| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, it was gonna be "Big Deal", but the alliteration claimed control of Kobold Cleaver's computer.
Oops.
So anyways, bad builds. In another thread just now (4e vs. Pathfinder, it's actually a pretty fun read, go there if you want to flame your least favorite edition's supporters a remarkably rational discussion) someone said that it's easier to make bad builds in Pathfinder.
This is true. Nobody's gonna say it ain't. Who hasn't made a crappy sling-wielding fighter? Or a wizard focusing on spells like floating disk?
But here's my question. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the prominent system mastery on these forums and start to assume bad builds are not only bad, they're utterly undesirable and will hurt your fun.
I've had tons of fun playing lousy designs, like a hobgoblin wizard who invested in being a decent melee combatant. Long story. Suffice to say I couldn't visualize him as an eldritch knight or magus, so I made him a wizard who would have eventually dipped into fighter a couple times.
This character was not maxed (though I did optimize him as well as I could). Nonetheless, he was plenty fun. No, not just in roleplaying. Believe it or not, sub-average-to-mediocre characters can be just as much fun in combat, even if they're being outshined! Crazy, I know.
So for those who say Pathfinder encourages you to only play wizards/gunslingers/clerics/whatever in all respects but roleplay: It's not that vicious a game. This ain't Monopoly, where every mistake comes back to bite you. Play what you like, and odds are you'll still have fun shooting people with crossbows or sneak attacking with firearms you had to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use.
Maybe this thread's unnecessary. I'm probably stating the obvious. If that's so, just see this as a bit of a self-indulgent rant. We all have 'em from time to time.
Cheers.
The problem, I think, is that there are "tiers" of bad builds.
There's "sub-optimal" which are fun, but you know you could do better. These can still be very useful, if niche.
Then there's "bad". These are things like your average newbie Monk, or something that sounded better on paper. Frustrating to make an equal contributor, but still has the potential to be fun in RP and can carve out a niche in combat or some other scenario.
Then there's "it fits my concept". These are the builds that are something like Fighter 1/Bard 1/Aristocrat 3/Druid 1 because the guy's taking different classes based on some singular experience or whatever, and these are pretty much impossible to make useful, and therefore are frustrating for the rest of teh party to haul around...even if the player of said mishmash is having fun with it.
I'd agree that new players who don't know the system should be steered towards easy builds. A fighter, for instance, is quite hard to make useless unless you give them a crappy Strength and try to focus on finesse. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played both 4e and PF, and I can assure you that you can make "bad builds" in 4e.
However, the difference is that 4e doesn't have many truly awful options to choose. You just miss out on potential synergies that can be very powerful. Pathfinder has truly awful options to choose from, but even worse, some of them SOUND useful until you learn otherwise.
This is one of my problems with Pathfinder actually. There's almost a sense of deliberate maliciousness against less informed gamers. That really shouldn't exist in a game system that is supposed to be open and inviting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a stereotypical barbarian would be a blast in a magic academy comedy. Kinda like that tourist from "The Color of Magic", from what I recall. ;D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
these are pretty much impossible to make useful, and therefore are frustrating for the rest of teh party to haul around...even if the player of said mishmash is having fun with it.
This I never understood - how is it frustrating for the rest of the party? How does anyone enjoy the game less if someone else's character is not as effective? Pathfinder is a relaxed pastime with friends. If one of them is not as useful, whatever.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Snow, I think the reason boils down to, "I'm trying to survive Age of Worms and this idiot wants to play his halfling monk with a 10 Strength and 12 Wisdom!"
That's just an example, of course. Basically, you're making a character who will provide little to no real assistance. In some campaigns, that's not being very thoughtful.
And yes, I realize how dangerously close we are to the snowflake dispute. Let's just tread veeeery carefully next to this, uh,
This I never understood - how is it frustrating for the rest of the party? How does anyone enjoy the game less if someone else's character is not as effective? Pathfinder is a relaxed pastime with friends. If one of them is not as useful, whatever.
