When I look at a suggested character build, my first thought is usually, "Will this character be able to do what the player wants it to." My next thoughts, lately, tend to be, "Would I want this character in my party?" and "If this character were in my party, how would my character interact with it?"
This got me started thinking of builds along the lines of being selfish (I do TONS of damage, just so long as someone keeps the enemies away from me, and I get this buff from a cleric, and this buff from a wizard, and my allies delay for me to go first, and, and, and...) or generous (This buff helps my damage and everyone else's too, this spell lets the rogue get sneak attack, etc.)
Do others of you assess characters this way?
What classes, builds, or abilities do you think are generous or selfish?
There's also the category of self-sufficient builds (I do TONS of damage with or without other people's aid).
Iunno. My usual thought process fro a character just comes down to :
Does it sound fun?
If yes, can I make it useful?
I do generally try to contribute something party-wise, or at the very least remain self-sufficient. Like my Monk isn't the best fighter on the field, but he doesn't really need any buffs to get going and he's not particularly limited in "Stuff he can do per day" except for his Barkskin/Scorching Ray abilities, so he can keep on chugging. So at the very least he's the second best frontliner but he doesn't eat people's spells.
Also the fact that he can spot pretty much everything and everyone, he's obsessed with History and Religion, and can tell a liar/possessed person/someone who's being enchanted from 400 paces doesn't hurt matters either (god I love Sense Motive).
Edit: Well it seems Ben had the same thought I did.
I agree with Rynjin on this. My fun is typically the first thing I consider. Next I try to decide if the player will either fill a gap, or support an existing role (i.e. play a cleric vs. play a second melee fighter). Next I try to make the character have a special ability to contribute to a group (scouting, mobility, a good grapple to remove powerful enemies, etc.)
Generous:
Any buff spells (when used on others), some battlefield control spells (grease, etc), most bardic performances, Cavalier's tactician, Sensei's ki power handout, etc.
I can't think of many examples of "selfish" builds. The only two that come to mind are squishy casters/archers that need meat shields and archers that want the party to move out of the way because they don't have precise shot/imp. precise shot.
When I think selfish, I think "contributing to me, but not the party", but that's more a play style than a build normally. Like if you're a Wizard with buffs and decide to only buff yourself, or if you're a defensive build that focuses on keeping yourself alive instead of trying to actively soak hits. I'd consider people who intentionally make characters below the generally accepted power level of their group ("I know it's a combat heavy game made with strong PCs in mind, but I'm going to be Wizard with 12 intelligence anyway"), or people who decide to do obviously stupid stuff while someone could really use their help in the "selfish" group as well; you may be having a great time being a cleric thats weaving baskets in the corner and giggling, but the dragon just bit the fighters arm off man, why you no heal??
There's also the category of self-sufficient builds (I do TONS of damage with or without other people's aid).I see this far more than I see selfish builds. The only "selfish" build I see consistently is rogues who rely on flanking to not be useless in combat.
well, even if you aren't a rogue, flanking can be a fairly rewarding edge, and i found that the best way to play a rogue, is to play a roguish flavored class that isn't labeled rogue. such as a sandman or archaeologist, an urban ranger, or a dreamscarred press cryptic.
|
The only two that come to mind are squishy casters....
Those squishy casters may well be some of the most generous. They have the potential to spend ALL their resources buffing the party. Or they may indeed be self centered. Armor, or lack thereof, does not determine how party friendly a character is.
Imagine my level 1 wizard spending all of his spells on mage armor, shield and reduce person. He has the highest AC in the group, and accomplishes nothing.
Alternately, he could have enlarged the barbarian, cast infernal healing on the unconscious cleric and tossed his mage armor on the monk.
The only two that come to mind are squishy casters....Those squishy casters may well be some of the most generous.
Perhaps I should have said that that facet of the squishy caster (needing defenders) is selfish. Most builds aren't entirely selfish or generous, but rather a mix of the two.
well, even if you aren't a rogue, flanking can be a fairly rewarding edge, and i found that the best way to play a rogue, is to play a roguish flavored class that isn't labeled rogue. such as a sandman or archaeologist, an urban ranger, or a dreamscarred press cryptic.There's also the category of self-sufficient builds (I do TONS of damage with or without other people's aid).I see this far more than I see selfish builds. The only "selfish" build I see consistently is rogues who rely on flanking to not be useless in combat.Flanking is useful on other classes, but most melee rogues will be almost useless without it. Particularly at higher levels. I have seen rogues beg the fighter/barbarian to move into flanking position even if he had something better to do, because otherwise the rogue would deal 1d6 damage and fail to overcome DR.
