|
I'm currently playing a gnome alchemist, and I have an idea for an "alter-ego" which really appeals to me. However, taking the Master Chymist prestige class would (for various reasons) handicap the charater to a not-insignificant extent. Would you do it?
"Calamity" Zane Potboiler is a friendly male CG gnome alchemist with a fire fetish (pyromaniac, alternative gnome trait from APG). He finds himself on a long-term mission to carve a civilisation out of the wilderness, which he approaches with enthusiasm but is tempermentaly unsuited for.
The alter ego would be Sergeant Harker, a focused and ruthless female LE (GM has no problem with evil characters) svirfneblin agent of the city of Trademeet, which has a vested interest in the success of the PCs' mission. (Feel free to substitute your own cool idea!)
The rest of the party are all true N, so I love the idea of forcing them to take sides. Do they prefer to have CG Zane or LE Harker on the team?
Also, the rest of the group have no reason to be familiar with the Master Chymist rules. It would be interesting to see whether they came to accept Harker as a real person.
The problem is it would make the character a lot less effective than simply taking Alchemist to level 20.
Master Chymist is designed to be no more and no less powerful than an alchemist. It is arguable as to whether it manages to maintain the alchemist's power level (I don't think it does, but YMMV and that is not the issue here). However, it is a melee class, so starting as a small character race is not recommended. It will also cause the loss of the favoured class bonus, which at 1/2 bomb per level (thanks to APG) is well worth having.
Situationally, we have only a three character party. The other two are a halfling sorcerer and a human cleric 1 / fighter x. A Master Chymist treads on the fighter's toes and (by reducing skill points and extracts) hampers the character's ability to cover for rogue and cleric.
We are currently 3rd level, but significantly behind the expected wealth by level curve due to our failure to find several of the available treasure hoards, so this is a bad time to under-optimise!
Apolgies for the length of this post, but it has helped me to organise my thought processes. At the moment I have resolved to go for roleplaying glory .....
If it'll be fun for you AND the rest of the group, go for it. If it's just fun for you then I'd think twice.
Good roleplaying experiences are forever. "Winning" the game, no one will ever care about 15 minutes after it's done. Go for the RP.
It might be fun to role play for a while but intentionally making sub-optimal choices meens that you cant pull your wieght and are at best a burden on the rest of the party as they try to pick up your slack. When my groups in an encounter I dont want to worry about the monsters and the guy who made his guy bad on purpose.
So anyway , if you can pull it off with out hampering your party then go for it.
Edit - I didnt meen for my post to sound rude in anyway. This is just how i feel. Making sub-optimal guy meens the partyyour working with cant really count on you in situation that should be easier because your with them.
I maybe a little jaded on thus point though. I played in a game once that had a cleric that took a vow of silence ( wouldnt heal anyone ). So we looked to the bard who said " My character doesnt know any healing spells because in his youth blah blah blah." Then I looked at our gnome fighter and dwarf paladin and saided F this.
our party -
1. human cleric that couldnt cast spells except through silent spell
2. human bard who nerfed himself through back story
3. gnome fighter using a shortsword and buckler. Ya that d4+1 is awesome......
4. dwarf paladin with 10 cha
5. me playing an optimized ( probably border line munckin ) wizard
I probably could have carried them through alot of the fights using broken things like color spray and orb spells but I really shouldnt have to. I should be able to count on them.
|
|
It might be fun to role play for a while but intentionally making sub-optimal choices meens that you cant pull your wieght and are at best a burden on the rest of the party as they try to pick up your slack. When my groups in an encounter I dont want to worry about the monsters and the guy who made his guy bad on purpose.
So anyway , if you can pull it off with out hampering your party then go for it.
Edit - I didnt meen for my post to sound rude in anyway. This is just how i feel. Making sub-optimal guy meens the partyyour working with cant really count on you in situation that should be easier because your with them.
