Uber builds in actual use?

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I see some of the build recommendations here that I might use for ideas, but I would never really try them as written. They are often hugely focused, have 2 dump stats, the classic 1 trick pony, etc…

Any potential difficulties are just dusted over.

• You only have 1 skill point. Fighters don’t have skills so losing one doesn’t make any difference…
  
• You would have no social skills. It doesn’t matter since low social skills are worse than none…
  
• Sometimes you can’t wear full plate armor. It won’t matter to me since I won’t go to those places…
  
• You have no defense. PF only rewards offense…
  
• Some things don’t have a mind to take over. Not a problem since…
  
• But what about… I’ll just role play…

I personally would never play a PC that can only do one thing in combat and has no clear capability outside of combat. But many of these builds are exactly that. Now my home group is not much of optimizers most of the time. So I would have to be kinda careful to not blow out the curve anyway. But I have been playing PFS a lot this last couple years. I almost never see anyone playing these uber builds.

But those few occasions when I do see an uber focused build in play, the player is usually unhappy with the character. On those few occasions when he can shine, they are on top of the world. But much of the time they are not in their optimal situation and so they sit around and wait, fume, disrupt, get bored, etc… They mostly seem genuinely dissatisfied with their character. They seem to be just sticking with it out of some dogged determination to get through to one of those situations where they can shine and crow. Then they go back to sulking.

So, I’m wonder, how often do you actually play one of the theory crafted uber focused combat builds that you see here in these forums? Did you really enjoy it most of the time?

[andreww]

My favourite sorcerer dumps both strength and charisma and yet happily manages to be an extremely capable face character with masses of skill points and a huge range of mundane and magical solutions to many different problems. On the face of it he is a highly focused starting Int20 character but that tells very little. Sure could have spent 8 attribute points increasing his strength and charisma to 10 at the cost of his con and dex but neither seemed like an appealing prospect.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

But that's not what I'm talking about. Many of these builds don't have "... a huge range of mundane and magical solutions to many different problems ..."

The have one solution.
Hack with falchion.
or
Blast with scorching ray.
or
Cast these 2 buff spells then smite/favored enemy.

I was asking, how often you have tried one of these incredibly focused builds?

The builds do seem very powerful. I probably wouldn't mind having one in the party most of the time. But I wouldn't find it fun to run one.

[master_marshmallow]

Yeah, SAD casters are pretty much a dime a dozen for what you are asking about.

[Imbicatus]

It depends on your playstyle. Some games are tactical combat start to finish and with a bare bones story tying the fights together. Non-combat utility has less value here. The combat monster is at home here, and is needed to survive.

Some games are at the other end of the spectrum and are very RP heavy, with combat happening infrequently. Combat monsters would do poorly here and be a hindrance.

Most games are somewhere in the middle, where the combat monster would have clear benefits and disadvantages.

It really just depends on how your game is played.

[Rylar]

I tend not to dump stats. I may build a focused character, but not a one dimensional one.

[Anzyr]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

But that's not what I'm talking about. Many of these builds don't have "... a huge range of mundane and magical solutions to many different problems ..."

The have one solution.
Hack with falchion.
or
Blast with scorching ray.
or
Cast these 2 buff spells then smite/favored enemy.

I was asking, how often you have tried one of these incredibly focused builds?

The builds do seem very powerful. I probably wouldn't mind having one in the party most of the time. But I wouldn't find it fun to run one.

Uh... all casters have multiple solutions. Paragon Surge users have literally *all* of the solutions. Sure many casters focus around a particular "trick" like Slumber Witches or Color Spray Oracles or Dazing Spell X, but that's not the extent of their toolkit. Far from it. It may be their best trick, but their other tricks are still extremely potent. Also most casters have at least decent skills (Non-Sage Sorcerers and Clerics being the exception) and furthermore have skills that either augment or outright overshadow skills.

Properly built "uber" builds in actual use are well... uber. That's just basic math. And yes, I've enjoyed my Gravewalker Witch and Lunar Oracle (and though less uber my Conjuration Wizard).

[chaoseffect]

For martial character I can see your point, but to be fair most of their tricks involve "I hit it really hard with my X until it dies." Unless you're saying you exclusively deal in switch hitters or focus on CMB (which is its own can of worms really) you are already in one trick pony territory.

Regarding skills, I do agree with the assessment that if you are going to only have 2 per level you might as well dump it down to 1 per level if it makes you much better at what you really care about. Same way for social skills; sure I would prefer to have a +2 to diplomacy instead of a -1, but realistically I still suck pretty hard either way.

