|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am in a "HARRR!!!! WHY?R?!?!!!!!?!?!?!?!? " kind of situation.
I got an Elf Grenadier Alchemist on the verge of level 2 and I am STUCK! with the ideal of whether I keep him as a well-rounded, Breath of Experience, bard-stand-in knowledge monkey, yet still able to do some damage with bombs throw every which way...
OR
Should re-build him into a combat-focus, more damage and feats, Tiefling/Human/Half-orc character. Who is great in combat, but lacks the wide range of skills grant by breath of knowledge.
In short, which is better in PFS? A Well-rounded character or a Specialize/Optimized character???
|
There is no right or wrong answer for this.
Personally I prefer the well rounded character. You are more flexible, faction missions are best with some knowledge, social skills, non combat skills. It often can add a lot to the table in regard of variety.
At the same time - there is always a need for a fighter/damage dealer. Each scenario has at least a few fights and a decent DPR can overcome DR or difficult enemies.
I do have both in my collection of characters and some of my favourite characters are a level 9 wizard/level 1 Pathfinder chronicler and a level 6 invulnerable rager half Orc barbarian.
YOU play your character - go with what you enjoy playing and what fits. And once you reach level 3 or 4 - make a second character as it allows you more flexibility to seat at a table and maybe go for the character you didn't go for.
I still remember my Str. 7 wizard grappling the BBEG when the fighter was running (fear) and I was out of useful spells and the highest level standing. It was hilarious - but he was able to tell the tale and it sticks in memory because he couldn't just single hit the BBEG but needed close to 20 to initiate the grapple and pretty high rolls to cling on.
So it doesn't always have to be the optimal solution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Min-maxing is also playing the game in 'easy' mode. A well rounded character not only gives you more to do, but also increases the difficulty level to 'normal'.
|
|
Min-maxing is also playing the game in 'easy' mode. A well rounded character not only gives you more to do, but also increases the difficulty level to 'normal'.
Not true, though.
I tend toward min-max. I have had PCs die.
If you want "easy" mode, go to Staples.
If you want to increase the difficulty level, please play with someone else. Things are risky enough without having lame PCs to be carried through the scenario. My shoulders can only carry so much. More than those of us being productive, and we all die. Not fun, if we all die because your PC is lame.
Me? I tend toward PCs who are fairly capable, but I try not to create one-trick ponies.
One of my favorite builds, right now, is a high Str Lore Warden Fighter, so he does combat maneuvers with his whip, knows about his opponents, and can still do some noticeable damage, if he needs to. He sucks at the purely social stuff, with only a 7 Cha, but he is fairly useful overall.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Decided to stick with my Breath of Experience Elf and played a game. Was it a good choice...
I was able to help the party again and again with all their knowledge checks and still be useful in combat. Not near as much damage as a more combat focused build, but was it a joy to be useful for the party. :)
Decided to stick with my Breath of Experience Elf and played a game. Was it a good choice...
I was able to help the party again and again with all their knowledge checks and still be useful in combat.
How did you end up spending the skill points you saved from not putting one point in each Knowledge skill?
|
|
How did you end up spending the skill points you saved from not putting one point in each Knowledge skill?Decided to stick with my Breath of Experience Elf and played a game. Was it a good choice...
I was able to help the party again and again with all their knowledge checks and still be useful in combat.
Well the Alchemist gets trained in a lot of skills. With 4(class) + 4(Int) = 8 skill points per level, I went with:
Appraise,
Craft Alchemy
Diplomacy (from trait)
Disable Device
Heal
Knowledge arcana and Nature
Perception
Sleight of hand
Sense Motive (also from trait)
Spellcraft
Survival
My non-trained knowledge skills are at 6 and the 2 I am trained in are at 10.
Overall my character is an alchemist with a touch of bardic knowledge in him. :P
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this in a few other threads.
Every PFS character should have:
1) Something they're Really Good At. This may be dealing out the pain-train in damage. It may be Disable Device and Trapfinding. It may be buff-spells or damage causing spells. But it's something they're Really Good At.
2) A way to contribute in non-combat encounters, be it Knowledge, Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate, or even a really high Perception skill.