I agree other classes are better than a rogue, but many players(particularly newer ones) will pick the rogue anyway.
if you want a rogue to be less selfish, you build a longspear wielding spring attacking scout with High Strength and power attack. not the most optimal build, but it has an easier time punching through damage reduction, and isn't totally dependant on a specific corner case weapon enchantment.
There's also the category of self-sufficient builds
Yes, perhaps the center of the continuum.
Selfish <---------- Self Sufficient ----------> Generous
The most selfish characters I think I've played with have been:
- Halfling Rogue(Knifemaster) - He did 1d3-1 damage without flanking, and didn't "do traps".
- Battle Cleric - A mediocre melee cleric with a shield & sword who only memorized buff spells, which he would spend the first two rounds of every combat casting on himself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think very much in terms of general and selfish. In particular, our groups have problems justifying why these people are even traveling together, so I go generous so my character (at least) will be considered indispensable to the group.
The ultimate generous character is, of course, the Bard. IIRC, there is a Bard archetype that trades the Rapier and Whip proficiencies for proficiency with the Net and Trident. You are the penalty stacking king. The wizard can't hit some ultra-dextrous little bugger because of its high touch AC? Start your bardic performance, use your boffo BAB to hit it with the net, and hand it off to the fighter to hold onto. The rest of the time you're casting Good Hope, or Haste, or Grease, or using wands of CLW and so on. Out of combat, you use your high Bluff and Diplomacy skills to get the best deals on trade goods and lead the party to its next quest.
Some honorable mentions: Cavalier (Challenge makes him basically the game's only effective tank and teamwork feats make for a great buddy system), Cleric (Lots of Buffs and spontaneous cures), and Paladin (just by being near her your saves improve, and she has some great Lay on Hands buffs)
The ultimate selfish character? There are two. The monk. High saves, high AC, moves like lightning, giving you the ultimate in survivability. But he hardly hits, and when he does it doesn't really do enough damage to quickly take an enemy out, which is about the only way most martial types can be generous to the party. The monk can penalty stack, too, but honestly the monk usually has to do it just so he can get a shot in. Out of combat your class skills as hardly useful and CHA is about your only dump stat so prepare to sit quietly or muck it up for the party face.
The second for an entirely different reason is the Summoner. A Summoner IS his own party. Druids might get a little out of hand with their animal companion and summons, but they are at least limited to a weaker summon list and have fewer per day. And an animal companion is far more limited than eidolon. An eidolon can be built to outclass a fighter in combat with a summoner spec'd for healing or blasting. Why is the rest of the party even there?!
My Monk hits almost as hard as the Barbarian (lower damage dice but slightly higher static damage), and a little less to hit, but has higher saves and a better AC, plus human lie detector levels of Sense Motive and a really good Kn. Religion/History and Perception check as well.
Granted this is with 3 levels of Fighter (Brawler) to shore things up combat wise but am I still selfish or...?
|
|
Well, selfish isn't necessarily BAD per se, but yes. The higher AC and saves for instance are selfish traits. They only help you, not the party. The problem is that even those helpful abilities you listed are redundant.
Knowledge Religion and History---first of all, how often does history ever come up? But Knowledge Religion's BIG advantage is in identifying and destroying undead. A Paladin or Cleric will get that same knowledge and use it to much greater effect. But really a Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Witch, Oracle, Magus; really any Divine or INT based class will have the points to burn and most likely be the one making those checks.
Sense Motive? It's part of a larger whole of Diplomacy and Intimidate (and to a lesser extent Bluff) that works better on party faces. Who's going to going to be schmoozing the town folk or making the minion spill his guts? Most likely not you.
Now those things may come in handy, but EVERY character in a party has to help at least a little. Just by doing some sort of damage you're helping. But when doing a class by class comparison, it is simply no contest. There is nothing the monk provide that another class wouldn't provide better. A monk helps, but not nearly as much as a Bard or Cleric. Nor a properly specialized Wizard, Witch, or Sorcerer. Even the Fighter and Barbarian outclass him by virtue of doing enough damage to take lower level enemies out of the fight immediately and presenting a big enough threat to draw fire. You admitted yourself you took some levels of Brawler.
However, again, this is not saying a selfish build is bad. Builds Are Not Bad. As long as you have fun playing the character, and the rest of the group is having fun, that's all that matters.
Like was said earlier, builds tend to be selfish or not based on how they are played. Many builds have the *potential* to be incredibly helpful. It doesn't mean they actually will.
Well, selfish isn't necessarily BAD per se, but yes. The higher AC and saves for instance are selfish traits. They only help you, not the party. The problem is that even those helpful abilities you listed are redundant.
Well, they help your healer not expend resources, as long as you're good at placing yourself between enemies and people with less survivability. I'll admit the monk itself isn't a great class, but that's an issue with the monk specifically more than with survivability in general.
