In some forum I read a comment about how maximizing damage out-put might not be relevant, because the DM would simply adjust the monsters to match the challenge. So I went (literally lost multiple nights) and researched, character class combinations that I might like (despite knowing often in PF it's more beneficial to stay in one).
I thought there's got to be worthwhile combinations and looked and looked. And then yesterday A lvl 3 ranger, cavalier and my knife master encountered a lvl 7 freaking dinosaur and it ate two of our horses and more than 3 characters worth of hp (only possible due to some healing-wand use in between, otherwise it would just have been "it ate 3 characters"). The cavalier (almost dead himself) grabbed our (luckily stabilized) bodies and managed to get away with us.
This experience of not being able to sneak (despite a +11 bonus to sneak - because of it's perception 14) nor to hit (AC at least 20) and getting hit no matter what (crazy attack bonuses, and 20 ft reach!) showed me that the concepts I had been looking at (dipping 1 lvl in white-haired witch and 1 in some kind of sorcerer for some feats, buffs, and crazy cool hair, and a familiar) might be too much fluff based for a setting where many times 2/5 of the group don't show up. It was based on the idea that I'd be fighting mostly humanoids at about my level (based on the experiences I had in my first 3 sessions... did I mentions I'm new to all of this?). What good would the cool hair secondary natural attack with automatic grapple do if it only hit's 5 % of the time!?
I got quite attached to the character because of the ridiculously lucky stat rolls at character creation. In retrospect I wish it was just point buy, which would make them much more replaceable. When the first ally went down my loyal, helpful character wanted to help, and as a player I thought "screw this that thing is huge!" - but I got over it and acted in character and barely survived it (at -11 hp!)
So now I can't decide what to do with him... I'm pretty sure dipping 1 lvl Ranger (Trapper/Freebooter) for a bunch of bonuses is a safer option... but "on paper" I really loved the ideas I had. Some of the sorcerer bloodlines get a load of feats that synergize well with the rogue, but the low BAB reduces usefulness in combat a bit. :-S Unless there's good ways to buff to make up for that... :-S
The cavalier leveled up as well, and maybe we'll have more people next week. I'm torn between finding that dino and taking revenge on it for our horses and running with my concept anyways and learning when to flee. - But like I said I had a hard time recognizing danger... I'm not sure what I can do to be prepared for stuff...
Also the reason I picked rogue is from computer game experience. I love stabbing stuff, but mostly I love stealing stuff like crazy! However, in a computer game as long as they didn't see you taking it, you're fine. In the real world or in pathfinder you have a lot more to consider... - Also in the games no one ever needed any of their stuff because they're static. There was no feeling of sympathy with the farmer who's life savings I stole, because the world wasn't very dynamic. Now stealing is sort of an evil thing to do... Poverty background gave the skill but right now he's not starving. Saving up for magical artifacts to save the world (actually that's not really on our plate yet, right now we're delivering magically preserved strawberries to someone very isolated :D ) isn't quite enough justification for stealing from anyone but someone who deserves it. How would I know who deserves to be robbed? And then do it without getting caught? Dex is 20, and high intelligence means lots of skill points. I got enough cash for hat of disguise... would that do the trick? In your experience, does thief play work with a group? What would they be doing while I'm off stealing?
3 lvl Knife Master STR 10, DEX 20, CON 14, INT 16, WIS 12, CHA 16.
Feat: 2WF. Talent: Finesse rogue.
Haven't used the bonus feat yet (might do Alt race trait Skill Focus instead), nor the traits (considering Adopted->Elven Reflexes; River Rat), nor have I distributed all the skillpoints yet, but I've thought quite a bit about the options. Just haven't decided yet. :-S
So many options... makes it hard to decide. And once I decide (i.e. take a bonus from a trait on a roll, or something like that) it would be unfair to change the mind, since it already benefited me.
If it was a clear and easy question I'd have posted this elsewhere (like here http://rpg.stackexchange.com/ ) but it's really not. It's something that requires discussion, exchange of ideas. Probably there's no one right answer to this either, either. But I'm new and I could use some friendly guidance/support.
Yeeeep, a pen and paper game can be run like a computer game, but there is easily so much more to them, more possibilities, with the world being as adaptive as the dm's imagination, and not restricted by coding.
Theft, scams and banditry are so much more fun in a pen and paper game, but its slower than on the computer, and potentially a lot harder.
Thieves most certainly can work with a group, but a group can also try to limit or shut down good honest fun thievery.
Good luck.
Well the rest of the group is a ranger, a cavalier, a druid, and a chaotic neutral fighter/cleric (god of war). help seems unlikely. I guess I could ask the DM to meet up for some 1 & 1 thieving... that might actually not be a bad idea.
Abilities are there...
