'Lo you all.
All the players in my pathfinder group are new to D&D/D20/Pathfinder - some like "oh, 10 years ago I played 2 evenings AD%D" while others are more like "cool, I've played a german RPG for the last 10 years and only in decemver 09 I realised that there are other roleplaying games".
This means - we really dont have a clue. None.
No feeling for character building, the "consequences" of choices on low leves, when to buy what kind of eq, what spells are more efficient etc.
I realised that after I've read a part of treantmonks wizard guide - and our bard wants to rebuild his char after reading the bard guide.
So I ask you all for help.
Really - any guide, FAQ, help,... you know and that works for the Pathfinder RPG would be a great help.
(at the moment our group (edit..) eerr.. party.. consists of a fighter, cleric, bard, paladin, sorcerer and monk)
Thank you all - for reading that and maybe for some help.
Good Night
|
'Lo you all.
All the players in my pathfinder group are new to D&D/D20/Pathfinder - some like "oh, 10 years ago I played 2 evenings AD%D" while others are more like "cool, I've played a german RPG for the last 10 years and only in decemver 09 I realised that there are other roleplaying games".
This means - we really dont have a clue. None.
No feeling for character building, the "consequences" of choices on low leves, when to buy what kind of eq, what spells are more efficient etc.I realised that after I've read a part of treantmonks wizard guide - and our bard wants to rebuild his char after reading the bard guide.
So I ask you all for help.
Really - any guide, FAQ, help,... you know and that works for the Pathfinder RPG would be a great help.
(at the moment our group (edit..) eerr.. party.. consists of a fighter, cleric, bard, paladin, sorcerer and monk)
Thank you all - for reading that and maybe for some help.
Good Night
The same site Treantmonks guide is on has several more guides to help in character creation. But really the best learning tool is just this. Play, since you are all new. Perhaps just allow people to change some chooses later if things turn out not to work the way they want.
|
Start slowly. Don't dive into optimization, as it requires a solid knowledge of both rules and the metagame.
Start some introductionary module (Crypt of Everflame, for example) and work thru things as you go.
When you encounter problems with rules - go with the gut feeling and then ask on our lovely wonderful forums.
@Dark Mistress:
Our GM/DM is almost as new as we - so, he I guess changing things later on wont be that much of a problem.
The guides you mentioned - u know one for a fighter? I browsed the SRD a little bit but did not find one. Paladin would also be nice.
I guess sorc is partially covered with the one for wizards?
@Gorbacz.
I guess we missed the slow start - I DM/GMed Burnt Offerings to get to know the game and now we are right in the middle of Kingmaker 1.
The forums really are quite lovely :-) *grease*
Thanks
|
my advice would be to just play, screw optimization guides and all that jazz. Roll your stats, take whatever feats you feel would be good for your character. And enjoy the game and making changes as things in the game change. There's no truly horrible, oh my god your characters useless feats, or class features that if you take your character is going to suck. And despite what the guides say, a high dex monk, a wizard with a decent str score, and a fighter with low con, aren't going to ruin the game for you. Remember that just because things are easier with a party consisting of healer/mage/skill class/tank class, that you don't need that configuration. A group without a healer or a mage is just as fun to play in as one with those things.
|
|
Don't go running off and reading all the Guides and Handbooks... try learning the game at your own speed. Those guides teach a certain style of play that isn't necessarily the Best way to play even if it claims to be the best way to play.
Experiment, use trial and error, build a character according to the concept you have in your head and don't worry about if it's the strongest most efficient number crunching damage dealing save boosting yadda yadda. If you don't like something ask your GM if you can change it.
Gaming is about having fun, not making spreadsheets (unless you like building spreadsheets, of course). Keep it simple to start and welcome to Pathfinder!!!
--Vrock, Paper, Scissors
Agree with Vrock, lastknight, and the others. Build around character concept. Find stuff that compliments that & think you'll be pleased with the results.
Also what works great for my long time group is playing the characters right from 1st lvl vs jumping in a new character at a higher lvl. Gives you a chance to explore the personality, plus have personnel history, and game events shape your choices for new levels {and from a learning the mechanics standpoint really see/learn what works for all in the party}.
Those guides teach a certain style of play that isn't necessarily the Best way to play even if it claims to be the best way to play.
I don't remember any of my guides making any such claim. The guides only make mechanical and tactical suggestions for characters, for players to take or leave at their leisure.
Build around character concept. Find stuff that compliments that & think you'll be pleased with the results
The part I emphasized is what class guides are all about.
That said, I think guides are a good place for a beginner to look to get some ideas about how to narrow the overwhelming number of races/feats/skills/spells to choose from.
For example, you can use my wizard guide to get really quick descriptions of what the spells do. This can be useful to someone who doesn't want to read through all the choices in their entirety but wants a quick run down.
Also, the guides give some quick and flexible tactical advice. Of course its all for the reader to take or leave if they wish.
I wish their were some guides for the Fighter and Cleric I could point you to, but there is an excellent Paladin guide right here:
|
|
Those guides teach a certain style of play that isn't necessarily the Best way to play even if it claims to be the best way to play.I don't remember any of my guides making any such claim. The guides only make mechanical and tactical suggestions for characters, for players to take or leave at their leisure.
Build around character concept. Find stuff that compliments that & think you'll be pleased with the resultsThe part I emphasized is what class guides are all about.
That said, I think guides are a good place for a beginner to look to get some ideas about how to narrow the overwhelming number of races/feats/skills/spells to choose from.
For example, you can use my wizard guide to get really quick descriptions of what the spells do. This can be useful to someone who doesn't want to read through all the choices in their entirety but wants a quick run down.
Also, the guides give some quick and flexible tactical advice. Of course its all for the reader to take or leave if they wish.
I wish their were some guides for the Fighter and Cleric I could point you to, but there is an excellent Paladin guide right here:
Having read your guide to monks, I actually think that it is an interesting read to take note from when you're an experienced player. That being said, when reading it as a beginner I can see someone reading it with a "oh I'm doing it wrong" mentality, that they then take the guides way of doing it as the "right" way. But then again, you can't control what people infer from your writings and they are strong guides. I just don't think the first place a newb player should go running to is an optimization guide.
|
|
Treantmonk I've also read your guides and find the advice solid and I don't think you in particular are an optimization evangelist... However there are those out there who absolutely do think that CharOp is the be all, end all way of gaming. I just can't steer fresh faced or long time gamers into that mentality in good conscience.
