Greataxe?
I've always liked the Greataxe.
Wut? An archer with f~+&in' 24 Str? What's your Point Buy (or was it rolled?)
Either he made sacrifices to his Dex (in which case he should miss a lot versus CR appropriate enemies) or somethin's up. Post his build, if you have it, I want to audit this because now I'm very curious.
I don't think I could disagree with you more. There is no reason that any character concept cant be optimized to be effective for combat. It might not be a dps powerhouse but it will buff/cc/heal/tank/ect. Something.
It can be optimized to be less bad in combat but that can often take power away from the non-combat RP choices. Many concepts just doesn't lend itself well to combat optimizing over the level of say the Iconics. The intelligent paladin who for RP reasons is also a master poet, dancer and cook (and because of this has lower physical scores to afford the intelligence and less feats to afford good skill scores) will have quite a hard time at low levels in a group that has to have encounters at CR+2 constantly to remotely challenge the superoptimized synthesist.
I'd say most character concepts can be optimized enough to make it through an AP, though it may be hard for some. However, if one character is even decently optimized it will shred most AP encounters as most AP's are pretty easy if you're optimized (and a good tactical player).
In some groups, those concepts are simply avoided, in others, the group chooses to put the optimization level low enough so that those playing those characters are still relevant. In many groups, it's somewhere inbetween - people avoid the most cheesy optimized builds to allow the two-weapon rogue to at least have some relevance (that's the way in most of our games at least)
And it can of course be different from game to game even in the same group. We sometimes have low-power games, though we usually talk beforehand and discuss builds so to try to prevent this from happening that the OP is talking about, and often use house rules to allow concepts that are hard to optimize to have a better chance. We also sometimes have superoptimized games where I generally double the number of encounters per day and have several Hard encounters everyday. In those games people bring hyperoptimized synthesists, barbarians and druids all the time (we generally play at low levels, where those are often the most powerful builds), and if someone brings something like aforementioned cooking paladin, they'd die in no time and the party would not be happy with them wasting the rest of the party's time. But again, we talk beforehand.
As others have pointed out. I have seen "I RP instead of optimize" as just another way of saying "I'm not very good at coming up with decent builds".
Which is also a fine explanation. It is OKAY to not be very good at optimizing, and it is OKAY to as a group decide that we skip optimization because most of the group don't care for it anyway.
Being bad at something in no way undermines not wanting to do something.
Of course there's always those who bash on optimizers or claim that they don't roleplay, but that's not at all what's been happening in this thread.
Ah. That's the kind of thing that's just RIPE for abuse. Just rolled stats shoulda been enough. Still, even if he rolled 18 for both he musta dumped a BUNCH of cash into that +4 Str/Dex belt (that's the only way I can think of you can get 24 Str and still have a good Dex like that).
That actually makes me feel a bit better too. He's not actually super-optimized, he just has balls to the wall stats.
Well, now we've found the issue. See, in earlier editions of D&D, rolling dice was pretty alright because you didn't get as many bonuses from your stats back then as you do now. Look at Swords and Wizardry SRD for examples for that. In 3.X+, however, your stats play a much bigger role in your abilities. So the disparity between two characters rolling dice is much greater in this edition. That's your issue right there. 24 in a single ability score alone is beyond 20 point buy.
Theodor Snuddletusk:
While this won't help in the current game, one suggestion for future games is to really change your ability score generation method. It's made in a way that can easily reinforce balance issues within the group, since the optimizer is punished less for bad rolls and can make more use of good rolls, while the other players who makes the charsheet for the biography sheet rather than the reverse will have a much harder time with this.
My suggestion would be to use either one of these:
1. Point buy. Use a decently high point buy, but do not give any extra points for putting a less than 10 in the stat. So instead of giving out a 15 PB and having the optimizer dump Cha and Int to 7 to get a 23 PB, just give out a 25 PB and don't give any bonus for lowering the stat. This means if one wants to roleplay a stupid character, they can do so, but they aren't forced to be stupid to be good at what they do. Likewise, it removes an imporant powershift between those who don't mind dump-stating (generally the optimizers) and those who do.
2. The card method. If you really really want to have random stats, this gives a more evenly distributed stat array. Pick cards 4 through 9 of the hearts and spades of a common 52-card deck. Shuffle those 12 cards. Put them in six piles of two cards each. Switch'em over. That's you stats and may be placed just like you place the dice rolls.
