|
"Crikey!", he thinks, "I nearly took my ears off!".
Valeros is an Aussie?
I was aiming more for a "Oh Criikey! Aunt Agatha's going to see what we did to her fox-fur at Tuppy Glossop's stag-night! Help me Jeeves!" (Hugh Laurie as Bertie Wooster), rather than;
"Aaah, Crooooiiiikey, he dazn't loike me sticking moi fingers ap his arrrsse!" (Steve Irwin, with crocodile).
I have gone back to having my players roll their stats. They 4d6 in front of me, then I roll 4d6 and the player chooses which set to take.
For most NPCs I use the elite array. This gives me the chance to build some cool monsters. Goblins with point blank shot or a goblin sorcerer the augment summoning to give my players something different. A pair of twin scimitar wielding orcs was way more memorable that two orcs with falchions.
So... For the iconics Mr. Jacobs ROLL'em! That is my vote.
I still think point buy is the most robust and fair system.
Then again, I like GURPS.
I still think point buy is the most robust and fair system.
Then again, I like GURPS.
Robust and fair!?! Those words, sir, have nothing to do with DnD!
El Skootro
The stats for the iconics aren't meant to be the Best Possible Characters.
And I'll point out that for D&D, the iconics are deliberately not the BPC's. They're not minmaxed. In fact, some of them have some definitely suboptimal feat and skill choices. Why? Because all the playtests for the 3 core books use the iconics to get a feel of how tough the monsters, spells, characters, and items are--they establish a baseline for the game.
And most of the people playing the game aren't game designers with intimate knowledge of how the game works. "Normal" players are going to make bad character choices or choices for roleplaying. A typical character is going to be much more like the D&D iconics than some minmaxed tweaked custom-built optimal character. The game is built around typical involving non-optimized characters. This is a good thing. If monster CRs are pegged based on fights with optimal-build PCs, and your group instead has suboptimal PCs, it means encounters are much more lethal than their CRs would indicate. An encounter that is level appropriate for four tweaked level 6 character might kill one or more PCs in a group of four non-optimized characters. That's not fun, plus it's confused to the DM, who wonders why a supposedly easy encounter with orcs or ogres was strangely lethal.
So I can see a parallel with the Pathfinder iconics, even outside of the reasons the Paizo guys already mention (art-based builds, not wanting to be too similar to the D&D iconics, etc.) ... they want their sample/pick-up characters to be competent but not too competent, else the CR-appropriate encounters in the adventures feel too easy and the players get bored.
And in D&D, just like in Pathfinder's setting, there is a point of realization where the player finally "gets" why one class/feat/skill combo is better than another, and realizes that the next character they build is going to be tougher than their previous character, or even the the iconic of that class. It's a sense of accomplishment. It's a reward for their time-investment in the game. And it makes them feel smart, like an insider with secret knowledge. And all of those things are good reasons to design that way.
I'm seeing a wizard with the lowest intelligence possible for the class. When he goes up in level, he'll exclusively place his extra points in charisma because he's the type to only do enough to get by, but he's really interested in impressing women. That's the only reason he became a wizard in the first place.
My character Nosh in Monte's 3E playtest campaign (Praemal) was much like that, but built more around the Indiana Jones concept. Proficient in whip, high Dex, reasonable Con, Cha, and Int, had to put his 4th/8th/12th-level ability score increases into Int just to keep up with his highest-level spell. Really fun character, not optimized at all.
|
We Optimizer-Americans are a proud people, and perpetuation of the Stormwind Fallacy is deeply hurtful and insulting to us. Remember... powergamers are roleplayers, too.
Yes you are, but powergamers do seem to be less generous roleplayers. Backstory and characterization are only one part of a well-rounded roleplayer. The other part is surrendering yourself to suspense - the suspense that your character might not make it through the fight; across the ravine; out of the courtroom. If you stat yourself for easy success you rob yourself of the storied pathways that failure presents.
I really do think that power gamers have experienced too many games where failure = death, rather than failure = tangents. A friend of mine started as a generous, exploratory roleplayer, but a particularly malicious and cutthoat DM molded him into a horrid power gamer. No weaknesses - at all - if he can help it (he does have good backstories to explain how his characters are so insufferably bad-ass though ;))
Good DMs use a character's weaknesses as a way to make a campaign more robust and interesting. That Int 8 Rogue alone would be fodder for tons of amusing side quests.
but powergamers do seem to be less generous roleplayers...
