Didn't know that "real roleplayers" stuck to predefined straight jacketed roles that can't be changed based on class you pick.
Sounds like if you tried to do some actual roleplaying, you might notice the fact that the King is probably only going to listen to the Bard.
I can tell by Anzyr's usual righteous sarcastic tone that I must be saying the right things, but I think I'm not saying it right.
I suggest playing the game from the GM's side of the screen. Do plenty of social interaction (as well as battles), and learn to see the world (and the PCs) from the perspective of the NPCs and you'll see what I'm getting at, and obviously failing to relate to you all... But it has something to do with purpose and bearing, and that has nothing at all to do with your Charisma score. Not a bit.
Good luck to OP and his group. Have fun.
Owly look back a page on my response to you please. As a fellow DM, I think you will find it insightful.
I actually am usually a GM (which is why I find it amusing that people on here think I'm usually a player for some reason). And as a GM let me tell me you, the bearing and purpose a person has when they try to convey that impression to others, is based on their CHA score, since you know Diplomacy is a CHA skill. And if your just talking about how they walk/what purpose they have, that doesn't matter since the Fighter can walk with the force of a 1,000 strong army all he wants, but if he wants to convince an NPC of that purpose he's going to have to have to make some skill checks. Cause as a GM I don't penalize people who invest in Charisma, by making handwaving it away. (I recommend most GMs reward stat investment and not handwave away things players invested in.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest playing the game from the GM's side of the screen.
My favorite* argument to see when talking about tabletop games is this sort of "if you GMed you'd agree with me" thing. It's my favorite* because clearly your experience as GMing is the only GMing experience and someone could only disagree with you because they've never GMed before. It's certainly not possible for someone to both GM and think it's really narrow-minded to assume all bards are foppish minstrels while all fighters are manly heroes beloved by kings and peasants alike.
* By "favorite" I mean rather the opposite.
I suggest playing the game from the GM's side of the screen.My favorite* argument to see when talking about tabletop games is this sort of "if you GMed you'd agree with me". It's my favorite* because clearly your experience as GMing is the only GMing experience and someone could only disagree with you because they've never GMed before. It's certainly not possible for someone to both GM and think it's really narrow-minded to assume all bards must be foppish minstrels while all fighters are manly heroes beloved by kings and peasants alike.
* By "favorite" I mean rather the opposite.
I find it amusing because I have more experience GMing then playing sadly. But I always try to be a GM whose game I'd like to play in (which I attribute most of my success to), which I think gives people the impression I spend more time as a PC then I actually do.
But I always try to be a GM whose game I'd like to play in (which I attribute most of my success to), which I think gives people the impression I spend more time as a PC then I actually do.
I think this is really the best way to GM. If even I wouldn't enjoy my own game, why would anyone else?
|
Its seems the players have built characters optimised for combat and to be useless out of combat, which unfortunately seems typical of most threads on the message boards which narrowly equate "optimised" with "max DPR".
Low int/cha character builds combined with no social skill means that if role played correctly (true to stats and skill) you will be crap in non-combat situations so role playing option not really applicable.
I'm against giving non standard class upgrades such extra special skill points etc or alternatively reducing DC of non combat activitives because that undermines the efforts of the other PCs who have made choices/sacrifices to make their characters more versatile.
I would get the players to re-evaluate their characters in light of how they want to play them and then allow them to modify/change their character(with your guidance/input) to suit this.
There a multitude or classes with varied archetype; trait and feats galore; and stats can be arranged to suit.
I'd say that's an inherent problem in the Fighter class.
No other class in the game is ruined so hard by skills.
Note: All following examples assume maximum combat min maxing
Rangers do similar/more damage and have great out of combat ability.
Paladins same as Rangers
Barbarians are in same boat as fighter but do more damage and have 2 more skill points
Slayer same as Ranger
Swashbuckler Same as Ranger
People going into fighter expecting to play ANY character from fiction will quickly realize that Ranger, Slayer, Barbarian, Swashbucker, Cavalier, or Samurai cover that character more completely.
Long Story short: Give the fighter this package, or suggest someone play a different class
1. 4+ skill points a level, Also Fighter skills+ Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Bluff
2. Charisma to will saves in addition to Wisdom
Optional:
3. Flanks and Aid Another using +2 or his Charisma bonus
4. Battlecry: Swift action to give allies Charisma modifier morale bonus to attack roles for 1 Round. Used 1/Day More uses every 5 levels.
5. Give them the option to use Path of War.
Long Story short: Give the fighter this package, or suggest someone play a different class
1. 4+ skill points a level, Also Fighter skills+ Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Bluff
2. Charisma to will saves in addition to Wisdom
Optional:
3. Flanks and Aid Another using +2 or his Charisma bonus
4. Battlecry: Swift action to give allies Charisma modifier morale bonus to attack roles for 1 Round. Used 1/Day More uses every 5 levels.
5. Give them the option to use Path of War.
I'm not a big fan of giving fighters things which key off a specific ability score, since they're supposed to cover all types of fighters, so I'm not a huge fan of 2-4, at least without going through an archetype.
But, yes, I think giving them 4+Int and some other useful class skills would go a long way to making them useful out of combat. According to the OP, they seem to be having fun in combat, so I don't think much of the other ones are useful in this case, and though I think there's room for a Charisma (and/or INT) based Buff-Martial class, (which the Cavalier was partially supposed to be, but Tactician was less useful than it should have been, Banner was just ok, and the rest of the class was too mount-focused) but turning the Fighter class into that isn't the right way to go in my opinion.