--Vrock Solid!
Having read your guide to monks, I actually think that it is an interesting read to take note from when you're an experienced player. That being said, when reading it as a beginner I can see someone reading it with a "oh I'm doing it wrong" mentality, that they then take the guides way of doing it as the "right" way. But then again, you can't control what people infer from your writings and they are strong guides. I just don't think the first place a newb player should go running to is an optimization guide.Those guides teach a certain style of play that isn't necessarily the Best way to play even if it claims to be the best way to play.I don't remember any of my guides making any such claim. The guides only make mechanical and tactical suggestions for characters, for players to take or leave at their leisure.
Build around character concept. Find stuff that compliments that & think you'll be pleased with the resultsThe part I emphasized is what class guides are all about.
That said, I think guides are a good place for a beginner to look to get some ideas about how to narrow the overwhelming number of races/feats/skills/spells to choose from.
For example, you can use my wizard guide to get really quick descriptions of what the spells do. This can be useful to someone who doesn't want to read through all the choices in their entirety but wants a quick run down.
Also, the guides give some quick and flexible tactical advice. Of course its all for the reader to take or leave if they wish.
I wish their were some guides for the Fighter and Cleric I could point you to, but there is an excellent Paladin guide right here:
Monk is a terrible class. The more newbies that stay clear of it, the better crossarmsglassesnerd.jpg
Having read your guide to monks, I actually think that it is an interesting read to take note from when you're an experienced player. That being said, when reading it as a beginner I can see someone reading it with a "oh I'm doing it wrong" mentality, that they then take the guides way of doing it as the "right" way. But then again, you can't control what people infer from your writings and they are strong guides. I just don't think the first place a newb player should go running to is an optimization guide.
I've seen a number of new players disappointed with the failure of their first characters in my personal experience.
Sometimes it ends up in that player giving up. The game is more complicated for new players than we sometimes remember. A lot of us were eased into roleplaying with much simpler systems like Basic D&D or 1st or 2nd ed.
Feats, skills, attributes, races, classes - getting the character they envision, or any kind of character where they can feel like they are contributing, can be difficult for someone who is new to these things. This can give them a sour taste for the whole experience.
I believe guides can give new players a leg up, a way to make a character right off where they can be pleased with the results. Nobody says "There is only one good way to make X character" in these guides, but a few pitfalls are pointed out, and suggestions are given that can make the innumerable choices available more manageable.
Remember that class guides aren't teaching rules loopholes or theoretical optimization, if they were, I could understand keeping new players away from them. Nor are they suggesting there is only one way to play your character, but they can be a useful tool for character building for new or experienced players IMO.
Most (if not all) of us already know how to optimize our characters and do so regularly. Things like having a high Wisdom for your Cleric, or taking Power Attack for your Barbarian, or knowing if you want a two weapon fighter that you will need a high dex score - we take these things for granted, but a new player may not. Guides can even the playing field for them.
'Lo you all.
All the players in my pathfinder group are new to D&D/D20/Pathfinder - some like "oh, 10 years ago I played 2 evenings AD%D" while others are more like "cool, I've played a german RPG for the last 10 years and only in decemver 09 I realised that there are other roleplaying games".
This means - we really dont have a clue. None.
No feeling for character building, the "consequences" of choices on low leves, when to buy what kind of eq, what spells are more efficient etc.I realised that after I've read a part of treantmonks wizard guide - and our bard wants to rebuild his char after reading the bard guide.
So I ask you all for help.
Really - any guide, FAQ, help,... you know and that works for the Pathfinder RPG would be a great help.
(at the moment our group (edit..) eerr.. party.. consists of a fighter, cleric, bard, paladin, sorcerer and monk)
Thank you all - for reading that and maybe for some help.
Good Night
One of the best things you can do is have the players in your group come on here and ask questions. Pick a class and start a thread. 'I want to make a Paladin, I dont know much about the game, can someone provide me with some direction?' Then you will have essentially an interactive guide tailored to you as people respond to your questions. You will also get lots of different view points instead of just the guide writer's. Hopefully with that you can better pick whatever options best suite you and how you and your group want to play.
Welcome Arthun
I agree with Kolokotroni's advice above - there's some fantastically creative people on these boards, so making use of them by starting an "ideas" thread for a particular class/character is a good shout.
With regards the system just go with the your character concepts/ideas... the traits system can give characters a great deal of flexibility with regards backgrounds/past experience/culture etc so I'd advise you make full use of these [I've found them a great boon in creating "unique" characters]
Just my 2 runes worth ;)
BD
Take a whole session together to build characters. My PF group is relatively new to 3x/PF, so we're all learning together. Sometimes our questions are as simple as "wait, do we roll our hit dice or take maximum value" or more complicated combat rules. Discovering the answers on your own through trial and error is much more efficient way to generate authentic learning experiences--you remember what you screw up more than with what you succeed.
Guides are fine, sure, like all the above have said. But my group typically has little to no interest in powergaming, and, if you're beginning like us, I'm not sure if going that route right now is worthwhile. 4e is more conducive to powergaming.
The rules are secondary to HAVING FUN. That's the most important rule to remember.
Guides are fine, sure, like all the above have said. But my group typically has little to no interest in powergaming, and, if you're beginning like us, I'm not sure if going that route right now is worthwhile. 4e is more conducive to powergaming.
ghwah? 4e is conducive to powergaming? The game is so rigidly balanced and the mechanics all so similar you CANT powergame. Very little you do will make your character more powerful in 4E. And if you just pick random powers and feats as you move down the line in levels in 4E, your character will still be ok (most powers work all on their own). Pathfinder is not as such. You can easily put together combinations of feats and classes that are more powerful then average, and you can easily make choices that least to a very ineffective character.
Please note that this is not a snipe at 4E. They set out to create a balanced game, and that they certainly accomplished in my opinion.