[i]This means that every player gets random stats between 8 and 18 in every stat, but it means that if a player gets high stats somewhere they get low stats somewhere else and you have little risk of just "rolling badly".
Yeah, that's what I said. The Str makes up the 4 points of damage I was missing in my guess at the build.
...Yeah i think this is an issue i can agree with. The reason i like the system we have is that we all (except the archer) like to play characters that is a bit different. The low int anti-paladin is fun to watch as he stumbles into situations based on him being dumb :P
The low chr alchemist who cant talk to ladies and goes around like a social weakling, and ends up everyones punching bag etc.
Ofc, this is not something we cant achieve in your two examples. Its just what made me go with our point-exchange system.
Why can't you have a low Intelligence antipaladin in a point buy? Actually you are more likely to have low stat characters in a point buy than with rolling. Sorry but the fault lies with the GM for allowing this imbalance in the first place.
Stats define the character more than anything else especially at low levels. An elf wizard with an 18 Strength and Dexterity is going to outfight a fighter until around 4th to 6th level. After that the class abilities start to take over. He can use a long sword and long composite bow for more damage and have a better chance to hit. True his HP are going to suck but the point is he is actually better at combat than the fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i guess based on the player that he has min-maxed ever battlestat vs rp-stat.
This is a mindset you need to sharply veer away from. There is no such thing as a "battlestat". There is no such thing as an "rp-stat".
There are abilities and modifiers. You allocate them how you want within the system that you use. Then you role play.
Period.
The idea that there is a dichotomy between which abilities are RP-worthy and which are only used by munchkins is laughable.
|
i guess based on the player that he has min-maxed ever battlestat vs rp-stat.This is a mindset you need to sharply veer away from. There is no such thing as a "battlestat". There is no such thing as an "rp-stat".
There are abilities and modifiers. You allocate them how you want within the system that you use. Then you role play.
Period.
The idea that there is a dichotomy between which abilities are RP-worthy and which are only used by munchkins is laughable.
Absolutely.
If I want to roleplay a massively strong fighter, a 14 simply won't cut it. My Str actually needs to be a number that represents an impressive strength.
I don't think I could disagree with you more. There is no reason that any character concept cant be optimized to be effective for combat. It might not be a dps powerhouse but it will buff/cc/heal/tank/ect. Something.Many concepts just doesn't lend itself well to combat optimizing over the level of say the Iconics. The intelligent paladin who for RP reasons is also a master poet, dancer and cook (and because of this has lower physical scores to afford the intelligence and less feats to afford good skill scores) will have quite a hard time at low levels in a group that has to have encounters at CR+2 constantly to remotely challenge the superoptimized synthesist.
Again I disagree. I will use your example. The Intelligent Paladin.
Human Paladin (20 Point Buy)
STR: 16 (+2 Race) DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 12 WIS: 7 CHA: 16
There you go. Intelligent Paladin. Average intelligence is 10. You dont need an 18 to RP being smart. The rest of your example are just skill points. Paladin's dont need a ton of combat skill points. Place a few points in Perform and Profession (Cook) and there you go. An effective start at a Combat effective paladin who is Intelligent and loves to dance and cook.
I have yet to see a character concept that cant be optimized to be effective in combat. In fact that might make for an interesting new Thread. People post random Character Concepts and the optimizers on the board make builds. I doubt you would stump the board.
Good Suggestion Dragonamedrake
Again I disagree. I will use your example. The Intelligent Paladin.Human Paladin (20 Point Buy)
STR: 16 (+2 Race) DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 12 WIS: 7 CHA: 16There you go. Intelligent Paladin. Average intelligence is 10.
Yeah when the concept is as vague as a single adjective that you get to interpret as you want, sure you can. Note that you more or less ignored two of the three traits that I gave that character though (reducing "master poet and cook" to what, a +4 perform and +2 cooking?) and that you used an above standard point buy to do it, and that you took the lowest possible stat you could use and get away with calling "intelligent".
