I am all for whatever is required to build the character I want to play, especially at low levels. I do recall that one complaint I heard about in 3.5, however, is that many characters took 3, 4, 5, or more classes, of which 1 or more were PrCs, to build their characters. Now, sometimes, that's what they needed to make their interesting PCs; other times, it was rampant powergaming with the intent to break the game.
Personally, I'd rather need fewer classes to get where I want to go, if I have that option. If that means multiclassing into an archetype, so be it. I'd just prefer not to need a ton of classes.
Well, there is really two statements here
A) People who powergame sometimes took multiple classes and most often took prestige classes. People who were power gaming were trying to break the game.and
B) I would rather take less classes as long as I can play the character I want.
Starting with B... I am with you. As long as you want to play a character who is represented well by the base classes or one of the archetypes now presented you are golden. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It if fantastic that Paizo actually saw there was an issue with people who stayed in just a base class being behind the power curve and made that a solid option. A lot of applause from me for that move.
However, you are not presenting an option to stay in a base class if you take away all the other options at the same time... so choosing to change the dynamic of Prestige classes is a change that kind of, in my opinion, takes away some of the luster of the good design decisions on the base classes.
So yeah, base classes are great, archetypes are great.
To address A, I have to start with the caveat that you may very well gamed with power gamers who were looking to break the game. But being what many people would coin a power gamer and enjoying playing and running those who also want to know the rules and use them well, I can tell you that it doesn't typically break the game... unless you also have players who flat out refuse to make a character who remains at a similarly effective level of ability.
The problem I see in campaigns regarding power gaming is when there is a large disparity of power levels between PCs in the game. If all the players just kind of make 'meh' choices and vanilla builds and don't really use that great of tactics you are fine, as long as they are having fun it is great. If you have a group that optimizes builds and tactics you are sitting good, as long as they are having fun. But if you have a group of optimizers and one guy who refuses to think about his character or learn the rules (and here is the important one) and refuses help from those others in the group who do enjoy that... then there is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
But that problem doesn't have anything to with whether or not dipping into classes that use an archetype is a good thing for a character or not.
If I want to build a guy who was born poor but had dreams of becoming the best swordfighter in the world, and fights with little or no armor in a swashbuckler type fashion and I make a build that isn't really that good in a fight, did I make my character concept? I would contend no. If you want the best swordfighter in the world he needs to be a good swordfighter... it doesn't make sense for the DM to have you achieve your goal of recognition as the best swordfighter in the world at the end of the game and have a caveat saying "but the bar was pretty low."
Likewise, if you built that character as a magus and decided you were feat starved so you wanted to take some fighter levels for some cool maneuvers you wanted your character to be good at, it would make sense to take a fighter archtype that looses the armor abilities that you won't be using and don't fit with your character concept.
Basically I contend that the mechanics should support your character concept just as much as the RP aspects do... you need em both. And dipping with archetypes can be a really solid way to do that.
Bringing it back to the point of this post (sorry for the thread jack), if you reassess some of those archetypes as potential dips instead of just looking at them in isolation some of the ones that look pretty bad have some redemption. (Of course, there are definitely some that just don't seem like anyone would take regardless as well)
Anyway... I think that is a big strength of the system. More options means you can bring to life more character concepts and make what it is you want to make. It is harder for the people who don't know the rules well though, more of an advanced option... I just don't get the hate for it when it flares up.
To be fair though when Paizo announced and further developed Pathfinder there were a lot of people who saw only having one core book as an option as a big selling point. I don't know why they can't just play core only in their home games and not wish that other people who enjoy them didn't have options, but whatever...
Sean Mahoney
The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
It's a good thing that Gunslingers don't have to take that ability; you get it for free as you level up! That ability is also extremely underrated. It essentially lets the healer save a spell slot to stop the condition and it's MUCH faster and more reliable then an actual Heal check.
Personally, I don't think it's bad game design. It's excellent game design. If all archetypes were so good that they were no-brainer choices for an archetype, then it wouldn't be an interesting choice. You'd have EVERYONE playing the same archetypes, and I think that it's a good thing that character concepts aren't entirely reliant on the archetype system.
In my opinion, all Archetypes can shine if the GM gives their players the ability to allow it to shine. I always tell me players that if they like / want an ability for roleplaying reasons but are worried about if I will give them opportunity to use it, then they should talk to me about it, because if you want a chance to play the game your way, I'll personally give it to you.
