| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you run published adventures they assume a certain baseline, which is not "optimized" but, I think, slightly above the level of "just thrown together." If you run your own stuff (or heavily modify published stuff) I don't think you run into this problem, as long as there is a mechanism for the PCs to choose the level of challenge they are comfortable with.
This article explains what I mean better than I could. ;)
So I think the game encourages system mastery & optimization a bit but not to the extent of, say, higher-tier WoW raiding or similar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Sarcasmancer said. It all depends on what kind of game the GM runs.
Does the GM face the PCs against opposition so tough that only by squeezing every last "plus one" bonus will the party even survive, let alone succeed? Does the GM insist that the players get no time to think about their actions, because their characters don't? Does the GM refuse to let the players take back their mistakes, right down to the last little word that slips out of the players' mouths?
If so, then yes, this RPG encourages player knowledge and ability. But if I had thought that were the only way to play, I would have dropped this hobby the moment I finished reading my first D&D manual.
If the GM runs an adventure intended for a party three levels lower than the actual party, allows the players time to discuss options for their moves with other players, and lets the players take back any mistake, then no, player knowledge and ability are not crucial.
There's no one right way to play PFRPG. If there were, it would have a much smaller fan base.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing isnt strictly necessary. The game has certain expectations if you wan to use it's internal systems (like CR), but everything depends so much on the GM that it isnt strictly necessary.
I'm currently running a moderate difficulty "lite" type game, where I encourage people to mess around. I'm also prepping a super-hardcore short campaign that's set up as a heist, and I will clearly state I expect good optimization in this game. It really depends what you want to do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem with any combat simulation system (pathfinder, dungeons and dragons, and dice-heavy white wolf to name a few) is not the objective power level of players but the relative ones.
A party of power gamers who have perfect system mastery and optimized characters can still have fun and enjoy outlandish challenges designed by a GM with similar understanding.
The problem is when a subset of the party is so much better at the game systems than other players, or worse the GM is less knowledgeable that the players. This creates a situation where it is very hard, if not impossible, to create encounters that are challenging for the powerful players and yet not instantly fatal for the less experienced/less combat focused players. Also if the players are all far more versed in the system than the GM, the GM will struggle to make situations that can handle those powerful players.
Also every group can choose how to play the game. Got a power gamer who kicks the crap out of everything as a Synthesis Summoner? Ban the class. Think that there are too many feat requirements for a monk to be cool? Give the monk some free feats.
The idea is to have a fun and challenging game and the Pathfinder rules are simply a guideline to do that. They are a simulation of reality to provide structure and deterministic event flow. However, it is not a video game; you can change the rules to make it work.
That said, it is a combat simulation, not a roleplay simulator. If you don't like combat, there are systems that are better at modeling non-combat situations than Pathfinder. In fact, you can even use two together; pathfinder for the fights and FATE for the out-of-combat parts, even. Or replace the skills in Pathfinder with a home-brew system. Anything goes*!
* - for local games; PFS is a different story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is when a subset of the party is so much better at the game systems than other players, or worse the GM is less knowledgeable that the players. This creates a situation where it is very hard, if not impossible, to create encounters that are challenging for the powerful players and yet not instantly fatal for the less experienced/less combat focused players.
Well, you see- those of us who have a certain level of skill mastery only optimize our characters to be a notch above the newer players. Thus- fun for all.
Yes, it does take even more system mastery that the optimizers use here on these boards to do it, but it's worth it.
You design a PC who is fun, optimized just enough, and survivable. No need to be the biggest bad-$$$ at the table- the game is not a competition, there are no "winners".
Help the newbs avoid the more crippling mistakes without railroading them. if they want to play a rogue, do tell them about Bards or that super archetype the Ninja- but then if they don't like that idea, just make a few suggestions. Don't say "Oh Noes, rouges are teh suxxor, you CAN'T play one of those, it's badwrongfun."