It doesn't matter if it's a pastime, there's generally an understanding that everyone should pull their own weight.
If you're playing a pick-up game of some sport, you'll get annoyed at the kid who tries to chase butterflies and eat dirt instead of playing the game.
If you're playing a video game and the person on your team isn't even trying, you're going to get annoyed.
If you're playing a game of Pathfinder and someone makes a character that contributes nothing but a drain on party resources when the rest of you are trying to accomplish something...well, you get the picture.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on what the group's playstyle is.
If you're telling a collaborative story, then it doesn't really matter if one person is better at combat than another, as long as everyone is contributing equally to the story.
If you're playing a game of "kill the monsters", obviously you're looking more for physical results.
If you're doing something that fits somewhere between the two, then whatever works for your grey area.
As long as everyone at the table is happy with it, then it doesn't matter what anyone not at the table thinks. If someone at the table is unhappy, then it ought to be addressed.
I'd like to point out that - to my mind - there are two additional bad-but-not-bad builds not really mentioned yet:
1. The long term minmaxer build that struggles through levels 1 through 11 but starts shining at level 12. Often because the concept is built around a high-level ability or expensive item that makes everything come together.
2. The minmaxer build that is good enough that it can afford throwing a couple of feats and other resources at completely subpar options. This is particularly possible with minmaxer builds that are easy to pull of with short feat-trees.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's about Play Style
Some groups are more 'tactics' oriented and want the individual team members to pull thier weight. Other groups are story oriented and it does not matter if you have a list of junk feats and your only spells are Hold Portal and Floating Disk.
In the tactics group mechanics *do* matter, and being inept by design is an insult. Being inept by accident/ignorance is repairable.
In the story group character matters. Ooog may be fun, but not when OOg starts smashing the Wizards wands and books. "Oog kno Magik baaad!" Being a jerk by design is an insult.
In any event, the extremes are not polar opposite any more than Chaotic and Evil are opposites ;) A fair (skillwise) can balance a campaign to fit either style and both styles are legit.
Bad Builds are just fine if the player is having fun, and not dragging down the rest of the group.
This I never understood - how is it frustrating for the rest of the party? How does anyone enjoy the game less if someone else's character is not as effective? Pathfinder is a relaxed pastime with friends. If one of them is not as useful, whatever.It doesn't matter if it's a pastime, there's generally an understanding that everyone should pull their own weight.
If you're playing a pick-up game of some sport, you'll get annoyed at the kid who tries to chase butterflies and eat dirt instead of playing the game.
If you're playing a video game and the person on your team isn't even trying, you're going to get annoyed.
If you're playing a game of Pathfinder and someone makes a character that contributes nothing but a drain on party resources when the rest of you are trying to accomplish something...well, you get the picture.
Those are good points, and I agree, but it depends on what kind of game is being played.
In a published AP, that assumes a certain power level of the group, I'd suggest players to try to make effective characters. There is a "standard" at work here, and someone's Bad Build can cost the whole team the game, and result in a TPK.
Example; Age of Worms AP. I never finished it, but our group got up around level 15 before it ended. games like this are pretty tough; Bad Builds slacking off would be devastating. Everyone needs to pull their weight.
In a homebrew sandbox; go nuts. Make and play whatever you want(within the guidelines of the setting and allowed by the DM). In games like this, there is very little "standard," and the DM can(and should) adjust on the fly to accommodate the game at hand(within reason).
For example; if the party is weak against big brawny melee enemies, the DM can hold back on using those kinds of encounters and the game will not suffer. In an AP, these kinds of encounters might be the norm.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
KC hit on it with the AoW crack. There are some games where everybody has to bring their A game or it's TPK time. In those games you want to tweak your build to make sure that doesn't happen.
Not all games are like that, though.
The key is setting the appropriate level of expectations. You don't show up for a Hard Mode game with an Int 12 wizard who dumped Con. But if you show up for a Normal Mode or Easy Mode game with some uberbuild you are probably going to dominate the game to the detriment of everyone else.