For example, you want to play a Pirate Rogue but are worried about the Sea Legs ability being useful? No worries, I'll just make sure your campaign is centered around naval travel with many naval battles so you can benefit from your abilities. A good GM will be able to challenge the party and make everyone feel useful during the night.
any thoughts?
For instance my newest char is an Infiltrator-Ranger. At first i was somewhat biased, as i didn´t see a role-play justification right away, but it made a wonderfull start for a back-ground-story. My Half-orc char was trained by his full-orc brother as a "weapon in a trunk/ slave" systemetically beaten up on a daily basis and let loose on giants infringing the tribes territories.
On the dips: for example for Skulls&Shackles:
I was thinking on a mobile fighter character, maybe with a couple of Rogue Levels. Shordsword-Weaponmaster? or rather throwingAxemaster? Looked into the Rogue-Sniper, but darn, only more range for bows and crossbows. Then i looked into the Barbarian-Archetypes: the Hurler.
Perfect for a throwinweapon-character- 10feet more range, no fast movement, thats a pity. But still a great twist/added flavour and more oompf. Such a char could still take a Level Ranger-Guide or the mentioned RogueSniper or just 2 Lvls Barbarian Hurler, with a good Con thats quite a rage.
The Archetypes are quite specialized and lots of them i wouldn´t consider for a full built-up, but they are great for campaign-specific builds or dips that evolve out of roleplay- those are the best anyways for me.
These archetypes are great for RP=heavy or themed campaigns.They are not so great for munchkins,however.Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be optimal?
Reverse Stormwind much?
I don't think that anybody said such a thing, it's you who said that suicide choices are golden opportunities for RP.
I don't think that anybody said such a thing, it's you who said that suicide choices are golden opportunities for RP.These archetypes are great for RP=heavy or themed campaigns.They are not so great for munchkins,however.Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be optimal?
Reverse Stormwind much?
Well...they are.
Being optimized doesn't preclude RP. But not being optimized doesn't preclude RP.
VoP monk works fine in a social low combat type of game, I suppose, although I admit that it is an extremely weak option. But a pirate for example, is a bit weak for a bunch of flavor.
So in a party that doesn't optimize, it's a fine choice and a nice flavorful option. Don't take it in a party that optimizes.
|
+100I see your 100 and raise you 100.
Stop feeding us waste of space crap! Grr.
+1000.
The thing about the system is while it maybe fun and interesting to play an archtype that maybe weaker imo the system does not reward you for it. Your at a disadvantage. Which maybe fun once or twice that's it. I can make a Monk that specioalizes in perform and takes feats to improve on that yet next to a regular Monk well imo your at a disadvantage. Giving up Uncanny Dodge for a +1 on fort and ref saves imo is just not worth it. I'm not asking for more powerful abilites. i'm asking for replacements that are of equal power. And a bonus to saves is just not it.
+1000.The thing about the system is while it maybe fun and interesting to play an archtype that maybe weaker imo the system does not reward you for it. Your at a disadvantage. Which maybe fun once or twice that's it. I can make a Monk that specioalizes in perform and takes feats to improve on that yet next to a regular Monk well imo your at a disadvantage. Giving up Uncanny Dodge for a +1 on fort and ref saves imo is just not worth it. I'm not asking for more powerful abilites. i'm asking for replacements that are of equal power. And a bonus to saves is just not it.
Reward in an RPG is a funny thing. Are you worse at combat? Yes. Is this a super huge vital thing? Maybe.
Maybe. It's always fun so long as you have a group that you enjoy playing with and doesn't make you feel like dead weight to choose less than stellar flavor options.
None of our group optimizes. Our GM balances the encounters for us as we are. Which means I only consider something a trap option if I will never end up using it. Optimizing and Roleplaying are compatible. But it's just as valid to not optimize and focus more on the roleplay. It's ok that there are options that keep that in mind.
@LazarX
I didn't say that a non-optimal choice is suicidical but things like VoP monk aren't just non-optimal they are suicide.
A VoP monk is pretty much destined to die when the game hits double digit levels.
Even in that kind of campaing (which is a very unlikely campaing) the cloistered cleric is still a worse choice because he doesn't have any big advantage in that kind of campaigns and when things eventually go into combat that cleric won't be able to pull his weight because unlike the vanilla cleric he can't stand with the others in melee but also has lessened spellcasting ability than a vanilla cleric would have. Sure the party might eventually succeed but the cleric would have made a smaller contribution. And if for some reason a player wanted to make a deliberatelly bad character he could have done so by using the cleric already in the core book and just play music (for no benefit at all) during combat, see the player does get to play a weaker cleric and doesn't have to pay more money to do so.