Regarding casters, realistically no matter how one-trick-pony you try to be, for any caster they are still incredibly versatile just because even a sorcerer still has tons of other spell slots to fill besides his one signature spell.

Rylar wrote:

I tend not to dump stats. I may build a focused character, but not a one dimensional one.

I disagree with your implication that dumping stats means you are automatically an one-dimensional character; Role play determines that more than anything else.

[andreww]

chaoseffect wrote:

Regarding casters, realistically no matter how one-trick-pony you try to be, for any caster they are still incredibly versatile just because even a sorcerer still has tons of other spell slots to fill besides his one signature spell.

Pretty much this. About the closest any option comes to this is the crossblooded sorcerer blaster and honestly even then they have access to a fair number of different spells, more if they are human or half elf.

[Silentman73]

There are players who enjoy the one-trick pony types; they really like doing some things, and are content if their GM lets them do those things. That's great if it's the type of game they're playing, but when they're looking for a particular kind of game that isn't available, they can become discouraged.

When I see "uber-build" as a phrase, I tend to think about the overoptimized multi-class/prestige class/unending third-party-resource-using builds that are near-guaranteed to one-shot most anything within a 5-6 CR range of their level. It's, again, great if those players are in a game with like-minded players, but when they aren't, the other players wind up becoming, functionally, their cleanup crew, and that stops being fun very quickly. I pity the GM that doesn't get a scenario like that under control with "the quickness". System mastery is nice, but I think those players lose sight of the game's ultimate goal of fun for everyone, not just for them. I just think back to my 3.5 dragon-wildshaping Druid with an ongoing AC of 72... :(

Power is fun. Optimization can even be fun. But sometimes I think GMs can be too lenient, and need to be willing to say "Nope, you can't use that." I still recall, before I took a several-month break towards the end of 3.5 (I came back to playing with 4th Edition), considering running a campaign where the players had access to no books other than the Core Rulebooks (which, as a player, meant they had the Player's Handbook). It was really appealing to me after months of severe power-gaming in 3.5 to strip the game back to its fundamental elements.

[Lincoln Hills]

I disagree with Chaoseffect to the extent that a skill-oriented character (a ranger, a rogue... even cavaliers and barbarians can play, to some extent) does a lot more than hit creatures with weapons; I agree to the extent that even a very limited spell list offers options (at least for a few times each day) that a non-spellcaster simply doesn't have.

In terms of the larger thread, I feel like a lot of the most optimized builds can be compared to a funny-car built by an auto enthusiast. They're super-engineered to excel, but you aren't expected to subject them to street driving - they have issues of street legality, mileage, high maintenance costs, etc. The hyper-optimized build, like the funny car, will either destroy those challenges easily (within its area of expertise) or struggle with something that was meant to be quite simple (outside that area.)

Unfortunately, it takes a lot less brains to copy a high-optimization build than it does to design one, so you'll get these thought experiments brought into play by players who appreciate its strengths but don't really understand what was given up to achieve those strengths.

[Anzyr]

Silentman73 wrote:

There are players who enjoy the one-trick pony types; they really like doing some things, and are content if their GM lets them do those things. That's great if it's the type of game they're playing, but when they're looking for a particular kind of game that isn't available, they can become discouraged.

When I see "uber-build" as a phrase, I tend to think about the overoptimized multi-class/prestige class/unending third-party-resource-using builds that are near-guaranteed to one-shot most anything within a 5-6 CR range of their level. It's, again, great if those players are in a game with like-minded players, but when they aren't, the other players wind up becoming, functionally, their cleanup crew, and that stops being fun very quickly. I pity the GM that doesn't get a scenario like that under control with "the quickness". System mastery is nice, but I think those players lose sight of the game's ultimate goal of fun for everyone, not just for them. I just think back to my 3.5 dragon-wildshaping Druid with an ongoing AC of 72... :(

Power is fun. Optimization can even be fun. But sometimes I think GMs can be too lenient, and need to be willing to say "Nope, you can't use that." I still recall, before I took a several-month break towards the end of 3.5 (I came back to playing with 4th Edition), considering running a campaign where the players had access to no books other than the Core Rulebooks (which, as a player, meant they had the Player's Handbook). It was really appealing to me after months of severe power-gaming in 3.5 to strip the game back to its fundamental elements.