How bout 2. as Charisma or Wisdom
That Way a fighter has the option to be charismatic and still has a dump stat?
Also the class you're thinking of is Warlord from DSP Path of War books. It's a great Charisma based Buff-Martial class.
How bout 2. as Charisma or Wisdom
That Way a fighter has the option to be charismatic and still has a dump stat?
Also the class you're thinking of is Warlord from DSP Path of War books. It's a great Charisma based Buff-Martial class.
As I've said, I don't like the fighter to have anything key off an individual ability score. Then again, I usually just house-rule away Bravery, and give them good will progression.
Also, I'm not a big fan of 3rd party material, though DSP is one of the few that I've considered allowing, despite my dislike for both Psionics (which is their big thing) and apprehension about 3rd party materials. Still, as much as I like the idea, I've heard mixed things and I haven't had a chance to look for myself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the point of my post was to give the Fighter MORE toys. Fighters don't need an archetype that trades toys for different toys, they just need more toys.
What you should give fighters is stuff that doesn't increase hit/damage, but increase ability to be useful to others in combat and out of combat.
Freebies like
Force of Personality: Fighter May use EITHER their Wisdom Modifier or Charisma modifier for the Will save.
Flash the Medals: Bonus to Diplomacy checks on first introduction
Night Watchmen: Bonus to perception from time spent on night watch
Practical instruction: Allies gain bonuses to Climb, acrobatics, swim, Str-checks when under instruction of the Fighter
Veteran fighter: Bonus to Knowledge checks to identify combatants.
Knowledge local, Diplomacy, Perception, and acrobatics as class skills.
These kind of changes suddenly turn the fighter from a little mongrel who sits in the corner waiting to murder something into a warrior who is respected by the people and approachable.
Also the point of my post was to give the Fighter MORE toys. Fighters don't need an archetype that trades toys for different toys, they just need more toys.
I agree with that, but those new toys should be of use to all fighters not just a select subset. Anything that's only useful to a subset should go to an archetype, possibly trading away the vanilla "new toys"
What you should give fighters is stuff that doesn't increase hit/damage, but increase ability to be useful to others in combat and out of combat.
Freebies like
Force of Personality: Fighter May use EITHER their Wisdom Modifier or Charisma modifier for the Will save.
Flash the Medals: Bonus to Diplomacy checks on first introduction
Night Watchmen: Bonus to perception from time spent on night watch
Practical instruction: Allies gain bonuses to Climb, acrobatics, swim, Str-checks when under instruction of the Fighter
Veteran fighter: Bonus to Knowledge checks to identify combatants.
Knowledge local, Diplomacy, Perception, and acrobatics as class skills.These kind of changes suddenly turn the fighter from a little mongrel who sits in the corner waiting to murder something into a warrior who is respected by the people and approachable.
I don't disagree that they should get things that aren't just combat, but I don't like these particular benefits for the vanilla fighter. Perhaps it would be something that you pick from a selection of (like a rogue talent or Rage power or the like), But a fighter is a very broad class, which means the class itself should be able to be broad, mechanically. Flash the medals wouldn't make sense for a gruff mercenary, who's never done anything to gain him either medals or fame enough for his name to spread. Likewise, for a fighter who isn't charismatic, or has a high wisdom, Force of personality is a wasted ability, and moreover, it's too narrow, thematically, for a broad class like the fighter.
The Fighter is now both less useful in Combat and is still worse then the Sorcerer at Social Situations, since the Sorcerer can rely on his Charisma (automatically making him better than the Fighter til at least level 5 and spells to overcome any skill deficiencies. Also a Single point (ahaha) in Diplomacy will net the Sorcerer 4 + CHA to Diplomacy which will beat the Fighters investment up to level 9+ without even needs spells or any other investment (and this is why you should just not play a Fighter).
How is the 10 Int fighter less useful in combat by investing skill ranks in Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive? What skills should a fighter be taking that make them better combat?
If the fighter takes Birthmark and World Traveler (Diplomacy) as the "free" traits, the character starts at 1st level with an additional +2 on saves vs. charms and compulsions (since fighters "always fail Will saves;" or so detractors state), as well as an effective +4 on Diplomacy rolls (+1 trait bonus, +3 for it now being a class skill). An 18 Str (+2 race), 14 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha fighter will have +4 on Diplomacy, +3 on Intimidate, and +2 on Sense Motive (1st level). At 4th level, the fighter has +7 on Diplomacy checks, +6 on Intimidate checks (assuming the fighter isn't pursuing the Intimidating Prowess, Dazzling Display chain, and Dreadful Carnage feats), and +5 on Sense Motive checks. An 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 18 Cha (+2 race) sorcerer could put a point in Diplomacy at 1st level, but they are then unable to perform key functions of their role as an arcane spellcaster (identifying magic auras with detect magic on a Knowledge (Arcana), identifying spells cast on a Spellcraft check, or activating magic items); if the sorcerer puts skill ranks in social skills, they are less effective in their key functions (i.e., weaker than they "should" be).
Please note that the topic is "useful outside of combat," not "the absolute best at all levels." Again: Goalposts... Moved...
To all the naysayers: It's OK for the sorcerer to sacrifice a few limited resources (spells), detracting from potential combat power, to be better outside of combat, but if a fighter sacrifices a few limited resources (feats), detracting from potential combat power, to be better outside of combat, the character is horribly gimped and unplayable? Shenanigans again.
