I always try to make my characters 'self-sufficient' as much as possible - being able to know the tools of the trade (albeit not in a scholarly way like a Wizard) is always useful.
As much as I would like to build a self-sufficient character, some skills are best left to more specialized characters (Sense Motive for Divine, for example, being Wis based).
er??
Spellcraft and Knowledge(arcana) are both Int based. You seem to be saying that you took them because you want your character to be self-sufficient. Sense Motive is Wis based. You say you chose not to be self-sufficient because it is Wis based.
That's not computing.
I know that it seems a contradditory reasonment. I would try to make it more clear (of course, you could still disagree with me at the end).
Being an Arcane caster, in my view the Sorcerer shold know at least some basic tools of his trade (represented by the Spellcraft skill and the Knowledge Arcana skill); although he would never be as able as a Wizard (Intelligence is not his main Ability), he should took at least some skill ranks, just to be sure to know what he is doing.'Cool, what did you just do to them?'
'Who knows, I simply waved my hands and fire came off...'
This could be fun - for the first couple of times only...
So, in this case, I try to make the character as much 'self-sufficient' as possible. Of course, having few skill points, he has to renounce to other skills (as much useful as they are).
Perception, I agree with you - it should have always some ranks, if creating a character who could also possible go alone. Even Sense Motive is useful (if you are collecting info by yourself, how can you be sure that the guy next to you told the truth ?). In the end, it's all to you and your vision of the character you are trying to create. If he is an info-gatherer, of course Sense Motive, Perception (and maybe even Stealth) are more useful than Spellcraft and Knowledge Arcana... but you still have not so much skill points in the end, and so either you pump up a few skills to the stars (but you end being able only to do a few things well - which is not a bad thing, if you are in a varied party) - , or you take some skills very high (not to the max) and give some 'backup skills' (miniumum ranks, just in case) - which would end in a character being able to do some things well and a few things in a sufficient way - , or you split your ranks among a lot of abilities, becoming a 'jack-of-all-trades' - but this result would vary in a huge way depending on Class Bonuses, Ability scores, Feats and Competence bonuses from Magic Items (3 ranks and nothing else would be worse than 1 rank + 3 class skill + 5 Ability score). In the end, for the character I made, I opted for choice n°2 (some skills very high, some backup skills) but I had still to renounce to something. Of course, this character was made a bit in a vacuum, and it could have some swapping in skill points (as I said, I could have given a couple of skill ranks to Perception, but with Wis 0 and no Class bonus they would have been almost 'wasted'; on the other hand, even a single 1 rank in Intimidate resulted in a +4 bonus on top of the +5 from Charisma, due to the +3 Class bonus), and it can be made a bit better.
Shield is better as a known spell, since the duration is higher, on this I agree with you.
That's not what I said. What I said is that Shield doesn't impress me because of the action economy. Let me put it this way, if you find yourself in combat, what spell would you rather cast on round one? Shield? Or something that will throw the enemy off balance/at a disadvantage (forex. Grease or Silent Image)? If you're fighting solo and you enter combat at range, Shield might make sense. But Shield isn't a party effect, so it loses major points when the party is in the encounter.
It's true that a Shield spell with a 1-minute duration is more of a 'last resort' for a character which is in a real danger of being hit (or against Magic Missiles); on the other hand, when you know Shield and it has a duration of more minutes, casting it before an upcoming battle can be really useful.
Obviously, in a 'surprise combat' (when the Sorcerer is being victim of an assault) it would not be the first spell to cast. Depending on the situation, the kind of enemy and the position of the Sorcerer the first spell (in my selection above) should be either Hideous Laughter, Color Spray, Grease, or Mirror Image (yes, a selfish spell, but better being a bit selfish than dead ;D ).All of this IMHO, as always.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Because all the cool kids are doing it, Matthew's quick and dirty sorcerer* 15 point array, built with the 'four man band' in mind.
