Brigg,
My first PFS character has a very serious personality. He's a professional: he doesn't let a great deal distract him when he's on the job. As a result, he can often come off as just being a vanilla Ninja (his class) with no personality. Certain situations will draw out parts of his character (that character's funniest moments all involve situations where he was forced to bluff wildly in order to carry on with the mission) but for the most part he can seem pretty boring. Mechanically, he's pretty average. He has moments of extreme overkill, and moments where he struggles to contribute. Mostly, this revolves around whether or not he gets sneak attack.
My second character has a VERY overbearing personality. He's a wacky/silly gnome who often gets bored and creates extra trouble for the party unless someone can sit on him quick enough. I'd have no trouble whatsoever playing him at a table full of strangers. He's anything but shy. Mechanically, he started off minmaxed to the gills... in a bad way. He's a color spray sorcerer with a 1 level dip into oracle of heavens. He's the only character I have that GM's genuinely don't like running for because he can (and has) one shot a boss fight. It's been a learning experience for me to figure out how to play him without trivializing encounters. (Short version: there's not. Don't play Save or Die casters unless you primarily use other tricks.) My solution has been to expand his repetoire as his spell list as it has grown so that I only have to pull color spray out for select moments.
So I have a sometimes two-dimensional character who is mechanically average with a subtle personality and an always three-dimensional character with a loud and vivacious personality who can solo boss encounters at will. The dichotemy which you presented earlier (and that I started PFS with) says that these two characters shouldn't exist but they are there all the same.
The secret that I've come to learn is that it's not whether a mechanically strong character has a strong/unique/flavorful personality that makes them fun or unfun to play with. It's whether a mechanically strong character dominates an encounter to the point that other players feel like bystanders.
Once I realized this, a whole new world opened before my eyes. I quickly learned that it's incredibly hard to find 'the line' here because 'the line' varies according to the player group... or even the party. A character that would have been seen as an underperformer at one table ended up getting a lot of comments for being too cheesy at another. My current response has been to create caster characters who are support focused, but I'd be interested in seeing how others have solved this puzzle.
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, for PFS and other organized play, the odds are very high that your character will be reduced (by the other players, at least) to his mechanics anyways. Unless you play with a regular organized group, where personalities and RP can come to the forefront over time, folks aren't going to care too much about your character backgrounds or motivation, so much as they're gonna wanna know what you can do for the party.
So long as you enjoy playing the character you've made, they're like a Reeses' Cup. There's no wrong way to make a character.
One Reeses Cups are gross and make me puke and give me headaches
secondly, what sort of groups have you been playing with? I've run in several different groups, and my characters have never been reduced to their mechanics. Simple fact is, two characters built with exactly the same stats, and exactly the same class may react to exactly the same situation in very different ways.
For example, my boyfriend and I run twin cavaliers. They don't act exactly the same in combat, or do the exact same things.
First, you have my sympathies for your peanut and/or chocolate allergy.
Second, I used to play quite regularly in a local lodge (which I have recently been a poor attendee), but have also gamed at cons and in other lodges when I travel for work. I have seen all manner and variety of games and gamers, but most frequently when I set down at the table, folks will ask "What does your character do?" Our Warhorn sign-up even includes a slot for class, level, and party role. I'm not saying they need to know your + to hit and damange, but they do want to know, mechanically, what your character does.
While many people can and do roleplay well at our lodge, I see an equal amount of persons attempting to be mechanically unique to stand out from the crowd. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this approach, and indeed, in organized play, given the limited time to accomplish a set goal, sometimes RP opportunities fall by the wayside. When all your character interactions are in 4 and 5 hour increments, you may not know that Buliwyf, Son of Folkvardr became obsessed with armor as a kid because he was slow and his father the blacksmith was convinced he would hurt himself if given weapons to train with, but you would remember that shielded fighter with armor spikes who is nearly impossible to hit and wrecks faces up close.