Thanks for the reply (and to everyone else who has replied). It wasn't in the least bit rude. I think I can pull off being "less awesome" without actually becoming a burden.
I maybe a little jaded on thus point though. I played in a game once that had a cleric that took a vow of silence ( wouldnt heal anyone ). So we looked to the bard who said " My character doesnt know any healing spells because in his youth blah blah blah." Then I looked at our gnome fighter and dwarf paladin and saided F this.
our party -
1. human cleric that couldnt cast spells except through silent spell
2. human bard who nerfed himself through back story
3. gnome fighter using a shortsword and buckler. Ya that d4+1 is awesome......
4. dwarf paladin with 10 cha
5. me playing an optimized ( probably border line munckin ) wizardI probably could have carried them through alot of the fights using broken things like color spray and orb spells but I really shouldnt have to. I should be able to count on them.
That's terrible. Assuming it was a 3rd edition game rather than Pathfinder, I'd have taken it as the perfect opportunity to try out that multi-classed half-orc wizard/sorcerer I've always been itching to run.
"Would you nerf your character and the party for roleplaying fun?"
I think unless you are playing an optimized wizard with 3 7's in ability scores or some similar sort of codzilla, you are "nerfing*" things to some extent. Which in my opinion is how the game was intended to be played. It is a roleplaying game, not miniatures tactical combat. The key difference is that unless you are Pierce from Community, you don't "win" a roleplaying game.
The amount of optimization folks choose to play with isn't written into the rules, and it is up to every table to decide where to draw the line. Without pages of info about your group, I can't offer anything more insightful then posing the original question to the other players and get a feel for how they want the game to be played.
* Nerf means different things to different folks, but in this case I mean the opposite of optimization.
|
Just rember people that almost kill other people. End up dead by the people that almost died becous of them. And it dose not take that long for them to get this idea. Yes I have killed other players and more then one time.
The other part is why should they let you stay with them if you are acting all crazy? I wold kick you out of the group any time you start acting crazy or just kill you.
For a current character I am playing, I took one level of bard, to the five levels of Sorcerer he otherwise has. For RP purposes, it was perfect. I am still beating myself over the head how bad it was for the purpose of his character power. :p But I guess when he two levels into third level spells, this will pass.
I'm playing the Serpent's Skull adventure path right now with a summoner who has a serpentine eidolon. If you're not very familiar with summoners, that is a bit of a handicap.
The relentless optimizer in the party is a little disappointed with my performance so far. (And I'm usually in the relentless optimizer camp, honestly.)
But I have never had a character who was so perfect for his campaign. I took these sacrifices, and in combination with a few background choices, I created what is seeming like the coolest character with which I could possibly do this adventure. (AND not in a scene-stealing way.)
Is it worth it? I'll let you know. :) We haven't died yet.
Would I nerf a character for RP fun??
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
I can and have done this multiple times. Games are remembered for the characters you create and play, not for the cookie cutter min/max you managed.
I'm currently playing a sorcerer of the Infernal bloodline who DESPISES his powers. He uses them when pushed to the limits... but otherwise avoids them like the plague... person group with a gnome monk, gnome druid and undead sorcerer..
Up to around 7th level, and we haven't died yet. You don't have to 'optimize' characters to be useful to the party. You just have to think quick and be creative!
As for your CG/LE switch... I'm REALLY looking forward to trying the Jekyll/Hyde type character, but I'm a little leary about bringing LE into an established group...
Hyde could be a LOT of fun to play, but it could also Tear your party apart...
I would recommend bringing Harker in early. Master Chymist should NEVER have been a PrC, it should have been an Archtype anyway... You can already mutagen at lower levels... so start taking on those personality traits when you mutagen... then when you hit lvl 7 or so, make him a full fledged personality.
If they can't accept him at lvl 4, then you'll know you have to make some adjustments :)
I believe it all depends of the people you play with. Personnaly I would be okay with it, for I put RP before brawl.
