In another thread I commented on how bad choices are traps for newbies and wanted to expend a bit. Maybe we can come up with a list so that these bad choices are called out and either fixed in the next edition of the game or at least new players will know to avoid them.
I wish I could find the quote that one of the original game designers of 3.0 stated that certain feats were like "Timmy" cards in Magic the Gathering. I honestly don't play magic but the basic idea is that some choices are bad by design so that those with system mastery feel better by avoiding those mistakes. Making people with system knowledge and mastery feel like elitists is just wrong IMHO.
Ok let's get the ball rolling with the two that stand out the most +2/+2 skill modifier feats and most prestige classes.
The +2/+2 modifier feats are just horrible , yeah I know they get to +4/+4 at level 10 but they still fail. A feat should let you do something exciting and cool hopefully let you make a choice to use it. A good feat if it doesn't do this should at least give a constant static bonus to something used every round or every encounter.
If I want to role play a survivalist I put ranks in survival and heal I don't take the "self sufficient" feat.
You only get a feat every other level, wasting them on something like that is just a bad idea. But to a new player it might sound fun and exciting.
Prestige classes, pathfinder went along way down the road to make 3.5 better and in so doing made all the base classes something you wanted to stay in....this is a good thing. But at the same time reduced the power of prestige classes. They are simply now almost without exception weaker than the base class you are leaving. Take a look at the new one in the main book pathfinder chronicler it is a medium BAB class without any real combat bonuses or spell casting ability, what is it supposed to do?
I understand that the game is about roleplaying and not roll playing but come on a new player to the game should be able to sit down and make a character by picking cool sounding things and not bring the rest of the party down in ability.
You can role play the heck out of a min/maxed character the same as roleplaying Timmy the bard who picks the feat Deceitful and spells known rope trick and ventriloquism.
List of bad choices (aka less optimal things you should not pick)
- any feat that gives you +2/+2 to skill checks
- most prestige classes
|
Ok let's get the ball rolling with the two that stand out the most +2/+2 skill modifier feats and most prestige classes.The +2/+2 modifier feats are just horrible , yeah I know they get to +4/+4 at level 10 but they still fail. A feat should let you do something exciting and cool hopefully let you make a choice to use it. A good feat if it doesn't do this should at least give a constant static bonus to something used every round or every encounter.
This is going to go right at odds with the "I've taken a skill feat not for a prerequisite" thread. Some of those skill feats are actually useful. I wouldn't pick self sufficient as one of them; however, magical aptitude and cosmopolitan, as well as alertness can all be good picks for a level 1 human character who can't pick weapon focus/power attack etc. because his BAB isn't 1 yet.
Not to mention that not all campaigns are based off of combat, and sometimes you want something like Skill Focus helping you along. If I were making a non-magical character that wanted to use wands ASAP, I wouldn't go out of my way stacking his CHA score at the expense of his other stats. I would give him a 12 CHA, Skill Focus: UMD, Magical Aptitude, and that plus the class skill bonus would give him at level 1 a score of 10, which is quite excellent. At level 9 he would auto-succeed rolling a 20, and from level 3-4 on I would have no qualms with being the resident CLW wand user.
Just a few points on why the skill feats are not always a poor choice.
I don't like prestige classes, but that is just me. This has nothing to do with traps.
+2/+2 feats are just fine. Sure, I hardly ever take one, but they are still fine.
Suppose you eliminated all the feats that can think of that are "traps". What you are left with is a bunch of feats that are pretty good compared to the feats that you eliminated, but even in that set there are some feats that are better than others; and then its just a matter of time before somebody goes and calls those feats "traps".
...
One more thing, a "Timmy" card is not so much a trap, as it is a card that is not cost-effective for winning. Timmy cards are in fact very often very cool cards in terms of concept and power level; but the investment is too high for most pro-level players.
Translated to DnD terms, this would be a "Timmy" feat: it gives a big oomph at a reasonably steep price; but it doesn't help to increase your characters DPR, so its not that interesting to minmaxers.
Sometimes the confines of reality are not enough to contain you.
Prerequisites: base attack bonus +6
Benefit: Once a day, as a full round action, you can make a single attack and gain +10 on the attack roll and +10 on the damage roll.
If you think the feat "Awesomeness" is great and that you'd take it, I have good news for you: you're not as bad a minmaxer as you might have thought.
I feel your pain when it comes to prestige classes. Let's see, let's take a character that only gets to use a dagger, mechanical crossbow, or a staff in combat, and then make all xp dependent upon defeating enemies in combat, and most treasure be exotic swords and armor that said class can't touch. So maybe if I take a prestige class at 8th Level I auto-magically get All Simple and Martial Weapons so I can now hold a sword when the uber-ogres with fire/cold/acid resistance come through the party like a freight train. But I'll have to sacrifice two or three spellcasting levels in order to get that prestige class. Or tailor all my Level 3-9 feats and half my skill points to qualify for that prestige class.