3) A way to contribute to combat.
Optimization is not essential for PFS, and being MORE optimized than your party mates isn't "winning" - it's making the game more boring for you or for them.
|
being optimized DOESN'T mean you're only good at one thing. Knowledges are important, simply telling the party to use cold iron or silver can mean the difference between life and death.
Being insanely good at one thing is awesome though. being too narrowly specialized is bad, unless that specialization is killing things, this might leave you bored some of the time but nobody will complain about a character who's well versed in dispatching enemies :)
Once I get level 4 or so, i begin buying simple weapons that anyone can use of cold iron and silver. Things like that. In this way, I can contribute to the party other than my character just doing damage. Not everyone tenners to plan for DR.
|
|
I wound up going Sleepless Detective with my grenadier at level 6. He's not a great archer compared to someone who gets feat requirements waived, but he can hit most of the time. He's not a great bomber compared to someone with well-focused discoveries. On the other hand, he's prepared for every situation, and has been known to see bad guys trying to be stealthy and blow them to pieces before they even realize they were spotted. So it works out. I prefer not to play him in all-combat scenarios, but when dealing with puzzles and traps and socialization and a wide range of enemies, well, he's your dude.
tl;dr: Generalists are fun sometimes. You can always have another character that serves your need for combat fiendiness.
|
|
My main character is a Gunslinger. My second character is a sword-and-board Ranger. Both of them are competent combat characters who do substantial DPS for their level (level 6 Gunslinger, level 3 Ranger). However, both have high Pereption, Survival, and Heal skills, and have at least one Knowledge skill trained. I have found it very helpful to the party as a whole to be able to do stuff out-of-combat as well as in it. I don't believe there's a wrong answer, but I do believe in versatility.
|
|
If you're so well-rounded that you have no special strength, that's as bad as being a one-trick pony: "Jack of All Trades, Master of None".
My philosophy of character design in RPGs generally is to consider that there are basically two modes of play: combat and non-combat (in PFS, this is during initiative and out of initiative). Some sessions will be all of one or the other, most will be some blend of the two, very few will be half and half. I *always* want to be able to contribute to the party, and have something to do; a very combat optimized character is dull to play during non-combat intervals, and very social or skill oriented players are typically frustrating to play during combat. I want to PLAY, all the time.
So I make sure my characters are very good at two things, one combat-thing, and one non-combat-thing. Maybe it can be called a two-trick pony, but I am always very competent at something in nearly any given situation.
I hate bench time!
|
Do you have a fun or inspired character idea for giving him Breadth of Experience and making him ambiguously bardic, or a well-put-together backstory for his fiendish curse and specific knowledge of different sorts of explosions?
Go with whatever you think would be more fun, with second place going to what you think would make for more fun in part of a group.
Personally, I think there are lots of different ways you could make a bomb-chucking tiefling alchemist amiable to his mates and friends.
(As an aside, you spelled it, "Breath of Experience". If you go that route, you could make his cognatogen turn out to just be powdered garlic!)
Social skills aren't bad either.
Let me ask the OP this. Do you play in a smaller PFS area, where the same ten people always show up, or is there some variety?
If there's variety, I prefer the well-rounded build every time myself.
I find there's ALWAYS a fighter available with all STR and no INT.
|
|
Social skills aren't bad either.
Let me ask the OP this. Do you play in a smaller PFS area, where the same ten people always show up, or is there some variety?
If there's variety, I prefer the well-rounded build every time myself.
I find there's ALWAYS a fighter available with all STR and no INT.
There is a reason for that. It costs 4 build points to get 2 skill points a level as a fighter. Barbarians with low int are actually penalized more than fighters are.
|
|
In short, which is better in PFS? A Well-rounded character or a Specialize/Optimized character???
This is a very good question. Let's assume we're asking about "Well-rounded vs. Combat-optimized characters."
In PFS, the scenarios are set up such that the vast majority do not actually require very much combat-optimization to succeed at. In fact, it's very easy to, accidentally or not, spend too many build resources on combat prowess, such that the table's fun level goes down.
However, there are a few outliers with regards to difficulty. Fortunately, a player does not have to build for those outliers; instead, he can pick up consumables for them, by only spending Prestige.