I Am by no means a negative Nelly who criticizes other peoples builds
I play a monk for heavens sake!
You say that as if it were a bad thing!
am I the only one? Or do people foam at the mouth for the pirate rogue
or the barbarian wild rageri don't get the point of either of these. the wild rager makes you save a will save? or attack your party?
the pirate gets sea legs?
Wild rager: As much as I personally dislike that kind of rage, I can totally see why it is there: In older editions of D&D, as well as many stories including berserkers and the like, the berserker does not control his actions when in his state of frenzy.
I personally prefer the "combat trance" kind of rage Pathfinder uses, but I can see how people want to cleave closer to some of their favourite berserkers.
Pirate: I can totally see taking that archetype when playing in a pirate campaign (I'll invent a new name for such a campaign on the spot out of thin air: Skull and Shackles ;-)).
Trapfinding is nice, but the concepts of a pirate adventure and traps don't have a lot of overlap. Sea legs isn't such a bad feat, and if you're playing in a campaign that won't last that long, it's even a net bonus over the bonus you get from trapfinding, since it's +2 to three feats.
Swinging reposition sounds nice, too: Make a charge (or a bull rush) and then move back out of reach. That forces the enemy to either waste his 5-foot step to get to you or not attack you. Depending on where your allies are, this can mean he'll have to choose between targets.
Unflinching, giving up trap sense (which, as I said, isn't really relevant to many pirates) is really nice. Not running away from scary stuff, not being intimidated by enemies, and not having your mind messed up are phenomenal things!
In general, there are archetypes I personally wouldn't play, but they can't all be winners. Plus, a lot of the stuff I don't like is awesome to other people, and vice versa.
|
I'm glad that gunslingers have this ability, but they could have got it for free.The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
They do get it for free. It's part of the utility shot deed you get just for hitting level 3. As long as you have one grit point you can perform a utility shot, one of which is Stop Bleeding. You aren't giving up a feat, you aren't having to make a choice, you get it, and all of the other utility shot options, at level 3. Heck, you don't even have to spend a grit point on it, just have one available.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As for what this thread has devolved into, look, we are all gamers, with different styles, different wants, different goals. Some people love min/max style mechanics, others love the flavor these archetypes add for role play. Neither is wrong. If you don't like the books, or the archetypes, don't use them. If you like them, and your DM is like minded and allows them, use them. But it's kinda useless for anyone to argue that this is stupid, or that is awesome because they are just personal preferences.
Anyway, good day all, I'm off to bed.
Sorry Shadow_Proclomation, didn't intend to single you out - there were more than a few people who kindly pointed out my wrongness, and you were one of them. The more frustrating aspect is the whole stormwind falacy crap that enters these threads, which you were not a part of.
I agree with your sentiment above.
I'm glad that gunslingers have this ability, but they could have got it for free.The gunslinger ability that lets them shoot a bullet and then use the superheated barrel to stop bleeding is a really good example. It's a terrible ability from a min-max perspective, but it's just so damn flavorful, I'd be tempted to take it.
I'm sure this will cause someone to chime in and say this is terrible game design, blah, blah, blah, but it seems to be the way Paizo works.
...
They do.
Sigh.
Okay, so I haven't read the gunslinger all that closely.
I'm sure I had some other point I was trying to make before people latched on to whether that ability is good (it isn't) or is a class ability that need not be chosen (it is)
No, you haven't. You should stop posting about it now, actually, because once again you are wrong on both accounts.
It's an ability that immediately stops a Bleed condition for the price of a single shot of ammunition. No checks or attack rolls required. It can be done as part of a standard action, so it is quicker than using a Heal check, and since it effectively spends gold instead of prepared spells / spell slots / scrolls / potions / wand charges, it is more cost effective to use.
On top of that, it is one of three parts of the Utility Shot deed, which is a core Gunslinger class feature. The Gunslinger class clearly states that a Gunslinger can use any deed described under their class as long as their level is equal to or lower than the deed's level. There is no selection involved; you do not need to choose it. You just know it starting at 3rd level.You don't even need to spend a grit point to use it; it's one of the 'as long as you have at least 1 grit point in your reserve' abilities.