You are mistaken, deeply so Silentman73. The only uber builds that multiclass/prestige class are from 3.5. I can't think of many PF builds that are truly uber that multiclass more then 1 single level and I can't think of any that take Prestige classes. And no one considers 3rd party material at all when creating uber builds, so that's just plain incorrect. Furthermore, most uber builds tend to be Level 20 X (where X is a caster class), and the strongest build in Pathfinder is Half-Elf (or counts as one) Nature Oracle 20.

So... ya.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

Ok, I don't want to get into semantic definitions of exactly what is meant by uber, optimized, focused, or whatever.

Yes, a witch has things other than a slumber hex. But if the person does nothing except slumber hex, ignores any other possible action, and just sits there when slumber hex is not an option; does it really matter?

Yes, the blaster could have something else. But what if he never does? He's got: scorching ray, empower scorching ray, maximized scorching ray, intensified scorching ray, empowered intensified scorching ray, etc... Sure it was effective in combats with opponents that could be affected by scorching ray. However, I found it boring just being next to him. And outside of combat he just sat there.

Yes, the max physical stat axe-o-matic does horrific melee damage. But some of these builds allow virtually nothing else. Is that really fun?

Most of the examples cited above are actually not what I was talking about. They do have and actually utilize their flexibility. They are not focused on exclusively 1 type of combat and nothing else.

A few months ago there was a build with a wis of 10 (might have been 11), int of 7, and charisma of 5. It was a mostly fighter dwarf. Several people were talking about how good it was. I know a person at my PFS local who will probably run it exactly as written if he sees it. But he will probably also be bored a lot of the time we are playing.

[Silentman73]

Anzyr wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

There are players who enjoy the one-trick pony types; they really like doing some things, and are content if their GM lets them do those things. That's great if it's the type of game they're playing, but when they're looking for a particular kind of game that isn't available, they can become discouraged.

When I see "uber-build" as a phrase, I tend to think about the overoptimized multi-class/prestige class/unending third-party-resource-using builds that are near-guaranteed to one-shot most anything within a 5-6 CR range of their level. It's, again, great if those players are in a game with like-minded players, but when they aren't, the other players wind up becoming, functionally, their cleanup crew, and that stops being fun very quickly. I pity the GM that doesn't get a scenario like that under control with "the quickness". System mastery is nice, but I think those players lose sight of the game's ultimate goal of fun for everyone, not just for them. I just think back to my 3.5 dragon-wildshaping Druid with an ongoing AC of 72... :(

Power is fun. Optimization can even be fun. But sometimes I think GMs can be too lenient, and need to be willing to say "Nope, you can't use that." I still recall, before I took a several-month break towards the end of 3.5 (I came back to playing with 4th Edition), considering running a campaign where the players had access to no books other than the Core Rulebooks (which, as a player, meant they had the Player's Handbook). It was really appealing to me after months of severe power-gaming in 3.5 to strip the game back to its fundamental elements.

You are mistaken, deeply so Silentman73. The only uber builds that multiclass/prestige class are from 3.5. I can't think of many PF builds that are truly uber that multiclass more then 1 single level and I can't think of any that take Prestige classes. And no one considers 3rd party material at all when creating uber builds, so that's just plain incorrect. Furthermore, most uber builds...

That's a whole lot of emphatic statement and presumably axiomatic content in one statement there, Anzyr. ;) I'll concede that in your experience there may not have been any instances you've encountered that go past a 1-level MC dip and no inclusion of PrC content to create an "uber build", but I'm not accepting it as empiric evidence, much less irrefutable evidence, of a more general existence of an uber-build that doesn't follow your criteria.

In short, your experience/belief, while valid for you, don't make an objective statement of exclusive reality. My own experiences have been different, both in PF and in 3.5. It's possible our definitions of "uber build" may differ, but... that is what it is. I'm not otherwise interested in arguing with you over the issue. :)

[Anzyr]

Here's the thing. A smart Slumber Witch *is* going to be using Slumber Hex frequently. But only when its the best choice. When it's not, the Slumber Witch has lots of other tools to fall back, since they have SoD covered by the Slumber Hex, the Witch can prepare all sorts of non-SoD spells for a variety of situations. So it never really gets boring. Take my Gravewalker Witch. Sure I had resources invested in making my Slumber scary, but I also had a horde of undead and misfortune to rely on top my usual spells. Furthermore, I had loads of knowledge skills, and a fair number of social skills, with a few points spread out beyond that (5 in Acrobatics for instance). So I'm not sure where your idea of "just sit there when Slumber Hex is not an option" is coming from. Is just incredibly wrong.