I've given two examples of fighters that can be effective in combat and useful outside of combat. All the detractors can say is: "They aren't the absolute best at X, therefore they're useless." Tell you what, go ahead and apply that criteria to professional athletes: "Sorry, Eli, I know you won two Super Bowls, but you aren't as good a quarterback as your brother Peyton, so you're useless. You should quit playing football." Reflect on that. I'm done here, it's getting boring.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To all the naysayers: It's OK for the sorcerer to sacrifice a few limited resources (spells), detracting from potential combat power, to be better outside of combat, but if a fighter sacrifices a few limited resources (feats), detracting from potential combat power, to be better outside of combat, the character is horribly gimped and unplayable? Shenanigans again.
Feats build off each other. Spells don't. A sorcerer can focus on damage dealing spells, but still have some utility spells, without decreasing the potency of the damage dealing spells he already has, as those scale automatically by caster level. Feats however (with some exceptions like Power attack and Combat expertise) rely on future feat investment to scale. There aren't any "spell trees" for sorcerers, but fighters have to deal with the fact that getting for example Greater Trip requires they take 3 total feats and have a tertiary stat investment, and there are plenty of feat trees with more investment than that.
Make it so fighters' feats act more like sorcerer spells in how they scale, and you'd see more fighters taking noncombat feats (though, you'd also probably have to boost the power of said noncombat feats, since for the minute cost of a level 1 spell, a sorcerer can have Charm person, which blows the fighter's Skill Focus (diplomacy) out of the water)
There is no such thing as a wasted ability in Pathfinder. There are lots of useless abilities though and plenty of classes have them. I would give every fighter that list and have the bonuses scale with Armor training. They could refluff any ability on there to match their character.
EX: Gruff Merc and Flash the Medals
Refluff it as his ability to present a proper enough face to potential clients.
There is no such thing as a wasted ability in Pathfinder. There are lots of useless abilities though and plenty of classes have them. I would give every fighter that list and have the bonuses scale with Armor training. They could refluff any ability on there to match their character.
EX: Gruff Merc and Flash the Medals
Refluff it as his ability to present a proper enough face to potential clients.
Were it any other class, I'd be more fine with it, but you're trying to force narrow mechanics onto a broad class, and that's not going to work. Again, I could see it working better as a choice from a list of several out-of-combat abilities, but as something given to every fighter, reguardless of what type of fighter they are, mechanically, thematically, or anything like that, it won't fly.
As for the warlord, I buckled and finally got the PDF, and I can see where you're getting these boons from, but the fighter is a fighter, not a warlord; Charisma is the Warlord's key maneuver stat, whereas a fighter doesn't particularly care about charisma. Trying to twist it so a fighter cares about charisma is simply narrowing down the fighter class, where a better idea would be to grant out of combat abilities that the player of the fighter can tailor to their specific fighter. The fighter is probably the broadest of the classes, meaning anything you give them needs to be equally broad, even if it means the narrower stuff needs to be given as options. You need to understand this, or else all you'll try to do is just rebuild the Warlord with the Fighter, but clearly you like the warlord enough that it's probably allowed at your table anyway, so what's the point?
(As an aside, since the creators of the Warlord were obviously trying to evoke the 4e class of the same name, I find it incredibly annoying that there's no alternative for the Cha focus to be Int based, since I liked the flavor of an int-focused tactician far better than the charisma-focused leader that they decided to use as the template. Also the "gambits" as a way to recover maneuvers are an incredibly annoying mechanic, based off a 4e power that I similarly disliked, and moreover there are far too few of them that by 20th level, there will be plenty you never use, since too many require situationally useful combat maneuvers, and since you take AoOs from attempting them, are fairly bad to attempt without Improved [maneuver]. Of course a 1st level warlord is probably best off, since they can more than likely use both of their gambits, at which point they refresh, whereas a 20th level warlord will probably have one or two they can't use in an encounter, at which point they're out of luck. Definitively an unpolished class, and I expected more from DSP)
What's wrong with giving them all? If its an ability they will never use, then so what? If they never intended to put ranks in diplo, then a +1 bonus/4 levels wont help them anyway.
Also these are not "narrow mechanics" all of those bonuses make sense for almost any sort of fighter. If the fighter you're thinking of is too primitive to obtain work for himself, take turn doing night watch, tell people how to climb properly, or analyze his enemy for weaknesses then maybe you're thinking of a barbarian.
What's wrong with giving them all? If its an ability they will never use, then so what? If they never intended to put ranks in diplo, then a +1 bonus/4 levels wont help them anyway.
Also these are not "narrow mechanics" all of those bonuses make sense for almost any sort of fighter. If the fighter you're thinking of is too primitive to obtain work for himself, take turn doing night watch, tell people how to climb properly, or analyze his enemy for weaknesses then maybe you're thinking of a barbarian.
No, they make sense for the type of fighter you want, but apparently that fighter is just the DSP warlord, so just go play that. But I've played plenty of fighters in the past, and I'd say probably only 50% at most, could gain much benefit from the abilities you listed. And yes, some of them were big dumb fighters, but that didn't stop them from being useful out of combat. Probably my favorite fighter I ever played was a big dumb fighter, but with a great backstory, and flavor, and since it wasn't 3.x I actually had things I could do outside of combat, and they weren't the things you suggested as universal "fixes".
Pretty sure the gambits were intended to be cycled easily at low level and not so much by higher level.
