The characters are "underdone" because they are "iconics", not "examples of optimization". First and foremost, they define the look of the game. They don´t exemplify the rules.
That said, I think there are countless possibilities to optimize them still if you take them as PCs at a certain point and go on from there.
Stefan
The characters are "underdone" because they are "iconics", not "examples of optimization". First and foremost, they define the look of the game. They don´t exemplify the rules.
More of the false premise that in order for something to be properly role-played or a real character, they have to be some sort of subpar creation.
|
Go look through all the pictures of Valeros in the core rulebook. 9 times out of ten hes in dire straights, on his ass, getting slaughtered, cursed, poisoned, being a healsoak for the cleric...
I think they just made the stat block fit the (hilarious) art ;)
Nah, just keeping up the tradition of Captain Whitebread getting slaughtered. :) At least Valeros isn't as bad as Regdar.
An Iconic should at least use his class abilities.
Valeros not using his armor training is akin to the cleric not using channel, the rogue not using sneak attack (and, I'll note, she doesn't have a ranged Sneak Attack except daggers...an elf with no bow?), and the mage not...using...decent...spells...
Oh, nevermind. Yes, they made the iconics mostly suck, except the cleric. I really couldn't find anything wrong with her.
I'm not worried about optimizing...a 10th level fighter with a +2 sword is not an optimized character. A 10th level fighter built to FAIL his saves and not using the core abilities of a fighter isn't a build, it's trash. Why don't you play a barbarian and never rage? It amounts to the same thing.
Meh. They don't have to be optimized, they have to be decent, you know, show kinda how a character at that level should look. Take this group of 4 through the AP and you are going to have serious problems.
And Lorekeeper - You're right, I goofed the will save. I could have sworn that Iron Will doubled to +4 at level 10 (shades of skill focus!). Ah well, so he maxes out at +8. Yeah, that's a 14 to save against the repeated paranoia saves...
==Aelryinth
Nah, just keeping up the tradition of Captain Whitebread getting slaughtered. :) At least Valeros isn't as bad as Regdar.Go look through all the pictures of Valeros in the core rulebook. 9 times out of ten hes in dire straights, on his ass, getting slaughtered, cursed, poisoned, being a healsoak for the cleric...
I think they just made the stat block fit the (hilarious) art ;)
I should hope not given how the 3.5 Fighter was, but hey, they tried.
The iconics are perfectly up to Paizo's Adventure Path standards. If your camaign requires hyper-optimization just to be average, that speaks about your style of DMing.
Hyper-optimized, or shall we say min-maxed characters themselves tend to be glass canons, terribly vulnerable at their weak spots.
I have only ran Kingmaker, but those iconics would not have made it. I will eventually purchase the Serpent's Skull, but I have heard it is hard enough so that unless you tone it down a player at least needs a reasonable character. Right now the iconics are somewhere on the borderline between 1 and 2.
For a reference I have 3 levels of character creation:
1. Don't use this one
2. Midline(Optimization is sacrificed for fluff, but the character is still playable
3. Optimized(great build), but not annoying to most DM's
4. The DM better bring his A game. (Normally only possible with 3.5 splat)
That should be 4 levels. :)
If a GMs "A game" is based upon his ability to kill the PCs then I think our way of assessing good GMing is rather different.
Any DM can kill a player. I was talking about challenging them without cheating.
More of the false premise that in order for something to be properly role-played or a real character, they have to be some sort of subpar creation.The characters are "underdone" because they are "iconics", not "examples of optimization". First and foremost, they define the look of the game. They don´t exemplify the rules.
Not at all, at least not on my side. I think the iconics were simply not intended to showcase an optimized build, game mechanics being an afterthought to the artistic representation here.
Characters with flaws make for more interesting characters than flawless superheroes (unless superheroes is the topic of the day), but this does not necessarily mean that they have suboptimal game mechanics. I have a quite optimized wizard who does not stop whining about the discomforts of adventuring, having been a librarian before going on adventures. He is getting on everybody elses nerves with that, but it is fun.
Stefan
More of the false premise that in order for something to be properly role-played or a real character, they have to be some sort of subpar creation.The characters are "underdone" because they are "iconics", not "examples of optimization". First and foremost, they define the look of the game. They don´t exemplify the rules.
