I think one thing that needs to be defined is, are people upset at a generalist build that's useful, or is the build one that is potentially fatal to the other characters and it's being called generalist just because it isn't specialized. I've seen, and I'm sure others here have seen, PCs that were poorly built that weren't 'generalist' because they weren't specialized, they were just 'poorly built'.
Now some players take it to the extreme and act like if you don't redline the numbers you're useless. That's not true. In fact PF is built on the default assumption the PCs should mostly win, so there's leeway room built right into the game.
On the other hand it IS a team game, and if you make a PC too weak then your great/fun character idea might end up getting someone else's great/fun character idea killed, so others at the table do have some legitimate interest in their fellow adventures abilities.
Edit: Plus, let's face it, the GM, table preference, and group size/makeup involved have a huge bearing as well. What's good enough (and possibly fun) for one group might be sure death in another.
I think a good rule of thumb is, at what you do and for usefulness to the group, are you more useful then an additional AC on the Druid or Cohort on a character with Leadership would be?
If yes, and the group is otherwise well built, you're probably fine and people are being elitist (and to some extent illogical) if they're complaining.
If not though... they might just know it's a question of when, not if, you cost them all the work they put into their PC, or compromise succeeding at whatever goal the group is after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if nothing else, this thread has confirmed my reservations about doing PFS games. Yeesh.
Don't let it do that to you. Examples like this are few and far between. They make it to these forums simply because they are rare. If it was always horrible, it wouldn't really be much of a topic of conversation it would just be same-old-same-old.
I am not any kind of all star when it comes to PFS events, but I've been to quite a few. So far I have seen only 1 GM and 3 players that I don't particularly want to be with at the table. That is much better odds than I got trying various home groups until I found one I liked.
Almost everyone has been helpful, welcoming, and friendly. It has nearly always been an enjoyable experience.
Actually, I have been using PFS to vet people to invite to our home groups. When someone moves or gets a new job and can't make it anymore. I ask a few of the people I really like at a PFS event if they are looking for a new home group.
Ok those examples are all roleplay. All your sabotage examples could be done with any character.
Well, how about if I show up with a commoner?
Or if I show up with a wizard with a casting stat of 8 and hence no spells, or a rogue who spent all his skill points on Craft (useless object), or a fighter with a strength of 8 who spent all his bonus feats on siege weapons?
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.
How about "I'm sorry, I seem to have designed a character that can't pull his weight in the party"?
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.
You could. If the only way you can get your fun is by playing comedy relief that will get the other five people at the table killed, then I'm happy going with the "greatest good for the greatest number" and saying that the other five people's fun trumps yours.
So far I have seen only 1 GM and 3 players that I don't particularly want to be with at the table. That is much better odds than I got trying various home groups until I found one I liked.
You've got more tolerance than me then. I've been told PFS varies depending on where you are and who your with, and I wouldn't doubt it. There's no harm in trying it once or twice though, you might meet someone or a group you like. Just like anything involving people expect some variance.
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.
The problem is that the dead weight may be why someone else's character gets killed, or at least could not contribute to them not getting killed. Now if you have good players in your group you might be able to get away with a less optimized character, and you may have an accommodating GM, but that does not mean what your group does will allow others to be successful.
I'm a little shocked at how many people are down on generalist characters.
Based on what the OP said, I'd say the fault is quite clearly the other players. If his character "wasn't fun for them" that's not his fault, since he wasn't making anyone feel uncomfortable, wasn't acting disruptive, and was doing his best to contribute with a character that he enjoyed.
The issue here is that the other players thought the OP was playing in a way that was badwrongfun, that being that he wasn't specializing his character into a particular combat role. No specifics of the OP's character are necessary; he's clearly in the right.
Them whining that he's not playing the game their way is their selfishness, not the OP's.
The issue is not generalist characters. You can make a useful generalist, and a nonuseful one. It seems that the OP's character, according to his party, is not doing enough.
A good generalist will have something he is actually good at, and the rest of the things he can be decent it.
A not so good one, will be mediocre across the board, and in PF that is good for his team mates.
Well, if nothing else, this thread has confirmed my reservations about doing PFS games. Yeesh.