I find I enjoy the game way, WAY more when the whole table is having fun.
I agree with the rest of the posters that how much system mastery is required is determined by the GM. But I also think that the ammount of system mastery that the other players in your group have used is also a determining factor (assuming that your GM scales to you group).
I don't think that anyone wants to play ineffective (but interesting) character amongst the DPR olympics champions...nor do you want to be superman and steal the spotlight from the rest of the players.
**also a huge +1 to everything Dr deth said above.
|
Hi there all pathfinder people!!
This is not a negative however do you feel that this rpg encourages both good knowledge of the rules and the ability of the player to min max to create a great character.
I ask because there is a massive difference between characters that are well thought through to create brilliant synergies throughout there build and those that are thrown together. Or more to the point not thought through.
I'm curious to your thoughts on this ...
Well, honestly, it does require good knowledge of the rules, however; whether or not your character is "great", greatly depends on your campaign setting and how your GM "rolls". Puns :3. For Instance, a Monk/Druid doing Colossal(12d8+static) damage for 15+ hits a round could very well be super overkill in Rise of the Runelords - telling me that I could have very well chosen something else with more flavor and less math and been doing just fine. At the same time, maybe it's just enough to get by - telling me that campaign or GM style basically requires min/max.
There is always more than one simple variable to include in any question. There are many campaigns and GMs who change those ratios too, depending on the scenario and their style. Pathfinder seems very flexible, which is always a good option in the right hands.
I think you need a good game knowledge but the ability to min max is not all the useful. I find min maxed characters fail more than shine. They are great at what they do but I find them less interesting. A good min max build is great for theory crafting and even trying out in game but I just don't get into the Characters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tabletop gaming rewards creativity more than it rewards the damage your character can do in a round, how high their saving throws may be, or other "numbers".
Ten years from now, when you're sitting around a fire slightly buzzed, you'll be sharing the stories about the weird crap that happened while playing the game. You may not remember many of the saves you made. You'll absolutely remember some of the saves you failed.
"Bob, remember when you failed your saving throw against that succubus and she asked you to...?"
"Joe, remember that time we had to sneak into the Chelish embassy, and Frank thought it would be a good idea to bake a really big cake to hide the barbarian...?"
Hi there all pathfinder people!!
This is not a negative however do you feel that this rpg encourages both good knowledge of the rules and the ability of the player to min max to create a great character.
I ask because there is a massive difference between characters that are well thought through to create brilliant synergies throughout there build and those that are thrown together. Or more to the point not thought through.
I'm curious to your thoughts on this ...
Forums encourage a min/max optimised numbers game.
Most of the players I know in person have a pretty casual attitude. Most of the posters, or at least the louder ones, have a somewhat different attitude. I suspect in part because when arguing points you can say "these are the numbers" and hold a line. The "but it was fun" struggles in internet discussions against the "you are doing it all wrong and you chose crap options". Basically the internet does tend to shape discussions in certain ways, in part because their is so little cost for a hyper aggressive approach.
How people post and how they play are not synonymous. If you ask me for advice I will give you the best option, but as a player I don;t make super character.
I second wraithstrike. I have built a buttload of optimized character, but I've yet to actually play one. I tend to play pretty cobled-together builds.
Oh I play most of the builds I talk about on here and yes they do have the best possible options that I can find. Do note that this doesn't mean every class I build is a caster (a lot are though). But when I wanted to make a necromancer, I looked at all my options, said "Man Bones mystery is garbage and clerics are kind of bad at this now... Gravewalker Witch gets both Command Undead and Animate Dead... and that 8th level ability is incredibly powerful..." and thus I decided my necromancer would be a Gravewalker Witch. Most of the tactics I would use in a vacuum though are covered by the gentleman's agreement I have with the other GM (which helps since his characters are similarly powerful when I'm GMing). You can have plenty of fun playing a powerful character and I would hate to have pick up a worse options just to "balance out" my build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Min/Maxing is indeed only a problem if you ran a publish adventure "as is". Otherwise it means very little if you design appropriate encounters.