Finally, the subject of the Gunslinger's abilities may not be the subject of the thread, but when you use an incorrect example, you should expect to be corrected on it. People don't ignore faulty arguments in a debate, after all. They get torn apart and used against you. The moral of the story is that you should always consult a book or the PSRD (they actually have most of the Ultimate Combat stuff up now) to make sure your thoughts are correct before you post them; I myself checked my copy of Ultimate Combat AND the PSRD before typing this response just to be safe.
Yes, actually, it is. It's a specialized version of a false dilemma.
No, actually, it isn't. It's a thinly veiled (and thin skinned) attempt to delegitimize those who make the perfectly reasonable observation that some players prefer to pick feats based on the mechanical aspects of the game while others prefer to pick feats based on role playing considerations.
I like you Jake you are funny.
Thank you, A.S. You make me laugh as well...and sometimes cry.
|
No, actually, it isn't. It's a thinly veiled (and thin skinned) attempt to delegitimize those who make the perfectly reasonable observation that some players prefer to pick feats based on the mechanical aspects of the game while others prefer to pick feats based on role playing considerations.
Yes, actually, it is. It's a specialized version of a false dilemma.
What about those of us that prefer to pick feats based on roleplaying considerations but don't want to constantly worry about the character not living up to what we originally wanted to roleplay?
It's a false dichotomy, just like reverse-Stormwind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?
Actually, they can be mutually exclusive.
They are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.
If the story brief calls for a group of characters built to be generalists, who could believable represent a korvosan street gang, it is bad roleplaying to make a hyper optimised god-wizard.
The stormwind fallacy is itself almost always used in a fallacious manner, specifically as a strawman, because more often than not, the argument isn't "optimisation is bad" it is, "character concept trumps character optimisation."
When making an "effective character" becomes more important to you than making a character that mechanically fits your concept, you inevitably either reduce the number of concepts your willing to play, or start to play characters which mechanics which in no way reflect their concept.
It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?Actually, they can be mutually exclusive.
They are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.
If the story brief calls for a group of characters built to be generalists, who could believable represent a korvosan street gang, it is bad roleplaying to make a hyper optimised god-wizard.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't imagine many gangs are going to have much truck with a wizard in their ranks who decides to take Ventriloquism or Crafter's Curse, instead of Sleep or Color Spray, which could end a street brawl in a second. They'd probably rather their caster buddy took Improved Initiative or Combat Casting or Spell Focus over Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy).
There are ways to make a character that's all about power and mechanics, and has no flavor, no one denies that. But the person who made that character would not start roleplaying better if you forced them to play a cripplingly weak character. And there is no concept that inherently demands a character be cripplingly weak, making optimization of any kind into bad roleplaying, save perhaps the concept of 'the character is incompetent and has no business adventuring'. Which, of course, raises the question of why he is.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't imagine many gangs are going to have much truck with a wizard in their ranks who decides to take Ventriloquism or Crafter's Curse, instead of Sleep or Color Spray, which could end a street brawl in a second. They'd probably rather their caster buddy took Improved Initiative or Combat Casting or Spell Focus over Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy).It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?Actually, they can be mutually exclusive.
They are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.
If the story brief calls for a group of characters built to be generalists, who could believable represent a korvosan street gang, it is bad roleplaying to make a hyper optimised god-wizard.
Ventriloquism:
Luring unsuspecting people into ambushes.Causing distractions to aid your pickpocket partner do his job.
Draw away a guards attention to aid in sneaking.
Passing secret messages.
Threatening shopkeepers, without tipping of the guards as to who is behind the protection racket.
...Ect ect. ect.
No, no street gang would ever use that spell.
Crafter's Curse:
Punishment for those who go against the gangs will.
Means of extorting money from businesses
Means of damaging your rivals drug production.
Means of damaging your rivals front businesses.
ect ect ect
No, no street gang would ever use that spell.
Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy)
Making your gang mates laugh, and being like able.
Cutting put downs that shame members of rival gangs.
Causing crowds and distraction, to allow pick pockets to work.
No, no steet gang member would ever have that feat.
You also making a mistake in assuming that feats are something that the character 'chooses'. They are knacks or aptitudes which a character picks up as a result of their experience. They don't even necessarily know they have earned one, let alone make an active choice about which one of the abstract knacks they acquire.
