My group just started a new 1st-level game, and character creation left me vaguely but distinctly dissatisfied. I feel a strong compulsion to minmax, partly learned from playing through an adventure path, and I know 3E/Pathfinder very well, which means vast swaths of options are glaringly not worthwhile. I kept going through stuff which by title or description or general intent fit what I wanted to play, but which would ultimately result in an incompetent version of what I wanted to play.
I tried to tell myself I should just relax and pick what fits and roleplay the character as I see him regardless of mechanical efficiency, but I can't get past the fact that if I need to disregard what's on my sheet to do my thing, I might as well pick the useful option, gloss over it when it doesn't fit, and do my own thing while keeping the efficiency when the dice hit the table. But that results in the same few options, the same best feats, the same best spells, being used over and over. There's so much stuff I'd like to see in play, but I can't get past the fact that it doesn't really work very well in play.
In our first 3E game, one player made an urgrosh-wielding dwarf fighter who multiclassed into evoker, ending up something like fighter 4/evoker X/fiery PrC Y. Over time, we learned how dumb it was to multiclass spellcasters, but until we learned, damn, a dwarf with a crazy axe in one hand and a fireball in the other was the awesomest thing ever!
How do I recapture that feeling? Would a game I don't know so well help? I keep being drawn to Fantasy Craft, largely because it gives me the same feeling 3E did when I first saw it: options options optionsoptions everywhere, and I don't know the game enough to see their faults. But most of my group is pretty set on Pathfinder, so what I'd really like is to just not be so acutely aware of how the rules work (or, for many options, how they don't work) all the tame. Or is all this just nostalgia, and I'm just asking to play the same D&D I did when I was 16?
Multiclassing anything in pathfinder is generally a bad idea.
Also a lot of min/maxing options are actually traps.
I suggest that you find a concept and then pick the right class/archetype combo.
For example your "urgrosh-wielding dwarf fighter who multiclassed into evoker" in pathfinder would be a dwarf magus, who does scale into high levels well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can roleplay and be mechanically competent, one doesn't prohibit the other. Also trap options depending on the setting are not so bad, actually even normally good feats. Like big game hunter is a very good feat most of the time but if you are playing your game in Westeros, you aren't going to be fighting any giants or large creatures often making the feat worthless in their universe.
Also I would recommend to play Adventure Paths in general, they tend to surprise with new and exciting things that you might not see enough of due to your dm/gm style.
How do I recapture that feeling? Would a game I don't know so well help? I keep being drawn to Fantasy Craft, largely because it gives me the same feeling 3E did when I first saw it: options options optionsoptions everywhere, and I don't know the game enough to see their faults. But most of my group is pretty set on Pathfinder, so what I'd really like is to just not be so acutely aware of how the rules work (or, for many options, how they don't work) all the tame. Or is all this just nostalgia, and I'm just asking to play the same D&D I did when I was 16?
I do it by using 3rd party classes. Guys like kobold press and rogue genius put out lots of extra classes that are based on niche concepts. BSo that fighter/evoker could be a kobold press battle scion instead. The class is designed to work the way you want it to (so you dont have to mess with multiclassing in pathfinder), and its new, exciting and interesting. And given the sheer volume available you are very likely to find whatever fits your idea.
There are also the telented line of classes from rogue genius, which break down all the archetypes of a given class into 'talents' so you can mix and match and even offer options to mix different classes. Mixing the talented rogue (which inlcudes the ninja) and the talented monk has alot of potential for instance. And as they expand that line, we will eventually have a very modular set of options for pathfinder that avoid most of the pitfalls of multiclassing.
Read the rules, read the guides, read the advice on the forums nad of course experiment by yourself. There is no easy way to aquire experience but to constantly strive for expanding your knowledge.
This is the solution for the opposite of my problem! I'm not lacking in experience, or knowledge and understanding of the game. Quite the opposite, I feel that my experience and familiarity drastically constricts the space of options which I can see as fun.
