| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly because generalists aren't all that effective. The 3.x ruleset, and pathfinder even moreso reward specialization. Not just in multiclassing, but even within the same class. Feat trees are one way of this. If you want to play the character you want to play, you should be able to without being pressured otherwise, but part of it is that the roles need to be filled as part of the design of the game. The way the game rewards specialization is to prevent one character from being able to shine in all areas, but a side effect of that is that this design requires that generalists be much less effective, so as a generalist, you can't really fill any role effectively, and while you might help here or there, you're not really providing much to the group (especially in PFS, where the DM can't change stuff on the fly to fit the group).
There are so many ways to make a dead weight character in Pathfinder.
It seems that your group is worried about yours being the dead weight there.
What are your stats, curse, and spells known? Are you using any archetypes? (I assume your mystery is Lore, and you've taken Extra Revelation to get both Lore Keeper and Sidestep Secret.) Knowing more about the build would help us tell if your fellow players were overreacting.
|
It's somewhat game system dependent. In oWoD games my fellow players give me flack for being such a good generalist that I'm always participating competently in whatever the party is doing, while the others have locked themselves up in specialisms. But oWoD rules do somewhat reward generalism.
PF makes it much harder to be a good generalist. It's hard to be competent at everything. However, you do have a choice between total specialization in one area, or being competent in several areas, just not all areas. Class choice is a big element of this; fighters are bad at covering multiple roles, while bards and druids have a natural aptitude for it.
In your case, I suggest picking a few areas to focus on, rather than trying to do everything. Pick 2-4 areas to focus on and be good at them, so that you can back up 2-4 other PCs if they're having trouble or can just use a competent wingman, or if the party needs to split up to work on a problem from two sides.
Dead weight is a real problem in PF, just like OP characters. But I think in your case it's doable to focus your character just a little more, without becoming totally focused on only one thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I like making jack of all trades characters. I usually get pretty bored with highly specialized characters. That said I make sure they are still capable of doing what they are supposed to do and be good at it. I think your group was less worried about you being a generalist, and more that you were multiclassing 2 classes that dont work well together and will end up less able to contribute to the party as a whole.
As for the OP's specific case I think its the specific choices you made in multiclassing 2 classes that dont mesh well, and not the fact that you were going for a generalist. That said, I dont play pfs intentionally, so my experience is based on playing with actual friends, who I have known for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me. It ended up being an aasimar oracle/monk who dumped DX and used lore revelations to replace charisma for dx for AC and reflex purposes in addition to using charisma for knowledge checks. He was envisioned as a Justin Bieber who just adventured from time to time but I refused to play a bard ;)
Well, let me start by saying I don't play PFS, and one of the reasons is that, from what I can tell on the message boards, a lot of groups take roll-playing and power gaming much more seriously than I and my friends do. This seems symptomatic of that.
But beyond that,....oracle/monk? Seriously? From a character optimization standpoint, that's one of the poorer combinations. Monks are underpowered to begin with, and the one stat that's actually useful to oracles is the one stat they don't need.
The deeper issue, though, is that the game is designed to encourage specialization so that everyone has a role to play. In my home group we try to build generalists just in case Sam can't make it (because otherwise we find ourselves with no tank or something, and we end up getting stomped into snail snot by the first level-appropriate bruiser we encounter), but in PFS that's less of an issue. What is an issue is that you need characters who can effectively fill the various tactical slots, lest you find out that your "tank" can't actually tank effectively and you end up getting stomped into snail snot by the first level-appropriate bruiser you encounter.
So if you're playing a generalist, it would really help if you thought about what roles you can actually fill effectively (and not just "cover"). Again, oracle/monk is not really a good combination. They don't have enough skill points to be effective at that; they typically don't have a good enough BAB or DPR to fight effectively, and although a cleric can pick spells for a particular adventure tuned to the role they need to play, an oracle lacks that ability and is kind of locked into a very small set of spells. While oracles often make very effective party faces, the monk side of the character takes stat points away from charisma and levels away from the all-important spell progression.
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why hate generalist? They are worried that you will be dead weight that contributes next to nothing. Or even worse they will have to work harder to keep you alive. I am not saying that they are necessarily right, just that is what they are probably worried about.
I have a player in my home game who in the past often made PC’s that he wanted to be able to do a little of everything.
He had trap searching and disable device. But his skills are so low he rarely finds them or if he does even more rarely disables them.
He had some SoS spells. But his DC is low enough that the enemy almost always made the save.