There are ways to make a character that's all about power and mechanics, and has no flavor, no one denies that. But the person who made that character would not start roleplaying better if you forced them to play a cripplingly weak character. And there is no concept that inherently demands a character be cripplingly weak, making optimization of any kind into bad roleplaying, save perhaps the concept of 'the character is incompetent and has no business adventuring'. Which, of course, raises the question of why he is.
There are different power levels of concept. There is a difference in skill levels between "A fencer who has since childhood trained with the worlds greatest master, after having been selected from amongst five hundred promising youths" and "drop out student and hobby fencer, who has been dragged into events by misfortune."
Both are perfectly reasonable concepts. One is good for a high powered combat focused campaign, while the other low powered, steet level gothic horror campaign which challange characters across a wide range of threats(i.e. a campaign that favours generalists).
Also, not all characters are have to be Adventurers. Playing as adventurers is only one form of play, and one I cannot remember the last time I did.
To be honest I do not find many archetypes that are useless, a few archetypes that have poor mechanics, but I like the options and how they take so little space and still manage to inspire many character concepts.
I do appreciate the ammount of useful crunch paizo puts in their books, unlike WotC which always left me feeling cheated.
I also noticed that quite a few options, archetypes or otherwise, that paizo puts out make perfect sense for NPCs but not so much for PCs, as a GM I do not find anything wrong with that. In UM they should however avoioded advertising VoP and Dragon Shaman by their old 3.5 names, it gave people false expectations about those options, VoW being subpar for a PC, Dragon Shaman being something completely different and a bit uninspired.
There are ways to make a character that's all about power and mechanics, and has no flavor, no one denies that. But the person who made that character would not start roleplaying better if you forced them to play a cripplingly weak character. And there is no concept that inherently demands a character be cripplingly weak, making optimization of any kind into bad roleplaying, save perhaps the concept of 'the character is incompetent and has no business adventuring'. Which, of course, raises the question of why he is.This. A mechanically weak character doesn't make anyone a better roleplayer. If I build an "optimized god-wizard", I'll still roleplay exactly as well (or not) as if I built "Fumble, the inept hedge wizard". This is what the Stormwind deniers refuse to accept. Degree of optimization is not linked in any fashion to roleplaying ability. Period.
In a perfect world you would be right, but in general optimization goes at the expense of flavor. Can a character be build to be both effective and fun in roleplay ? Sure it can, but the roleplaying potential of awesomely effective can be very jarring, as is the roleplayer that puts it's highest scores in intelligence and wisdom as a fighter without ways to make it even slightly effective.
If that intelligence fighter can through some feats make intelligence work, by getting effective abilities based on knowledge skills and precision damage like the 3.5 swashbuckler it will probably still be less optimal than many other builds, but at least it will be effective.
Optimal characters don't allow for alot of room in diversity, while 'mere effective' characters can.
|
|
Not everything is for everyone. I know a lot of people where the good time is the reward in and of itself. If fulfillment is based solely on combat advantage than you're absolutely right and should give such archetypes a pass.Where I disagree intensely is that all archetypes should place tatical advantage first and foremost.
I'm not saying everything is for everyone. The point I was trying to make is that some rpgs allow you to make a weaker character while not being as much at a disadvantage. With D&D having a Rogue with Uncanny dodge and one without mkae a big difference in surviving. Sure is it fun to roleplay yes. At the cost of being less effective imo. And you have to have the right player too. I have seen players make less optimized characters than complain their not pulling their weight.
I Am by no means a negative Nelly who criticizes other peoples builds
I play a monk for heavens sake!but looking through the UC i see some archetypes that I just don't get.
am I the only one? Or do people foam at the mouth for the pirate rogue
or the barbarian wild rageri don't get the point of either of these. the wild rager makes you save a will save? or attack your party?
the pirate gets sea legs?
these are just 2 that stand out if i am in error pleas fill me i. i love the ape shaman for the druid but some of those i would never pick in a million years. I dont think it is just my style either?
any thoughts?
I can't comment much on the wild rager....as I don't play alot of barbarians in general( so pretty much the whole class is a 'waste of space' for me).
But the pirate rogue....getting rid of the trap abilities...HELL YEAH. I hate traps....they are boring in play to deal with and half the time don't make logical sense in the place where most traps are set. So any chance to get rid of the trap abilities a rogue gets I happily will do so.