Make them write out character concepts. And that doesn't mean "I'm a fighter", it means " I want a character that is expert with a sword, and can do a variety of things that even trained soldiers cannot do"
Then, at the end of each session (and plan time for this) have a discussion about how well or how poorly each character did, and then allow changes to take place. You don't have to break the rules and give out extra stuff, but if a player says "that spell doesn't do what I though it would", then let them trade.
Reflection leads to learning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy tips:
The game is designed so that primary attacks hit, most of the time. Good defenses include AC, HP, and saving throws. Ignoring one leads to a bad time.
Direct damage spells are MUCH worse than in earlier versions of the game (2e). Spells like Enlarge Person and Haste will do more damage, by a factor of three to five.
Bards work best by 1) being versatile and 2) helping everyone else to specialize
The game is built around specialization. Be good at your 'thing', and THEN worry about the rest. The exception is rogues. A rogue who is only sneaky is useless, rogues have to be able to fight too.
For fighting, archery or a two handed weapon will do better than two small weapons, unless you already know how to build the two weapon guy correctly.
For spells, a sorceror or bard HAS to think that each spell is cool, since you're using them over and over and over.
A hodge-podge of dudes who use teamwork will beat optimized munchkins who don't.
I'm an experienced roleplayer and I must say, after thoroughly enjoying Treantmonk's guides, my fellow roleplayers absolutely hate that I ever came across them.
Thank you all for your answers.
First of all - I've never been a powergamer or minmaxxer or sth else for the sake of getting high numbers, kill much, etc pp.
I am more a roleplayer or simulationist - but I always thought, that a character should be built in a way enabling him to do his thing.
Simply I don't think a character who is not good at what he WANTS to do and who ignores "better choices" ist not really believable.
So I am not really looking for "powergaming/minmaxxing" guides but simply for help with understanding the mechanics.
But honestly - as far as I understand all of the answers, you figured that out pretty easily.
I pointed my friends to this thread - but I don't know about them using it. Me personally - I will (ab)use the offer of help :-)
So my fighter -
In the beginning I thought about building an elven fighter with finesse and a curved blad. But soon I figured that the finesse feat is kind of.. er.. not-a-good-idea for a fighter with a two-handed weapon.
So I played arround with stats and decided to creat a human fighter with a two-handed weapon who will go for "whirlwind attack".
On one hand, there are more ability requirements (dex & int 13), you need more feats and you won't get a "real bonus" on level 1 (contrary to the power attack / cleave way of things).
On the other hand, I figure(d) that whirlwind is more usefull and "better" den then cleave because you take your attack on every possible target without needing to hit one of them. And you can use it with the lunge feat.
Furthermore I wanted a fighter with more then 3 skillranks per level - so a high int score was not really bad for me (there is no roleplaying game in which I like using "dump stats" - except the concept of a character asked for it).
The stats of
Elias
Human Fighter
Bastard of the Surtova Family
Deft Dodger
Str 15 Dex 13 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 9 Cha 10
Feats:
Weapon Focus
Dazzling Display
Dodge
(lvl 2: Combat Expertise)
Skills:
Climb 1 Craft (armor) 2 Craft (weapons) 2
Intimidate 1 Know. (eng.) 1 Ride 1
HP 23 (10+2+7+2+2xfavored class)
In the beginning the dazzling display feat - chain looked nice. But now
I think that it takes to many feats in combination with whirlwind.
Also it would be better with a character that has an charisma bonus of at least 1.
I play to get the following feats on the first 9 levels:
1: Dodge, Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display
2: Combat Expertise
3: Mobility
4: Spring Attack; Drop Dazzling Display and get Whirlwind Attack
5:
6:Lunge
7:
8:Improved Critial
9:Critical Focus
For 5 & 7 I am really undecided.
Iron Will is nice for a fighter. But we got a Paladin that also gives me a save bonus as long as I am near him.
Toughness looks nice to me.
Vital Strike is considered.. vital.. for a fighter by many as far as I get it.
The feats that follow Weapon Focus are look good too (higher attack / damage) - on the other hand, I only took the Focus when I thought about using Dazzling Display & Co.
Our group consists of:
Sorcerer (Draconic)
Cleric (Erastil)
Monk
Bard
Paladin (Iomedae)
Thanks for any hints :)
Since you are wanting whirlwind attack, you will be trying to hit and damage as many enemies as possible. It takes several feats to get and necessarily limits your ability to take other 'feat chains.' Furthermore, to make use of whirlwind attack, you won't be able to do combat maneuvers at the same time (such as grapple, bull rush, etc.).
Given the makeup of your party members, it looks like your job will primarily be dealing out lots of damage, especially to multiple weaker foes. So whirlwind is a pretty good choice for you to make. You have a large party with all of the bases covered, so you aren't really going to be called upon to do much else.
The reason I point this out is that your remaining feats should thus focus on a) improving your attack and damage (e.g. weapon spec), b) shoring up weaknesses (e.g. Iron Will), and c) filling out your character (e.g. skill focus).
I would definitely want power attack if using a two-handed weapon. The damage trade off is really big for a two-handed weapon. At 9th level you are taking a -3 to hit and gaining +9 damage. Even at first level it is a -1 to attack for +3 damage, which is a pretty big deal at that level. And that will work when doing the whirlwind attack. I would take Power Attack at 1st instead of Dazzling Display, then you could either take Whirlwind at 5th, or switch out Power Attack for Whirlwind at 4th and pick up Power Attack again at 5th.
Obviously the 'critical' feats such as blinding critical will be good for you. Especially if you are using a high threat range weapon such as a falchion and you have improved critical with the falchion.
The weapon focus, weapon spec, and greater versions are also excellent choices if you are focusing on a single weapon type. Stacking the benefits of those feats with your Weapon Training ability will greatly increase your attack and damage abilities. These feats also help offset any penalties you take to attacks from Power Attack.
All the above feats will benefit when using Whirlwind attack.
One feat you should not overlook at higher levels would be Penetrating Strike. That lets you ignore damage reduction of a target. Although you will probably be doing lots of damage anyways, so damage reduction usually won't be a big problem for you.
