| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This too shall pass.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the number of options in Pathfinder, and the insane number of options if the DM allows 3.5 and 3PP material, it would due madness NOT to plan your character to at least some degree. Just looking through all of the books would take a ton of time every time you leveled if you didn't have some idea what you wanted your character to look like.
Considering the number of options in Pathfinder, and the insane number of options if the DM allows 3.5 and 3PP material, it would due madness NOT to plan your character to at least some degree. Just looking through all of the books would take a ton of time every time you leveled if you didn't have some idea what you wanted your character to look like.
Quota achieved, since this point has been made on every page of this thread I believe.
|
|
What I can't seem to figure out, is how it is that when it comes to "planning" players are zealous in creating characters and disinterested in any other sort of planning that might come their way. Heck, in most of my games I can hardly even get the players to talk to each other, let alone hope they will come up with a plan, even to open a door.Because PF is a character building game with an annoying interactive part bolted on. :)
The internet supports this theory. ;-)
|
|
Considering the number of options in Pathfinder, and the insane number of options if the DM allows 3.5 and 3PP material, it would due madness NOT to plan your character to at least some degree. Just looking through all of the books would take a ton of time every time you leveled if you didn't have some idea what you wanted your character to look like.Quota achieved, since this point has been made on every page of this thread I believe.
There was this guy called "Irontruth" that has been posting here for a while, on threads that repeat themselves continually, and knows how the TL;DR thing works. What did you do with him, and what's the ransom so we can get him back?
;-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, first off I apologize for disappearing from this thread. Life just got in the way and then I discovered D&D5. Anyway looking to dip my feet back into PF so at the moment looking for a Sydney, Australia based group.
Anyway....I guess my issue is with the system because it breeds this specialist mentality because in most cases specializing can mean the difference between life and death but not always...
Like the time the Enchanter Wizard spent several sessions unable to effectively fight any of the monsters the party encountered.
Or the time a single monk thrashed an entire party because the Archer refused to swap to sword despite the monk catching the arrow she fired every round (the monks high AC made multishot useless).
Or the time the Weapon Focused Greatsword Specialized Warrior lost his main weapon at the start of an adventure in a dungeon and couldn't replace it for several sessions.
I like being challenged as a player so I will create my first level character and that's it, I don't plan beyond that because I want to see where the story goes and how my character develops to that.
I'd love to play a game system like the game Skyrim where you can just build your skills from what you do and not have to dabble in multi classing.
|
|
You are more or less complaining that someone is attempting to optimize a character to win at the Win/Lose mechanic that exists in the system. This is not going to serve you well. You are asking your PCs to potentially castrate their characters just to satisfy your desire for them to grow as the story goes on.
Actually I'm complaining about boring Min/Maxers. Last time I checked being called a Min/Maxer is nothing to wear a badge of honour over.
Sure it comes to play style but if we didn't complain about things nothing would ever change so if this thread makes players think more about who their character is more than how many arrows they can fire in a round at 12th level then that's a good thing.
Clearly people believe the system forces them to play Min/Maxed characters but hey guess what, your roll a 1 on a saving throw and you're still dead not matter if you can trip a Remorhaz. How about focusing on personality for your next character? It is a role playing game too.
In before Stormwind Fallacy!
As for my characters, I have a number of plans I look at but I tend to leave wiggle room so that if the game takes me on an avenue I didn't anticipate I am not stuck in concrete. Keep your options open is my motto.
|
Reebo, you would love Myrlan Dai. Not a bit of thought went into any level beyond Carnival Barker. You would hate Qakisst Vishtani; my most over-planned character ever.
I plan some and I don't plan others. Some characters just scream for serious planning due to concept and others are a basic enough character concept that I can glance through a few books or ask for a little advice here in the forums and done. My ifrit character, Qakisst, has now been planned meticulously though level 20 five or six times. Every time I learn something new Qakisst's future changes slightly. Every game session tweaks his future. He is my obsession as I play through RotRL.
The hardest part about leveling Myrlan is picking out miniatures for the various creatures I plan to summon as I level up. Anybody know where I can find some tinny little golden lanterns I can hang from a hook for Lantern Archons?
Anyway, it just depends on what's fun for me.
this is just an issue with players wanting to "win" the game
I far prefer thinking of it as "not wanting to lose", because playing a terrible (ineffective at what the character is supposed to do) character is not fun for me, or most of the players I know.
We don't always optimize or plan builds out 20 levels... but in PF, if you don't focus in something (and usually from a very early level), you generally won't be good at what you're trying to do. In some cases, you can't even be mediocre outside one or two "super" builds.
If you want a game that encourages broad character expertise instead of tight focus, I'd suggest you play something like Shadowrun. Pathfinder isn't that kind of game, and can't be without a huge amount of work (and then the subsequent balance pass after the first one turns out to have massive holes in places you didn't expect).
Clearly people believe the system forces them to play Min/Maxed characters but hey guess what, your roll a 1 on a saving throw and you're still dead not matter if you can trip a Remorhaz. How about focusing on personality for your next character? It is a role playing game too.