Not at all, at least not on my side. I think the iconics were simply not intended to showcase an optimized build, game mechanics being an afterthought to the artistic representation here.
Characters with flaws make for more interesting characters than flawless superheroes (unless superheroes is the topic of the day), but this does not necessarily mean that they have suboptimal game mechanics. I have a quite optimized wizard who does not stop whining about the discomforts of adventuring, having been a librarian before going on adventures. He is getting on everybody elses nerves with that, but it is fun.
Stefan
They are considered to be below par because they most likely won't make it through an AP as written.
Again, Valeros is not an example of an under-optimized build, he is an example of a outright stupid build. I don't think that the Iconic characters need to be omg! ROXORZ!!! But they should at least have the sense to buy equipment that allows them to use a class feature. What would you say to the barbarian,rogue, or monk wearing full-plate, how can an Icon not use his class features?
More of the false premise that in order for something to be properly role-played or a real character, they have to be some sort of subpar creation.The characters are "underdone" because they are "iconics", not "examples of optimization". First and foremost, they define the look of the game. They don´t exemplify the rules.
Not at all, at least not on my side. I think the iconics were simply not intended to showcase an optimized build, game mechanics being an afterthought to the artistic representation here.
Characters with flaws make for more interesting characters than flawless superheroes (unless superheroes is the topic of the day), but this does not necessarily mean that they have suboptimal game mechanics. I have a quite optimized wizard who does not stop whining about the discomforts of adventuring, having been a librarian before going on adventures. He is getting on everybody elses nerves with that, but it is fun.
Stefan
And does your Wizard primarily cast Conjuration spells while being an Abjuration specialist?
Valeros is not optimized, sure some one MIGHT play a TWF Fighter - I'm sure I could posit an OK build - but it surely wouldn't be like this and regardless that has nothing to do with his personality like your comparison.
I added a spoiler.
Valeros has a 15 dex because he needs it for TWF.
After all he's a TWF-er.
Valeros is a follower of Caiden Cailen, foolish, headstrong, full of himself (lower wis)
he's wearing breastplate, because in all his art, he's depicted as, wearing breastplate.
the purpose of a "ready made" character in the back of the module is so you can start playing, not so everything you have is already better than anything you can find.
if someone where to just start playing valeros, they could play along and optimize him themselves, hes just a basic fighter, nothing too snazzy.
Also later on, if a new player had started with val, but wanted to make his own character later, all the "great ideas" hadnt been taken from playing the iconic first.
So in that sense i do think it was done on purpose.
you also have to think, val and the other core originals were bae iconics before pathfinder was even beta'd
Valeros has a 15 dex because he needs it for TWF.
After all he's a TWF-er.
Valeros is a follower of Caiden Cailen, foolish, headstrong, full of himself (lower wis)
he's wearing breastplate, because in all his art, he's depicted as, wearing breastplate.
the purpose of a "ready made" character in the back of the module is so you can start playing, not so everything you have is already better than anything you can find.
if someone where to just start playing valeros, they could play along and optimize him themselves, hes just a basic fighter, nothing too snazzy.
Also later on, if a new player had started with val, but wanted to make his own character later, all the "great ideas" hadnt been taken from playing the iconic first.
So in that sense i do think it was done on purpose.
you also have to think, val and the other core originals were base iconics before pathfinder was even beta'd
What about the fact that the iconics are hard pressed to survive the AP's they are printed in? You can't really upgrade anything if it is dead.
"Ready made" should also mean decent.
Valeros has a 15 dex because he needs it for TWF.
After all he's a TWF-er.
Valeros is a follower of Caiden Cailen, foolish, headstrong, full of himself (lower wis)
he's wearing breastplate, because in all his art, he's depicted as, wearing breastplate.
the purpose of a "ready made" character in the back of the module is so you can start playing, not so everything you have is already better than anything you can find.
if someone where to just start playing valeros, they could play along and optimize him themselves, hes just a basic fighter, nothing too snazzy.
Also later on, if a new player had started with val, but wanted to make his own character later, all the "great ideas" hadnt been taken from playing the iconic first.
So in that sense i do think it was done on purpose.
you also have to think, val and the other core originals were base iconics before pathfinder was even beta'd
What about the fact that the iconics are hard pressed to survive the AP's they are printed in? You can't really upgrade anything if it is dead.
"Ready made" should also mean decent.