So for those who say Pathfinder encourages you to only play wizards/gunslingers/clerics/whatever in all respects but roleplay: It's not that vicious a game. This ain't Monopoly, where every mistake comes back to bite you. Play what you like, and odds are you'll still have fun shooting people with crossbows or sneak attacking with firearms you had to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use.
Oh sure, most of us can have fun playing lots of games and editions. I can have fun playing 3.x, I can have fun playing OD&D, which is even vicious-er than 3.x, and I can have fun playing different games entirely. But my experience has been that imbalanced games would have been more fun, had they been better balanced.
This thread's implied statement is reminding me of the "Why [Racial] Level Caps Ain't so Bad" thread, which is still going strong on RPGnet as we speak. Even if you manage to convince people that a problem they're having isn't so bad, it's still their problem, and they'd still rather not have it.
I've played both 4e and PF, and I can assure you that you can make "bad builds" in 4e.
Oh yes. I gamed with a guy who made quite a few of them. And he knew they were bad builds, along with what he could have done to make them better. Because 4e tells you outright how to make a decent PC, players can't accidentally gimp themselves.
Which, as you say, is a notable difference from PF.
Sorry, it was gonna be "Big Deal", but the alliteration claimed control of Kobold Cleaver's computer.
Oops.
So anyways, bad builds. In another thread just now (4e vs. Pathfinder, it's actually a pretty fun read, go there if you want
to flame your least favorite edition's supportersa remarkably rational discussion) someone said that it's easier to make bad builds in Pathfinder.This is true. Nobody's gonna say it ain't. Who hasn't made a crappy sling-wielding fighter? Or a wizard focusing on spells like floating disk?
But here's my question. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the prominent system mastery on these forums and start to assume bad builds are not only bad, they're utterly undesirable and will hurt your fun.
I've had tons of fun playing lousy designs, like a hobgoblin wizard who invested in being a decent melee combatant. Long story. Suffice to say I couldn't visualize him as an eldritch knight or magus, so I made him a wizard who would have eventually dipped into fighter a couple times.
This character was not maxed (though I did optimize him as well as I could). Nonetheless, he was plenty fun. No, not just in roleplaying. Believe it or not, sub-average-to-mediocre characters can be just as much fun in combat, even if they're being outshined! Crazy, I know.
So for those who say Pathfinder encourages you to only play wizards/gunslingers/clerics/whatever in all respects but roleplay: It's not that vicious a game. This ain't Monopoly, where every mistake comes back to bite you. Play what you like, and odds are you'll still have fun shooting people with crossbows or sneak attacking with firearms you had to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency to use.
Maybe this thread's unnecessary. I'm probably stating the obvious. If that's so, just see this as a bit of a self-indulgent rant. We all have 'em from time to time.
Cheers.
Yeah, I am in a similar camp. I don't always play the strongest builds, but I have fun. I at times don't max them out (odd stats instead of even) but other times I will make a bit of a dump char with a sub optimal build. I'll give an example.
Skadi, a skirmisher type concerned with moving as fast as possible, hitting and running but with crappy dex, and average con. I know! You are not meant to drop these. I was using a zen archery type feat to use wis for shooting bonus, not dex, but my ac was still rubbish. Movement was more my means of evasion, ensuring I was "safe" as opposed to having my dex tested. Long range scouting meant my dex was less of an issue for stealth as distance went in my sneaky favour. He wasn't about getting close for a stab to the back (more a long range shot). This char was in many areas weak, his damage was okay but DPR was not great (because he moved a lot) and he had trouble with dex skills (but certainly not wis or str skills).
He was great fun and I played him as so greedy and chaotic. The sub optimal build meant he was good in a few ways, but not all, so he was easy to use. My first char of this type and I would play him again. Luckily, although he was not made to fight undead he was in an anti-undead campaign, and his crazy movement really helped him out. Yes, chase me, right back into the party and away from your group.
