Hey, just wondering if people had some insight to share.
I'll be playing in a first level game, that will remain first level for an extended time, due to a meta-artifact that prevents characters from gaining XP (and it has been active for thousands of years, so people don't really have a notion that there is such a thing as a hero, or even that you should get better with practice, beyond a certain basic point)
Anywho, my character is a half-elf traveling bard, based loosely on a gleeman (or gleewoman, as the case may be) from Wheel of Time. Juggling, storytelling, singing, etc.
She'll be a bit of a wild card (I'm thinking CG), raised on the road by her elven father, who was a bard, having struck out on her own a couple of years ago.
I thought I'd make her combat based on dagger throwing. (or rather, mostly rock throwing, saving daggers for emergencies)
This will be 10 point buy, and I was wondering if the following stats would be completely crazy:
Str: 14 - Dex: 14 - Con: 7 - Int: 13 - Wis: 7 - Cha: 16
Feat: Point Blank Shot.
Racial Feat: Skill Focus: Performance: Singing (or acting or storytelling)
I could switch Dex and Cha....should I? Is it stupid to dump con like this?
It's more like, we're supposed to be characters in an abysmally low-power setting, which is a game concept we all signed off on.
I personally think the level 1 lock should be enough, but we settled on 10 point buy.
I would never dump con like that. Especially not in a game where you always remain level 1. Too easy to die when you've got so little hp.
In a setting like that I'd play the sorcerer build to do max damage with his cantrips I once rolled up.
I got as far as 1d3+7 if I remember right.
If everyone gets better that's not enough to remain viable for long. But for a game frozen at level 1 it's nice.
Maybe
STR: 12 DEX: 16 CON: 10 INT: 12 WIS: 7 CHA: 14
Would be more sensible? (or, as before, switch Dex and Cha)
|
That is much better. You might want to switch the Str and Con still. Start with a Str: 10 Dex 16 Con: 12 Int: 12 Wis: 7 Cha: 14
If your going to be level 1 for a very long time. Do not start with point blank shot. Go for weapon finesse and a rapier for melee when it happens. Skill Focus: Performance dose you very little good as your versatile performance dose not start until level 2. Going with Skill Focus Perception to counter the Wis Mod. Will help you out more.
Good advice.
I still prefer my layout. She's a performer, so performing is what she does best, it's more of a stylistic choice at this point, but still.
I do want the strength, both for general physical fitness and some thrown weapon damage. I'm also seriously considering the Dex 14, Cha 16 option.
I doubt I'll have access to a rapier, at first at least. And I'm making a conscious choice to use daggers and not a shortsword or a rapier anyway. Just more 'in keeping' with the feel I want for her, the daggers are hidden on her person and not flaunted openly. Wearing a rapier on your belt would just make for a different feeling character.
Still, I very much appreciate the advice. I like point blank shot for the throwing aspect, but obviously, the wider the gap between her strength and dex, the more sense finesse makes.
Oh, and uh, the game is core only at this point. Advanced Players guide might be allowed on a case by case basis.
I think the juggling flaming shotguns that shoot diamond bladed chainsaws powered by exploding acid is an awesome idea, but I think my GM would flay me if I suggested it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*blinks* Well, ..gee.
I am an E6 fan and have a hard time with your groups restrictions. Ten point buy.. *gulp*
I'd be tempted to up charisma and take skill focus diplomacy and make certain I was surrounded by friends everywhere I went.
Greg
Well, my GM has some romantic ideas about PCs, that they're more interesting if they have flaws. (often citing Minsc as an example)
I don't particularly disagree, though I think the Minsc example should explain how you have a 20 stat rather than a 17 stat, and not how you have a 16 stat rather than a 14 stat.
Flaws are good, and PCs that are good across the board can be boring. But at the same time, flaws are no guarantee of interesting, any more than competence is a guarantee of flatness.
*nods* And a good group (including DM) can make any game fun despite restrictions.
With the restrictions imposed though, death becomes very easy. My suggestion was only "half" joking. Social skills and avoiding combat, letting others die in your stead, and running away often may be your best options.
Would love to hear how the campaign goes. Will anyone be journaling about it online?
Greg
I would suggest a 12-16-12-10-7-14 build or a 12-14-12-10-7-16, depending if you want to be more an archer or more a 'caster'... Skill focus could go both in acrobatic (to get out of trouble), perform, perception (very solid choice always, also considering your -2 wisdom modifier)...
I see a lot of difficulties, being lv 1 means risk life all the time, so I would suggest the 16 in Dex, to better attack from distance and better CA.
Good luck!
