This isn't true at all. It assumes that 'smart' equates to both 'omniscient' and 'has good judgement'. The first is basically never the case, and the second is rare among villains, since as a rule doing the things necessary for true villainy really isn't the best idea in the world.
The main villain doesn't kill the PCs when they're 3rd level because at that point he's likely to not even know they exist. It'd need to go through a whole chain of subordinates to get to him and he's likely too busy to be bothered with every little setback (and 2nd or 3rd level PCs pretty much can't inflict major setbacks on a high level villain). Those happen all the time (anything 2nd or 3rd level PCs can stop isn't that hard to stop and is likely just one of a dozen similar things being managed by random people he doesn't trust much...who cares if half of them fail?)
There are exceptions to the pattern I mention above, but there are also lots of other reasons for the villain not to swat them like bugs immediately, too, many of them quite logical.
They don't need to be omniscient; they just need to have read the Evil Overlord List. And showing good judgement is definitely inherent to acting intelligently.
Any truly-intelligent overlord would have magical means of keeping an eye on every project and someone trustworthy keeping watch. As soon as things go south, they are alerted and can investigate. Given the magic they typically have access to, there is no reason for them not to be able to quickly gain exact information about what happened, who did what, and whether or not it is an ongoing threat to their operation. A single group that only stumbled in and did something because of random chance can be ignored, but a group that will be an ongoing threat can be easily identified and taken out. This isn't so much omniscience as using the magic built into the game.
Given the fact they live in a world where evil is thwarted regularly, not having every single failure investigated is asking for everything to fail. And it's not like they lack minions to spare for investigating.
|
They don't need to be omniscient; they just need to have read the Evil Overlord List. And showing good judgement is definitely inherent to acting intelligently.
The Evil Overlord list is handy, but doesn't make villains unbeatable at all.
And 'showing good judgement' as the phrase is usually used, is more wisdom than Intelligence, and really not even that. It's making good life choices...a lot of very smart people let their impulses or bad habits control them. A villain who's a legitimate sadist and spends hours a day torturing prisoners for pleasure and even hurts or kills those who interrupt him might be a genius, but minions are gonna be very unwilling to interrupt him for anything less than a major assault...and he thus won't have the information to apply that intellect. And that's just one example.
Any truly-intelligent overlord would have magical means of keeping an eye on every project and someone trustworthy keeping watch. As soon as things go south, they are alerted and can investigate. Given the magic they typically have access to, there is no reason for them not to be able to quickly gain exact information about what happened, who did what, and whether or not it is an ongoing threat to their operation.
This is not how logistics work. First off 'someone trustworthy' is desperately uncommon (especially among the sorts of recruits most villains get) and thus worth their weight in platinum, and not going to be wasted on minor projects. Secondly, magic of the sort you're talking about isn't cheap, and likely not worth it. I mean, really, if you're gonna throw thousands of GP away on a plan like this, there are better ways to spend it unless you're clinically paranoid (and most villains, while cautious, aren't actively that kind of insane).
And the investigation thing assumes the villain can afford to spend a day and a fair portion of his spells on investigation of every time his fourth level minions (which he likely has hundreds of, bear in mind) screws up. It's micromanaging to the point where he won't have time to actually work on his own part of his villainous plan.
A single group that only stumbled in and did something because of random chance can be ignored, but a group that will be an ongoing threat can be easily identified and taken out. This isn't so much omniscience as using the magic built into the game.
What magic, precisely, does what you describe here? I'm not thinking of anything that does precisely this, actually. You can fudge something...but that's not 'the magic they typically have access to', now is it?
Given the fact they live in a world where evil is thwarted regularly, not having every single failure investigated is asking for everything to fail.
Evil actually isn't thwarted by heroic bands of do-gooders that regularly, see Razimir, or the Worldwound, or a host of other things. The villains aren't likely to be genre savvy (which is different from smart) because most of the world aren't PCs and the world only really starts obeying those tropes around PCs. Likewise, people usually take decades to go from 1st level to 15th or 17th not less than a year. The PCs are exceptional in the speed of their development...not impossibly so, but it's very rare and unlikely.
And it's not like they lack minions to spare for investigating.
They totally should send minions to investigate! Indeed, having such a roving troubleshooter as a PC adversary is a great idea...but it's not usually an instant death sentence.