Also, it seems that different games definitely have bearings on Pathfinder.
Also sounds like your idea of a big dumb fighter is a man who can't even fend for himself without a bard to talk for him.
You dont need alot of skills to be useful out of combat, you just need one or two. For example a fighter can put a few points into survival( A CLASS skill) which is very useful going cross country, where my group spends a large amount of time. Another of our player has engineering(another CLASS skill for fighters) and it has come useful several times.
If a Player cannot find ANYTHING to do outside combat, they should think about where they are putting their points into.
If you design a character that just maximizes combat and ignores non combat skills, they should not complain if they are useless outside combat.
If the fighter takes Birthmark and World Traveler (Diplomacy) as the "free" traits, the character starts at 1st level with an additional +2 on saves vs. charms and compulsions (since fighters "always fail Will saves;" or so detractors state), as well as an effective +4 on Diplomacy rolls (+1 trait bonus, +3 for it now being a class skill). An 18 Str (+2 race), 14 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha fighter will have +4 on Diplomacy, +3 on Intimidate, and +2 on Sense Motive (1st level). At 4th level, the fighter has +7 on Diplomacy checks, +6 on Intimidate checks (assuming the fighter isn't pursuing the Intimidating Prowess, Dazzling Display chain, and Dreadful Carnage feats), and +5 on Sense Motive checks. An 8 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 18 Cha (+2 race) sorcerer could put a point in Diplomacy at 1st level, but they are then unable to perform key functions of their role as an arcane spellcaster (identifying magic auras with detect magic on a Knowledge (Arcana), identifying spells cast on a Spellcraft check, or activating magic items); if the sorcerer puts skill ranks in social skills, they are less effective in their key functions (i.e., weaker than they "should" be).
Please note that the topic is "useful outside of combat," not "the absolute best at all levels." Again: Goalposts... Moved...
Lets start with this shall we. Those traits the Fighter just took could have been invested in traits that would buff his poor saves (especially will), in Reactionary to help him go first, to get even slight bonuses to ac or even 1/day reroll a failed saving throw, any of these things would help to make him more effective in combat. At level 1 a human Sorcerer is easily able to toss one point into spellcraft, Arcana and Diplomacy. With a single point investment your Fighter won't catch up until at least level 5 and even then that's after he's made himself worse at combat by taking traits that don't help his combat ability.
Also, I haven't moved any goalposts. My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better. Anything you come with as Fighter is going to look silly next another class doing it. Your above Fighter? He's going to not only get out Diplomacy checked by an Archaeologist Bard, he's also going to gt outfought by one. And that's the point I'm making. Any Fighter who wants to contribute out of combat would be better served by... not being a Fighter.
Also as to the Sorcerer taking a spell that isn't a damage spell, well Tholomyes pretty much said everything I would have wanted to so I won't repeat his post here.
Basically, your argument is trying to bail water from the sinking ship that is the Fighter with nothing more than a teaspoon. To use your own sports metaphor, if Eli and Peyton are on the same team, then why on earth would you have Eli be your QB, when you could have Peyton? The smart play is for Eli to sit on the sidelines until Peyton is unavailable for some reason. Which now that I look it is a great metaphor for the Fighter in out of combat situations so Kudos to you. (Also this is worth reflecting on since it points out the flaws in your argument.)
Pretty sure the gambits were intended to be cycled easily at low level and not so much by higher level.
So what you're saying is you think it's good design for a class feature to get worse as levels progress. Not just comparatively worse, but worse. So noted...
Also, it seems that different games definitely have bearings on Pathfinder.
Also sounds like your idea of a big dumb fighter is a man who can't even fend for himself without a bard to talk for him.
To the contrary, my BDF was decent for social situations, largely for the fact that most people underestimated him. As such, he may not have been good talking his way through things, but he wasn't nearly as dim witted as he seemed, and he was perceptive enough to pick up on when people were lying or not necessarily saying the whole truth. Were your "freebies" instead options like rogue talents or rage powers or such, then, instead of taking abilities that go against concept, I could take stuff that increases Sense motive, or makes it easier for people to underestimate him, which actually supports concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.
I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
I dont see the issue. To the original poster: The issue isn't the classes. Its the players playing the classes. They seem to have prepared for combat, but failed to create interesting concepts to RP when they aren't swinging a sword or kicking someone. I have had entire games revolve around the fighter(The focal point for the "out of combat" portion of the game).
Here is an Idea: Have them write a backstory. Where do they come from. Where are their families. Why did they decide to adventure. What are their goals. Do they have any enemies. What do they fear the most. Likes/Dislikes/Quirks/Issues/ect. Then incorperate that stuff into the plot. That should keep them from feeling "useless".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
It's a good thing there's no skill that you'd have to roll, like... I don't know, "Diplomacy" or "Bluff" or anything, that mechanically adjudicates social situations. Or even a whole skill system that adjudicates pretty much any out of combat abilities, or anything like that. Because otherwise your advice would just be silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good thing there's no skill that you'd have to roll, like... I don't know, "Diplomacy" or "Bluff" or anything, that mechanically adjudicates social situations.My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
And If I was in a game that resolved all social situations with a skill role I think I would fall asleep. Those skills are all well and good but if Your DM (or you) require a skill role to get anything done in a social situation then you are missing out on half the fun of a Pen and Paper RPG. Are there mechanical issues with Fighter or Rogue or Monk... Possibly, but thats not what the OP asked about. They dont need help in the one thing not tracked by Pathfinder... the ability to come up with an interesting character and then roleplay said character.