This is not a PFS issue.
So far I have seen only 1 GM and 3 players that I don't particularly want to be with at the table. That is much better odds than I got trying various home groups until I found one I liked.You've got more tolerance than me then. I've been told PFS varies depending on where you are and who your with, and I wouldn't doubt it. There's no harm in trying it once or twice though, you might meet someone or a group you like. Just like anything involving people expect some variance.
Might have more tolerance, but probably not alot.
Many of the home groups I tried were just... Not exactly sure how to describe it, except it was the the kind of dysfunctional people that made the stereotype for DnD in the 80's seem reasonable. Over the years they had slowly found people with complimentary dysfunctions, then isolated themselves in their own little group until they think it was normal, slowly feeding off each other and getting worse. Alot of them were just plain spooky. It would not surprise me to see them on the news in a few years at the center of some tragedy.
Yes there is a lot of variation in the public setting. But most of the people are at least attempting to be on their best behavior, being polite, not shouting at others, not insulting, being helpful with the new players, etc...
I admit, it is not for everyone. Some people just can't handle sitting down with near strangers and not knowing what to expect out of your fellows at the table. That doesn't particularly bother me, but I know it does bother some people.
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.
You don't have to be useless 99% of the time when you specialize. You are normally however expected to bring something to the table that the party finds useful.
As for being good at one thing only, and it being accepted, that really depends on your character. It is often not accepted on the forums.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't gripe at having that PC at my Pathfinder Society table, personally.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an excellent thread on why many of us don't play PFS.
I have played many campaigns where there was no caster, or no face, or no skill monkey, etc...
I think I would play PFS if my group did it together. But, once I played with our local group (DFW), I was not pleased and I never went back.
And I was "the face" monk.
Since low-level PFS events are meant to be casual mixers that allow newcomers to experience Pathfinder, I cannot grasp this attitude of discourteous hostility toward those who don't meet your arbitrary standards, Orfamay Quest.
Nothing arbitrary about my standards; they're quite objective. If you really think that you can take a party consisting of spell-casters without spells, skill-monkeys without useful skills, and commoners through a standard PFS module, I invite you to demonstrate it.
Would you suggest mandatory rules classes before anyone dares violate the sanctum of your local game shore?
No, but I'd suggest putting some thought into character design, and to realize that "if I'm having fun, it doesn't matter that I'm the only one at the table who is having fun" is an attitude that helps neither Paizo, nor the game store, nor, ultimately, the person playing the character.
There will be groups that really get into the role playing. There will be groups that really get into watching the numbers get big. In a home game, you have the luxury of being able to pick and choose what kind of players to invite, and the equally great luxury of being able to adjust the challenge rating, so that if your group decides to experiment with a group of commoners, the game can turn into Dungeons and Dung Beetles or something equally harmless. Similarly, if no one wants to play a face, the game master can simply eliminate many of the social encounters that don't interest people.
At a PFS event, you have to be prepared to play with people who take character power seriously and who are fiercely protective of what they've managed to accomplish so far with their character, and therefore players who do not appreciate taking on a substantial amount of unnecessary risk because you've built a character that can't work effectively. A gnomish cleric with 7 Wisdom and 7 Charisma, for example, is unlikely to be an effective healer or an effective meatshield. In fact, I'm not sure what it's likely to be except a way to put the adventure on "(extremely) hard mode." But unless everyone else at the table also wants to put the adventure on hard mode, that seems a very "discourteous" decision for one person to make. Especially since they didn't actually get any input.
This is an excellent thread on why many of us don't play PFS.
I have played many campaigns where there was no caster, or no face, or no skill monkey, etc...
I think I would play PFS if my group did it together. But, once I played with our local group (DFW), I was not pleased and I never went back.
And I was "the face" monk.
Well, if nothing else, this thread has confirmed my reservations about doing PFS games. Yeesh.Don't let it do that to you. Examples like this are few and far between. They make it to these forums simply because they are rare. If it was always horrible, it wouldn't really be much of a topic of conversation it would just be same-old-same-old.