So if we look at an actual character concept rather than a "pick one of three traits and interpret it however you want". Let's take a simple classic concept:
Frederique never sought the call of a paladin; her work in the monastery had always been of a tranquil nature. She'd been blessed by Shelyn in both the culinary and oratory arts; while still young, she'd already become quite famous around for her inspiring poetry; hearing her listen is always enjoyable. She was also a smart lad, a crafter and solver of riddles, and had already learned the languages gnomes of the village and of the halfling caravans that often traveled through town. While she herself was human, she spent a lot of time with these halflings from which she traded spices and the know-how to use them; she was a talented cook, who sought to know and collect all tastes she could find.
But fortune turned against her as the enemies of the faith invaded her town, and as they threatened her family and friends she had no choice but to take up arms. Blessed by the Rose herself she and the militia held of the invaders long enough for the populace to flee, but the burning monastery had awakened something within her, the call of a paladin, and she realized she couldn't settle again, not until evil was vanquished.
So, what of this background story are things that should be included on a char sheet?
1. She's smarter than average.
2. She knows three languages; common, halfling and gnomish.
3. She's a good cook, should be able to reliably answer questions about cooking, even the more advanced questions.
4. She's a good enough poet to become a local celebrity, and can reliably make enjoyable performances.
5. This is just starting out so she's level 1.
I do believe that one can build this on a 15 pb and survive through an AP. I do not believe this character will meaningfully contribute in combat next to a combat-optimized barbarian, archer, druid or synthesist though.
How would you build this character so that it feels combat-relevant in a group together with fully combat-optimized characters?
Yeah when the concept is as vague as a single adjective that you get to interpret as you want, sure you can. Note that you more or less ignored two of the three traits that I gave that character though (reducing "master poet and cook" to what, a +4 perform and +2 cooking?) and that you used an above standard point buy to do it, and that you took the lowest possible stat you could use and get away with calling "intelligent".
So if we look at an actual character concept rather than a "pick one of three traits and interpret it however you want". Let's take a simple classic concept:
Frederique never sought the call of a paladin; her work in the monastery had always been of a tranquil nature. She'd been blessed by Shelyn in both the culinary and oratory arts; while still young, she'd already become quite famous around for her inspiring poetry; hearing her listen is always enjoyable. She was also a smart lad, a crafter and solver of riddles, and had already learned the languages gnomes of the village and of the halfling caravans that often traveled through town. From these halflings she traded spices and the know-how to use them; she was a talented cook, who sought to know and collect all tastes she could find.But fortune turned against her as the enemies of the faith invaded her town, and as they threatened her family and friends she had no choice but to take up arms. Blessed by the Rose herself she and the militia held of the invaders long enough for the populace to flee, but the burning monastery had awakened something within her, the call of a paladin, and she realized she couldn't settle again, not until evil was vanquished.
So, what of this background story are things that should be included on a char sheet?
1. She's smarter than average.
2. She knows three languages; common, halfling and gnomish.
3. She's a good cook, should be able to reliably answer questions about cooking, even the more advanced questions.
4. She's a good enough poet to become a local celebrity, and can reliably make enjoyable performances.
5. This is just starting out so she's level 1.I do believe that one can build this on a 15 pb and survive through an AP. I do not believe this character will meaningfully contribute in combat next to a combat-optimized barbarian, archer, druid or synthesist though.
How would you build this character so that it feels combat-relevant in a group together with fully combat-optimized characters?
At level 1 you can't have more than one rank in any skill. The highest you can reasonably expect tohave in these skills is a 7 if you push it.
At level 1 you can't have more than one rank in any skill. The highest you can reasonably expect tohave in these skills is a 7 if you push it.
Which is well within the listed parameters. To reliably make enjoyable performances and answer advanced questions about your profession requires a +5, and knowing three languages requires either 12 int and 1 rank linguistics, or 14 int and no linguistics. Putting a 12 int, spending one rank each in linguistics, profession and perform and getting skill focus for each would of course be an obvious solution from just the core, but there might be better choices.
A charisma of 18 or more would be enough to cover poetry, but might be hard on a 15 pb. The only traits I can find that add it as a class skill are region-based traits that one can't assume will be available. If one wants to dump wisdom then skill focus (cooking) is more or less mandatory, but if it isn't dumped there might be a trait that adds +1 to profession checks which would be enough with the class skill bonus and rank. Cosmopolitan would be an option but not a very strong one unless you have to spend a feat on perform anyway.