And If I was in a game that resolved all social situations with a skill role I think I would fall asleep. Those skills are all well and good but if Your DM (or you) require a skill role to get anything done in a social situation then you are missing out on half the fun of a Pen and Paper RPG.It's a good thing there's no skill that you'd have to roll, like... I don't know, "Diplomacy" or "Bluff" or anything, that mechanically adjudicates social situations.My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
And if your DM simply allows the player's ideas and mannerisms to be the only thing that determines the success of a character's roleplaying interaction then you are forgetting that it's an RPG. That's not to say the player of the fighter can't come up with the clever line of dialogue, it's just that it's probably better for him to let another character say the line. Also, fighters can have issues outside of social interaction (they can be decent at intimidate, after all), due to their 2+Int skill points, and lack of class features that help them in areas outside of combat.
Here is an Idea: Have them write a backstory. Where do they come from. Where are their families. Why did they decide to adventure. What are their goals. Do they have any enemies. What do they fear the most. Likes/Dislikes/Quirks/Issues/ect. Then incorperate that stuff into the plot. That should keep them from feeling "useless".
I agree here, though. Simple stuff like this can, at the bare minimum, give you adventure hooks and at least make combat more interesting.
Also, a suggestion for the Monk character: Retroactively make him the Quiggong archetype to give him some spells, increasing his versatility both in combat and outside of it. It might not always be helpful in social interactions, but it might be helpful in other non-combat situations. As for the fighter... I have no idea.
And if your DM simply allows the player's ideas and mannerisms to be the only thing that determines the success of a character's roleplaying interaction then you are forgetting that it's an RPG. That's not to say the player of the fighter can't come up with the clever line of dialogue, it's just that it's probably better for him to let another character say the lie.And If I was in a game that resolved all social situations with a skill role I think I would fall asleep. Those skills are all well and good but if Your DM (or you) require a skill role to get anything done in a social situation then you are missing out on half the fun of a Pen and Paper RPG.It's a good thing there's no skill that you'd have to roll, like... I don't know, "Diplomacy" or "Bluff" or anything, that mechanically adjudicates social situations.My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
Exactly; Anyone can roleplay, sure, but if the system has skills for social interactions, even if 90% of social interactions don't involve rolling of any sort, for that other 10%, you're not going to want the 8 CHA fighter doing the talking. Since you're not going to know when those 10% are, most of the time, the fighter won't want to be the one talking. And, yes, there are situations where this won't be the case, like with an enemy you know you're about to fight, or with a person the party knows well, where you're not likely to have to roll anything, but the former isn't going to be of much value, and the latter relies on the people who are better at this type of stuff to get them to trust you, meaning there's not much the players can do until then.
e
And If I was in a game that resolved all social situations with a skill role I think I would fall asleep. Those skills are all well and good but if Your DM (or you) require a skill role to get anything done in a social situation then you are missing out on half the fun of a Pen and Paper RPG. Are there mechanical issues with Fighter or Rogue or Monk... Possibly, but thats not what the OP asked about. They dont need help in the one thing not tracked by Pathfinder... the ability to come up with an interesting character and then roleplay said character.It's a good thing there's no skill that you'd have to roll, like... I don't know, "Diplomacy" or "Bluff" or anything, that mechanically adjudicates social situations.My point was that Fighter is always going to be worse option to perform out of combat abilities. *Any* class can do this better.I must be confused. When did Pathfinder add a "Roleplaying" stat? Do fighters dump RP to raise STR now?
Here let me present an argument and see if you agree with it.
I like games where players who invest in Charisma and social skills get screwed for not being charismatic or talented in social skill in real life. Yay, my way is the most fun because people who use the game rules don't know how to play cause its a RP not a G. There may be real issues but I don't care because I gloss over them in my campaign anyway by punishing people who want roleplay suave character, despite not being so in real life.
Because that's what your argument is. And that is a bad argument. But hey if you enjoy that kind of game well more power to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like games where players who invest in Charisma and social skills get screwed for not being charismatic or talented in social skill in real life. Yay, my way is the most fun because people who use the game rules don't know how to play cause its a RP not a G. There may be real issues but I don't care because I gloss over them in my campaign anyway by punishing people who want roleplay suave character, despite not being so in real life.
Because that's what your argument is. And that is a bad argument. But hey if you enjoy that kind of game well more power to you.
Im sorry... at what point did I say that investing in social skills and Cha would do nothing for that person? At what point did I say that all social situations should be hand waved and up to the person's actual ability to communicate?
The OP said the fighter and Monk didnt feel they could CONTRIBUTE to out of combat situations. Not take them over or be the face... but actually make a difference. My respose was simply this... Anyone with well developed backstory and a DM who wants to get everyone envolved will be fine. Will they be making all the social roles? No. But can they contribute to the story and the conversation... sure. Can they gather information by actually talking to people... yes. Will they get as much info as the guy with a maxed out GatherInfo skill. No... but they can still figure stuff out and add to the group. Can the DM incorporate the backstory of any character into the plot and make that player fill invested. Absolutely.
My favorite character was a low INT Barbarian(3.5 before the buffs). He didnt have a ton of social skills, but I RP'ed his low INT and had a blast with him. I never felt like I couldn't contribute even though I lacked a huge pool of skills or earth altering spells and abilities. I played him from 1st to 26th level. He along with 2 other long lasting characters became the focal point of the story... A Barbarian, a Fighter and a Monk actually now that I think about it.