So, in order to make the game as fun as possible for everyone, it really is a good idea to not combat-optimize. Instead, seek a sufficiently-capable level of combat ability, then do whatever the heck you want with the rest of your character-building resources.
In other words, in PFS, the table is better off when a PC is average at combat and everyone gets to enjoy the combat sections of the scenario than when a PC is a combat machine and it creates an environment where the PCs are racing to get in a good turn. In your case, Secane, resist the urge to take fast stink bombs.
-Matt
|
|
In short, which is better in PFS? A Well-rounded character or a Specialize/Optimized character???This is a very good question. Let's assume we're asking about "Well-rounded vs. Combat-optimized characters."
In PFS, the scenarios are set up such that the vast majority do not actually require very much combat-optimization to succeed at. In fact, it's very easy to, accidentally or not, spend too many build resources on combat prowess, such that the table's fun level goes down.
However, there are a few outliers with regards to difficulty. Fortunately, a player does not have to build for those outliers; instead, he can pick up consumables for them, by only spending Prestige.
So, in order to make the game as fun as possible for everyone, it really is a good idea to not combat-optimize. Instead, seek a sufficiently-capable level of combat ability, then do whatever the heck you want with the rest of your character-building resources.
In other words, in PFS, the table is better off when a PC is average at combat and everyone gets to enjoy the combat sections of the scenario than when a PC is a combat machine and it creates an environment where the PCs are racing to get in a good turn. In your case, Secane, resist the urge to take fast stink bombs.
-Matt
This sort of well-rounded versus "combat specialists" is frankly silly. My battle oracle is combat specialized. He's a beast with good offense and defense. However, he has an ok int, and cha is his casting stat at like a 16, but it's no where near out of the ordinary. Also oracles get 4 skill points a level, so I can afford to buy what I need to be a face. This means he is excellent at any social engagements. The same can be said of my sorc, and my witch, but the witch only has int skills of course.
As a result, what this whole argument sounds like is favoritism of classes that have skill points and have int or cha skills.
Let's take a fighter for example. 2 skill points a level. No particular need of int or cha, and an extremely poor skill list. Literally the 2nd skill points cost 4 points of int, so you probably are better off buying a 16 con and taking favorite class bonuses in skills, not hp. For non-combat viability you need to force it to work by optimizing cha or int skills, but that takes a lot of thought and a decent amount of resources to get what a battle oracle with lowish charisma would get simply with the extremely fashionable trait.
|
|
As a result, what this whole argument sounds like is favoritism of classes that have skill points and have int or cha skills.
Meanwhile, Kender's response appears to assume that, say, a melee-focused PC, is simply unable to do anything but combat, that having an Int greater than 7 is a terrible idea.
Does he really need Furious Focus to survive PFS? Why not take Additional Traits for some more class skills? Does he really need 16 Con to survive, even in full-plate? What do two extra points of Con do for him if he never gets knocked unconscious? Does he really need Fury's Fall, when he already trips everything with a single-digit die roll?
Wouldn't he be better off diversifying instead of optimizing for combat ability, when he just doesn't need a whole lot of combat options to do just fine in PFS?
PFS just doesn't require a huge amount of combat-focus, to the point where too much combat-focus can cause the table to have less fun. This is on top of quickly hitting diminishing returns. At which point, further combat optimization is doing a disservice for both the player himself and to his tables.
-Matt
|
|
Matt, are you therefore saying that the fighter should have an 18 Int so he can be diversified?
Nope. I'm saying that, maybe, he doesn't need to devote 100% of his resources to killing things. For example, notice how I brought up Furious Focus and Fury's Fall, and put their necessity into question, but not Power Attack and Improved Trip.
As I mentioned before, the trick is to find a sufficiently-capable level of combat ability, then do other stuff with the rest of your resources.
-Matt
Matt, are you therefore saying that the fighter should have an 18 Int so he can be diversified?
In PFS, you don't really have to start with an 18 (before adjusting) in anything, even your wizard casting stat.
That problem that I'm seeing in this thread is to much extremism. That best option is somewhere in the middle.
Building a skill monkey with the Fighter class going to hamstring the character.
