If you enjoy hitting things in the face them make a character that can hit things in the face. Gragnar the face ripper will always have some faces to rip. No one should be relying on having the fighter bring a unique skill set to the table.
If you like sneaking around, translating ancient runes, making friends and meeting people then make a character that can sneak around translate runes and meet people. Just have some way of ripping someone's face off, because we know thats what you're going to have to do eventually.
My of 1 'sword and board' Fighter is a heavily combat oriented character, highly specialized to maximize AC (22/13 touch/19 flat-footed).
He has no dump stat, though Int, Wis, & Cha are all 10s. His 2 skill points went to a Day Job and the other to Survival. By Matt's example, as I understand it, this is a 'bad' character.
The problem I have with that view is that it is not so much the numbers on the sheet, but the willingness to be helpful, that makes a 'good' character.
Every time he has been used the groups have enjoyed having him in the group, even if his suggested solution to almost every problem somehow includes using his sword...
This character is a Great character, I enjoy playing up his asinine heroics and strive to make him useful even in those areas he is next to useless.
Your character is more than just facts and figures, or at least it should be. And it is that substance that is most important in PFS play.
If you have a few spare skill point, sure, train up some of the more useful skills for your Faction and general progression through modules, but you shouldn't feel forced to build skill heavy or combat reduced.
I want my characters to do a few things really well, especially manipulation. But I do like, and expect, at least one player at the table to be committed to pure damage.
kinevon wrote: 1) Furious Focus is a bad example feat.
2) Only if you have the skill points to spend.
Let's not split hairs by debating the specifics of the example; that will lead nowhere. The broad strokes are what matter.
Tempest_Knight wrote: By Matt's example, as I understand it, this is a 'bad' character. If you want to put words in my mouth, there is nothing I can do to stop you.
-Matt's pretty sure this line has run its course.
Matt, the broad strokes make it sound like you need about a half-dozen skills to function in PFS. You don't.
A low skill character can function in PFS, but will generally play a bit more of a support and/or soldier role. If you like this role, no problem.
A high skill character can hurt the groups enjoyment of the game by showboating the skills.
A well played high skill character can save a group by being a skill Swiss Army knife, but remember that about half of your average PFS module is combat encounters. You need to be able to carry your weight.
I've had games ruined by cavaliers, wizards, rogues, and rangers.
Optimization of any kind is toxic if used by a player without regard for other players at the table.
Feral wrote: Optimization of any kind is toxic if used by a player without regard for other players at the table. QFT
Silbeg. wrote:
Have been wondering about a skill focus in UMD... he can't currently even use a wand without a chance of failure (he'll be +8 at 3rd)... Still good enough to go ahead and try, if necessary... not good enough to not burn charges now and then. True competence won't happen until 5th level...
.
you don't burn a charge when you fail umd
Feral wrote: I've had games ruined by cavaliers, wizards, rogues, and rangers.
Optimization of any kind is toxic if used by a player without regard for other players at the table.
It's the player, not the build that's the problem.
PCs "of any kind are toxic if used by a player without regard for other players at the table."
Rogue Eidolon wrote: Yikes! Never once? Well feel free to peruse my guide to rogues if you like. Among other things, I don't ever recommend Two-Weapon Defense because it gives a non-stacking shield bonus that doesn't stack with other sources of shield bonus. Take Dodge instead if you don't have it and you want some AC--it is better in all ways. I'll second that. RE has some solid guides, they can help you out with things like that. A wand of shield for 2 PP is far better than two-weapon defense.
If you want longterm scaling AC, combat expertise is also good if you have the int pre-req. Likewise, if you have 3 ranks in acrobatics, simply fighting defensively is about a good a boost as you can get at your level. With enough dex and weapon finesse, you can still hit fairly reliably too while flanking.
Combat Expertise also unlocks some other useful feats, Gang Up is designed ot let a Rogue flank someone who is standing in a corner, as long as he has two allies who are also threatening the target.