Vital strike is good if you plan on doing a lot of Spring Attack-ing. But since you have whirlwind attack you are going to want to get into the middle of the action so you can whirlwind. And you can't vital strike when whirlwinding. So I'd probably avoid that since you can't use both.
Improved Initiative is a good feat for anybody. And it will help you get into the middle of the enemy faster so you can start whirlwinding.
Toughness is ok, but you should have good hitpoints already.
Step up is a really good feat for your type of fighter. For one, it prevents spellcasters from stepping away from you to cast spells, as you can move with them. And two, this can be used strategically at times to get into better positions for lunge/whirlwind.
All in all, I'd probably focus on just making sure I hit when I attack and I hit hard when I swing. So I'd probably add in Power Attack and Weapon Spec (Falchion). After that I'd look at critical feats and the greater weapon focus/spec feats, and maybe try to squeeze in improved initiative and penetrating strike.
For skills, I'd say to spread your skill points around to all your class skills to take advantage of the +3 bonus for being trained in a class skill. I'd put a few points into your movement skills (climb, swim, acrobatics) so you can do those without too much trouble. Survival is a very good skill to have, as it lets you get by in the wild and its what is used to track enemies. I'd probably keep that maxed. I'd probably also try to keep a high Intimidate skill, as thats likely the one social skill that the rest of your party won't be able to do. You can be the silent tough guy who doesn't say anything, and the other guys can be like 'yeah, tell us what we want to know, or well have Elias over there come over and say a few words to ya.' I mean, its nice to be able to do things outside of swinging your sword.
Finally on skills, crafting is difficult and time consuming, so you probably won't be doing too much of it, if any. I wouldn't put too many skill points into that, probably no more than to get my total bonus to a +10. Given your intelligence, plus class skill bonus, plus +2 from using masterwork crafting tools, I wouldn't put more than 4 total skill points into any of the craft skills. That gives you a net total of +10 to craft skill checks, and you can then take 10 for an even 20 on crafting checks. Put your skill points where you can use them, such as Intimidate, Survival, Knowledge (dungeoneering), etc..
Hope this helps. Have fun!
Yes, your post helps :-)
But Elias uses a greatsword, not a falchion.
Not really because of 2D6 being "better" then 2D4 but more because I really did not find a picture of a "cool" twohanded falchion..
|
|
Thank you all for your answers.
First of all - I've never been a powergamer or minmaxxer or sth else for the sake of getting high numbers, kill much, etc pp.
I am more a roleplayer or simulationist - but I always thought, that a character should be built in a way enabling him to do his thing.
Simply I don't think a character who is not good at what he WANTS to do and who ignores "better choices" ist not really believable.
Really, really? You think people doing things they totally aren't cut out for and ignore "better choices" is not really believable?
Okay, whenever I hear that statement. I have to tell people to watch a show I don't actually like. but not the whole show. You need to start watching american idol during the tryouts. And look at the lines. There are tons of people there who are convinced they rock at singing and spend money on lessons, when they have the singing talent of a pack mule. And then there are lots of people who audition all the time who even though they may have the spark of talent, never bothered to get singing lessons or practice and thus they just don't make it. Despite the fact that there are lessons available and practicing is easy as actually singing in front of others once in a while.
I'm sorry if anything is unbelievable its characters who have only made the "right" choices for themselves. Each feat taken builds on pre-existing options or enhances them just right. They've never taken skill-focus craft (knots) just because they read a book on knot tying and decided, "hey that looks like fun. I never do anything with knots, but I'm going to spend 4-6 hours a day practicing tying all the knots until I can tie them in my sleep because it looks fun."
Even people who put themselves in life or death situations. I can introduce you to cops who I could beat to a pulp and fire-fighters that can't run 5 blocks. People who are supposed to wrestle criminals and be able to carry an unconcious body down 5 flights of stairs, but they've been at their jobs for a while and comfortably let themselves go. If you have fun making your characters somewhat optimal, and I believe you when you say you aren't a min/maxer or anything, more power to you. But please don't say that people making sub-par choices is unbelievable. It's the farthest statement from the truth that can exist on the face of the planet.
Arthun, Power Attack is really the most important feat you can really take IMO. Drop Dazzling Display at lvl 1 and pick it up. Your stats don't really make Dazzling Display worthwhile anyway, no charisma, and your not spending a feat on skill focus or intimidating prowess on it. I have nothing against Dazzling Display, but it just wont work the way you want it to on this guy. Power Attack on the other hand will be used all the time.
You may think the later feats are good, but there is a reason you can find threads asking if Deadly Stroke is a trap, since only fighters can qualify for it and shattered defenses doesn't do much for them. Rogues and barbarians on the other hand love the chain.
Really, really? You think people doing things they totally aren't cut out for and ignore "better choices" is not really believable?
Ah.. I guess I did not really say what I wanted to.
Let me put it this way - for example thereis a german roleplaying game. In it's community the "Anti Powergaming Police" says, even if you play a fighter, you are only allowed to have a rank of X in your weapon skill. Got more? You are a powergamer who does no characterplay.
I simply say, that it's kind of strange to have a fighter with a relative low combat skill doing much fighting and still getting old.
@Caineach:
I'll try to get my GM to let me swap Dazzling vs Power Attack.
In the case he says no, I'll drop it on lvl 4 anyways to get whirlwind. And pick Power Attack on lvl 5.
|
|
stuff
Heh, don't worry, like I said, i believe him when he says he isn't trying to min/max or powergame. I was just trying to explain that people in real life make poor choices all the time. So it's actually perfectly believable to have feats or skills that aren't the best choices.
And just because feats and skills are static and unchanging doesn't mean you have to plan a build. Believe me, I learned to play with 3.5 and switched to pathfinder. And there is nothing wrong with not planning your build at all. Take for example the game i'm running right now. I have a sorcerer/oracle who's feats are exotic weapon proficiency, point blank shot, leadership, and skill focus. A rogue going two weapon fighting, and a monk with no real direction. None of them are optimized and none of them really plan ahead, they take feats as they think they need them at the time. And we are currently running Rise of the Runelord and they are starting the Hook Mountain Massacre and have been doing just fine.