I don't know to what extent taking the prestige MasterChymist handicaps your character, but it shouldn't be THAT bad, for all I know (or care). It's a little important that your character can still manage to fight well enough, though. Let's face it, the big part of Pathfinder's (and D&D's) rules are about combat, and you should be ready for it, unless your DM is the guy that loves super_deep_political_intrigue plots. He/she doesn't strike me as such at first sight :P
Just remember that optimization isn't a prerequisite to an enjoyable game (nor should it be.)
The key difference is that unless you are Pierce from Community, you don't "win" a roleplaying game.
HAHHAHA.. yeah. That too.
I maybe a little jaded on thus point though. I played in a game once that had a cleric that took a vow of silence ( wouldnt heal anyone ). So we looked to the bard who said " My character doesnt know any healing spells because in his youth blah blah blah." Then I looked at our gnome fighter and dwarf paladin and saided F this.
our party -
1. human cleric that couldnt cast spells except through silent spell
2. human bard who nerfed himself through back story
3. gnome fighter using a shortsword and buckler. Ya that d4+1 is awesome......
4. dwarf paladin with 10 cha
5. me playing an optimized ( probably border line munckin ) wizard
That party sounds completely brilliant.
I wouldnt really consider MC a huge handicap, you still get enough stuff to make your non mutant form pretty viable. Walking on the Fighters toes isn't a big deal when the fights really start piling on.
Does the cleric in a classic four walk on the fighters toes?
What about larger parties with multiple melee types? (a ranger and a paladin for example)
We have an alchemist in our group, she hulks out to smash stuff, and oddly enough there are TWO claw/claw/claw bite characters in the group.
We have a best totem barbarian who actually has werewolf in her ancestry. As part of her back story she is reluctant to rage, because she "wolfs out" when she does.
We built her as a "half-orc" but she isn't really a half orc. Just made the build work out best. But mechanically she is optimized for raging (even has a feat spent on extra rage power) but RP wise, prefers NOT to rage. So ironically our Alchemist claw/claw/bites more often!
We have The Barbarian, The Alchemist, My Inquisitor, and a Witch. Very melee heavy party, also a caster heavy party. I don't think anyone steps on anyone else's toes.
I think it would depend on how much nerfing I was doing. So long as my character can remain useful, then I don't see any problem with nerfing. You don't have to play the uber alchemist to have fun playing. I would argue that I have had more fun when I wasn't playing mechanically uber characters.
If your character is a detriment to the group though, you should consider playing something else.
I wouldn't bother playing with any group that required me to be completely "optimized". Such a game just wouldn't be fun for me. I think as long as your group isn't one of those, you should be fine.
That said, I think a totally useless PC in the part would annoy me almost as much as too much focus on optimizing. But in truth, it's hard to make a TOTALLY useless character even if you want to, due to randomness. Even the above mentioned non-casting cleric can still slug someone with a mace, essentially being an underpowered fighter.
"Would you nerf your character and the party for roleplaying fun?"
Define 'nerf', really.
If nerf = make a character less optimised but still be effective in their role and contribute to the party, then sure, I do that all the time and I try to play with people that do likewise.
If nerf = make the character a burden on the party in order to have fun at their expense, then no, that spoils everyone's fun and is just not on. Sometimes a whole group may do this, but not for very long.
From an inexperienced perspective, I don't quite see the problem as long as the "nerf" doesn't go too far. If it literally breaks the party or leads to a TPK then I wouldn't go for it.
I've always wanted to handicap a character of mine, not permanently but for a while (in the shape of losing an arm, or an eye, or vision, or constantly afflicted by some ... affliction.) for the sake of the plot. I also wouldn't do this if the other players and the DM wasn't okay with it.
Nobody wants a permanent burden. Well, I assume nobody does. But it can add to the tension or the roleplay if it's a temporary one, or one done really well.
