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.
Indeed, there is a lot to be tried, and when I have played characters with weaknesses, real weaknesses, I have had the most fun. Of course I always make sure they have their strengths, but these may not be combat (my soft vampire bard comes to mind).
If a problem arises from this, and the weak character dies, or the whole party dies, a chat with the dm may be in order. Not to beat them over the head and mock their game, no, but just to make it clear what everyone wants and brainstorm how this can be achieved without another TPK. Maybe tone down the encounters a bit if the powergamers are being overwhelmed.
If someone doesn't want to play the most powerful standard builds, that should be entirely fine. Not everything is strong off the get-go, and not every build can't be the strongest. If the powergamers are truly mighty, they will still be fine with one weak link. I've seen the builds, they are nuts. Soloing dragons, giants, iron golems way before the expected level. The game doesn't always need more power, it needs more fun gaming. As long as a character isn't entirely useless (and that isn't really possible with point buy and given how much PF classes give), it would be elitism to really come down on an experimental build.
the thread topic is PFS as the title makes clear (even though it's erroneously in General Discussion forum - I am flagging that), GMs toning down games is not really in order, and chatting with GM is less relevant since the context of PFS is being able to play with many GMs interchangeably.
The character was in WOD, I was just using it as an example of a weak character.
Why is the ineffective character not there? I don't get it. Not being the best doesn't mean you aren't there and can't help. PF is very generous in what it gives to classes, if you have levels, you can do something.
Why is the ineffective character not there? I don't get it. Not being the best doesn't mean you aren't there and can't help. PF is very generous in what it gives to classes, if you have levels, you can do something.
PFS gives special things to classes? This is news to me. I thought they just added more restrictions. What special thing are we talking about? I have levels in commoner, I can common some things up? Really though, indulge, what are you saying?
I am saying that whatever your PC class choice, you will get abilities and/or spells that can help in this team game.
Multiclassing can make you weak on bab (not always of course, a fighter barb has no bab problem), but give you other options.
Even a weak bard character has spells and the ability to inspire others and improve their stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also to actually respond to the thread title, a generalist isn't weak by default. They just don't have a strong specialisation. To generalise means they can do multiple things, but not one thing brilliantly (such as damage, or to hit).
I am reminded of an old gaming quote: "I only respect strength, something you lack."
We can do better than such simplistic thinking. I'd call it orc-like thinking, but that would be speciesist.
Ahh, mixing your spellcasters. That can be very good, but it is highly unusual behaviour Naboo, even for you.
|
@Gnomersy: ur right if it was a 4th man game I should be beaten with a stick, especially at 20 pt buy. I made some bad assumptions based on my incorrect view of PFS and it caused a few issues. Since I started this thread I found a guy who le me c some of the modules and my view has been shattered of PFS. I'm now convinced anything can work in pFS so my experiment went down the toilet before I started. I agree it is t the best work though.
In truth I would still like to try this idea in a home game with a smaller group. I would make changes of course but I do think there is merit. I belive i got a bit hung up on the ki mystic and his ki abilities. For example, keep the oracle dip and extra revelation feat and then From that point on go with a sorcerer or bard. The bard would have insane knowledge bonuses and the sorcerer would have added a lot to AC and reflex saves without a spell in the early game. Who knows maybe even do a mystic build off of this?
Edit: ^^^^^^ refers to a non monk build. Straight bard or sorcerer with one dip in oracle.
Well...a wave oracle with a cross blooded elemental(water)/boreal bloodline. Get rimed spell and...yeah...it's a lot of fun. At level 10 (1 oracle and 9 sorcerer) you can see just fine in your own sleet storms. Considering how big sleet storm gets and it's basically a blind effect that goes through pretty much everything...yeah it's a big deal. Anyways, PFS isn't actually all that hard. If your character build is gonna have issues in PFS, I suspect it will also have issues in home games as well. The only difference is that home games has more leeway to deal with it...but that does not mean the DM running the game or the other players will WANT to. Do keep that in mind.
If they aren't so hard, a generalist should be okay.
|
|
If they aren't so hard, a generalist should be okay.
They are. But the thing is, the hate isn't at generalists. There are plenty of generalist builds that does not even bat an eye at tables. Your under the mistaken impression that the OP's assertion is actually true. Now his build DID raise an eye...but I don't think it had to do with it being a generalist.
Just look at the build he posted. It really is a terrible character....could you expand on this statement?
Look back up the thread a bit. I detailed the problems earlier, as did some other folks.
Actually, TriOmega, you know the game very well. Did you look at his build? What do you think of it? (It’s on page 2 of the thread.)If they aren't so hard, a generalist should be okay.They are. But the thing is, the hate isn't at generalists. There are plenty of generalist builds that does not even bat an eye at tables. Your under the mistaken impression that the OP's assertion is actually true. Now his build DID raise an eye...but I don't think it had to do with it being a generalist.
Cold Napalm is correct. As I and others have said earlier, generalists are not hated. Renegadeshepherd did not make a generalist. A generalist is someone who is good at multiple things, and this character isn’t. The problem people had with the character is that it was weak.