"Ha! You can't flank me, I am standing in a corner, no one can get to where they are standing opposite each other with me in between!" can make for a very disappointed defender...
Nosig, are you saying that if a GM calls for a knowledge check from the party, and a character has a mere + 4 to that skill, it would be "toxic" behavior for that player to roll their dice?
That's the most rediculous thing I've heard. When asked what a group of people know of mountains, everyone will think of something. It's just that the geologist will usually know more. However, his expertise doesn't prevent or negate the fact that the others probably know something.
I try desperately to role play. Without doing so, I may as well play a boardgame or tactical war game. As a role player, I need to know what my character knows.
If my character only has a +4 in a knowledge skill and I roll a 2, that tells me I'm walking into unchartered territory -- perhaps I have misinformation. If I roll an 18, then I'm relatively knowledgeable about the topic at hand. I may not know what the specialist does, but it helps me gauge my character's response or feelings about the matter at hand.
Of course, this is also why I always roll the dice rather than take 10. Sometimes one has moments of clarity or holes in their education. I play heroes. Heroes are not average. They get lucky or they fail stupendously. The joy of role playing comes from telling that story. It's why we can't take 10 to resolve combat. It would simply be boring.
nosig wrote: I resently played with a player who ran a more generalized PC... and was in everyones business. We joked afterword that he would have already had a dice rolling if the judge called for a stupidity check. EVERY check called for he would roll before the judge finished the statement, and EVERY time there was someone else at the table whose Schtick it was. Knowledge rolls? The Wizard had +15 to +25 in all, yet he would roll them with he +2 or +4. Thus, for gather information rolls we got his 14, rather than the 25 on the Wizards Take 10. Diplomacy? His Ranger jumped in with his +4 over top of the Bard trying to do his thing with a +20. Scout for the Party? he's right there opening the door before the Trapsmith even checks things. At one point he tried to pick up my PC and move him someplace else (without bothering to ask me if it was ok). It seems his PC doesn't have darkvision, and my dwarf did... Though I'm guessing he only learned from that that he needs to get something to give him darkvision, so that he can do it and not rely on someone else. The Player is so "Toxic" to the gaming table that several of us avoid playing with him now. Even if it means we just sit that one out.
I can see how that's an annoying player because he's trying to have his character everywhere at once. He needs to have a remedial course on how to take turns and plan rather than react on impulse. That looks like the primary problem from your comments.
But I agree with Will. Having him roll knowledge checks isn't a problem. There's no reason everyone at the table can't take a roll at the check and see how they do as long as they're not being annoying about reporting their results and waiting for the GM to get to them.
As far as opening doors without searching for traps - potentially a self-correcting problem. You might want to encourage it. >;)
Will Johnson wrote: Nosig, are you saying that if a GM calls for a knowledge check from the party, and a character has a mere + 4 to that skill, it would be "toxic" behavior for that player to roll their dice?
That's the most rediculous thing I've heard.
I think he's saying one player was obnoxious and he happened to have a lot of skills at 4+.
Basically, don't be a jerk is universal, regardless of character 'build'.
Will Johnson wrote: Nosig, are you saying that if a GM calls for a knowledge check from the party, and a character has a mere + 4 to that skill, it would be "toxic" behavior for that player to roll their dice?
That's the most rediculous thing I've heard. When asked what a group of people know of mountains, everyone will think of something. It's just that the geologist will usually know more. However, his expertise doesn't prevent or negate the fact that the others probably know something.
I try desperately to role play. Without doing so, I may as well play a boardgame or tactical war game. As a role player, I need to know what my character knows.
If my character only has a +4 in a knowledge skill and I roll a 2, that tells me I'm walking into unchartered territory -- perhaps I have misinformation. If I roll an 18, then I'm relatively knowledgeable about the topic at hand. I may not know what the specialist does, but it helps me gauge my character's response or feelings about the matter at hand.