Mystic Theurges are generally considered weak, and this one is using all his feats on crossbow use which is definitely considered sub-par for spellcasters.
Two weapon fighting rogues are considered glass cannons
and monks, well they are fine, but most people think they need a little work.
And we are progressing just fine through what is considered a pretty tough campaign.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with just playing and taking whatever seems appropriate at the time. You may end up with weaker feats, but the system still holds out just fine, and you can do just as well without planning or "builds"
Hi folks, it's me, the Bard. : D
Hey everyone, I'm the Bard in Arthuns group.
Welcome to pathfinder. Hope you enjoy your stay :)
I have to say, that I like this new "way of gaming", although it seems difficult to me. I've been playing a German RP (The Black Eye or Das Schwarze Auge, if somebody wants to know) for 15 years (and I'm still playing) and this is a completley different system than the PF/DnD-system is. For example you buy your Feats, Skills and even Ability Points with your XP and you have to buy many more, than in PF. But on the other side it doesn't hurt, if you get a "wrong" feat. You can just buy another one. And you don't waste a "slot". So you don't have to plan your character like you have to in PF and that's the thing I completely have to come along with.
Dont be afraid to make mistakes. You will. We all did, we all do. You will choose things that dont work out they way you thought they would. You will misinterpret rules (It was only during the 3.5 to pathfinder change that my group realized we had been using a rule wrong since the advent of 3.5). Dont worry about it. If something goes wrong, talk to your DM about changing it. For new groups I always advise people to allow their players to changing things around for the first few levels (between sessions not at the table) because no one wants to get stuck with a character that doesnt work for whatever it is they want to do.
But it's not about the system it's about roleplaying. And I think, that I'm a good player. Nevertheless I want to optimize (oh, what a bad word!) my character in some way, so he can fit in the role I want him to fit and he can act in his role quite good.
No reason you cant do both. Just because a character is mechanically sound doesnt mean you cant have fun roleplaying them.
That's why I read the guides (Perhaps I should have read them before I made a character but sometimes I'm too slow... *lol*) and I realized, that there are some things experienced PF/DnD-Players won't have done. E.g. taking CHA as highest stat instead of STR or DEX or taking the Extratrait-Feat (I'm perhaps the only person, who takes this... ; ). By now it fits the role I chose for my bard (being the ultimate supporter for the crew^^), but how will this go on?
You will find that experienced playes do a whole range of things, especially with the bard. What stat you pick as your highest stat for a bard entirely depends on what you want him to do. I assume you read treantmonks bard guide? He has alot of great advice in there, but in the end it depends on what's most important to you.
I have to take some basic archery-Feats (Point-Blank and Precise Shot) to do at least some damage in combat. But when am I supposed to take this. I'm now at level 2. Should I choose the first one with level 3 or could I wait untill level 5 to take this Feats? I'd also like to take Skill Focus (Perform; twice, three times??) or a Feat, which allows me to perform 2 Bardic Performances at the same time.*
Unless a feat says so you cannot take it more then once. Taking skill focus perform multiple times would have to apply to different perform types. That really isnt neccessary. Pick one primary perform (preferably singing or oratory, where you dont need to rely on having an instrument) and focus in that. If you want to be able to be an archer in combat, you need point blank and precise shot. Untill you get those you will have alot of trouble shooting a bow in combat. You will be able to perfrom effectively from the minute you get a rank in perform, so it isnt as urgent.
That homebrew feat is a good one, if it's allowed I would definately take it. Particularly if your goal is to be the best support character. But depending on how it works it could eat through your perform ability fast. Does it use up double the amount of perform rounds? If so I would wait untill later levels to take it.
Skilling instead seems to be easy: first I try to get one skill rank in every class skill, to get the +3, and then I max some of them. Of course I max my Perform Skills at Level 1.^^
With 9 skill ranks each level this is no big problem.
These skill ranks dont go as far as you think. You certainly should try not to stretch your skills too far, particularly since you are the only real skill character in your group. Skill that are opposed, (bluff, Diplomac, Perception, Sense motive in particular) should be maxed. And ofcourse your primary performance type should be maxed. The rest of your skill points you can spread around as you see fit, but make sure you keep the most important ones in max ranks. You dont want to miss the enemies sneaking up you, fail to lie to the town guard, or not notice the merchant is cheating you). In my opinion you are normally better off focusing in a few skills then spreading yourself too think and trying to cover them all.
PPS: My English is not the best and to write is more difficult, than to read, so I apologize for that. : )
Nothing to apologize for. You write better then many native speakers. (I am assuming you are german) Your english is far better then my german after all.
So I ask you all for help.
Really - any guide, FAQ, help,... you know and that works for the Pathfinder RPG would be a great help.
I'd be aware the guides and FAQs only constitute a set of opinions. Take everything as a suggestion (will negates).
My advice is to *not* specialize in some single concept, particularly if you're a new player. Play generally -- don't aim for complicated feat combinations and odd class pairings. Don't multiclass. Don't let the numbers sway you (numbers are quite often wrong and out of context).
fighter, cleric, bard, paladin, sorcerer and monk
This is a fun group. To get an idea of what a particular class should be doing -- its role -- you can read the beginning of each class under the "Role" text. This can give you enough information to figure out what is expected (both from the player with the character and other players in the party) from each class.
For instance, one class that I've seen players have problems with is a monk.
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
- Overcoming perils -- they're are good at making saving throws and avoiding bad spells.
- Striking where it's least expected -- they're able to penetrate to the back line of combat to hit units that aren't supposed to be hit (quite often ranged casters and archers).
- Taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities -- they use a toolkit of abilities to make both offensive and defensive actions (trip, disarm, stun, etc.)
- Fleet of foot -- they use abilities and skills to help with movement.
- Aiding allies -- they support teammates spread out on the battlefield. While some classes can get mired down with heavy armor, monks can quickly (and often painlessly) relocate to assist their team.
Monks are potentially usable in other aspects of the game -- but they shine in the above examples. Play toward these advantages and you'll have more fun with the monk.
This can be done with each other class. It helps to carefully read these introductory sections to give yourself a good idea about what you'll be asked to do.