...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. ...
I don't see it as all that horrible. A single level dip in a non-martial class is actually fairly common. And he has taken abilites to make use of his charisma score.
Not everyone complaines about monks. I actually see a fair number of them at PFS events. Most of them do ok. Not stellar but neither are they an anchor getting everyone else killed.And the point still remains, he contributed as much or more to the scenario completion as most of the other PC's.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
His skills for 4 knowledges are +8 at second level. That puts him up there for success in identifying enemies and their weaknesses and problem solving. He even has knowledge nobility which can come in handy in PFS scenarios surprisingly. That's not weak for skills.
He was playing in a party with a ranger, paladin and dervish dancing cleric. Why on earth were they berating him for not being the melee? They have three potential melee right there. In fact, his monk will be as efficient as a support combatant in those situations ( as he pointed out when he mentioned the paladin and he going off alone).
He has the face aspect coved really well.
He can now access wands and scrolls to use for buffing, healing etc without the need for UMD. And he can still hold hs own in combat because his AC is quite good for his level.
This is not a weak character. It is a character with one or two weaknesses. It is not optimised min maxed. It is a character that any five or six man party should be happy with though, because it brings a lot to the table that a PUG may not otherwise have access to.
He has been given great advice on how to modify his proposed progression a little to make it stay effective as he levels too.
If people are dying in PFS scenarios, it is not going to be because of this character.
He might die (low hit points for melee, but hard to hit initially, probably more so with buffing). He could easily contribute in combats as flank buddy or even defensively blocking if needed. He is a utility man.
My experience with PUG or outs in organised play has shown me that a utility man can be amazingly useful. They can make game sessions far easier just in problem solving and identifying weaknesses of creatures that your character doesn't know. Unfortunately, many players metagame knowledge of creatures so they feel those skills are useless any way.
The build he gave is not weak. Some people are very critical is all.
Cheers
His skills for 4 knowledges are +8 at second level. That puts him up there for success in identifying enemies and their weaknesses and problem solving. He even has knowledge nobility which can come in handy in PFS scenarios surprisingly. That's not weak for skills.
He has the face aspect coved really well.
They were not criticizing his skill related usefulness. They were criticizing the loss of one of their front-liners.
He was playing in a party with a ranger, paladin and dervish dancing cleric. Why on earth were they berating him for not being the melee? They have three potential melee right there. In fact, his monk will be as efficient as a support combatant in those situations ( as he pointed out when he mentioned the paladin and he going off alone).
The ranger has already specialized in ranged combat... switch-hitting is near-impossible to pull off unless you optimized specifically for it.
That leaves the paladin and the cleric, and the cleric hasn't reached i-don't-know-what yet.He can now access wands and scrolls to use for buffing, healing etc without the need for UMD.
Why do people obsess abut self-buffing when they already have plenty of people who can do mass-buffing:
the cleric, oracle and sorcerer all can buff... why would they need the monk to do that with a wand???My guess is the cleric and oracle are doing exactly that: buffing, hence why they both don't "shine in combat"?
My guess is also, that after buffing, they have to start healing (OP mentioned the oracle/cleric touching the paladin over and over) because the monsters don't drop fast enough and the paladin is eating too much damage...
The group has needs that are different from what the OPs character provides.
This is not a weak character. It is a character with one or two weaknesses. It is not optimised min maxed. It is a character that any five or six man party should be happy with though, because it brings a lot to the table that a PUG may not otherwise have access to.
He has been given great advice on how to modify his proposed progression a little to make it stay effective as he levels too.
If people are dying in PFS scenarios, it is not going to be because of this character.
He might die (low hit points for melee, but hard to hit initially, probably more so with buffing). He could easily contribute in combats as flank buddy or even defensively blocking if needed. He is a utility man.
My experience with PUG or outs in organised play has shown me that a utility man can be amazingly useful. They can make game sessions far easier just in problem solving and identifying weaknesses of creatures that your character doesn't know. Unfortunately, many players metagame knowledge of creatures so they feel those skills are useless any way.
From what I've seen, unusual character concepts are difficult to introduce in PSF, as the people around the tables change all the time and people have to re-adapt to the new party composition all the time. In home games, people develop fancy teamworking strategies that work for that party layout. In PFS that's not possible due to player-turnover, thus you have to keep it simple (in part because of new players who still need to learn how the basic system works).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of people here are putting up extreme straw-men to go at with their favorite rants.
These have little or nothing to do with the OP's situation.
1. He was not dead weight. His monk/oracle contributed to combat and contributed to skill checks.
2. It sounds as tho his compatriots at the table were afraid he *might* be dead weight, and treated him accordingly.
3. They were real Richards about it.
4. Is anyone really saying that if a new guy comes to a PFS table and doesn't create a perfectly optimized character, they should be excommunicated?
5. The OP never said "love my character or bite me." He came here looking for advice and was open to suggestions.
6. If the guys at his tables at been at all decent human beings, *they* would have offered to help him build the character he wants-- in a more optimized way.
