Solvency-How do you 'have fun?'


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Okay, so here is my problem with Pathfinder: I don't know where the 'solvency' boundary is.

Listen, I can make a character that is broken. It's actually fairly easy to do. Synthesists, pisoliers, certain ninjas, a whole host of multiclass-prestige class dips . . . I can do that. The problem is that I DON'T want to. Broken characters are no fun, ESPECIALLY if not everyone in the party is broken to the same level. Then its just the "you're totally awesome show" with special guest appearances by "The rest of the party that doesn't get to do anything and resents you for it."

I'm just having trouble finding that 'solvency' level. A character that maybe doesn't take the 'most optimal choices' because of a fun character design or that it makes sense for the story, but is still able to stand toe-to-toe with monsters of his level and aren't a drain on party resources.

I made a half-orc samurai who was pretty overpowered, running around with a Katana that had a huge crit range and she did something like 50 damage on a crit. Accidentally. She wasn't broken, but the party still kinda hated her because she was able to outshine just about everyone else in the party.

I made a half-elf Fighter (unbreakable archtype) with a massive amount of Con (leading to a +20 fort save and 190+HP at level 12), a decent strength, but his crit build and poor AC just came up short EVERY TIME.

I just . . . I don't know guys. Whenever I try to build a character that I want to play, and I look online, I just don't know if people saying "take this" or "don't take that" are from a power gamer standpoint, or if they will completely ruin my build and make my character insolvent. Some guy online hates the healing patron for the witch, and says it's horrible, but my party needs someone that can eventually get restoration, do I just scrap the idea and make a boring cleric, or is the healing patron 'sub-optimal but playable?'

I just want to have fun guys, but I'm having trouble walking the line between 'useless drain on party resources' and 'so focused on the crunchyness that I fail to have a character (and I just have a collection of stat blocks.'

Any suggestions?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hard to say where the sweet spot is because it varies between campaign, GM, and a lot of other variables. Its even more complicated because something's are sometimes perceived as powerful that really aren't and vice versa. I know a few characters I've made that I've explicitly nerfed and someone I played with still thought they were too powerful. Lots of stories relating to this in my book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My experience, is the people saying "take this" and "don't take that", has been from a power gamer standpoint. And if you aren't optimizing the hell out of your character you are doing it wrong and having "badwrongfun", and don't you dare criticize those who do optimize the hell out of their characters. I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.

As for the healing patron for the witch... I haven't looked at the witch myself, but apparently making a healer is dumb and you should focus on doing as much damage as possible with as little effort as possible, or rendering your foes useless with status effects, and just poke all the PCs with a wand of CLW after combat.

Personally, if you want to play a witch with the healing patron, just go for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you stay away from touch attacks, don't use Mirror Image, and keep your AC mediocre there's probably a decent chance your PC will be considered fairly reasonable in many groups. I've also noticed that there's generally more good will towards PCs like Barbarians who get hit a lot but have super high HP than towards PCs who are hard to hit but might have half as many HP or less. The former are perceived as fearless guys who stand up front while the latter, even if they're also effective front line combatants, are perceived as cowardly and overpowered.

That said, I'm not sure if there is even a fine line between overpowered and incompetent. Almost any PC who can fill a role competently is at risk of being labeled overpowered at some point.


Witches are a strong class despite what sub optimal choices you make. Full casting and Sleep hex make lots of room for fun stuff.

IMO, play classes that are better balanced. Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists and Rangers are all fun to play while not being able to do everything.

Basically optimized characters are for when the DM takes the gloves off and wants to play a difficult game, using the full extent of the tools he has to make encounters to provide an incredible challenge. Characters who aren't ekeing out every little bit of value from their abilities are going to fall short when the difficulty ramps up.

Adjule wrote:
I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.

You must hate low levels then if you dislike things being one shot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Start with a concept. Then optimize for fun.

If you use your skills to make X the best X possible, you'll have a much better time.

For example, I wanted a crossbow-toting tiefling alchemist. I'm well aware that bows are better, but I don't care.

So, I'm now trying to make the best crossbow shooter I can. It's a ton of fun, and I find ways to be useful.

And I have fun every game.

You need to listen to others less, and listen to yourself more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
I haven't looked at the witch myself...

Err, might help to look at the class.

