Your party:
- Frodo - Low level commoner with an artifact.
- Sam - Low level expert. (Sam had skills!)
- Merry - Low level commoner.
- Pippin - Low level commoner.
- Gandalf - The second most powerful wizard ever to live.
- Aragorn - High level ranger.
- Boromir - High level fighter.
- Legolas - High level ranger.
- Gimli - High level fighter.
<snip>
I wouldn't want to play that game. I'd play a game where we were four untrained hobbits, or a game where we were high level adventurers, but I wouldn't want them in a party together.
What constitutes "high level" in this case? Justin Alexander makes a reasonably cogent case that Aragorn could be modeled as low as 5th level. Personally, I might consider going with 9th-10th with Legolas and Gimli more at 7th, but I can see the case he makes. That makes the lower level hobbits less of a stretch.
Considering the hobbits, I'd say treating them as 1st level commoners is pretty much untenable at the start. Sam fits the definition of commoner best, Frodo and his cousins being more akin to country squires given their relationships to the local authorities and social positions. That suggests aristocrat more than commoner. Pippin, not even come of age, would be 1st level easily, but Frodo, Sam, and Merry could be higher level to reflect their age and experience. In a world in which Aragorn is calibrated at 5th, I'd probably keep them at 1st, but if Aragorn was calibrated at 10th, I'd go to 2nd or 3rd. They're definitely weaker as fighting characters than the mightier members of the fellowship, but not utterly outclassed by the wolves and orcs they encounter on their travels.
I think your various assessments of the character levels are quite reasonable. I might quibble over some details (I wouldn't make any of the hobbits aristocrats, because aristocrats are proficient in all martial weapons, armor, and shields, and none of the hobbits ever trained for combat.) but that's a conversation for another place.
Level 2-3 NPCs traveling with level 10 PCs. Nope, not a game I'm interested in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Galadriel: Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.That's true. But that's not really how RPGs work. Imagine playing The Lord of the Rings as an RPG...
So, The Lord of the Rings is Gandalf as the GM's Mary Sue GM-PC with all of the other hobbits as the Leadership NPCs from a GM that hates Leadership with all of the other PCs playing dwarven characters?...
... wow, the trilogy never made so much sense as it does now.-TimD
P.S. on topic, my experiences with PFS have thus-far been positive and nothing at all like what you are describing, but I'm only 3 games in so far... the abrupt change may have thrown off your fellow players, who might have brought different characters had they realized you were changing your character up.
Advice:
Constantly refresh Guidance (+Resistance/Virtue) to give yourself a +1 on one attack/skill/save (+Save/HP with the other orisons), at the cost of 1/2/3 standard actions per minute (or more time if you have Caster Level boosts) if you don't use it and refresh it before then.
Use a Longspear as a Reach weapon even if you focus on UAS it is nice for AoOs.
Pick up weapon focus and/or other attack bonuses ASAP.
Besides otherwise focusing on Monk, consider an Archetype.
I could see Ki Mystic* working well, Monk of Sacred Mountain*, and in fact Zen Archer would be great (doubling up on the stat substitution, using WIS for Ranged, plus it gets Wpn Focus and Spec, etc.). Martial Artist*, Monk of Many Styles are also good options IMHO. The ones marked with an * don't modify class abilities until 2nd or even 3rd Monk level, and thus are 100% legit to choose even after you are locked into your build with first 2 levels of monk/oracle.
Galadriel: Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.That's true. But that's not really how RPGs work. Imagine playing The Lord of the Rings as an RPG.
.
Your party:
- Frodo - Low level commoner with an artifact.
- Sam - Low level expert. (Sam had skills!)
- Merry - Low level commoner.
- Pippin - Low level commoner.
- Gandalf - The second most powerful wizard ever to live.
- Aragorn - High level ranger.
- Boromir - High level fighter.
- Legolas - High level ranger.
- Gimli - High level fighter.
Your mission:
- Get Frodo to Mount Doom alive, with the ring.
- If Frodo dies, the game ends.