He had some blaster spells. But the damage wasn’t high enough to really effect the combat significantly.
He had light armor. But not enough to really make any significant difference in how often he got hit.
He had a martial weapon proficiency. But his attack bonus was low so he didn’t hit very often and didn’t do much damage when he did hit.
He had evasion. But his reflex save was low enough he usually failed the save.
He had a few buff spells. But just a few so he was always saving them for when they were really needed.
Etc…
At best he was a distraction for the enemy when what they really needed was another solid contributor.
He has gotten better over time. As Ascalaphus said, he now tries to be decent at say 3 things rather than everything.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Having said all that, PFS is one of the instances where a good generalist can often contribute in a big way.
- A couple months ago the next table over had a group where the HIGH charisma score was an 8. And since no one had a decent charisma no one put any ranks in the social skills. The scenario required a lot of low DC ‘face’ checks. They failed the mission.
- I once sat at a table where every single player was an armored build. The scenario required a fair amount of sneaking. We succeeded, but only by blowing a whole lot of money on potions, scrolls, and wands to make up for the skill-less ‘clang-clang-clang’ effect. As well as armored builds running around and fighting without their armor (and taking quite a bit of extra damage in the process). One of the PC’s actually had an AC of 9 without his armor.
- Been in one where everyone at the table was ranged attack or primary caster. We were all pretty much squishies with no one to keep the bad guys away from us.
- It is not uncommon to have a table where no one has many knowledge skills. And some PFS scenarios have a whole bunch of low DC checks. But you have to have at least a rank (trained) to even make the attempt.
At any of those four tables, a generalist would have been a tremendous help.
If however, you have a very small PFS community and are almost always playing with the same balanced group… Well then you may not find yourself as useful very often.
------------------------------------------------------------
Part of it is going to be how you define generalist. Do you mean a little of everything. That is really tough to do well in the PF system. Or do you just mean not super specialized at only one thing? That can readily be done. It is usually what I recommend anyway. If you are the ultimate grapple machine and nothing else, there are a lot of scenarios and foes that you can’t (or at least don’t want to) grapple very much.
Examples:
My sorc has decent Conjuration spell DC’s, also augment summoning for things I can cast spells at, a decent total in a couple of face skills, a high UMD to use other magic when needed. But I didn’t also try to be a sneak, learn a martial weapon, high AC, etc… I picked a couple things to be very good at (summoning and conjuration attack spells) and a couple of things to be decent at (face skills and UMD).
What I would recommend is post the build you have so far and what your current plans are. But also make a few choices on what roles you want to be able to fill or what abilities you want to have (ie. I want to be the secondary tank but also have some party buff spells). Then ask for advice.
|
Well...it's like this...if you're really good at something, you can land a good job. If you aren't, there's always an opening for manual labor, or carts at Wal-Mart.
Adventuring parties are made up of spectacular people. If you CAN be VERY good at multiple roles, fantastic. If you can only be mediocre, there are carts on the parking lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...it's like this...if you're really good at something, you can land a good job. If you aren't, there's always an opening for manual labor, or carts at Wal-Mart.
Adventuring parties are made up of spectacular people. If you CAN be VERY good at multiple roles, fantastic. If you can only be mediocre, there are carts on the parking lot.
LOL, well if you really want to run with this metaphor...
I would say most of the managers, team leaders, and supervisors are at best a decent generalist. The people that are really good specialists at their jobs usually don't get promoted because they don't have any of the other skills necessary for running a department.
|
|
TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
I dont think thats relevant. If the character is PFS legal there shouldn't be an issue.
To the OP:
When I played a lot of PFS, I didn't experience this attitude. Let me tell you there were piles of dead weight characters, it still wasn't a big deal. No scenario was so difficult that a single player would screw it up. I guess you could argue carrying somebody wouldn't be fun, but PFS is quite different than a home game. Our PFS had a lot of kids and reluctant girlfriends spouses. I could see a situation where your PFS game is the same group week to week. In that event I still think its lousy that other players gave you a hard time. That is not PF as a whole but definitely a segment which is unfortunate.
PS: you should never refuse to play a Bard!!!
|
|
Well...it's like this...if you're really good at something, you can land a good job. If you aren't, there's always an opening for manual labor, or carts at Wal-Mart.
Adventuring parties are made up of spectacular people. If you CAN be VERY good at multiple roles, fantastic. If you can only be mediocre, there are carts on the parking lot.
LOL, well if you really want to run with this metaphor...