I don't know who you play with, but it sure isn't the so called powergamers I have played with.
Moreover, I don't think we enjoyed our games any less, with a pissing contest now and then, than did you.
The game is built around typical involving non-optimized characters. This is a good thing. If monster CRs are pegged based on fights with optimal-build PCs, and your group instead has suboptimal PCs, it means encounters are much more lethal than their CRs would indicate. An encounter that is level appropriate for four tweaked level 6 character might kill one or more PCs in a group of four non-optimized characters. That's not fun, plus it's confused to the DM, who wonders why a supposedly easy encounter with orcs or ogres was strangely lethal.
Yah but a lot of DMs don't keep the encounters the way they are written, myself included.
Also, many of us write our own adventures, where this isn't a problem.
In particular for this argument, a veteran DM playing with veteran power gamers would be extremely unlikely to keep encounters as they are written in a published adventure. Or so it seems to me.
Now munchkins, those I can't abide.
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.
This single line from mevers' first post was the one that intrigued me the most - and subsequently seemed to be ignored more than the (apparently) slightly more controversial line that the thread has followed...
Speaking as a DM recently returned from a 20 year absence, trying to soak up 3 versions worth of rule changes, and explain a lot of it to new, non-geek players who WANT to understand (with as short an explanation as possible) how and why the rules work as they do, mevers suggestion seemed like a worthy idea. While I acknowledge space constraints are always going to be an issue, is it possible to give the ICONICS builds several options for feats/skill point allocation/etc. with a very brief explanation of HOW these choices make a difference? This way a new-ish DM (who is a rules geek but still learning) can give these options to less geek-oriented players, some of whom might very well want to use the ICONICS and not go through the whole character gen process but who still want some understanding of HOW their character is built so that they could tweak it a little bit for themselves. IMHO, this is a small idea that is the type of thing that helps create new gamers (and new Paizo customers!)....
As if this thread isn't long enough ... my 2 cents.
I like the iconics and I, especially, appreciate the concept behind them. They show me a focus on doing something interesting, and perhaps challenging, which will almost certainly add to a richer role-playing environment.
they're iconics, not paragons
Flawed characters are ALWAYS more interesting.
With that said, I can appreciate community-made options for other class builds and other useful NPCs.
Best.
As for clerics: I play clerics quite often. I'm playing one in Erik Mona's Age of Worms campaign, and that character is hardly what I'd call a "standard cleric." I think that, in 3rd edition, the cleric is probably the MOST powerful class in the game (rivaled only by the druid). People who haven't tried to play clerics just don't know what they're missing...
I hope this isn't thread-jacking too much... or falling back on an old post too far, but I'm sure you're right. Clerics do have a lot to offer and reccomend them. I... just haven't had much inspiration to play one. I did play an aasimar war-cleric of... um... some Faerun god of not-really-evil-but-not-all-that-good violence in a game that lasted two or three sessions once.
To be honest, I choose a character mostly when an image strikes me in the center of my forehead about them... like a character-sketch in my brain. The character creation process wraps around that image, and I have trouble playing something that doesn't spring forth from there. I've tried to learn better character building, so as to assemble effective characters, but... I never say... I want to play a fighter or a cleric or a sorcerer. I say, I want to play a whip-weilding raven-man bountyhunter with a cockney accent. (which was a character in a recent game I was in...) so my character building has to match what I'm looking for in a character design, otherwise I've got no connection to the character.
I guess that makes it kind of on-topic.
I'm not entirely sure why I've almost never had strong image of a cleric I want to play. Maybe because all the cool two-baboon-headed gods are evil? I have a few other guesses, but that might need a thread of its own.
Now it is Seoni's turn to get a power up.** spoiler omitted **
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.
I agree Combat Casting makes more sense than Skill Focus as its +3 instead of +4 and CC is specifcally for casting defensively.
Spell wise I'd have gone for shield as it has no material components, magic missile is ok as its the only spell that automatically hits and hits practically everything from ghosts to golbins and so on.
As a sorceror you might want Toughness instead of Dodge as while it would be nice not to get hit its making sure you survive when you do that should worry you more.