By the same token, making the Fighter a one-dimensional beat stick also hamstrings it.
A fighter can do fine with 14s in his physical stats, tweaked a bit for his style. He doesn't need to dump anything, really.
In a home game, with the same people every time, you can min-max, knowing that others can cover for your weaknesses, because you're so awesome with your 20 strength right out the gate.
When it's random parties, you're better off being competent at what you do, but not too weak in any certain area, as far as you can do that. Fighters need to not regularly fail will saves, and wizards need to be strong enough to carry more than 20 lbs. You just don't know what to expect.
|
|
As a result, what this whole argument sounds like is favoritism of classes that have skill points and have int or cha skills.Meanwhile, Kender's response appears to assume that, say, a melee-focused PC, is simply unable to do anything but combat, that having an Int greater than 7 is a terrible idea.
Does he really need Furious Focus to survive PFS? Why not take Additional Traits for some more class skills? Does he really need 16 Con to survive, even in full-plate? What do two extra points of Con do for him if he never gets knocked unconscious? Does he really need Fury's Fall, when he already trips everything with a single-digit die roll?
Wouldn't he be better off diversifying instead of optimizing for combat ability, when he just doesn't need a whole lot of combat options to do just fine in PFS?
PFS just doesn't require a huge amount of combat-focus, to the point where too much combat-focus can cause the table to have less fun. This is on top of quickly hitting diminishing returns. At which point, further combat optimization is doing a disservice for both the player himself and to his tables.
-Matt
A battle oracle is a melee character. My whole argument was comparing classes and builds like battle oracle and paladin that can nearly effortlessly rock in and out of combat with classes like fighter that have to really work to be useful at all outside of combat.
Btw my battle oracle would have never lived past low levels if I had not combat optimized both offense and defense. Many many combats would have killed him. I have been at -13 numerous times despite ridiculus ac. I have had similar experiences with most of my characters with my first melee optimized character dying in scenario 4.
The extra class skills doesn't help unless you have the skill points and the stats to use them.
|
|
Btw my battle oracle would have never lived past low levels if I had not combat optimized both offense and defense. Many many combats would have killed him. I have been at -13 numerous times despite ridiculus ac. I have had similar experiences with most of my characters with my first melee optimized character dying in scenario 4.
It's good that, for whatever reason, PFS combat has proven to be tough enough for your groups for this sort of thing to have happened. Let's hope you guys all had a good time in the process.
-Matt
|
In short, which is better in PFS? A Well-rounded character or a Specialize/Optimized character???
Breadth is usually better in PFS.
To a certain extent, you can do significant damage in a fight while still having your breadth. You just won't be "the best" at any one thing.
My opinion: if your doing enough damage to win it's time to focus on something else.
|
|
@ Furious Kender
... My Dwarf Archer(Fighter) has 6 skill points per level. 2 from Lore warden and 4 from my normal progression. I got 12 int and add my favor class to skill points.
I do ok in terms of skills, got a handful of feats and do pretty ok in most fights.
I spend my traits to grab perception and by just multi-classing 1 level into cleric (another low skill points class) I got a most of the important skills as class skills.
Why would you not want to WORK to make your character GREAT?
|
|
@ Furious Kender
... My Dwarf Archer(Fighter) has 6 skill points per level. 2 from Lore warden and 4 from my normal progression. I got 12 int and add my favor class to skill points.
I do ok in terms of skills, got a handful of feats and do pretty ok in most fights.
I spend my traits to grab perception and by just multi-classing 1 level into cleric (another low skill points class) I got a most of the important skills as class skills.
Why would you not want to WORK to make your character GREAT?
Define "work"
Do I want to "work" by making a Barbarian who never Rages, because the fatigue after Rage, and the lowered AC while Raging are "bad"?
Do I want to dilute my character? Put in things besides the core idea(s) I built the character to play with?
I am constantly learning new ways, sometimes better ways, to build a PC. I know my 12th level character would look different, probably quite a bit different, if I were to build him today.
My 6th level PC is that archetype, but his feat train is a bit different because he was built around a set of feats that came out even later (he is not my third PFS PC, but my 8th, even though he is the third highest level of all my PCs in PFS).