- If Frodo loses the ring, the game ends.
- If Sam, Merry, or Pippin dies, roll d%. For every hobbit that has previously died, -25% from your roll. On 25% or lower, Frodo loses hope and gives in to the influence of the ring. Game over.
- If at any time Frodo is in danger, you must sacrifice yourself to save him.
- If you are not a hobbit, and a any hobbit is in danger, you must sacrifice yourself to save him.
I wouldn't want to play that game. I'd play a game where we were four untrained hobbits, or a game where we were high level adventurers, but I wouldn't want them in a party together.
No it could work. Each player controls one high level, and one hobbit.
Sometimes selfish? I don't get how that follows, at all.
We all selfishly make our own characters, you play something you want to play, and which you make (unless someone makes it for you). Not being very strong in combat, is a choice. To generalise is a choice, and can have real merits. So in this example of a cleric/monk, it isn't great at hitting, has a good will save on top of all good saves so it can soak spells, can nimbly move around to heal & buff, and later, with enough levels, will be able to heal allies and heal self with a class ability and a spell selection. Something like the monk/cleric has a good skill selection, with feats that could be put to make this character into a real skill monkey, and compensate for not having a great amount of skill points. It would be more advantageous in the specialising sense to just go all cleric or all monk, but by mixing classes into somewhat "weak" combinations, you can create enjoyable, unusual builds (warlock/rogue from 3.5, fighter/sorcerer in PF really makes sense as a pathfinder adventurer), that don't just do one thing. They have more options.
While I love the old knight and enjoy the new cavalier, multiclassing them and making them a bit weaker in melee, makes them more interesting. Just 1 level of wizard and 11 int can add a lot of options to any naked arrow-spam ranger (I consider leather +2 close to naked lol), light two hander fighter (low spell failure chance isn't hard to beat) monk or skirmisher paladin. Daze, touch of fatigue, ray of enfeeblement, they can be really good (better of course if the save you force is higher), but alarm, endure elements and true strike are all fantastic. I've seen low levels with a dab of spellcasting use true strike to great effect.
Cleric is great to dip into, since you can cast in some armour and the healing spells can keep you alive, and prop you up if you get separated from the party, or find yourself down a hole impaled on spikes (oh cure light, I love you).
it's oracle/monk, not cleric/monk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gamers can be an opinionated lot. Just shrug it off. I have found that some people approach characters as all or nothing. Either they are the absolute best at something or "they suck." The generalist flies in the face of this character assessment paradigm.
True that.
| 4 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.
Whatever dude.
My party of suboptimal dead weight bards, witches, and goofy paladins BEAT A DRAGON TO DEATH WITH IMPROVISED WEAPONS.
That's a story worth telling.
What happened at your table six months ago? Something ordinary? Yeah.
That's true. But that's not really how RPGs work. Imagine playing The Lord of the Rings as an RPG..
Gandalf casts detect thoughts, finds out Bilbo is holding the one ring. Tells the king of the eagles they're taking a flight to modor or he's going to be BBQ. Drop Ring in volcano, go to the bar, drink mead and fondle wenches. The end.
| 5 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.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.
Hey, check this out.
I just joined a soccer team a month ago. I'm playing for the first time in 20 years. It's a men's "over 30" team. I'm the slowest guy out there, I'm doing the best I can, and I'm fantastically glad that my team doesn't have your freaking attitude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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.
PFS is a team game. When you're on a REAL team, (baseball, soccer, basketball) you don't belittle the weakest link, you find a way to win given the weakest link, and if you lose you don't b&$*@ about it.
LOL!
Yes, winning when it is not at all easy, with a band of colourful misfits, is far more heroic than DPR rocket tag: extra numbers edition.
In a powergaming party, if they can solo a dragon each, then the dm has to throw more dragons, or put them in +5 full plate, or give them extra levels and so on and so forth.
What happened at your table six months ago? Something ordinary? Yeah.
No need to infer anyone is being boring. We all have our stories.