The issue is, if you want to play this char you will be worse in combat. This doesn't mean that players who want to optimize strongly enough to discard this character concepts are worse roleplayers - just that the required level of optimization restricts what characters can be effectively played.
Cooking technically goes under Craft (Culinary), which would be a cooking modifier of +5. the crafting of a meal would fall under a craft, just like the crafting of a doll (tailoring or wood working), the crafting of a spoon (blacksmithing), or the crafting of a flute, (woodworking).
a trait can give perform (oratory) as a class skill if you don't mind some of the taldor ones from the pathfinder society guide to organized play.
So, what of this background story are things that should be included on a char sheet?
1. She's smarter than average.
2. She knows three languages; common, halfling and gnomish.
3. She's a good cook, should be able to reliably answer questions about cooking, even the more advanced questions.
4. She's a good enough poet to become a local celebrity, and can reliably make enjoyable performances.
5. This is just starting out so she's level 1.
15 pt buy is a bit difficult but here goes:
Str: 11 (Human race mod)
Dex: 18
Con: 12
Int: 12
Wis: 8
Cha: 12
Level 1 you've got 2 languages (Common, Halfling), and 3 skill points per level, put into Profession: Cook, Perform: Oratory(?), and Linguistics (learned Gnomish). They're at +3, +5, and +4 respectively. He can take Point Blank Shot and any other combat Feat at first level, or Skill Focus: Profession to bump his Cook up to +6. He's a decent archer at 1st level and will only get better with time at both investing his skill points into his skills and his Feats into Archery.
It probably becomes a bit easier if you choose a race besides Human so you can shore up some other attributes. A Hobgoblin would be good for more HP while retaining the same Dex.
Yes, he's worse at combat than a more combat oriented character. But he's not USELESS and as long as he's smart about his building as the game goes forward he'll be able to contribute significantly without sacrificing his skills.
It might actually be more effective to do something like:
Str: 18 (Human race mod)
Dex: 11
Con: 12
Int: 12
Wis: 8
Cha: 12
and relying on your Full Plate to protect you in combat, especially since 2H Fighting or perhaps a Sword and Board based character wouldn't be nearly as Feat intensive.
I do believe that one can build this on a 15 pb and survive through an AP. I do not believe this character will meaningfully contribute in combat next to a combat-optimized barbarian, archer, druid or synthesist though.
Good at cooking? Take one of the most MAD classes in the game (Paladin). Mix in character background traits that add additional attribute dependence while at the same time eat up very limited skill points available. Use the smallest available point buy system. For garnish, use words like "contribute meaningfully" and "survive through an AP." Serve on a platter beside the four most optimizable classes in the game and chastise your sous-chef and saucier for your inability to meet their combat standards. Bon Appetite!
15 pt buy is a bit difficult but here goes:Str: 11
Dex: 18 (Human race mod)
Con: 12
Int: 12
Wis: 8
Cha: 12He's a decent archer at 1st level and will only get better with time at both investing his skill points into his skills and his Feats into Archery.
Yes, that works. The risk is large though that it will feel completely irrelevant in combat compared to the St14/De14/Co13/In12/Wi12/Ch20 synthesist with three attacks and pounce and next to the St22/De14/Co18/In7/Wi13/Ch7 barbarian that attacks with +6 (2d6+9).
I do believe that one can build this on a 15 pb and survive through an AP. I do not believe this character will meaningfully contribute in combat next to a combat-optimized barbarian, archer, druid or synthesist though.Good at cooking? Take one of the most MAD classes in the game (Paladin). Mix in character background traits that add additional attribute dependence while at the same time eat up very limited skill points available. Use the smallest available point buy system. For garnish, use words like "contribute meaningfully" and "survive through an AP." Serve on a platter beside the four most optimizable classes in the game and chastise your sous-chef and saucier for your inability to meet their combat standards. Bon Appetite!
15pb isn't the smallest, it's the standard, listed together with 10 for low, 20 for high and 25 for "epic".
And I don't see how this disagrees with my point at all. My point is simple: Some character concepts don't lend themselves to optimizing very well. That was the point I made, and dragonmedrake disagreed with that stance. This was an example of such a concept.
Of course there are an endless number of character concepts that don't work very well for optimization, especially if bringing in characters that have a crippling weakness as part of their concept. This was just a simple example.