I occasionally feel like you do Jasin. My best suggestion is to consider playing within the bounds of your theme or "awesome concept" an additional challenge. *Most* of the time the game is not so hard that you can't make less than perfect, even less than *useful* choices and still come out on top.
I often will draw inspiration from others. See if you can get a cool concept from someone who doesn't have optimization fore-front in their mind, then build it yourself in the most flavorful way.
I suppose that it’s natural when given options that people will want to chose the “best” option, otherwise it could seem like a wasted opportunity. On the other hand, in a way PC power in Pathfinder is kind of an illusion, no matter how powerful a PC a player or players make the GM can adjust the difficulty of the game to compensate.
The reverse is true too, if the players make weak characters the GM can make the game easier to help the weaker PCs, while keeping the challenge of the game at the right level. This works best if all of the PCs are around the same “power level” IMO.
If all of the players can agree to a certain level of optimization, even if it’s fairly weak and if the GM agrees to adjust the difficulty of the game, then it doesn’t matter if the PCs aren’t super strong. This is probably good in theory, but judging the relative power level of PCs is not science and you don’t have control over the other PCs.
In short talk to your other players and GM and see if they can all agree to a lower level of optimization. I guess you could use the iconic characters as a yardstick of sorts, if your PC is more OP than they are you need to adjust downward.
Multiclassing anything in pathfinder is generally a bad idea.
Also a lot of min/maxing options are actually traps.
I suggest that you find a concept and then pick the right class/archetype combo.
For example your "urgrosh-wielding dwarf fighter who multiclassed into evoker" in pathfinder would be a dwarf magus, who does scale into high levels well.
I generally find that multi-classing = bad only if you are planning to run a campaign where you need to be a certain level at a certain time, for example level 20 at the end or you will be dead meat. If you are playing a pretty relaxed home campaign where all of the characters are not necessarily the same level then this is much less of an issue.
Think for instance of PFS where you might have a level variation of several levels at a table. Fighter 9 with rogue 10 and cleric 8. It doesn't really matter if you add to that a wiz 9 with 5th level casting ability or a sorcerer 9 with 4th level or a wiz7/something 2 with 4th level casting. Sure it makes a difference, but all of those options are mechanically viable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i think the question/issue is: do you want/need to be effective or to be 'the best'?
i'm sure your initial reaction is 'effective' but honestly consider the question- are you worried about taking something that's not completely min/maxed because you're worried that you won't be able to contribute adequately, or because you're afraid someone will out-shine you?
if the answer truthfully is that you're worried about carrying your own weight you really may just need to familiarize yourself with some more good options... a dervish dancing fighter won't put up the damage numbers of one with a greatsword, but it can certainly put up respectable numbers (and with a typically higher AC, and the potential for Crane Wing, they're actually more 'tank'-ish), and a 2WFer with a high enough static bonus can actually pass the 2hander's damage per round (though they do have a harder time with above average ACs); likewise, while there are always 'go to' spells there are enough potent options for spellcasters to support a variety of completely different builds with different foci (including- summoners, blasters, enchanters, battlefield controllers, etc). the issue may just be that you're in a rut. instead of worrying about making a familiar character with sub-optimal options, try making a completely different character and optimizing it to do something you've never done before? you might not end up the 'star of the show' but with a little effort you can make damn near any concept into a viable character that contributes to the party.
if, on the other hand, you do kind of feel like you need to be the best, the only remedy will be to figure out why you feel that way and address it. i had a streak at one point where like 3 characters in a row that i made ended up being the most powerful party member at the levels we played... so for the next guy i played i made a halfling bard focused on party buffs and using Aid Other. he was a lot of fun and removed any pressure i felt for my next guy to be 'the best'. something like that might be worth a try?
above all else- try to remember that rule #1 is always "have fun"... if you're really enjoying the guys you're making/playing than don't worry about it, if you're not (which sounds like the case) then just remind yourself that having fun is more important than being completely optimized and pick the options that seem the most enjoyable for you. (if it helps, think of it as optimizing for enjoyment, lol)
|
|
Nate Lange brings up a really good point. In my experience there are two types of optimizers. Those that choose a concept and optimize it as best they can. Then there are those who eliminate options if any other option is better. Sometimes all it needs is to be marginally better to eliminate other options.
