RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is for this exact reason, that I wish there was some sort of standard given for expected damage per level kinda chart. That way you won't worry about comparing any said character to a super optimized character, and could instead focus on making sure your character can hit a standardized #.
This wouldn't be the end-all-be-all or anything, but a relatively even-handed starting point could be the Monster Statistics by CR chart found in the monster creation section of the Bestiary.
Look at the expected stats for monsters of the CR(s) that you expect to face at your level, and see how well it looks like you'll fare. I.e., look at the AC entry if you're attack-focused and see what you need to roll to hit, compare your own AC to the listed attack bonuses if you plan to get attacked, etc.
Not perfect, but it's a start, and it's the most objective thing I can think of. :)
It is for this exact reason, that I wish there was some sort of standard given for expected damage per level kinda chart. That way you won't worry about comparing any said character to a super optimized character, and could instead focus on making sure your character can hit a standardized #.This wouldn't be the end-all-be-all or anything, but a relatively even-handed starting point could be the Monster Statistics by CR chart found in the monster creation section of the Bestiary.
Look at the expected stats for monsters of the CR(s) that you expect to face at your level, and see how well it looks like you'll fare. I.e., look at the AC entry if you're attack-focused and see what you need to roll to hit, compare your own AC to the listed attack bonuses if you plan to get attacked, etc.
Not perfect, but it's a start, and it's the most objective thing I can think of. :)
It'd be nice if someone more skilled then I at this sort of thing could use that to compile a basic output of what sort of damage each character should be contributing.
So often we see a mediocre build contrasted against super optimized builds, when really this is not the best comparison (unless your trying to make an optimized build). That way you know what AC to strive for, what attack bonus to strive for, and how much damage you should be expected to contribute.
It wouldn't fix everything of course, but it'd be a good start so that we had an objective and fair standard to judge those wack/cool builds that are not meant to be super optimal.
|
It is for this exact reason, that I wish there was some sort of standard given for expected damage per level kinda chart. That way you won't worry about comparing any said character to a super optimized character, and could instead focus on making sure your character can hit a standardized #.This wouldn't be the end-all-be-all or anything, but a relatively even-handed starting point could be the Monster Statistics by CR chart found in the monster creation section of the Bestiary.
Look at the expected stats for monsters of the CR(s) that you expect to face at your level, and see how well it looks like you'll fare. I.e., look at the AC entry if you're attack-focused and see what you need to roll to hit, compare your own AC to the listed attack bonuses if you plan to get attacked, etc.
Not perfect, but it's a start, and it's the most objective thing I can think of. :)
It'd be nice if someone more skilled then I at this sort of thing could use that to compile a basic output of what sort of damage each character should be contributing.
So often we see a mediocre build contrasted against super optimized builds, when really this is not the best comparison (unless your trying to make an optimized build). That way you know what AC to strive for, what attack bonus to strive for, and how much damage you should be expected to contribute.
It wouldn't fix everything of course, but it'd be a good start so that we had an objective and fair standard to judge those wack/cool builds that are not meant to be super optimal.
Isn't that what the Iconics are for?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're fulfilling a needed role in the group, you shouldn't need to worry about if your damage is as high as your party mate's. It is the GM's responsibility to make sure that all characters have their chance to shine.
Me and my group aren't very experienced at PF. We've chosen it as our alternative P&P to a VERY RP focused one.
So we picked up the RotRL AP and we are playing with "quite" optimized characters, it feels more like a hack and slay , which is very good for our group because in the other System there were like 2 or 3 encounters each 8 hour session. Now that our AP became to easy our GM is using a "hardmode" (+3-5CR) to Keep it fun.
Because of this "hardmode" one of our Players feels weak, he is playing a bard and doesn't really realize how amazing his RP could be.
I'm playing P&P for over 10 years now and during my teenage time I almost always played optimized chars because I wanted to "win" the game (which is impossible of course).
Since I've gotten older usually every of my characters has ist own background story. Sometimes I am playing not optimized builds just because they fit the concept or background so well, and it is so easy to play them , because I have an answer for every RP questions which comes up during the session.
I experienced the total opposite as well , for example a dwarven warrior who was asking the group "ummm what would my ancestors/Family/deity do???" basically he could smash everything but didn't know what his character would do "out of combat".
So from my experience (not so much PF experience) a good concept / background-story is almost always better than an optimized build.
IF! you are playing a hack and slay one shot without any RP , an optimized build might be fun.
Jeez... I really wish I could trade groups with you guys. With my usual group(s), their lack of optimization skills holds back my ability to roleplay. I always have to hold back my character for fear of completely overshadowing the group. Like my first character was a 10 Str non-Dervish Magus (I initially had 12 but lowered it so I wouldn't do as much damage) and I literally could not use Spellstrike Shocking Grasp. It was too much power and when I did pull it out my GM thought I was cheating. I legitimately wanted to use this move- the imagery is super cool!