Maybe, maybe not. I don't imagine many gangs are going to have much truck with a wizard in their ranks who decides to take Ventriloquism or Crafter's Curse, instead of Sleep or Color Spray, which could end a street brawl in a second. They'd probably rather their caster buddy took Improved Initiative or Combat Casting or Spell Focus over Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy).It is a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. Roleplaying and building an optimal character are not exclusive. Having a less than optimal character does not make you a better at roleplaying, no matter how you look at it.Not matter how hard you try to make it so, the "Stormwind Fallacy" is not actually a logical fallacy.
Because the only way to be RP heavy is to be mechanically weak!
Stormwind much?Actually, they can be mutually exclusive.
They are not always mutually exclusive, but they can be.
If the story brief calls for a group of characters built to be generalists, who could believable represent a korvosan street gang, it is bad roleplaying to make a hyper optimised god-wizard.
Ventriloquism:
Luring unsuspecting people into ambushes.
Causing distractions to aid your pickpocket partner do his job.
Draw away a guards attention to aid in sneaking.
Passing secret messages.
Threatening shopkeepers, without tipping of the guards as to who is behind the protection racket.
...Ect ect. ect.No, no street gang would ever use that spell.
Crafter's Curse:
Punishment for those who go against the gangs will.
Means of extorting money from businesses
Means of damaging your rivals drug production.
Means of damaging your rivals front businesses.
ect ect ectNo, no street gang would ever use that spell.
Skill Focus (Perform: Comedy)
Making your gang mates laugh, and being like able.
Cutting put downs that shame members of rival gangs.
Causing...
Note that I specifically said all of these things were selected instead of more optimal choices. These more 'flavorful' spells have some minor uses, but they are highly situational, and the gang has access to any number of ways to achieve those ends that don't require the expenditure of limited magical resources. Mainly the Bluff skill, for anything you suggest doing with Ventriloquism, for example. Whereas Sleep and Color Spray put people out in a way not easily duplicated, highly useful in both street brawls and robberies. Charm Person goes without saying. Grease and Obscuring Mist help make good an escape
I never said a street gang member wouldn't have this feat. I said the wizard in that gang would almost certainly prioritize making his spells more effective, or learning to get spells off when a rival gang member or guard is in his face. That in no way stops him from cracking jokes with his mates or being likable. It just means he'll leave using Comedy to work a crowd to the rogue or bard who actually have it as a class skill and (in the bard's case) have actual mechanics to use it in that way.
What is the inherent qualitative roleplaying difference between a human street gang wizard who takes Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Combat Casting as his 1st level feats, and habitually prepares Sleep and Charm Person; and the one who chooses Skill Focus (Comedy) and Deft Hands, and habitually prepares Ventriloquism and Crafter's Curse? One's optimized, one most certainly isn't, but I would argue that the optimized one fits into a street gang just as well, if not better than the unoptimized one.
Optimization, to me, means nothing more or less than taking your character concept, and making it the most effective that it can be. The problem arises not from optimization, but from players whose concept is, effectively, 'Mary Sue.'
Er, no. I suggest you actually investigate it, since you clearly do not know the arguments that caused the formalization of the Stormwind Fallacy. I'm reminded of a saying: "It's better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
Like I said, "thin skinned."
Optimization isn't just "Og stronger than dinosaur, dumber than box of rock". It's any time you make intentional choices as to what makes your character more effective at anything.
+1
This is the main purpose of the archetypes in pathfinder. They exist to expand the range of potential benefits, in line with a particular concept/theme, from a given class beyond what's laid out in the base mechanics.
The alternate abilities gained by the archetype provide benefits (in some cases ones that cannot be gained in any other way) in certain circumstances. How beneficial they may be will depend on how common those circumstances are; a pirate rogue in a dungeon-crawling, trap-heavy campaign may not find much benefit, but the same character in a sea-borne campaign with a lot of ship-to-ship combat and few traps will find a lot of benefit. By swapping out class features, they also prevent the "wasting" (as the hard-core Char Ops types put it) of feat choices to realize the concept/theme instead of selecting the most "optimal" ones such as Improved Initiative, Natural Spell, Power Attack, etc.
Note that matching character concepts/themes to the campaign objectives/themes is a whole separate argument that really has little bearing on archetypes in and of themselves... Just what the mechanically "optimal" choices are can depend greatly on the focus of the campaign (color spray and sleep are great 1st-level spells, but horrible against sightless and/or mindless opponents such as oozes/slimes, skeletons, and zombies).