Once people learned to "dip" into multiple prestige classes one or two levels just for the beginner's benefits, Pazio and other publishers changed from publishing prestige classes to "archetypes", which are classes with another name, and moved most of the goodies of the new archetypes into Level 4 or so, in order to discourage "dipping". They want you to custom-tailor your character into a prestige class, and "force" you to "go all the way" with 10 levels for the prestige class to Level 18 or so before you are done with the prestige class. And lose two to four spellcasting levels at the same time.
Or prestige classes with ridiculous requirements, like "meet a deity" or "taught by a master only". Then make a world document that enables said prestige classes without prejudice, if you're going to do that. New people don't think about prestige classes until it is too late (Level 12).
The Adventure Paths force you to be a self-sufficient character, cast into a jungle or another plane with no civilization or marketplace to buy/sell with, and most AP treasure is non-linear exotic garbage as well. New people have no clue they need to make characters that can survive these APs.
I'd like to play a character class "all the way" to Level 20 but can't due to the limitations built-in on the class.
Bad choice:
- a feat that only gives you access to a single weapon/armor, instead of all weapons/armor
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish I could find the quote that one of the original game designers of 3.0 stated that certain feats were like "Timmy" cards in Magic the Gathering. I honestly don't play magic but the basic idea is that some choices are bad by design so that those with system mastery feel better by avoiding those mistakes. Making people with system knowledge and mastery feel like elitists is just wrong IMHO.
If you're bringing in the Magic player archetypes, it's appropriate to point out that there are Magic players who like "Timmy" cards and enjoy it. It's a game. Enjoying it is the whole point.
Just because "Spike" doesn't like them doesn't mean they're inherently bad. It means they aren't meant for Spike.DIsclaimer: I'm a 'Johnny'.
|
*please read this post with the humor it is intended. Not meant to be snarky*
For min-maxers you might be absolutely correct. I don't like playing with min-maxers if I can help it, however.
I choose skills and feats based upon the character, backstory, game history, and fun. If a feat is not "optimum" but better fits the concept, yeah I will pick the sub-par feat any day.
If I want a perfect character that maximizes every little nuance of the numbers I'll just play World of Warcraft or some other computer none ROLEplaying game. I prefer ROLEplaying games, not roll playing games.
So for those of us who actually prefer to have some story element I would absolutely hate getting rid of these "non-optimum" feats. In fact if they were gotten rid of, I would not waste my time with the new edition.
Besides I think they did that and called it 4th edition... ;-0
Combat Expertise
It's required to open up a tree of (decent?) combat feats. Anyone who played 3.0 or 3.5 can easily mistake it for a-feat-which-is-pretty-good, get sucked in by CE before they read the changes, and realize "oh... what a waste"
On a side note: My rogue has Skill Focus - Bluff, because he's built around bluff. His traits (Canter, Nonchalant Thuggery) and Class choices (Skilled Liar replaces Trapfinding) should synergize with his skill focus, to make a world-class liar beyond what his CR suggests.
Thus, SF-B is (in my mind) not a trap, because of all the ways to use bluff - distraction to get stealth in combat, using canter to plan surprise attacks during dialog, or tricking enemies that he's surrendering or switching sides. Plus this is a high-intrigue game, so having outlandish bluff checks is simply good fun.
The problem is, the enemy is min/max'ed even if the PCs are not. 3.0 tried to give monsters the ability to level just like PCs, and it died off by the time Pathfinder came out. You're just not going to run into the ogre that has Profession: Cooking at 6 ranks, or Craft: Tapestry at 8 ranks, or can speak in six languages and has Diplomacy at 8 ranks.
No, you're going to get Guido the Grotesque with Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain, and Intimidate at 14 ranks with maybe Climb at 2 ranks.
That's the trap for new players. Make a character that can live to 2nd Level or die. Not a smooth talker who can convince the brigands that "these aren't the mooks you're looking for", or the bookworm who can successfully get you a low rate on booking a trip up the river to the next city, or a woman who can calm any animal she comes in contact with and cook a fabulous repast every night. No, you've got to make an "adventurer" who can either take a 2d6 hit from a greatsword and live, or hit people from 100 feet away with a magic attack. Or you're dead. Simple choice.
Make a "well-rounded" character who can get a nice job in the city, and you're dead unless you've got a four-man party protecting you. Make a "Caveman for Geico" character, and hey, you're going to 12th Level.
|
|
The problem is, the enemy is min/max'ed even if the PCs are not. 3.0 tried to give monsters the ability to level just like PCs, and it died off by the time Pathfinder came out. You're just not going to run into the ogre that has Profession: Cooking at 6 ranks, or Craft: Tapestry at 8 ranks, or can speak in six languages and has Diplomacy at 8 ranks.