Of course, this is also why I always roll the dice rather than take 10. Sometimes one has moments of clarity or holes in their education. I play heroes. Heroes are not average. They get lucky or they fail stupendously. The joy of role playing comes from telling that story. It's why we can't take 10 to resolve combat. It would simply be boring.
When the judge says "only one person can roll this" and your skill is a +4 and someone else has a +20 ... and you roll before anyone else gets to speak - effectively blocking the rest of the table from contributing. Yes, that is being Toxic.
.
If you consider the rest of the players at the table to be "support staff" there to provide a backdrop for your actions, and do it to such an extent that you begin to move the other PCs around on the tactical grid without even checking with the player? yeah, toxic.
.
Judge "Give me a -" rattle-rattle PlayerA rolls dice"- Knowledge Local check -"
PlayerA "I got a 19! what do we know?" over the judge speaking...
Judge pushing on " - to see what you find out about - "
PlayerA "We got a 19, what do we know?" over the judge again
PlayerB in frustration steps in "I'll take ten getting a ..."
PlayerA "She aids me so I have a 21, what do we know?"
(He knew all her Knowledge skills were +15 or higher, so she could "auto aid" his rolls. He had classified her as a "Knowledge tool"...)
yeah - toxic player. The shy lady running the wizard stated afterword, "I will NEVER play at a table with him again. NEVER."
Your GM should allow more than one roll for knowledge skills, generally.
Bill Dunn wrote: nosig wrote: I resently played with a player who ran a more generalized PC... and was in everyones business. We joked afterword that he would have already had a dice rolling if the judge called for a stupidity check. EVERY check called for he would roll before the judge finished the statement, and EVERY time there was someone else at the table whose Schtick it was. Knowledge rolls? The Wizard had +15 to +25 in all, yet he would roll them with he +2 or +4. Thus, for gather information rolls we got his 14, rather than the 25 on the Wizards Take 10. Diplomacy? His Ranger jumped in with his +4 over top of the Bard trying to do his thing with a +20. Scout for the Party? he's right there opening the door before the Trapsmith even checks things. At one point he tried to pick up my PC and move him someplace else (without bothering to ask me if it was ok). It seems his PC doesn't have darkvision, and my dwarf did... Though I'm guessing he only learned from that that he needs to get something to give him darkvision, so that he can do it and not rely on someone else. The Player is so "Toxic" to the gaming table that several of us avoid playing with him now. Even if it means we just sit that one out.
I can see how that's an annoying player because he's trying to have his character everywhere at once. He needs to have a remedial course on how to take turns and plan rather than react on impulse. That looks like the primary problem from your comments.
But I agree with Will. Having him roll knowledge checks isn't a problem. There's no reason everyone at the table can't take a roll at the check and see how they do as long as they're not being annoying about reporting their results and waiting for the GM to get to them.
As far as opening doors without searching for traps - potentially a self-correcting problem. You might want to encourage it. >;) Traps don't just kill the guy opening them. They warn the BBE company is on the way. Or they distroy faction mission items. Or they kill other players PCs. And to do this when you have someone in the party that built a PC to handle the trap? That PC has maybe 2 or 3 chances to shine during a game... "My guy has a +25 on disable device - I INSTALLED the traps in this place! Oh YEAH!" ... only to have someone step up and fumble the chance. It is toxic to the game play of the other players.
Netopalis wrote: Your GM should allow more than one roll for knowledge skills, generally. he was a good judge mostly - I am not trying to second guess him. Perhaps it was detailed that way in the scenario?
But the point of it is, it wasn't the PC build that was toxic. It was the Player.
In fact, the only over-specialize PCs at the table were the Wizard with her INT based skills and the Bard? (I think) with face skills. Oh, and maybe the Druid with her combat skills... her and her pet ate everything! It was funny!
I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not use the word 'retarded' in that way.
Ross Byers wrote: I removed a post and the replies to it. Do not use the word 'retarded' in that way. Thanks for the flame retardant.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