Meh, I have never noticed that players with "optimized" (read min-maxed) characters make better contributors at encounter time. Sure, if the encounter plays to that particular character's strengths, she will shine. But for every such encounter there will be four for which the optimized character has little to offer, if the encounters are varied at all.
Much more important in my opinion is creative play: the wizard who saves the day with just the right application of Grease, or the rogue who captures the enemy ship's ballista and turns it on his attackers. The most effective players in the game are the ones with the great moves, not the ones with the great stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really Zalman. The most effective player is going to be the guy who has great moves *and* great stats. Also a truly capable optimized character don't have just one strength. A wizard for example is going to win combat, solve the sphinx's riddle, sneak into the baron's castle and be back on his own plane in time for tea. The Fighter... well he'll get the Dunes of Hal'ker sometime next fortnight.
Not really Zalman. The most effective player is going to be the guy who has great moves *and* great stats. Also a truly capable optimized character don't have just one strength. A wizard for example is going to win combat, solve the sphinx's riddle, sneak into the baron's castle and be back on his own plane in time for tea. The Fighter... well he'll get the Dunes of Hal'ker sometime next fortnight.
Sure, because you know, D&D is a solo PvP game, where two classes are set against each other....oh...wait....
This is not a negative however do you feel that this rpg encourages both good knowledge of the rules and the ability of the player to min max to create a great character.
I ask because there is a massive difference between characters that are well thought through to create brilliant synergies throughout there build and those that are thrown together. Or more to the point not thought through.
I think you're right that the system does encourage system mastery (since it's possible to achieve a substantial improvement if you build your character effectively over just chucking some stuff together). I dont think that means it's all about the numbers though. We certainly dont play it any differently from the other RPGs we play.
It seems to me that RPGs have two distinct realms of play - at the table and between sessions. I dont think that the really mechanically-heavy or involved systems are much different at the table (once you know the rules). I think the difference is more evident in the time you put in between sessions or at least in the reward you get for that time invested.
Not really Zalman. The most effective player is going to be the guy who has great moves *and* great stats. Also a truly capable optimized character don't have just one strength. A wizard for example is going to win combat, solve the sphinx's riddle, sneak into the baron's castle and be back on his own plane in time for tea. The Fighter... well he'll get the Dunes of Hal'ker sometime next fortnight.Sure, because you know, D&D is a solo PvP game, where two classes are set against each other....oh...wait....
Because he totally pitted those two characters in combat against each other. *rolls eyes*
DrDreth everybody!
Do you not see any merit in comparing classes when deciding to take one over another? I know when I sit down to make a character I think, "What class fits my concept best and supports it mechanically? Is there a class that does that better than another?"
The point Anzyr was making is that a great player behind a great class is going to be more powerful than one in a poorer class. And there aren't a whole lot of issues that'll come up to be a problem against a party of full casters, half or partial casters. A party of Wizard, Oracle, Cleric, Ranger is going to have a lot more answers to a lot more different problems than Bard, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue.
This is not a negative however do you feel that this rpg encourages both good knowledge of the rules and the ability of the player to min max to create a great character.
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really Zalman. The most effective player is going to be the guy who has great moves *and* great stats. Also a truly capable optimized character don't have just one strength. A wizard for example is going to win combat, solve the sphinx's riddle, sneak into the baron's castle and be back on his own plane in time for tea. The Fighter... well he'll get the Dunes of Hal'ker sometime next fortnight.a common opinion on the boards, people who think they know what wizards are capable of.
If there are any sort of; traps, constructs or anti-magic areas your Wizard won't be heard of again.
Your fighter can pay for faster transport too, or he can cut a wizard in for part of the share of the loot, bring a healer (just in case) and a rogue for those traps... (yay a party!)