The witch tends to be low on defenses and patron is one of the few ways to add nice things to save your butt, like mirror image, to your class spell list, and they have a lot of save or suck or save or die spells(slumber Hex in particular), that are very likely to get you called out for being overpowered. Witch's are very easy to build as totally useless also, depending on your hex/spell selection, especially at lower levels, but can also be on the far end of the spectrum with great spell use and hex choices.

Might be easier to be more gish like a combat cleric or oracle, or even bard, alchemist, or inquisitor. Being a jack of all trades lets you do a lot of things and plenty well, depending on build of course, and hopefully you won't be as showy if you aren't smashing your way through combats. Its usually a good idea to keep some healing spells in the form of UMD for those special days you really need them. A wand of Infernal Healing or CLW can help keep you topped off in between encounters without needing to burn or reserve your own resources.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

You can also make a strong character but not play it up to full power all the time - a barbarian who doesn't use rage, an inquisitor who doesn't use his bane ability. You can still bring it out in real emergencies, but the rest of the time you're not outshining the group.

Scarab Sages

Scavion wrote:

Witches are a strong class despite what sub optimal choices you make. Full casting and Sleep hex make lots of room for fun stuff.

IMO, play classes that are better balanced. Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists and Rangers are all fun to play while not being able to do everything.

Basically optimized characters are for when the DM takes the gloves off and wants to play a difficult game, using the full extent of the tools he has to make encounters to provide an incredible challenge. Characters who aren't ekeing out every little bit of value from their abilities are going to fall short when the difficulty ramps up.

Adjule wrote:
I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.
You must hate low levels then if you dislike things being one shot.

Funny story: one of the most overpowered characters I ever played with was an inquisitor. The character had a longbow and most of the archery feats. Able to bane his bow, then then shoot out 5 arrows a round (Manyshot+Rapid shot+blessing of fervor and/or haste from other characters) led to some LUDICROUS fights.

"What? Is that some sort of chaos creature from the dark tapestry? Well, I'm gonna cast heroism, then Bane my bow against aberrations and activate the judgement of Destruction. Oh, is that 2d6+6 damage PER ARROW? Good thing four of them hit this round, that'll be 4d8+8d6+28 damage. Good thing I can do that every round hearafter."


I think maybe Adjule was being a little sarcastic about the common boards advice that healing sucks. I agree that Slumber is likely to get frowned upon. I also agree that Witches often have weak defenses, but I think that most DMs kind of like that.

Scarab Sages

MrSin wrote:
Adjule wrote:
I haven't looked at the witch myself...

Err, might help to look at the class.

The witch tends to be low on defenses and patron is one of the few ways to add nice things to save your butt, like mirror image, to your class spell list, and they have a lot of save or suck or save or die spells(slumber Hex in particular), that are very likely to get you called out for being overpowered. Witch's are very easy to build as totally useless also, depending on your hex/spell selection, especially at lower levels, but can also be on the far end of the spectrum with great spell use and hex choices.

Might be easier to be more gish like a combat cleric or oracle, or even bard, alchemist, or inquisitor. Being a jack of all trades lets you do a lot of things and plenty well, depending on build of course, and hopefully you won't be as showy if you aren't smashing your way through combats. Its usually a good idea to keep some healing spells in the form of UMD for those special days you really need them. A wand of Infernal Healing or CLW can help keep you topped off in between encounters without needing to burn or reserve your own resources.

So what if I don't do that? Healing patron and Evil-eye hex. It's a good debuff, but it's not save-or-die (or, save-or-coup-de-grace as it were). Healing patron gives me access to lots of good spells (remove fear, restorations) but it doesn't make me unkillable (mislead, mirror image, that sort of thing.


VampByDay wrote:
So what if I don't do that? Healing patron and Evil-eye hex. It's a good debuff, but it's not save-or-die (or, save-or-coup-de-grace as it were). Healing patron gives me access to lots of good spells (remove fear, restorations) but it doesn't make me unkillable (mislead, mirror image, that sort of thing.

You know your group and yourself better than I do. Personally I think that'll become a drag on you in the long run and that a lack of defenses if more painful than it is a plus. That sort of gameplay can be really repetitive, and being the healer isn't everyone's gig. Defenses, unless you really are a nigh unhittable character, tend to be overlooked compared to the guy that turns things into a bloody mess before everyone moves or solves every problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're significantly stronger with your theory crafting than your fellow players then a good option is to try and optimize a decidedly suboptimal concept. Do something weird and goofy that you'd never get away with in a more high difficulty game. You can satisfy your play-to-win instincts without totally overshadowing the other players.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't come to these forums for character building advice. This place is dominated by extreme optimizers and you're going to have a very hard time getting help building characters that are effective but within reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:
Don't come to these forums for character building advice. This place is dominated by extreme optimizers and you're going to have a very hard time getting help building characters that are effective but within reason.