I usually play whatever makes sense for the group and the ideas I have. Whether or not it is considered underpowered isn't on my mind when making a character.
I have zero problem playing whatever class if it fits the concept I have in my head.
Having said that, I haven't had the opportunity to play what are often considered the weaker classes in quite a while. Both in my home group and at the PFS events the 'weaker classes' have more players than most of the strong classes. Since they are so over represented, I prefer to fill the roles that are usually not present.
For the people proudly proclaiming how they decide to play weaker classes, and to hell with what anyone says:
(1) Have you ever played in a totally-optimized meatgrinder campaign like Age of Worms on steroids, in which only fully-optimized parties have any chance of success?
(2) If so, did you intentionally weaken the whole party? What were the other players' reactions?
Because, like I said, there are a lot of games in which that philosophy not only works, but is preferred -- but there are some games (alluded to above) in which it's borderline antisocial.
The Evil Overlord list is handy, but doesn't make villains unbeatable at all.
And 'showing good judgement' as the phrase is usually used, is more wisdom than Intelligence, and really not even that. It's making good life choices...a lot of very smart people let their impulses or bad habits control them. A villain who's a legitimate sadist and spends hours a day torturing prisoners for pleasure and even hurts or kills those who interrupt him might be a genius, but minions are gonna be very unwilling to interrupt him for anything less than a major assault...and he thus won't have the information to apply that intellect. And that's just one example.
I would also state that a lot of smart people don't act intelligently. And while the Evil Overlord list doesn't make villains unbeatable, it combined with massive amounts of magic can.
The minions issue is easily solved... tell minions that anyone who doesn't interrupt with such news is next on the rack, and then don't torture people who bring you bad news.
This is not how logistics work. First off 'someone trustworthy' is desperately uncommon (especially among the sorts of recruits most villains get) and thus worth their weight in platinum, and not going to be wasted on minor projects. Secondly, magic of the sort you're talking about isn't cheap, and likely not worth it. I mean, really, if you're gonna throw thousands of GP away on a plan like this, there are better ways to spend it unless you're clinically paranoid (and most villains, while cautious, aren't actively that kind of insane).
And the investigation thing assumes the villain can afford to spend a day and a fair portion of his spells on investigation of every time his fourth level minions (which he likely has hundreds of, bear in mind) screws up. It's micromanaging to the point where he won't have time to actually work on his own part of his villainous plan.
Given how common magic users are to the setting, the issue of logistics pretty obviously works differently. You don't have just your resources, but the resources of every magic user under you. And people who are trustworthy are common enough that they feature in a number of adventures and APs (Academy of Secrets, for example) as those keeping an eye on things and watching over how everything goes, so a properly structured evil organization that properly rewards loyalty and competence should have more than enough.
As for wasting gold: The entire evil plan is a waste from a start. They're already wasting millions of gold of resources. What does a few thousand more make in comparison to the sheer amount of waste already going on just to further their goal? While there are better things to spend it on, the fact they even have the plan shows they are not spending it that way.
He also doesn't have to spend a day to do the full investigation. Nine times out of ten, a quick couple hours should be enough to find the problem. Showing up and finding everyone dead would likely require a day or so, but even that can be quickly determined whether or not it was some outside force or if the minions just had a massive amount of stupidity and took each other out; the rest can be left to someone trusted.
What magic, precisely, does what you describe here? I'm not thinking of anything that does precisely this, actually. You can fudge something...but that's not 'the magic they typically have access to', now is it?
Speak With Dead to get a description of the PCs, old-fashioned investigation backed by magic to make people more likely to talk at the nearest communities to find out more about them, some scrying, and a few other tricks. It's not one spell so much as the combination of several, depending on the circumstances. Also easily done with the right minions.
That's also something I typically do once the PCs have made a serious dent in the operations of the BBEG, but by that point they're typically level 10. At that point, he's definitely aware of them and spending the time and gold to find out who they are... but they're also aware of him and doing the same thing.
Evil actually isn't thwarted by heroic bands of do-gooders that regularly, see Razimir, or the Worldwound, or a host of other things. The villains aren't likely to be genre savvy (which is different from smart) because most of the world aren't PCs and the world only really starts obeying those tropes around PCs. Likewise, people usually take decades to go from 1st level to 15th or 17th not less than a year. The PCs are exceptional in the speed of their development...not impossibly so, but it's very rare and unlikely.
You have a point there.