In some games characters like that are fine and the superoptimized aren't. In other games superoptimization is fine and characters like that paladin aren't.
This is a mindset you need to sharply veer away from. There is no such thing as a "battlestat". There is no such thing as an "rp-stat".
There are abilities and modifiers. You allocate them how you want within the system that you use. Then you role play.
Period.
The idea that there is a dichotomy between which abilities are RP-worthy and which are only used by munchkins is laughable.
What wording i used is not something i cba to discuss. This forum is filled with ppl going mental over a single word in a chat.
I said it to give a feel as to what stats he had. I am guessing he has min int and min chr and max strength and max dex. Sure, all stats are used in rp, and rp is more a "the mind of the player" than the stat on the chart. I just used that wording without putting as much into it as it referring to a certain mindset.
I'm not sure which part of my text you felt was me "going mental". All I was saying was that it is a little bit misanthropic to say that nobody ever really wants to play a stupid, or naive, or unpleasant character, but that they are only doing it to get the STR, DEX, CON score they want for combat.
And I don't see how this disagrees with my point at all.
Who said it is a disagreement? It was merely pointing out the strange and arbitrary strictures you've placed on the construction of your primarily-role-play-not-combat-optimized-but-still-usable-character that you are trying to use to prove your point.
Some of us want to be Wesley. Some Inigo. Some Vincini. And some Fezzick. Let everyone play.
.... well, maybe not Vincini...
Yes, that works. The risk is large though that it will feel completely irrelevant in combat compared to the St14/De14/Co13/In12/Wi12/Ch20 synthesist with three attacks and pounce and next to the St22/De14/Co18/In7/Wi13/Ch7 barbarian that attacks with +6 (2d6+9).
Worthless COMPARED TO another character and ACTUALLY worthless are two entirely separate things.
Yes, you will always be worse than a completely combat specced character. But that was your choice, nobody force it on you and you presumably went into it knowing that.
Your character could hold his own against CR appropriate enemies, even though others could do it better. That is minimum level optimization of your concept.
But that's not the issue in this thread. The player in question is using minimum level optimization (shored up by insane stats). The problem here is that the other players aren't even doing that much.
While the "problem" character here is making the others feel useless in combat, that's not the main issue. The main issue is that the rest of them are not capable of taking on CR appropriate foes.
Your character is balanced with the game, if not necessarily the rest of the party.
They have one guy that's balanced with the game, while the rest of them are not. Similar, but very different scenarios.
Yes, that works. The risk is large though that it will feel completely irrelevant in combat compared to the St14/De14/Co13/In12/Wi12/Ch20 synthesist with three attacks and pounce and next to the St22/De14/Co18/In7/Wi13/Ch7 barbarian that attacks with +6 (2d6+9).
15 pt buy is a bit difficult but here goes:Str: 11
Dex: 18 (Human race mod)
Con: 12
Int: 12
Wis: 8
Cha: 12He's a decent archer at 1st level and will only get better with time at both investing his skill points into his skills and his Feats into Archery.
LOL. Of course it would fall short of that Synthesist or barbarian. You are taking the extreme stat dumping side of things. We said optimized... not super cheesy min max. The Syth alone is what... a 32 point buy vs a 15. The point stands. You gave the lowest acceptable point buy and extremely specific criteria and we still provided a build. The fact it doesn't hold up vs Cheese builds has nothing to do with it.
...15pb isn't the smallest, it's the standard, listed together with 10 for low, 20 for high and 25 for "epic".
And I don't see how this disagrees with my point at all. My point is simple: Some character concepts don't lend themselves to optimizing very well. That was the point I made, and dragonmedrake disagreed with that stance. This was an example of such a concept.
Of course there are an endless number of character concepts that don't work very well for optimization, especially if bringing in characters that have a crippling weakness as part of their concept. This was just a simple example.
A 10 point buy? Now your really stretching. 20 is used in PFS. Im pretty sure thats as "Standard" as you can get... no matter what they are listed at. And the fact is we still provided a decently optimized build that fit all your criteria on a 15 point buy.
And as to the endless concepts... Im very tempted to create a new tread just to see how many concepts we can't optimize... Im guessing none.
