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.
Meta gamer you :p
If you think it fits your character, you play it boy! PFS is great as in you don't NEED to optimize. Your mileage may vary, but if you have a group (of players) that listens and thinks, they'll be just fine :)
|
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.
Have you seen my Arcane strike suggestion? what do you think of it?
(Short version: you have a Spell Like ability that mimic a arcane spell, with the new rules you can take Arcane strike, and it would probably work better than power attack for a class with 3/4 BAB)
Meta gamer you :p ...
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.
Sad, but true. I try to avoid it most of the time. But I really hate it when I take an ability that I never get to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you deliberately played a weak character and got mad when they called you weak?
I don't care what anyone else plays as long as it is effective. If you want to play some horrible build that makes it harder for my PC to survive we are going have problems.
To the OP - if you are having fun, you are doing it right.
Not if he's the only one at the table who's having fun. He may simply be at the wrong table.... but even if he's at the wrong table, if the other people aren't having fun, he's not doing it right and should pick a different table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not if he's the only one at the table who's having fun. He may simply be at the wrong table.... but even if he's at the wrong table, if the other people aren't having fun, he's not doing it right and should pick a different table.Actually I'd contend the other people at the table aren't 'doing it right'.
Well, if five people at the table were having fun until you sat down, it's hard for me to suggest that they're the ones marching out of step.
That said - if the OP wants to 'role play', he should find a like-minded group.
That's hard to do at PFS.
Which gets back to the "you need to be prepared to play with the roll-players and design accordingly." If you're going to a potluck picnic, you should ask yourself what kind of food everyone at the party is likely to want. Even if you absolutely love your mother's recipe for roasted bald eagle in baby harp seal sauce, it might be better to save that recipe for a time when you know the audience will be more appreciative, and just bring macaroni salad instead.
@ op
Because players forget that if your amazing at one thing your normally shite at everything else .
So having a character that's not amazing at one thing but is pretty good at a lot of things can be useful on the occasions where the expert screws it up ( which normally happens once every twenty times they try to do something )
Play your character how you want and have fun
Which gets back to the "you need to be prepared to play with the roll-players and design accordingly."
Not going to fault this line of reasoning as long as it's not carried out too far to justify ridiculous expectations or behavior, but there's a more pressing expectation of common courtesy that should apply to all participants who sit down at a table with strangers or people that they only know through public play.
I just see a real lack of perspective all over this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am with Blake this is not an MMO...
That has nothing to do with the conversation.
Before I go any further my next comments are NOT about the OP, but being useful in general.If I am playing on a team with someone I should be expected to contribute. Yeah I know this is a game, and the point is to have fun, but is not just for one person to have fun. The point is for everyone to have fun, and if Character X not being useful endangers the others then whoever is playing character X needs to readjust for that table.
On the other hand if character X is useful, but his playstyle is just not liked by the others they need to stay in their place, and not tell him how to play the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if five people at the table were having fun until you sat down, it's hard for me to suggest that they're the ones marching out of step.
So, don't sit down at a table full of prima donnas, and then proceed to show them up when they fail to be as awesome as they thought they were.
Check.
That said - if the OP wants to 'role play', he should find a like-minded group.That's hard to do at PFS.
So, don't show up expecting to play a roleplaying game, even though you're there to play a game that is a roleplaying game.
Double-check!
Which gets back to the "you need to be prepared to play with the roll-players and design accordingly." If you're going to a potluck picnic, you should ask yourself what kind of food everyone at the party is likely to want. Even if you absolutely love your mother's recipe for roasted bald eagle in baby harp seal sauce, it might be better to save that recipe for a time when you know the audience will be more appreciative, and just bring macaroni salad instead.
So, bring the same thing as everyone else, since it's a potluck, and forget the silly notion that the whole concept of potluck is variety.
Triple-check!
Seriously: The infestation of jerks* at PFS at witnessed at multiple different stores is just a complete turn-off to the whole thing. And, at least in observation in the wild, this isn't a unique thing only rumored on this message board.