Would probably be less insulting and scary if you said to take things with a pinch of salt. When you ask for advice you usually want good advice.


I've seen a lot of advice about avoiding multiclassing with casters. If you ignore it you can come up with some pretty fun PCs who should at least be a little less overwhelming than pure casters (assuming the "good advice" of the boards is really good)

Besides bringing an over the top caster down to earth a bit the right multiclass choices can give your PC some additional flexibility.


Devilkiller wrote:

I've seen a lot of advice about avoiding multiclassing with casters. If you ignore it you can come up with some pretty fun PCs who should at least be a little less overwhelming than pure casters (assuming the "good advice" of the boards is really good)

Besides bringing an over the top caster down to earth a bit the right multiclass choices can give your PC some additional flexibility.

It's exceptional tricky if not impossible to multiclass casters without severely limiting them. Losing casters levels is exponentially problematic. Both classes are unlikely to be able to land any spell with a save DC. Those aren't the only available spells, but losing both higher level spells and save DCs is a huge problem for most casting classes.

Sovereign Court

I've had good results with optimizing my character to make everybody else more powerful. So I play an oracle who casts party wide buffs, status removers, misfortune (dual cursed), etc. Even if he is on the high end of optimization, nobody minds, because he rarely steals the show, particularly in combat situations. And they sure appreciate being able to reroll their save, or having the monk enlarged and able to air walk.

Bards are great for the roll, but full casters, cavaliers, etc. can also be good. Just pick things that will make other people more effective, or prevent them from being ineffective. Cast fly spells on the melee people, protection from alignment on the people with poor will saves, etc. You can know in your head that the party would be getting destroyed without your character, without in any way overshadowing them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:


Adjule wrote:
I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.
You must hate low levels then if you dislike things being one shot.

Actually, I much enjoy the low levels over the high levels. And amazingly I have never had anything 1-shot before level 4 that was an equal CR, even a paladin smiting a demon or undead. They usually end up lasting 2 rounds, which I am fine with as it lets everyone get to do at least one thing.

And mythic makes it a bit worse, but thankfully those rules aren't used much (just in my WotR game I am playing in, which has definitely turned me off mythic completely, past 1 or 2 tiers).


Try a top-down design, that is you focus on your character roleplay first, then design your build around that. The roleplay will give you some restrictions, but may also give you some inspiration. From here you can come up with unique characters who are good at something wacky, but still strong overall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Hard to say where the sweet spot is because it varies between campaign, GM, and a lot of other variables. Its even more complicated because something's are sometimes perceived as powerful that really aren't and vice versa. I know a few characters I've made that I've explicitly nerfed and someone I played with still thought they were too powerful. Lots of stories relating to this in my book.

I was hoping to see this answer near the top of this thread, I'm glad I wasn't disappointed. :)

It's all down to who you're playing with. One group can have a lenient GM that'll rebalance things on the fly to suit their ability and character power level, while another group can be all about tactical movement, optimized builds, and by-the-book CRs. One group may follow the rulebook to near-religious extremes while another might just make up rules for half the game as they go.

For me personally, having a character concept that feels like they'll be fun to play before even looking at the mechanics is really all that matters. For someone else, the mechanics and ability to perform in combat are where their fun comes from.


The first step to having fun is to not play with idiots who get mad at you for honest mistakes. Assuming you've identified and avoided said people, the second step to your issue is to talk to your party and get a good feel on what they consider broken or whatever.

For example, some people may find stuff like pistolero or high damage barbarians perfectly fine, while others may become angry. On the flip side, some people might not like it if you play something like a wizard that rarely kills anything in combat by himself but pretty much solves all of the problems outside of combat by himself.

Honestly, there's no real good answer to this. Just make a character concept and pitch it to the group and see what they think, as that's the only way you'll be able to tell if there will be animosity towards it. If there are problems later or something, talk with your GM to see if you can change things. The only number one rule, I can think of, is don't try to purposefully step on people's toes; if someone has a character with which they put a lot of stuff into doing something well, let them have their chance to shine. If someone pumped a lot of points into linguistics, you don't have to break out the tongues scrolls all the time. If someone likes using so and so manuever in combat, try doing stuff that sets them up like providing flank or possibly drawing AoOs or whatever so they can pull it off. Stuff like that.