I am not any kind of all star when it comes to PFS events, but I've been to quite a few. So far I have seen only 1 GM and 3 players that I don't particularly want to be with at the table. That is much better odds than I got trying various home groups until I found one I liked.
Almost everyone has been helpful, welcoming, and friendly. It has nearly always been an enjoyable experience.
Actually, I have been using PFS to vet people to invite to our home groups. When someone moves or gets a new job and can't make it anymore. I ask a few of the people I really like at a PFS event if they are looking for a new home group.
Upon reflection.... when do u really need to be an optimized character? at the lower levels I cant say that I see a BIG difference between an optimized character and one who is not unless the attributes are just majorly flubbed. I mean power attack is GREAT for a fighter on level one but u could survive without it for a level or two.
I mentioned that we had a ranger/rogue in the group who was not optimized and no one says anything, but the generalist got some negative attention. which raises I think the true issue Ive been looking for....
Is there a perception or reputation among players that specialist who is not at 100% is still better than a generalist who is optimized as much as possible?
I think the "need" for an optimized character will vary by GM. From what I understand many PFS GM's will be more likely to allow you to live than a home GM does. I can understand that if it is true because you don't know how stranger X will take getting a character killed. For home games the group is normally pretty similar on how they feel about it.
I don't think this is a generalist vs specialist arguement. The bard and inquisitor are both generalist, and people like them, but they also have things they can focus on and/or something they can bring to group that can be substantial.
The generalist that seem to catch flack are the ones that that are 2nd or 3rd best at anything, or have about a 50% chance to succeed at whatever they try.
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 have DMed a few PFS modules and have attempted to keep to the spirit of PFS, so that any of my group that decides to use their character elsewhere, can.
How you approach the encounter, play with the temperment of the characters, tactics and options they choose allow for great flexibility in the difficulty of the encounter. I do know that the book outlines tactics that they attempt, but even then it gives you a ton of leeway.
The Module outlines the NPCs, the GM breathes life into them, you can decide how they take shape.
It is easy to get stuck in a paradigm of thinking. I had to learn that because my group is pretty evenly divide between face smashers and talkers, we were running the PFS stuff when we couldn't get the whole group together in the main campaign. I ran the same module for the two different types. They both had an opportunity to overhear some monsters arguing. The module essentially said they could be won over by diplomacy, but they could also be a combat encounter. With the talky group, I focused on one aspect and had that apparent in the monster's conversation; with the face smasher group I took a more menacing approach. Both had fun, both had different outcomes, both faced challengs that they had characters built for.
I prefer to play with people I know also, just so playstyles don't clash. I have never played PFS, but if I did I would try to get like minded people to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this is a generalist vs specialist arguement. The bard and inquisitor are both generalist, and people like them, but they also have things they can focus on and/or something they can bring to group that can be substantial.The generalist that seem to catch flack are the ones that that are 2nd or 3rd best at anything, or have about a 50% chance to succeed at whatever they try.
I agree. A "good" generalist, in my opinion, has a highly situational niche at which they can shine and is at least acceptable at everything. This niche can be as simple as "he's the only one that can do effective non-lethal damage," or "she can disarm people effectively."
One of the issues is that, for most things, you don't need a second-string whatchamacallit. You only need one party face, as they'll make all the Diplomacy rolls. Unless your healer isn't very good, a single healer can keep the party up. A given lock need only be picked once, and by only one person. You only need send one person out to scout. It only takes one tank to stand between the caster and the BBEG.
So if you're truly 2nd or 3rd best at everything, you're not actually useful at anything.
|
So you played a character that had an unbuffed AC of 17 (21 with mage armor), THREE social skills, TWO of the Big Four knowledges (and 2 more minor ones).
They're idiots.
You'd be welcome at my table as I know you would be skirmisher/flanker (not a frontliner/dps machine) and either the defacto face (or a face-assister). The knowledges are icing on the cake.
I will honestly say one thing however, at higher levels 7+ you should definitely have one area in combat and one area out of combat you can contribute.