Level 1, because you have to survive to get to level 5
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 12, Int: 14 Wis: 12, Cha 15 (13+2 Racial) HP: 10 (6 + con + toughness)
Feats: Toughness, Spell Focus Conjuration, Eschew Materials (B)
Skills (6 total, using favored class) Knowledge (Arcana) +6, Spellcraft +6, UMD +6, Perception +2, Intimidate +6, Sense Motive +2
Spells:
0-level: Detect Magic, Read Magic, Acid Splash, Prestidigitation.
1st level: Grease, Mage Armor.
Basic battlefield control. With Grease, the DC is 14 (level + cha + focus) she can make areas risky, disarm foes at range (what’s that mister evil cleric? Can’t hold your holy symbol?) and, if able to prepare, second line melee. (AC 16 with mage armor, claws doing 1d4-1 isn’t great, but if we give her the heirloom weapon trait, her Granmother’s sword would be a net +1 to hit) Acid splash works for high AC baddies, (ranged touch) while her crossbow (assuming basic starting quipment) works for more mundane targets.
Level 5
Str: 8 Dex: 14 Con: 12, Int: 14 Wis: 12, Cha 16 (13+2 Racial+1 leveling) HP: 36 (average)
Feats: Toughness, spell focus conjuration (B), eschew materials (B), augment summoning, craft magical arms and armor.
Skills: Knowledge (Arcana) +8, Spellcraft +8, UMD +11, Perception +4, Intimidate +9, Sense Motive +4, Knowledge (Planes) +9
Spells:
0-level: Detect Magic, Read Magic, Acid Splash, Prestidigitation, Mending, Touch of Fatigue.
1st level: Grease, Mage Armor, Cause Fear (B) Summon Monster 1, Magic Missile.
2nd level: Bull’s Strength (B), Summon Monster II, Web.
Still on battlefield control. Craft Magical arms and armor is her 5th level feat, as enchanting grandmother’s sword becomes a viable option, she’s also built assuming the divine caster will take craft wondrous item, they may trade (I just like the idea of the Cleric and or Paladin wielding weapons with a demonic motif). Her summoned critters net a +2 to hit/damage +2 HP per hit die, and either DR 2 or 3 depending on the reading of the bloodline arcana. So summoning a riding dog would bump it’s HP to 17, attack to +5 (1d6+5). Even one dog would allow for flanking opportunities, a good roll on summon monster II would give her a dog for defense, and two for flanking. Grease and Web (DC 15 and 16 respectively) would aid in battlefield control again, and magic missile takes the direct damage slot. If the battle is going badly for the melee types, a mage armor/bulls strength combo would allow her to melee somewhat decently with Grandmother’s sword (BAB +2 +2 strength +1 Masterwork, +1 trait bonus) or at least draw fire from the cleric for a round. Equipment is left open, though a scroll of CLW, wand of Identify and/or a rod of extend(lesser) wouldn’t be out of the question. Rod of extend would allow for all mage armor, all the time.
She can intimidate with the best of them, and aid another on diplomacy and sense motive with a fair degree of success. UMD is still the force of last resort, but since everyone is enamoured with it, I figured I’d include it.
Just did this in the morning, so any mistakes, please catch.
*
I rank Sense Motive over Knowledge (arcana).
But, ultimately, it's going to depend on who else is in the party.
I also noticed you said if you have to fight the battle is already lost in an earlier thread or something to that affect. In most of our(other posters) games the enemies are not willing to talk(compromise). Sometimes it may be because they are not willing to give up any amount of power or ______, and any conversations will lead to that route. Why should I waste my time talking to you, if I can get what I want by killing you. Of course the bad guys are normally the ones that end up dead, but they don't know what is coming.
Sometimes convincing someone is not an option even if they agree with you. As an example trying to get past a soldier on guard duty won't work, even if he wants to beleive you left your ID back at the office that proves you are a general. You will just have to go back and get it. Bluff and diplomacy both fail in this situation, or at least they should. I remember when I was a private and a general asked me about something. I did not tell him(out of ignorance that his clearance was higher than mine) until my commander told me it was ok. For some reason it never dawned on me that all the general had to do was order the commander to tell him.
