|
I have noticed on the Advice threads that there are A LOT of people who are either asking for "optimal" character builds or are being told that the builds they have require this or that to be effective. Now while I am new to Pathfinder I have many years experience with all the previous editions of D&D under my belt so my questions to the community are these:
Q: Has Pathfinder been written so that only the most optimal character builds will work in the long run?
~:: I have only really looked at the lower levels of the game right now having built a few 1st level characters and read over a few of the 1-3 level scenarios. While most if not all of the scenarios I have read so far could fairly easily be completed successfully with a 4 person party with an average 13 for stats...
Q: Is this just a foundation that gets progressively more difficult at higher levels?
~:: It has always been an ongoing challenge in D&D for the DM to sync his encounters with the ever changing power level of the characters, but not yet having in depth experience playing or running Pathfinder specific rules I just don't see how it could be so much different that starting characters would *NEED* to be min/maxed to the hilt.
Q: Does pathfinder run on the assumption that the average adult non-classes NPC would have between a 9 and 13 for most stats? Obviously there would be exceptions but does your average farmer NPC still have stats built like a 1st level character?
|
For me, my tendency to min/max comes from my DM/Table Group. They are all inate power gamers (save one) with a strong rules layer streak (to the man) and tend to optimize at the least. If I was in a different group, that may change, and doesn't speak to Parhfinder as a whole.
I think, in general, pathfinder is much more forgiving than these boards will suggest. Non-optimized characters can function well, but the boards assume a couple things:
1. There will be an optimized build in any group
2. Your non-optimized will be outshone at every opportunity by that other guy
Is this always true? No. But it seems to be the general assumption. Therefore, the boards will always suggest optimal or min/max options. Noone wants to suggest a sub-optimal build just to have that person come back and proclaim that the suggester is an idiot for not telling them about X or Y and now the suggestee is stuck with a crappy character with useless stuff and so on and so forth.
You can safely disregard everything being said about optimization. It's no different from anything that's been said for the last few decades about any edition of D&D. Pathfinder is really no more nor less vulnerable to powergaming or shenanigans than any other system we've had.
Q: Has Pathfinder been written so that only the most optimal character builds will work in the long run?
Not really.
Q: Does pathfinder run on the assumption that the average adult non-classes NPC would have between a 9 and 13 for most stats? Obviously there would be exceptions but does your average farmer NPC still have stats built like a 1st level character?
The NPC chapter basically suggests using a non-elite array for these characters which would give them those sort of stats. However this is far from essential and most average farmer NPCs don't really need stats at all since they're unlikely to be getting into many dice-rolling situations.
|
|
Thank you both for your input. I completely understand there is going to be a difference between what the game needs and what the players want. I just didn't want to put myself in a bad situation if I decided to help run PFS games or play in PFS games and am forced to build characters around numbers rather than around concept. As a GM I have always encouraged my players to build characters around a concept rather than number crunch simply because as an experience I have found that for the most part min/maxed number crunched characters tend to be more specialized in their fields... and once taken out of those fields the players tend to quickly become disinterested.
This is just my observation though. Thank you again for your input. :)
|
|
I think it's also a matter of the medium - You don't go to the advice section unless you want rules advice - making the ratio of players looking for 'optimal choices' in that section far greater then reflected in your average Pathfinder group - and when someone asks you for an optimal build, telling him/her 'Build it however you want, you don't need to optimize to have fun' is probably not the answer he/she came to the boards in the first place.
|
I would actually say that optimization is less necessary in Pathfinder, than it was in D&D 3.6. It's still possible to build an incompetent character, but most basic builds are entirely workable.
That said, most people will prefer to play a character with some degree of optimization... for whatever they decide to specialize in.
Yeah, the general assumption I go for when somebody is asking for character advice is "they are looking for the best build possible". If they are making sub-optimal choices, and they havent indicated being aware of it, we'll indicate it. Most people want to feel like they contribute to a party, and if you cant... Ok, some people on the boards are a**holes, some are just VERY sarcastic, but most of us just want to help somebody make the best build possible.
A few good pratices:
1) Tell us what's most important and arent willing to change: race, class, concept, etc. You can be a fighter-type without being a fighter, you can be a roguish type without being a rogue, etc.
2) This is a rules forum, not a creative writing club: most people will go in with a "mechanics first" mentality unless indicated otherwise.
3) Be open: there are some people who come for advice then get angry (and I mean really angry) when told the feat combo/ability combo/etc. doesnt work the way they thought. Accept that not all ideas work as expected, and sometimes the system isnt made for it.Example: Most people will recommend against a "pure skill monkey" since a lot of pathfinder revolves around combat, and it takes a special campaign to allow skill monkeys to shine most of the time.