I have noticed that Valeros consistently appears in the same party with at least one caster, most often two. This mitigates his weakness a bit, as they can buff him. Maybe that is part of it all? The monk often appears alongside the druid, who can buff natural attacks and so on.
But yeah, I can't see him surviving in Serpent Skull, after playing through part 1 and 2 as a paladin, and still just barely making saves.
Valeros has a 15 dex because he needs it for TWF.
After all he's a TWF-er.
Valeros is a follower of Caiden Cailen, foolish, headstrong, full of himself (lower wis)
he's wearing breastplate, because in all his art, he's depicted as, wearing breastplate.
the purpose of a "ready made" character in the back of the module is so you can start playing, not so everything you have is already better than anything you can find.
if someone where to just start playing valeros, they could play along and optimize him themselves, hes just a basic fighter, nothing too snazzy.
Also later on, if a new player had started with val, but wanted to make his own character later, all the "great ideas" hadnt been taken from playing the iconic first.
So in that sense i do think it was done on purpose.
you also have to think, val and the other core originals were base iconics before pathfinder was even beta'd
What about the fact that the iconics are hard pressed to survive the AP's they are printed in? You can't really upgrade anything if it is dead.
"Ready made" should also mean decent.I have noticed that Valeros consistently appears in the same party with at least one caster, most often two. This mitigates his weakness a bit, as they can buff him. Maybe that is part of it all? The monk often appears alongside the druid, who can buff natural attacks and so on.
But yeah, I can't see him surviving in Serpent Skull, after playing through part 1 and 2 as a paladin, and still just barely making saves.
off-topic:How is Serpent's Skull?
I understand them not being optimized, but Lini's 6 STR is mind boggling.
Valeros has an unspectacular build because he has awesome low level art and he fulfills the stereotypical fantasy sword wielder. Not the stereotypical D&D fighter but rather the romantic ne'er do well of sword & sorcery.
He's not a sword and board fighter because that's pretty bog standard and he's not a BIG STUPID FIGHTER with a two-handed killstick because that role is Trademarked as Barbarian.
So he's the quick, fast, lightly armored highly skilled two weapon duelist.
In order to work at low levels he needs a 15 Dex (personally I think the pre-requisite for TWF should be reduced to 13 but oh well), Strength is next.
Nothing is keyed to a 13 Con but Weapon Expertise is Int 13 (honestly I've never really understood this being tied to Int but oh well). He wants bonus HPs so he's got a 12.
So 15,14,13,12 are all spoken for. He has a 10 and an 8 to left to allocate. Most fighters would dump Charisma and stay with no penalty to Charisma but our guy is a player. Sure he's annoying and brash and a pain in the ass but he's completely lovable and in his own way charismatic.
He's also a complete and total drunk with no common sense who probably wastes most of his excess cash on ale and whores. In this way he's completely and totally stereotypical even though he's mechanically inferior. Note:This is where I suggest either a feat that allows Charisma score to be used in place of wisdom score for will saves or a houserule that does the same.
Breastplate is actually pretty decent at low levels. One could even argue that for a dex fighter it's actually slightly suboptimal as the armor check penalty kinda sucks for skill usage. However he's not a rogue (although he could easily be a rogue/fighter) so he goes with breastplate and even though his AC is suboptimal he can use Expertise to make up most of the difference. A low armor check penalty (agile breastplate FTW) and armor training mean that Valeros can do all sorts of crazy acrobatics that is generally the domain of rogues.
So yeah his will save is a tragedy waiting to happen but in terms of a good hero with plenty of character flaws Valeros is actually quite fitting.
I think if anything rather than change his "build" to cover his abundant weaknesses maybe instead additional house rules should be developed in order to make Valeros more effective (if not particularly optimized).
It doesn't really make any sense for the character to even have Combat Expertise.
off-topic:How is Serpent's Skull?Valeros has a 15 dex because he needs it for TWF.
After all he's a TWF-er.
Valeros is a follower of Caiden Cailen, foolish, headstrong, full of himself (lower wis)
he's wearing breastplate, because in all his art, he's depicted as, wearing breastplate.
the purpose of a "ready made" character in the back of the module is so you can start playing, not so everything you have is already better than anything you can find.
if someone where to just start playing valeros, they could play along and optimize him themselves, hes just a basic fighter, nothing too snazzy.