An effective player, is someone who can contribute to most encounters and is a good team player.
No, believe me I *know* what a Wizard is capable. People who think that antimagic field, constructs, or traps are a concern for the wizard are almost always the ones who don't.
Lets start with Constructs: SR: No spells wreck their day. Summons works just fine against them. They usually have problems trying to fly to even hit the wizard. Create Pit makes them the saddest little robot-wannabes in the world. Also... guess who can make their own golems? Give you a hint... they can cast spells.
Antimagic Field: Thank you for nerfing yourself whoever cast this (oh right its a spell.) Oh you got it on a melee? Ok, now use your (Ex) Flight to close with the caster. So unless your a Strix, have taken some feats on Aasimar, or have a mount, you literally nerfed your defenses while taking away your ability to even *fight* the caster. And assuming you do have those? Great, now you have to deal with his called/animated/created minions to get to him. With none of your buffs. Oh yeah and 9th level casters are immune to antimagic fields. Try again.
Traps: Have you heard about this trait called "Trap Finder"? Traps are a joke. Their pretty much useless and there's about 8 different threads on why. But even outside of the fact that anyone can find them with Perception now, and now Trap Finder lets people disable the magic ones. Guess who has always been able to disable magic traps? The guy with Dispel Magic (what you thought it was the Rogue?)
Whenever people bring up team... I get confused. Because I'd rather have another Wizard on my team then a Fighter. Or a Druid. Or a Summoner. Or a Bard. Or an Oracle. Or..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man I was waiting for this to turn into an escalating pissing match.
Please, do continue! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most fun part about playing the numbers game, especially when talking stuff like APs that don't require high optimization, is being able to execute certain unoptimized concepts properly.
Like, if you're just starting out, or you're not a good optimizer, you may be like "I want to make a guy who does X and Y, that sounds like a really fun guy and concept to play" but then you're like "I have no idea how to make that work" or worse, you try to make that work and then you're 6 levels in and you're like "Man, I f%#@ed up big time...this guys sucks, doesn't accomplish what I wanted him to do, and isn't fun."
But if you can tweak a character really hard, you can apply that ability to anything you want. For the most part, any concept is able to be made in this game, if you just know how to do it. And if you know how to make an optimized character, you can make non-optimal concepts better.
You get the best of both worlds, a cool flavorful character, with an off-the-wall specialty...that's still a viable build and a contributing member of the party.
You can't dispel magic you can't see or find - good luck finding a magical trap without a rogue.
You do realize Trapfinding doesn't make you capable of FINDING magical traps, right? Anybody can do that with a Perception check.
Lets start with Constructs: SR: No spells wreck their day. Summons works just fine against them. They usually have problems trying to fly to even hit the wizard. Create Pit makes them the saddest little robot-wannabes in the world. Also... guess who can make their own golems? Give you a hint... they can cast spells.Summons don't even get through DR, we are talking about real Golems not animated chairs or chests. I won't spoil all the AP's and scenarios which you have yet to play. or I could put them under spoilers if you'd like.
Antimagic Field: Thank you for nerfing yourself whoever cast this (oh right its a spell.) Oh you got it on a melee? Ok, now use your (Ex) Flight to close with the caster. So unless your a Strix, have taken some feats on Aasimar, or have a mount, you literally nerfed your defenses while taking away your ability to even *fight* the caster. And assuming you do have those? Great, now you have to deal with his called/animated/created minions to get to him. With none of your buffs. Oh yeah and 9th level casters are immune to antimagic fields. Try again.You clearly haven't travelled in the Mana Wastes? Or enjoyed high-level play yet. Be prepared
Traps: Have you heard about this trait called "Trap Finder"? Traps are a joke. Their pretty much useless and there's about 8 different threads on why. But even outside of the fact that anyone can find them with Perception now, and now Trap Finder lets people disable the magic ones. Guess who has always been able to disable magic traps? The guy with Dispel Magic (what you thought it was the Rogue?)That trait is available for one Campaign... or GM Fiat...