Hey, great idea. I'll make a roleplay character, and then he can be dead when I roll below a 12 on that same saving throw instead of just on a 1...
I'm with you, OP. Not a fan of a lot of the preferences of the current gaming generation but it's something we have to live with.
I'd love to play a game system like the game Skyrim where you can just build your skills from what you do and not have to dabble in multi classing.
I'm going to let you in on a little known secret. There's more than one RPG game system.
Find a copy of this game. Check it out. See what you think.
|
|
Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?
Depending on the character, I do some planning (especially if they're aspiring to a prestige class), or I may contemplate how I'm going to handle a multiclassing character going forward (I usually stick with single-classing, and have no truck with "cheesy dip"), and of course I'll wind up anticipating whatever it is my character's going to do with their next level when they've almost achieved it, but some characters I do very little advance planning, since quite frankly, I consider getting to make such decisions with every level to be part of the fun. I'd NEVER want to stoop to a "predestination" approach where I plan every decision of every level of character advancement before level 1.
I do some planning around, but hardly every little detail, my current character definitely has a plan in place, toys built with traps, throw anything, improved improvised weapons, all of this is thanks to a minor rp session that let me know how I wanted her to develop, so I have some plan in place, but leave plenty of chance for growth based on campaign.
I feel as though you're method only really works if you're always starting at level 1. Most of my games start at level 7 or 8 and then we play until 12 or 13.
And I like planning out my characters, in math and in character. Every writer has some general idea of what they want the characters to do or end up as. So planning doesn't seem an anathema to me.
Besides those who specialize in real life tend to be better than those who kinda know a lot of things. Bruce Lee once said "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
Isn't it more realistic and advantageous for a warrior to be able to use a couple of weapons well rather than be able to use every weapon they can get their hands on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game can be approached with quite a few styles of play and if you're in reasonable agreement with your players over style, then Pathfinder works just fine with long term planners as well as non-planners. The problems arise, as you might have noticed in this thread, when the styles conflict. Hopefully, with good communication, you can work through any conflicts in your game better than gamers can over the internet message boards (where the tendency to dig in is highly observable).
|
|
Pf rewards character planning. A system that would not reward planning would have to go about character advancement completely differently. Instead of each level giving abilities that build upon previous abilities, you would need a system that replaces previous abilities with new ones. If each level your previous choices were swept away and you got new choices independent of anything else, then there would be no need or benefit to planning. As long as any of your abilities build upon previous ones, then there will be a benefit to planning.
Planning does not equal specialization. These are two different things. You can plan out a jack of all trades just as well as a specialist. The amount of specialization vs generalization varies a lot by campaign and play style. With some GMs, you can specialize in one shtick and always do that. With others, you will be constantly thrown into odd situations requiring wide skill sets to excel at and one trick characters will constantly find themselves in situations where their trick doesn't work. Generalist characters still benefit from planning (there is a feat chain that makes you better at untrained skills for example).
In society play, I plan everything including equipment to buy. For home games I don't plan items and stay away from builds that require one specific weapon so that I can benefit from the cool random drops. (I plan to take advantage of the randomness)
Transform some specialist feats like Weapon Focus into general ones then.
Make Weapon Focus just give +1 with all attacks rather than +1 with the double axe.
But even so, players usually imagine their character striving for something, like being the best swordsman or the best enchanter.
Darth Maul uses a double-lightsaber. It's his signature fighting style. He wouldn't want to swap to a slightly better crafted normal lightsaber, because he has already grown into his style. Likewise for planned PCs.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...so if this thread makes players think more about who their character is more than how many arrows they can fire in a round at 12th level then that's a good thing.
What makes people want to do something is seeing happy people doing that thing and having fun with it.
If the people who smile and laugh and treat them like human beings and show up just wanting to have a good time are the people who plan out specialized characters, then they're going to want to plan out specialized characters too because that's what they see good fun people doing and having a blast with.
If (as is rather common on these forums) their only exposure to the idea of an organically-progressed character is from posters who immediately jump to name-calling, put-downs, toxicity and one-upmanship? Nobody wants to move toward that.
People would be much more interested in building their characters your way if they just saw you having a blast with it. Attacking people for having a different path to fun does not make them want to switch over to your path.
Look at it this way:
Have any of these planners ever talked to/about you the way you're talking to/about them? Things like "your playstyle is nothing to wear a badge of honor over" and "if this thread makes you think more about what I like than what you like that's a good thing" and so forth. You said those things about them. Have they said things like that about you? Did it make you curious to try things their way? Or did it make you want to not ever game with them again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, first off I apologize for disappearing from this thread. Life just got in the way and then I discovered D&D5. Anyway looking to dip my feet back into PF so at the moment looking for a Sydney, Australia based group.
Anyway....I guess my issue is with the system because it breeds this specialist mentality because in most cases specializing can mean the difference between life and death but not always...
Like the time the Enchanter Wizard spent several sessions unable to effectively fight any of the monsters the party encountered.
Or the time a single monk thrashed an entire party because the Archer refused to swap to sword despite the monk catching the arrow she fired every round (the monks high AC made multishot useless).