PFS is a team game. When you're on a REAL team, (baseball, soccer, basketball) you don't belittle the weakest link, you find a way to win given the weakest link, and if you lose you don't b$$%@ about it.
So when someone expects to be carried or someone to cover for him without consent that's acceptable team behavior? While I don't condone belittling the 'weakest link', I certainly don't want an expectation that I can be a jerk and expect others to do my work or carry me.
Also, I don't think anyone "lets boot the weak guys for being weak!" Improperly expressing worries maybe. If anything I'd advocate talking about things and trying nicely to offer your help. Doesn't always end well, but its meant to be friendly and it wouldn't leave someone like the OP curious as to what went wrong.
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.
Whatever dude.
My party of suboptimal dead weight bards, witches, and goofy paladins BEAT A DRAGON TO DEATH WITH IMPROVISED WEAPONS.
That's a story worth telling.
What happened at your table six months ago? Something ordinary? Yeah.
One fight that sticks in my mind. It was a high level rogue vs an assassin (far more a combat spec than the rogue) on a boat at night. The rogue can backstab the assassin thanks to levels, but the assassin comes at him with wrist blades and more skill. Rogue tries to use his primary weapon, he is disarmed and it is thrown into the water. Fu**... Over many rounds, the rogue had to kill the assassin with a broken bottle, which he carried, drew and broke. He survived on maybe 2 hp.
Everyone who was there remembers it, the rogue player was not a power gamer, but he had a will to win and a mind to seize opportunity.
At the end of the fight, the player looked like this:
http://i.imgur.com/Ixq4BKl.jpg
the rogue player was not a power gamer, but he had a will to win and a mind to seize opportunity.
I thought rogues had a weak will save...
Anyways, the player's will to win and ability to punch things has little to do with the character's actual ability. The player can think of smart tactics maybe if the GM has placed props and the like, but in the end your still rolling dice to see if you hit things or not and how much damage you do. I can swim very well, or want to swim very well, but if I am swimming and have a -5 to the check I'm not swimming that well.
Yes, but you could have a character with a low dex and average con, but through design, use wisdom for archery (Zen archery or other type of arrangements) and ensure you have a great base speed. So now for ranged, you can move easily, cross distances quickly and skirmish. They attack, you can move and shoot. Withdraw over vast distances when you have to. They are wasting actions chasing you. So you don't beat them in 1 round, DPR matters not here, you beat them over several, you hurt them, drag them back to the party if need be, also ensuring that few can escape from your crazy base speed when the battle turns. Ever tried to outrun a monk skirmisher in game with speed bonuses? Or a fighter wizard with expeditious retreat?
I rocked hard with such a "weak" character and a low magic load-out. Tactics are very important and can help you to ignore or negate the strengths of some powerful builds (but of course not all).
Actually on real teams you kick the weakest link if they can't make the cut and find someone better. That's the way in every competitive league.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.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.
PFS is a team game. When you're on a REAL team, (baseball, soccer, basketball) you don't belittle the weakest link, you find a way to win given the weakest link, and if you lose you don't b&#@@ about it.
Are you playing a game or are you in a competitive league?
Are you playing a game or are you in a competitive league?
Depends on the game and GM. PFS has a certain level of expectations, and most people aren't too keen on having their characters killed off because they had a character who wasn't up to snuff. Not that I'm saying anyone in this thread has that, just noting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just joined a soccer team a month ago. I'm playing for the first time in 20 years. It's a men's "over 30" team. I'm the slowest guy out there, I'm doing the best I can, and I'm fantastically glad that my team doesn't have your freaking attitude.
There's a big difference between your position on the soccer team, and Renegadeshepherd's position on the PFS team. When you play soccer, you are presumably putting in your best effort to win. Renegadeshepherd switched from a perfectly good character to a very ineffective one, willingly, and without warning.
Imagine if you showed up to the first three games (or practices) of the soccer league, played three different positions, and did a pretty good job. Then, when you showed up to the fourth game, you insisted on playing goalkeeper, and were wearing a 40 pound backpack, ankle weights, and dark sunglasses?