FanaticRat is a little overzealous, since not everyone who plays with you having gripes about something being overpowered is an a******; they might have a fairly reasonable concern/complaint, as is evidenced on several "This happened in our session" threads on this site.

But, he has the right idea.

The key to making sure the game is fun for everyone is that you need to communicate with each other frequently in and/or out of game, both the GM and Players, and discuss future plans for your character, whether X, Y, or Z would be allowed to take for my character, etc. (Before a session would be best for this.) Making sure you set the ground rules and discussing what level of power creep or expectation of character development expected from the GM and Players involved is key so as to show what is both fair and enjoyable for everyone who participates.

Not many players want to show up to a session to just watch one character steal the spotlight, or just go unconscious/die for the rest of the encounter/game/session/whatever because their character's power creep isn't anywhere near as good as another character's. I've had a couple of those sessions happen before (I was [and still am] a Fighter; my mistake, really, considering the viewpoints of such a class on these messageboards, but I digress). Those sessions were boring for me since all I really did was look up stuff for my character on my tablet and gave a little advice for other characters who were still around and fighting, but sometimes it's okay for somebody to get shutdown right away; it throws the element and surprise of danger in the game, that bad things can go down at a moments notice, and that you should prepare for it the next time.

I also remembered when I was getting absolutely screwed over on gear drops (we have an elaborate loot system, since we're Evil and all), and I had absolutely crap for items; then after one encounter, I got a +2 Physical Perfection Belt, a +3 Cloak of Resistance, and a +1 Greatsword. I was back on top as the Two-Handed Fighter tank with 29 AC at 9th level (kind of a low-magic campaign; not including Fighting Defensively at 32 or Total Defense at 35).

Anyway...

As the slogan says, sharing is caring. A lot of the times when players are getting overshadowed or left out, they think that those who are doing good aren't really caring about what's happening to the others, and sharing loot, experience, combat opportunities, etc. helps share the fun, and shows to the other players "Yes, I may be strong, but I'm also benevolent." Doing that in turn makes your fellow players stronger, and makes them more of an asset to you in combat, instead of an extra resource you can draw on or a liability you need to always take care of.

I hope these rambling help!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What is OP or broken is subjective. I would talk to the GM to see how the character fits in.


Ah, forgive me, as I don't choose my words very carefully. I meant to say that, in general, one should avoid playing with people who are obviously jerks to begin with as opposed to saying the OP's group is full of jerks. I should have made that clearer, and I apologize for that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Q: where is the boundary between overpowered and not.
A: at your table.

The answer isn't to be found in the system, or on this forum.

The answer - as originally pointed out - stems from the disparity between several builds at the table. It's to be found in the relationships and views and enjoyment that each player your your table experiences. If your fellow players are unhappy, the boundary may have been crossed. If your GM is unhappy, the boundary may have been crossed. If nobody is unhappy, no boundary has been crossed.

In a word, mu.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a recovering power gamer. Many cycles of overpoweredness becoming boring has had me gradually toning down my optimization and tightening/ ignoring exploits/loopholes and making more organic choices as my characters level. Over several years I have become a staunch anti power gaming crusader.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
I am a recovering power gamer. Many cycles of overpoweredness becoming boring has had me gradually toning down my optimization and tightening/ ignoring exploits/loopholes and making more organic choices as my characters level.

If that's what works for you, great. But:

Daenar wrote:
Over several years I have become a staunch anti power gaming crusader. I am unable to accept that other people may have different opinions and preferences than I do.

Being a "staunch anti-power gaming crusader" isn't cool. Being a staunch pro-power gaming crusader isn't cool either.


@Create Mr. Pitt - With all the talk about caster vs martial disparity I see around here I'd think having the casters take a level or two off might be help even things out a little. Giving up a caster level or two shouldn't prevent you from getting through an AP or being able to contribute against creatures of an appropriate CR.


Devilkiller wrote:
@Create Mr. Pitt - With all the talk about caster vs martial disparity I see around here I'd think having the casters take a level or two off might be help even things out a little. Giving up a caster level or two shouldn't prevent you from getting through an AP or being able to contribute against creatures of an appropriate CR.