7. Instead they were Richards and gave a very bad impression of PFS.
Instead of the tired old Rollplay vs. Roleplay ravings, could we return to how to make new players like the OP feel welcome, have fun, AND be effective?
^^^
Yup. There was a 13 year-old kid that had played a pre gen with us a few times. When he leveled up, we met him half an hour early for the next game with our Hero Lab laptops-- and helped him create his new character.
There is now a new lifetime gamer with us. He's having a great time.
We can't know if the others were truly "richards" and we can't know if OP was really contributing to combat. We only know his side of the story.
He said the two divine casters did not contribute... I have a hard time believing that.
Also I'd like to know the ~ damage-numbers (roughly) that were flying around the table, from:
- the paladin
- the wizard
- the dervish cleric
- himself
4. Is anyone really saying that if a new guy comes to a PFS table and doesn't create a perfectly optimized character, they should be excommunicated?
Ok, let me give you a similar setup:
6 guys:
- paladin (sword&board)
- cleric (staff-fighting, when he's not buffing/healing)
- sorcerer (blasty with some backup control spells)
- rogue (TWF)
- bard (caster, low physical attributes, lowish HP)
- archer (no magic)
now the paladin can't make it to one game, but another player shows up saying he wants to play an alchemist specialized in lobbing bombs (Precise bombs discovery), what would you do? would you ask the archer to drop his bow and wade into melee? ask the bard who's bad at fighting to do it anyways?
ask one of the "old" players to switch characters, because the new guy insists?
or would you ask the new guy to make a different character, because to group really needs a front-line guy?
or maybe everybody should do what they want and end the game in a highly likely TPK?
It is NOT about super-buffed-optimized-to-hell characters... it's about what the group sorely lacks. You can't run a PFS game with 4 wizards or 4 fighters/barbarians/rangers/rogues. You could maybe try it with 4 bards/inquisitors and if you are really daring with 4 clerics/druids/summoners (missing skills a lot here).
The OPs group is lacking a good frontliner and frontliners are as much about dishing it out as soaking it up. His BAB is low, his damage from flurry is also behind, all of this to get a few spells 2 of his groupmates already have.
The only advice I can give: don't multiclass unless you _really_ know what you are doing. And don't bring a character to a PFS table when the group is sorely lacking something else (melee vs ranged vs support).
Melee can be casters: magus, inquisitor, bard, ...
Ranged can be magic or arrows/bolts/bullets, archer, arcanes, alchemists, ...
support can be: divine spellcasting, bardic stuff, combat maneuver build, crowd-control spells
BUT to be good at the role you picked, you at least need to be able to beat the average CR you will be facing. There is no point in calling yourself "stealthy" because you have the "stealthy" feat, if your total stealth bonus is going to be so low that pretty much the entire panel of monsters will spot you anyways with a good 50% chance. That is not being stealthy.
Same goes for armor class, damage, ... if you call yourself a melee guy but only have a whooping total AC of ~18 at level 4, my character will tell yours to get in the back or stop crying like a baby for healing because he's getting beat up all the time.
This really happened in one of my home games. I don't care at that point how much damage he's dishing out. Since the monsters were not dead in 1 hit he was constantly eating dirt, and he did have decent equipment.
|
|
Ok, let me give you a similar setup:6 guys:
- paladin (sword&board)
- cleric (staff-fighting, when he's not buffing/healing)
- sorcerer (blasty with some backup control spells)
- rogue (TWF)
- bard (caster, low physical attributes, lowish HP)
- archer (no magic)now the paladin can't make it to one game, but another player shows up saying he wants to play an alchemist specialized in lobbing bombs (Precise bombs discovery), what would you do? would you ask the archer to drop his bow and wade into melee? ask the bard who's bad at fighting to do it anyways?
ask one of the "old" players to switch characters, because the new guy insists?
or would you ask the new guy to make a different character, because to group really needs a front-line guy?
or maybe everybody should do what they want and end the game in a highly likely TPK?
Then I would say the fault is on EVERYONE else. Seriously, if you can't function in a PFS game with a person missing, you have the wrong build/tactics. There is no paladin...fine, have the cleric divine uber buff up (he can switch up his spell each day) and go to town. That doesn't work? Well then everyone will have to switch to a hit and run tactic...sorry TWF rogue, your gonna have to snipe. It's good practice to get a change of tactics in. PFS characters should be versatile.
It is NOT about super-buffed-optimized-to-hell characters... it's about what the group sorely lacks. You can't run a PFS game with 4 wizards or 4 fighters/barbarians/rangers/rogues. You could maybe try it with 4 bards/inquisitors and if you are really daring with 4 clerics/druids/summoners (missing skills a lot here).