Also later on, if a new player had started with val, but wanted to make his own character later, all the "great ideas" hadnt been taken from playing the iconic first.
So in that sense i do think it was done on purpose.
you also have to think, val and the other core originals were base iconics before pathfinder was even beta'd
What about the fact that the iconics are hard pressed to survive the AP's they are printed in? You can't really upgrade anything if it is dead.
"Ready made" should also mean decent.I have noticed that Valeros consistently appears in the same party with at least one caster, most often two. This mitigates his weakness a bit, as they can buff him. Maybe that is part of it all? The monk often appears alongside the druid, who can buff natural attacks and so on.
But yeah, I can't see him surviving in Serpent Skull, after playing through part 1 and 2 as a paladin, and still just barely making saves.
Lots of difficult terrain and wilderness survival, never seen so much potential for a druid and ranger in terms of class abilities and spells.
Well worth it to focus on having good fort and will saves.
They use a rather interesting spirit-guide thing that manifests in various interesting manners throughout part 2. My paladin's name is Toshirou. Now, the elf and the cleric calls him "Hippotoshimus." Guess what I ended up as?
Just started part 3, and the exploration focus is actually really fun.
It is hard to play goodie-two-shoes though, as you are forced to join forces with one of five non-good organizations, and have to make deals with them down the road. I am not sure how this will work out.
So yeah, if you like the Indiana Jones type of play, this is the AP for you. But there is more than enough combat as well, so if that is your cup of tea, don't worry, you'll get your fill.
It doesn't really make any sense for the character to even have Combat Expertise.
Personally I'm not a big fan of Combat Expertise but it is the speedbump on the way to a whole host of maneuver feats. Maybe be the higher level Valeros plans on using maneuvers?
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
Sure it's not a great feat (I personally make it a universal combat option) but it's not completely horribad.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin.
A +3 CR he can gain by taking Full Plate which also wouldn't reduce his chance to actually hit said CR appropriate foes?
Sure it's not a great feat (I personally make it a universal combat option) but it's not completely horribad.
No, it isn't. If you plan to take any of the feats pointlessly feat taxed with it. Which he obviously isn't.
|
Well, I thought they turned out pretty well, but they were a bit gamey. To properly cook your iconics you should slow roast them for eight hours for meat that just falls off the bone. I think if Paizo had just used lower heat and cooked them longer they would have turned out a lot better, but the sauce was to die for.
I think my biggest complaint on Valeros is that they made him intentionally suck. Lousy fighting, shafted his horrible will save even more, AND COMPLETELY IGNORED A CLASS ABILITY in armor training. Then the screwball stat allocation, especially with dex...argh. ITWF before it's even MARGINALLY effective.
Basically, he's waving around a Short Sword +2 Defender in my update for the cost of 2 feats and 8k gp...when he could do it with a shield for 50 gp. Bleh. He could be hitting a 31-33 AC without too much difficulty, and improve all his saves magnificently...and all he's giving up on damage is Icy Burst, while he's hitting more and doing more damage per normal hit, sans frost.
Meh. Given how many he's fighting, he should have a Monstrous Humanoid Bane sword.
==+Aelryinth
I know you might have trouble with this concept but he has the short sword because it fits his concept. Who Valeros is was decided before the stats where laid out, and those stats where built around that idea, reflecting the character in the game mechanics.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin.A +3 CR he can gain by taking Full Plate which also wouldn't reduce his chance to actually hit said CR appropriate foes?
No, it isn't. If you plan to take any of the feats pointlessly feat taxed with it. Which he obviously isn't.Sure it's not a great feat (I personally make it a universal combat option) but it's not completely horribad.
Times when combat expertise can be useful in and of it's own right.
Holding of enemies at a choke point, as your party prepare to collapse the tunnel, to allow the groups unharressed escape.
Defending your self in a duel while you wait for the your nobleman suitee to change his fickle mind and moves to win.
Defending your self, as you attempt to talk down your corrupted father as he attempts to turn you to the 'dark side.'
If your win conditions are only ever 'i kill it' then sure its not great. If there are other possible win conditions that show a degree of imagaination in the encounter design and players approachs to beating an encounter, then combat expertise is useful.
Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?
I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
|
Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.
Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
What is the gallery of Evil?
|
|
What is the gallery of Evil?Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
Pathfinder module.What is the gallery of Evil?Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
I don't know how hard the module was. I have only experienced the AP's.
|
|
I don't know how hard the module was. I have only experienced the AP's.Pathfinder module.What is the gallery of Evil?Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
I've played some of RotRL and I'd say GoE is slightly tougher.
I've played some of RotRL and I'd say GoE is slightly tougher.I don't know how hard the module was. I have only experienced the AP's.Pathfinder module.What is the gallery of Evil?Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
I might have to try it out then.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
Yep. You can stack it with fight defensively. The secret is use it properly (best if after a DPR round), and never for more than one round.
I do not understand int 13. Maybe you cannot fight smart if you are a dumbass, but in that case int 10 (11 accordingly to other feats) should be enough.
If your win conditions are only ever 'i kill it' then sure its not great. If there are other possible win conditions that show a degree of imagaination in the encounter design and players approachs to beating an encounter, then combat expertise is useful.
Against things you are going to kill, "i kill it" is always the best option because then it won't kill YOU. Having an arms race in PC defense vs monster to-hit will always lead to the PCs losing.
EDIT: In fact, even when "I kill it" is not what you want to do, you would be better off taking the -4 to-hit to do non-lethal damage than take the penalty to attack to try and increase defense. ESPECIALLY since Combat Expertise was updated the same way Power Attack was - which honestly makes Combat Expertise even more god awful than it was.
I've played some of RotRL and I'd say GoE is slightly tougher.I don't know how hard the module was. I have only experienced the AP's.Pathfinder module.What is the gallery of Evil?Huh. I ran Valeros through the Gallery of Evil. Was one of the most powerful PCs in the game. Survived quite well until we had to end campaign.Wasn't it Jason himself who said the iconics were designed more thematically than min-max?I have no idea, but you don't have to min-max to be adequate. The thing is that they are supposedly able to be plugged into adventures, but as it has been stated they won't survive.
Nobody is asking for super PC, but a chance to live is not too much to ask for.
Valeros would get the crap kicked out of him at level 7 in RotR.
The point is not avoid kill - is not a matter of subdual damage.
But if you one turn attack with cleave and lunge (-4 AC), and the subsequent increase your AC by X (+ 2 fight defensively + Y if defending weapon is involved) this could make enemies fighting you quite confused, expecially in the used of hit-related feats like the omnipresent power attack.
Just one round, but if you are in the right place and attacked several enemies, you could have them waste a lot of iteratives (as an example). Is a matter of fighting smart.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
If your win conditions are only ever 'i kill it' then sure its not great. If there are other possible win conditions that show a degree of imagaination in the encounter design and players approachs to beating an encounter, then combat expertise is useful.Against things you are going to kill, "i kill it" is always the best option because then it won't kill YOU. Having an arms race in PC defense vs monster to-hit will always lead to the PCs losing.
EDIT: In fact, even when "I kill it" is not what you want to do, you would be better off taking the -4 to-hit to do non-lethal damage than take the penalty to attack to try and increase defense. ESPECIALLY since Combat Expertise was updated the same way Power Attack was - which honestly makes Combat Expertise even more god awful than it was.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.
DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
Ofcause and the very idea that killing an opponent or knocking them unconcious is always the best tactic is frankly stupid.
Congratulations, you have just beat the noble, and much loved king to within an inch of his life without a shred of evidence that he was mind controlled and that your not evil. The queen exiles you, if you continue on your quest to route out whats going to be going up against the law. expect no one to sell you items, buy your loot or provide you services, and to have to face additional challanges, in which you'll have to kill innocent, goodly people intent on hunting you down.
Congratulations you have killed three member of the endless sea of mooks, however, from the massed ranks you have lost almost a quarter of your hitpoints, when you might otherwise have lost and eighth. And five more rounds until the others have sealed the cave behind you.
Congratulations, you killed your dueling partner, not only does the hansom lord no longer have any intention of reciprocating your affections, you now find your self the subject of vendetta by the family of your opponent, who have sold your secrets to the bad guys and are providing poisons to them. The evil organisations agents now all use poisoned weapons, and your families, friends and loved ones are about to start dropping like flies.
Oh s~@#, that little group of partisans, they where using human shields who died in your fireball blast, and now a bard is wandering the lands letting people know about your 'adventure crimes'.