The first thing your teammates would do is ask you why you were wearing all that junk, and if you didn't have a really good reason, they'd ask you to take it off. Your teammate wouldn't be a jerk if they said, "Hey man, if you could drop the backpack and play forward for a while, it'd really help the team."
I've played with a lot of groups, including a lot of organized play groups at various levels of difficulty ranging from "Learn to Play" up to being a member of a team that made it through the finals of D&D Championship at GenCon. Just about everyone I've ever played with is happy to have new players, supportive of young or inexperienced players, and forgiving of mistakes of all kinds. (They'd be great folks to be on a soccer team with if you were the slowest guy on the team.) However, if you act like you don't care, or mess things up on purpose, most people will get pretty irritated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The goalie with the dark sunglasses, does he say "deal with it"?
i like to homebrew, problem is, i don't hold onto my homebrews.
current project is a bard archetype called the spellcloak. pretty nasty dex based spellcasting assassin. i admit it is kinda all over the place. the basic focus is coup de grace.
it gets static bonuses to damage that scale with level, which makes a coup de grace worthwhile
it lightens the restrictions and conditions of a coup de grace
treats more triggers for coup de grace
gains a resistance to critical hits and sneak attacks
gains a few gratuitous stealth powers
and a few classic rogue powers
it is a lot less performance and skill oriented than the traditional bard.
it also gains a to hit bonus mechanic to make sure it's attacks hit
but it is highly restricted in weapon choice and extremely M.A.D. needs Dex for offense/AC Con for HP Int for skills and CHA for casting. STR for carrying capacity and WIS for perception and will saves are handy.
it can also be quite a nasty dual wielder through Dex to Damage/Level as competence bonus to damage and a minor stolen monk-like ability to make hitting easier.
actually a pretty nasty archer too with the correct build.
Spellcloak (Bard Archetype)
Weapon Proficiency; the Spellcloak adds the wakazashi, kukri and scimitar to her list of weapon proficiencies, these proficiencies replace the longsword, whip, and sap
Break in Artist; (Ex) at 1st level; a Spellcloak adds half her level to perception and disable device checks, and may disable magical traps and haunts with a disable device check. In addition, she may pick locks and both find or disable traps in half the time. In addition, she may take 10 on any perception or disable device check, and treats disable device and survival, as additional class skills. This ability replaces bardic knowledge and well versed
Precision Artist; (Ex) at 1st level When wielding a light weapon, shortbow, or crossbow a Spellcloak gains a competence bonus on damage rolls equal to her bard level. In addition, she receives weapon finesse as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she applies her dexterity bonus in place of her strength bonus to damage rolls with light melee and thrown weapons, and as a bonus to damage rolls with non-composite shortbows and with crossbows. This ability replaces fascinate bardic performace and the versatile performance ability gained at 2nd level
Evasion; at 5th level; a Spellcloak gains evasion, as the rogue ability by the same name. This ability replaces the lore master use gained at 5th level
Shroud; (Su) at 6th level, a Spellcloak is treated as if she were under the effects of a permanent blur spell that cannot be dispelled. In addition, she may make a stealth check to conceal herself even while observed. This ability replaces the suggestion bardic performance and the versatile performance gained at 6th level
Master of Assassination (Ex); at 10th level, a Spellcloak receives to following perks
1. When wielding a weapon that benefits from precision artist, she may use her bard level in place of her base attack bonus for all intents and purposes pertaining to base attack bonus
2. The spellcloak may make a coup de grace as a standard action
3. A Spellcloak may apply the coup de grace to foes denied their dexterity bonus to armor class in any way
This ability replaces the lore master use gained at 11th level and the versatile performance gained at 10th level
Cloaking Performance; (Su) a 9th level, a Spellcloak may sacrifice 5 rounds of bardic performance in a 10 minute ritual to grant a number of allies equal to herself, plus her bard level, plus her charisma bonus, total concealment that can be maintained during movement. This total concealment lasts for 1 hour. Though individual members may be targeted normally, the total concealment allows any beneficiaries to attack a foe as if they were under the effects of greater invisibility, despite not truly being invisible; it allows them to make stealth checks at their full speed without penalty, and grants everyone affected, a bonus on stealth checks equal to her bard level. This ability replaces inspire greatness and inspire heroics