Another one was a pf rogue, Mosca. This guy was a bit of a generalist with a melee focus but who would never touch dual wielding (he had an aversion to cheese). He was great fun, and felt more normal hero in a distant land rather than super hero ginzu sword saint. So I liked him, he got along with everyone but the paladin and rping him was quite fun. So shady.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd think that "bad builds" are looked down upon more in organized play than by casual gamers. Might have something to do with being unable to change the character over time. When you jump into an organized play game, you're stuck with the people at the table. If one happens to have a character with a sub-optimal build that turns out to be dead weight, then there's nothing you can do about it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never met dead weight yet.
The closest one I can recall, mr average spread around fighter was pretty mediocre for a few sessions. Then he died saving the party. Collapsing a giant bell on himself and the big bad.
That was truly heroic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never met dead weight yet.
The closest one I can recall, mr average spread around fighter was pretty mediocre for a few sessions. Then he died saving the party. Collapsing a giant bell on himself and the big bad.
That was truly heroic.
He must have read this, and applied to his poorly-built PC. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my campaign we've got a gnome swashbuckler 2/sorcerer 5 who does 1d4-2 damage with his rapier in melee. He used to have a wand of magic missiles, but it ran out. Still, on occasion his illusions have saved the day.
We've also got a fighter with 13 strength who's invested feats equally in crossbows and shield bashing.
And that's not the worst of it. There are two rogues in our group of five.
But nobody's remotely bothered.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This I never understood - how is it frustrating for the rest of the party? How does anyone enjoy the game less if someone else's character is not as effective? Pathfinder is a relaxed pastime with friends. If one of them is not as useful, whatever.It doesn't matter if it's a pastime, there's generally an understanding that everyone should pull their own weight.
If you're playing a pick-up game of some sport, you'll get annoyed at the kid who tries to chase butterflies and eat dirt instead of playing the game.
If you're playing a video game and the person on your team isn't even trying, you're going to get annoyed.
If you're playing a game of Pathfinder and someone makes a character that contributes nothing but a drain on party resources when the rest of you are trying to accomplish something...well, you get the picture.
I don't feel that comparing Pathfinder to a competitive game (which is what you did with both your examples) is a fair or correct thing to do. A competitive game usually has two things that make it stand apart from a tabletop roleplaying game:
1) They are competitive. They create a very different sort of mood. Pathfinder is (usually) much less focused on proving yourself against your peers than the kinds of games you mentioned. Consequently, "loosing" in Pathfinder is very rare.2) They are impartial. For the sake of fairness, a sports game or a computer game has strict rules that everyone participating must abide. In Pathfinder, there's always the GM to balance things out - one of the PCs is a bit weaker (or much weaker) ? fine, the GM can attune the adventure as needed. It's maybe a bit of more pressure on her, but usually the players are the one complaining about a useless peer, not the GM.
Yeah, I'd get annoyed if I'll play DotA with a friend who spends the entire game being ineffective, because I'll lose and that will be his fault. Pathfinder though? I'm among friends, nobody is trying to prove anything to nobody else, and each player has his own level of interest and his own power as a PC. And if a couple are weaker than the other two? fine, as a consequence the stronger players get to shine more in battles. Everyone's happy with that.
Whereas I played a fighter with high Charisma once and was chewed out for 'robbing the party of a worthwhile tank' by wasting points. Even though none of the other PCs had a 10+ Charisma or any social skills.
If this was truly the reaction of the entire party (as opposed to one other player jesting lightly "hey, maybe we still need a tank?" for example), then I am pretty sure I'd have found a new group to play with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whereas I played a fighter with high Charisma once and was chewed out for 'robbing the party of a worthwhile tank' by wasting points. Even though none of the other PCs had a 10+ Charisma or any social skills.If this was truly the reaction of the entire party (as opposed to one other player jesting lightly "hey, maybe we still need a tank?" for example), then I am pretty sure I'd have found a new group to play with.
Or suggested that one of them drop their concept and make a tank if they were so gung ho about it.