Martials are another story, but I don't really play those and couldn't tell you why people find "I hit again" to be fun. I'm sure it is to them, but I just find it droll.

[Anzyr]

Silentman73 wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

There are players who enjoy the one-trick pony types; they really like doing some things, and are content if their GM lets them do those things. That's great if it's the type of game they're playing, but when they're looking for a particular kind of game that isn't available, they can become discouraged.

When I see "uber-build" as a phrase, I tend to think about the overoptimized multi-class/prestige class/unending third-party-resource-using builds that are near-guaranteed to one-shot most anything within a 5-6 CR range of their level. It's, again, great if those players are in a game with like-minded players, but when they aren't, the other players wind up becoming, functionally, their cleanup crew, and that stops being fun very quickly. I pity the GM that doesn't get a scenario like that under control with "the quickness". System mastery is nice, but I think those players lose sight of the game's ultimate goal of fun for everyone, not just for them. I just think back to my 3.5 dragon-wildshaping Druid with an ongoing AC of 72... :(

Power is fun. Optimization can even be fun. But sometimes I think GMs can be too lenient, and need to be willing to say "Nope, you can't use that." I still recall, before I took a several-month break towards the end of 3.5 (I came back to playing with 4th Edition), considering running a campaign where the players had access to no books other than the Core Rulebooks (which, as a player, meant they had the Player's Handbook). It was really appealing to me after months of severe power-gaming in 3.5 to strip the game back to its fundamental elements.

You are mistaken, deeply so Silentman73. The only uber builds that multiclass/prestige class are from 3.5. I can't think of many PF builds that are truly uber that multiclass more then 1 single level and I can't think of any that take Prestige classes. And no one considers 3rd party material at all when creating uber builds, so that's just plain incorrect.

...

Any builds that do not conform to the standards I established in my post are not really worthy of being called "uber" (an exception or two may exist, but generally speaking this is objectively correct)). You may do so if you choose, but please understand that objectively they are inferior to the builds styles I mentioned. That's not in "my experience", builds in PF that dip more then 1 level or take large swims in Prestiges classes are objectively weaker then straight builds. Again, the strongest build in PF is Animal Oracle 20. That's not subjective. Please feel free to demonstrate a heavily dipped or prestige class you feel is "uber" and I'll show you what a truly strong build is capable of using pure 20 levels. Out of fairness I won't use Animal Oracle 20, since that proves my point largely by default.

[Akerlof]

I have a fighter archer, totally one dimensional, 7 int for 2 ranks/level. He's a ton of fun to play, I can really get into character with him and he has a well defined personality, but when it comes to skill checks he just has to sit on the sideline. If I had 4 or 5 skill points a level... I still would most likely have to sit on the sidelines because I don't have the stat synergy or class skills to do any better than just about any other character: I have no social skills as class skills and even a well rounded build can't afford more than 12 or so points in Cha. Same goes for knowledges. I can climb or swim, but since I wear armor, not as well as a Monk or other "agile" class and I don't even have Acrobatics as a class skill. For this character, the class has a far greater impact on how he plays out of combat than anything I consider a reasonable build.

Then there's my Evangelist Cleric, he's even more aggressively optimized than my fighter (Why should I care about 5 Str when a Wand of And Haul is 750gp?) Persistent extended DC 21+ Commands out of a 3rd level slot simply stops anything that's not immune to Mind Effecting. Those will become Suggestions and Greater Commands out of 4th and 5th level slots, all while he's Inspiring Courage and channeling to confuse the bad guys. He only gets 1 more skill point/level than the fighter but those 3 skill points give him much more bang for the buck: Bluff and Diplomacy are tremendously useful and key off my secondary stat, so I get both in and out of combat utility from the points I put into Cha. He is tremendously fun to play and can contribute to every part of an adventure, and when the situation calls for his schtick he absolutely dominates.

My Inquisitor is similar to the Cleric: I built him for combat (though not as optimized) and he is great at hitting things with a pointy stick. He can also do just about anything you could ask for out of combat: All the social skills (that run off his casting stat thanks to Conversion Inquisition, but that's only a net of +3 or 4 difference), lots of bonuses to useful skills like knowledges and sense motive, and more than enough ranks a level to keep everything high enough to be relevant. He'd be a great, well rounded character even with 0 support from the build.