I've got to say that the idea that anything other than optimised is 'wrong' seems to have currency on these boards and it depresses me. OF COURSE you should take a fun option that makes sense for your character. Sorcerers etc. should take the spells that make sense for them, not the established 'best' spells as determined by the make up of the rest of the group. Clerics should refuse to heal people who act opposed to their deities edicts. PCs shouldn't divide up treasure on the basis of what makes the group most effective, but on the basis of what the individual characters 'want'. etc. etc.
Anything else is rule playing or roll playing, rather than role playing.
Of course, any playing group can choose to play to a different style, and more power to you if that's what you enjoy, but the moment you make a decision on the basis of 'what's the optimal response' as opposed to 'what would the character do', you're no longer role playing.
A player doing what you are suggesting is not ruining anything at all (as someone above me said). The ultimate responsibility rests with the GM, period. Your GM should have the ability to evaluate the party strengths and vulnerabilities, and adjust encounters accordingly by whatever means he wishes. It could be something as simple as giving you the chance to avoid that encounter altogether if you're not suited for it.
I really hate when other players say "you're ruining the game" if you're not "optimized." I am not a number cruncher nor do I care to be. I come up with a character concept and then I make it work and optimization be damned imo.
Role-play/flavor > optimization = more fun
Note: when i say "optimization" I mean creating the most powerful character you can without a thought to RP, I know some of you feel that optimized characters can be role-played as well, and you're right, they can but you all know the type of min/maxing player I'm referring to here.
It's amazing:
I read 'Would you nerf your character and the party for roleplaying fun?'
My immediate thought was:
"Geez, If I was uber optimised and dominating the table would I cut back a bit to let the others shine, or would I keep hogging the glory? - tough call!"
Having flavour and/or not playing something 'optimised' is not Nerfed.
You can have flavour and be optimised, you can equally have no flavour and also be poorly designed - on balance I'd prefer flavoursome over a bland stat block. This game is ALSO about fun and jokes around the table which flavour characters add to, not just throwing dice at stuff until it dies :p
Nerfed is when you HAVE something and then the GM/Rules/Act-of-God takes it away from you.
reference? =)
Now supplied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerf_%28video_gaming%29
Along with terms like Tank and MOBS, etc that have come over from MMO/MUD parlance.
For me fun trumps optimized any day of the week. As long as your idea wont have the rest of your party hating you I say "nerf" to your hearts content.
we have a dwarf fighter I'n our current group who is going the super ac rout, all his traits are to desk sith drinking and I don't expect he'll get power attack or specialization until ALOT higher I'n levels.
In rp the character is funny and entertaining and fun to listen fo but I expect when we get higher level monsters will just walk around him as he hits for d10 +3. though most of the people I'n our group are not super optimizers so it may be less of an issue if everyone was.
In a campaign I ran recently we settled on the concept of 'losers on the make' endlessly coming up with get-rich schemes. My friend described his character as a '10th level petty criminal' and he took the 'catch off-guard' feat not for its utility but because it was perfect for his character. Optimization didn't interest us at all. What I like about PF is that its multitude of options support any kind of play; there's no one way of playing the game. You're not straight-jacketed into being a superhero.
Just affirming what others already said in this thread:
It depends on your group and GM. If the GM expects everyone to play their characters to the optimum to handle his encounters, or other players in the group turn sour for having to drag a "useless" (while actually just being "not a useful as (s)he could be) character along, "gimping" yourself is a bad idea.
But if you agree that RP fun should trump powergaming any time, let your halfling tripping barbarians and dwarfen sorcerers in heavy armor wreak havoc!
We had an encounter the other night with skeletons, I think there was supposed to be only 4, but we were egging to DM, 'bring em on.
So there ended up being 10. Woah. That was alot. Considering there was a 'boss' already.
The way the room was situated, they all gathered around the alchemist (standing at a choke point) and one of the skelies got a crit on the barbarian, confirmed, pulled a card from the crit deck and the result was decapitation! ARG! Bar rolls a save, and it teetered (the dice rolled over a napkin) toward a 1! oh no! it landed on an 11 which was good enough given the barbs +5, but it was close!