It still does happen often enough that a villain should keep an eye out for it. If they're going to pull off the plan, there is no reason to assume they are not intelligent enough to research past failures of similar plans and make it a point to keep an eye out for when the exceptional people show up.
They totally should send minions to investigate! Indeed, having such a roving troubleshooter as a PC adversary is a great idea...but it's not usually an instant death sentence.
I didn't say it was an instant death sentence ;)
|
For the people proudly proclaiming how they decide to play weaker classes, and to hell with what anyone says:
(1) Have you ever played in a totally-optimized meatgrinder campaign like Age of Worms on steroids, in which only fully-optimized parties have any chance of success?
(2) If so, did you intentionally weaken the whole party? What were the other players' reactions?Because, like I said, there are a lot of games in which that philosophy not only works, but is preferred -- but there are some games (alluded to above) in which it's borderline antisocial.
Most of my play is Pathfinder Society. Actually, scratch that. ALL of my play is Society. I'm the GM for the only non-Society game that I regularly play in.
For a little more than a year there, the Society adventures got a lot tougher, to try and compensate for all the complaints that the early seasons were too easy. So the end of season 3 and most of season 4 was pretty brutal. Season 5 seems to have swung back the other way, in the realization that maybe season 4 overcompensated and swung into the "too tough" zone for players who aren't combat optimizers. So season 5 seems better balanced - not as easy as the early seasons, but not as brutal as season 4.
When playing in Society, there's usually a mix of optimizers and newbies/non-optimizers at the table. Since I have lots of characters, which are good at different things, I tend to wait and see what everyone else is playing before deciding which PC to play. That way, I can fill whatever hole the group might have. If we need an extra damage dealer, I'll bring one. If we need a front liner, I have a couple of those. Party face? Got it. Healer? None of my PCs are dedicated to just healing, but 10 of my 14 PFS characters can use Wands of Cure Light, and 3 of them have more healing than that (cleric channels, level 4 oracle with Cure Moderate as a known spell). Above level 5, I have fewer options, but I'm working on that.
So I make a point of always bringing something useful to the table, even if it's not quite as useful as it would be if the PC were totally optimized. Actually, most of my PCs are optimized, just not necessarily for combat. Other than one situation at very low level (1 or 2) where my sorcerer didn't have anything useful to do against a particular enemy, nobody's ever complained that my PCs don't carry their weight at the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I'm missing a logic train somehow.
Okay, you have your concept. There are, let's say, three classes that can be built to fulfill that concept. One is good, one is average, one is below average.
Why would you not pick the good one?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I'm missing a logic train somehow.
Okay, you have your concept. There are, let's say, three classes that can be built to fulfill that concept. One is good, one is average, one is below average.
Why would you not pick the good one?
Define "good."
Because sometimes, "good" is defined in ways other than mechanics. Since an "underpowered" character is so defined by mechanics, then a character that is defined by something other than mechanics can result in choosing a class that is less effective mechanically but that matches the flavor better.
For example, let's say you want to build a dexterous, debonair swashbuckling urban-based character that does not use spells. Your sources are CRB only. What do you make?
Because, maybe the good one is not the better one to fullfill the concept...
Sure, if you want to do a child of the street that live his life with small work and stealing, the Bard and the Alchemist can do the job. But they are not as good for this concept than a Rogue.
I feel like I'm missing a logic train somehow.
Okay, you have your concept. There are, let's say, three classes that can be built to fulfill that concept. One is good, one is average, one is below average.
Why would you not pick the good one?
What metric are you using for "good" in this?
If it is to fulfill the campaign design, fit the rest of the party, and fill the role... the good one, every time.
I specifically said that all the classes could be used to fulfill the concept, though apparently 'equally well' needed to be specified.
In this case, I am referring to basic power level (since mechanics and RP are separate). If the mechanics of class A and class B both fit your concept, and A is obviously better mechanically than B, why would you pick B?
As for Wrong John's question: Probably an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Rager. Go the Dervish Dance route with a scimitar ... assuming I'd be willing to play in a game so annoyingly restricted.
Because, maybe the good one is not the better one to fullfill the concept...
Sure, if you want to do a child of the street that live his life with small work and stealing, the Bard and the Alchemist can do the job. But they are not as good for this concept than a Rogue.
Any character trained in Sleight of Hand and Stealth fits that concept.
