. Indiana Jones has some gret flaws, but his first level feat wasn't Fear (Snakes), it was Exotic Weapons Proficiency (Whip). Flawed characters are fantastic, but in D&D there's a pretty steep gap between thematics and mechanics, and flaws fall squarely into the thematics camp. Just because you're playing a grumpy introvert sorcerer doesn't mean his charisma is 9.
This is true, but I think it's also misleading. Indiana Jones has some gret flaws, but his first level feat... was Exotic Weapons Proficiency (Whip).
Exotic Weapon Proficiency (whip)?! That just sucks. He should've taken spiked chain.