I have also seen Rogues/Bards/Wizards with a crap ton of skills/spells that could contribute outside of combat, but they sat in the corner playing words with friends until the combat started. I never said that Fighters/Monks had the same advatages that other classes have when it comes to social situations... and honestly if they wanted to be a face or the social guru... then they should look at another class. But if all the want is to be a part of the story when not in combat... that is easly solved by a little creative thinking.
It all depends on a characters charisma score and how many points they have if any in diplomacy. They still will get a major penalty to do so. At least in my games. I don't care if the player running the fighter gives a oscar worthy performance. I'm not going to give him the same chances of success as the player who has at least ten or more points in diplomacy. It unfair. If a player penalizes himself by taking a low charisma and little skill points it's a choice they make to be less effective imo.
Sure they do; it's definitely a bigger challenge, but it can be done as long as both the player and the DM are willing to look at the full extent of what can be done with the different skills and/or combat related abilities in a noncombat situation.
So don't focus on Diplomacy for every single character in the party. Find some other skill or challenge for them to roll on that gives each character a reasonable chance of contributing to the scene and give them similar results on success (or failure) that gives the party and character what they need without being exactly the same. Roleplaying isn't just about ignoring the dice, and often simply ignoring the rules is counterproductive; treating roleplaying as shaping what dice get rolled and when rather than insisting only Diplomacy will work is a far more effective strategy.
That seems to be a big part of the problem I'm seeing in this thread; expecting the fighter to roll the exact same dice for the exact same reason as a bard or a wizard or a rogue or anyone else is guaranteed to put the fighter in a bad light because the fighter is none of those things. Instead of focusing on what the fighter doesn't have, focus on what they do have; feats of physical prowess to show combat strength and displaying knowledge of how to shape and survive a battlefield are valuable assets in your standard D&D world, and shouldn't be ignored just because the end goal is something other than killing. A lot of tricks and skills that fall out of use in combats or in pure party vs environment scenarios at mid to high levels still retain a considerable amount of value in shaping NPC's reactions in social encounters.
The OP said the fighter and Monk didnt feel they could CONTRIBUTE to out of combat situations. Not take them over or be the face... but actually make a difference. My respose was simply this... Anyone with well developed backstory and a DM who wants to get everyone envolved will be fine. Will they be making all the social roles? No. But can they contribute to the story and the conversation... sure. Can they gather information by actually talking to people... yes. Will they get as much info as the guy with a maxed out GatherInfo skill. No... but they can still figure stuff out and add to the group. Can the DM incorporate the backstory of any character into the plot and make that player fill invested. Absolutely.
This is the key; they don't have to be the best to at everything to still contribute, and it's not that hard with a touch of creativity to make the rules work for them to be able to contribute and participate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Low int/cha character builds combined with no social skill means that if role played correctly (true to stats and skill) you will be crap in non-combat situations so role playing option not really applicable.
I agree. The number of times I've seen a character who is supposed to be barely sentient enough to tie his bootlaces use genius level tactics and try to argue through a logic puzzle, grrrr....
If you give your character an Int of 7, you are role-playing an idiot. If they have a Wis of 7 they are a fool, and if you take a charisma of 7 you have no social skills and are unattractive. To role-play otherwise is to be in defiance of the in-game reality - it's like taking a character with a strength of 7 and "role-playing" you can lift an elephant, it just doesn't happen.
Long Story short: Give the fighter this package, or suggest someone play a different class
1. 4+ skill points a level, Also Fighter skills+ Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Bluff
2. Charisma to will saves in addition to Wisdom
Optional:
3. Flanks and Aid Another using +2 or his Charisma bonus
4. Battlecry: Swift action to give allies Charisma modifier morale bonus to attack roles for 1 Round. Used 1/Day More uses every 5 levels.
5. Give them the option to use Path of War.
I would say...
1. 4+Int skill ranks per level, and Appraise, Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (Dungeoneering), and Perception as class skills.
2. Add Bravery as a bonus to ALL Will saves, not just fear. Or just give them strong Will saves because it takes self-discipline to train that hard.
3, 4, 5. I see no need for this, the fighter is already good at fighting.
Low int/cha character builds combined with no social skill means that if role played correctly (true to stats and skill) you will be crap in non-combat situations so role playing option not really applicable.I agree. The number of times I've seen a character who is supposed to be barely sentient enough to tie his bootlaces use genius level tactics and try to argue through a logic puzzle, grrrr....
If you give your character an Int of 7, you are role-playing an idiot. If they have a Wis of 7 they are a fool, and if you take a charisma of 7 you have no social skills and are unattractive. To role-play otherwise is to be in defiance of the in-game reality - it's like taking a character with a strength of 7 and "role-playing" you can lift an elephant, it just doesn't happen.
Wow... I harshly disagree here. I say, you have the option of playing an idiot or a fool or a character lacking social skills, but to say "you must role-play this way" is the complete opposite of how a roleplaying game should function. Besides, it makes some sense that an INT 7 character could still solve puzzles, as I know some guys who are really smart guys, but they can't solve a crossword puzzle to save their lives, and some guys who... well... are the opposite. Now, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, but I'm not saying Intellegence doesn't play a part, but I'm saying that you don't have to play a supergenius to solve puzzles in a game.