You can't dispel magic you can't see or find - good luck finding a magical trap without a rogue. How many spells of third level can your wizard cast. A rogue can search for traps all day long.
Whenever people bring up team... I get confused. Because I'd rather have another Wizard on my...
I assure you, that any CR appropriate Golem can be taken out by the appropriate summons so by all means list them. And I note you ignored all the other options I provided.
I have played at high level and believe me... antimagic field is just not a concern. As to the mana wastes, sure there's some dead magic zones... you know what you do to get around that? Don't go in them. Send minions... minions are expendable.
And no Trap Finder is not for "one campaign". It's for any campaign. It's a trait, it's published, and you can take it (though not in PFS). Either way you know there's a spell that grants the ability to disarm magic traps right? Aram-Zey's Focus. It literally gives you the trapfinding of a rogue, a +5 bonus to disable device and oh ya you get to roll twice. 2nd level spell. Good day sir.
I don't believe optimization and good characters are mutually exclusive. Sure, someone is going to "power game" where their entire build is going to be centered around "cool things" their character can do. And I do tend to see that more frequently than a really strong character whose entire concept has nothing to do with combat.
However in my group the emphasis is on good characters and role playing. The fun characters get more "screen time" in game, and that doesn't mean the loudest or funniest. It's the most interesting. And we often have sessions where we don't have combat at all but have some cool conversations between characters and NPC's. And of course out-of-game comments and jokes.
But that's our table. There's a synergy between what the players do and what the GM creates and why everyone is there. I am sure there are tables that are really combat, hack n' slash heavy that want to focus on numbers and how many things you can kill. They're heavier on the board game side and the GM's are spending most of their time preparing strong encounters. I tend to think Pathfinder and D&D have always been more about combat.
Short answer to OP: Yes, but it depends on the group you play with.
I assure you, that any CR appropriate Golem can be taken out by the appropriate summons so by all means list them. And I note you ignored all the other options I provided.Nope, not all. Even the smallest adamantine golem would be immune to almost anything you could hope to summon and let's hope it doesn't have any ranged magical attack... or it's own anti-magic aura.
I have played at high level and believe me... antimagic field is just not a concern. As to the mana wastes, sure there's some dead magic zones... you know what you do to get around that? Don't go in them. Send minions... minions are expendable.Except your summoned minions wink out in the Anti-Magic field and you then waste time trying to 'map' the area to get around the zone. How many minions are willing to die for such a callous master? What are you doing for the rest of the week?
And no Trap Finder is not for "one campaign". It's for any campaign. It's a trait, it's published, and you can take it (though not in PFS). Either way you know there's a spell that grants the ability to disarm magic traps right? Aram-Zey's Focus. It literally gives you the trapfinding of a rogue, a +5 bonus to disable device and oh ya you get to roll twice. 2nd level spell. Good day sir.Your're incorrect, 'Peoples of the Sand', yes? It's a campaign trait available to those PC's in the Mummy's Mask campaign. It's not available yet in PFS (and may not be).
Aram Zey's Focus is a great spell; but it's a spell and subject to spells per day. I guess your PC would rest and continue on the next day once his slots are gone for the day. (it also works better when cast on rogue).
Post the golem. Try me. No really... try it.
Summoned? I didn't say summoned now did I. Called minions, animated minions, created minions... all those are perfectly fine to enter a dead magic zone. And believe me a caster who knows what they are doing can have quite the crowd of minions. We have the reserves indeed.
It's a campaign trait, yes. So what? Its a trait and its published. Outside of PFS (which who cares) its available to anyone. And no Aram-Zey's Focus is not better on the Rogue, its better to have another Wizard who can cast Aram-Zey's Focus. Because they can bring their own minions, fly, summon and generally be better then the Rogue.