Maybe light armour proficiency may help so when you pick up mage armour later you have the components to cast tht spell (strips of cured leather I believe) yes you have to make arcane spell failure checks and whilst Eschew Materials is nice I can still remember 3.0 when I used 3.5 rules (Mongoose Pocket Handbook) to design a halfling sorceror and then discovered Dancing Lights was the best 0th level spell I've ever seen of course 3.5 ruined it since they took the will save away but it was a nice spell back then.
I design my characters along the lines of not needing spell components however the gm I ran with then revealed sorcerors were dependent on wizards for their spells and I had to pick up Read Magic as a result since I thought sorcerors were a new character class not a sub-class and poor cousin of the wizard, which they shouldn't be.
Anyway lets see what you think of this.
OK, onto Kyra** spoiler omitted **
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.What about combat casting then?
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).
Doesn't she have access to the war domain?
I've played a cleric of Helm and made the effort to be able to wield the faiths favoured weapon and after finding myself the fifth wheel of the party decided after the dm aged the character 60 years to multi-class as a sorceror with a decent explanation as to why but then he made sure I couldn't use the character properly by making all the spell selections himself, turning it into a blaster sorceror even though I'm not sorry going too far there.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.
Where exactly are these iconics released in?
So basically just change the feats to some combination of Extend Spell, Skill Focus (Concentration), and Diehard, and she is good to go.
I'd agree with Extend spell, replace Skill Focus with Combat Casting but is she 3rd level then?
I'd suggest either Combat Expertise to improve her AC by reducing her base attack bonus or perhaps something to enhance her turning abilities...
And finally we come to Merisiel.** spoiler omitted **
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).Yes I'd agree perhaps swapping Wisdom of Intelligence might help perhaps dropping it to 12 so Wisdom would then be 9 so it can be raised at 4th level if desired.
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.
Point Blank shot and Precise Shot would be helpful there is a prestige class in the Complete Adventurer which would be helpful and requires two weapon fighting specifcally in mind with someone who uses daggers but I don't have the specifics handy.
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.
Yes even though i object to halflings being treated as kleptomaniacs and are the one race that should have any as their favoured class...
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).
30' range or 10' given they're daggers
Stats (assuming halfling)
Str 10 (12 -2)
Dex 17 (15 +2)
Con 13
Int 14
Wis 8
Cha 10Feats (Dagger Thrower): Point Blank Shot
Feats (Spring Attack): Dodge (Precise Shot or Weapon Focus or Improved Initiative maybe multiclass as ranger for 2 levels to get two weapon fighting automatically)
Feats (TWF): Two Weapon Fighting
Skills (10 to max): Search, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, UMD, Listen, Spot, Disable Device, Open...
I'm fancying multiclassing my halfling sorceror into a ranger I've even considered rogue but she started as a sorceror and am the only player dumb enough to give a good reason WHY she has to multi-class of course I'm only considering multi-classing as a ranger so i can pick up Favoured Enemy Humans as there's a paladin in the party who's been allowed to commit cold blooded murder, torturing captives and ignoring the rest of the party when they're more LG than he ever could!
Sorry very old wound there, the guy running that game has yet to start it up again about a year or so later and I've stop going as the Paladin's player is the chief gm specifically Faerun and I was just tired of having to try and stop his acts of spite and repeatedly not get any help from the others when I've proven him wrong...As for the halfling one day I hope to either get over it (been at least 8 months since I stopped going to that club) or figure out how I'll get him to realise the mistakes he's made and that was just a brief outline. (Shutting up now!)
Fine work with the rogue corrections though
I'm seeing a wizard with the lowest intelligence possible for the class. When he goes up in level, he'll exclusively place his extra points in charisma because he's the type to only do enough to get by, but he's really interested in impressing women. That's the only reason he became a wizard in the first place.My character Nosh in Monte's 3E playtest campaign (Praemal) was much like that, but built more around the Indiana Jones concept. Proficient in whip, high Dex, reasonable Con, Cha, and Int, had to put his 4th/8th/12th-level ability score increases into Int just to keep up with his highest-level spell. Really fun character, not optimized at all.
Very cool.
Sad to say that, way back in first edition, I played a character who was also proficient with a whip. I named him some medieval mashing of Indiana. That idea's originality has a strength of two but he was a blast to play... especially in sitations where a whip couldn't get you bus fare.