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
I think it mostly comes down to picking sub-optimal concepts, then optimizing them. If you push a second-rate concept to its limits, it will usually end up somewhere in the "strong, but not overpowering" range. If it's still too powerful, sacrifice a little bit of specialization for another trick (for instance, shave a point off of your primary stat to bump Int, and specialize in some utility skill like Linguistics).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
One method I've used fairly successfully is to be a generalist. That is, be strong (but not the strongest) in multiple areas. This is most effective in areas where PFS tables are largely random.
For instance, I've recently finished the career of my Eldritch Knight. He was decent in melee, Knowledge, and arcane casting; but not as strong as a PC built for only one of those roles. Most of the time, at least one thing he was built for was otherwise not present at the table, so I could have him focus there and not have anyone to outshine. His "redundant" abilities at any given table are also still usable: the tank got hold person'd? I'm right there to fill in. Knowledge monkey rolled a 1? I'm your second chance. Wizard already used the only DDoor they had room for? Got you covered.
I took a similar path with my cleric of Iomedae. Solid enough AC, moderate melee damage (after one buff), a couple of good Knowledge skills, really solid Diplomacy (or the ability to instead put the face's Diplo into the stratosphere), lots of situational problem-solving spells prepped, and so on. He's not likely to outshine anyone in their specialty, but there also tend not to be "missing" roles in his parties. Missions get accomplished, even if he's not flashy in the process.
Note: the Pathfinder system lends itself toward specialists, so building a truly effective generalist is HARD. The EK was struggling to keep up toward the end of his career, and the cleric involves something like 4-6 books and a couple of convention boons.
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
One way to do this is to have an on off switch. For example on my rogue druid, i can either put strongjaw and animal growth on the velocirraptor and send him in to one shot something, or just send him in as is to do a reasonable amount of damage.
|
|
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
One way to do this is to have an on off switch. For example on my rogue druid, i can either put strongjaw and animal growth on the velocirraptor and send him in to one shot something, or just send him in as is to do a reasonable amount of damage.
Magus - Cast defensive buff spells first rather than start off with Intensified Shocking Grasp every round.
Gunslinger - Move and shoot rather than full round attack or use a Grit trick to debuff instead of kill.
Alchemist - Shoot a single bomb with my Heavy Crossbow using Explosive Missile rather than full round, rapid shot bombing.
Cleric - Cast buff or heal spells instead of offensive spells.
Barbarian - He's Superstitious, so I can self nerf by going into Rage before people start casting buff spells.
TWF Ninja - Use Butterfly's Sting.
|
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
While there's lots of ways to do this, the way I did it with my paladin is the simplest and most straightforward - make an unkillable tank.
Micah is possibly, point-for-point, the hardest-to-kill character for his level* in Pathfinder Society (or at the very least, he's tougher than any I've ever seen). What makes this great from an optimization perspective is that he never steals the spotlight, but still gets to be a hero. The spotlight is usually whoever's dealing the crazy damage, or dropping the flashy crowd-control magic, but everybody's grateful that the half-demon up front is taking the eighth-consecutive sneak attack in three rounds instead of them.
*
|
How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?One method I've used fairly successfully is to be a generalist. That is, be strong (but not the strongest) in multiple areas. This is most effective in areas where PFS tables are largely random.
For instance, I've recently finished the career of my Eldritch Knight. He was decent in melee, Knowledge, and arcane casting; but not as strong as a PC built for only one of those roles. Most of the time, at least one thing he was built for was otherwise not present at the table, so I could have him focus there and not have anyone to outshine. His "redundant" abilities at any given table are also still usable: the tank got hold person'd? I'm right there to fill in. Knowledge monkey rolled a 1? I'm your second chance. Wizard already used the only DDoor they had room for? Got you covered.
I took a similar path with my cleric of Iomedae. Solid enough AC, moderate melee damage (after one buff), a couple of good Knowledge skills, really solid Diplomacy (or the ability to instead put the face's Diplo into the stratosphere), lots of situational problem-solving spells prepped, and so on. He's not likely to outshine anyone in their specialty, but there also tend not to be "missing" roles in his parties. Missions get accomplished, even if he's not flashy in the process.