And for what it's worth, an optimized wizard makes absolutely perfect sense in Korvosa, because of the Acadamae. Said optimized wizard was obviously just a drop-out who is highly skilled but did something against the rules (attacked a fellow student, whatever) and joined a street gang because his skill set is quite useful to them. You can extort with sleep just as easily as with crafter's curse and can entertain the party with minor image just as easily as with Skill Focus: Comedy.
Actually, there are no drop-outs at the Acadamae in Korvosa, as those who do not pass or otherwise do not complete their studies are never seen again. Rumors have it that they are handed over to the Necromancy faculty to experiment on.
Some do manage to get away--for example, Rolth, the hideous necromancer in Curse of the Crimson Throne.
And for what it's worth, an optimized wizard makes absolutely perfect sense in Korvosa, because of the Acadamae. Said optimized wizard was obviously just a drop-out who is highly skilled but did something against the rules (attacked a fellow student, whatever) and joined a street gang because his skill set is quite useful to them. You can extort with sleep just as easily as with crafter's curse and can entertain the party with minor image just as easily as with Skill Focus: Comedy.Actually, there are no drop-outs at the Acadamae in Korvosa, as those who do not pass or otherwise do not complete their studies are never seen again. Rumors have it that they are handed over to the Necromancy faculty to experiment on.
I clearly remember a trait called "academy dropout" in the CotCT AP guide....
|
... The class delivers on what it's supposed to do. If that means that for most campaigns this should be NPC only, so be it. I say the exact same classfication belongs to the geisha which should not be under any circumstances be found crawling in a filthy dungeon.
Since Ultimate Combat came out, the Geisha has a lovely selection of weapons to choose from (she gets proficiency in a monk weapon for free), and can wear haramaki or silken ceremonial armour at no penalties. So, she's exactly 3 AC less than any other Bard who doesn't use a shield (assuming such a Bard does wear a chain shirt), loses nothing else, and gains a bunch of stuff too. Exactly why, assumed fluff aside, would this archetype not be suitable for adventuring?
I clearly remember a trait called "academy dropout" in the CotCT AP guide....
That was changed a bit when they came out with the Guide to Korvosa. The Guide hadn't been written yet when the player's guide was released.
Some do manage to get away--for example, Rolth, the hideous necromancer in Curse of the Crimson Throne.
If that is true, I believe that that was because the Guide hadn't been written yet when the first part of the AP was released.
With the reputation that the Acadamae has, the resources that it has, I find it hard to believe that any student could escape for long if they stayed in the city.
I am playing in the CotCT, so have not read the AP, but when we played it, if I remember the details correctly, our GM told us that Rolth was a junior faculty member who had been expelled for unauthorized experiments, but only expelled due to some patrons.
two things
1. I would really like this thread to be about what archetypes you pick in the Ultimate combat and why even why you wouldn't pick a certain archetypes and why besides "it is worthless"
every comment said before about the wild rage and the pirate has opened my mind to see the value that i did not see before.
i like to see other peoples point of view, i mainly play bard, monk, cleric, paladin ect...
2. pretend i don't know what you guys are talking about but what is the stormwind thingy you are referring to?
As written, it implies an unfortunate typo. I would have to assume that any player or GM who tried to enforce the interpretation you're suggesting during actual play was being disingenuously obtuse.
It specifically states that the bleed cure comes in place of doing any damage with the firearm attack.At a guess, that's meant to imply that the hot barrel does no damage when pressed against the bleeding wound, but as written, it precludes actually shooting somebody.
What a wasteful display of resources....30gp for the bullet, 30gp for the black powder...that GM must hate Gunslingers...it's a stupidly written deed I'd only ever use if I was at 1HP and the rest of the party was already out, to prevent me from dying.
What a wasteful display of resources....30gp for the bullet, 30gp for the black powder...that GM must hate Gunslingers...it's a stupidly written deed I'd only ever use if I was at 1HP and the rest of the party was already out, to prevent me from dying.
Except that the bleed removal is only one part of a Deed with three abilities. It's called Utility Shot; the bleed removal is not a deed by itself. And considering that a Potion of Stabilize costs around 75 gold and does the same exact thing in a similar situation, it's pretty fair. Add on top that a character with the Gunsmithing feat (all of them) can make bullets / gunpowder for 10% of the cost (4 gold) and it isn't a bad effect at all.