In combat, you will never be a DPS monster, but you might become the flanker/manuever guy who sets up other people or distracts creatures until OMGWTFDPSguy focuses on it. Max Acrobatics in skill points--you need 3 points to get fight defensively/total defense bonuses from Acrobatics and you want it maxed because you'll probably need to manuever about the field without provoking AOOs. Dumping DEX hurts, but you can pick up a cheap pair of boots to boost your Acrobatics checks and offset that.
Out of combat, you will really have to narrow your focus on maxing or near-maxing skills. I assume you will splash 1 pt in all the knowledges and pump CHA. Just make sure to keep either Planes or Arcana competitive with monster CRs.
There's a bunch of ways you could go, just make sure you have a clear idea where you want to end up.
It's a myth that generalized builds are weak. There's nothing weaker, after all, than being extremely focused on something that turns out to be useless in a given encounter. In fact, generalized builds can be good, bad, or indifferent. But whereas you can readily search for a "good damage-dealing two-hander" you won't find lots of guides to good, generalized builds.
If you pick a generalized build that is bad to average, or worse, isn't so much generalized as disorganized, and unite it with a peculiar concept, you are likely to convey the impression your character isn't serious. If you consider your character serious, this will naturally lead to friction as you defend what someone else has identified as deliberate mischief. Note also that using feats and class features to patch over deficiencies is not a winning a strategy, as every choice used to devote Charisma to this option and so forth is one less choice you can actually use for higher bonuses, more options, and shoring up weaknesses.
If you want to play something peculiar, you certainly can. But it should be reasonably optimized relative to the rest of the group. And if you want help optimizing "Justin Bieber, not but not a bard," it's fair for people to wonder why the concept is worth investing effort in.
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.
If you can be adequately useful most of the time, that's great. If you're useless 99% of the time, you are terrible at Pathfinder. I could take the worst character and still be useful at least 2% of the time.
Most specialists are not 99% deadweight because people optimize useful things like cutting enemies in half, and not things like Knowledge: Nobility.
Most generalists are not "adequately useful" any percent of the time. Most of the time they are bad at combat, and out of combat, they just go around failing 8 different kinds of rolls. It takes serious effort to make a good generalist. Most people cannot or do not make that effort.
The issue is not generalist characters. You can make a useful generalist, and a nonuseful one. It seems that the OP's character, according to his party, is not doing enough.I'll agree that the issue isn't generalist characters, insofar as the scenario the OP described; the issue is the other players. His character was well-rounded and contributed to the group. Someone else saying that he didn't contribute enough is just another way of saying "you're playing the game wrong," which is a jerk move.
Well we really don't know how much he did or did not contribute, and playing wrong is often dictated by group playstyle. Now someone like myself who is not even in the group has no right to say if he did enough.
I am not saying the OP did not do enough, just to be clear.
PS:If he did list how, and to what extent he contributed I missed it.
PS2: I would not mind seeing the other player speak for themselves, but that may not be possible.
|
Ok those examples are all roleplay. All your sabotage examples could be done with any character.Well, how about if I show up with a commoner?
Or if I show up with a wizard with a casting stat of 8 and hence no spells, or a rogue who spent all his skill points on Craft (useless object), or a fighter with a strength of 8 who spent all his bonus feats on siege weapons?
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.How about "I'm sorry, I seem to have designed a character that can't pull his weight in the party"?
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.You could. If the only way you can get your fun is by playing comedy relief that will get the other five people at the table killed, then I'm happy going with the "greatest good for the greatest number" and saying that the other five people's fun trumps yours.
More corner cases not relevant to the OP. Yes those options are PFS legal, but there is a line called the "dont be a jerk" rule. I give players the benefit of the doubt. If they turn out to be a jerk I don't play with them.
Half our PFS group is made up of beginners and casuals. They don't know the first thing about optimizing. Yeah we get a lot of funny looking builds. Its all good though because we are an inclusive group. Part of the magic of PFS is watching power gamers and old timers teach and play along with the newbies and theater geeks. Sorry but that is not badwrongfun.
|
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.)
Most of the adventuring parties I've been in lately could have used a good manager.
In general, you'll find yourself playing with many different people; that's the upside of PFS.
And the downside.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I'm in a dismissive mood, whatever thing you're doing is bad and wrong, and strongly suggest that you do something different before you immediately get your entire party killed with your inability to succeed at anything.