Note: the Pathfinder system lends itself toward specialists, so building a truly effective generalist is HARD. The EK was struggling to keep up toward the end of his career, and the cleric involves something like 4-6 books and a couple of convention boons.
This is how I am building my current monk in a long line of monks.
Dwarf Martial Artist with very good Perception, Acrobatics, and Melee utility. Good Wisdom for stunning fist DCs and I am going to take a two level dip into Trapper Ranger for Trapfinding and Improved Sunder as a bonus feat to debuff martials with Sense Weakness allowing me to ignore hardness.
The last three games I have been the only melee and have been able to cover that role, but I am also always able to contribute to sense motive checks in social situations even though I have a CHA 5.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?One method I've used fairly successfully is to be a generalist. That is, be strong (but not the strongest) in multiple areas. This is most effective in areas where PFS tables are largely random.
For instance, I've recently finished the career of my Eldritch Knight. He was decent in melee, Knowledge, and arcane casting; but not as strong as a PC built for only one of those roles. Most of the time, at least one thing he was built for was otherwise not present at the table, so I could have him focus there and not have anyone to outshine. His "redundant" abilities at any given table are also still usable: the tank got hold person'd? I'm right there to fill in. Knowledge monkey rolled a 1? I'm your second chance. Wizard already used the only DDoor they had room for? Got you covered.
I took a similar path with my cleric of Iomedae. Solid enough AC, moderate melee damage (after one buff), a couple of good Knowledge skills, really solid Diplomacy (or the ability to instead put the face's Diplo into the stratosphere), lots of situational problem-solving spells prepped, and so on. He's not likely to outshine anyone in their specialty, but there also tend not to be "missing" roles in his parties. Missions get accomplished, even if he's not flashy in the process.
Note: the Pathfinder system lends itself toward specialists, so building a truly effective generalist is HARD. The EK was struggling to keep up toward the end of his career, and the cleric involves something like 4-6 books and a couple of convention boons.
There is one specialist in PFS that I have seen no need to self-nerf in order to avoid dominating the game, and that is one who specializes in buffing the party. I have yet to hear someone complain that one of my characters was broken because it gave their character way too many bonuses.
There is no vs.
You, the player, are what give your character breadth, depth, and life. Statistics, good or bad , will not do that for you. Making a sub optimial character does not enhance your role play, at all. In gaming circles this is known as the stormwind fallacy. For the more philosophy minded, its known as the false dilema or either or fallacy.
I agree with this statement. However, numbers can affect a small amount of your personality. If you have an 8 cha, no skill ranks in diplomacy character who is level 5, you probably aren't going to be doing a lot of talking, and if you do, you aren't good at it or you cha 8 is due to not shyness but other reason.
But for the most part, stats, skills and numbers only serve as a small guide to your character. Roleplay is what you make it.
|
|
There is no vs.
You, the player, are what give your character breadth, depth, and life. Statistics, good or bad , will not do that for you. Making a sub optimial character does not enhance your role play, at all. In gaming circles this is known as the stormwind fallacy. For the more philosophy minded, its known as the false dilema or either or fallacy.
I agree with this statement. However, numbers can affect a small amount of your personality. If you have an 8 cha, no skill ranks in diplomacy character who is level 5, you probably aren't going to be doing a lot of talking, and if you do, you aren't good at it or you cha 8 is due to not shyness but other reason.
But for the most part, stats, skills and numbers only serve as a small guide to your character. Roleplay is what you make it.
My CHA 5 dwarf barbarian sucks at diplomacy, so I named my Adamantine Dwarven Longhammer "Diplomacy" and let her do the talking.
You can make any character interesting to role-play. There's no limitation in the rules about how you role-play or what you do with your character.
You can't make every character that was built to be interesting by introducing flaws or using sub-optimal builds into an effective combat character.
The former is an easier objective and doesn't screw over the other members of your community as they expend resources trying to keep you alive in difficult encounters. It's like the bard that ran away from every fight that someone described in a similar thread a while back. That player probably thought the role-play was awesome. The rest of his table probably thought he was an a*~!$*+.