*Jerks is too tame of a word for what I'm feeling right now, but I'd prefer to avoid a post deletion.
So, don't show up expecting to play a roleplaying game, even though you're there to play a roleplaying game.That said - if the OP wants to 'role play', he should find a like-minded group.That's hard to do at PFS.
I think he meant its hard to find a group of like minded people to play with at PFS, which is usually a PUG. Not that you can't roleplay. Some scenarios are heavy roleplay, some are not. Depends on your GM too.
I think the attitude you have isn't really helping. There are good peeps at PFS, there are bad. That's just like everything else in the world isn't it?
Personally I like making jack of all trades characters. I usually get pretty bored with highly specialized characters.Sometimes I think that some people who only make highly specialized characters also get pretty bored with them, and that's why they insist on playing everyone else's characters too instead of just their own.
Are statements like that supposed to help? Animosity towards others, and making assumptions like that can be pretty volatile for social environments.
|
Generalists at low levels can be done well and pretty easily actually. At level 5+, it becomes a bit harder and at 7+ the game changes entirely on it's head. Since many smaller PFS groups tend to not go out of the 1-5 zone very often, this concept could work just fine at lower levels. I suspect at any of the 7-11 tier games (especially if you have to play up)...not so much. So I would say, think of what your character will be like at level 7. Can you still do all the things you want in a meaningful way at that level? I suspect that the other players weren't so worried about you character now, but more so about later on. If you can show them you can do things well still at level 7, they should be okay.
5) I did not show up to make those people or myself miserable. there is enough misery in the world already.
I believe you had good intentions, and I think everyone else here believes you had good intentions as well.
3) though I do not agree with ur perspective I can understand your position in a home game. but in PFS where you may never know what group u get that night, what it consists of, and so many other variables.... isn't it within reason to have a character that can patch wholes in the group?
What hole were you patching? They needed a front-liner, and you made a character that’s not good at hitting things. The Wizard was proud of his knowledge skills, and the Oracle focused on face skills, which are the two kinds of skills you have. There’s nothing wrong with having two characters shine at the same skill, but I don’t see any holes you filled.
Your original question was “Why is a generalist build hated by so many?” You didn’t build a generalist though. You built a character with good defenses and high skills. Your group doesn’t hate generalists, right or wrong, they hate your particular character.
|
|
What hole were you patching? They needed a front-liner, and you made a character that’s not good at hitting things. The Wizard was proud of his knowledge skills, and the Oracle focused on face skills, which are the two kinds of skills you have. There’s nothing wrong with having two characters shine at the same skill, but I don’t see any holes you filled.
Your original question was “Why is a generalist build hated by so many?” You didn’t build a generalist though. You built a character with good defenses and high skills. Your group doesn’t hate generalists, right or wrong, they hate your particular character.
So...what happens when the wizard or oracles does not make it out one week? Remember, that is the difference between a home game and a PFS game. You don't have the same characters each week. Some groups might have it so that the same characters show up week after week...some not so much. But even with the normal cast groups, people miss games. It's one of the great things about PFS. You can miss a week and it's no big deal.
What hole were you patching? They needed a front-liner, and you made a character that’s not good at hitting things. The Wizard was proud of his knowledge skills, and the Oracle focused on face skills, which are the two kinds of skills you have. There’s nothing wrong with having two characters shine at the same skill, but I don’t see any holes you filled.So...what happens when the wizard or oracles does not make it out one week? Remember, that is the difference between a home game and a PFS game. You don't have the same characters each week. Some groups might have it so that the same characters show up week after week...some not so much. But even with the normal cast groups, people miss games. It's one of the great things about PFS. You can miss a week and it's no big deal.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some skill overlap. In fact, I recommend it for any published adventures, and doubly so for PFS. There's a difference between providing overlap and filling a hole, and OP says he was filling "wholes".
Well, if five people at the table were having fun until you sat down, it's hard for me to suggest that they're the ones marching out of step.So, don't sit down at a table full of prima donnas, and then proceed to show them up when they fail to be as awesome as they thought they were.