Also, chaiguy brings up a goo dpoint about power level. Knowing the system well lets a person see in advance how a character will perform. Not only on their own but alongside the other PCs at the table. While a GM can adjust difficulty, its challenging to do if one player needs the game to be easier and the other needs it to be harder.
4E supposedly narrowed the power gap and curbed the trap option problem. If you are considering the issue great enough you want to try another system, maybe that would be a good option to look at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the first thing to realize is the nees for extreme optimizarion is an illusion. If your previous experience with aps suggestes optimization was mandatory then honestly? Someone was doing it wrong. While some ap are harder than others you can likelty survive all of them with a mechanically incompetent but tactically competent character.
Really a 10th lvl barbarian with power attack and lousy feat rage power choices can stil beat someone to death with a spoon.
The key really is design your char in the frame work of the people you play with.
I play with 5 people 4 pf which are players and 50% of them are bad at the game yet we've still finished 2 aps.
This is the solution for the opposite of my problem! I'm not lacking in experience, or knowledge and understanding of the game. Quite the opposite, I feel that my experience and familiarity drastically constricts the space of options which I can see as fun.
I feel for you. Houstonderek's solution was to convince me to rewrite the entire game to actually support our style of play, but that may be a more time-intensive task than you had in mind.
I occasionally feel like you do Jasin. My best suggestion is to consider playing within the bounds of your theme or "awesome concept" an additional challenge. *Most* of the time the game is not so hard that you can't make less than perfect, even less than *useful* choices and still come out on top.
That's a good point. This guided a lot of my thinking in the earlier 3E days. I made a lot of bards, fighter/wizards, and finesse warriors.
i think the question/issue is: do you want/need to be effective or to be 'the best'?
i'm sure your initial reaction is 'effective' but honestly consider the question- are you worried about taking something that's not completely min/maxed because you're worried that you won't be able to contribute adequately, or because you're afraid someone will out-shine you?
No, no, you're quite right; I want to be the best. Not compared to the rest of the party, but compared to other versions of the same character.
An example to illustrate the kind of thing that bothers me, and the kind of choice I consider a trap: I took Intimidating Prowess for my last character. It said my character was such a badass that people weren't just afraid of what he might do to them, they knew what he could do. Even though it had the same effect the feat seemed a lot cooler than the bland Skill Focus (intimidate). Just look at the names! But I didn't raise my Str as much as I expected, and Intimidating Prowess ended up being a strictly inferior version of Skill Focus (intimidate). And it kept nagging me, even though it was really just a couple of points of intimidate modifier.
the issue may just be that you're in a rut. instead of worrying about making a familiar character with sub-optimal options, try making a completely different character and optimizing it to do something you've never done before?
That's really good advice, I think! Most of my characters do tend to be variations on the same broad theme, and going completely outside of that might very well bring some of the novelty back.
|
From your example, I feel that you are afraid of not being able to correct an inadequate choice (which you had no way of knowing before).
It is something I know well.
My advice is Talk with your GM. Explain to him how much of your fun comes from making the character that most matches your concept and ask to be able to rebuild your character when you feel it is necessary, while keeping as much as possible the same so as not to create any overwhelming continuity issue.
I believe that most GMs could agree with this, as long as the concept is not Max-out DPR or some such game-breaking, unbalancing, limelight-hogging shenanigan ;-)
I feel that it can work best if the concept is based on the story (ie, an interesting character) rather than on mere system mastery.