So the Alchemist, the weakest, least optimized character in the whole group who usually hits things with a long sword (it's an elf) takes a 5 foot step an throws a bomb. Skadoosh Drops half the skellies (mobbed together) to half hit points.
On their turn the skellies rush forward, but my inquisitor is using shield wall. As a Result no skellies hit her or me.
I go first (whats the deal with inquisitor super initiative anyway?? I always have characters with uber init and i never do it on purpose...) take a step back and shoot one with my pepperbox, Crack.
Alch steps back, second bomb and suddenly there are only 3 skeletons left.
Not bad for the weakest least optimized party member.
To give a somewhat cop-out answer, it depends on the type of game you're in.
I've played games where I'm a middle-aged sorcerer whose spell is True Strike, and before adventuring came along his highest ambition was to use his uncanny powers to win darts games at the local pub. Worked out fine. I've played in campaigns where it definitely would not have worked out fine, too, and more concern to optimization is needed.
|
The way the room was situated, they all gathered around the alchemist (standing at a choke point) and one of the skelies got a crit on the barbarian, confirmed, pulled a card from the crit deck and the result was decapitation! ARG! Bar rolls a save, and it teetered (the dice rolled over a napkin) toward a 1! oh no! it landed on an 11 which was good enough given the barbs +5, but it was close!
...what level was this? Barbarian with a +5 Fort and skeletons confirming on a 16?
...what level was this? Barbarian with a +5 Fort and skeletons confirming on a 16?
The way the room was situated, they all gathered around the alchemist (standing at a choke point) and one of the skelies got a crit on the barbarian, confirmed, pulled a card from the crit deck and the result was decapitation! ARG! Bar rolls a save, and it teetered (the dice rolled over a napkin) toward a 1! oh no! it landed on an 11 which was good enough given the barbs +5, but it was close!
we were like 3rd or 4th level. Where did i say the skeleton confirmed on a sixteen? the barb had to make a fortitude save or be instantly killed (ie the decapitated result on the crit deck)
Barb has a high constitution, thus the +5 to her fort save.
I must be misremembering the crit deck rules, but I thought the confirmation roll was the save DC. So rolling an 11 plus 5 means the DC was 16 or less.
Edit: Ah, it must be one of the ones that has a listed DC.
I thought it was the damage done... Lemme go look.
Edit: all it says is 'decapitation' double damage and death (fort negates)
we used the damage dealt, never thought of using the confirmation roll, where are you getting that from?
Go for whatever is the most fun, not the most optimized.
I once DMed a party where:
The otterfolk (halfling) bard was both primary tank and primary healer....and then got kidnapped and magically mutated so he had his bones replaced with windwood instruments....
The kenku fighter/rogue was a crossbow specialist with 8 Str and 6 Con or 6 Str and 8 Con.
The serpentfolk homebrew-skill-based mage did NOT put max points in Spellcraft and fought with a pistol.
The wizard was an empowered awakened parrot that would rather poop on enemies heads than cast spells....or summon banana peels in their pants.
But it was a fun party and a fun campaign. Kind of like the Perdido Street Station version of Venice.
My characters usually have some flaws and quirks, which is what makes them fun for me.
However at the same time, I like to optimize as well, so usually while the concept is usually not the best to start with, I try to make the best of it, and do optimize it as much as I can.
|
|
I thought it was the damage done... Lemme go look.
Edit: all it says is 'decapitation' double damage and death (fort negates)
we used the damage dealt, never thought of using the confirmation roll, where are you getting that from?
The Definitions rule card, under Save.
I guess the barbarian was saved by houserules. :)
My characters usually have some flaws and quirks, which is what makes them fun for me.
However at the same time, I like to optimize as well, so usually while the concept is usually not the best to start with, I try to make the best of it, and do optimize it as much as I can.
That's what I did with my current PC, a chaos gnome brass dragon shaman, wannabe Sherlock Holmes.