Wow... I harshly disagree here. I say, you have the option of playing an idiot or a fool or a character lacking social skills, but to say "you must role-play this way" is the complete opposite of how a roleplaying game should function. Besides, it makes some sense that an INT 7 character could still solve puzzles, as I know some guys who are really smart guys, but they can't solve a crossword puzzle to save their lives, and some guys who... well... are the opposite. Now, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, but I'm not saying Intellegence doesn't play a part, but I'm saying that you don't have to play a supergenius to solve puzzles in a game.
I get where you're coming from and it's kind of like describing an idiot savant, right? But I think those exceptional cases are, indeed, exceptional and should be represented not by sheer role playing, but backed up with high ranks in a relevant skill.
So for our fighter with 7 Int to be a tactical genius, we'd have to expect him to have a really high rank in Profession: Soldier.
Fat chance.
Wow... I harshly disagree here. I say, you have the option of playing an idiot or a fool or a character lacking social skills, but to say "you must role-play this way" is the complete opposite of how a roleplaying game should function. Besides, it makes some sense that an INT 7 character could still solve puzzles, as I know some guys who are really smart guys, but they can't solve a crossword puzzle to save their lives, and some guys who... well... are the opposite. Now, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal evidence, but I'm not saying Intellegence doesn't play a part, but I'm saying that you don't have to play a supergenius to solve puzzles in a game.
Perhaps I stated my case too simply: A character with an Int of 7 is someone who cannot follow complex threads of thought, and isn't hot on logic. That doesn't mean he grunts his answers, but he's not the sharpest tool in the shed. He could have high wisdom, meaning he is perceptive and intuitive, but this guy thinks about one thing at a time. having him plan complex battle-strategy is beyond what he is capable of, having him follow simple orders and rely on his own judgement is good.
Similarly, if you give a character a low charisma when it comes to social situations he simply doesn't "get it" and will make a fool of himself if he tries. A character with a low wisdom doesn't pay much attention and is easily swayed.
You don't "have" to play a certain way, but if you give your characters poor mental statistics you are metagaming every time you start ignoring their limitations in your "role-play".
Edit:
So for our fighter with 7 Int to be a tactical genius, we'd have to expect him to have a really high rank in Profession: Soldier.
I would say he can learn battle tactics, and how to win a battle, as represented by Profession (soldier), but he's not going to be an original thinker, and he will apply them in a direct manner - a genuinely clever enemy with less knowledge will run rings around him. Think of Marshal Nay and Napoleon - Napoleon was a genius, Nay...wasn't. Nay would follow orders, was very brave, but wasn't that bright. When Napoleon rested during the battle of Waterloo, Nay mistook a withdrawal for a retreat and launched a cavalry charge without waiting for supporting infantry, and Wellington was able to destroy much of the French cavalry as a result.
Are there mechanical issues with Fighter or Rogue or Monk... Possibly, but thats not what the OP asked about. They dont need help in the one thing not tracked by Pathfinder... the ability to come up with an interesting character and then roleplay said character.
Actually..
What could I do for them that the other classes couldn't do better?
I'm not too worried about the rogue, the player who plays him has a very firm grasp of the system, and traps are extremely common, it keeps him very happy.
They are very quiet, and always defer to the other players whenever I try to get them to engage.I will try puzzles, but those two are very very bad at riddles.
Well, they have a lot of fun during combat, and whenever they pass a skill check they enjoy it. The fighter in particular loves to pass swim checks, but at this point in the game swimming is not a challenge.
As far as I can see, Pomkin was interested in mechanical things for the players to do to compete and have more fun.
If anything, he stopped posting in here since this thread exploded into Roll vs Role arguments.
Perhaps this thread would have been better received in the Advice forum vs a General Discussion forum. Maybe some folks would have not treated this as a venue for arguing the value of people's advice.
The divide between role and roll continues. The extremists within either philosophy will do their best to keep any kind of compromise from coming up.
Also the point of my post was to give the Fighter MORE toys. Fighters don't need an archetype that trades toys for different toys, they just need more toys.
What you should give fighters is stuff that doesn't increase hit/damage, but increase ability to be useful to others in combat and out of combat.
Freebies like
Force of Personality: Fighter May use EITHER their Wisdom Modifier or Charisma modifier for the Will save.
Flash the Medals: Bonus to Diplomacy checks on first introduction
Night Watchmen: Bonus to perception from time spent on night watch
Practical instruction: Allies gain bonuses to Climb, acrobatics, swim, Str-checks when under instruction of the Fighter
Veteran fighter: Bonus to Knowledge checks to identify combatants.
Knowledge local, Diplomacy, Perception, and acrobatics as class skills.These kind of changes suddenly turn the fighter from a little mongrel who sits in the corner waiting to murder something into a warrior who is respected by the people and approachable.
I may steal veteran fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The divide between role and roll continues. The extremists within either philosophy will do their best to keep any kind of compromise from coming up.
I'm sorry but I have literally never seen a single so called "roll" player argue against roleplaying. Now, I'm sure someone has, but in this thread (and forum in general) that viewpoint is essentially nonexistent. The problem is certain players have a tendency to decry things like "using the rules" as not "roleplaying". It's these "that not real roleplaying" types that are the sole source of the contention. The rest of us are simply correcting their inanity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I don't think much actual advice on the OP's problems has been given.
On the off chance that said OP hasn't fled in terror from the thread, here is mine:
You say your players are complaining that they can't do anything useful out of combat. Ask them what sorts of things they would like to be able to do, but cannot. What sorts of things they can do, but find to be useless. Get more info.