So, in my experience, the design of the class has a lot more to do with flexibility in and out of combat than the build you take. I might be able to make a Fighter who is as useful out of combat as my Cleric (skill-wise), but he'll be far, far less effective in combat. I can't build a Fighter to do everything my Inquisitor does out of combat, and if I tried he wouldn't be able to do anything in combat.

[Silentman73]

Anzyr, let me take one relevant piece of your post; it'll show why I have zero interest in arguing with you.

Anzyr wrote:

Any builds that do not conform to the standards I established in my post are not really worthy of being called "uber"

You're not interested in objective argument, you're only interested in argument which accepts your personal definitions as the baseline from which to argue. In other words, you're doing what, in debate, is called "begging the question". One can't logically refute what you say if your premise is based on the pre-existing notion of what you say already being the only method by which truth can be determined. It's like a fan of heavy metal saying, "Any music which doesn't conform to my definition of 'good music' can't, in reality, be good." In short, they're saying that no music aside from heavy metal can be "good". You're saying that no definition of uber that doesn't meet your personal criteria can, in fact, be "uber".

No thanks. Internet discussions requiring massive logical fallacies just make my head hurt. :)

[Anzyr]

The method that I am using to determine uberness is "Can overwhelming defeat a varied number of encounters including those above CR+4 by itself." Oddly enough, this is objective and can be proven and thus not subjective as you say.

For example, in the case of the half-elf Animal Oracle, having an infinite Initiative, AC, Saves, CMD, etc and access to the entire arcane and divine spell list make doing the above exceedingly trivial. But no please post a build you feel is superior. Because this is an objective test we can simply compare what you post to the half-elf animal oracle 20. See how easy objectivity really is?

[Lincoln Hills]

Blame the terminology, not the poster. We constantly argue in these boards over "optimized" characters, and a lot of virtual ink is utterly wasted because the term is so vague.

I suppose we could actually develop a language that is mutually-agreed-upon and clear, but that's really more of a scientific community approach. On the boards it's easier to skip the definition of terms and jump straight to the rant. (More fun, too!)

A thread setting out degrees of "character optimization" would at least have us arguing about the terms, rather than using them without defining them.

[Anzyr]

Well I agree Lincoln Hills that "optimized" is a pretty vague term, since virtually everyone who plays "optimizes" to some extent. The only way to really avoid this is to either intentionally pick subpar choices (though arguably you are "optimizing" being in subpar in this case), or pick all your features at random.

However, when discussing "uber" things get significantly clearer. Since "uber" implies the best of the best optimized builds.

[Lincoln Hills]

Oh! Well, if that's the term we're using, then yes - 'uber' characters are savants who stand around waiting for their specialty to become important. Which is why so many Pathfinder 'ubers' are specialists in applied violence: if they were playing Butler: The RPG they'd dedicate 100% of their build to housekeeping, domestic administration, and dining room etiquette.

And Jeeves would be a GMPC. ;)

[Anzyr]

I did say varied challenges. With infinite CHA and the entire arcane and divine spell list at it's disposal, a half-elf animal oracle 20 is a fantastic butler.

[MattR1986]

No..that isn't "optimized" its clearly munchkin antics where some clown found a loophole of combining multiple things toward an unforseen consequence or someone found poorly worded language..that or the typical twisting language into a pretzel to suit peoples needs.

Do you think the devs intended stuff like paragon surge cheese or infinite anything? No. If someone came to me with that and cried RAW I would direct them to pages 12 396 and 402 and tell them to try again.

[Corvino]

Animal Oracle? I don't see that as either a mystery or archetype on d20pfsrd.com. Is it something that doesn't translate well?

[Lormyr]

MattR1986 wrote:

If someone came to me with that and cried RAW I would direct them to pages 12 396 and 402 and tell them to try again.

I think that is two different conversations.

Conversation #1 is what is legal when strictly combining game mechanics.

Conversation #2 is what does a given individual GM allow or disallow for their particular game in order to achieve their desired ballpark of power level.

[Anzyr]

Corvino wrote:

Animal Oracle? I don't see that as either a mystery or archetype on d20pfsrd.com. Is it something that doesn't translate well?

I meant Nature Oracle. The trick revolves around its level 20 ability granting you the animal type and thus qualifying you for Awaken. Then after being Awakened (and becoming a magical beast) you can turn yourself back into an animal and repeat ad naseum. (Not sure how I messed that up, had it right in my initial post, but meh.)