As for Wrong John's question: Probably an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Rager. Go the Dervish Dance route with a scimitar ... assuming I'd be willing to play in a game so annoyingly restricted.
CRB only. No "Urban" (although Barbarian is fine), no Invulnerable Rager, and no Dervish Dance.
Sounds like you can't make a character. Not this way. I'll make a Rogue, it fits.
If class A fulfilled the concept, but had powers which ranged beyond the concept that I feel do not fit it and no archetype to adjust that, then I would definitely pick B because it is actually the closer match.
Now, if A matches the concept, has powers that go beyond it but would be useful to the concept, and is not in any way outside of it... A.
Really?
It depends greatly on how you see him. If you see him with a vast knowledge of the street (aka a lot of skills), but not a hig charisma...What do you have? You will go Bard/ Alechmist because it's more powerfull?
Well, I don't do that. I could have play a vanilla bard who say that she's a Geisha, but I decided to use a Geisha. And it work well.
For the record, Saigo's concept doesn't sound strong enough for a PC at all, more like an NPC; no wonder a Rogue fills the role well.
Wait... It's like one of the most common background in Fantasy, the child of the street blablabla thing... You can't come with a ''Dragon Slayer'' background at level 1 :P
As for Wrong John's question: Probably an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Rager. Go the Dervish Dance route with a scimitar ... assuming I'd be willing to play in a game so annoyingly restricted.CRB only. No "Urban" (although Barbarian is fine), no Invulnerable Rager, and no Dervish Dance.
Sounds like you can't make a character.
I don't own any PF books, so I don't know what options are or aren't in the CRB (nor do I really care).
And, yes, if I couldn't make a decent character with the options presented, I would either make a different character, or not play. Since the CRB is ridiculously short on options, it would most likely be the latter. The CRB simply doesn't support 'swashbuckling' worth a damn.
And hey, there are people out there who still play CRB-only. There are people who can't afford all the books, GMs who don't want to keep everything in all the books at their fingertips and be aware of interactions, people who don't browse these forums. Just because it's out there, it doesn't mean you have a right to use it.
Really?
It depends greatly on how you see him. If you see him with a vast knowledge of the street (aka a lot of skills), but not a hig charisma...What do you have? You will go Bard/ Alechmist because it's more powerfull?
Well, I don't do that. I could have play a vanilla bard who say that she's a Geisha, but I decided to use a Geisha. And it work well.
I'd play an Urban Ranger with a no-spell archetype, most likely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And hey, there are people out there who still play CRB-only. There are people who can't afford all the books, GMs who don't want to keep everything in all the books at their fingertips and be aware of interactions, people who don't browse these forums. Just because it's out there, it doesn't mean you have a right to use it.
It does in our group. PFSRD20 is a godsend.
If they want to play CRB only, they can. I would find such a game too restrictive, generic, and dull, and choose not to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The urban ranger could do it, if you see your concept more warrior than the common thief.
And the CRB too restrictive? It's a game that use ''imagination''. Sure there is great stuff in the other book, but you can make almost any concept with the CRB.
Not playing doesn't mean you have a mechanically superior character, though. In fact, it means you don't.
You just chose the character that is worse mechanically (the one that doesn't play). That's how you end up with that choice (in a null-hypothesis sort of way).
As for Wrong John's question: Probably an Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Rager. Go the Dervish Dance route with a scimitar ... assuming I'd be willing to play in a game so annoyingly restricted.CRB only. No "Urban" (although Barbarian is fine), no Invulnerable Rager, and no Dervish Dance.
Sounds like you can't make a character. Not this way. I'll make a Rogue, it fits.
CRB does not support AGI fighter at all. Sounds like you would want a Barb or Ranger anyway, and just pick up weapon finesse, and later go into Duelist maybe after a few dips into fighter.
Rogue is going to be terrible at it, because he has 3/4th BAB, no way of boosting it, and no unique capability to be a finesse fighter.
Of course, you seem to have made up your mind already so...
There! That's a good answer! Thank you, LoneKnave! A Barb/Fighter/Ranger combo of some kind that goes into Duelist will work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP's question.
All the time. We're all in our 40s and have played RPG's for fun for 30+ years. Why change now. We have not ever been nor will we ever be a group of gamers that run spreadsheets to fully optimize what we do in order to "win". Nor are we ever likely to play with those type of people. So playing a group that consists of a Monk, Rogue, Fighter, and throw in 2 other classes considered less than awesome is fine with us.