...Okay, now that that's over:
In PFS play, where you'll normally assume to have a different group of players with a different character each scenario, being good at more than one thing can be helpful. It's always frustrating to have two or more Diplomasters in a dungeon-crawl, or a Two-handed Fighter & Invulnerable Rager, an Archery Ranger and Crusader Cleric of Gorum sent off to infiltrate a ball in upscale Absalom. If all the players can't chat with each other beforehand and end up in well-represented teams, it's easy to, say, have good Stealth and Acrobatics skill and have a bow, or have a high AC and a Healer's Kit or something. Even if you have one rank in a class skill where you have an 8 in its associated stat, you can still aid on skill cheks; if you have less than 18 STR and less than full BAB, you can still flank, and won't miss every time (and at level 2-3, with a +2 or so to hit and an alchemy thing-related debuff, you can still roll the dice and hope for the best).
Since you posted your character, straw arguments will be revealed for what they are. You have a plan, and from my experience as both PFS player and GM, it can work. You can succed at, or aid other peoples' social skill rolls (maybe they could even aid you), you have a better Perception than the people who don't put any points in it (and might not need to take 20 to search every square-five-feet of each room), can do plenty of non-lethal damage in case you'd rather not kill opponents, and have a very useful spell list (wand of Comprehend Languages: gotta love it!)
I have my own stories, but I won't side-track the thread with them. Suffice it to say that at second/third level, a Loracle with those two revelations, Bracers of Armour or a UMD'd Wand with Mage Armour and a Shield of Faith can just walk up to most melee attackers and stick his tongue out at them. With levels in monk, you don't even have to worry about dropping weapons in order to cast spells. Flank with the Paladin, maybe cast Divine Favour in Round 1, and you'll certainly be able to contribute in a fight.
The only thing I can speak out against is picking Deflect Arrows, as PFS scenarios tend not to have many ranged attacks, so it might not come in as handy as you'd expect. What's your character's oracle curse? Well, that, and the whole Justin Bieber thing. Might want to stay away from the acquired situational narcissism, make your guy a capoeirist who got divine inspiration from Irori and Shelyn at the same time? Or something like that.
Oh, and just for the record, PFS characters can't be commoners.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet gygax's ghost you optimizers here! The guy is level 2! And has a reasonable build, but even before you posted that: LEVEL 2!
How in the abyss is he going to be a lead anchor unless he's SERIOUSLY screwed up, ala a wizard with 7 INT and CON.
Mind you, even a level two wizard with a bow could still be dealing tolerable damage.
It takes an amazing amount of work to mess up a 2nd level character.
Perhaps levels 5-10 "carrying" a player becomes an issue, but unless the player is breaking the build, ie the strong dumb wizard or the wise, athletically inept barbarian, early tier games with a group of 5 players should not be an issue.
|
The issue is not generalist characters. You can make a useful generalist, and a nonuseful one. It seems that the OP's character, according to his party, is not doing enough.I'll agree that the issue isn't generalist characters, insofar as the scenario the OP described; the issue is the other players. His character was well-rounded and contributed to the group. Someone else saying that he didn't contribute enough is just another way of saying "you're playing the game wrong," which is a jerk move.Well we really don't know how much he did or did not contribute, and playing wrong is often dictated by group playstyle. Now someone like myself who is not even in the group has no right to say if he did enough.
I am not saying the OP did not do enough, just to be clear.
PS:If he did list how, and to what extent he contributed I missed it.
PS2: I would not mind seeing the other player speak for themselves, but that may not be possible.
The group continuously asked me why I would use this combination and made comments on how useless I was. I made a few key skill checks that the other specialized flubbed and felt proud but a condemnation of their fellow players dice was what they spoke of rather than "hey thx for the save there". as a combatant I was nowhere near as good as the paladin but I got a few licks in for moderate damage (certainly more than the oracle who did no damage).
It seem acceptable at 2nd level.
I am not going to get more involved in the arguments of unrealistic extremes.