Even more directly, you can make any character interesting to roleplay, regardless of optimization level.
That's the usual claim of the Stormwind Fallacy.You can't however take any roleplaying based character concept and optimize it to the desired power level. Some concepts inevitably won't work if held to a high enough performance standard.
That's a point of view often overlooked by those who shout Stormwind Fallacy in every one of these discussions. It depends on the starting point. If you start with the mechanical build, you're likely to see no conflict. If you start with the roleplaying concept, you'll often run into characters that just don't work, no matter how much you like the idea. More so, the higher the necessary performance is.It's one reason I prefer a lower level of challenge. It leaves more character concept space.
Thank you for this. I was trying to put it into words, but was failing. I have seen many character concepts that have been wonderful additions to a campaign that would utterly fail optimization tests. That being said, they were all played in homebrew campaigns. Know your GM and what type of game s/he is running, then come up with your character concept. Or if your a GM, let your players know ahead of time so they can build characters that work well together.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
utterly fail optimization tests
And ultimately, the only "optimization test" that matters is whether you meaningfully contribute in actual gameplay. I've seen builds/strategies that were dismissed online but passed this test, and I've seen other builds that truly did fail this test. About 50/50 between the two, if memory serves.
utterly fail optimization testsAnd ultimately, the only "optimization test" that matters is whether you meaningfully contribute in actual gameplay. I've seen builds/strategies that were dismissed online but passed this test, and I've seen other builds that truly did fail this test. About 50/50 between the two, if memory serves.
I have seen characters who's only mechanical contribution was healing spells standard to their level contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I've seen characters who cowered in the corner whenever combat started, with no meaningful way of actually avoiding notice, contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I have seen optimized melee builds that can't do a damn thing in the game. It depends entirely on the type of game the GM is running.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have seen characters who's only mechanical contribution was healing spells standard to their level contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I've seen characters who cowered in the corner whenever combat started, with no meaningful way of actually avoiding notice, contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I have seen optimized melee builds that can't do a damn thing in the game. It depends entirely on the type of game the GM is running.utterly fail optimization testsAnd ultimately, the only "optimization test" that matters is whether you meaningfully contribute in actual gameplay. I've seen builds/strategies that were dismissed online but passed this test, and I've seen other builds that truly did fail this test. About 50/50 between the two, if memory serves.
Note that I said "contribute meaningfully in actual gameplay", not just "in actual combat". So when I say I've seen PCs that failed that test, well... :/
Note that I said "contribute meaningfully in actual gameplay", not just "in actual combat". So when I say I've seen PCs that failed that test, well... :/I have seen characters who's only mechanical contribution was healing spells standard to their level contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I've seen characters who cowered in the corner whenever combat started, with no meaningful way of actually avoiding notice, contribute meaningfully to gameplay. I have seen optimized melee builds that can't do a damn thing in the game. It depends entirely on the type of game the GM is running.utterly fail optimization testsAnd ultimately, the only "optimization test" that matters is whether you meaningfully contribute in actual gameplay. I've seen builds/strategies that were dismissed online but passed this test, and I've seen other builds that truly did fail this test. About 50/50 between the two, if memory serves.
Yeah, mechanical contributions, theoretical mechanical contributions, and actual gameplay contributions can be 3 totally different beasts :)
As long as you know what your GM is doing, all is good.
That being said, for something like Pathfinder Society (which I have never played) I would always bring a mechanically efficient character. Not necessarily peak optimization, but definitely a solid build. It is just polite to the other players who you don't know. In home games you can mess around with inefficiency, but when you play with the public you should at least meet the other player's expectations.
|
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?
Pretty much all of my PFS characters are an 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale in terms of optimized for the role I built them for (I prefer a bit more versatility to full power for PFS). But that has very little to do with dominating encounters or not. Player restraint is a much more potent factor.