Also, I'm sorry MattR1986, but obviously there will be GM's that will not allow powerful builds. That is no indication that are not uber builds, and in fact indicates that they *are* uber builds. As Lormyr says, you are trying to have conversation #2, which is kind of a waste when discussing uber builds, since after all if they are uber its very likely a GM won't like them.

[MattR1986]

There is a difference between something being powerful by carefully selecting things that complement each other well, and scouring for something that has unintended consequences to break the game.

Paragon Surge cheese is not powerful, it's finding something that I'm pretty sure they did not forsee that gives you unlimited spell access. Do you think they really had intended that when they put it in? Let's use common sense.

Stuff like this reminds me of the movie Bad Words (a great movie btw. If you like Bad Santa you'll love it). By "RAW" he was following the rules. In reality he was a dick that found an improperly worded loophole in the rules.

[Anzyr]

I am positive they intended for the caster to get a feat with it and that the developers considered a number of valuable feat choice like instant access to specific metamagic feats. Did they consider specifically Improved Eldritch Heritage? Probably not. Did they consider Expanded Arcana, I'm more inclined to say they did since it seems like an obvious choice. Regardless the ability itself is being used precisely as intended, namely to acquire a feat. If they misjudged anything, it was the power of that effect, not of "What happens when you combine X and Y".

It's the same with Blood Money. They clearly intended it to be used to cover expensive material components. If they didn't realize people could get high STR, the issue is not their intent, but rather the power of the base effect in the first place.

Of course intentional or not none of this addresses the fact that it is an "uber" build.

[I3igAl]

Anzyr wrote:

Corvino wrote:

Animal Oracle? I don't see that as either a mystery or archetype on d20pfsrd.com. Is it something that doesn't translate well?

I meant Nature Oracle. The trick revolves around its level 20 ability granting you the animal type and thus qualifying you for Awaken. Then after being Awakened (and becoming a magical beast) you can turn yourself back into an animal and repeat ad naseum. (Not sure how I messed that up, had it right in my initial post, but meh.)

So you gain 18 Int(maximized), +3 Cha, +2HD everytime you spend 2000 GP. Nice trick, but I think the OP was referring more to the normal optimized builds, than to obviously broken things(Wish loops, etc.).

You have to send this character to some beastmass challenges however. Only investing 100k, less than 1/4 of ones starting gold could net this character +100 HD and +150 Charisma.

That being said, I agree with most posters, most of it depends on your class:

If you are a Fighter it normally won't help much investing in versatility via skills etc. There will always be someone, who has better stat synergy to pull of most skills.
Combat Maneuvers won't be that good and if you wanna make them useable, turn you into even more of a one trick pony. Hitting things with a sword will almost certainely be the way to go.

A Paladin with 7 Int will still make an awesome party face, having high Cha and diplomacy for a class skill. If you go for 12 Intelligence you will have three skills, but loose damage, to hit and AC while Smiting, saves and your viability as the partys talker due to losing out on charisma.
No matter how you build your Paladin, you can still do some Cure stuff using your spells and other class features.

If you are a caster, you gain insane utility from your spells. Even a wizard, who invested all his feats into blasting, can still effectively toss out a haste spell for example.

Narrow builds in Pathfinder can still do most of the stuff a more versatile build does quite well. Widely spread builds often won't be able to compare to other characters, who have class features or stat synergy helping them with certain skills. A Fighter needs to invest multiple Feats and traits to be as charming as the sorcerer.

[Artanthos]

chaoseffect wrote:

I disagree with your implication that dumping stats means you are automatically an one-dimensional character; Role play determines that more than anything else.

Dumping stats does not automatically make you one-dimensional

However.....

It really burns me when a character who dumped both intelligence and charisma is played as both smart and social.

[Anzyr]

Spend GP? What are you talking about? That's what Blood Money is for. (Also don't forget to Maximize *and* Empower it for an extra +1 CHA each time.)

I mean you could send it through some beastmass challenges... but I think "Overwhelming Victory" can be applied just by eyeballing the situation. Even as you say with "only" +150 (or +75 ability bonus) is an overwhelming amount of Initiative/AC/Saves/CMD and Spell Save DC.

[Anzyr]

Artanthos wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

I disagree with your implication that dumping stats means you are automatically an one-dimensional character; Role play determines that more than anything else.

Dumping stats does not automatically make you one-dimensional

However.....

It really burns me when a character who dumped both intelligence and charisma is played as both smart and social.

I'm ok with that depending on their skills. And even if they don't have the skills, I'm still ok with playing their character as smart and social as long as they're ok with taking penalties to intelligence and social skills and thus not ending up being very smart or social.