Intimidate might not even work which leads into a houserule I use at times.
The game should have allowed for opposed intimidation checks. Sometimes the NPC is just more afraid of his boss than he is of the PC's.
Very simplified example:
PC: Let me in(35 intimidate)
NPC: I am sure you can hurt me, but MR.Balor says he will do worse things if anyone gets in.
I rank Sense Motive over Knowledge (arcana).
But, ultimately, it's going to depend on who else is in the party.I also noticed you said if you have to fight the battle is already lost in an earlier thread or something to that affect. In most of our(other posters) games the enemies are not willing to talk(compromise). Sometimes it may be because they are not willing to give up any amount of power or ______, and any conversations will lead to that route. Why should I waste my time talking to you, if I can get what I want by killing you. Of course the bad guys are normally the ones that end up dead, but they don't know what is coming.
Sometimes convincing someone is not an option even if they agree with you. As an example trying to get past a soldier on guard duty won't work, even if he wants to beleive you left your ID back at the office that proves you are a general. You will just have to go back and get it. Bluff and diplomacy both fail in this situation, or at least they should. I remember when I was a private and a general asked me about something. I did not tell him(out of ignorance that his clearance was higher than mine) until my commander told me it was ok. For some reason it never dawned on me that all the general had to do was order the commander to tell him.
Intimidate might not even work which leads into a houserule I use at times.
The game should have allowed for opposed intimidation checks. Sometimes the NPC is just more afraid of his boss than he is of the PC's.
Very simplified example:
PC: Let me in(35 intimidate)
NPC: I am sure you can hurt me, but MR.Balor says he will do worse things if anyone gets in."If you have to fight, you've already lost" should not be taken to mean that the only other alternative is talking.
But many alternatives require subterfuge and superior information - hence the importance of charisma based skills.
I understand that divinations, disguise, and so on have their place with regards to information gathering, but disguise is the only non talking charisma based skill that I can think of that might avoid or delay a fight. I would think that the guards you really need to get past would have an intimate knowledge of the people who have access to classified areas though, making it hard to just walk by them because you look like someone else. I beleive your games have more espionage than most, which is why the skills that you favor don't rank as high to some of the other posters. They(other posters games) also tend to have a diplomancer handle things you normally assign to your sorcerer, while the wizards does ______. With the amount of information gathering that seems to go on in your game it seems the wizard would have a better chance since he can better be able to decide what spells to prepare.
Having one character designated as the face man is a bad game design. It's better to spread these skills out a bit - for example, giving the Paladin the Diplomacy skill and the Sorcerer the Bluff and Intimidate skills. Campaigns which create and appoint one character to be the face guy end up with all the other players having nothing to do during a social encounter.
Having multiple "social" characters all trying to RP with the same NPC at the same times is worse. Everyone is talking over each other trying to respond. Having one player as the designated face makes these situations run a lot smoother.
Having multiple "social" characters all trying to RP with the same NPC at the same times is worse. Everyone is talking over each other trying to respond. Having one player as the designated face makes these situations run a lot smoother.Having several people have social skills has nothing to do with the fact that, at some tables, everyone is talking over each other trying to respond.
Trust me, at those same tables, even if the PCs didn't all have social skills, they'd still be talking over each other trying to respond. The tendency to try to talk over each other is caused by a lack of courtesy and a lack of teamwork skills, not by what marks are on your character sheet.
What having several people have social skills does give you is
A.) If Joe, whose character has social skills, can't make it to the game on a session where an important social encounter takes place, Bob, whose character also has social skills, will still be available.B.) If Joe, whose character has social skills, wants to retire his character and play a different character, he doesn't have to worry about the fact that retiring his character means there's no one in the party now with social skills.
C.) If there's a big social encounter that night which is going to take up time, you don't have to worry about everybody but Joe heading out to make a beer run because they're bored because they've got nothing to do.