It's really that bad. One time one of my friends had started a campaign and I had missed the first session. On the way to play the second session my friend was telling me about how amazingly strong this one guy's character was and how he was killing everything. I was super hype because this meant that maybe I could stop holding back my character a bit.
It turns out this super strong character was a fighter without Power Attack who fought singleton style with a katana. He had 20 Str, yeah, but this is seriously what passes for strong in my group.
It's really frustrating because I have all these really cool character concepts that would simply be too powerful for me to play.
If you're fulfilling a needed role in the group, you shouldn't need to worry about if your damage is as high as your party mate's. It is the GM's responsibility to make sure that all characters have their chance to shine.
B-b-but sandbox!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two types of 'not powerful enough'. One is when you get the group killed, because the GM isn't toning down his adventure for your underoptimized character.
The other is when the group is doing fine, but your contributions to that success are minor. This doesn't matter unless (a) you aren't willing to play a 'sidekick' role, or (b) the other players think you're holding them back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly frank, it seems like characters of the same level should be about equal in power. Calling a character "weak" or "unoptimized" only makes sense in comparison to other characters of their level, and it feels like the game has fundamentally failed if characters of the same level have wildly different levels of power (assuming you're still making a good faith effort to build an effective character, ie not taking metamagic feats if you don't cast spells).
I mean, if you want to have a story about a character slightly out of their depth, sure go ahead, but do that by playing, say, a level 7 character in a party that's otherwise level 10.
The problem there is how to define effectiveness.
If I purposely focus my character on non-combat abilities (in order to match their concept), that's going to make a character that's effective in the kind of games I play, but not for those who play a more combat-focused game.
That's why it's important to be on the same page as the rest of your group (especially for the GM) in order to avoid that becoming an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why it's important to be on the same page as the rest of your group (especially for the GM) in order to avoid that becoming an issue.
Definitely. Very difficult when you build a "skills" guy and then the GM says "I don't really use skills that much."
I struggle with this all the time. I come up with these cool characters and then when I consider how it would compare against the other players characters, it just fails.
An example is the "Hulk" alchemist. Very neat concept but put a lv 10 of this against a lv 10 fighter with a greatsword and it isnt even close damage wise. Or ranger. Or ninja. Or pretty much anything.
The concept of the duelist. Same thing. Great flair and roleplay but subpar performance.
At what point, if ever, do you say the heck with it and just roll subpar?
I know the game should be about your enjoyment but when you are not really being effective and they guy next to you is, it isnt a whole lot of fun.
I never optimize my characters, the character concept always beats min/maxing.
Here, it seems like I'm losing out. Str magus has less Dex, so less AC and Ref. Power Attack doesn't give the same kind of returns to a magus compared to, say, fighter, considering the lower BAB.
I don't know enough about the magus, but assuming you're correct, there's always going to be some options that are better than others. If you're running an AP and the GM is very strictly adhering to the AP, then maybe overall effectiveness is important.
If you're not running an AP, then a GM has a ton of leeway to balance the characters out through gear distribution, special power allotment, etc.
What does happen from time to time however, is that the numbers trip up a player. If they're only dealing 6 damage on average, and their team mate is dealing 15 on average, then they feel like their character isn't good enough. The funny thing is, if the numbers were obscured (i.e., only the GM ever heard them) this problem would largely go away.
You see this a lot with rolling for stats as well. One player rolls really good stats, another rolls poor stats. Low stat player complains that the game is not fun, they can't contribute, etc. But if you don't let the players know each other's stats, they don't even realize that they're not as effective as their team mate, and thus there is no problem.
As such, I feel this problem is largely cosmetic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never optimize my characters, the character concept always beats min/maxing.What does this statement even mean? I don't know what you're saying here.
Pretty sure they are saying that they just build their character concept and don't worry about trying to make an optimized/min-maxed character, and as such the story concept is more important to them than having the best numbers.
|
Pretty sure they are saying that they just build their character concept and don't worry about trying to make an optimized/min-maxed character, and as such the story concept is more important to them than having the best numbers.I never optimize my characters, the character concept always beats min/maxing.What does this statement even mean? I don't know what you're saying here.
That's what I figured, but I questioned how it was worded.
I never get how people are so proud of this, like it's some kind of grand accomplishment. Two statements always come to mind when I hear people talk like this, and one of them is Stormwind. The other is "You can't roleplay a dead character." These two things aren't mutually exclusive, you can have yourself a flavorful character, or even use the mechanics to give you a cool idea to base a character around.
I saw Hybridization Funnel and the Grenadier archetype for Alchemist, and the idea of someone who uses bombs to shoot airships out of the sky just seemed like a natural fit. It's not hard to have both concepts work in concert instead of acting like one is better than the other.
I never optimize my characters, the character concept always beats min/maxing.What does this statement even mean? I don't know what you're saying here.
Let's say my concept is a charming roguish swordsman with no magical abilities. Intelligent and graceful. Not particularly muscular.
I could approach this by saying, "What's the most powerful character I can make given these restrictions? I wonder if there's anything suitable in the Advanced Class Guide that I could talk my GM into allowing?" And at the end I could say, "Hey, this still sucks. I'd better come up with another concept."