Umm...no. PFS is on the EXTREMELY easy side. It is meant for casuals gamers after all and with the PUG system, you really can't ramp up difficulty to AP levels and expect much survival rate (albeit a few of the scenarios do reach near AP levels). I have run a game...HARD against 4 fighter types. They survived and finished the mission...with everyone almost dying several times...but they did it. Oh god, 4 wizard party becomes a cakewalk. Considering that pretty much everything is humanoids, sleep and color spray FTW. One of the fastest low tier games I have ever seen was done with 3 wizards and 2 witches. Seriously, if the players know even know the smallest bit of tactics, a party of casters WILL rip things apart. Then again, like I said, PFS is more casual...and people...even the ones with the "good" builds generally don't play very tactically. At least from what I have seen. It's what gets then killed in the harder scenerios.
|
|
Just look at the build he posted. It really is a terrible character....could you expand on this statement?Look back up the thread a bit. I detailed the problems earlier, as did some other folks.
Actually, TriOmega, you know the game very well. Did you look at his build? What do you think of it? (It’s on page 2 of the thread.)
Okay, I found your post detailing your problems with it. I can agree that his lack of ranged is a problem. I'm not sure if swapping archetypes to Zen Archer would help any, especially since he'd be hurting until 4th level when he can add Wis to attack instead of Dex.
His saves are pretty solid, and progressing Monk will probably maintain that. AC is good for now, but I don't think he can keep it up in further levels. Not as a front-liner, maybe as a second-stringer like a rogue.
I might drop the 16 in Cha for more points in Con. Overall, I agree he would be better served by Oracle1/BardX instead. But I disagree that he is terrible. Not super-optimized of course, but not useless.
But then, I have a Halfling Rogue5/Fighter1 with a 10 Str for my first PFS character, so maybe we're just on different pages. :)
|
|
Okay, I found your post detailing your problems with it. I can agree that his lack of ranged is a problem. I'm not sure if swapping archetypes to Zen Archer would help any, especially since he'd be hurting until 4th level when he can add Wis to attack instead of Dex.His saves are pretty solid, and progressing Monk will probably maintain that. AC is good for now, but I don't think he can keep it up in further levels. Not as a front-liner, maybe as a second-stringer like a rogue.
I might drop the 16 in Cha for more points in Con. Overall, I agree he would be better served by Oracle1/BardX instead. But I disagree that he is terrible. Not super-optimized of course, but not useless.
But then, I have a Halfling Rogue5/Fighter1 with a 10 Str for my first PFS character, so maybe we're just on different pages. :)
Yes I agree that he is fine for now. I'm not so sold on he will be fine later. I don't think he knows how to build and play a monk. No solid proof really...just a gut feeling about it. And I think higher levels if he decides to continue will be a problem. Now if he could provide a solid level 5 and 7 build with what he plans to do with that build, I would tell him full ahead go for it.
|
|
If there's one thing that 4e taught is, clearly-defined roles matter in a game. At least that way a table can say "looking for defender", "looking for leader", or whatever.
I HIGHLY disagree. One of the things I HATED about 4E was the clearly defined roles. One of the joys of D&D from AD&D on was that you could mix roles to do pretty much what you want (albeit AD&D and 2ed were more restrictive in that you'd have to be a certain race with certain stats for things). I don't want to be striker or tank...I wanna do BOTH. And you can in PFS. Yes to do more roles, you need more system mastery...I am okay with that.
|
Why raw? I would say roasted with a nice chianti sauce and some fava beans....No, my advice was to work with the jerks. But you rejected that idea out of hand, which limits the tools I have lying around in the shed. Proposing that you murder them all and feast on the raw flesh of their corpses seemed a distant third, but since you've now rejected my second suggestion as well,....
So your answer to someone who faces occasional jerks in a game is to give the game away and stay hidden in a cave. Nice one.
I like your line of reas... wait WHAT ?
Waste Chianti on a sauce ?|
|
Why raw? I would say roasted with a nice chianti sauce and some fava beans....No, my advice was to work with the jerks. But you rejected that idea out of hand, which limits the tools I have lying around in the shed. Proposing that you murder them all and feast on the raw flesh of their corpses seemed a distant third, but since you've now rejected my second suggestion as well,....
So your answer to someone who faces occasional jerks in a game is to give the game away and stay hidden in a cave. Nice one.I like your line of reas... wait WHAT ?
Waste Chianti on a sauce ?
I didn't say GOOD chianti...that's for drinking. I make a nice chianti sauce with dried cherries....
Just look at the build he posted. It really is a terrible character....could you expand on this statement?Look back up the thread a bit. I detailed the problems earlier, as did some other folks.
Actually, TriOmega, you know the game very well. Did you look at his build? What do you think of it? (It’s on page 2 of the thread.)Okay, I found your post detailing your problems with it. I can agree that his lack of ranged is a problem. I'm not sure if swapping archetypes to Zen Archer would help any, especially since he'd be hurting until 4th level when he can add Wis to attack instead of Dex.
His saves are pretty solid, and progressing Monk will probably maintain that. AC is good for now, but I don't think he can keep it up in further levels. Not as a front-liner, maybe as a second-stringer like a rogue.
I might drop the 16 in Cha for more points in Con. Overall, I agree he would be better served by Oracle1/BardX instead. But I disagree that he is terrible. Not super-optimized of course, but not useless.