D.) If Joe did focus on social skills, but there was a big combat encounter that night, he wouldn't be stuck working below par because all his skills are elsewhere (ie. the old Shadowrun Decker problem)
Oh wow, you are absolutely right, everyone trying to talk at once has nothing to do with multiple social players all thinking "Hey, this is a social encounter, this is my chance to shine" and everything to do with my entire group of players being obnoxious @$$%@!. Thank you for making me see the light....
/end sarcasm
|
Having multiple "social" characters all trying to RP with the same NPC at the same times is worse. Everyone is talking over each other trying to respond. Having one player as the designated face makes these situations run a lot smoother.Having several people have social skills has nothing to do with the fact that, at some tables, everyone is talking over each other trying to respond.
Trust me, at those same tables, even if the PCs didn't all have social skills, they'd still be talking over each other trying to respond. The tendency to try to talk over each other is caused by a lack of courtesy and a lack of teamwork skills, not by what marks are on your character sheet.
What having several people have social skills does give you is
A.) If Joe, whose character has social skills, can't make it to the game on a session where an important social encounter takes place, Bob, whose character also has social skills, will still be available.B.) If Joe, whose character has social skills, wants to retire his character and play a different character, he doesn't have to worry about the fact that retiring his character means there's no one in the party now with social skills.
C.) If there's a big social encounter that night which is going to take up time, you don't have to worry about everybody but Joe heading out to make a beer run because they're bored because they've got nothing to do.
D.) If Joe did focus on social skills, but there was a big combat encounter that night, he wouldn't be stuck working below par because all his skills are elsewhere (ie. the old Shadowrun Decker problem)
Oh wow, you are absolutely right, everyone trying to talk at once has nothing to do with multiple social players all thinking "Hey, this is a social encounter, this is my chance to shine" and everything to do with my entire group of players being obnoxious @$$%@!. Thank you for making me see the light....
/end sarcasm
On a side note...that may be because most games don't focus enough on social encounters or social solutions enough. In my homebrews I give lots of options to solve thing other then bash it with a stick...but most AP are fairly combat solution oriented so the social character lovers have it driven in them that they need to grasp at every little bit they can. Once they figure out that your gonna allow for that option, it happens less. But yes I too have seen multiple social characters get overly excited and bumble over each other.
|
|
Don't gather information in order to make plans. That's bad thinking. It's poor strategy. Gather information and prepare yourself to change tactics from round to round. The enhanced information will help make sure that when you do change tactics, you change appropriately.
I'm gonna quote my friend about this...
Making plan B is STILL making a plan.
Don't gather information in order to make plans. That's bad thinking. It's poor strategy. Gather information and prepare yourself to change tactics from round to round. The enhanced information will help make sure that when you do change tactics, you change appropriately.I'm gonna quote my friend about this...
Making plan B is STILL making a plan.
+1
Both Bluff and Intimidate are useful in combat. So, "drop your weapons, we have you surrounded!" when your all by yourself against a large number of bad guys is something that can be done in combat and can avoid or delay a fight.
Telling most people they are surrounded without seeing the backup gets you nowhere. Even if they are surrounded they have to be impressed by the backup. I think an intimidate check applies either way at some point. I also think we need to decide which lies are impossible. I dont mean impossible as in -20, I mean impossible as in the DM just says no.
Honestly, disguising yourself and trying to slip by the guards like this isn't very sophisticated tactics. There are other, better, social engineering techniques which can be used.
I am aware of social engineering, but it depends on the prevention system. If the password system is in affect it works well. If the system is to only let certain people get by then it does not work so well, especially if the list is small.
Having one character designated as the face man is a bad game design. It's better to spread these skills out a bit - for example, giving the Paladin the Diplomacy skill and the Sorcerer the Bluff and Intimidate skills. Campaigns which create and appoint one character to be the face guy end up with all the other players having nothing to do during a social encounter.
I am not saying classes can't overlap in case the main person for a situation is taken out, but most groups still tend to have one person who knows what he is bring to the table, and yes I know you dont like roles, but certain things have to be done, and it is a bad idea to not make sure someone is available to do them.