Hey now! My advice was pretty good. Fighters and Monks are ill-suited to out of combat (Fighters doubly so) and they should probably pick different classes if they want to be less useless out of combat.
Simple. Accurate. Problem-solving.
Can't read 194 posts, but the reason fighters/monks or whatever class that has limited skill points is when the DM forces them to roll every roleplaying interaction.
I had a DM like that. I'd have fun interacting with someone, and then he'd say "roll", and it was like, WTF, why even bother with the roleplay. Sure enough, I'd roll a 2 or 1 and it's a f'n failure and something bad happens.
I simply stopped role playing with that DM, and just said "Let me roll X". After two sessions, he said he missed my role playing. I told him, "That's interesting, go roll a D20 and I'll tell you how I'm going to respond to your comment." I think he figured it out after that.
So, if you want people to feel useful outside of combat, most of the time (from my personal experience) the problem is the GM making everything about rolls rather than role play. Which one is more fun? Sure, you have to role play a bad charisma, but it's a heck of a lot more fun than simply rolling a dice every time for every single thing.
Can't read 194 posts, but the reason fighters/monks or whatever class that has limited skill points is when the DM forces them to roll every roleplaying interaction.
I had a DM like that. I'd have fun interacting with someone, and then he'd say "roll", and it was like, WTF, why even bother with the roleplay. Sure enough, I'd roll a 2 or 1 and it's a f'n failure and something bad happens.
I simply stopped role playing with that DM, and just said "Let me roll X". After two sessions, he said he missed my role playing. I told him, "That's interesting, go roll a D20 and I'll tell you how I'm going to respond to your comment." I think he figured it out after that.
So, if you want people to feel useful outside of combat, most of the time (from my personal experience) the problem is the GM making everything about rolls rather than role play. Which one is more fun? Sure, you have to role play a bad charisma, but it's a heck of a lot more fun than simply rolling a dice every time for every single thing.
So basically you like to punish players who want to roleplay suave characters without being suave in real life and reward bad roleplayers who roleplay as a suave person even though their character is not.
Is that really your position? Because the problem there seems to be that you didn't want to roleplay your character and if you wanted to roleplay being good at interacting with someone you should have put in the requisite points.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So don't focus on Diplomacy for every single character in the party. Find some other skill or challenge for them to roll on that gives each character a reasonable chance of contributing to the scene and give them similar results on success (or failure) that gives the party and character what they need without being exactly the same. Roleplaying isn't just about ignoring the dice, and often simply ignoring the rules is counterproductive; treating roleplaying as shaping what dice get rolled and when rather than insisting only Diplomacy will work is a far more effective strategy.
Again the Fighter does not have enough skill points to really broaden his horizons so to speak. As well if a player is going to give a character low int and cha he is going to roleplay those stats in my game. Meaning he fails more often then he succeeds in social situations
Anything else is a player metagaming out of character. While trying tobe as good as another player who has high int and cha. I'm all for roleplaying. I'm not going to ignore the rules or dice. If that's the case why even have any social related skills. Might as well just let everyone roleplay equally. Letting the DM listen to each player then decode who does better.
That seems to be a big part of the problem I'm seeing in this thread; expecting the fighter to roll the exact same dice for the exact same reason as a bard or a wizard or a rogue or anyone else is guaranteed to put the fighter in a bad light because the fighter is none of those things. Instead of focusing on what the fighter doesn't have, focus on what they do have; feats of physical prowess to show combat strength and displaying knowledge of how to shape and survive a battlefield are valuable assets in your standard D&D world, and shouldn't be ignored just because the end goal is something other than killing. A lot of tricks and skills that fall out of use in combats or in pure party vs environment scenarios at mid to high levels still retain a considerable amount of value in shaping NPC's reactions in social encounters.
The problem I'm seeing is players wanting to get their cake and eat it too. At the expense of other players at the table and the rules. If a player puts low stats into int or cha he puts himself at a disadvantage. I'm not going to have that player be as good if not better than the player with high int or cha. It's not being fair to players who take the time to build and invest in making a social character. He can roleplay knowing that in social situations at my table he fails more often then he succeeds. It's not being unfair. It's not being a slave to the rules. It's following the rules and treating everyone equally.
|
|
Enough with the DM punishing roleplaying at the expense of dice roleplaying BS. If your going to make a character with low int and cha then you suffer the copnsquences for it.
Why should any player be given a free pass on boosting con and Str and possibly dex at the expense of being less good at social situations. By that logic as might as well allow someone who boosts Int and cha at the expense of str and con the same ability to hit and damage like the fighter. As well as being equally successful at doing combat manuevers or shrugging off damage.
This is not the rpg to indulge in a free form style of roleplaying such as FATE. I wish it was but it's not imo. Not unless it gets houseruled.
My dwarf started with an 8 Cha. I still roleplayed his Diplomacy checks as needed and accepted that he was not going to succeed at all of them. Part of the game, and you do few players favors by hand waving that part of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My dwarf started with an 8 Cha. I still roleplayed his Diplomacy checks as needed and accepted that he was not going to succeed at all of them. Part of the game, and you do few players favors by hand waving that part of the game.
Exactly! And hey if you put in enough ranks into eventually you would be just fine at it. Just not as good as someone who has the same ranks + charisma. Which is great!
I mean its almost like you were roleplaying a character based on some kind of statistics and rules that were written down in a book that everyone agreed on using.