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.You forgot that whilst 8pts my seem a lot theives with that low an Int will find multiclassing as a fight a positive boon to overcome those problems... but if they're fine with them so much the better but not everyone would be thats the real point made.
...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...Perhaps a note saying the fighter is more dextrous than normal and then ignroe the fact it might have worked better as a ranger, the use of skill focus for concentration is to be blunt silly as the only use they would have for it would be for defensive purposes which is why you have Combat Casting and only a spiteful dm would argue otherwise (and still be wrong please note).
Personally a bit of background might have helped you know that the thief was hit on the head as a child and became a thief as other occupations were out of the question, especially as wisdom doesn't play that much outside of profession skills and will saves.
The fighter should have come from a poorer or seafaring background explaining why he came out the way he does but the cleric and the sorceror should still have had combt casting instead not waste a skill focus on something that should have been added AFTER combat casting not before...Anyway look forward to reading the next bit!
|
|
To be honest, I choose a character mostly when an image strikes me in the center of my forehead about them... like a character-sketch in my brain.
I'm not entirely sure why I've almost never had strong image of a cleric I want to play. Maybe because all the cool two-baboon-headed gods are evil? I have a few other guesses, but that might need a thread of its own.
Maybe because, outside of licenced gaming-related fiction, there are no examples of clerics as heroes?
The usual protagonist of a (possibly pseudo-historical) fantasy novel is a warrior or rogue, with whom the audience can empathise, acting to foil the Dark Overlord. Occasionally the central character (or at least, a companion) will be an inexperienced mage, who must bumble his way through his apprenticeship in the early chapters.
The only examples of divine/profane casters are the Dark Overlord himself, who is probably sponsored by some demon, maybe some druids (who might help the hero(es) on the journey, but need to tend their woodlands), or a council of oracles who set the party on their quest, but remain, hidden, in the background. Very rarely will you see anything close to an iconic D&D cleric as a main protagonist. The closest you get is a holy knight/paladin, who if they have magic at all, will often be portrayed as involuntary precognition or channelling, and usually at a moment the author deems dramatically appropriate (ie, the character will not cast spells, but will get 'DM-fudging' divine intervention).
There are several reasons for this; the most obvious being that warrior/rogue heroes can be shown to have won the day using their own strength and wits, whereas spellcasters (arcane or divine) can be accused of using the author's deus ex machina plot devices.
Publishers may also be wary of introducing religious themes into their product, fearing backlash from Bible-belt communities. It's acceptable to show the villain being in the service of some other-worldly being, but to show the hero as benefitting from such a liaison would be sending a totally inappropriate message to the youth of today, that there is an alternative to good old fire & brimstone Christianity.
That explains the prevalence of so much 'Arthurian, Grail-Quest' fiction (which would probably pass scrutiny), but, outside of the specific genre of Gaming-Related Fiction, you will rarely see anything close to a cleric, even of an apparently clean-cut faith as Pelor or Heironious, etc.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
To be honest, I choose a character mostly when an image strikes me in the center of my forehead about them... like a character-sketch in my brain.I'm not entirely sure why I've almost never had strong image of a cleric I want to play. Maybe because all the cool two-baboon-headed gods are evil? I have a few other guesses, but that might need a thread of its own.Maybe because, outside of licenced gaming-related fiction, there are no examples of clerics as heroes?
The usual protagonist of a (possibly pseudo-historical) fantasy novel is a warrior or rogue, with whom the audience can empathise, acting to foil the Dark Overlord. Occasionally the central character (or at least, a companion) will be an inexperienced mage, who must bumble his way through his apprenticeship in the early chapters.
The only examples of divine/profane casters are the Dark Overlord himself, who is probably sponsored by some demon, maybe some druids (who might help the hero(es) on the journey, but need to tend their woodlands), or a council of oracles who set the party on their quest, but remain, hidden, in the background. Very rarely will you see anything close to an iconic D&D cleric as a main protagonist. The closest you get is a holy knight/paladin, who if they have magic at all, will often be portrayed as involuntary precognition or channelling, and usually at a moment the author deems dramatically appropriate (ie, the character will not cast spells, but will get 'DM-fudging' divine intervention).
There are several reasons for this; the most obvious being that warrior/rogue heroes can be shown to have won the day using their own strength and wits, whereas spellcasters (arcane or divine) can be accused of using the author's deus ex machina plot devices.