But to Renegadeshepherd:
I think the build is adequate but not what anyone would call optimal (not that I am any kind of expert). It could be tough but not impossible. However, remember that a moderate build well played can easily outperform a top build poorly played.
How many levels of each class where you planning on taking and in what order? What feats later on? Intending to be a flank buddy, damage dealer, or maneuver expert? Offensive, utility, or buff spells?
Not sure I would recommend power attack or deflect arrows.
You are multiclassing in medium BaB classes, are not using a 2 handed weapon, fighting unarmed (assumption you didn't say), flurry of blows, etc... I don't think the penalty to hit will be worth the minor damage increase. Might do better with weapon focus unarmed.
I only remember seeing 2 scenarios where defelct arrows would have been worth while. Usually the only ones using arrows are mooks that probably won't hit you anyway if you have even a decent AC.
Especially for the early levels with your low BaB, seriously consider making use of the alchemical items. Vials of acid, ice, fire, holy water, tanglefoot bags, and thunderstones can all contribute with a decent chance to score since they ignore armor.
|
|
Most of the adventuring parties I've been in lately could have used a good manager.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.)
...but then, that sorta becomes a speciality... ;)
|
|
Not sure I would recommend power attack or deflect arrows.
You are multiclassing in medium BaB classes, are not using a 2 handed weapon, fighting unarmed (assumption you didn't say), flurry of blows, etc... I don't think the penalty to hit will be worth the minor damage increase. Might do better with weapon focus unarmed.
I only remember seeing 2 scenarios where defelct arrows would have been worth while. Usually the only ones using arrows are mooks that probably won't hit you anyway if you have even a decent AC.
The OP should check with the GM, but, taking together:
1) the recent FAQ about spell Like abilities
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.
2) SKR further explanation that SLA are arcane or divine and that a arcane SLA can be used to take arcane strike
Does this mean that a Rogue with Minor Magic does qualify for Arcane Strike then?
ZanThrax, yes (we almost included that as an example in the FAQ answer).
In general, SLAs use the sor/wiz spell level for DCs if the spell is on multiple spell lists, so you should assume that an SLA is arcane unless the source of the ability suggests otherwise (such as a spell that's only on the cleric list, or an SLA from a cleric domain, or uses Wisdom to determine DCs instead of Charisma).
3) That Angel-Blooded (Angelkin) aasimar get Alter self (!) as a spell like ability, a clearly arcane spell,
You can substitute Power attack with Arcane strike. Half the bonus damage of power attack used by a character of your level with full BAB, but no minus to the to hit.
A good option for someone with 3/4 BAB and flurry of blows.
Mind you, even a level two wizard with a bow could still be dealing tolerable damage.
I've seen (for example) a wizard with low Str and moderate Dex who took Weapon Finesse and who would try to stab enemies with a rapier. I wouldn't call that being a "generalist", although that's probably how the player would have described him (He can cast spells AND fight with a rapier! He's a double threat!).
What did I do? I let him do his thing, but otherwise I ignored him. I won't lie to you, however; I would have traded him for another PC in a heartbeat.
The monk/oracle posted above isn't even close to that level of uselessness, though. At level 2, knowledge skills are useful, Diplomacy checks are useful, CLW spells are useful, 1d6+3 damage is useful, etc.
|
|
so my question is why did you drop an inquisitor, which is probably the second best generalist class in the game, for an oracle/monk?
you lost out on skill points, combat efficiency, a good spell progression (and list) for flurry of blows, unarmed strike, and cha to you knowledge skills. all of which is lack luster?
now im not telling you, "you made a bad choice" im more wondering what this character brings to the table that is "fun" for you.
Thank you for posting your complete build. It always helps to know exactly what's being discussed. What curse did you choose?
I've played homebrew games, published adventures, and PFS. Each makes different demands upon a party.
The Good Stuff - Skills
In PFS, where the authors include frequent skill checks to succeed at certain parts of each scenario, I love having two characters with each common knowledge skill and social skill. When the GM says, "Everybody roll knowledge(local)" there should be at least two players who grab their dice and think "Hooray, I'm good at that!" Don't worry that you're stepping on anyone's toes when you introduce a second character who excels at knowledge or social skills!