I have several lower level PCs which are experimental, even though some of them have reached 4th level. And, as is usual, at least one of them won't fully hit his stride until he reaches 5th level, and his 5th level class abilities.
Indeed, I have 14 PFS PCs with at least 1 XP, up to my 12th level PC with 33 XP, looking for an Eyes of the Ten.
Some of them are different kinds of fighters, I have a non-archetype fighter archer, a Polearm Master Fighter combat maneuver expert, a whip wielding Lore Warden, and a Archer archetype archer, just to see if it is viable with the Snap Shot feat chain.
I also have a couple of non-Fighter ranged users, a Monk Zen Archer and a plain vanilla Gunslinger with a musket (another one who will see a bump at 5th level).
And yet, by your lights, i would probably be a bad player, since I tend to optimize for combat capability first, and other stuff second or third. Yet, equally, overall, most of my PCs have at least 1.75% of the Fame expected for their level, and most of the difference is either from running modules, or getting TPKed by an inexperienced GM misusing an enemy ability.
|
|
This thread seems to have a lot of "Here is why my way is better then your way/ no, your playing bad/wrong/wait I disagree while people are essentially agreeing on one main points.
You should be specialized enough to be effective inside combat but not to the same extent as a home game because you need to be able to do other useful stuff to keep getting PA and survive.
It seems you all are arguing over degrees rather then extremes.
What broadness is better described as having a minimal number of rounds and out of combat situations where you're not accomplishing anything and are useless. It doesn't mean not specializing. It means being reasonably prepared multiple situations, whether it be through skill choices, equitment and weapons, spells or whatever. This is a a multidimensional thing.
For example, I was GMing a party this weekend of mostly 2nd level PCs who took forever in one encounter because only one of six bothered with any ranged weapons and the flying creature in question only had resistances to acid/cold (no acid splash for you). Faction missions were also incredibly hard because skills were lacking also.
On the other hand while playing my 2nd level fighter I was complimented on because when grappled, I simply dropped my two handed weapon I am specialized in and pulled out one of my throwing axes and kept bashing. I didn't need waste time/skill points on escape artist or breaking out of the grapple. I intimidated very well (14 cha, pitborn tiefling) avoiding one combat. I 'faked' stealth by having a potion of invisibilty I had bought after the last game. I had my six whole skill points (2+1 favored class) in 4 skills which allowed me to assist which in turn garnered the goodwill to be supported when I needed from my party to accomplish my faction mission.
Point is, you look at all your choices for a degree of redundancy you'll almost always be effective.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
In my experience being able to fulfil the role expected of you should not mean the need to ignore other areas. Equally you can go over the top in regards to flexibility.
I recently GM'd a scenario where a bard seemed the ideal class to bring. As it happened the build was an ultra specialised dawn flower dervish one and was unable to do any of the things the party had expected of him. However when he got his chance to shine he did....though his lack of versatility was bemoaned at almost every other point. Fortunately other characters were able to cover the bard's weak areas.
Even in harder adventures there will likely be times where being a melee monster at the expense all else can be a disaster. Imagine a chase sequence where you don't get to the end because you cannot get past two challenges on the same "card".
This is also ignoring the impact on faction missions of being a one trick pony.
W
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm starting to think that maybe the "best" build style in PFS might be to have a sort of "pyramid" of competency, where you have a main schtick, then a couple of decently-strong competencies, then a few areas where you're not great but can at least participate.
Also, story time!
Fighting a nasty wizard BBEG in a party with 3 pregens, a monk who's a lightning rod for crits, and my Eldritch Knight.
I was playing down into the 7-8 subtier, so the BBEG and I were both 10th level. In the massive 27-round fight, it wasn't long before it was essentially a duel between him and me, with the rest of the party dead or dying.
He ran out of spells, and reverted to flying around and using his class-granted acid darts, while I started chasing him around (also flying) with a +1 adamantine longsword (how's that stoneskin working out for ya?) and haste and bull's strength up. Basically, we were both out of useful spells, which essentially meant it was now Fighter VS Commoner.