Publishers may also be wary of introducing religious themes into their product, fearing backlash from Bible-belt communities. It's acceptable to show the villain being in the service of some other-worldly...
Well, I WOULD put the Cleric of Obad-Hai from the second (i.e., Good) D&D movie as an example, but I guess that falls under "RPG liscensed fiction".
Plus, yanno,
Okay, I'm done. He was really cool, though. And the Barbarian chick was hot.
EDIT: Snap! Forgot about the Asian wizard from Conan! THe same guy who did Aku's voice!
EDIT EDIT: Oh, and the cast of [u]Villians By Necessity[/u]. There was a druid and a magic user/"dark race" in there. Though... they WERE kinda the bad guys... though they were the good guys... or at least the heroes... or main characters...
... Just read the feckin' book.
EDIT EDIT EDIT: And Gandalf. Duh.
EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT: And Harry Potter.
Some people build characters for the fun of playing their weaknesses. Some people play characters for the fun of trying something new and interesting and different. Other build characters to win the game.
If you don't like the stats for the iconics, CHANGE THEM. Instead of complaing and b*~!~ing and moaning that yoiu didn't get what you wanted, take what you got and change it. You're not going to get everything you want in life handed to you on a silver platter. Paizo is going out of their way to give people a really cool world, with a really cool AP, and is even adding in some premade charcters with...GASP...character! If you would rather have somethingt hat is min maxed, go ahead and make it up yourself. Thats what this game is all about...taking ideas for things and tweakjing them to what you want to see.
Paizo has plans and schemes of their own and they see things different than you. Obviously. If you disagree with their decisions, stop b+!$@ing about it and go start your own gaming magazine/book/company, as you obviously seem to think you could do a better job all by yourself.
Contributor
|
If the internet has taught me anything, it's that everyone is wrong, except for me. ;)
You're totally wrong about that! ;D
It has also taught us that mildly amusing things, when taken too far, stop being funny.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye...
And then it's hilarious. Take Odin, for example.
FINE! I'll stop po
Wait . . . what's Po ding that they need to be stopped? Were they fighting with Lala and Dipsy again?
Not to resurrect a dead thread but... I don't necessarily agree with the iconics needing to be optimized (and definitely think going from human TWF to Dwarven Halberdier is a total "TO THE HILT" optimization choice), but I'd agree with OP that there are some small things that really, Really annoy me.
Valeros: The only optimization change that would need to be made would be to change their weapon training ability. grab Axes for a more strength build and use a battle axe and hand axe, or go Light Blades and use two short swords or a rapier and a short sword for a finesse build. Like literally everything else can stay the same, but just choosing the right weapon is going to make your attacks be so much more effective (And TWF Fighter makes a lot of sense because the mentioned weapon training abilities can help offset TWF penalties)
Kyra: I admittedly thought that all clerics just got proficiency with their deity's favored weapon for free, so I've no idea what to say about this one because... I mean it's not RAW but I'd just give her the scimitar proficiency for free.
Seoni: I know basically nothing about playing vancian casters so I have not a lot to say (though OP mentioned eschew materials.. Didn't the class give you eschew materials for free? I thought that was a thing at some point or am I thinking something else)
Merisel:I feel like this is more the system's fault than the build's. Knife Throwing should be more interesting. Also I'm so used to unchained rogue that I needed to remember they don't just get finesse.
This thread has been dead longer than my children have been alive, and they just played their first session last night. Why would you do this thing?
Somehow I got from a search of the term 'steve irwin' to this thread. That's why.
Come now, little thread, let us lay you down to rest again. Your time came and is gone, rest again unliving creature.
*sigh* So much necromancy....
Man, was this thread a wild ride. It's been dead longer than I've been playing Pathfinder but hoo boy did it have some twists and turns.
Honey, it's been dead longer than there has been Pathfinder at all, it is all about "my preferences are the only right ones". One True Way if you want to be historically accurate. I would say tiresome rather than with wild. It is rather tthe distillation ........
Sorry, necromancy can be seductive in a horrible sort of way, done now.
Not to resurrect a dead thread but...
Not to post in this thread or respond to you in any way but...
This thread predates the published rules of the game by two years. All the information in it is wildly out of date, and has been for ten years. For example, Kyra's actual feats are Selective Channeling and Toughness, not Weapon Proficiency.