But then, I have a Halfling Rogue5/Fighter1 with a 10 Str for my first PFS character, so maybe we're just on different pages. :)
One of the points of disagreement in this thread is how strong or weak Bieber is, and that's a valid thing to disagree about. Personally, on a scale of 1-10, I would give Bieber a 3.
- "It's a strong character, because it's a PFS character. They all get 20 point-buy, access to magic items, etc. so they're all strong." - No, they're not all strong, or all weak; they're all on the same scale. The only valid measure of strong vs. weak is to compare characters built under the PFS rules. That super-optimized synthesist summoner you hated in your home game doesn't count, neither does that halfling who rolled 11, 11, 9, 9, 7, 4 as his attributes, because neither would be a legal PFS character.
- "Flank Buddy" is not a sufficient combat contribution for a PC. With rare exceptions, anyone who provides flanking also receives flanking, and it's a position all melee characters should try for whenever practicable. It's just an assumed part of entering combat, not a contribution. Saying that your melee character "Can provide flanking" is like putting "Usually brushes teeth" on your resume.
- "Using magic items" isn't a significant contribution. The vast majority of magic items can be used by anyone who would benefit from them. The primary exceptions are wands and scrolls, but a character with only one caster level isn't really able to use scrolls. Really, when you say a character can use magic items, you're saying she can use wands, of which very few are useful. It's true that a wand of Cure Light Wounds is particularly good, and a well-built party should probably have someone who can wield the infamous WCLW, but every party is likely to have at least one without even trying. (The group in question already had four!)
|
|
@Kyoni: the numbers for paladin were huge. He killed what he hit in almost all cases since he had power attack and at least 16 strength with a war hammer. The clerk. Was hitting all the time but only had the base scimitar damage roll (never got hit once though). Wizard is all overthrown place, he mixes spell and bow damage but all he has is the s or hassle bow damage. I did flurries hitting about 70% of the time and did 1D6+3 each time. The oracle never attacked. The ranger shot with bow and had the appropriate fears but had Terrible dice rolls so hit about one in three but did about 8points when did hit.
If you think the number on a paladin with 16 str is huge...you don't wanna see what barbs do...especially a titan mauler furious finisher who has access to personal spells via UMD....
Course such damage is overkill in PFS.
|
|
One of the points of disagreement in this thread is how strong or weak Bieber is, and that's a valid thing to disagree about. Personally, on a scale of 1-10, I would give Bieber a 3.
** spoiler omitted **...
I'd peg him at 5. He's not the kitsune barbarian/ranger/master of many styles I ran for at Origins. (Even if the group had played the high tier I don't think it would have prevented him from one-rounding the encounters.) But I certainly wouldn't put the OPs character in Bonekeep.
Since I'm not proposing any arguments you are countering in your spoiler, I think we are mostly in agreement.
One of the points of disagreement in this thread is how strong or weak Bieber is, and that's a valid thing to disagree about. Personally, on a scale of 1-10, I would give Bieber a 3.
** spoiler omitted **...
I'd peg him at 5. He's not the kitsune barbarian/ranger/master of many styles I ran for at Origins. (Even if the group had played the high tier I don't think it would have prevented him from one-rounding the encounters.) But I certainly wouldn't put the OPs character in Bonekeep.
Since I'm not proposing any arguments you are countering in your spoiler, I think we are mostly in agreement.
I'm curious where you would place the PFS pregenerated characters? Obviously there are a number of them, and they're of different strength at different levels, so answer any way you deem appropriate.
The main reason I'm making a point of saying that the character is weak, is that I don't think we're discussing a group of people who disliked a "generalist". (They welcomed an Inquisitor.) We're talking about a group who disliked a character who was, to use Renegadeshepherd's term, "useless". (i.e. weak) Renegadeshepherd's first question was, "Why is a generalist build hated by so many?" and I feel strongly that the answer is, "Generalist builds are not hated."
Were members of the group justified in feeling that Bieber was weak? Yes, I think so. They weren't making some kind of grievous error in assessing game mechanics. (For example, if they said "Your first level Dervish Dancer build with 20 DEX and 8 STR doesn't deal enough damage!" we would all chuckle and tell them to go read the rules, then wait for second level.) But, whether or not they were right, they're entitled to their opinion on the matter. What they thought isn't the main issue.
The main issue is contained in one sentence of the original post, "The group continuously asked me why I would use this combination and made comments on how useless I was." I really only have two things to say in response to that:
1) That sucks. I'm sorry they made you feel bad, and I hope you continue playing Pathfinder and have a good time.
2) Without being there to witness everything said, including the context and tone, there's no way for us to know if they were being jerks, or politely expressing an opinion and offering to help. I hope that they had good intentions. In my experience, most gamers do, most of the time, and hurt feelings are most often a result of misunderstanding or miscommunication.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read every post. Quoting the OP for context:
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...
Seven pages, three hundred and thirty six posts, and no one has addressed the elephant in the room. I'm a bit stunned.