A couple of levels of a different caster type is really pretty useless. Taking them early weakens a character when it's already at its weakest. Taking them late is basically pointless from a mechanical perspective. Obviously if the levels fit your roleplaying concept, then go for it (you desire to be a wildshaping wizard a la Merlin being discussed in a different thread). But just for parity's sake, pretty silly. If you don't want to dominate the game, just don't dominate it. Only cast when it's necessary, etc. Don't just take extra caster levels that serve no real purpose.


Ipslore the Red wrote:
Daenar wrote:
I am a recovering power gamer. Many cycles of overpoweredness becoming boring has had me gradually toning down my optimization and tightening/ ignoring exploits/loopholes and making more organic choices as my characters level.

If that's what works for you, great. But:

Daenar wrote:
Over several years I have become a staunch anti power gaming crusader. I am unable to accept that other people may have different opinions and preferences than I do.
Being a "staunch anti-power gaming crusader" isn't cool. Being a staunch pro-power gaming crusader isn't cool either.

Hypocrit :) in MY opinion its very cool, sorry if you can't accept that viewpoint. Works for me and sharing my experience,strength and hope with the op in learning how to use a balanced play experience to have fun.


Devilkiller wrote:
@Create Mr. Pitt - With all the talk about caster vs martial disparity I see around here I'd think having the casters take a level or two off might be help even things out a little. Giving up a caster level or two shouldn't prevent you from getting through an AP or being able to contribute against creatures of an appropriate CR.

Well, if you dip outside of your main caster, you lose spell progression and caster levels. It doesn't actually solve any sort of martial-caster disparity imo because they still get a load of utility and options for problem solving a martial just won't. You will fall behind on damage though, and spell level might throw your DCs off because your not throwing up as powerful of ones, and you might not be able to throw on the same amount of metamagic as another caster who kept all his spell slots.

Its weaker in the sense that you aren't as powerful with blaster spells an dyou won't have access to as many or as powerful spells, but supposing you have the same modifier and feats your mass confusion is going to be just as devastating as the mass confusion of the guy to the left of you with all his caster levels. The deadlier abilities won't lose nearly as much steam, and the utility that creates that narrative disparity won't either.

Daenar wrote:
Hypocrit :) in MY opinion its very cool, sorry if you can't accept that viewpoint. Works for me and sharing my experience,strength and hope with the op in learning how to use a balanced play experience to have fun.

I really hope that's a satire of some kind. There isn't some evolution or recovery from a certain style of play. There isn't some rollplayer vs. roleplayer balance either. There's just you and who you choose to be, and being an "Anti-power gamer crusader" sounds pretty opinionated.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VampByDay wrote:
I just . . . I don't know guys. Whenever I try to build a character that I want to play, and I look online, I just don't know if people saying "take this" or "don't take that" are from a power gamer standpoint, or if they will completely ruin my build and make my character insolvent. Some guy online hates the healing patron for the witch, and says it's horrible, but my party needs someone that can eventually get restoration, do I just scrap the idea and make a boring cleric, or is the healing patron 'sub-optimal but playable?'

As much as I respect Paizo, I've found no better way to kill interest in this game than to throw people unguarded into these messageboards which are full of people who drain all the fun out of this game with their clever posturing on "THE ONLY RIGHT WAY TO PLAY'.

Ignore what everyone says online... including me. Play the character you want to play and learn to embrace the mistakes you make. Because they make the triumphs that much sweeter.

Everyone on these boards started as a flaming newb, including yours truly. Just because we each found ways to play, doesn't mean we have the lock on validity. We made our mistakes, along with our triumphs, and grew with them. Go make some of your own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Ignore what everyone says online... including me. Play the character you want to play and learn to embrace the mistakes you make.

Alright, play the character you don't want to play and don't learn anything! Also don't trust me and do the opposite. Do what you want! Create a character that makes your party happy by not being too strong or too weak for you to have fun, right?

Edit: I bet the forum could help with that sort of thing. If you can read past all the opinionated chat anyway, though opinions don't always hurt. Some might even be relevant to your question and full of useful information!


Adjule wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Adjule wrote:
I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.
You must hate low levels then if you dislike things being one shot.

Actually, I much enjoy the low levels over the high levels. And amazingly I have never had anything 1-shot before level 4 that was an equal CR, even a paladin smiting a demon or undead. They usually end up lasting 2 rounds, which I am fine with as it lets everyone get to do at least one thing.