Thank you all for your answers.
First of all - I've never been a powergamer or minmaxxer or sth else for the sake of getting high numbers, kill much, etc pp.
I am more a roleplayer or simulationist - but I always thought, that a character should be built in a way enabling him to do his thing.
Simply I don't think a character who is not good at what he WANTS to do and who ignores "better choices" ist not really believable.
Really, really? You think people doing things they totally aren't cut out for and ignore "better choices" is not really believable?
Okay, whenever I hear that statement. I have to tell people to watch a show I don't actually like. but not the whole show. You need to start watching american idol during the tryouts. And look at the lines. There are tons of people there who are convinced they rock at singing and spend money on lessons, when they have the singing talent of a pack mule. And then there are lots of people who audition all the time who even though they may have the spark of talent, never bothered to get singing lessons or practice and thus they just don't make it. Despite the fact that there are lessons available and practicing is easy as actually singing in front of others once in a while.
I'm sorry if anything is unbelievable its characters who have only made the "right" choices for themselves. Each feat taken builds on pre-existing options or enhances them just right. They've never taken skill-focus craft (knots) just because they read a book on knot tying and decided, "hey that looks like fun. I never do anything with knots, but I'm going to spend 4-6 hours a day practicing tying all the knots until I can tie them in my sleep because it looks fun."
Even people who put themselves in life or death situations. I can introduce you to cops who I could beat to a pulp and fire-fighters that can't run 5 blocks. People who are supposed to wrestle criminals and be able to carry an unconcious body down 5 flights of stairs, but they've been at...
If those people can't get into American Idol, how the hell are they supposed to survive a life of constantly putting themselves in death or probable death situations?
I find it completely believable that people who live to throw themselves into death's way and then just barely get out in the nick of time would be good at what they do. When people make characters that are terrible at their job - like 13 int wizards - then yes, I find that unbelievable. Why are they adventurers, and how did they survive for so long?
Beyond that, to actually BE meta about it, they also make the game less fun for the rest of the group. Everyone has been in a group where one player makes something entirely worthless, and the whole group has to carry him around 'cause he can't do anything on his own. That's not fun. It's not realistic either. Why are these battle hardened adventurers constantly bringing back this loser who can barely cast cantrips?
|
|
If those people can't get into American Idol, how the hell are they supposed to survive a life of constantly putting themselves in death or probable death situations?
I find it completely believable that people who live to throw themselves into death's way and then just barely get out in the nick of time would be good at what they do. When people make characters that are terrible at their job - like 13 int wizards - then yes, I find that unbelievable. Why are they adventurers, and how did they survive for so long?Beyond that, to actually BE meta about it, they also make the game less fun for the rest of the group. Everyone has been in a group where one player makes something entirely worthless, and the whole group has to carry him around 'cause he can't do anything on his own. That's not fun. It's not realistic either. Why are these battle hardened adventurers constantly bringing back this loser who can barely cast cantrips?
No but I can guarantee that overweight firemen who shouldn't be allowed to do anything that involves putting other peoples lives in their hands exist. And yeah soldiers who really aren't cut out for war and make terrible decisions even with life or death on the line exist, I've read stories about civilian conscripts in african militia forces that would make you go "Bwah?" and as for for your entirely worthless scenario you say everyone has been in? no I haven't been in that situation. The worst I've come across is a bard with physical stats of str 7, dex 10, con 13 who wanted to use a bow. But he certainly wasn't useless because of his bard song and spells. And all it took was saying, hey, maybe you should look into using alchemical weapons instead of a bow. So I can't say I've had that experience. And yeah it does seem realistic, because hey when you're in the military you don't get to choose your unit. And there will be some guys who are good at what they do, and others you are convinced are going to get themselves or someone else killed, yet they are put up with as long as they find some way to make themselves useful.
I'm sorry, but in no way do I believe every person who puts themselves in dangerous situations regularly does everything in their power to make sure they are the best they can be at what they do. Now if you want to play a game where every character represents some form of medieval navy seal, that's fine. But that's not calling for realism IMO, I play DnD to create a persona and see how that persona reacts to the situations he's dealt, sometimes I play the navy seal, sometimes I play the guy who was drafted and doesn't really want to be there but is doing his duty. But neither is more realistic than the other.
I'm sorry, but in no way do I believe every person who puts themselves in dangerous situations regularly does everything in their power to make sure they are the best they can be at what they do. Now if you want to play a game where every character represents some form of medieval navy seal, that's fine. But that's not calling for realism IMO, I play DnD to create a persona and see how that persona reacts to the situations he's dealt, sometimes I play the navy seal, sometimes I play the guy who was drafted and doesn't really want to be there but is doing his duty. But neither is more realistic than the other.
I dont disagree with your style as long as it is accounted for by the other players and the dm. If you want to be the african conscript that is fine, just seems like an odd story to me. Does dnd or pathfinder represent 'real life'? My impression has always been we are telling a story along the ines you would find in literature or film. Heroes have flaws surely, but generally they work to be better at what they do. There is fantasy novel written staring the incompetant conscript, or the foolish overweight fisherman. It doesnt make for good story telling. Heroes need to be capable to overcome challenges. And certainly the game assumes that. When the CR system says 5 it doesnt assume incompetant overweight underpayed unmotivated security guard. It expects the competant if not perfect hero.
If your dm is willing to adjust encounters, and your fellow players are willing to compensate there is nothing wrong with what you are trying to do with your characters, but I definately think it is not the kind of story the game has in mind in regards to it's design.
IMHO all that is a question of style and/or personal taste.
I don't think that the game really is designed in a that special way.
As far as I recall one of Paizo staff (or more then one of them) has said, that Pathfinder Modules / Adventure Paths are written in a way, that makes them.. doable? achievable? (sry, don't really know what english word to use in that context) by "suboptimal created" characters.
And the "Anti Powergaming Police" I mentioned? Hell, I have absolutly no problem with their way of playing, it's their game. But I get annoyed if they tell me, that I don't know how to play / am a bad roleplayer / a powergamer / ruleabuser / ... or something like that.