Or I could pick something that sounds right - hey, that's a cool name for a rogue archetype! Now, strength and con of 10, dex 14, charisma 14, intelligence and wisdom of 12... I still have a point left over so let's make it intelligence of 13... What feat sounds right? Hey, I qualify for Combat Expertise now, that sounds like the sort of thing I'd do. Oh, and I was going to be an elf. Add the stat modifiers... Buy a rapier... I don't think she'd wear armor... And the numbers part is done! I have fulfilled my artistic vision! Now to write up my epic back-story!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never get how people are so proud of this, like it's some kind of grand accomplishment. Two statements always come to mind when I hear people talk like this, and one of them is Stormwind. The other is "You can't roleplay a dead character." These two things aren't mutually exclusive, you can have yourself a flavorful character, or even use the mechanics to give you a cool idea to base a character around.
I saw Hybridization Funnel and the Grenadier archetype for Alchemist, and the idea of someone who uses bombs to shoot airships out of the sky just seemed like a natural fit. It's not hard to have both concepts work in concert instead of acting like one is better than the other.
One, Stormwind really should not be tossed around like it is gospel... to say that it is slanted and full of holes is kind. It could be reworded to read exactly opposite of how it does and would maintain the same validity... conjecture and opinion.
Two, I agree with... if the person is intentionally making a flawed character. Therein lies a problem that always creeps into these discussions, people seem to assume that things must be in extremis. Being optimized doesn't mean one must be a total min/max specialist, and conversely not being optimized does not mean being gimped either.
It is perfectly fine... in fact actually designed for... for characters to be built along the baseline and be perfectly viable, without needing to be highly optimized. Way too many people seem to think that if you are not super optimized that you are courting failure, and that is ridiculous. So long as a concept is not pushing a character into excessively flawed or non functional territory, it should be fine. Unfortunately there are those at this end of the extreme as well who seem to think that to have a "roleplay" character, you must buck the system and build something inherently flawed just to prove ones RP chops.
Personally I think it is all silly. Just make a character you enjoy playing and that fits in with your group playstyle and have fun with it. Getting caught up in the extremes at either end of the debate is just a fool's errand.
|
|
I never optimize my characters, the character concept always beats min/maxing.What does this statement even mean? I don't know what you're saying here.Let's say my concept is a charming roguish swordsman with no magical abilities. Intelligent and graceful. Not particularly muscular.
I could approach this by saying, "What's the most powerful character I can make given these restrictions? I wonder if there's anything suitable in the Advanced Class Guide that I could talk my GM into allowing?" And at the end I could say, "Hey, this still sucks. I'd better come up with another concept."
Or I could pick something that sounds right - hey, that's a cool name for a rogue archetype! Now, strength and con of 10, dex 14, charisma 14, intelligence and wisdom of 12... I still have a point left over so let's make it intelligence of 13... What feat sounds right? Hey, I qualify for Combat Expertise now, that sounds like the sort of thing I'd do. Oh, and I was going to be an elf. Add the stat modifiers... Buy a rapier... I don't think she'd wear armor... And the numbers part is done! I have fulfilled my artistic vision! Now to write up my epic back-story!
Okay, I'll admit the optimizer in me just kind of threw up in its mouth reading that.
But for a low op game, that'd be a fine character. And your first paragraph could go "Well I found the Agile Enchantment/Devish Dancer which would allow the mechanics to reflect the dexterous nature of my character, and as a Ranger I could still be stylish and dexterous as well as being handy with a bow too just in case." If you don't want to work to have a great character, that's fine though as long as you're at the optimization standards of your party to the point where you could have a good time with them.
At my table, that character would be dead pretty quickly (and as an aside, Pathfinder isn't a game where you can play a character with no magical gear), but in an AP, they might do decently. Not sure what they'd do in combat (not going to get into a numbers discussion here), but they could have fun. Or they could come on the boards and ask for help realizing a character concept, as I've seen done tons of times before and get advice from experienced optimizers to have a flavorful and mechanically useful character as well.
I don't doubt Stormwind as gospel, but it's really only a sentence that makes sense. The two aren't exclusive, you can argue that, but they're not.
You can't not optimize your character; the character is going to have some level of optimization.
At which point you're arguing semantics. When someone proclaims them self as an optimizer, it generally means they are going to try to be incredibly good at whatever it is they're optimizing towards. Combat is often the case.
When someone says they are not an optimizer, it means they are not concerned with getting every drip of power out of a character concept. They may make some decisions or allocate some character resources towards things that feel right.
They make take Perform (Singing) as a fighter because they really like the concept of a fighter that sings. Or they make take Profession (Sailor) because their backstory is that of a former pirate. Other people would say "Just assume you can sing/sail, don't waste your skill ranks on it."
Depending on the group, just assuming won't fly.
This seems foreign to the first group because they approach character creation from a different direction.
Exactly. And depending on how important character concept is to the person, they may describe that first group as "doing it wrong."