My builds will always be optimized within the parameters of their class and specific role. But what I chose to do with those builds can and will vary from table to table based on the needs of my peers. I have no problem playing slightly to severely inefficiently if it means the other players PCs will get more spotlight time and have more fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Question to all: How have you built strong characters who could hold their own, without having them dominate encounters?Pretty much all of my PFS characters are an 8 or 9 on a 1-10 scale in terms of optimized for the role I built them for (I prefer a bit more versatility to full power for PFS). But that has very little to do with dominating encounters or not. Player restraint is a much more potent factor.
My builds will always be optimized within the parameters of their class and specific role. But what I chose to do with those builds can and will vary from table to table based on the needs of my peers. I have no problem playing slightly to severely inefficiently if it means the other players PCs will get more spotlight time and have more fun.
I'd be careful with this method. If it's obvious that Player A could be soloing the encounter, and it's only because he's graciously stepping aside that the other players are allowed to participate, that has the potential to come across as really condescending. I'd guess presentation is a huge factor here.
I agree with this statement. However, numbers can affect a small amount of your personality. If you have an 8 cha, no skill ranks in diplomacy character who is level 5, you probably aren't going to be doing a lot of talking, and if you do, you aren't good at it or you cha 8 is due to not shyness but other reason.
Which changes how you role play, not how well you role play. You can have a well role played suave, debonaire swashbuckler (high cha), a character thats a bit lacking in social graces (7 charisma hippy elf) or a well role played abraisive insulting dwarf (5 charisma).
Norse, did you save this post? Because I can swear to Ifni, that you've posted this word for word the last time someone put up this question.
Nope. Similar thoughts I'm sure.
OP, despite what the Viking canine put up, PFS does not require DPR champions to meet it's scenarios. What is extremely helpful are players who can do a bit of lateral thinking, because the course for success isn't always laid out like a railroad track for you to follow. Be a bit flexible, and find ways to synch with your party members and you should do okay.
*backfoot headscratch* I'm pretty sure i said pretty much the same thing. I said you DON"T want the DPR/kill it fast champions. The only thing i did differently was set a bar well above the pregens.
Harsk< Goldi Locks zone < Slumber hex happy witch.
If you start with the roleplaying concept, you'll often run into characters that just don't work, no matter how much you like the idea. More so, the higher the necessary performance is.
I'd see this more as a failure of the system to support viable character design, not as a player failure.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you start with the roleplaying concept, you'll often run into characters that just don't work, no matter how much you like the idea. More so, the higher the necessary performance is.I'd see this more as a failure of the system to support viable character design, not as a player failure.
One of my goals in my rewrite is to remedy this.
|
|
I'd be careful with this method. If it's obvious that Player A could be soloing the encounter, and it's only because he's graciously stepping aside that the other players are allowed to participate, that has the potential to come across as really condescending. I'd guess presentation is a huge factor here.
While there is certainly truth to that, you can also examine it from the opposing end. Even if a player with a strong PC is making every genuine effort to be courteous to his table, they still cannot stop another from reacting poorly to their efforts or taking offense. That has to be on the other party to regulate.
I believe that it is often a fairly simple affair to determine the difference between making a genuine effort to be courteous and being condescending (purposefully or otherwise), though.
I see it perhaps expectations a bit unreasonable for what is essentially still a wargame with roleplaying bolted on.
After 40 years of that state of affairs, including the last 14 of them under a radically different rules framework, you'd think we'd have a vague clue how to make multiclassing work by now, just to pick one obvious example. (Wizards tried to patch it with a glut of prestigle classes, and failed. Paizo started with archetypes, found they didn't cut the mustard for that, and appear to have the current goal of creating hundreds of different hybrid classes to try and fill every multi-classed combination.)
|
I see it perhaps expectations a bit unreasonable for what is essentially still a wargame with roleplaying bolted on.After 40 years of that state of affairs, including the last 14 of them under a radically different rules framework, you'd think we'd have a vague clue how to make multiclassing work by now, just to pick one obvious example. (Wizards tried to patch it with a glut of prestigle classes, and failed. Paizo started with archetypes, found they didn't cut the mustard for that, and appear to have the current goal of creating hundreds of different hybrid classes to try and fill every multi-classed combination.)