I absolutly did not want to say, that there is a true, realistic, better then other,.. way of playing.
Sorry if someone understood it that way.
And now for something completly different - the GM Guide still is some weeks/months away and I am looking for help and data for creating a setting (something like the Sewer Rat Setting one of you posted in this thread).
There are sources in the Core Rulebook - but not that much.
Is there a wizard/sorcerer like npc class?
How big are the settlement types in the table for random magical items (hamlet etc pp)?
And much more - I've always been a fan of homebrew, creating own cultures, nations, races etc pp. Are there sources on the web?
Oh - should I switch from the greatsword to falchion?
Oh - should I switch from the greatsword to falchion?
Greatsword and Falchion are roughly equal in terms of damage, with the greatsword in the lead IRRC, until either 1. you start doing a certain ammount of damage, I think ~20, per hit or 2. You get feats or abilities that improve crits. Then the Falchion pulls ahead, because the expected bonus of a crit exceeds the +2 average damage. A keen Falchion is even better.
|
|
I dont disagree with your style as long as it is accounted for by the other players and the dm. If you want to be the african conscript that is fine, just seems like an odd story to me. Does dnd or pathfinder represent 'real life'? My impression has always been we are telling a story along the ines you would find in literature or film. Heroes have flaws surely, but generally they work to be better at what they do. There is fantasy novel written staring the incompetant conscript, or the foolish overweight fisherman. It doesnt make for good story telling. Heroes need to be capable to overcome challenges. And certainly the game assumes that. When the CR system says 5 it doesnt assume incompetant overweight underpayed unmotivated security guard. It expects the competant if not perfect hero.I'm sorry, but in no way do I believe every person who puts themselves in dangerous situations regularly does everything in their power to make sure they are the best they can be at what they do. Now if you want to play a game where every character represents some form of medieval navy seal, that's fine. But that's not calling for realism IMO, I play DnD to create a persona and see how that persona reacts to the situations he's dealt, sometimes I play the navy seal, sometimes I play the guy who was drafted and doesn't really want to be there but is doing his duty. But neither is more realistic than the other.
Sorry to prove you wrong but... this kinda disproves your point. and there are other characters who start out with no skills whatsoever in novels, who by the end are competent. Perrin from the wheel of time series wants to go back to being a blacksmith half the time through the novels. Even though his blacksmith skills serve him no purpose in what is going on in his life. I can come up with more if you need them.
And did I even say create rincewind, no I said that it isn't unrealistic to have characters with choices that aren't 100% geared towards their exact specialty. I'm sorry but if a fighter with 13 feats 1 of which happens to be skill focus craft (basket weaving) as one of them that doesn't turn them into an incompetent overweight underpayed unmotivated character. I might as well say, you're character has power attack. Well that's fine, if every game you want to play as pun-pun. Why don't we treat each other as adults instead of taking each others arguments to the extreme shall we?
If your dm is willing to adjust encounters, and your fellow players are willing to compensate there is nothing wrong with what you are trying to do with your characters, but I definately think it is not the kind of story the game has in mind in regards to it's design.
Um I'm sorry, what part of I'm running rise of the runelords with a monk, and a sorcerer/oracle mystic theurge, and a TWF rogue, didn't you understand. I haven't adjusted jack for them, other than to make the enemys they fight pathfinder compatible. Are you telling me that the players in my game none of whom have used a optimized path for their characters can't make it through the game or that it isn't designed for them. You have this serious issue of hearing, it's not unrealistic to have characters make poorer choices or not be optimized to leaping to "HE'S ADVOCATING THAT WE ALL PLAY INT 8 WIZARDS." Once again. A character who sees that the party needs more healing and decides to go theurge even though he's doing so with a sorcerer and oracle levels which is the worst way to do it, isn't unrealistic or uneffective. Nor should it break your sense of realism, or make you want to kick him out of the party.
(Has someone experience with having no combat feats as a parttime-fighter (untill level 7/9)? And I definitely have to fight!...
This is an excellent question for your GM. Ask if the campaign will involve more combat, or more use of skills.
If you do not get a good answer, then you should mix things up. Take a skill focus and an archery feat to start. By third level, it should be easy to decide what is more important.
After a time, you will end up in the same place. Skill Focus, Skill Focus, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot. So it's really only the order we are talking about.
I've played a very similar character before, and my choice was to take the archery feats to start, and then the others. I was very happy with the result.
|
|
IMHO all that is a question of style and/or personal taste.
I don't think that the game really is designed in a that special way.
As far as I recall one of Paizo staff (or more then one of them) has said, that Pathfinder Modules / Adventure Paths are written in a way, that makes them.. doable? achievable? (sry, don't really know what english word to use in that context) by "suboptimal created" characters.And the "Anti Powergaming Police" I mentioned? Hell, I have absolutly no problem with their way of playing, it's their game. But I get annoyed if they tell me, that I don't know how to play / am a bad roleplayer / a powergamer / ruleabuser / ... or something like that.
I absolutly did not want to say, that there is a true, realistic, better then other,.. way of playing.
Sorry if someone understood it that way.
I never thought you took it that way. Once again, I never once claimed you were trying to powergame or that your beliefs made you a powergamer. I was merely pointing out that it isn't any more realistic to have a person who has focused on a path and stuck to it through all his training and adventures, as to have a guy who's done things as they seem needed and doesn't have the focus or specific skills trained to their max. That was the only point that I'm trying to make is that a character who makes all the right choices is no more real than one who doesn't. He may or may not be more fun to play, but he's not more real.
Sorry to prove you wrong but... this kinda disproves your point. and there are other characters who start out with no skills whatsoever in novels, who by the end are competent. Perrin from the wheel of time series wants to go back to being a blacksmith half the time through the novels. Even though his blacksmith skills serve him no purpose in what is going on in his life. I can come up with more if you need them.
And did I even say create rincewind, no I said that it isn't unrealistic to have characters with choices that aren't 100% geared towards their exact specialty. I'm sorry but if a fighter with 13 feats 1 of which happens to be skill focus craft (basket weaving) as one of them that doesn't turn them into an incompetent overweight underpayed unmotivated character. I might as well say, you're character has power attack. Well that's fine, if every game you want to play as pun-pun. Why don't we treat each other as adults instead of taking each others arguments to the extreme shall we?