I agree, a long time at level one REALLY changes the feat choices. Toughness, Weapon Finesse, and Arcane Strike are all good choices.
The two you have are going to HURT
If you want to be a famous performer, get thre with your skill points. Be the guy who can sing, dance, juggle, etc. You'll be your campaign world's first triple threat.
Plus, Arcane strike overcomes DR magic. That could save the entire party, 1st level characters vs. a shadow will all die, otherwise.
Feat: Lingering Performance.
Traits: Maestro of the Society, Reactionary
Str - 12, Dex - 13, Con - 12, Int - 12, Wis - 7, Cha - 14 (+2 racial bonus)
I'm all for avoiding the power-gamer route, but if the GM is going to lock you down I wholeheartedly reccomend that she do it at 2nd level... otherwise all of the characters are in a situation where a single lucky dice roll can kill any of them. I can't imagine any encounter that wouldn't be capable of a TPK even if the players are both smart and cautious.
You're also living in a world where no one is able to accomplish anything skill-related beyond a DC 10. Ever. That would lead to a pretty uninspiring world to adventure in IMO.
As a half elf, the skill focus isn't really optional.
I did consider toughness, but I'd really rather use my few choices to move towards my ideal, than to cover my shortcomings. Basically because otherwise I'll be playing someone bland who isn't really close to my concept for a long while.
I'd rather move a smidgeon towards the stuff I want and deal with the chinks in my armor as they are in the meantime. AFTER we can start leveling, whenever that may be, I can start worrying about other stuff.
Do you need to be a bard? A traveling performer certainly could be just about anyone with the Perform skill. What about a Sorcerer with Prestidigitation? Or an Alchemist--they can automatically throw anything. Heck, even a Rogue might be pretty viable at level 1. Seriously, +1d6 is significant when the absolute most HP anyone could possibly have is 17 (Con bonus race barbarian with 18 Con and Toughness).
Actually, that's a good point--Toughness becomes extremely valuable and you'll never hit the higher levels where it loses value.
But yeah, the point is, I just think with 10 point buy, you should stick to a SAD class. As much as I love Bards, they need to many attributes for this.
I've been forbidden from Rogue and Sorcerer :/
It's ok though, I'm really excited to play Bard.
The 10 point buy does have the unfortunate implication of favoring Single ability characters over MAD characters
I tried to advocate rolled stats, but was unable to gain traction among the group.
Why would you be forbidden from playing Sorcerers or Rogues? That's bizarre.
What other restrictions are out there? I play Bards all the time, and at level 1, they're disproportionately weak. They get awesome even with just a couple levels, but if you're stuck at level 1, I'd really advocate another path (and again, nothing about being a performer requires you to have Inspire Courage--but even if it does, you could still get it as an Evangelist Cleric or Sensei Monk).
My GM seems to think I gravitate too much to certain archetypes.
People with hidden potential or secrets. Characters who are able to disproportionately hold their own in a fight, based on what you might expect from someone typical of their position, etc.
I happen to think that what sort of characters I like to play for fun is my business, so long as I'm not munchkinizing, spotlight hogging or otherwise being a bad player.
(to be clear, the complaint is not that I'm an annoying player or in any way bad company in a game, only that it annoys the GM how I play similar archetypes often...)
also, core only, no archetypes.
In a setting like that I'd play the sorcerer build to do max damage with his cantrips I once rolled up.
I got as far as 1d3+7 if I remember right.
Whoa! Please elaborate. I have a PC that's still fairly low level using his Ray of Frost in cases where his crossbow has a good chance of not hitting and he's always lamenting the damage disparity between the 2.
As I understand it, combat will be 'possible' but should be avoided at all cost. We won't be a match for anything without favorable circumstances, planning and luck.
|
|
Given that the campaign is supposed to be low combat and given that you're going to suck at combat I'd play that up.
If allowed, be raised by 1/2 lings so that you can take the helpful 1/2 ling trait.
Regardless, your plan in combat it going to be to sing, flank with the fighter and aid him. So your combat stats don't need to be very good. Maybe use a bow.
You're a bard. Your main contribution to the group will be through skills.
So, I'd go with stats something like
Str 10
Dex 12
Con 13
Int 12
Wis 8
Cha 16
That gives you reasonable social skills. Your Bardic knowledge will also be very useful. You won't totally suck at combat. And you have SOME ability to stay up.
|
Feat: Lingering Performance.
You're also living in a world where no one is able to accomplish anything skill-related beyond a DC 10. Ever. That would lead to a pretty uninspiring world to adventure in IMO.
^This. I'm for David Gemmel/George RR Martin realistic fantasy too, but this world sounds like a buzzkill. SAD class might be the only thing to thrive in this sad world.