Another thing is, buffing and healing are cool, but too many of that type of character in a party is really suboptimal. Too many "selfish" high-survivability types is also suboptimal. Damage-dealing, on the other hand, stacks really well. You can never have too much damage.
Well, selfish isn't necessarily BAD per se, but yes. The higher AC and saves for instance are selfish traits. They only help you, not the party. The problem is that even those helpful abilities you listed are redundant.
Fair point on the AC/Saves but the other abilities aren't redundant.
Knowledge Religion and History---first of all, how often does history ever come up? But Knowledge Religion's BIG advantage is in identifying and destroying undead. A Paladin or Cleric will get that same knowledge and use it to much greater effect. But really a Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Witch, Oracle, Magus; really any Divine or INT based class will have the points to burn and most likely be the one making those checks.
History's come up a bunch so far, as we're playing Serpent's Skull. So Religion serves a much more useful use than just identifying undead as well.
The Cleric has Kn. Religion, but hasn't really invested in it so his score is about 5 points lower than mine.
Sense Motive? It's part of a larger whole of Diplomacy and Intimidate (and to a lesser extent Bluff) that works better on party faces. Who's going to going to be schmoozing the town folk or making the minion spill his guts? Most likely not you.
I'm not really the face, but Sense Motive has come in handy in social situations at least once in every part of SS so far (though I'd be lying if I have that score just because I like the skill, I use Snake Style), as enchantments and shady types seem to be pretty common in this campaign. My Intimidate score is definitely lagging behind but it's at least enough to guarantee an assist on someone else' (generally the Barbarian) check.
Now those things may come in handy, but EVERY character in a party has to help at least a little. Just by doing some sort of damage you're helping. But when doing a class by class comparison, it is simply no contest. There is nothing the monk provide that another class wouldn't provide better. A monk helps, but not nearly as much as a Bard or Cleric. Nor a properly specialized Wizard, Witch, or Sorcerer. Even the Fighter and Barbarian outclass him by virtue of doing enough damage to take lower level enemies out of the fight immediately and presenting a big enough threat to draw fire. You admitted yourself you took some levels of Brawler.
Well, we have a very large party. A Barbarian, a Cleric, a Sorcerer (also run by me), a Bard, a Magus, a Ranger (archery) and a Paladin. I actually outdamage the Paladin (he's built to tank) and am only slightly below the Barbarian (but with the aforementioned higher AC and Snake/Panther styles' retaliatory hits), and we're both lower than the Magus when he goes nova or sometimes the Ranger (when he's facing his Favored Enemy and can get all of his attacks it turns into a bloodbath), but I think many of the Monk's nifty tricks are undersold by detractors. He's certainly not going to be a hefty hitter without significant planning, but I contribute a good deal in combat by forcing the enemy to split his attention between us, because I am still a significant threat, or by still one-shotting weaker foes and being able to attack a good bit while moving around.
However, again, this is not saying a selfish build is bad. Builds Are Not Bad. As long as you have fun playing the character, and the rest of the group is having fun, that's all that matters.
True enough. I'm having fun playing him, and everyone else likes the character as well (he's somewhat taken on the "leader" role along with the Ranger, though only by default since nobody else really chimes in with ideas even when prompted =/), so I guess that's all that really matters.
I just kind of felt the need to chime in and say that the class is not necessarily selfish as long as you put some thought into it. Well, okay, a little more thought than is really healthy but still.
Speaking as a guy with a lot of experience in tabletop gaming, here's how I normally encourage my players to think when building their characters:
Select skills that aren't duplicated in the other characters if possible, that way you have your niche, and the party has more versatility.
We basically need a healer/buffer, an arcane spellcaster, a scout/traps man, and a warrior. The classic build for a group is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, but you can choose variants if the other characters can take up the slack. For example, we could have a Druid, if some other PC was decent at healing like a Paladin as well.
Now, lots of you will get all excited about nasty combos and such, but you will find that your PC's won't last long unless you start trying to fill in defensive gaps. For example, a Cleric with a poor Dexterity will want a Lightning Reflexes feat to make up for a terrible Reflex save. A Sorcerer that finds herself getting pounded on a lot should respond with increasing her hp, AC, and possibly her saving throws. In the early levels, you will find your characters to be very fragile, thus it is better to think defensively when designing your PC.
As DM, I have noticed that the more you design your characters to play off one another, building strengths to cover your team mate's weaknesses, the better off you are as a whole. But that's up to you.
You can have any non-Evil alignment, but remember that if your proposed personality really conflicts with the rest (a thieving sort who fell in with a Lawful group for example) isn't going to go well.
Ultimately I just want all of you to have fun, really. So show me your character designs, and I will do my level best to suggest good ideas, helping your character do what you want it to, yet still fit in with the rest of the group.