I don't feel that comparing Pathfinder to a competitive game (which is what you did with both your examples) is a fair or correct thing to do. A competitive game usually has two things that make it stand apart from a tabletop roleplaying game:
1) They are competitive. They create a very different sort of mood. Pathfinder is (usually) much less focused on proving yourself against your peers than the kinds of games you mentioned. Consequently, "loosing" in Pathfinder is very rare.
2) They are impartial. For the sake of fairness, a sports game or a computer game has strict rules that everyone participating must abide. In Pathfinder, there's always the GM to balance things out - one of the PCs is a bit weaker (or much weaker) ? fine, the GM can attune the adventure as needed. It's maybe a bit of more pressure on her, but usually the players are the one complaining about a useless peer, not the GM.Yeah, I'd get annoyed if I'll play DotA with a friend who spends the entire game being ineffective, because I'll lose and that will be his fault. Pathfinder though? I'm among friends, nobody is trying to prove anything to nobody else, and each player has his own level of interest and his own power as a PC. And if a couple are weaker than the other two? fine, as a consequence the stronger players get to shine more in battles. Everyone's happy with that.
Even non-competitive video games get annoying when someone isn't doing what they're supposed to. If I'm playing some co-op game with a friend, like Left 4 Dead, Borderlands, Dungeon Defenders, whatever I don't want someone to be goofing off all the time. A little is fine, but when every game (session) you play you essentially have dead weight attached to you when you want to beat the mission you've been stuck on for a month...
And yes, the rules are rigid, but at the very least when you're playing a game like that the person can just STOP GOOFING OFF. Very hard to do that in PF, because in this case the person isn't just goofing off, they're goofing off by making their CHARACTER bad, not just their tactics (which can be remedied).
The GM adjusting the difficulty is all well and good...but are you sure the three people who can handle normal difficulty encounters are going to appreciate the game being dumbed down for the one guy who's not participating to the best of his ability?
There is actually a setting involving a giant dungeon and all the players have died before and forgotten almost everything. They try to get out, they can't remember much and some give up hope or go insane.
Pretty grim eternal dungeon setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of it's social knack. The other part of it is that we're seeing a slice pulled out of an online forum...
...which relates to a crunchy game.
...whose crunch has just solidified over the recent year or two, with PFS and now a variety of publications which can be picked apart.
Paizo itself recognized the danger. They didn't want a replication of what happened in specific sections of WotC's forums. Hence, the title of the 'Advice' forum instead of something else. There's an old post or two discussing this if you can find it.
It's tended that way anyway...you just have to take it for what it is, and realize that this is a minority of the population given an area where it can get more vocal than not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a stereotypical barbarian would be a blast in a magic academy comedy. Kinda like that tourist from "The Color of Magic", from what I recall. ;DI suddenly want to play a barbarian who is the son or nephew of some chief or other important person. He has grown up (so far) thinking he would be a stereotypical barbarian but now, thanks to an agreement between his people and some neighboring people, has been uprooted from his home village and stuck into some magic academy. Suddenly, he's expected to make friends with his fellow students (who all look like they'd break if you so much as breath hard on them) and learn magic.
So an exchange student?
|
This I never understood - how is it frustrating for the rest of the party? How does anyone enjoy the game less if someone else's character is not as effective? Pathfinder is a relaxed pastime with friends. If one of them is not as useful, whatever.It doesn't matter if it's a pastime, there's generally an understanding that everyone should pull their own weight.
If you're playing a pick-up game of some sport, you'll get annoyed at the kid who tries to chase butterflies and eat dirt instead of playing the game.
If you're playing a video game and the person on your team isn't even trying, you're going to get annoyed.
If you're playing a game of Pathfinder and someone makes a character that contributes nothing but a drain on party resources when the rest of you are trying to accomplish something...well, you get the picture.
Incorrect.
The general understanding is that everyone at the table is having fun.
K thanks bye.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrect.
The general understanding is that everyone at the table is having fun.
K thanks bye.