I am living in a world where dc 10 is standard, people can do it as a matter of course.
Where dc 15 is reliably done by ordinary trained professionals (one rank + class skill bonus + assumption of +1 modifier in related ability)
Where dc 20-25 can be reached by trained, ordinary people on a very good day.
Where the most extraordinary people of a generation (high ability, training and skill focus) can reach dc 30 on their best day and dc 20 reliably.
Also, I'm playing a bard. Furthermore, my bard will be the most extraordinary bard of her generation, able to, on her best day, completele a dc 30 performance.
This isn't a powerplay exercise, I've decided on my concept. I know very well that I could be more powerful by making a fighter, cleric or barbarian, I decided that I liked the prospect of playing a travelling bard. The abilities of the bard, while not spectacular, seem useful and fun.
I'll be playing in a first level game, that will remain first level for an extended time, due to a meta-artifact that prevents characters from gaining XP
This will be 10 point buy.
Oh, and uh, the game is core only at this point.
I've been forbidden from Rogue and Sorcerer :/
also, core only, no archetypes.
As I understand it, combat will be 'possible' but should be avoided at all cost.
Wow... this just sounds like SOOOOOOOOOOO much fun.
I think it'll be fun.
A subversion of the usual game paradigm certainly.
But why couldn't it be fun to play an underdog? Someone who has to solve problems with cunning and stealth, diplomacy or evasion, unless he has rigged the game in his favor?
^This. I'm for David Gemmel/George RR Martin realistic fantasy too, but this world sounds like a buzzkill. SAD class might be the only thing to thrive in this sad world.Feat: Lingering Performance.
You're also living in a world where no one is able to accomplish anything skill-related beyond a DC 10. Ever. That would lead to a pretty uninspiring world to adventure in IMO.
Heh - remember this?
I think it'll be fun.
A subversion of the usual game paradigm certainly.
But why couldn't it be fun to play an underdog? Someone who has to solve problems with cunning and stealth, diplomacy or evasion, unless he has rigged the game in his favor?
That's just it - I think you can do all of those things at higher level - be it 2nd or 12th... because the challenges scale with your character's development. The upside is that at higher levels, you're less dependant on the luck of the die and moreso on the character you've put together... at first level, it doesn't matter how well you plan, your modifiers are so small that even for minor challenges you are utterly subject to the whim of the die rolls.
I'm a big E6 fan, and under those circumstances a much wider array of challenges become available without ever having characters feel over-powered or overly optimized - essentially right now your GM has removed more than 95% of the game from you because either you aren't a high enough level to have access to it or you aren't a high enough level to survive it.
That leaves, well... pretty much nothing but some die rolls and a lot of crossed fingers.
I think I'd RATHER play E6, certainly.
But this is still an interesting idea in my opinion.
I will admit that my most recent talk with the GM about the implications for society have resulted in something of a disagreement between us about how this world might function.
I think I'd RATHER play E6, certainly.
But this is still an interesting idea in my opinion.
I will admit that my most recent talk with the GM about the implications for society have resulted in something of a disagreement between us about how this world might function.
Hopefully you and he (or the group and he) will find a happy medium. I'm all for being challenged in a game, but often times I find first level (at the very least) the drudgery you have to endure and th edice rolls you have to dodge before you can get to a higher level (3rd - 6th) and actually have some choice about your destiny.
I wish you the best in it, however the game goes. It occurs to me that there are games out there that are much better designed for this sort of 'level playing field' approach to play, and that Pathfinder - desinged for heroic adventure - might not be the best option if that is the goal.
Thing is, it's supposed to be totally possible to find and remove the restrictive element (whether it be a curse or an artifact)
It'll just be very difficult.
Afterwards, the world will become either a normal pathfinder world or an E6 world (though one where people don't really know about stuff yet, still at level 1 and don't know they can advane)
Whoa! Please elaborate. I have a PC that's still fairly low level using his Ray of Frost in cases where his crossbow has a good chance of not hitting and he's always lamenting the damage disparity between the 2.In a setting like that I'd play the sorcerer build to do max damage with his cantrips I once rolled up.
I got as far as 1d3+7 if I remember right.
I had a thread about it some time ago. It can be found here
Serious question: why is your GM playing Pathfinder with you? The system is completely unsuited for the kind of game he apparently wants to play.
The fourth edition of this Game seems to be exactly what he wants. It is entirely possible to build a fun and versatile character who isn't proficient with a single weapon in DSA (or TDE as it would probably be in english). Also, extremely low (normal human) powerlevel, magic is rare and hard to use and the most powerful characters, high priests of a god or something are probably only the equivalent of a level 5 pathfinder char. Also, the rules (aside from character creation) are a lot simpler than Pathfinder. The only reason I pick pathfinder over DSA some of the time is BECAUSE I want to throw around big, powerful magic and fight dragons. If you don't want that, I recommend DSA.