Renegadeshepherd, let me illuminate a dirty little secret about the third edition rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game - it's called 'rules mastery'. In short someone somewhere in the design chain decided it would be good for the game, as a whole, to reward players who took the time to analyze the rules (and buy all the books). So where it might seem that you could take any 'X' levels, point buy, etc, and craft a workable character, that's not perfectly true. Others can take that exact same input and make a much, much more 'effective' character. This is by design. They had made a lot of money with this system in Magic the Gathering, so one can hardly blame them.
As a facet of this, some people (and you need look no further than this very thread for a few examples) feel the need to make other people feel bad about their choices. It's a simple psychological thing called 'rankism', and it happens a lot more between strangers than between friends. Which explains why a lot of players haven't ever seen it, or at least haven't recognized it as such. It also explains why you're more likely to see it on the forums and in PFS. It isn't unique to roleplaying, by any means, and you see it MtG all the time as well. "You played THAT card - you suck/are a worthless human being/etc"
TLDR, the designers blessed us with a metagame of one-upsmanship because they thought it would sell more books. Don't take it personally.
6 guys:
- paladin (sword&board)
- cleric (staff-fighting, when he's not buffing/healing)
- sorcerer (blasty with some backup control spells)
- rogue (TWF)
- bard (caster, low physical attributes, lowish HP)
- archer (no magic)now the paladin can't make it to one game, but another player shows up saying he wants to play an alchemist specialized in lobbing bombs (Precise bombs discovery), what would you do? would you ask the archer to drop his bow and wade into melee? ask the bard who's bad at fighting to do it anyways?
ask one of the "old" players to switch characters, because the new guy insists?
or would you ask the new guy to make a different character, because to group really needs a front-line guy?
or maybe everybody should do what they want and end the game in a highly likely TPK?
So there's a blaster, an archer and a bomb throwing alchemist being buffed by a cleric and a bard? Man that team could really lay down some hurt at range before the enemies even closed distance... but of course for that to work they would need some sort of sneaky party member who could scout ahead and warn them of approaching battles or ambushes. If only they had a dex based rogue in the party.. Oh wait!, They do.
You adapt your tactics to your resources. The Mongols conquered the known world using lightly armored mounted archers. The Greeks and Romans used heavily armored footmen wielding spears. The Chinese used masses of crossbowmen. The Carthaginians massive armored elephants. If the imaginary group took a few minutes to stop whining about not having a tank and used them to think of tactics that would work with what they do have than they'd be fine. And they'd probably actually end up having more fun dealing with situations in new ways.
I've read every post. Quoting the OP for context:
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...
Seven pages, three hundred and thirty six posts, and no one has addressed the elephant in the room. I'm a bit stunned.
Renegadeshepherd, let me illuminate a dirty little secret about the third edition rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game - it's called 'rules mastery'. In short someone somewhere in the design chain decided it would be good for the game, as a whole, to reward players who took the time to analyze the rules (and buy all the books). So where it might seem that you could take any 'X' levels, point buy, etc, and craft a workable character, that's not perfectly true. Others can take that exact same input and make a much, much more 'effective' character. This is by design. They had made a lot of money with this system in Magic the Gathering, so one can hardly blame them.
Seven pages, three hundred and thirty six posts, and no one has addressed the elephant in the room. I'm a bit stunned.
Renegadeshepherd, let me illuminate a dirty little secret about the third edition rules set of the world's oldest fantasy roleplaying game - it's called 'rules mastery'. In short someone somewhere in the design chain decided it would be good for the game, as a whole, to reward players who took the time to analyze the rules (and buy all the books). So where it might seem that you could take any 'X' levels, point buy, etc, and craft a workable character, that's not perfectly true. Others can take that exact same input and make a much, much more 'effective' character. This is by design. They had made a lot of money with this system in Magic the Gathering, so one can hardly blame them.
As a facet of this, some people (and you need look no further than this very thread for a few examples) feel the need to make other people feel bad about their choices. It's a simple psychological thing called 'rankism', and it happens a lot more between strangers than between friends. Which explains why a lot of players haven't ever seen it, or at least haven't recognized it as such. It also explains why you're more likely to see it on the forums and in PFS. It isn't unique to roleplaying, by any means, and you see it MtG all the time as well. "You played THAT card - you suck/are a worthless human being/etc"
TLDR, the designers blessed us with a metagame of one-upsmanship because they thought it would sell more books. Don't take it personally.
Thank you.
I differ with you on a few details (like the idea that this problem was introduced in version 3.0, because I remember seeing it long before that) but I very much agree with the gist of your statement.
I do wonder how much of this rules-mastery-escalation is intentional, how much is incidental, and how much it is resisted by the authors. For example, Paizo went out of their way to make base classes and single classed characters competitive, rather than falling into the multiclass/prestige class trap of 3.5. As the game has progressed, they've done a pretty good job of adhering to that standard when adding new material. That, to me, seems to be an act of resistance against skill inflation.
Have to agree with Blueluck. While Pathfinder is trying to step away from Third Edition's policy of deliberately rewarding system mastery/punishing newbies who don't know any better, any game is going to reward players who know all the rules and grasp how abilities can be used together over those who don't.