And while one person may be having fun, most people won't enjoy hauling little Billy around while he contributes nothing of value.
By the way, my opinion is better than your opinion.
Kthxbye.
Lord Snow, I think the reason boils down to, "I'm trying to survive Age of Worms and this idiot wants to play his halfling monk with a 10 Strength and 12 Wisdom!"
That's just an example, of course. Basically, you're making a character who will provide little to no real assistance. In some campaigns, that's not being very thoughtful.
I'm of the same view as Lord Snow.
i also think being sensitive to the group's playstyle includes both the PCs and the DM. If your players bring an ineffectual monk, a fallen paladin, a character with no more than one level in each class, etcetera to your Age of Worms campaign, then you shouldn't be running it as written unless the group is happy that there will be an inevitable TPK.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, TPKs can be a good teaching device to a group that ignores your warnings. ;D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of our campaigns (in both 4E and PF/3.5) end in TPKs at around level seven. Guess we're slow learners. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to play flawed characters. Pretty much all of my favorite PCs ever have been designed (both in RP elements like back story and personality, AND statistically) around a limitation or flaw. I think it makes them more interesting and more fun to play. And I don't mean a Drawback-- I mean a real limitation.
Some examples: I'm running a cleric of Desna with the Hidden Priest archetype in a PbP right now. She's in Cheliax, where being a priest of a chaotic god is a crime punishable by enslavement, so she pretends to be a bard. She maxed out her Perform (string instrument) skill, and one of her feats is Skill Focus (perform). I used her favored class point as a skill point. She's the moral center of the party, and the healer, so she is effective in her role, even with a "wasted feat" and some "useless skill ranks" from the perspective of power-gamers. And she is an absolute total blast to play.
I've played a fighter whose second-highest ability score was Charisma, had maxed out ranks of Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (nobility), and had two levels of Aristocrat (yes, the NPC class). Again, very fun character, and he was still very effective in combat.
I just started playing a good necromancer who hates the undead, and uses their secrets against them. He is also a trained surgeon and has maxed out his Heal skill, and has taken Skill Focus (heal) as a feat to reflect his medical degree.
I have a sorceress who has a personal code against killing people, even bad ones (although few qualms about killing monsters). To that ends, she doesn't know any lethal spells.
And, in general, I try to keep most of my options limited to the Core Rulebook.
I think working around self-imposed limitations is a really fun part of the game!
I consider a bad build problematic when the character is more a liability than an asset to the group. An evil party would probably kill or enslave the dead weight (I can imagine a wizard of mine putting them in a soul gem if she dislikes that character enough), while a good party would stop him/her from adventuring as this character is prone to getting those around it in danger with their incompetence. If your character can't find a way to fly by level 5, your character should consider retiring because if I roll a flying monster from an encounter table, I WILL throw it at you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A 'bad' build can be just as disruptive to a game as a 'munchkin' build. If everyone is 'bad' then its fine, in so much as a dm can adjust encounters to a lower difficulty to account for the party's capabilities. If one player is 'bad' and the rest are average or above, the dm has to struggle between including the 'bad' character in encounters and not making them too easy for everyone else. The same way he has to struggle to make encounters hard enough for an overpowered build and not overwhelming everyone else.
Basically if everyone is on a similar level of power, go for it. If there is a significant difference, its a problem.
Pathfinder doesn't have this problem anymore than old AD+D does. Usually when new gamers run into this problem is when old gamers insist on catapulting them into min-maxed crack builds from a bunch of supplements instead of just letting them build a basic core rulebook character for their first go.
This is one of my problems with Pathfinder actually. There's almost a sense of deliberate maliciousness against less informed gamers. That really shouldn't exist in a game system that is supposed to be open and inviting.
I can't speak to 1e AD&D, but if it's anything like 2e AD&D -- and I believe it is, because editions weren't very dramatic at the time -- then saying "PF isn't any worse than AD&D" doesn't say much. Remember dart-specialists? Even in core, AD&D has system mastery in spades.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to play flawed characters. Pretty much all of my favorite PCs ever have been designed (both in RP elements like back story and personality, AND statistically) around a limitation or flaw. I think it makes them more interesting and more fun to play. And I don't mean a Drawback-- I mean a real limitation.