This game is supposed to be about having fun...so that's what we focus on. To answer someone's question about if there are three options to get your concept down...why not take the obvious best option...it's because it's not that obvious or simple to people who don't spend time number crunching. If the options are "Class A"...or "Class B with Archetype C combined with Feats X, P, R and Trait's 47 and XRF#2"...guess what...we're going with Class A.
Again this comes down to what is fun and what we consider to be fun. Getting together and roleplaying to us is fun. Number crunching, min-maxing, optimizing, and overall trying to think of ways to break the system in order to achieve a sense of victory...is by no means fun for us. If that means an AP is too difficult because we didn't bother to make ourselves into gods...gee...we simply tone it down and keep having fun.
Being in a RP heavy group, yes. No class fills the story of a character who grew up on the streets quite like the rogue, all the classes have a number of stories they tell best
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is, there are situations under which there are whole valid general character concepts that become underpowered compared to other character concepts. Class doesn't even have to enter into it. Some of these concepts are important, like "I want to be a dexterous fighter" or "I don't want to cast spells." PF rewards spellcasters and quick buffs. Thus, for most basic concepts, there's a spellcasting or self-buffing class that works better mechanically.
A player shouldn't be penalized by coming up with a concept that fits with broad tropes but doesn't have the mechanics to back it up (I'll accept that concepts like "I want to be something out of Studio Ghibli that stands there smiling and things just fall apart around him" might just plain not work out well). That's how we get the "My concept is based in mechanics first, and then doesn't actually connect thematically with the world" character (which doesn't work well at every table).
I played a monk/fighter at the start of Carrion Crown. It was not fun.
** spoiler omitted **
Based on what you described, that comes down to campaign design and the GM. See below:
And I play with a GM who creates opportunities for me to find ways to make myself relevant. That's his job.
Other people have mentioned not caring about being effective in combat, and that's fine too...but if you don't care why not play something that does it better and make things easier on your fellow players?
But that's just it. If the group isn't worried about optimization*, how are you making things more difficult for anyone?
I mean, I agree that - on a very basic level - a group that decides to go sans-healer or sans-spellcaster is making things more difficult for most standard campaigns. Ultimately, though, this comes down to the GM running a campaign that centers on the characters and is challenging but fun.
* Meaning, a build that plans out a character from level 1-20 regardless of the experiences that may shape them in-characater during the course of a campaign, and perhaps even assumes that certain items will be found or will be available for purchase.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Class does not define character concept. You don't have to be a Rogue to be a rogue. You don't have to be a Fighter to be a warrior.
- Playing underpowered classes doesn't make anyone better at role playing. It doesn't mean you put more value than anyone else on role playing and fulfilling your character's concept. It simply means you're willing to play an mechanically weaker class. No one is trying to "win the game" when they play a Bard instead of a Rogue. They just trying to have fun, and think that an effective class would be more fun.
- Not playing those classes doesn't automatically make anyone a dirty powergamer trying to squeeze every ounce of min-maxed power from their character sheet. Barbarians, Paladins, Bards and Inquisitors are all well balanced classes, playing one of them instead of a Fighter or Rogue is not "power gaming" anymore than picking longswords instead of clubs as your main weapon.
A player shouldn't be penalized by coming up with a concept that fits with broad tropes but doesn't have the mechanics to back it up
Unfortunately the system tends to have quite the trend for lacking mechanics for any non-spellcaster.
I've simply given up trying to fight the system to make more mundane characters work.
"that does not use spells."
Why do people bother including that in their concept I wonder? Ultimately the game relegates you to surviving on potions, scrolls, magic gear and so forth so what's the point in making your character specifically unable to use spells personally?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's actually a pretty big thematic difference between "the Magician" and "the Hero" (who uses magic items.) It goes back a few millennia.
It gets a bit skewed when your "magic" looks like magic items and works like magic items. I.E the Alchemist over a Rogue.
... but a GM going out of his way to set up special mechanics just for a certain special snowflake feels a bit patronizing ...
I hope no one proposed that!
... and bending over backwards to try to make one person have something special to do definitely feels beyond the scope of a DM's job.
I guess that the thing... I don't see how you have to bend over backwards to facilitate any of the Core Classes.
For some, the concept will come with some flaw. I will reuse my ''child of the street'' idea here.