I did it with my characters in both RotRL and Serpent's Skull (and Living Arcanis a long time ago) and used my creativity to explain the differences of build through the story. It actually gave me far more interesting characters to roleplay as a result.
This has been said, but let me say it from another point of view to emphasize it.
You know the old saying "I don't need to outrun the bear- i just need to outrun the guy next to me?" That's something like the GM's view on power level. If every party member is optimized, the GM can adjust. If every party member is not optimized, the GM can adjust. If 1 or 2 party members are optimized and the rest aren't, the GM cannot easily adjust and has a very difficult time running the game. Either one or two characters ROFLSTOMP everything or the rest of the party dies while the optimized character is challenged.
Your goal should not be to make the most potent character. Your goal should be to have a flavorful but workable character, where "workable" is of an equal power level with the rest of the party. If everyone else is minmaxing too, then you are going to be more limited because your party will need your character hitting hard so they can survive. But even then, having an optimized character does not mean winning the DPR Olympics.
The first goal is to have fun. If not having the most optimized character leads to you feeling uncomfortable enough that it's not as fun, then stick with the optimized stuff. Still, I'd research alternate builds because there are a lot very effective builds out there, and it takes EXTENSIVE system mastery for one person to figure out all the angles. Even then... nothing prevents you from using that extensive system mastery to find the undiscovered superbuild that nobody's thought of because it's unconventional. Your characters can be the playtests for your theorycrafting.
If your group isn't full of hardcore optimizers who want to be be challenged, then you have a LOT more room for creativity. I'd try developping a concept first and then statting out the character accordingly. I find traits to be extremely useful in playing up the flavor aspects of my character. Having one 'oddball' skill to flesh out your character is another useful tactic. I play alongside an optimized fighter who has maxed out Profession: Baker. The character regularly mixes baking references into his speech, and often bakes the party celebratory treats. Members of that party don't feel like they're traveling alongside a two dimensional fighter. They feel like they're travelling alongside a friendly neighborhood baker who just happened to take to the road. NOBODY can call that fairly optimized character two dimensional.
But assuming your group isn't heavily optimized, my best suggestion is to dive into a play style that you haven't tried before. Want to be the mage? Be a necromancer, or an SoD enchanter, or a melee focused transmuter and team buffer, or a blaster. Be the hexcrafter magus who focuses on debuffs. Be the grappling melee guy. Be the party buffer and tactician who can give out teamwork feats to the party members. Find something you haven't done, or put a new twist on something you've done before. Give yourself a time limit when creating the character so that you don't check every available source for the most optimized possible combo. Or (if you'd just pull the optimized combo from memory) try a bunch of test builds and see if there's a new way to do something that you haven't used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can roleplay and be mechanically competent, one doesn't prohibit the other.
This. I can't even fathom how people can think otherwise.
I had a player who HAD to play a Warblade because otherwise, "I'd just probably be a conjuration wizard..." From my point of view, in a party that isn't min/maxing out the wazoo a fighter is more than sufficient for your beatstick needs. If you want more options, pick a combat maneuver and run with it. I'm also the kind of DM that is more than willing to try out new things and give players more options to have fun with, and the fact that this player found the need to not only play a class only for its raw mechanical advantage (he also wanted me to use the Piecemeal Armor system for min/maxing and wanted a greataxe that he could turn into a spear...) just kind of felt wrong in the party. He didn't want to be the melee fighter, he wanted to WIN the game.
He ended up not being able to play through our adventure path because of work-related stuff, but to set a counter-example to full-on optimization, in the same party we have a neutral good conjuration wizard with the teleportation subschool. One of the more powerful builds in the game, right now, is perfectly balanced with the sniper rogue because the player chose to make a character who AVOIDS KILLING. That's the kind of higher-level challenge that you can give yourself if you have really high system familiarity and are good at maximizing your options. When he summons a creature it primarily trips or grapples. Create Pit is his favorite spell (I mean, naturally...) and the player is perfectly fine with sitting back and letting others shine. In fact, the party as a whole is pretty good at respectfully letting one another be the best at something.