I HIGHLY disagree. One of the things I HATED about 4E was the clearly defined roles. One of the joys of D&D from AD&D on was that you could mix roles to do pretty much what you want (albeit AD&D and 2ed were more restrictive in that you'd have to be a certain race with certain stats for things). I don't want to be striker or tank...I wanna do BOTH. And you can in PFS. Yes to do more roles, you need more system mastery...I am okay with that.
If there's one thing that 4e taught is, clearly-defined roles matter in a game. At least that way a table can say "looking for defender", "looking for leader", or whatever.
I guess there still is some sort of "roles" in Pathfinder, but they are not the same as 4E...
As I said above, I'd rather say they split up into melee, ranged and support. You could build a character that mixes two on those, but to pull that off (and not suck at both) you do need some system mastery or help through a guide/friend/...If you are missing one of those roles in your group, it's still possible to succeed, but as many said, that requires a lot more tactical thinking. Not everybody is capable of that (even some veterans) and I wouldn't expect tactical expertise from a new player (if he does, all the better, but I don't expect it).
So for mix-n-match PFS tables who have a lot of turnover and where people don't know each other that well and system/tactical expertise is low, I'd rather have those 3 roles covered and have fun instead of biting dirt, maybe even TPK, all the time, because of failures/mistakes that were not necessary: Failing because of stupid-ish mistakes over and over is not fun for me.
@Kyoni: the numbers for paladin were huge. He killed what he hit in almost all cases since he had power attack and at least 16 strength with a war hammer. The clerk. Was hitting all the time but only had the base scimitar damage roll (never got hit once though). Wizard is all overthrown place, he mixes spell and bow damage but all he has is the s or hassle bow damage. I did flurries hitting about 70% of the time and did 1D6+3 each time. The oracle never attacked. The ranger shot with bow and had the appropriate fears but had Terrible dice rolls so hit about one in three but did about 8points when did hit.If you think the number on a paladin with 16 str is huge...you don't wanna see what barbs do...especially a titan mauler furious finisher who has access to personal spells via UMD....
Course such damage is overkill in PFS.
Renegadeshepherd, to give you a very simple example of overkill damage without even trying, in our last home-game:
Str-based Magus level 5, fighting with a cutlass (crit on 18-20): He enchanted his cutlass with "keen" through his magus arcana pool, then moved over to the enemy, then whacked that enemy with a single shocking grasp attack... it turned out to be a crit:that was 12d6+boni (str, weapon, poer attack) to roll... since he rolled well above average the total damage ended up somewhere close to 70 (68?). Even our barabrian was shocked as this would have killed him outright.
Lesson learned: even at higher levels you've got foes (if you flip trough the monster manual, you'll find some similar high-damage beasts) that can pump out more damage then you have hitpoints. Chipping away at those foes with 1d6+10-ish damage, is going to cause a TPK unless you shut them down (sleep/blind/paralyze/trip/.../kill)!
If the imaginary group took a few minutes to stop whining about not having a tank and used them to think of tactics that would work with what they do have than they'd be fine. And they'd probably actually end up having more fun dealing with situations in new ways.
That is exaxtly what I was trying to explain:
From what I've seen, unusual character concepts are difficult to introduce in PSF, as the people around the tables change all the time and people have to re-adapt to the new party composition all the time. In home games, people develop fancy teamworking strategies that work for that party layout. In PFS that's not possible due to player-turnover, thus you have to keep it simple (in part because of new players who still need to learn how the basic system works).
Wally, when you have people showing up for their first few games, they are happy enough to figure out how delaying and readying actions work... advanced tactics come later once the've grasped the basic rules. Especially when those new players play mage-types and still have to understand the possibilities and limitations of their spells.
Heck I know two veteran (15 years: from AD&D2 to Pathfinder) players who still have trouble with it:one will _always_ take improved initiative as his first feat, he is obsessed with going first, even if the is no real need for it (he then delays to wait for cleric/bard/.. buffs), ok that is the harmless one
the other player will rather blast that enemy with low life, who is running away to make sure his loot+xp isn't running off, instead of saving that npc, who got grappled by that other enemy and being carried away (I ended up saving the NPC with a ray of enfeeblement), when asked by our party-leader why he did that: "he was nearly dead!" ... that same player insists on webbing everybody and everything even though it hinders our own party members, he's even thrown a second web next to an existing one "just in case"...
just to be clear: I still enjoy playing with them, they are good RL-friends, but it does mean that I do take into account their play-styles when building my characters (freedom of movement from domain power, access to healing of some sort if the second player is the only one with easy access to healing magic, ...)
|
|
Honestly your opinion really doesn't hold any water.
This statement conflicts...
Yes the devs made a game where system mastery is rewarded.
...with that one.
For whatever reason they made the choice, it was a choice made, and rankism is an unsurprising result of it. In what way does this not 'hold water'?
Yes it successfully sold product but is that because the players needed to have their e-peen's measured or is it because when you put effort into the creation of the character you have an expectation that you be rewarded?