I would say most of the managers, team leaders, and supervisors are at best a decent generalist. The people that are really good specialists at their jobs usually don't get promoted because they don't have any of the other skills necessary for running a department.
I hear ya.
No managers needed in the adventuring team, though. ;)
(Well, maybe...IF they also have a specialty.)
|
|
I have multiple semi-generalist characters that are always welcome at a table. I say semi because while my characters are good at many things they all are super great at one thing.
My general forumla:
1) Have one thing that you do exceptionally well
2) Make sure you have useful thing to do in combat.
3) Have lots of skill points and invest in the most needed skills to the point where you have a decent chance of making the rolls but not so invested as to overshaodw another character where that skill is their shtick.
Examples:
1) My main character is Bard 11/ Fighter 1. His AC is through the roof (he can get it into the 40s) and he can do some damage in combat and is great at absorbing AoA. In addition he has lots of great buff spells, has lots of knowledges, and is a great party face.
2) I have a Whip Fighter currently Bard (Archivist) 2 / Fighter (lore Warden) 3. She's great at tripping, has skill points in knowledges, can buff the party a little, and can be the face if no one else in the party is. At higher levels she'll have decent damage output as well.
3) I have a character who will never take a 2nd level in any class. WHile is BaB will suck his saves will be ludicrously high, he'll have pretty much every skill, and he also has ltos of neat tricks to be useful in combat.
Also for what it's worth I have a Wizard who has invested in every knowledge. I've never once been told by other players that he shouldn't have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont think thats relevant. If the character is PFS legal there shouldn't be an issue.TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
Well, I think you're entirely wrong. If you're bringing a character to the table that makes everyone else not have fun, you're going to take flak for it. And justifiably so. To think otherwise is selfish and rather stupid.
As an example, it would be PFS legal for you to play a character that was a total coward that flatly refused to leave civilization, forcing the party to leave you behind on every adventure. It would be PFS legal to carry a signal whistle and blow it, loudly, every time the party thief decided to do something stealthy. It would be PFS legal to deliberately attempt to sabotage party negotiations.
But those are all disruptive acts that illustrate really poor judgment on the player's part. Role-playing is a community activity, and supposed to be fun for everyone at the table. If you get your fun preventing other people from having fun, find a new hobby.
|
|
TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
I dont think thats relevant. If the character is PFS legal there shouldn't be an issue.
To the OP:
When I played a lot of PFS, I didn't experience this attitude. Let me tell you there were piles of dead weight characters, it still wasn't a big deal. No scenario was so difficult that a single player would screw it up. I guess you could argue carrying somebody wouldn't be fun, but PFS is quite different than a home game. Our PFS had a lot of kids and reluctant girlfriends spouses. I could see a situation where your PFS game is the same group week to week. In that event I still think its lousy that other players gave you a hard time. That is not PF as a whole but definitely a segment which is unfortunate.PS: you should never refuse to play a Bard!!!
I'm playing a Bard right now. He's THE party face, an excellent support character...he'll be a healer, and also contribute in combat as a mediocre spellcaster. In many ways, he's a generalist...but he has a primary role out of combat that he does exceptionally well, and he gives decent in-combat support (though only being 1st level, that is a bit limited...at this point.)
IS this a bad group to be with or is this a sign of pathfinder on the whole?
Though I feel Pathfinder favors specialization, the group sounds utterly wretched.
I would say the group seems to feel they have some ownership over your character to the extent that they feel what you've done will drag them down instead of being a distinct benefit to the group as a whole.
I dont think thats relevant. If the character is PFS legal there shouldn't be an issue.TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
If a character isn't fun for everyone else at the table (Ruining their fun) then yes, that is a problem. Possibly with them, possibly with you, but remember, you all came there for fun. Careful with your statements, I read that as a very selfish thing to say. Not sure if you meant it like that.
Anyways, it isn't that much fun when your carrying. Not for me anyway. After doing it so often and seeing lots of dead weights it really starts to eat at you. Sometimes people have trouble expressing their concerns nicely. In PFS you have PUGs, you never know who you'll be with. If you don't pull your weight you can drag the group down, despite people thinking its absolutely fine.
Can I ask what the point of multi-classing monk/oracle was?
IS this a bad group to be with or is this a sign of pathfinder on the whole?Though I feel Pathfinder favors specialization, the group sounds utterly wretched.
Don't forget our story is biased.
|
I've seen the same distaste for generalist characters. Both in Pathfinder society games and in my home games.