Improved Evasion; (Ex) at 8th level; A Spellcloak receives improved evasion as per the rogue class feature by the same name. this ability replaces dirge of doom
Improved Shroud (Su); at 14th level, the miss chance provided by a spellcloak’s shroud ability increases to 50%. In addition, she becomes immune to critical hits. she treats any critical hit as a normal hit. This ability replaces the versatile performance gained at 14th level and the frightening tune bardic performance
Performing Staminal (Ex); at 17th level, a Spellcloaks rounds of bardic performance per day from all sources is doubled, this ability replaces the lore master use gained at 17th level and the mass suggestion bardic performance
Lethal Critical (Ex); at 18th level, a Spellcloak may treat any confirmed critical hit she makes as a coup de grace; regardless if it would be otherwise illegal circumstances. This ability replaces the versatile performance gained at 18th level
Master of Anatomy (Ex); a Spellcloak at 20th level automatically confirms any critical threat she makes, in addition, she ignores any immunity or resistances to critical hits the target may have, such as from creature type and armor, and her critical hits, ignore miss chances, and magical defenses derived from the abjuration or illusion schools (such as mirror image, displacement, or the like). This ability replaces deadly performance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The goalie with the dark sunglasses, does he say "deal with it"?
If he blocks a goal, yes. Yes he does.
Yeah, and I would say not every goal has to be about combat. A weak combatant will shine in other areas (skill monkey), and they can be propped up by magic items at mid to late levels.
That is an unpleasant comparison to compare a character to Justin Beiber. Totally uncalled for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you playing a game or are you in a competitive league?Depends on the game and GM. PFS has a certain level of expectations, and most people aren't too keen on having their characters killed off because they had a character who wasn't up to snuff. Not that I'm saying anyone in this thread has that, just noting it.
(not really a reply to MrSin, more a given context)
Some of you people argue: "I want to ROLE-play, so I don't want the competitive league!"
But isn't that contrary to logic?
I mean... if you put yourself in your character's place, would you be ok taking along somebody who is a lot weaker (and borderline liability), when "you" face LIFE-THREATENING situations ~ three times per day?
Knowing that no matter how hard he trains, he'll never be able to catch up with your expertise.
Would a band of RL Rebells of some Government (not talking about political stuff here! it's just an analogy for many adventurer RP groups) who are good at commando-stuff, take along a computer specialist, who's a cousin? maybe, if he could bring something to a team. Would they take the librarian/secretary sister? I highly doubt it. If these rebell care the least bit about that sister, they will not put her into danger by taking her with them on commando missions.
That is IN-character thinking: Adventuring is not for amateurs, you can get killed, the less you are skilled the more likely you are to die and get your comrades killed along with you, thus failing the mission. Usually character don't want to die right? Or are all adventurers notoriously suicidal?
So when people say: "I want to ROLE-play, and I want to be the weak little tag-along." I wonder why these people expect their group to meta-game about why the group takes the weak guy along.
In special settings, sure it can be "rescue that guy", but after you are done rescuing, either that guy has proven himself to be a good and useful addition to the group, or they'd ask him to stay in a safe place while the group goes to saving the world. (or something like that)
______________________
If it's just a temporary thing and we know that "weak link" will catch up later in time... hey sure, but there's a difference in taking along a librarian and an athlete/martial artist/amateur sharpshooter/....
It's like discussing which class is more powerful at what levels: comparing Fighters and Wizards at level 1 and 10, yes we know they are not perfectly balanced: they don't need to be.
Sure an athlete won't have any immediate use in a commando, but everybody can obviously see that he has some raw skills that might develop into something useful down the road.