He has Urban Track and Investigator as his first 2 feats, and his first bonus feat was Skill Focus Diplomacy, so he's a good party face, and actually decent at being a consulting detective.
Except he started out in a tiny trading village in the middle of a vast forest, companioned with a catfolk ranger archer and feral kobold battle sorcerer (wannabe Magus). So they all have a speed of 40, and I only have a speed of 20, AND my trademark magic item are Boots of Stomping, so I didn't want to trade them out for Boots of Speed or Travelling or what-have-you. He mostly buffs and soaks up hit points, with the occasional breath weapon or touch of vitality to heal. He also has a wide variety of magic items that do decent enemy repositioning, like Boots of Stomping (makes cone of prone), Bracers of Repulsion, and a Ring of the Ram.
He was recently re-built with some Pathfinderized upgrades, and now has Disable Device and Use Magic Device, and a brand new shiny Staff of Fire! So now he can contribute a lot more to combat.
I thought it was the damage done... Lemme go look.
Edit: all it says is 'decapitation' double damage and death (fort negates)
we used the damage dealt, never thought of using the confirmation roll, where are you getting that from?
The Definitions rule card, under Save.
I guess the barbarian was saved by houserules. :)
OOOooo I think we lost that card or threw it away accidentally?? I dont think we have that (she would have needed a 19!)
|
@ the OP: Honestly, I would talk it over with your fellow players and DM. Let them know you want to do something that isn't entirely optimal, but that it would be a really cool story. If they're okay with it, then great. If they seem hesitant, then I wouldn't advise it. It may be cool for you, but, as a player, it's your responsibility to make sure you're contributing at you're table. If you aren't meeting party expectations, you're detracting from the fun.
That said, remember that the DM ALWAYS has to account for relative party power. Just because you're a little weaker doesn't mean that you'll just drag the party down to the abyss. The DM just needs to adjust things accordingly, which is why I recommend talking to him about it as well.
Perhaps check under the barbarian player's character sheet? :)
(I kid, I kid!)
What to do now? Go with the flub? when the cir came up i was like "how excitingly fantastic!" and then we she saved i was like "ho hum"
that card has never come up before, I think when it does someone is doing blunt or piercing or something.
I wouldn't bother playing with any group that required me to be completely "optimized". Such a game just wouldn't be fun for me. I think as long as your group isn't one of those, you should be fine.
+1
Yeah, just don't play a pregnant monk/cleric mermaid that refused to cast spells for some reason. And refused to hit things because it could hurt the baby. And often had to be told to grow her magical legs so we wouldn't have to carry her everywhere.
There's a big difference between being slightly sub-optimal and being an encumbrance to the party. Just as long as you contribute the best you can, the other players shouldn't be upset with you.
It's not like you're planning on being a bard 1/cleric 1/druid 1/oracle 1/sorcerer 1/witch 1/wizard 1 tank. Right?
It's not like you're planning on being a bard 1/cleric 1/druid 1/oracle 1/sorcerer 1/witch 1/wizard 1 tank. Right?
Oh! Can I copy that idea for my next game? But I'd throw in barbarian 1 and alchemist 1 too.
This is my Oracle of Bones.
He has a Strength of 5.
And I am loving every minute of it!
It's not like you're planning on being a bard 1/cleric 1/druid 1/oracle 1/sorcerer 1/witch 1/wizard 1 tank. Right?Oh! Can I copy that idea for my next game? But I'd throw in barbarian 1 and alchemist 1 too.
Barbarian?! But that'll bump your BAB to 1!
But on the other hand, you can Rage and shut out all your other classes.What a dilemma.
Would you nerf your character and the party for roleplaying fun?I thought "roleplaying fun" was the point of the whole game? Isn't that the diff between an RPG and a combat sim game?
You'd think so. On the other hand some people do define 'role-playing fun' as 'spoiling everyone else's fun' so it's always wise to check.