Check.
That said - if the OP wants to 'role play', he should find a like-minded group.That's hard to do at PFS.So, don't show up expecting to play a roleplaying game, even though you're there to play a game that is a roleplaying game.
Double-check!
Which gets back to the "you need to be prepared to play with the roll-players and design accordingly." If you're going to a potluck picnic, you should ask yourself what kind of food everyone at the party is likely to want. Even if you absolutely love your mother's recipe for roasted bald eagle in baby harp seal sauce, it might be better to save that recipe for a time when you know the audience will be more appreciative, and just bring macaroni salad instead.So, bring the same thing as everyone else, since it's a potluck, and forget the silly notion that the whole concept of potluck is variety.
Triple-check!
Seriously: The infestation of jerks* at PFS at witnessed at multiple different stores is just a complete turn-off to the whole thing. And, at least in observation in the wild, this isn't a unique thing only rumored on this message board.
*Jerks is too tame of a word for what I'm feeling right now, but I'd prefer to avoid a post deletion.
Absolutely. Since you don't like jerks, I suggest you find a hobby where you are guaranteed never to run into one. Role playing, though, is not it, and never will be.
Or you could learn how to deal more effectively with jerks, and be able to practice a non-solitary hobby.
As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some skill overlap. In fact, I recommend it for any published adventures, and doubly so for PFS. There's a difference between providing overlap and filling a hole, and OP says he was filling "wholes".
There is indeed a difference. A well designed character will do both. We've established the skill overlap provided. What holes are filled?
|
|
As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some skill overlap. In fact, I recommend it for any published adventures, and doubly so for PFS. There's a difference between providing overlap and filling a hole, and OP says he was filling "wholes".What hole were you patching? They needed a front-liner, and you made a character that’s not good at hitting things. The Wizard was proud of his knowledge skills, and the Oracle focused on face skills, which are the two kinds of skills you have. There’s nothing wrong with having two characters shine at the same skill, but I don’t see any holes you filled.So...what happens when the wizard or oracles does not make it out one week? Remember, that is the difference between a home game and a PFS game. You don't have the same characters each week. Some groups might have it so that the same characters show up week after week...some not so much. But even with the normal cast groups, people miss games. It's one of the great things about PFS. You can miss a week and it's no big deal.
I think the OP was referring to patching of holes in cases where there are some because of character loadout at the table. Not so much filling of holes with the normal set of players there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I failed to state my intent properly. As the group changes from time to time my intent was to cover a gap of when someone went missing. The oracle goes and I be the face, the wizard takes a trip I take over for him, or whatever.When I first started this run with a level one inquisitor I feared showing up with a character who was "just" a fighter, or just a caster as it was entirely possible to have too many in a group, even if only for one week.
I was afraid of that. You fill NO holes whatsoever. When everyone's present, you might as well be a first level commoner, holding horses and providing comic banter?
The inquisitor would have done the job better than an oracle/monk. I don't know the flavor behind your build, but we(the board members) could probably help you match your flavor to the inquisitor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't we all just agree that however you're playing, you're doing it wrong?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When did the burden of picking up the slack that other people failed to pick up become the OP's?
This is PFS, not someone's home campaign. Isn't it supposed to be more open and flexible?
Based on his game report, it seems he performed admirably, and covered the bases when the specialized characters couldn't handle their specialties, so how is it that he's as useless as "a first level commoner, holding horses and providing comic banter?"
Inquisitor is smashingly great at being a generalist.
It's hard not to, with good combat (melee/ranged neutral), spells, and skills (with stat substitution).
EDIT: Besides vanilla Inquisitor Monster Lore WIS->Know(monsters),
there's a few Inquisitions and Archetypes which enable using WIS in place of CHA and even DEX for a few skills.
I don't really understand the response you got, I mean, if they wanted to share advice or discuss future level builds, OK,
but at 2nd level it's just not a big difference either way, and I dont see how your build is gimped going forward.
Probably going all out Monk from this point makes the most sense IMHO (not least for skills).