Don't gather information in order to make plans. That's bad thinking. It's poor strategy. Gather information and prepare yourself to change tactics from round to round. The enhanced information will help make sure that when you do change tactics, you change appropriately.
I was not just talking about combat, but out of combat situations. If you gather enough information you will have enough information to have a backup plan. Now if you are saying only having one way of doing things is a bad idea, then I agree.
.
..
...
....
''Jimmy, my mad quasi-scottish maniac gaurd, stand here and be sure not to let anyone past.''
''ACHE AYE SIR! I SHALL DO THAT N' ALL!''
''Good good, now, remember, I don't want anyone to be let past.''
''AYE LAD I HEARD YE THE FIRST TIME, I AINT DAFT!''
''Excellent. Good luck and remember, nobody, no one, nothing past! Byeee''
...
''HALT! WHO BE THERE??''
''Tis me!''
''NONE SHALL PASS!!!''
''..but ...I'm guy!''
''EH -.o ....''
''..the guy with the hat, rich looking chap, just left the building?
''BAH! YE LOOK NOTHING LIKE HIM!''
''I'm.... in disguise...''
''AAAH WELL THEN, WHY DIDN'T YA SAY SO! COME ON IN LADDY!''
Go Bluff Go Bluff Go Bluff Go..
To be more precise, telling most people they are surrounded without them believing the backup gets you nowhere. Believing the backup is there is an entirely different animal from seeing the backup.
That is what I was saying. Getting that done however ....
We covered this several times in this thread. I really don't want to rehash it once again.
Even if they are surrounded they have to be impressed by the backup. I think an intimidate check applies either way at some point.
I might have missed it. If it was in the disagreement between what constitutes an intimidate check vs what is a bluff check we may have to agree to disagree. Anytime you try to use fear it should be an intimidation check at some point. If I feel like I am not threatened then I really have no reason to surrender.
Password? You're kidding, right?
Nope, it is too easy to bypass. If you thought I was supporting the password system then you misunderstood me.
I've been playing for several decades now and I still haven't played in most groups. Have you? Anyway, the fact that many groups do this doesn't make it a good idea or in any way support that it is a good idea.
I am going by many years of debating on the interwebs, combined with what I have seen in FLGS's to determine most. If most of the people I have met online, and in real life do certain things the same way I think it is reasonable to apply "most". It is true that the majority is not always right, but when it works under different DM's I think that is a strong indication that it is not a bad idea.
and yes I know you dont like roles, but certain things have to be done, and it is a bad idea to not make sure someone is available to do them.
I don't know if I said that wrong or you misunderstood me. I am saying since certain things have to done, you(the party) should ensure someone can make sure they get done.Which is why roles are a bad idea.
I was not just talking about combat, but out of combat situations.
There's a difference? You might enjoy reading Clausewitz.
In D&D there is a difference. The war may be on going but fighting vs nonfighting are not handled the same way. I am sure you knew what I meant. If not then kick in the enemy's door before you try to make a bluff check and see how far it gets you.
Good plans sometimes survive first contact. Most people have a way they like to do things. That is how social engineers get information. As for the round to round adjustments, that normally has more to do with creative players than a plan, but knowing what you are up against helps with the adjusting.
Edit: The "quote" code tags keep critting against me. If you can't understand the last post I might have to redo it.
.
..
...
....''Jimmy, my mad quasi-scottish maniac gaurd, stand here and be sure not to let anyone past.''
''ACHE AYE SIR! I SHALL DO THAT N' ALL!''
''Good good, now, remember, I don't want anyone to be let past.''
''AYE LAD I HEARD YE THE FIRST TIME, I AINT DAFT!''
''Excellent. Good luck and remember, nobody, no one, nothing past! Byeee''
...
''HALT! WHO BE THERE??''
''Tis me!''
''NONE SHALL PASS!!!''
''..but ...I'm guy!''
''EH -.o ....''
''..the guy with the hat, rich looking chap, just left the building?