I think for a lot of people they want to "win the game," and that's something I'm all to familiar with (pro rating at Halo, MTG, play rugby, etc.). But for a lot of people "the game" in Pathfinder, D&D, what have you, is not a race but rather a measure of fun. If everyone is having a good time, then the game is being won. What throws a wrench into this is when players feel like they need to beat something in a group where others don't feel the same way. Maybe setting a goal to see "how many times can I _____?" or "I'm going to use my crazy maxed-out Acrobatics to try to fight the entire encounter on a tightrope," challenges that play to the optimization but let you challenge yourself in a different way than flying through monsters as fast as possible might be a different way to enjoy "trap" options.
If your goal is to be the best gat dayum quarterstaff fighter in the world, then that "trap" turns into a potential boon. If your goal is to be the best surgeon in the history of ever, your Heal is going to be over the top. If your goal is to be the best at killing Aberrations, then by god each and every one of them will rue the day they crossed you; even if your campaign is mostly fighting undead, I'm sure your DM will recognize this and throw you a bone or two. Let others shine, and they'll let you shine.
I love nate lange's post, There is nothing wrong with power gaming at all if that's what you find fun. But if you want something different their is nothing wrong with taking a concept and optimizing it to be the best it can be, whether it be a generally supbar concept or not.
EDIT: granted it does matter on the general optimization level of the rest of your group, but from what you say it seems they happen to be less optimization focused than you, so should work out well i would think?
Try and pick a concept and min-max work within those constraints.
For example, I am currently building a fighter in PFS who specializes in only taking standard attacks. For him a full attack will not only include feint but also Felling Smash and Greater Trip.
Build a character who throws things, daggers, shuriken, axes, whatever. Throwing builds are particularly difficult but it's fun to think of someone who can accurately throw a dagger 100 feet (belt of mighty hurling, distance thrower, far shot).
Build a character that focuses on debuffing. A magus with merciful rimed frigid touch with the enforcer feat? You have an enemy that is shaken, staggered and entangled.
Min-Max differently :)
Really challenge yourself.
Play a Sorcerer whose two first level spells are "Comprehend Languages" and "Mount." He comes from a very long line of couriers...
What does your character do when they aren't murder-hoboing?
Play the game towards your character's goals, rather than your metagame "I Will Be The Best At X!" goal as a player.
Can you make a melee fighter work without taking ANY damage boosting or to-hit boosting feats?
Can you make a character work whose 20 point start buy looks like this:
13, 13, 15, 13, 13, 13
Your feats and mechanical options do not make your character unique. What your character believes in and strives towards - and the obstacles (often personal) that they overcome to reach those options are what make your character unique.
If you MUST make a mechanically unique character, try to make a Paladin around the Prone Shooter and Elephant Stomp feats, just to prove that you're so awesome as a player that you can take the two crappiest feats in the game and make it work.
|
One other thing that you can do is deliberately handicap yourself. For example, when I played Living Greyhawk, I decided to try the heavily multiclassed mutt character with evasion that it seemed everyone was doing at the time and I worked out that a Paladin/Monk/Pious Templar would end up with heinously good saves, evasion and mettle to essentially ignore everything that allowed a save and could still deal some very good damage. But rather than try to overshadow everyone else, I decided to make the character a halfling and build in size and strength (and favored class) handicaps. I didn't end up struggling to contribute (other than race, the character was optimized after all) and ended up with a really fun character. I'm convinced the fiendish shadow dire bat my party fought really died of shame after being grappled to death by a (enlarged so that it was actually possible) halfling girl and it's probably best not to imagine what the frost barbarian who challenged a "party member" to unarmed combat had to endure from his clan members after a similar experience.