All things considered, you want things like Weapon Focus before Power Attack. You could probably juggle stats a bit better if you still have the chance, but it's not unplayable or something.
Honestly, if their 'well built' characters can't manage a less-optimized character in their party I think something is wrong with them. Expecting every PC to be fully optimized and filling appropriate roles ideally is just not how PFS works. (and it sounds like you did just fine in the actual game, indicating they are paying less attention to the game than to things outside of it, i.e. judging what is on your character sheet) That is the irony of these type of minmaxers, optimizing is the measure of a good player, but then their own inferiority comes out if you play a not-as-optimized character which if they really were so good it shouldn't matter that much. If they are so sure they know the one true way to play and that they are so superior, it's not really that hard to let a 'newbie' play along and make their mistakes and learn the 'one true way' by seeing it in action, with the group's superior optimization skills carrying over the difference. PFS already allows for a range of PCs playing each module, so if the characters' effectiveness is -1/2 their actual level that isn't outside the bounds of PFS anyways (and the character doesn't have any problem with survivability).
The only other thing is that switching around your character so much like that pretty much throws roleplaying out the window, which pretty much leaves mechanical crunching, so that you encounter an issue around mechanics isn't surprising because it's not like you established a character to roleplay which all the players could have engaged with, you're just showing up with numbers out of the blue each time. I mean, it sounds like everybody is on the same page in terms of immersion in crunch, there is just different perspectives on it.
When did the burden of picking up the slack that other people failed to pick up become the OP's?
It didn't. But the OP wasn't asking whose fault it was, he was asking why the hate. I agree that in the abstract, he should be able to play any character he wants, including an int 8 wizard multiclassed with commoner. But if he chooses to do so, he should also be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows of aggrieved fellow players who think that he's not pulling his weight.
Blame assessment is almost never worthwhile. If someone else smashes your car's windshield when you leave it out on the street, you're still the one who has to deal with the broken glass. Even though you have the right to leave it on the street instead of in a locked garage, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea.
And I would say that if the OP's generalist actually contributed to the negative performance of other player's specialists, then they might have a viable gripe.
But, based on the report (and, given that's all we have to go on, coupled with the assumption of good faith on the part of OP), the other player's griping about his generalist? They're just dicks, pure and simple. There's no defense of them, and so, in that context, their hatred of a generalist is completely irrational.
His play experience is actually proof that allegations that generalists are useless are hogwash, and that any general hatred that exists towards them is equally irrational.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't we all just agree that however you're playing, you're doing it wrong?
At his next session, he should rip up his character sheet, throw it into the air and fall to his knees weeping. He should beg the other players, the GM, passersby, the Paizo Development team, the Ghost of Gygax and the Universe for forgiveness while flailing himself with a dice bag full of broken glass.
His play experience is actually proof that allegations that generalists are useless are hogwash, and that any general hatred that exists towards them is equally irrational.
Wut?
And I would say that if the OP's generalist actually contributed to the negative performance of other player's specialists, then they might have a viable gripe.
But, based on the report (and, given that's all we have to go on, coupled with the assumption of good faith on the part of OP), the other player's griping about his generalist? They're just dicks, pure and simple. There's no defense of them, and so, in that context, their hatred of a generalist is completely irrational.
Do you know what you've done when you call an irrational person "irrational"? You've called him a name. You've not, however, actually solved anything.
If the OP chooses to pursue his current path, he can armor himself against their continued griping with the heartwarming thought that they're irrational. Given that they are human, this should go without saying, but he may nevertheless find in your rhetoric some comfort.
Alternatively, he could decide that he doesn't want to be griped at, try to understand why they're griping, and take appropriate actions.
I.e., you can continue to park on the street and pay money to have your windshield repaired, knowing that the people who smash them are "just dicks, pure and simple. There's no defense of them, and so, in that context [smashing your windshield] is completely irrational."
Or you can park your car in the garage and save yourself some hassle.