Some examples: I'm running a cleric of Desna with the Hidden Priest archetype in a PbP right now. She's in Cheliax, where being a priest of a chaotic god is a crime punishable by enslavement, so she pretends to be a bard. She maxed out her Perform (string instrument) skill, and one of her feats is Skill Focus (perform). I used her favored class point as a skill point. She's the moral center of the party, and the healer, so she is effective in her role, even with a "wasted feat" and some "useless skill ranks" from the perspective of power-gamers. And she is an absolute total blast to play.
I've played a fighter whose second-highest ability score was Charisma, had maxed out ranks of Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (nobility), and had two levels of Aristocrat (yes, the NPC class). Again, very fun character, and he was still very effective in combat.
I just started playing a good necromancer who hates the undead, and uses their secrets against them. He is also a trained surgeon and has maxed out his Heal skill, and has taken Skill Focus (heal) as a feat to reflect his medical degree.
I have a sorceress who has a personal code against killing people, even bad ones (although few qualms about killing monsters). To that ends, she doesn't know any lethal spells.
And, in general, I try to keep most of my options limited to the Core Rulebook.
I think working around self-imposed limitations is a really fun part of the game!
Honestly there's a big difference between setting a limitation on your build, and making a purposefully bad build.
Of the 4 characters you have, only one I'd classify as kinda bad (the Fighter with Aristocrat levels), and that's only because the Aristocrat levels seem pointless. I don't see the point in taking a class for flavor when the flavor is something you can inject into the character at any time. If you want your Fighter to be noble born, just say "My Fighter is noble born" and reflect that in your skill choices and character quirks (which you did), not in class choice when the class chosen serves no real purpose other than to hold back the build (at the very list take a few levels of Cavalier, basically the "Noble born Fighter" as a class =)).
The other 3 pick a theme and stick with it. Necromancy (I'm assuming debuffs and such are thrown in there among the completely anti-undead stuff) is not a bad school of magic to build a guy around.
Casters are pretty good at the whole "non-lethal but still effective" bit, considering that most of the time if you ask people "What's the best spell for an X level Y caster class?" you'll get a bunch of answers like Grease, Glitterdust, and so on.
The Cleric I'm having a hard time seeing ANY problem with. I always have a hard time choosing Feats for Cleric at least once because I'm like "What do I even NEED?" and "wasted skill ranks" is kind of like telling someone they wasted half a cup of orange juice...technically true but not really that important, especially for a class that's not trying to be the skill monkey of the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly there's a big difference between setting a limitation on your build, and making a purposefully bad build.
I think we're actually in agreement here. I am not condoning players who go out of their way to make joke builds of deliberately ineffective characters (like a first-level wizard with an 11 Int whose feats are Skill Focus (Profession:goatherd) and Exotic Weapon Proficiency: two-bladed sword). And I don't think you're encouraging one-trick-pony kill-o-matic characters that can dish out 75 hp damage in a round at level 1, and never develop any personality other than "GRRR! KILL!"
As a GM, I try my best to build encounters that let the different PCs shine in different circumstances. As a player, I try to make a character that's fun for me to play, and fun for the other players and GM to interact with.
Oh, and on that fighter: I wanted a character who was a reluctant adventurer-- someone who kind of got dragged into the life due to circumstances and rose to the occasion. He started out as a dilletante with very little combat training or skills (i.e. aristocrat 1), and eventually turned into a very successful warlord. (Oh, and upon reflection, he only had one level of aristocrat.) And, it was 10 years ago, not long after 3.5 came out.
But, ultimately, you need to design a character that fits with your group's play style. If I'm playing with folks who prefer to run games that focus on tactical combat, I'll bring a different character than for a game whose focus is on immersive storytelling. (And, honestly, I would prefer to join the latter group.)