And mythic makes it a bit worse, but thankfully those rules aren't used much (just in my WotR game I am playing in, which has definitely turned me off mythic completely, past 1 or 2 tiers).

Really? My standard greatsword wielding, power attacking barbarian didn't fail to kill anything in a single hit until my 6th or 7th pfs game. It's pretty easy to crank out 20+ damage per hit on a two hander at low levels even without capping your strength.

That being answered, build for power and then tone it down. Being powerful just means you can play up to any level you want to assuming you're not a single flat level power house. On the other hand it means you'll have the power available when you really need it, not to mention it lets you do epic things when the party is just trying to use optimal tactics.

Short answer: Better to build high and play low, than build low and have high power outta reach. Can you sleep everyone to death all the time? Yes. Do you have to? No. But having it as a backup is wonderful.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My advice? If you're a much better optimizer than everyone else, build a support character.

Very few players will complain when you give the entire party +5 to hit and +4 damage at 7th level or the like (very doable on a Bard).

That's assuming you don't feel you're in a position to offer others advice on how to build their characters more effectively, which is what I usually do...but then I'm usually the GM for my group, and so have a certain degree of authority/trust even when I'm not.


The key thing is to identify where the people you play with is. It takes a bit of practice to gauge the right amount but its okay to make a character a little better' than the others.

I think in general, a totally optimized buff the party char probly at no point will cause any players to complain.

In my home group I have 2 players that are experienced, 1 that is basically a non gamer there to socialize with his buds and a 4th that actualy has long experience with rpgs but has a learning disability.

I try to flesh out my core idea and then leave spots to flesh out other aspects of the character. Once you have identified where the core power level of the people you play with lie then aim within that ballpark.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Adjule wrote:
I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.
You must hate low levels then if you dislike things being one shot.

Actually, I much enjoy the low levels over the high levels. And amazingly I have never had anything 1-shot before level 4 that was an equal CR, even a paladin smiting a demon or undead. They usually end up lasting 2 rounds, which I am fine with as it lets everyone get to do at least one thing.

And mythic makes it a bit worse, but thankfully those rules aren't used much (just in my WotR game I am playing in, which has definitely turned me off mythic completely, past 1 or 2 tiers).

Really? My standard greatsword wielding, power attacking barbarian didn't fail to kill anything in a single hit until my 6th or 7th pfs game. It's pretty easy to crank out 20+ damage per hit on a two hander at low levels even without capping your strength.

Lets see... 7 (average damage from a greatsword)+6(4 strengthx1.5)= 13, not quite a one-shot for CR 1 creatures with their average of 15 HP. Barbarian Rage or 2-handed Power Attack adds 3 points of damage and gets you to a clean average oneshot.

I'd like to hear an explanation of your ability to reliably kill cr 2-5 creatures (before exceeding those CRs of course) with a single hit given their ramping HPs. To make it easy I'll post the average HP's so you don't need to look them up.

CR 1: 15
CR 2: 20
CR 3: 30
CR 4: 40
CR 5: 55

And remember, you explicitly said in a single hit, getting two hits from a full attack with Haste doesn't count.


If it's an unofficial game then take whatever stuff you want for the flavor concept you're looking for and get the GM to houserule until it's balanced enough with the rest of the group. Also, if your GM is savvy enough, he/she can tailor things to be more compatible with what you can do with minimal rule changes. A combination of houseruling and tailoring of session content can make even the most normally weak character viable.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
My advice? If you're a much better optimizer than everyone else, build a support character.

This is very good advice. Not only bards but also things like buffing (or debuffing) clerics. If the support character is overpowered, the whole party wins.

Another strategy you could take is to choose to play the weaker character type and try to optimize that. Starting with a class that is behind the others means you have to work harder to keep up. You want the guy playing the rogue to have a bit more system mastery than the other players.

Peet


kyrt-ryder wrote:


Lets see... 7 (average damage from a greatsword)+6(4 strengthx1.5)= 13, not quite a one-shot for CR 1 creatures with their average of 15 HP. Barbarian Rage or 2-handed Power Attack adds 3 points of damage and gets you to a clean average oneshot.

I'd like to hear an explanation of your ability to reliably kill cr 2-5 creatures (before exceeding those CRs of course) with a single hit given their ramping HPs. To make it easy I'll post the average HP's so you don't need to look them up.

CR 1: 15
CR 2: 20
CR 3: 30
CR 4: 40
CR 5: 55

And remember, you explicitly said in a single hit, getting two hits from a full attack with Haste doesn't count.