Unfortunately, after about the 5th or 6th hasted full-attack in which I only needed a 5 (or 10 on the iterative) to hit him for 1d8+12 a pop, I'd only hit about 4-5 times. No miss chances involved, just lots of 2s and 3s on the dice. Lots. :/
Then he ran to fetch his bound angel buddy, and I didn't have it in me to solo a whole additional encounter. But had it not been for those spectacularly bad rolls on all those full-attacks...
|
|
This is on top of quickly hitting diminishing returns.
Optimizing something like AC or saves is really the opposite of a diminishing return. The better you are at it, the more 1 point helps lower the enemy's chance to hit or affect you. For instance, if you're fighting monsters with +10 to hit, the wizard with 14 AC who casts Mage Armor to raise it up to 18 is reducing damage taken by about 25% (a little less) for +4 AC. The 29 AC fighter who raises AC by 1 by buying an ioun stone is reducing damage taken by 50% for +1 AC. Now, I'm not saying that one necessarily should raise AC in either of these cases, but diminishing returns are not part of the system.
When it comes to optimizing attack roll, it's true that you don't gain as large a percentage of increased damage for each bonus to hit at the high end, but you do make your contribution more reliable, you usually increase damage on the iterative attacks by a large amount, and you increase the gains from Power Attack (if you have that feat) by lessening the impact of the trade-off. Optimizing DC is purely for reliability (since it has increasing returns in terms of the enemy's chance to avoid your spell), but it's true that it does have diminishing returns in terms of number of casts needed to affect the target.
|
|
Optimizing something like AC or saves is really the opposite of a diminishing return. The better you are at it, the more 1 point helps lower the enemy's chance to hit or affect you.
You are correct here. Since we're using a d20, in which each face has an ideally-equal probability of occurrence, diminishing returns don't kick in for individual character aspects until after we've guaranteed success or failure, such as when we're hitting on a 2 or after the bad guys need a 20.
However, the overall character can quickly run into diminishing returns by overbuilding for specific things, when he doesn't actually need them to do well in PFS. For example, Furious Focus provides a small bonus to hit with one attack per round, sometimes. Additional Traits for extra class skills provides +4 to two skills all the time. If two more class skills let the PC participate in more situations, that's a much greater marginal increase in overall effectiveness than Furious Focus can provide.
Thus, the diminishing returns of overoptimizing specific aspects.
-Matt
|
|
Optimizing something like AC or saves is really the opposite of a diminishing return. The better you are at it, the more 1 point helps lower the enemy's chance to hit or affect you.You are correct here. Since we're using a d20, in which each face has an ideally-equal probability of occurrence, diminishing returns don't kick in for individual character aspects until after we've guaranteed success or failure, such as when we're hitting on a 2 or after the bad guys need a 20.
However, the overall character can quickly run into diminishing returns by overbuilding for specific things, when he doesn't actually need them to do well in PFS. For example, Furious Focus provides a small bonus to hit with one attack per round, sometimes. Additional Traits for extra class skills provides +4 to two skills all the time. If two more class skills let the PC participate in more situations, that's a much greater marginal increase in overall effectiveness than Furious Focus can provide.
Thus, the diminishing returns of overoptimizing specific aspects.
-Matt
I get what you're saying and I agree--I think that's something other than diminishing returns, but a good point nonetheless.
For example, my Zen Archer has gotten way more mileage out of Skill Focus: Use Magic Device than she would ever have gotten out of an archery feat, and her random Sleight of Hand ranks (and trait for it, since she was a pickpocketing street urchin from Kaer Maga before an archer) have been super-helpful more than I expected too. She still kills things really fast with a bow because she's an archer in the Pathfinder system, and she can also help out in lots of other ways too.
|
For example, my Zen Archer has gotten way more mileage out of Skill Focus: Use Magic Device than she would ever have gotten out of an archery feat...
Interesting, RE, and something for me to think about. My single character so far is a Human Rogue, who I have been planning on working down the Two Weapons Fighting track, so to speak. I am about to level him to third, and was planning on giving him Two-Weapon Defense... to get his AC up (since he's had to stay "toe-to-toe" a little more often than he would prefer, this seems a good idea). Up to this point, all of his feats (and his Rogue Talent) have gone into combat (Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Two-Weapon Fighting)... of course, he's never even gotten the chance to swing more than once in a single round!