And don't tell me: "oh just give him more items to compensate for his weakness". Why would the commandos agree to run around with handguns and give the machine gun to the librarian??? Not realistic and not roleplaying-y at all, imho.
______________________
DMs can adjust a bit to make weak characters shine from time to time, but when the strong-weak difference becomes too big, no DM can fix that (even less with standard APs, and not at all with PFS).
______________________
So my questions to the OP would be:
If the Paladin or Cleric misses out on a session, how is that session going to turn out?
Are you sure you can bring something to the group and stay on a near equivalent "power"-level down the road?
So you can replace two guys for skills, can you replace others in combat? Do you add something unique in combat?
Just because you have some skills, doesn't mean you get to wait and sit around in combat.
Buffs are tricky: many boni don't stack, and if your cleric buffs the entire group anyways, your self-buffing capability is a waste. (Mostly thinking about the Mass-Spells and group-wide spells, here)
And if you say "oh, then he doesn't need to buff me"... sure but he needs to buff the others because that is his contribution to the fight.
What good is "Divine Favor" if your party Cleric does a "Prayer" (both are luck typed bonus)? Spells with morale bonus are even worse, they are all over the spell lists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, many of these "you're obviously a dead weight" comments may explain why I've lately encountered so many new players afraid of trying something they really, really wanted to.
That's a problem.
It's not a problem that I expect Paizo to address--they're more the manufacturer, not the community builder.
It is, however, something we can solve at our own tables and address on a more personal level.
Some of my favorite guidelines:
- Don't be a jerk.
- Find a way to let everyone have their spotlight, as appropriate.
- Address player issues as a player.
- Build trust.
- Use humor, a story, or a social break when tensions get too high. Remind us all that's it's a game and that the purpose is to have fun.
Unfortunately, many of these "you're obviously a dead weight" comments may explain why I've lately encountered so many new players afraid of trying something they really, really wanted to.
That's a problem.
It's not a problem that I expect Paizo to address--they're more the manufacturer, not the community builder.
But the problem, imho, is, that new player not asking for advice.
Usually I try to do it the easy way: I'll ask the new guy to forget everything he knows about skills/feats/classes and ask him to tell me what he is picturing in his mind.
Then I tell that player what classes/archetypes/feats/... to look at and start with that.
For the OP, I'm fairly sure that our optimization specialists on this forum have quite a few ways to build what the OP want, without multiclassing two classes which are very bad to multiclass on their own, worse together.
As a general advice: stop getting hung up on class and ability names, look at the result (yes, numbers) because that's what you are going to use with your d20... and only that will decide whether your idea works or not.
And if your DM handwaves the numbers on your sheet, you might as well handwave character sheets entirely and just tell stories where the DM decides empirically what succeds and what not.
I remember a discussion (not argument ;-) ) with a new DM who had me take the "stealthy" feat as a druid (All characters had been made by the DM.) just because I, the player, like stealthy characters... except my stealth bonus with that feat was a whooping total of +4. Every time the DM wanted me to roll stealth, it failed. It was a total waste of my 1st level feat, as my character was not stealthy (even tough the feat name says so) and I ended up not using stealth any more.
I have a couple of problems with where this discussion has been going.
1) Many are assuming the character is 'dead weight', 'much weaker than everyone else', 'a liability', 'practically a commoner', etc...
I have seen no evidence that the PC is that hopeless. The only evidence we have is that the PC did contribute significantly to the success of the group. (Yes it is one sided but it is the only evidence we have.)
2) There are constant comments about the GM adjusting things. Please remember, this is for PFS. There are fairly restrictive limits on what the GM can change (nothing that is in print can be changed).
3) The PC could be worthless after level 10. I can't see how this has anything to do with the discussion. This is not the same as a home group playing an AP that will go for 16 levels. By level 10 he is likely to be playing with other people, the PC could have died, or he could have gotten tired of it.