One possible explanation is the lack of big numbers. Hitting more often in combat and doing more damage makes combats faster, and some players are only interested in getting *out* of combat as quickly as possible. (I won't even get into if they roleplay during the remainder of the game.)
Most RPG games have a system in place for combat, and mastering that system and increasing the apparent efficiency of a character appeals to some people.
Dealing with disparaging remarks and comments of "you're not effective" suck, if I hear them around my FLGS I do everything I can to squash that attitude, but as everyone says Your Mileage May Vary.
Play a generalist, play that character to the best of your ability, give them some style and maybe you'll convince someone they don't have to be "efficient" all the time.
I wish you luck.
Though I feel Pathfinder favors specialization, the group sounds utterly wretched.Don't forget our story is biased.
True, true. That's why I made sure to put 'sounds' in italics =)
To be fair, I can certainly see how bringing in a truly underwhelming character can impact the play of others, I'm not denying that, but I've seen a fair amount of unnecessary butting-in at public game tables over the years (mainly conventions, I have no experience with PFS) and it's something I tend to take issue with on a fundamental level.
Telling people how they should be playing the game at the table is, generally speaking I feel, in pretty poor taste. If it's going to be done in that sort of venue, it should at least be done with a light touch and in as constructive a manner as possible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your character is probably dead weight, but who cares. Anyone who disdains you for playing a dead weight character needs to lighten up. I'd find a new gaming group.
One of the parties I'm playing in has two bards, a venerable aged hair witch, and a paladin who's specialized in improvised weapons. All we can do in combat is debuff the bad guys, buff the hell out of the paladin, and watch her beat them up with a table leg.
It's hilarious, and sub-optimal, and fun.
Your character is probably dead weight, but who cares. Anyone who disdains you for playing a dead weight character needs to lighten up. I'd find a new gaming group.
One of the parties I'm playing in has two bards, a venerable aged hair witch, and a paladin who's specialized in improvised weapons. All we can do in combat is debuff the bad guys, buff the hell out of the paladin, and watch her beat them up with a table leg.
It's hilarious, and sub-optimal, and fun.
I'm pretty sure the inevitable TPK will be very fun for you guys, then.
Unless the DM is feeling sorry for the group and avoids killing it at all costs.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your character is probably dead weight,
Dead weight is the 5 charisma barbarian with zero social skills in a social heavy scenario.
Being able to participate in more than one aspect of the game is never bad when you don't know what the other players are bringing to the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your character is probably dead weight, but who cares. Anyone who disdains you for playing a dead weight character needs to lighten up. I'd find a new gaming group.
One of the parties I'm playing in has two bards, a venerable aged hair witch, and a paladin who's specialized in improvised weapons. All we can do in combat is debuff the bad guys, buff the hell out of the paladin, and watch her beat them up with a table leg.
It's hilarious, and sub-optimal, and fun.
I'm pretty sure the inevitable TPK will be very fun for you guys, then.
Unless the DM is feeling sorry for the group and avoids killing it at all costs.
Or the DM likes, you know, scaling challengs to fit the level of the group he DMs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or the DM likes, you know, scaling challengs to fit the level of the group he DMs.
I'm pretty sure the inevitable TPK will be very fun for you guys, then.
Unless the DM is feeling sorry for the group and avoids killing it at all costs.
Not really an option in PFS, is it? The DM doesn't really have the authority to say "well, this encounter was supposed to be with six bugbears, but because you guys don't seem to have the collective ability to pour sand out of a boot, we'll go with six raven-familiars instead."
I'm a little shocked at how many people are down on generalist characters.
I'm not down on generalist characters (according to my personal definition of "generalist").
I have to admit I find it hard to get enthused about characters who can't doing anything well. I don't know if the original poster's character would fall into that category, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if nothing else, this thread has confirmed my reservations about doing PFS games. Yeesh.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was envisioned as a Justin Bieber...
Well, there's your problem right there. I'm surprised they didn't stone you.
Your character is probably dead weight, but who cares. Anyone who disdains you for playing a dead weight character needs to lighten up. I'd find a new gaming group.
This is for PFS. You PUG things so your almost always with a different group. The scenarios are premade, so you can't change the difficulty to help suboptimal players. Some of the scenarios are pretty deadly, and by showing up with dead weights(useless characters) your only helping to get everyone else killed. Is that supposed to be fun for them?
I'm sort of sad people are actually supporting people and telling them to play dead weight characters. Play what's fun, but you shouldn't have to sacrifice what's effective to do so. There are plenty of people willing to help you make a character work too.