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...
On the other hand, even though he gets 11 skill points per level (I have been using his favored class for skill points) he never seems to have enough! He's got decent stats (no real dump, lowest is WIS 10), he is often not the best diplomat of the group (usually an Oracle or Paladin), nor often not the best stealther. I've always preferred balanced over focused stats (yeah, let's call it that), because I hate penalties more than I like bonuses, I guess.
On that, went through The Disappeared Sat night, and the Imp's DEX-poison really hit him hard. Failing Fort saves (even though he does have a 14 CON) was part of the reason that he wasn't able to use his two-weapon fighting. He really needs to pick up a silver light mace, but currently cannot afford the weight. Maybe I should have gotten that, instead of his MW Gladius? We'll a situation I'll have to fix.
Add to that, I perhaps have erred in weapons purchases in another way. His ranged attacks have suffered because he doesn't have a MW bow... which hurt him slightly in a later encounter.
All that being said, the wise-mouthed Caydenite Rogue has been a blast to play so far... his generalization, and wide variety of skills have made him useful in a number of adventures already! Even when I played up (by accident... never be late to a table!) in The Cyphermage Dilemna. In that, his skills kept him competent... at least until Init was rolled.
|
|
For example, my Zen Archer has gotten way more mileage out of Skill Focus: Use Magic Device than she would ever have gotten out of an archery feat...Interesting, RE, and something for me to think about. My single character so far is a Human Rogue, who I have been planning on working down the Two Weapons Fighting track, so to speak. I am about to level him to third, and was planning on giving him Two-Weapon Defense... to get his AC up (since he's had to stay "toe-to-toe" a little more often than he would prefer, this seems a good idea). Up to this point, all of his feats (and his Rogue Talent) have gone into combat (Weapon Finesse, Dodge, Two-Weapon Fighting)... of course, he's never even gotten the chance to swing more than once in a single round!
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 think to an extent people over optimize characters because they can get away with it in a home game setting. My character might have big holes in their abilities but my friends character is specifically designed to fill in some of those holes. By the time you get around the table...their are no holes in the overall party. This is not something you can plan for in PFS and so we have to create a more well-balanced character.
I like characters to have combat focus. This means they are pretty good at one thing. After that I like to have a smattering of other things I bring to the table (skills, abilities, etc) that can help in combat but also outside of combat. My characters can't do everything but they can do more than a single minded build and can always use those secondary abilities to aid another player with more focus.
You can of course go the other way to far and have a very well-balanced character who is too balanced to achieve much. It didn't show much in the earlier seasons but I have seen some of this with season 4 scenarios. The difficulty went up and some players are struggling a lot with their balanced characters.
I think the sweet spot for PFS is somewhere between optimized (as the guides do) and well-balanced.
|
|
Optimizing something like AC or saves is really the opposite of a diminishing return. The better you are at it, the more 1 point helps lower the enemy's chance to hit or affect you.You are correct here. Since we're using a d20, in which each face has an ideally-equal probability of occurrence, diminishing returns don't kick in for individual character aspects until after we've guaranteed success or failure, such as when we're hitting on a 2 or after the bad guys need a 20.
However, the overall character can quickly run into diminishing returns by overbuilding for specific things, when he doesn't actually need them to do well in PFS. For example, Furious Focus provides a small bonus to hit with one attack per round, sometimes. Additional Traits for extra class skills provides +4 to two skills all the time. If two more class skills let the PC participate in more situations, that's a much greater marginal increase in overall effectiveness than Furious Focus can provide.
Thus, the diminishing returns of overoptimizing specific aspects.
-Matt
1) Furious Focus is a bad example feat. Overall, it is a worse feat than Combat Expertise. And only has any real benefit for low BAB classes at low level.
2) Only if you have the skill points to spend. Let me repeat that: Only if you have the skill points to spend. If you don't have any spare skill points, and there are several classes prone to this between being 2+ classes, and not needing much Int, if any, for their primary foci, adding more class skills is a waste of a feat. You would probably be better served by taking Skill Focus for one of the few skills that PC already trains.