My very first character was a sorcerer, that managed to hold his own for several levels. But since he was my first, I made some less than excellent choices in the build and he is now starting to fall behind (though still better than a pregen). I don't play him much anymore unless a group is desperate for a 5th level PC. But that had no effect on whether he was a fun and contributing party member for about a half a year of playing.
2) There are constant comments about the GM adjusting things. Please remember, this is for PFS. There are fairly restrictive limits on what the GM can change (nothing that is in print can be changed).
Yes! You are absolutely right.
Anecdotes can sometimes be useful in thinking about games, but I would caution everyone to keep in mind that this is a PFS character. The GM cannot adjust stories or challenges to fit the party or the individual characters. Stories like, “My so-and-so character did fine in our home game” are largely irrelevant, because your home game was consciously or unconsciously adapted to the characters in it.
.
1) Many are assuming the character is 'dead weight', 'much weaker than everyone else', 'a liability', 'practically a commoner', etc... I have seen no evidence that the PC is that hopeless.
Just look at the build he posted. It really is a terrible character. You know how people complain that Monks are underpowered? This character is weaker than a monk. Make a second level character, and unless you try really hard, it will be better than Bieber.
.
3) The PC could be worthless after level 10. I can't see how this has anything to do with the discussion. This is not the same as a home group playing an AP that will go for 16 levels. By level 10 he is likely to be playing with other people, the PC could have died, or he could have gotten tired of it.
I’ve been keeping up with this whole conversation, I don’t recall a single person complaining that this character would be worthless at high levels, except in the context of saying, “It doesn’t look like it’s getting any better over time, probably worse.”
|
PFS is a team game. When you're on a REAL team, (baseball, soccer, basketball) you don't belittle the weakest link, you find a way to win given the weakest link, and if you lose you don't b~%## about it.
Your joking right? In a REAL sports team, the weakest links are eliminated until you win. And until you DO get rid of weakest link...oh yeah, they are belittled and mocked to no ends (if not by their team-mates, then the coach...and then there are the fans...). Not a great analogy there.
People might complain about Monks, but they are a standard feature of Pathfinder and PFS.
Insisting that everything is compared to people's perceived MOST POWERFUL classes is ignoring the terms of the game.
The character just isn't particularly worse than a Monk pre-gen build.
Players are supposed to be able to deal with people playing pre-gens in their game.
I already gave concrete advice for continuing with the build, both for future levels and what you can do now. Use it.
|
|
Ok we need to settle this on e and for all.... Unless u guys r saying that a monk is forever unplayable, how is the build bad as we progress? I said I'm going monk from that point forward. So is the monk just dead weight for every level and paizo has wasted all our time and money and we were all fools to play.?
Monks can work...you just REALLY have know what the heck your doing with them is all. The various forms feats generally is what people use to make a decent monk. I suggest you have a look at that if your interested in doing a monk.
Last session I got flack for apparently being a "generalist" wizard. He's a conjurer but I put a rank in all the knowledge skills. He's travelling the world to write a guide to fauna, a 'monster manual' if you will. He's also a trivia buff. :)
On a personal level, I like the idea of knowing whether or not my spell with be efficacious in a given situation so I figure lore is handy. I don't find that to be too generalist, but it was the label I got.
After I kept making knowledge checks the guy next to me berated me with:
"You should have played a bard."
"Play a bard!"
"I mean it, play a bard."
This is just weird. A wizard's class skills are Appraise, Craft, Fly, Knowledge (10 of them), Linguistics, Profession and Spellcraft. A 2nd level human wizard with 18 Int has 14 skill points. That's 2 for Spellcraft, 2 into Perception. Leaves 10 for...what? He can't fly yet so needn't put anything into it. Linguistics is even more Bardy than knowledge. Craft? Profession? Appraise? Really? So he might as well pack out the knowledges. And that's at a mere 2nd level and assumes that both FC points went to HP. So essentially, a wizard can't help but have the full set of knowledges.
Yeah, that guy was just violating the don't be a jerk rule (as well as being ignorant)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