He was envisioned as a Justin Bieber...Well, there's your problem right there. I'm surprised they didn't stone you.
Here's a question, did you use the words Justin Beiber to describe your character?
|
|
I'm a little shocked at how many people are down on generalist characters.I'm not down on generalist characters (according to my personal definition of "generalist").
I have to admit I find it hard to get enthused about characters who can't doing anything well. I don't know if the original poster's character would fall into that category, though.
This is very much my point. I have no issues with generalists, so long as they can do at least one thing particularly well.
Imo, being a generalist isn't too awful depending on how you do it, but I know 3.5 and pathfinder tend to reward specialization. A big thing is how you actually commit yourself to being good at several things and how you define generalist. If by generalist you mean you can do some spells, some combat, and some skills with a magus then that's cool, or an inquisitor who's trying to stay a skill monkey, took conversion to be face, and took heretic for stealth skills he might not be so bad so long as you remember PFS always has combat and can do some damage. If by generalist you mean your single class sorcerer is trying to do melee, casting, skill monkey, and face all at once you might have some trouble.
As to the OP, I don't know what the build was or why they had a problem with it. I wasn't there. Its very possible they had concerns with more than just the idea that the character wasn't specialized. It could've been that they don't want to play with Justin Beiber, or that they though the idea of an oracle/monk was terrible(which... it may have been depending on why it was an oracle monk.) Its hard to talk about decisions or people I don't know.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather play a character that is adequately useful most if the time than a character that is amazingly awesome at one thing, and is useless dead weight 99% of the time that one thing isn't happening. However, such an opinion is generally looked down on and mocked in forums such as these.
|
|
I dont think thats relevant. If the character is PFS legal there shouldn't be an issue.TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
Well, I think you're entirely wrong. If you're bringing a character to the table that makes everyone else not have fun, you're going to take flak for it. And justifiably so. To think otherwise is selfish and rather stupid.
As an example, it would be PFS legal for you to play a character that was a total coward that flatly refused to leave civilization, forcing the party to leave you behind on every adventure. It would be PFS legal to carry a signal whistle and blow it, loudly, every time the party thief decided to do something stealthy. It would be PFS legal to deliberately attempt to sabotage party negotiations.
But those are all disruptive acts that illustrate really poor judgment on the player's part. Role-playing is a community activity, and supposed to be fun for everyone at the table.
Ok those examples are all roleplay. All your sabotage examples could be done with any character. Simply showing up to a table with a monk/oracle ruins peoples fun? Sorry, just not my experience. If people are going to not have fun based on a character they don't like mechanically ,I just don't know what to say to that. I think this statement " If you get your fun preventing other people from having fun, find a new hobby." is out of context. In fact you could turn that completely around and say banning a character for simply being a monk/oracle is preventing folks from having fun.
Pan, its not about not liking something mechanically. I don't like the Oracle's curse, doesn't mean I treat every oracle with animosity. If someone show's up with a cavalier who literally does nothing on the other hand, I have a problem with that person. It has happened several times. I'm not a fan of carrying. It's not a direct attack on my fun, but it does make my life harder.
No one said anything about banning monk/oracles...
|
|
If a character isn't fun for everyone else at the table (Ruining their fun) then yes, that is a problem. Possibly with them, possibly with you, but remember, you all came there for fun. Careful with your statements, I read that as a very selfish thing to say. Not sure if you meant it like that.I don't think that's relevant. If the character is PFS legal there shouldn't be an issue.TL;DR version of previous. This character may be fun for you.... but was it fun for them?
Seeing that all the four basic types were represented I wanted to play a guy who I thought was just plain fun for me.
Key word is shouldn't. OPs example is joining a balanced 4 player group. What is the harm of a monk/oracle? Keep in mind mechanics are completely different than how a player chooses to roleplay the character.
Key word is shouldn't. OPs example is joining a balanced 4 player group. What is the harm of a monk/oracle? Keep in mind mechanics are completely different than how a player chooses to roleplay the character.
PFS does expect a level of usefulness. There are even a few missions with DPR race things going on. I keep in mind roleplaying is different, I don't expect him to yell at the top of his lungs to alert foes during stealth missions or to make enemies out of everyone they meet. However I would hope he knows what he's doing to remain competent and useful.
Really thought, what's special about a monk/oracle?
Its PFS. The group won't always have every fundamental hit. That's actually one of the reason by being good at a few things is good in PFS. Being kinda' bad at combat, and okay with skills however is not the best way to do that. More so, even if you play with the same group every time, if they don't like your character that's not cool.