Use a Falchion and you'll do it consistently enough. 17 damage with Rage and Power Attack that goes up to 34 when you Crit. Level 4, 20 damage and 40 damage when you crit. Witchhunter could bring this up another +2 or +4 on a crit. A Magic Weapon brings it up +1 or 2 on a crit.

23 Damage, 46 on a crit. Toss in allied or potion Bull's Strength and Enlarge Person or both and we're at 29 Damage, 58 on a crit. Bardic Inspire Courage nets us another +2 damage or +4 on a crit which puts us at 62.

Falchions rock.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Adjule wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Adjule wrote:
I found that part out when I said being in a party with such characters kills any fun I have when they can 1-shot a creature of their CR.
You must hate low levels then if you dislike things being one shot.

Actually, I much enjoy the low levels over the high levels. And amazingly I have never had anything 1-shot before level 4 that was an equal CR, even a paladin smiting a demon or undead. They usually end up lasting 2 rounds, which I am fine with as it lets everyone get to do at least one thing.

And mythic makes it a bit worse, but thankfully those rules aren't used much (just in my WotR game I am playing in, which has definitely turned me off mythic completely, past 1 or 2 tiers).

Really? My standard greatsword wielding, power attacking barbarian didn't fail to kill anything in a single hit until my 6th or 7th pfs game. It's pretty easy to crank out 20+ damage per hit on a two hander at low levels even without capping your strength.

Lets see... 7 (average damage from a greatsword)+6(4 strengthx1.5)= 13, not quite a one-shot for CR 1 creatures with their average of 15 HP. Barbarian Rage or 2-handed Power Attack adds 3 points of damage and gets you to a clean average oneshot.

I'd like to hear an explanation of your ability to reliably kill cr 2-5 creatures (before exceeding those CRs of course) with a single hit given their ramping HPs. To make it easy I'll post the average HP's so you don't need to look them up.

CR 1: 15
CR 2: 20
CR 3: 30
CR 4: 40
CR 5: 55

And remember, you explicitly said in a single hit, getting two hits from a full attack with Haste doesn't count.

7 (Greatsword) + 3 (Power Attack) + 6 (Strength) + 3 (Rage) = 19 Average.

Or if you prefer Base of 14 damage. Aka even if I rolled 2 1's I'd still nearly 1 shot something of CR = to my level.

Edit: By level 2. You should be able to purchase a +1 Greatsword midway or late through.

Level 3 is 6 sessions in and where I specifically stated I stopped one shotting everything if you'll note.


It depends a great deal on your GM. If it is a homebrew game, then he may be setting the difficulty of the challenges to the capabilities of the PCs. Or not--some GMs set the difficulty to what they think the story demands or what the PCs SHOULD be capable of accomplishing.

However, if the GM is using published material unaltered, you may wish to build for strength.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Just play Rogues.

You will never be overpowered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Just play Rogues.

You will never be overpowered.

Low blow , man, low blow.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
FanaticRat wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Just play Rogues.

You will never be overpowered.

Low blow , man, low blow.

Halfling Rogues. That is an Improved Low Blow.

Sovereign Court

Play a cleric of Sarenrae with healing and fire/good domains.
Everyone loves an optimal healer and moaning about an effective party face is rare too.
Take buff and battlefield control spells (largely the best option anyway) and you'll make a huge contribution without overshadowing anyone.
When you drop buffs on players and they chop off the dragons head with the help of those buffs, nobody moans about optimisation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if you just played the way the PF AP's are written? Make a 15 pt buy character. They don't have to be tweaked to the nines. Heck; you could even restrict yourself to core PCs and feats.

Building from that standpoint you can easily build a sub-optimal PC for whom a CR = APL encounter will actually be a bit of a challenge. If you add in traits you give your new PC a slight edge but only at the lowest levels of gameplay. Then, once you've ratcheted up to about 3rd-5th level you'll start noticing just how tough this game can be without massaging the numbers at least a little.

As for commenters on these boards think about it: if someone's telling you to take something or ignore something else it can't be solely an opinion or else it wouldn't mean anything. Their game isn't yours after all. But numbers are hard fact so more than likely their suggestions are based more on the numbers than the fluff. Take that for what you will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Falchions rock.

But Nodachis are better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Falchions rock.
But Nodachis are better.

Katanas are always better.

1 to 50 of 78 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Solvency-How do you 'have fun?' All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.