It's a CR 19... A level 19 caster can kill countless of those with summons without even blinking an eye. I mean geez, its AC is only 33. And only 205 HP. And that 7 Touch. I think a swarm of Lantern Archons could handle that with literally no problems. Can't fly, the Lantern Archons ignore its DR. It's touch is a pitiful 7. Ya, I'm pretty confident that even with Fast Healing 10, all it would take to kill the Golem is one or two castings of Summon Monster 4 to get some Lantern Archons. Doubly so if you bother to give them any buffs.
I'm duly unimpressed.
While numbers can be good and all, it feels like a chore and you cannot foresee the actual results. What if you get bad scores or ability drain? What if you get bad rolls on skill checks and attacks? What if they don't allow this and that in the game?
Character creation should be made while considering factors that the player CAN control. Stats, HPs, available races and classes, gear and magic are not under the player's control due to what the DM can decide.
Min-Maxing is what tends to "kill" D&D in general. Everyone wants to make the PERFECT build and it ends up bumming down other players, because they realize how overly complex their characters can become.
Some builds become ridiculously complex with 2 or 3 classes and then 2 prestige classes in some specific order. Usually, it's also for a one-trick pony, like your character is focusing this one ability.
If you know the rules and such, your character will be great, but if you deep too much into them, you'll screw yourself up. I had a few players who ditched their "perfect" characters because they didn't like how they came out. They thought that they were too boring, even they spent time working on it before the session.
In my book, "optimize" means "less complicated", like in 3D modeling and animation, you "optimize" your stuff to make them easier to render, such as lowering the number of polygons or animation keyframes. Here, it feels like the opposite, as building something as simple as an archer can become complex for nothing.
"Fighter, then Ranger, then Magus, then Arcane Archer-"
WOAW! That is NOT optimizing. THIS is optimizing:
- Fighter with the Archer archetype.
- Ranger with the Archery combat style.
Optimizing = simplifying
Simple, right?
So yeah, build the characters YOU wanna play according to YOUR playstyle and with what YOU know about the rules. Numbers are not gonna save your character anyway.
|
Rules mastery definitely helps, especially with new people.
Defining flanking, helping to look ahead and communicate, asking for help, asking for the "right" help, etc.
I also make toons that are just set for low levels when I sit at a PUG at a con and have an alchemist, a wizard, a witch, a rogue (self proclaimed skill monkey) and an archer...I try and gauge the DM and usually, I need that optimized melee guy, even if I don't feel like it, it will just make the event much smoother.
I do agree that some optimized players take control and some driving role players take offense when they are over shadowed.
I also see the tremedous effects of a well played, rules savy caster versus a typical melee build...some combats they just "own". Edit - well most.
Level also has a huge impact...DMs in my area are pretty soft on low level players...maybe even too much at times. However, once that level 9 kicks in, they are different people behind that screen...and we players know it.
Ultimately, good players can look around a table as the event progresses and see if everyone is engaged... even if the judge is making a rules error and having fun, I usually try and suggest a correction to it after so everyone is aware but not to side track the game. It's hard sometimes with the volumes of rules, FAQs, errata, PFS specific rulings, etc to keep it all straight.
Just try and have a good time.
|
I kind of doubt it. Wild Full Plate, Wild Heavy Shield, 8-10 attacks a round, Rage, and Smite Evil make for a dead anything.Well, you could always find a table for Bonekeep. I would guess the Druid alone (not PFS legal of course) might get through three rooms, but would retreat or be dead by the 4th...
Just got access, not seeing anything that would overly tax him. Action economy might get him, but again, 8-10 attacks helps match that.
Putting ranks in a skill is a negligible sacrifice for a caster, whose power comes almost entirely from their spells.
Especially for the specific example of a Sage Sorcerer who is Int based like a Wizard.
Every argument you put there is against a Sorcerer over a Wizard, not against using a Seeker/Sage instead of a Rogue.