Strategies I can figure out I'm sure. Maybe find a thieves guild and do a contract together with an NPC perhaps... I wonder if the DM would be interested in that. She seems to have more time on her hands than the rest of the group other than me. :-)
Motivation however... he almost got eaten by a dinosaur, he wants to be more prepared next time, and is low on funds? (but I still technically have 2 1/2 grand from char creation...) Still stuff is really expensive... getting agile knives would be awesome...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In some forum I read a comment about how maximizing damage out-put might not be relevant, because the DM would simply adjust the monsters to match the challenge.
I think some players have had their perception of this game warped by computer games. You cannot "win" this game, you can only hope to be challenged and entertained by it.
In that regard, the threat of death, and literal death to back up the threat, is very important.
You seem to be having fun. You should thank your DM for that.
As for what level to take next; ask yourself, how would the character naturally develop if it didn't matter what various benefits he or she would gain from that next level. Does your character really think about the benefits of level dipping?
Remember, you can't really win. The DM will always be able to meet your character with challenges.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is that powergaming creates its own need. When players powergame, the GM adjusts encounters to compensate. Powerful encounters require powerful characters, so players -- and then GMs -- must constantly re-tool their characters to withstand the other side. It becomes an arms race, and in my opinion too much time gets spent tweaking stats instead of having fun and being heroes.
Eventually the arms race escalates to the point where four system-savvy players are making effective characters to thwart the plans of a GM who has potential access to all sources, and GM must ask himself: "Am I going to continue following the rules and get out-gunned because four people are spending their time researching builds, while I'm only one person and also have to manage running the campaign on top? Or am I going to start ruling disputes against the players and building encounters just to neutralize builds to keep them in check? Or am I going to just start cheating(~) and making up new abilities and challenging them with encounters far above their APL, at which point their optimizing no longer matters?"
It would be nice if we could just make cool characters and fight monsters without having to one-up each other.
I agree with you troubelshooter. A race, crunch-obsession, constant rules lawyering and a cold player fury (or depression) when their powergaming characters are actually hurt, challenged or beaten.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experience is that powergaming creates its own need. When players powergame, the GM adjusts encounters to compensate. Powerful encounters require powerful characters, so players -- and then GMs -- must constantly re-tool their characters to withstand the other side. It becomes an arms race, and in my opinion too much time gets spent tweaking stats instead of having fun and being heroes.
Eventually the arms race escalates to the point where four system-savvy players are making effective characters to thwart the plans of a GM who has potential access to all sources, and GM must ask himself: "Am I going to continue following the rules and get out-gunned because four people are spending their time researching builds, while I'm only one person and also have to manage running the campaign on top? Or am I going to start ruling disputes against the players and building encounters just to neutralize builds to keep them in check? Or am I going to just start cheating(~) and making up new abilities and challenging them with encounters far above their APL, at which point their optimizing no longer matters?"
It would be nice if we could just make cool characters and fight monsters without having to one-up each other.
THIS is why, as a GM, I'm not terribly fond of power-gaming! I scale encounters on-the-fly, so as to present an appropriate and enjoyable challenge to the PCs. When they powergame, it just means I have to ad hoc ways for my encounters to still present a challenge. To me, it's far more about telling a compelling story WITH the players than it is about number-crunching and power builds.
(For that matter, as a player, I'm not fond of power-gaming either: I prefer to take an interesting character concept and try to build a character that's true to that vision. I much prefer writing compelling backstory than trawling through rulebooks looking for numerical advantages.)
Of course, I'm an old-school GM who cut his teeth on 1st-ed AD&D, where much of the game was deliberately undefined, and the GM and players had more room for flexibility and creativity while still working within the ruleset.
I am not from the first gen, but the more I play, the more I yearn for simpler times. More rp and the roll of the dice, rather than building and desperately trying to make a modifier, or damage higher.
I'm a little confused. Are you looking for build advice? Or reassurance that it's okay to build a character that is not necessarily mechanically "optimized" for combat effectiveness?
I'll tell you what I've told every player that's ever been at my table. There's nothing that prevents a character from being both mechanically well-built, and capable of spectacular narrative roleplay. It's entirely up to the player.
If you want prehensile hair, or some dragon claws, just because that's what kind of character you want to build, then do that. Even if those level dips, trait choices, and feats don't make you "optimized" for combat. They still don't take away the character's in game effectiveness. A character's survivability, playability, and "fun"ability, at least in my experience, aren't dependent on stat numbers, or maximized level progression choices. They're dependent on the gaming smarts of the player. There are a lot of actions that a character can take that help prevent harm: full-withdraw, run, etc. Also, as you adeptly pointed out. The game is about a lot more than combat. Sometimes stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is what your character wants to do, and you can go through an entire gaming session without ever entering combat.
Make the character you want to make. Play the character the way you want to play it. As long as you're having fun, and helping everyone else at the table to have fun, then everything is all right.