For the purposes of this discussion, why does that even matter? People who feel superior will frequently treat others as inferior. It's a well known, observable, labeled phenomenon. Motivation is irrelevant to understanding the KEY POINT: that their behavior is not your fault. You didn't set up these ranks, even though you (knowingly or unknowingly) were a participant, so don't let it get you down.
Suffice it to say that the primary reason the game rewards system mastery is because the majority of PLAYERS like it that way if you don't there are other games out there that do things differently.
I roundly assumed that if the players didn't like it, they wouldn't buy the product, which is why I linked it directly to success. Do a little research into WotC's RnD methods and draw your own conclusions, but we do agree that it works. (Even while we disagree as to the motive.)
And in agreeing that it works, you must agree that rankism is an expected result, unless you intend to deny the psychology behind it. Which, if you're B. F. Skinner or some one like that, would be perfectly plausible assuming you bring along your own research.
TLDR: 'hold water' may not mean what you think it means.
|
|
Thank you.
I differ with you on a few details (like the idea that this problem was introduced in version 3.0, because I remember seeing it long before that) but I very much agree with the gist of your statement.
I'm open to that disagreement, because I wasn't there. There's a good case to be made for it, perhaps in another thread, but as I said to gnomersy, it doesn't much modify the negativity that's an expected result. People being people, and all that.
I do wonder how much of this rules-mastery-escalation is intentional, how much is incidental, and how much it is resisted by the authors. For example, Paizo went out of their way to make base classes and single classed characters competitive, rather than falling into the multiclass/prestige class trap of 3.5. As the game has progressed, they've done a pretty good job of adhering to that standard when adding new material. That, to me, seems to be an act of resistance against skill inflation.
Again, I'm no insider, but I think that statement 'Paizo worked against it' is more and less true depending on your timeline PoV. I'd say that in the CRB, it is very true. Ultimate Combat, for example, probably less so, and I worry that it gets worse with each release. Again there's a clear and powerful motivation at play. As we agree, players love more powerful options, and 'rules mastery' is an engine that we KNOW drives sales. And a company needs those sales to survive, so some of it is inevitable.
To the thrust of it, I'd present the complaints still leveed against the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk core classes, particularly in comparison to new creations like the Alchemist and Ninja. Is there a huge reward for picking up the newest rules as they're added? Maybe not. Is there a genuine effort to keep all the choices in balance and eliminate rules mastery as an element of the game? Clearly not.
And lest we get all source driven on this, and play into some he-said-she-said and/or 'I pick what I believe' drama, let me refer you to SKR's very own opinion on Feats and his method for pricing them.
Anyway, it's a part of this game system, for better or worse. And it shouldn't hurt to have frank discussions about it.
Even rogues have been pushed aside by other classes since the one signature thing they had, magic trap removal, has been added to other classes. Escalation is the enemy of all Games and if they aren't looked out for it kills a game.
Are you talking about that power creep gig? That isn't what killed the rogue. God awful rogue talents and class design killed the rogue. Making traps rogue only is actually bad for the game because it forces you to have a rogue, and would force you to make a game with very few classes(though hopefully a lot of variety in those classes, but that's not pathfinder to my knowledge).
Asking if your happy with pathfinder can be a volatile question. What does this have to do with generalist? I thought the character you made wasn't much of a generalist. My big problem is its another skill monkey who can't do much damage, which is needed in PFS. In my gaming experience it wasn't bad skills that get me killed nearly as often as a group who couldn't do much in combat. Lots of factors and variance and such in that though.
If you want to go for Stealth focused Inquisitor, consider Darkness/Night Domain/Sub-Domain.
At 8th level you can see thru Magical Darkness, and (with Night S-D) you can become Invisible to non-Darkvision characters in areas of Dim Light or Darkness. (the in Darkness part seems wierd/superfluous, but Invisibility grants a bigger Stealth bonus than Blindness/Darkness, so hey...)
Tsukiyo is a LG Deity that grants Night Sub-Domain, and Ashava is CG Empyreal Lord who also does.
If you're going for Dervish Dance (DEX), then having ranged options as well is a gimme, and getting PBS/Rapid Fire is an easy way to be rather effective there (if enemies are in melee you will be there yourself so don't worry about bypassing penalty for shooting into melee). Heretic Archetype lets you use WIS for Stealth and Bluff, but that is kind of superfluous if you are going high DEX for Dervish Dance. If you want to focus on melee more than ranged (you will need more feats to focus on ranged, and probably quickdraw in addition to dervish dance if you want to switch-hit) then you're probably better off avoiding Dervish Dance and going with STR>DEX instead.
Otherwise, you could go for a similar Oracle/Monk build but just make it more effective, taking the advice in this thread (including ones that require changing your Level 1 choices).
People complaining about overlapping with another character in PFS seem kind of off-base, the whole point of PFS is that the same characters are not going to always play together (neither the same GM) so optimizing for a specific 'party' is pointless, and even in that group it's clear that not everybody shows up to every game, so having 'backup' is more than a good idea (not to mention you already showed your usefulness there, because people do roll bad sometimes).