Okay, to clarify, because it seems I have been vague and unclear and am being misunderstood:
There are two common meanings of the word "optimize" in an RPG scenario; picking the right among choices available, and making a mechanically strong character.
Of course every character can be optimized in the first sense; if you want to play a one-legged cat it's still better to take Toughness than Endurance, and since everyone has at least one feat and one skill rank per to choose per definition every concept can be optimized.
However, when one says "optimized paladin" you don't think of a paladin like this one above - you think of a paladin that has chosen good mechanics among _all_ options, not just those fit of a certain background.
So optimized can mean:
1. Picked the better mechanical options within the confines of the character background and is as strong as a character with that background will be.
2. Picked the better mechanical options within the game as a whole and is an effective character compared to what can be built within the system.
It seems you are using the 1st definition while I was talking about the 2nd definition.
My first post that led to this discussion was this:
That right there is your problem. There is zero, zilch, nada reason that you can not make an effective character for RP reason unless the RP reason is I am a gimp who is being protected by the party and can do nothing else.
The rest of the party are more rp-standard based chrs and therefor is not built up to the same lvl of effect as him.
There is no reason you cannot make a well-optimized character also well-roleplayed. However, not all character concepts are able to be optimized.
Basically, optimization doesn't prevent roleplay but it drastically reduces the amount of different types of characters you can play.
Theodor said that the other characters are based upon roleplay as the standard, in other words you pick background first and design the character to match the background rather than the reverse. Due to this, the other characters don't have the same relative power to the character who put optimized mechanics first and created the background to fit the stats.
Cold Napalm's reply seemed to mean that there's no reason you can't make an optimized (compared to the archer in their group) character and still roleplay it well - in other words, pointing out how the "stormwind fallacy" has generally come to be used.
My objection to this is that while it is true that you can of course roleplay an optimized character and that nothing prevents a great optimizer for also being a great roleplayer, to make a character optimized in the sense of definition 2, which is the relevant one, you have to cut out a lot of possible backgrounds.
From all we know, the other characters in the group can be optimized to the 1st definition, but apparently they put RP before optimization - allowing RP to put a lot more restrictions on what they can take (just like the paladin above). In the context of Cold Napalm's post above, that was seen as NOT being optimized (unless I read it wrong - I'm not out to put words in CN's mouth).
So, to make an example:
A group of three well-optimized characters where optimization has been put in first place have a good chance at succeeding at an adventure path despite their lower numbers due to optimization. They can also be great roleplayers - optimization doesn't prevent roleplay.
However, the number of roles they CAN play is severely reduced, since if they want to play against that type of opposition they cannot play the above mentioned paladin.
So basically, my stance is:
1. You can roleplay a well-optimized character.
2. If you want to first pick good, effective mechanics and then create a background that matches those, you'll have far less options on what roles you can play than if you first pick a background among ALL backgrounds and then pick mechanics to fit the background.
You're defining things wrong.
Optimizing is the first thing you said. Basically, being the best X you can be, where X is whatever you want to be good at, while still being passable at other aspects of the game.
Ilja, your example is the sole reaason why their is the problem. You absolutely SHOULD not expect to contribute meaningfully in combat when you want to focus on your intelligence like that. I would also suggest that your character is a fantasy in a fantasy, and that tale didn't happen at all. In fact what really happened is that your character actually died against the invaders.
If you have a good Charisma, then guess what. You get to contribute meaningfully every once in awhile. Which is fine. How can you roleplay being all those poetic and smart things, and think you ought to roleplay being good in combat as well?? I'm Sorry that is wrong! It is also wrong that you think a optimized fighter should tone it down, so you can have your cake and pie and eat them both too!
|
|
So we're coming around to realize that there are shortcomings to Pathfinder when it's used to simulate characters that don't truly fit into its milieu? That it's not the best thing for statting out poets and cooks?
Oh my.
I always thought the game was all about heroes...and it does a fair job at that.
Ilja, your example is the sole reaason why their is the problem. You absolutely SHOULD not expect to contribute meaningfully in combat when you want to focus on your intelligence like that. I would also suggest that your character is a fantasy in a fantasy, and that tale didn't happen at all. In fact what really happened is that your character actually died against the invaders.