He's not educated, he only learned thing by observation and by testing it himself. He's not a fighter, nor would he have use in is life any sword (poor and, anyway, a longsword on a Thief cry ''he stoled me!''). That's some basic aspect of the concept (or, how I view it). The bard don't really fit: too much charisma. The Ranger don't fit either, too much martial. And the Alchemist have studied his stuf. So rogue. Sure, you can change the background to fit an other class, but if it's that that I want to play, I will play a Rogue.
Just like, if I want to play a city gard, not that wealthy and not the sharpest tool in the shed, I will not go with Cavalier or Ranger, but with Fighter.
I will not say that player who adapt the background to fit an other class are power gamer, they do what they want. On my side, I find an idea, select the best way to do it, even if it need some bad class/ multiclassing. And then I try to make it work (because I think that every class can be usefull in a party, be it RP only. You just have to specialize where other member are not.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... but a GM going out of his way to set up special mechanics just for a certain special snowflake feels a bit patronizing ...I hope no one proposed that!
... and bending over backwards to try to make one person have something special to do definitely feels beyond the scope of a DM's job.I guess that the thing... I don't see how you have to bend over backwards to facilitate any of the Core Classes.
Because if a caster wants to they can pretty much regulate anyone who is playing an underpowered class to "Henchmen" status. Even worse, a caster can do this accidentally merely by making logical decisions.
For some, the concept will come with some flaw. I will reuse my ''child of the street'' idea here.
He's not educated, he only learned thing by observation and by testing it himself. He's not a fighter, nor would he have use in is life any sword (poor and, anyway, a longsword on a Thief cry ''he stoled me!''). That's some basic aspect of the concept (or, how I view it). The bard don't really fit: too much charisma. The Ranger don't fit either, too much martial. And the Alchemist have studied his stuf. So rogue. Sure, you can change the background to fit an other class, but if it's that that I want to play, I will play a Rogue.
Just like, if I want to play a city gard, not that wealthy and not the sharpest tool in the shed, I will not go with Cavalier or Ranger, but with Fighter.
I will not say that player who adapt the background to fit an other class are power gamer, they do what they want. On my side, I find an idea, select the best way to do it, even if it need some bad class/ multiclassing. And then I try to make it work (because I think that every class can be usefull in a party, be it RP only. You just have to specialize where other member are not.)
Urban Ranger is still a better fit. Unless your street urchin routinely disarmed traps.
I don't see how it is a better fit: the ranger got a martial knowledge far better than some thug of the street. He is A) a genius at fighting B) trained in fighting
And if I don't whant the character to disarm trap, there is plenty of Rogue Archetype that take it off.
For some, the concept will come with some flaw. I will reuse my ''child of the street'' idea here.
He's not educated, he only learned thing by observation and by testing it himself. He's not a fighter, nor would he have use in is life any sword (poor and, anyway, a longsword on a Thief cry ''he stoled me!''). That's some basic aspect of the concept (or, how I view it). The bard don't really fit: too much charisma. The Ranger don't fit either, too much martial. And the Alchemist have studied his stuf. So rogue. Sure, you can change the background to fit an other class, but if it's that that I want to play, I will play a Rogue.
Just like, if I want to play a city gard, not that wealthy and not the sharpest tool in the shed, I will not go with Cavalier or Ranger, but with Fighter.
I will not say that player who adapt the background to fit an other class are power gamer, they do what they want. On my side, I find an idea, select the best way to do it, even if it need some bad class/ multiclassing. And then I try to make it work (because I think that every class can be usefull in a party, be it RP only. You just have to specialize where other member are not.)
With only a few tweaks, you could use a sorcerer for this.
I don't see how it is a better fit: the ranger got a martial knowledge far better than some thug of the street. He is A) a genius at fighting B) trained in fighting
And if I don't whant the character to disarm trap, there is plenty of Rogue Archetype that take it off.
Why do you think people can't get to BAB 1 without training? Please explain to Krog why Krog have to go to Fighter School.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that keeps coming up is how you can make a good rogue or fighter, it's just a little trickier. I hate that argument. This is actually what irks me most about underpowered classes and why I simply don't play them on principle.
Most people here have a fairly hardy grasp of system mastery. I'm not nearly in the same league as some people here (That Carnivorous Crystal Wild-Shaping Druid is something that would not have occurred to me in a billion years) but I know it well enough to make pieces fit where I need them to be.
