Just wondering if other players have had this problem as most builds I've seen for characters seem to be very similar to each other in there choice of feats magic etc
Anyone else found this problem?
Depends I think.
Some classes have a simple few builds that really shines much brighter then the others (superstitious animal totem barbarians for example). They can have a tendency to end up very similar (build wise) if optimized, but personally, I feel that is more due to having so many options that actually doesn't really help. Looking at the Barbarian for example, some ragepowers gives a swimming bonus while raging (yey?) while superstitious shores up their greatest weakness (saves). Unless you are playing a ship based campaign the choice feels obvious.
On the other hand, mages (wizards, sorcerers etc.), classes that is regarded as being more powerful doesn't really suffer from this as much. Sure, there is a few staple spells that ends up on almost everyone (glitterdust, grease, the pit spells) but as a whole they have a much larger spread of useful builds.
TL:DR I've encountered this problem - and it is usually due to someone playing a "weaker" class wanting to make rational useful choices, and then there is only a few valid ones.
The blame lies with design, not with the players, sadly. Why willfully choose sucky options when there are a few solid choices that really get the job done?
(TWF rogues with full sneak attack, 2 handed power attacking 2hand ftr/savage barbarian?the one with the extra attack, barbarian with come and get me and beast totem, machine gun archer with a mighty bow and arcane strike, super-buffed out gish classes, etc)
That being said, if you find people multiclassing into weird combination dips, or pouring over obscure books for an ever more powerful option, it might be a sign that they are deliberately trying to break the system.
I know you weren't asking for any solutions, but what i've done in my games is to shore up the weaker core options to be worth taking(by having them scale), at least with feats and the use of shields.
Nope, but then again I play with a large and varied group of sharp players. If anything, I'm constantly fascinated with the fun, varied and well-thought-out builds that I see from players in my area.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, but then again I play with a large and varied group of sharp players. If anything, I'm constantly fascinated with the fun, varied and well-thought-out builds that I see from players in my area.
This is pretty much me as well. Optimization can be a fun exercise but I'd rather build the character I see in my head as best as I can, and that's rarely aligned with optimal choices. A character can easily be "good enough" to be effective without being cookie-cutter or ruthlessly optimized.
A skilled player group can win encounters with clever tactics and good teamwork, despite having "non-optimal" builds. I can hop into an AP with a single-weapon rogue or a sword and board fighter(with no shield feats) and be effective and have fun playing.
That having been said, if your group loves playing with optimized characters and you're having fun, you're not doing it wrong. OP, does this "cookie-cutter" pattern you're seeing actually bother you? What are you trying to get at with your thread or is this just a place to vent? APs don't really require optimization, but you probably see more in PFS and some players just don't see the point in playing something that's not "the best."
Really the only true problem in when a particular group isn't aligned on the optimization issue - when some players want it and others don't there can be strife.