[Artanthos]

I3igAl wrote:

If you are a Fighter it normally won't help much investing in versatility via skills etc. There will always be someone, who has better stat synergy to pull of most skills.

I disagree.

I have fighters that are very versatile. They may not be "the best" at any one skill, but they are competent at more than a few.

[wraithstrike]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I see some of the build recommendations here that I might use for ideas, but I would never really try them as written. They are often hugely focused, have 2 dump stats, the classic 1 trick pony, etc…

Any potential difficulties are just dusted over.

• You only have 1 skill point. Fighters don’t have skills so losing one doesn’t make any difference…
  
• You would have no social skills. It doesn’t matter since low social skills are worse than none…
  
• Sometimes you can’t wear full plate armor. It won’t matter to me since I won’t go to those places…
  
• You have no defense. PF only rewards offense…
  
• Some things don’t have a mind to take over. Not a problem since…
  
• But what about… I’ll just role play…

I personally would never play a PC that can only do one thing in combat and has no clear capability outside of combat. But many of these builds are exactly that. Now my home group is not much of optimizers most of the time. So I would have to be kinda careful to not blow out the curve anyway. But I have been playing PFS a lot this last couple years. I almost never see anyone playing these uber builds.

But those few occasions when I do see an uber focused build in play, the player is usually unhappy with the character. On those few occasions when he can shine, they are on top of the world. But much of the time they are not in their optimal situation and so they sit around and wait, fume, disrupt, get bored, etc… They mostly seem genuinely dissatisfied with their character. They seem to be just sticking with it out of some dogged determination to get through to one of those situations where they can shine and crow. Then they go back to sulking.

So, I’m wonder, how often do you actually play one of the theory crafted uber focused combat builds that you see here in these forums? Did you really enjoy it most of the time?

I don't think I have seen many of these seriously suggested. I have seen anyone completely ignore defense. The closest I have seen is someone not focus on AC as much as they should.

[CWheezy]

MattR1986 wrote:

No..that isn't "optimized" its clearly munchkin antics where some clown found a loophole of combining multiple things toward an unforseen consequence or someone found poorly worded language..that or the typical twisting language into a pretzel to suit peoples needs.

Matt, do you think you could post without being insulting?

In many of the threads you decide to post in, you are often very negative and insulting, and I would prefer that to change!

Thanks

[Artanthos]

Anzyr wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

I disagree with your implication that dumping stats means you are automatically an one-dimensional character; Role play determines that more than anything else.

Dumping stats does not automatically make you one-dimensional

However.....

It really burns me when a character who dumped both intelligence and charisma is played as both smart and social.

I'm ok with that depending on their skills. And even if they don't have the skills, I'm still ok with playing their character as smart and social as long as they're ok with taking penalties to intelligence and social skills and thus not ending up being very smart or social.

The 5 intelligence barbarian should never be the one spouting off tactics, or planning parting strategy.

He has max ranks in intimidate? Sure, I can live with that. But somehow I doubt he's got all the other skills the player is knowledgeable in.

[CWheezy]

Profession soldier is wisdom based

[Artanthos]

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think I have seen many of these seriously suggested. I have seen anyone completely ignore defense. The closest I have seen...

I've seen several barbarians running around with AC's worse than 10.

Some of them were very well played, from a roleplay perspective. Others were simply min/maxed for DPR. Party healers tend to hate the second version as they are always the first ones to charge.

[Prince of Knives]

CWheezy wrote:

Profession soldier is wisdom based

Profession covers making money to support oneself and others in a profession; that is, Profession (Soldier) has nothing to do with tactics, leadership, or small-unit coordination. It instead covers things like requisitioning supplies, knowledge of military protocol/courtesy, maintaining relationships with the paymaster/quartermaster, and the other day-to-day aspects of soldiery.

[MattR1986]

I really doubt they foresaw someone picking X (Paragon Surge) to Get Y (Improved Eldritch Heritage) to get Z (Expanded Arcana). They likely didn't look 2 steps to see how something like that could happen. You can call it uber but I call it broken.

I wouldn't call someone finding an exploit in a game an uber player. I'd call them finding an exploit to give themself an undue advantage.

Wheezy, if you are offended by the word munchkin (or clown for that matter), I don't know what to tell you. It isn't "dick" or "expletive" or whatever). I call it for what I see it. Munchkining where someone came across this in trying to find a great build, probably went "Eureka!" and then tried to argue with their DM how it's RAW and should be allowed.