The Bad Stuff - Combat
In any environment it's incumbent upon each character to make a direct contribution in combat, whether by engaging in melee, launching ranged attacks, casting offensive spells (damage, summon, control), etc. Your combat contribution is obviously intended to be melee, since you don't have the capability for ranged attacks or spells.
On defense, you have a lot dedicated to defense, and do have very good saves and a good AC, but only d8 hit dice and a CON of 12. That's 7 HP per level if you always take +1 HP for your favored class, while a typical front line combatant will have at least 2 more per level.
Level 1 = 10
Level 2 = 17
Level 3 = 24
Level 4 = 31
Level 5 = 38
Level 6 = 45
Level 7 = 52
Level 8 = 59
Level 9 = 66
Level 10 = 73
On offense, you're a monk with -1 to hit, and no clear plan how how to deal damage. You have four feats, with only one (power attack) devoted to offense, and power attack isn't particularly good for you, since you'll have trouble hitting and aren't using a 2-handed weapon. Frankly, your damage is going to be pitiful.
Conclusion
You have a clever idea for a character. Unfortunately, it's probably also going to be sadly ineffective.
The issue is not generalist characters. You can make a useful generalist, and a nonuseful one. It seems that the OP's character, according to his party, is not doing enough.I'll agree that the issue isn't generalist characters, insofar as the scenario the OP described; the issue is the other players. His character was well-rounded and contributed to the group. Someone else saying that he didn't contribute enough is just another way of saying "you're playing the game wrong," which is a jerk move.Well we really don't know how much he did or did not contribute, and playing wrong is often dictated by group playstyle. Now someone like myself who is not even in the group has no right to say if he did enough.
I am not saying the OP did not do enough, just to be clear.
PS:If he did list how, and to what extent he contributed I missed it.
PS2: I would not mind seeing the other player speak for themselves, but that may not be possible.
The group continuously asked me why I would use this combination and made comments on how useless I was. I made a few key skill checks that the other specialized flubbed and felt proud but a condemnation of their fellow players dice was what they spoke of rather than "hey thx for the save there". as a combatant I was nowhere near as good as the paladin but I got a few licks in for moderate damage (certainly more than the oracle who did no damage).It seem acceptable at 2nd level.
I read that he was low level, and somehow overlooked it. Thinking to far ahead I guess, but now I am just more confused, at how much they expected him to do.
|
|
I read that he was low level, and somehow overlooked it. Thinking to far ahead I guess, but now I am just more confused, at how much they expected him to do.
With a group composed of:
"LV2 oracle specializing in necromancy and face skills, LV2 dervish cleric, LV2 warhammer paladin, LV2 elven wizard, 1 Rogue/1 Ranger based on Bow."A oracle that apparently don't fight well and at 2nd level will be lacking good spells to disable enemies;
A dervish cleric (I suppose he is a cleric of Sarenrae that has taken dervish dance) that will have a BAB of +1 plus dexterity to hit and a lowish armor class (no shield)
A warhammer paladin
A elven wizard
a 1 Rogue/1 Ranger archer
They seem to be a bit thin on the front level fighters for a 6 man party. Essentially they have 1 front level fighter (the paladin) and 2 helpers (the monk/oracle and the cleric).
Probably they did see the inquisitor(s) as a 2nd front line fighter and seeing it replaced by a helper wasn't taken well. Especially if some of them flubbed his skill check rolls and was overshadowed by the new character.
To me the character seem acceptable. Not someone that will be the shining star in most situations, but sufficiently competent to be useful most of the time, with some interesting potential.
I agree we are thin in front line fighters. but honestly I never saw an inquisitor as a front line fighter. I recognize he is probably the best of the 3/4 BAB classes but I more or less see the top fighters as the full BABs.
Eh, you don't need BAB to be front line, just HP and AC so you can survive. You're AC is fine and your HP will be for the first few levels too.
You aren't an 18 con barbarian or anything, but you'll live, and provide flanking and perfectly fine damage for the time being. I'd honestly leave the monk behind after a while, because multiclassing 3/4 BABs is dubious, and maybe your compatriots will calm down, but play as you will.