I think I failed to state my intent properly. As the group changes from time to time my intent was to cover a gap of when someone went missing. The oracle goes and I be the face, the wizard takes a trip I take over for him, or whatever.There is indeed a difference. A well designed character will do both. We've established the skill overlap provided. What holes are filled?
As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some skill overlap. In fact, I recommend it for any published adventures, and doubly so for PFS. There's a difference between providing overlap and filling a hole, and OP says he was filling "wholes".
OK, that makes more sense in this context. Thank you for clarifying.
.
When I first started this run with a level one inquisitor I feared showing up with a character who was "just" a fighter, or just a caster as it was entirely possible to have too many in a group, even if only for one week.
You can never really have too many strong fighters, or too many full casters!
It's no fun to have somebody show up with practically the same character you're playing, because it takes away your character's uniqueness. But there's a big difference between duplicating someone else's character and occupying the same basic food group that they do. (divine, arcane, melee, range, skill sets, etc.)
If you want to play an "in between" character, neither a dedicated headbasher nor dedicated spellslinger, and want to have a variety of strong skills for non-combat applications, Pathfinder offers some very strong choices. Bard, Druid, Alchemist, Magus, and Inquisitor are all "generalists" who manage to shine in both in and out of combat. I doubt anyone in your group would hate any of them.
Bard* & Inquisitor both have armor and weapons, a variety of good spells from first level, and solid fighting ability. They also each have 6+ skill points per level and their own sneaky way of being better at skills: Versatile Performance, Monster Lore, and Stern Gaze.
Druid is a full caster with the fastest spell progression in the game, but also has 4+ skill points per level, armor, shields, and the incredible versatility of shapeshifting.
However, even though "great 5th member" is often meant as an insult, it's also true in the literal sense. If you have a typical 4-person party (Fighter-ish, Wizard-ish, Cleric-ish, Rogue-ish) a bard can do everybody's job well enough to be the backup, AND can sing buffs while doing it.
Since PFS groups tend to be larger than 4 characters, there's frequently room for an expert "5th member". Also, since PFS scenarios tend to have fixed DCs for social challenges rather than relying on roleplaying, a Bard will typically get extra chances to shine.
His play experience is actually proof that allegations that generalists are useless are hogwash, and that any general hatred that exists towards them is equally irrational.Wut?
Just let that one go, dude.
If the OP chooses to pursue his current path, he can armor himself against their continued griping with the heartwarming thought that they're irrational. Given that they are human, this should go without saying, but he may nevertheless find in your rhetoric some comfort. Alternatively, he could decide that he doesn't want to be griped at, try to understand why they're griping, and take appropriate actions.
I.e., you can continue to park on the street and pay money to have your windshield repaired, knowing that the people who smash them are "just dicks. . ." Or you can park your car in the garage and save yourself some hassle.
I concur. Also, it's interesting to look over the posts in this discussion and see the two attitudes expressed. Some posters are focused on saying that either OP or his PFS group are wrong-jerks-badplayers, while others are focused on various ways to fix the problematic situation.
I think I failed to state my intent properly. As the group changes from time to time my intent was to cover a gap of when someone went missing. The oracle goes and I be the face, the wizard takes a trip I take over for him, or whatever.There is indeed a difference. A well designed character will do both. We've established the skill overlap provided. What holes are filled?
As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some skill overlap. In fact, I recommend it for any published adventures, and doubly so for PFS. There's a difference between providing overlap and filling a hole, and OP says he was filling "wholes".
OK, that makes more sense in this context. Thank you for clarifying.
.
When I first started this run with a level one inquisitor I feared showing up with a character who was "just" a fighter, or just a caster as it was entirely possible to have too many in a group, even if only for one week.You can never really have too many strong fighters, or too many full casters!
It's no fun to have somebody show up with practically the same character you're playing, because it takes away your character's uniqueness. But there's a big difference between duplicating someone else's character and occupying the same basic food group that they do. (divine, arcane, melee, range, skill sets, etc.)