If you have a good Charisma, then guess what. You get to contribute meaningfully every once in awhile. Which is fine. How can you roleplay being all those poetic and smart things, and think you ought to roleplay being good in combat as well?? I'm Sorry that is wrong! It is also wrong that you think a optimized fighter should tone it down, so you can have your cake and pie and eat them both too!
BADWRONGFUN ey? Your post comes across as a lot of "If your character doesn't fit my personal optimization levels it should die, regardless of if it's in a game I haven't ever been close to participating in. People that play in a different way than me are WRONG!".
My suggestion has never been "nerf dat fighter", it's been: Discuss with the game group how you want the game to flow and try to find a solution everyone enjoys.
I vehemently disagree with the common notion though, that it's always those that don't enjoy optimization that should fully adjust to those that enjoy it, and that those that enjoy optimization shouldn't have to adjust because that would just be mean.
So we're coming around to realize that there are shortcomings to Pathfinder when it's used to simulate characters that don't truly fit into its milieu? That it's not the best thing for statting out poets and cooks?
Oh my.
I always thought the game was all about heroes...and it does a fair job at that.
This beginning build can still turn viable. And roll played well you will see a gradual increase in the characters martial abilities. From second level on, skills and feats should be focused on improving combat prowess. By the time level 7 comes around. Against 2 opponents maybe 3 not sure, this character could be doing 2d6+11twice a round. The first round she should be doing 2d6+18 per attack. Not bad for a character that has a 10 in both str and charisma.
If a gaming group is playing with a party of BMX Bandit, Aquaman and Jubilee, and playing adventures matched for their level of power, then someone playing Superman will mean there are power dynamics issues; anything that challenge Superman will render the others useless and the adventures fit for the others will be ended in like 5 minutes by Superman's powers.
This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with wanting to play Superman, but neither does it mean that the players playing BMX Bandit, Aquaman and Jubilee should feel forced to be left out of the action or switch their characters to Silver Surfer, The Green Lantern and Flash.
So we're coming around to realize that there are shortcomings to Pathfinder when it's used to simulate characters that don't truly fit into its milieu? That it's not the best thing for statting out poets and cooks?
Oh my.
I always thought the game was all about heroes...and it does a fair job at that.
I don't see what this has to do with heroism at all. And in a party of characters of similar strength levels there will be no issues of power at all, as long as the opposition is fit for them. BMX Bandit is still a hero, just that he doesn't fit in the same type of adventures with Angel Summoner.
You mention BMX Bandit but then use Superman instead of Angel Summoner?
For shame.
|
|
This beginning build can still turn viable. And roll played well you will see a gradual increase in the characters martial abilities. From second level on, skills and feats should be focused on improving combat prowess. By the time level 7 comes around. Against 2 opponents maybe 3 not sure, this character could be doing 2d6+11twice a round. The first round she should be doing 2d6+18 per attack. Not bad for a character that has a 10 in both str and charisma.So we're coming around to realize that there are shortcomings to Pathfinder when it's used to simulate characters that don't truly fit into its milieu? That it's not the best thing for statting out poets and cooks?
Oh my.
I always thought the game was all about heroes...and it does a fair job at that.
Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. Still...if you want +10 in poetry and cooking at first level, you're playing the wrong game.
|
|
If a gaming group is playing with a party of BMX Bandit, Aquaman and Jubilee, and playing adventures matched for their level of power, then someone playing Superman will mean there are power dynamics issues; anything that challenge Superman will render the others useless and the adventures fit for the others will be ended in like 5 minutes by Superman's powers.
This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with wanting to play Superman, but neither does it mean that the players playing BMX Bandit, Aquaman and Jubilee should feel forced to be left out of the action or switch their characters to Silver Surfer, The Green Lantern and Flash.
I don't see what this has to do with heroism at all. And in a party of characters of similar strength levels there will be no issues of power at all, as long as the opposition is fit for them. BMX Bandit is still a hero, just that he doesn't fit in the same type of adventures with Angel Summoner.So we're coming around to realize that there are shortcomings to Pathfinder when it's used to simulate characters that don't truly fit into its milieu? That it's not the best thing for statting out poets and cooks?
Oh my.
I always thought the game was all about heroes...and it does a fair job at that.
Bad comparison.
If you want that sort of analogy, Pathfinder is set on a base power level...let's assume the X-Men - solid heroes, but they usually need each others' help.