Ok, reviving this thread briefly. Thanks for good advice everyone.
Just wanted to ask if people had thoughts on feats.
In Pathfinder Core Only (as in core core only, advanced players handbook is on case by case basis)
For a dagger throwing bard stuck on first level, at least for the foreseeable future, who 'might' go into archery at some point if she starts gaining levels, her abilities are.
str 12, dex 14, con 10, int 12, wis 7 cha 16.
Her level one spells are Charm Person and Cure Light Wounds
I'm thinking, feats. Point Blank Shot, Arcane Strike, Lingering Performance?
Man, I just saw another thread just like this on another forum. Looks like most 3.5/Pathfinder players feel you can't play low level low-powered characters, yet that's how D&D has always started until the high point builds showed up. Many old school roleplayers feel level 1-3 are the sweet spot of classic D&D and AD&D.
So as long as the entire group is on board with this idea, go for it, and have fun!
For feats, Toughness is obviously best in your situation, but if you don't want that for conceptual reasons (which I understand), well, PBS and Arcane Strike are pretty easy to compare. PBS gives +1 to hit and +1 damage, while Arcane Strike only gives +1 damage. But Arcane Strike counts as magical, which is unbelievably valuable against some opponents. The big question is: will you be facing those opponents in your low power campaign? Possibly not. If you're only facing mundane opponents, PBS is better.
Although Arcane Strike also works in melee. And without Precise Shot, throwing daggers into melee will suffer. But then again, you probably don't want to enter melee anyway; much too dangerous.
Lingering Performance makes you fantastic for support, but if you want to take full advantage of it, you're going to take a much smaller combat role. You can triple your performance time by stopping after every round of performance and letting it linger, but that means you need to start up your performance every 3 rounds. Depending on the size of your group, giving everybody a +1 on everything always might be a lot better than giving yourself that +1 only on ranged attacks. But it really depends on how many combat encounters you're going to see per day. If you're supposed to avoid combat, you probably don't want to see too much benefit from Inspire Courage, because that means you're in combat.
So if you're really serious about avoiding combat, and especially melee, then Point Blank Shot is probably best, even though I find it the least interesting of the bunch.
Heck, why would you play pathfinder for such a setting? Maybe you should just tell each other some stories instead of rolling some dice until one PC just explodes on a critical hit of ... a rat or something.
I just dont see why you should play a game like that, all goals you mentioned might also be achieved in a eegular game without chances of slipping to death or being killed by a frog...
Is your goal to be so negative to put other people off Pathfinder? Why is it so hard for some people to accept that there are different ways you can play the game?
|
|
Hmm, with everyone capped at 1st level, equipment has got to be crazy expensive. Craft DC's for normal equipment aren't that bad, but progress is measured by the check total. With a theorectical max check of 30 for ALL artisans, the time input on merely a dagger probably double. Masterwork items, heavy armor, and alchemical items are probably right out. Plate mail could take years to make!
Hopefully your GM has taken that into account (or hand waved away the craft system)...
Is your goal to be so negative to put other people off Pathfinder? Why is it so hard for some people to accept that there are different ways you can play the game?I think they're more saying this isn't the kind of game Pathfinder is built for (and I agree).
It's pretty inherently a game about heroes, and that premise is built into the rules at the basest level. It sounds like this GM wants to run a game about people. I think that can work in Pathfinder, and I think they'll have fun with this game, I just think they'd have MORE fun doing it in a system made for it.
It's true that Pathfinder is designed with a steep power curve, but even old versions of D&D were all about going from zero to hero, and yet people have great fun playing only at the lowest levels. There's a lot of fun to be had where you don't always expect it.
Tweaking the system has always been part of the fun of RPGs. And of course munchkins and power gamers like to tweak for even higher power, but that doesn't make it wrong to tweak for lower power. The 10 point build is one of the official power levels suggested by the system, so it's not even all that outrageous a tweak. And you can choose between fast or slow progression. The fact that many groups prefer the high-powered epic build level and faster progression doesn't mean you cannot do other stuff with it.
Personally I feel that the focus on where you're going with your character build instead of where you are right now, kinda spoils the game a bit. I don't want to plan the mechanics ahead, I want to roleplay in the now. Getting rid of the planning ahead might actually turn out to be a very effective way of accomplishing that. And once level 1 has been thoroughly explored, they can always level up anyway. That's a million times easier than going back.