''BAH! YE LOOK NOTHING LIKE HIM!''
''I'm.... in disguise...''
''AAAH WELL THEN, WHY DIDN'T YA SAY SO! COME ON IN LADDY!''
Go Bluff Go Bluff Go Bluff Go..
The next scene will probably be similar to Darth Vader's act of using force choke. Ok so there is no force choke in D&D, but a variant of the Grasping Hand spell might come in handy to get the rest of the guards in line.
Guard 1: I got a glimpse of Jimmy body. What happened to Jimmy's neck, its gone?
Guard 2: Due to his ability to not guard anything he was used as a test subject for Lord O'Evil's new spell.
G1: What did he do wrong?
G2: Well he let a guy about 6 inches shorter, and 40 pounds lighter in to steal the "whispers name of stolen device", just because he said he was Lord O'Evil.
G1: I think that was a bit harsh. You know there is magic to disguise yourself. It could have happened to anyone
G2: WEREN'T YOU PAYING ATTENTION YOU DURN IDGIT. THERE WAS NOT EVEN A DISGUISE.
G1: Hey calm down. I did not think such a thing plausible, even though I heard you clearly.....I will miss him though. He was always good for a drink and brawl. <breaking 4th wall> I better take skill focus(sense motive) when I level up</breaking 4th wall>
776 posts! Sorry, but I will not read all that.
Can't blame you. Especially when people are getting REALLY bad at editing the quotes down to a manageable length. Signal to noise ratio, anyone? Anyone? :D
My DM houseruled that Eschew Materials also covers minor arcane focii.
Hmm...how many spells have foci, and how many are ones you'd want to cast in a fight anyways?
Were you under the mistaken assumption that someone in this thread ever argued that convincing a target that backup exists will automtically cause that target to back down or give some sort of favorable response?The point being that having them believe that backup is there can still get one nowhere or even make things worse. This is to avoid any possible implication that having them believe that backup is there will automatically give a beneficial result.Though you know believing that you have backup could easily make the enemy try to kill you quickly so as to intimidate the backup with your swift death when it reveals itself. Or perhaps deciding that since it is surrounded it should kill you for revenge since it will soon be dead.To be more precise, telling most people they are surrounded without them believing the backup gets you nowhere. Believing the backup is there is an entirely different animal from seeing the backup.
Telling most people they are surrounded without seeing the backup gets you nowhere.Honestly, I'm trying to figure out what your point is and how it relates to the game and the issue at hand.
It seems you're in danger of spinning off on a tangent about social engineering and not about the game.
Perhaps it's a reading comprehension error on my part, but could you tell me what your point is?
You did not exactly state that, but it seemed to be implied from the argument you posted.
I think the real problem is that people aren't bothering to read the posts before they, themselves, post. For example, we've gone over and over and over again on the merits of having both Bluff and Intimidate and, yet, we still get people posting who keep beating that dead horse into potted meat.776 posts! Sorry, but I will not read all that.
Can't blame you. Especially when people are getting REALLY bad at editing the quotes down to a manageable length. Signal to noise ratio, anyone? Anyone? :D
My DM houseruled that Eschew Materials also covers minor arcane focii.Hmm...how many spells have foci, and how many are ones you'd want to cast in a fight anyways?
True. I think we may need a new thread. I did have a few days that I could not see things, so we ever came to anyone agreements such as the value of certain skills in a standard campaign. Oh great now we have to define a standard campaign. :)
In any event I will submit a list of things agreed to and still being debated as a list later on today. These things can be posted as the OP on part 2 of the thread.
I think the real problem is that people aren't bothering to read the posts before they, themselves, post.
It's definitely part of the problem, but there is sort of a golden rule for posting; don't quote more than you yourself are posting. Sometimes it's inevitable that you include the supporting quotes (especially in a high-volume thread), but lately I'm seeing 4-5 inches of quotes followed by one line of new posting. It's just normal human laziness, I guess. ;-)
to quote a certain Homo Sapien Light source "FLAME ON!!!!"