Hopefully this helps a little. I think this is the third or 4th thread I've seen of this type in the last few months? Anyway, it's a question that comes back often.
|
|
Yeah I understand coming to an advice forum means you are looking for help and that help is obviously not going to be to build a useless character. I guess for the most part you guys are right, the help is mainly to show a better use or combination of skills and feats or class abilities. The part that was catching me off guard so much as the people making comments like
"You need an 18 to make this work"
"Straight single class characters don't work"
"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression"
Obviously those are the persons opinions but I have seen that a lot and I just was curious if that is more than just an opinion. From what I have read so far I would disagree, but then again my experience with Pathfinder specific is limited. Just my opinion so far with the classes being more powerful than D&D 3.5 and the monsters not really being much more powerful scaled to the PCs... it seems like straight core classes should work out fine.
"You need an 18 to make this work"
"Straight single class characters don't work"
"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression"
Are these exact quotes or are they exaggerations? I've never seen the first two here and I've only rarely seen the bard called useless. When I have seen the bard called useless, there were plenty of responses disagreeing.
Ultimately, IMHO, optimization is talked about more often than a lot of other subjects because it's mostly objective. You can directly compare A to B to C to D, whereas when you're talking about subjects like roleplaying or 'cool' ideas or worldbuilding, it's subjective and there's not that much to talk about as it boils down to just 'I like it/I don't like it'.
"You need an 18 to make this work"
"Straight single class characters don't work"
"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression"
I dont know who's been telling you these things, but they are VERY wrong (in most cases):
1) Only true for very SPECIFIC builds, like "save or die" builds that need to maximize DCs
2) While that may have been true in 3.5, in pathfinder, single class characters work BETTER 95% of the time.
3) VERY debatable, though I've never heard this myself (especially for bards). But yeah, straight class progression is best in 95% of cases. Monks are HARD to optimize, and they generally make a good 1-level dip for armorless characters. Bards are exceedingly useful in a party (they make the best support characters, best skill monkeys, great buffers), and I've yet to see a bard multiclass work.
Clearly somebody's been giving you bad advice. Hopefully it wasnt us... But I will personally guarantee that if you ask a question I have no idea how to answer, I will shut up.
Edit_ I also second Zhayne's comment; we can compare numbers, stats, builds, but not concepts (which we may or may not like); and when people do disapprove of concepts... well, that is how flamewars get started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
some are just VERY sarcastic,
Did someone call?
I have found that the majority of optimization and build threads and concepts fall short due to an average of three variables plus one: the other PCs, and the game world not being a vacuum.
If the party is a group of four individuals all going about their "build business" then that is that and that is fine. At my table things tend to display more synergy. Tactics and buffs and actions taken to assist each other and make the whole of the party greater than the sum of its parts.
Then again, I also game with a great set of people who optimize within their concepts, and often adjust their concepts as the story affects them. An antisocial urban druid has carried the whole party in certain fights, but has gotten them nearly killed via good roleplaying because he says the wrong thing sometimes. A half-orc musket master who thought he would never use his racial ferocity finding himself using it frequently because intelligent enemies prioritize him in combat. A party support alchemist becoming a master chymist due to simmering frustrations regarding both his own allies and his enemies. A hot-headed rouge who has saved the day not by stealth or sneak attack, but by just running headfirst without thinking and tipping the enemies hand.
To quote Arthur C. Clarke: “All human plans [are] subject to ruthless revision by Nature, or Fate, or whatever one preferred to call the powers behind the Universe.”
Anyhow, welcome to the boards and the game! We do want you here, no matter what we might say!
"You need an 18 to make this work""Straight single class characters don't work"
"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression.
You see this advice given here. Isent this more like 3.5 advice? In pathfinder you can get 20 in a stat, single class is great, and the bard is up there.
The difficulty of a pathfinder campaign is entirely dependent on the DM; however, I would say that in most campaigns you can get away with suboptimal builds.
|
|
Are these exact quotes or are they exaggerations? I've never seen the first two here and I've only rarely seen the bard called useless. When I have seen the bard called useless, there were plenty of responses disagreeing."You need an 18 to make this work"
"Straight single class characters don't work"
"Bards and monks are useless through straight class progression"
The first two were not copy + paste direct quotes but that is what was said. I will look back and try to find the thread relating to them shortly. The last one was paraphrased as the mention was more to making the Monk a Zen Archer and there was a mention to changing the monk to make an Arcana Archer build which would be "more useful".
|
|
I thank you all for your answers. Overall it has renewed a lot of the desire I had lost with continuing with Pathfinder. From what I have read of the rules, a lot of the House Rules I used to use have been adjusted and reworked... very similar to the build of the house rules I had made... Poisons for instance.
Anyway, back to the point. Thank you. I think my group is going to have a blast working through the Rise of the Runelords path. :)