If you want to play an "in between" character, neither a dedicated headbasher nor dedicated spellslinger, and want to have a variety of strong skills for non-combat applications, Pathfinder offers some very strong choices. Bard, Druid, Alchemist, Magus, and Inquisitor are all "generalists" who manage to shine in both in and out of combat. I doubt anyone in your group would hate any of them.
** spoiler omitted **...
No class in the game has 5+int skill points.
on a wild hunch, i'd say he's assuming you have at least 16 INT with those classes, 2+3=5. i would have placed the assumption at 14 when starting (and even 12 is legit), but close enough for his general point, since you're almost certain to raise it if you level up (that's the + he referenced, not '+INT').
|
hey all. Six days ago I found myself in a strange position in a PFS game with a group that I have played with enough to get to level 2 with and need an outside perspective to understand it.
In the previous weeks I had shown up as an inquisitor, though the specifics of how I played him such as race, stats, and intended purpose changed each time. Each time I took various aspects of an inquisitor to the extreme that I could such as a face with double digits in charisma skills, a maxed out fighter of that class, and then the skill monkey. No one had anything bad to say about it ( to my face anyway) on any of the occasions.
Lv 2 came along, I knew who was what and revealed a generalist build and got lots of flack for it. before going further ill show what the group consisted 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.
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 ;)
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).
IS this a bad group to be with or is this a sign of pathfinder on the whole? Even on these forums I notice that most do not favor multiclassing or anything that takes away from their chosen specialty. Skill...
Well you do have a character with 0 bab, not so great hit points and skill points and major MAD with a smattering of divine spells that you can't change based on the scenario. Even if your main tactic is aid another to let the tank hit easier, you can't do that very well. The groups you play with sounds like jerks, but to play devil's advocate, if you play in one of the scenarios with very difficult combats, having your character in the group versus a barbarian or gunslinger, wizard, or cleric could literally mean everyone gets killed or you fail the mission. It's not much of an issue now, but with the higher leve scenarios it very well could be. That said, you should play the type of character you want, but keep in mind that a severely suboptimal character could negatively impact the fun of the whole table.
One game, we had a new player come in, a friend of the dm.
So I made a generalist fighter for him, who was decent at fighting, but also good at social and investigation. The coolest town guardsman ever.
The dm killed him so viciously and with such reckless abandon, it was like the dm was offended by the chars very presence. Even though this type of char was helpful to get through book two of runelords.
My char tried to save him, to no avail, I was hurt (I made that char damn it! He was Sherlock Holmes with a polearm, what a badass), and not surprisingly, the character didn't come back.
So yeah, that dm hated effective generalists, and pushed us all to become combat wombat specialists, or perish (and then many of us still died, we had a tpk too).
I think I failed to state my intent properly. As the group changes from time to time my intent was to cover a gap of when someone went missing. The oracle goes and I be the face, the wizard takes a trip I take over for him, or whatever.There is indeed a difference. A well designed character will do both. We've established the skill overlap provided. What holes are filled?
As I said, there's nothing wrong with having some skill overlap. In fact, I recommend it for any published adventures, and doubly so for PFS. There's a difference between providing overlap and filling a hole, and OP says he was filling "wholes".
OK, that makes more sense in this context. Thank you for clarifying.
.
When I first started this run with a level one inquisitor I feared showing up with a character who was "just" a fighter, or just a caster as it was entirely possible to have too many in a group, even if only for one week.You can never really have too many strong fighters, or too many full casters!
It's no fun to have somebody show up with practically the same character you're playing, because it takes away your character's uniqueness. But there's a big difference between duplicating someone else's character and occupying the same basic food group that they do. (divine, arcane, melee, range, skill sets, etc.)
If you want to play an "in between" character, neither a dedicated headbasher nor dedicated spellslinger, and want to have a variety of strong skills for non-combat applications, Pathfinder offers some very strong choices. Bard, Druid, Alchemist, Magus, and Inquisitor are all "generalists" who manage to shine in both in and out of combat. I doubt anyone in your group would hate any of them.
** spoiler omitted **...
Bards are glorious in a social heavy game.