AFAI'm Concerned, this is jerkish, and if someone wants to cry martyr to excuse this behavior and want it to be PC like "I'm an Optimizer-American!" I'm not going to let it pass. This is munchkining. Plain and simple.

[CWheezy]

Prince of Knives wrote:

Profession covers making money to support oneself and others in a profession; that is, Profession (Soldier) has nothing to do with tactics, leadership, or small-unit coordination. It instead covers things like requisitioning supplies, knowledge of military protocol/courtesy, maintaining relationships with the paymaster/quartermaster, and the other day-to-day aspects of soldiery.

Many adventures use Profession soldier as the skill used for generals in battle, so I disagree there

Quote:

AFAI'm Concerned, this is jerkish, and if someone wants to cry martyr to excuse this behavior and want it to be PC like "I'm an Optimizer-American!" I'm not going to let it pass. This is munchkining. Plain and simple.

This is obviously negative and insulting. Anyway, if you refuse to change or think your behaviour is acceptable, there is nothing more I can do.

[wraithstrike]

Artanthos wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think I have seen many of these seriously suggested. I have seen anyone completely ignore defense. The closest I have seen...

I've seen several barbarians running around with AC's worse than 10.

That sounds like a really bad idea, but I guess it also depends on how nice the GM is to you.

[CWheezy]

They just have massive DR instead. It can be a fun flavor thing to be a true shirtless warrior if you feel like it

[MattR1986]

You choose to be insulted based on an agenda. If someone came into a server on a video game and found an exploit that gave them infinite weapons and started wiping the floor with bad guys, are you going to be insulted that someone called them a cheater? Playing the martyr and being "offended" to try to stop criticism of bad behavior is a common strategy and smokescreen on these forums, but I don't buy it when its sold. I've talked about this before with the example of someone running out of a bank with a ski mask and cash and then yelling "How dare you! I demand an apology!" to someone who calls them a bank robber.

[Anzyr]

MattR1986 wrote:

You choose to be insulted based on an agenda. If someone came into a server on a video game and found an exploit that gave them infinite weapons and started wiping the floor with bad guys, are you going to be insulted that someone called them a cheater? Playing the martyr and being "offended" to try to stop criticism of bad behavior is a common strategy and smokescreen on these forums, but I don't buy it when its sold. I've talked about this before with the example of someone running out of a bank with a ski mask and cash and then yelling "How dare you! I demand an apology!" to someone who calls them a bank robber.

Not if having infinite weapons was something that was allowed in the game. And continues to be allowed in the game. Then its just a part of the game. It might even be the best "build" in the game. You might call such a build "uber".

You may even note that I listed other "uber" builds I've use in games before and that I have been discussing the Nature Oracle mostly to disprove that dipping/prestige classes/3rd party material, is somehow part of "optimizing".

[Artanthos]

wraithstrike wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I don't think I have seen many of these seriously suggested. I have seen anyone completely ignore defense. The closest I have seen...

I've seen several barbarians running around with AC's worse than 10.

That sounds like a really bad idea, but I guess it also depends on how nice the GM is to you.

PFS

It's like playing russian roulette.

[CWheezy]

Hmmm, I would have to judge the exploit itself. Is the game more fun with the exploit used? Is it hard to do? How does it affect the game? Can everyone do it?

If it is a total negative, and the developers refuse to fix it, I would probably not play the game any more

EDIT: Oh ok matt, now I understand, you are a hero of the forums laying out justice for all. Thank you for explaining why you will not change and believe your behaviour is correct.

[Anzyr]

CWheezy wrote:

Hmmm, I would have to judge the exploit itself. Is the game more fun with the exploit used? Is it hard to do? How does it affect the game? Can everyone do it?

If it is a total negative, and the developers refuse to fix it, I would probably not play the game any more

To follow up on this, some of the stuff that can be done by a skilled player on Starcraft might have been considered an "exploit" the first time they did it. But now many such "exploits" are common strategies that players are expected to pursue. What MattR1986 reminds me of is a guy who hates getting zerg rushed so he implements a "wait X minutes" rule. It won't help him actually get better at the game, just better at the bubble meta he has built for himself.

[MattR1986]

Allowed how? By the Developers not having added in a patch for it yet? The admins not being there 24/7 to kick/ban for using it? That isn't a build when everyone is intended to conform to rules where they have certain weapons. The makers of Team Fortress didn't intend the Scout to have mirvs, AC Cannon and 300 armor.