The OP is playing with the students. The fighter is more like Colossus.
If you want that sort of analogy, Pathfinder is set on a base power level...let's assume the X-Men - solid heroes, but they usually need each others' help.The OP is playing with the students. The fighter is more like Colossus.
Pathfinder doesn't have a set power level. The powerlevel depends almost completely on the group. There isn't any floor, though there is a (very very high) roof to the power.
|
|
Pathfinder doesn't have a set power level. The powerlevel depends almost completely on the group. There isn't any floor, though there is a (very very high) roof to the power.
If you want that sort of analogy, Pathfinder is set on a base power level...let's assume the X-Men - solid heroes, but they usually need each others' help.The OP is playing with the students. The fighter is more like Colossus.
I SO beg to differ.
Are you, perhaps, familiar with 'CR'? That's the rating for creatures that a party of that level should be able to take down with a reasonable, but small amount of expenditures.
Yes, there is definitely a standard power level for Pathfinder.
I SO beg to differ.
Are you, perhaps, familiar with 'CR'? That's the rating for creatures that a party of that level should be able to take down with a reasonable, but small amount of expenditures.
Yes, there is definitely a standard power level for Pathfinder.
There is a standard _assumption_ on how powerful characters will be. Nothing in the game's mechanics require this, and CR is a guideline with limited usefulness regardless. I can make a CR5 encounter that could easily TPK a level 8 party and I can make a CR5 encounter that can be easily stomped by a 3st level party.
And almost every optimized character is far above that power level, yet that isn't an issue? Why is it an issue if an APL+1 encounter is epic for one party, yet not an issue if it's easy for another? An APL+1 encounter should according to that line of reasoning always be challenging, harder than "average" yet not so hard as to be described as "hard". And certainly not "easy".
Yet many first level parties will completely eat two zombies (a CR2 encounter). Heck, many first level parties will have no issues at all against three gnolls, and that's an EPIC encounter!
|
|
I SO beg to differ.
Are you, perhaps, familiar with 'CR'? That's the rating for creatures that a party of that level should be able to take down with a reasonable, but small amount of expenditures.
Yes, there is definitely a standard power level for Pathfinder.
There is a standard _assumption_ on how powerful characters will be. Nothing in the game's mechanics require this, and CR is a guideline with limited usefulness regardless. I can make a CR5 encounter that could easily TPK a level 10 party and I can make a CR5 encounter that can be easily stomped by a 1st level party.
And almost every optimized character is far above that power level, yet that isn't an issue? Why is it an issue if an APL+1 encounter is epic for one party, yet not an issue if it's easy for another? An APL+1 encounter should according to that line of reasoning always be challenging, harder than "average" yet not so hard as to be described as "hard". And certainly not "easy".
Yet many first level parties will completely eat two zombies (a CR2 encounter). Heck, many first level parties will have no issues at all against three gnolls, and that's an EPIC encounter!
Right.
You can certainly play it your way. You can also play Monopoly, as a group, not buying anything, just to see who goes broke last...but that's not the standard.
You know what I really see here? Firstly, you really have no idea what a CR 5 encounter is...and you have a serious issue with anyone who wants to play an actual hero...as opposed to a bit part.
Right.
You can certainly play it your way. You can also play Monopoly, as a group, not buying anything, just to see who goes broke last...but that's not the standard.
You know what I really see here? Firstly, you really have no idea what a CR 5 encounter is...and you have a serious issue with anyone who wants to play an actual hero...as opposed to a bit part.
Well, according to the very CR guidelines you quote as setting the standard, a single CR5 monster is a CR 5 encounter. It's easy to make a CR5 monster using the templates that are in the game that will completely ruin any 10th level party and be hard for even a 12th level party and against a well-optimized 1st level party, a group of 6 zombies (CR5) will hardly be a challenge at all. If there are two or three monsters the CR increases by +2 or +3 respectively, meaning two zombies are a CR2 encounter and three gnolls are a CR4 encounter.
And this game isn't monopoly. There are hardly any resemblances between the two.
And again, the standard is that a CR=APL+2 encounter is hard for a party. Does that mean that any first level party that doesn't find three zombies (a CR3 encounter) hard, are "playing it wrong" and are at the wrong power level? What is the solution to that issue?