Like I said - it's not about comparing to what everyone else brought to the table, it's about the fact they don't do the concept I like as well as something else would. Name any typical Rogue/Fighter role, and I could probably role up a class that will do it better. At best, the Fighter is a dip for feat trees.
But what about the new players? What about new players who are introduced through APs?
My first introduction to serious role-playing was the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP. After a week of studying the CRB and Player's Guide, I brought a Tiefling (Faultspawn for the DEX and WIS boost with an INT penalty because, thanks to the CRB description, I figured DEX would be more important) Monk to the table.
I spent several frustrating sessions doing no damage, having nothing to contribute outside of combat, and unfortunately not dying. I was bored way too much of the time. I very nearly lost interest in gaming before I began because I was saddled with something not fun at all that was not just being outperformed, but rarely - if ever - contributing meaningfully in any scenario.
Eventually I was put to a merciful death and got to reroll a Half-Elf Bard. I finally had something to do. There were options at my feet. As a new player, with all of those different skills and abilities I got the confidence to try different things. Even before I really understood how to effectively use all of the bard's tricks, I had a fairly useful character.
Good for you if you can optimize a Rogue to outperform a poorly-built Wizard. Yes, the strongest players will make the best characters at the table, period. They'll spec a Fighter that makes GM's cry tears of frustration. They'll squeeze every list little known feat out of every splat book until their Rogue can hit on anything but a natural 1.
But those who don't know any better, those who get caught up in their idea of what the rogue 'can' do, only to find out FREAKING DARKNESS shuts down a sneak attack? That's who really gets shortchanged. All of the 'simple' classes are pitifully weak and those who are learning by trial and error are the ones who really suffer for it. They don't know anything about tiers or Quadratic Wizards or crazy feat combinations to make possibly gamebreaking juggernauts. All they know is they wanted to play a sneaky thief and now they're stuck with a character whose pathetic at everything their chosen class was supposed to excel at. They're sidelined unless there is some very specific hand-holding by the GM, and good luck with that because (from personal experience) it is damn near impossible to make a situations particularly suited to the rogue that someone else isn't already able to do just as well.
I like playing a rogue. My swashbuckler (we play a pretty trapless campaign) Vicious-Claws catfolk is a lot of fun to me. Making acrobatics checks to get into position and dealing sneak attack damage that tacks on strength damage is nasty. I don't do as much damage as our barbarian, but then, he never gets to sneak in through the basement and unlock the side door, so I think it's a wash. Three quarters of our game is non-combat, so I don't sweat playing second fiddle the other 25% of the time.
|
I feel like I'm missing a logic train somehow.
Okay, you have your concept. There are, let's say, three classes that can be built to fulfill that concept. One is good, one is average, one is below average.
Why would you not pick the good one?
I find that in that case I will usually purposefully pick the below average class.
Why?
Much of the fun in a game like Pathfinder is flexing your System Mastery in your build. But to my mind, System Mastery is not about taking a powerful option and cranking it up to eleven. It's about taking a subpar option and making it serviceable.
Where's the fun in building a Druid that wrecks everything? Anyone can do that -- that's script-kiddie work.
My fun is when I take something like a White-Haired Witch and break encounters with it, so that all the other players complain about how broken and over-powered the class is.
I understand that's not everyone's fun. But it's what I enjoy.
PS: Of course, concept comes first. But I have realized that much of the time my concept involves either a scorned class/archetype, or something so new that no one's really figured it out yet.
PPS: If I were to be playing something that I know ahead of time is going to be a meatgrinder, I probably won't go searching out the "degree of difficulty" points like that. In that case I'll take a look at the overall build of the party and work at making a character that shores up its weak points.
A player shouldn't be penalized by coming up with a concept that fits with broad tropes but doesn't have the mechanics to back it upUnfortunately the system tends to have quite the trend for lacking mechanics for any non-spellcaster.
I've simply given up trying to fight the system to make more mundane characters work.
"that does not use spells."
Why do people bother including that in their concept I wonder? Ultimately the game relegates you to surviving on potions, scrolls, magic gear and so forth so what's the point in making your character specifically unable to use spells personally?
Many players don't want to manage spell lists. They don't want to pick spells, prepare spells, look for spells, and they'd rather leave the casting to another member of the party.
They should be able to.