S&@! dad, didn't mean to kill you rather than redeem you, but my player seems to think I should do the most optimal thing, rather than have human emotions...oh well, dibs on your loot!!!
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
And if you go with fighting defensively, and your aim is not to kill, but rather survive the blows until escape is possible, said 8th level character can stack a further +3 on top of the +3 from fighting defensively.
Sorry, but i am just imagining your games now.DM: a man comes over the horizon.
Cartigan: I kill him.*rolls attack and damage enough to kill a god*
John Random-Player: Why did you do that.
Cartigan: It was the optimal thing to do, he might have been a threat, this way I got the surprise round for sure. Dibs on the loot!
DM: John, as Cartigan's character searchs the horrible mutilated body, your character see's a familiur face, that of his father.
John Random-Player: Dude, you killed my characters father, WTF?!?!?!!!!
Cartigan: Well if you don't want your share of the loot, i'll totally understand!!!!!
So when greeted by a troll do you invite it to tea and crumpets? I imagine you must judging by the completely absurd, baseless, and completely inane version of "my game" that you conjured up out of thin air.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
I think a Dex fighter should definitely have acrobatics ranks. I know Valeros doesn't in 3.x (LOL 2+Int skill points and cross class penalty) but in Pathfinder there really isn't a significant reason why he shouldn't buy ranks in acrobatics even if it's not a class skill.
I'm not sure there is a trait that gives a bonus to Acrobatics and makes it a class skill but if there is that would really help out Valeros.
Combat Expertise + Fighting Defensively and or situational penalties to the opposition (Blindness, etc) would probably make Valeros a pretty decent brick against opposition.
At a minimum Expertise can work to negate Power Attacks from CR appropriate foes as the new hit percentage tends to make the DPR go way down.
Not getting hit isn't the key, not get hit hard is the key.
Valeros is poorly built (or organically built) but the essential concept of dex fighter is somewhat solid.
He'd be much better at a higher PB (like 25). The current rules just penalize TWF a ton at the elite array and at low PB values.
And if you go with fighting defensively, and your aim is not to kill, but rather survive the blows until escape is possible, said 8th level character can stack a further +3 on top of the +3 from fighting defensively.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
Apparently I haven't said this enough.
A cold-war of PC armor vs monster to hit will always lead to PC's losing.Unless you are a caster.
Not getting hit isn't the key, not get hit hard is the key.
...what? AC has nothing to do with the damage you take. You either get hit or you don't. You don't get hit but only take part of the damage because your AC is 20% above average.
And if you go with fighting defensively, and your aim is not to kill, but rather survive the blows until escape is possible, said 8th level character can stack a further +3 on top of the +3 from fighting defensively.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
Apparently I haven't said this enough.
A cold-war of PC armor vs monster to hit will always lead to PC's losing.Unless you are a caster.
You only get an arms race if the play style is antagonistic. It is my job as a DM to provide challenges for you to overcome, not win the game. I can set the to hits so that they encourage you to use defensive tactives, rather than setting out to win an arms race.
Non-argument.
And if you go with fighting defensively, and your aim is not to kill, but rather survive the blows until escape is possible, said 8th level character can stack a further +3 on top of the +3 from fighting defensively.
Against CR appropriate foes (Fire Giants, Adult White Dragon) the +3 to AC can reduce the DPR that he's taking by a significant margin. He' most likely going to be hit by the primary attack but secondary attacks and iteratives drop off pretty significantly.
I want to bring this up again after having looked at Combat Expertise in Pathfinder.
The lowest level one can have +3 to AC from Combat Expertise is level 8.
He'd be better off putting 3 points into Acrobatics and then fighting defensively - he'll get a -4 to attack in exchange for +3 to Dodge Bonus and +1 Shield Bonus.
Apparently I haven't said this enough.
A cold-war of PC armor vs monster to hit will always lead to PC's losing.Unless you are a caster.
You only get an arms race if the play style is antagonistic. It is my job as a DM to provide challenges for you to overcome, not win the game. I can set the to hits so that they encourage you to use defensive tactives, rather than setting out to win an arms race.
Non-argument.
So you are going to house-rule monsters away from both their thematical background and how their mechanics are written in order to accommodate PCs who think turtling is an effective strategy to defeating an enemy?
You do that. It doesn't in ANY way invalidate my point.