No, you're going to get Guido the Grotesque with Improved Initiative, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain, and Intimidate at 14 ranks with maybe Climb at 2 ranks.
That's the trap for new players. Make a character that can live to 2nd Level or die. Not a smooth talker who can convince the brigands that "these aren't the mooks you're looking for", or the bookworm who can successfully get you a low rate on booking a trip up the river to the next city, or a woman who can calm any animal she comes in contact with and cook a fabulous repast every night. No, you've got to make an "adventurer" who can either take a 2d6 hit from a greatsword and live, or hit people from 100 feet away with a magic attack. Or you're dead. Simple choice.
Make a "well-rounded" character who can get a nice job in the city, and you're dead unless you've got a four-man party protecting you. Make a "Caveman for Geico" character, and hey, you're going to 12th Level.
The thing is, you don't need feats or specific skill ranks (except maybe full Perception, that's mandatory) to survive to level 2. You need to play smart and not make CON your dump stat (or if you do, play really smart). Excessive use of Longspear and teamwork tactics work pretty well for survival, and generally a team of tactically-coordinated players can beat Guido regardless of their collective cooking skills.
A couple of things:
It's not a trap if you can just roll up another character. What gamer has played D&D and not lost a character? It's a rite of passage.
Low-level adventures probably shouldn't be all that lethal. Sure, there's a chance you could lose a character, but for new players, it should be up to the DM to throw easy encounters at them until they master some better tactics. That's not the system's fault; it's the DM's responsibility.
No character is an island. Someone pointed out that you can't survive without a four-man party protecting you. No s&&$, Sherlock. D&D is supposed to be about cooperation. The game is done right if it punishes noobies for trying to be lone wolves. They need to learn to rely on their group.
Yes, the group could use one guy who can take a 2d6 hit. It also needs another guy who can shoot magic missiles 100 feet. That leaves two other characters who can make optional/supportive/non-traditional/sub-optimal choices.
The +2/+2 feats aren't that bad once you teach level 10. If you really want to specialize in a skill, getting another +4 can easily be the coherence between success and failure. If you want to be the worlds greatest spotter, device disabler, negotiator or use magic devicer, this feat combined with skill focus combined with max ranks combined with a magic item that grants +5 (or better yet +10) can easily get your skill check up in the heavens.
At level 10: +10 ranks, +3 class skill, +6 skill focus, +4 secondary focus, +10 magic item = +33
You're getting a +43 when taking 10. You're not going top fail often with a score like that. Some skills like perception and intimidate can be hosted even higher with racial bonuses or traits.
Besides I think they did that and called it 4th edition... ;-0
I'm not sure what kind of a jab you're trying to make at 4e. It's got more than its share of optimal and sub-optimal feats, both with flavor backing them and without. Have you played 4e?
DIsclaimer: I'm a 'Johnny'.
Heck yes. Johnny players ftw.
I tend to play pretty fairly, where I make a battlefield that's hard to cope with, but if you're prepared, you can survive just fine. Also, I don't buy cards anymore, and just play with the collection I have every now and then.
/derail
I think the idea that some choices are obviously better after experience playing with them goes well with knowing what sort of game is being played. This also applies to what sort of adventure is being had by the group in question.
I gotta say, my roommate still bugs me about not playing a "piratey" character during an Eberron adventure and for Savage Tide, since I love pirates so much. For the first one, nobody had any idea that the adventure was going to even include a ship, much less pirates, we were light on spellcasters (I made a Wizard/Archivist/Mystic Theurge). And for the second, well, I just didn't think a pirate was what the group needed at the time. As it turns out, my monk fits in pretty well.
The point is, there are all kinds of adventures that are run in this game, and context is where you see the good choices.
4e totally has some "bleh" feats. It has a LOT of them, in fact.
I mean, 4e has character optimization. The difference is that charops in 4e isn't as extreme.
The baseline is set up more equally. A fighter with great feats and great powers will be better then a fighter without those. At almost everything, in fact! But. Both fighters, because they have a strong baseline, can still do their job moderately well. Furthermore, as a DM, it's way, way easier to modify enemies up or down to meet the party. And lastly, it's easier for a party to make up for one bad member and it's harder for one super-optimized member to illegitimize a group.
The +2/+2 feats aren't that bad once you teach level 10. If you really want to specialize in a skill, getting another +4 can easily be the coherence between success and failure ... Some skills like perception and intimidate can be hosted even higher with racial bonuses or traits.
I've got to start checking what SWYPE is typing in for me more carefully. I sound like Antwan from In Living Color.