|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but if you get a high initiative, and take the first action, then once you've done that you immediately turn into a low initiative cleric who can do all those things you said, only you're not flat footed and you got to have an extra action first.
Yeah, but the OP doesn't want to do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but if you get a high initiative, and take the first action, then once you've done that you immediately turn into a low initiative cleric who can do all those things you said, only you're not flat footed and you got to have an extra action first.Yep because in game benifits should always be chosen over fun rp builds
Bwahahahaha. Yes indeedy.
|
I was simply saying that it is easy to have low initiative, but putting resources into making lower seems to serve no purpose.
This takes away resources that could be used for other things.
Things that could bring more flavor to the PC.
You keep throwing this idea that somehow there is an issue with power level, or something to that extent.
Not in the least.
I am simply saying that once you have a low initiative, there is no purpose in investing resources to make it lower.
It no longer adds to flavor, and simply restricts your depth in character.
At some point, it does the opposite of what you say you are trying to do.
Like I said, it becomes equal to investing resources to fail Appraise checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get it. This is because you aren't recognizing the purpose as valid, so it has "no purpose" for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that at no point did I criticize the idea of making a character with amusingly low initiative. I actually think battles are more interesting if the bad guys get the first go. In my last campaign, an Inquisitor power gave all the PCs big initiative bonuses, and that meant they (almost) always seemed to have control of the situation - not very exciting.
I was specifically disagreeing with the statement "Plenty of characters benefit from going last rather than first." I can't think of any case where this is true, except when you were going to do something stupid with your initial action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was specifically disagreeing with the statement "Plenty of characters benefit from going last rather than first." I can't think of any case where this is true, except when you were going to do something stupid with your initial action.
And you are conflating that statement with 'plenty of characters benefit from rolling lowest on initiative', which is not what I said.
No one benefits from having the lowest initiative, but some do benefit from going last.
Going last with a low initiative when you are an invisible rogue can be quite funny. Foes charge your pals, get in close, all up inside ya.
Oh well since I am invis and they are within 30, if they really must rush in that makes it easy. I call it the slow invisistab.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This all comes down to play style:
Some people get their enjoyment from maximizing their character's potential to the umpteenth degree. Other folks prefer to create talking points that foster additional role play opportunities that optimized characters don't get very often. A group is not typically crippled by these shortfalls provided that there is someone who complements this deficiency. Likewise, if there is a deficiency, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to be some aspect of that character that makes up for it somewhere else in play.
I have a paladin in PFS who regularly gets a -1 on perception and wisdom checks while averaging a 13 on initiative. He has done less than 30 damage total over 15 games. He has been called "stupid as ****, but infinitely more effective" and "ridiculously annoying and yet amazing".
Ultimately, players of both styles must choose to either coexist or play separately. Both styles are equally legitimate.
I bet you go first in all of the combats in your first game, because you keep rolling 20s on Initiative and everyone else keeps rolling 1s!
Ultimately, players of both styles must choose to either coexist or play separately. Both styles are equally legitimate.
Some people like to play by deliberately griefing other players, is that equally legitimate? In PFS?
|
|
Ultimately, players of both styles must choose to either coexist or play separately. Both styles are equally legitimate.Some people like to play by deliberately griefing other players, is that equally legitimate? In PFS?
I believe that there is a clear difference between someone playing a non-optimized character and someone deriving their pleasure from sabotage/griefing. One person is being creative, the other is being an emotional sadist. It is improper to equate the former to the latter.
As I said before:
If there is a deficiency, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to be some aspect of that character that makes up for it somewhere else in play.
This means that the goal of a player should not be to play something that is utterly not adventurer material (like a sorcerer with a casting stat below 10 or a fighter with strength, dexterity, and constitution dumped). Rather, non-optimized characters ought to have an ability, action, or other special capability that they can use to contribute appropriately in light of whatever their shortfalls may be.
Ultimately, players of both styles must choose to either coexist or play separately. Both styles are equally legitimate.Some people like to play by deliberately griefing other players, is that equally legitimate? In PFS?I believe that there is a clear difference between someone playing a non-optimized character and someone deriving their pleasure from sabotage/griefing. One person is being creative, the other is being an emotional sadist. It is improper to equate the former to the latter.
As I said before:
If there is a deficiency, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to be some aspect of that character that makes up for it somewhere else in play.This means that the goal of a player should not be to play something that is utterly not adventurer material (like a sorcerer with a casting stat below 10 or a fighter with strength, dexterity, and constitution dumped). Rather, non-optimized characters ought to have an ability, action, or other special capability that they can use to contribute appropriately in light of whatever their shortfalls may be.
I don't think OP is being an "emotional sadist" but I contend they are, in fact, griefing. "Creative" griefing is still griefing. Optimization issues don't enter into it.
"We really need a front-line melee character, will you join our game?"
"Sure, but I'm playing a barbarian who's deliberately built to only deal 1 point of damage every time he attacks! WAKKA WAKKA!"
EDIT: I thought OP's asking for "PFS legal" meant they were actually going to play this character in PFS. It now occurs to me they were probably just using this as a baseline for a purely hypothetical character. This misunderstanding colored my subsequent replies! But I stand by my opinion as regards to joke characters in organized play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Common guys, the OP just want to have a low score on initiative to make funny remarks with the group, it doesnt mean that he will suck at other roles and be dead weight to the team.
He wants to play outside the box, doing something other people dont, for fun and roleplay. Calling it badwrongfun is simply uncool.
But really... there is a point to these protests.
I could see mega-dumping initiative as a viable strategy if there was any way to get something for it. The suggested character simply has a lot initiative and has nothing to show for always going last, making it a purely negative investment. If you had a character who dumped init to get better at casting, or hit harder, I could see it.
Common guys, the OP just want to have a low score on initiative to make funny remarks with the group, it doesnt mean that he will suck at other roles and be dead weight to the team.
He wants to play outside the box, doing something other people dont, for fun and roleplay. Calling it badwrongfun is simply uncool.
You can make funny remarks with the group at any time as an immediate action without requiring any in-game justification for it. You can play "outside the box" "for fun and roleplay" without deliberately making yourself a nuisance to others. It's a one-note joke that not everybody is going to find funny, particularly if it detracts from the success of the group.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, for those complaining about this PC being flat footed, and a deadweight, most of the suggestions will wind up with giving him a fairly high flatfooted AC, same as his full AC. Yes, hbis touch AC will suck, but that is true for most builds.
So, high AC, bonus to Perception. Didn't he say something about it being a cleric, so high Wisdom, so even higher Percepotion.
I can juust see the game. He always sees the trap, but is too slow to stop his teammates from setting them off. Until they slow down and start listening to him. Heh.
Yep. A low initiative scouting character is amusing. You can make them so they are not often flatfooted.
If you are required to make an ability check, can you just refuse and "take 0"? Initiative is an ability check.
Kind of like allowing yourself to fail a saving throw.
Peet