The only way to make every possible character concept work is to use a system extremely light on crunch. There are plenty of those out there.
And frankly - multi-classing in a game like Pathfinder could be overdone. Part of what makes it work is that each person in the group has a different job/specialization to some degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only way to make every possible character concept work is to use a system extremely light on crunch.
GURPS is very crunchy and also very flexible in terms of making different character concepts. (Kirthfinder is, too, for that matter, but in a different direction.) The issue is whether the crunch works towards enabling those concepts, or whether it actively impedes them. In 3.0/3.5/PF, it's the latter, but I don't see any reason why that needs to be the case, and, as I pointed out, there are counterexamples demonstrating that it doesn't.
In fact, in a lot of cases in PF, pure fluff gets packaged like crunch and so gets in its own way. Any time you need to spend a feat on simple flavor, your system mechanics are actively impeding your character concept. But there's no reason we couldn't have seventy zillion mechanical feats that actually do mechanical things facilitating concepts, without having them dictate whether or not you're allowed to have cool sunglasses or wear a red cape.
Not just a Robot SoldierThey're coming...
Not until Mummy's Mask is done.
Although to be fair, I'm not sure why you're crossblooding with Arcane myself. Not for mechanics, but rather how "Human Barbarian Dad" fits with "Arcane Bloodline".
I guess I do both. Not sure that I fit the categories you give...
I usually start either with a background idea OR a combat role. Not a build or a fully developed character yet. Let's explore what I mean; Say we are starting in an Arabian setting and I am sitting here with our fellow players brainstorming what we will all play. Pete and Fred are planning twins who are palace guards. So I think hey why not make a palace maiden... the daughter of a noble of some sort who will obviously run off to adventure with the boys. Already I am thinking up story ideas for her but now I need to answer a big question: What will she contribute to combat? No one is going to invite Mary Sue worthless to go adventuring despite the entertainment value of watching her mess up over and over. I decide the boys will need a combat healer to keep them going about their slaughtering ways. Cleric will be my class... and I further specialize that out to a reach meleer. I will be just outside the main combat where I can either attack with reach, cast buffs, or heal them if they get clobbered.
Now I have some outlines Human with aristocratic roots and a Cleric class. And I know her fighting style. So let's delve deeper. Why is she a cleric? And who trained her to fight? She has a comfortable existence growing up under the strict supervision of her family and the palace officials. I decide her father is devoted to the local divinity and so my young aristocrat has automatic entry into the clergy via her father's influence; and her desire to further his faith would be met with approval. Combat training is provided by the church... but why would she want to go adventuring? Fred has decided that he wants to play a silver tongued devil breaking a long list of young maiden's hearts and that gives me my break, my young aristocrat begins adventuring to chase after the boy who broke her heart and prove him wrong! Fred is reluctant at first about too much drama but I convince him that my character is doomed to see the folly of her ways as soon as Fred's character begins chasing his next victim er... romantic interest, and that she will decide it best to remain friends from that point on. I am also counting on the GM to toss some exciting and beautiful locations into their early adventures to hook her on being away from the palace and keep her adventuring to find more excitement. After discussing this with the GM he says not to worry he intends to send out to someplace nice with plenty of exiting danger not into the local sewers. And after a laugh I already have a solid plan for who she is, where she came from, and what she is looking for.
Next step is the mechanics. I need to give her the skills an aristocratic temple maiden would possess. I need to select feats and combat options to allow her to function well as a reach melee combatant. And of course I need to go over her spell options and select spells that let her buff herself and others as well as good healing options. If none of the mechanics conflict with her background then I am all set to begin fleshing out her personality. Basically setting up how I want to play her role. I think hopeless romantic fits well so I start there, but I also go with unbridled curiosity about the world outside her sheltered early life in the palace, and fearless advocate of her god's teachings.
This is enough to start but who knows how she will evolve over the levels?