I havent read the color of magic, but I like terry prachet, so I will pick it up at some point. And I know there are 'Joe Normal' style stories out there with fantasy elements in them, but I dont think that is the style of story dnd/pathfinder is meant to tell.
Um I'm sorry, what part of I'm running rise of the runelords with a monk, and a sorcerer/oracle mystic theurge, and a TWF rogue, didn't you understand. I haven't adjusted jack for them, other than to make the enemys they fight pathfinder compatible. Are you telling me that the players in my game none of whom have used a optimized path for their characters can't make it through the game or that it isn't designed for them. You have this serious issue of hearing, it's not unrealistic to have characters make poorer choices or not be optimized to leaping to "HE'S ADVOCATING THAT WE ALL PLAY INT 8 WIZARDS." Once again. A character who sees that the party needs more healing and decides to go theurge even though he's doing so with a sorcerer and oracle levels which is the worst way to do it, isn't unrealistic or uneffective. Nor should it break your sense of realism, or make you want to kick him out of the party.
We have different definitions of poor. with a 3 person party of the composition, it certainly makes sense for a charcter to go MT. And at least for me there is a difference between suboptimal, and poor. I do not believe you need to be optimized to deal with appropriate choices, you just need to be reasonable about them. A fighter taking skill focus craft is not a poor choice to me, its just a suboptimal one. Which is not a problem. Now if that fighter took ALL skill focuses, or even a half dozen of them, then i'd say this isnt going to work.
A Perrin like character who takes skill focus craft and wants to become a blacksmith doesnt diminish his heroism in my mind. (i havent actually read a wheel of time so i dont know the character) If he actually BECAME a blacksmith, and set up a shop, got married, had a couple kids, and made horse shoes throughout the story though, I dont think anyone would want to read it.
|
|
I still don't see the point or the proof that was presented as proof....
There is fantasy novel written staring the incompetant conscript, or the foolish overweight fisherman. It doesnt make for good story telling.
He said that a novel written starring an incompetent conscript doesn't make for a good story, I linked him to a book about a wizard who can't cast spells. In the 7 books he stars in, he only ever manages to cast one spell, and that's in the second book he's in. After that, he's a wizard, and he's incompetent, yet time and again he saves the day. So that's the proof that he was wrong, I'm sorry if you don't see that. Maybe you were thinking I was proving everything he said wrong and not responding just to that statement.
The link to Perrin was about a character who starts out with no skill, and even though he "levels up" continues to devote skill and energy to being a blacksmith, (in other words wasted skill ranks and maybe even feats) Yet is still a compelling character who is not useless.
|
|
We have different definitions of poor. with a 3 person party of the composition, it certainly makes sense for a charcter to go MT. And at least for me there is a difference between suboptimal, and poor. I do not believe you need to be optimized to deal with appropriate choices, you just need to be reasonable about them. A fighter taking skill focus craft is not a poor choice to me, its just a suboptimal one. Which is not a problem. Now if that fighter took ALL skill focuses, or even a half dozen of them, then i'd say this isnt going to worse.
In all fairness I think taking craft basketweaving if you are a fighter is a poor choice. even if you only take it once. It's still a waste of a limited resource. I never implied that characters start or stay useless, merely that it isn't anymore realistic to have a person who's made only the "right" choice at every level than one who every once in a while makes a choice that fits their character but doesn't add to the combat necessarily. I never once went to the point of saying that playing a useless character is more realistic merely that it isn't more realistic to be optimized just because you're going into life or death situations.
Linking to Rincewind doesn't really help your example if the person is asking for a story about a hero. Rincewind runs from every fight and every confrontation he can, and is a comedic character, not a heroic one, typically winning out in the end through bizarre luck and divine intervention.
You can't really make a character based on that, unless it's a DMPC.
|
|
Linking to Rincewind doesn't really help your example if the person is asking for a story about a hero. Rincewind runs from every fight and every confrontation he can, and is a comedic character, not a heroic one, typically winning out in the end through bizarre luck and divine intervention.
You can't really make a character based on that, unless it's a DMPC.
Um look at the line I quoted. The arguement was that a story about an incompetent conscript is a bad piece of fantasy storytelling, not that he was a bad hero. I linked to rincewind, an incompetent person forced into being a hero (i.e. conscripted) which is a very good piece of fantasy storytelling. Or are you saying it's a bad story? And I never once said make a character based off of rincewind or tried to advocate making a character like rincewind so I don't even know why you people keep trying to tell me that it doesn't work or shouldn't be done.
You know you really shouldn't advocate making miniatures out of Jello ProfessorCirno, they'd melt all over your game board and make a mess after so much handling. the only way that would work is if you made them as display pieces and left them in your fridge.
Kind of annoying when people start talking about things you never said in the first place isn't it?
Linking to Rincewind doesn't really help your example if the person is asking for a story about a hero. Rincewind runs from every fight and every confrontation he can, and is a comedic character, not a heroic one, typically winning out in the end through bizarre luck and divine intervention.
You can't really make a character based on that, unless it's a DMPC.
Um look at the line I quoted. The arguement was that a story about an incompetent conscript is a bad piece of fantasy storytelling, not that he was a bad hero. I linked to rincewind, an incompetent person forced into being a hero (i.e. conscripted) which is a very good piece of fantasy storytelling. Or are you saying it's a bad story? And I never once said make a character based off of rincewind or tried to advocate making a character like rincewind so I don't even know why you people keep trying to tell me that it doesn't work or shouldn't be done.
You know you really shouldn't advocate making miniatures out of Jello ProfessorCirno, they'd melt all over your game board and make a mess after so much handling. the only way that would work is if you made them as display pieces and left them in your fridge.
Kind of annoying when people start talking about things you never said in the first place isn't it?
I'm more or less saying that the kind of story Rincewind is in is not the kind of story you'd see in D&D. You can't really use him as an example as an incompetent conscript becoming a hero on accident, because his power is more or less "power of plot." It's not that he translates poorly to D&D, it's that he doesn't at all.