Or the time the Weapon Focused Greatsword Specialized Warrior lost his main weapon at the start of an adventure in a dungeon and couldn't replace it for several sessions.
I like being challenged as a player so I will create my first level character and that's it, I don't plan beyond that because I want to see where the story goes and how my character develops to that.
I'd love to play a game system like the game Skyrim where you can just build your skills from what you do and not have to dabble in multi classing.
For the enemy monk thrashing an entire party and shutting down the foolish archer, I would have loved to be there, with popcorn. If only it could have been streamed right into a monk's are weak thread.
I agree with you on design at 1, have some fun and don't care about the build too much. I've done the build it procedure, plan it out to 8 or 12, or up to 18. I've carefully tailored them, reached and completed them. The problem is what then? Far better to develop a character and have them grow with a campaign (very happy you have long campaigns to do this in, you are lucky) and go into the areas you think fit and will help, rather than a specialist that can't adapt and isn't built to be adaptable.
I do quite a bit of planning, but I willingly accept the whims and flows of the game, and revise said plans accordingly when needed.
Pf rewards character planning. A system that would not reward planning would have to go about character advancement completely differently. Instead of each level giving abilities that build upon previous abilities, you would need a system that replaces previous abilities with new ones. If each level your previous choices were swept away and you got new choices independent of anything else, then there would be no need or benefit to planning. As long as any of your abilities build upon previous ones, then there will be a benefit to planning.
** spoiler omitted **Planning does not equal specialization. These are two different things. You can plan out a jack of all trades just as well as a specialist. The amount of specialization vs generalization varies a lot by campaign and play style. With some GMs, you can specialize in one shtick and always do that. With others, you will be constantly thrown into odd situations requiring wide skill sets to excel at and one trick characters will constantly find themselves in situations where their trick doesn't work. Generalist characters still benefit from planning (there is a feat chain that makes you better at untrained skills for example).
In society play, I plan everything including equipment to buy. For home games I don't plan items and stay away from builds that require one specific weapon so that I can benefit from the cool random drops. (I plan to take advantage of the randomness)
Greatsword? Mace and shield is where it is at, so you ignore armour, do great damage and have magnificent defences. Mace+shield is very strong in that game.
Hey, I know a game that's really good at balance, makes all classes pretty much equal, makes all builds viable! It's a much-maligned game and oh let's cut to the chase; It's 4th edition.
4th edition still has planning. There are trap choices and prerequisites, though they don't have the huge feat chains. You also need to plan with the party to cover needs.
I find it too difficult to plan ahead. By 3rd or 4th level, I'm already boggled by all the options, and know that some of them won't be useful given the nature of the campaign, no matter how cool or flavorful they may be.
So, I wait and see: what is this campaign about? How is the GM running things? Are we doing a lot more urban/social interaction or more dungeon crawls? Until I know, I don't plan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's tribalism. Optimizers will insult non-optimizers. Roleplayers will insult non-roleplayers. The style YOU use is the only true way to play and have any fun. Which is reinforced by the truth that YOU do have fun playing that way and not much if any fun playing other ways. And it's amplified by all the people you meet who play like you do.
Everyone should plan to a point. That point will be different for each player but you should plan something. Even if it's just a few feats or spells you're looking forward to having. Some people plan every aspect they can. Those players either play in the same type of game all the time or find that they made some bad choices.
I like to plan things out but I always leave room for change. I don't ever build a character that must have certain items to be viable. I have to assume that I won't get those items. If I get them, that's awesome! If I don't, I still need to be good at what I do.
Hey guys, first off I apologize for disappearing from this thread. Life just got in the way and then I discovered D&D5. Anyway looking to dip my feet back into PF so at the moment looking for a Sydney, Australia based group.
Anyway....I guess my issue is with the system because it breeds this specialist mentality because in most cases specializing can mean the difference between life and death but not always...
Like the time the Enchanter Wizard spent several sessions unable to effectively fight any of the monsters the party encountered.
Or the time a single monk thrashed an entire party because the Archer refused to swap to sword despite the monk catching the arrow she fired every round (the monks high AC made multishot useless).
Or the time the Weapon Focused Greatsword Specialized Warrior lost his main weapon at the start of an adventure in a dungeon and couldn't replace it for several sessions.
I like being challenged as a player so I will create my first level character and that's it, I don't plan beyond that because I want to see where the story goes and how my character develops to that.
I'd love to play a game system like the game Skyrim where you can just build your skills from what you do and not have to dabble in multi classing.
Many systems have this issue. In order to gain some of the better abilities you have to take several lower abilities. If you do not plan your advancement to a certain degree, you are never able to excell in anything. It is usually more of a problem with level based systems, as you have only a certain limited amount of character resources you are about to gain (skill points, feats, etc.).
From what you are describing as your preference, you would be better off playing D6, Deadlands/Savage Worlds or some other skill based system, where you can change your character focus without greater repercussions.
I find it too difficult to plan ahead. By 3rd or 4th level, I'm already boggled by all the options, and know that some of them won't be useful given the nature of the campaign, no matter how cool or flavorful they may be.
So, I wait and see: what is this campaign about? How is the GM running things? Are we doing a lot more urban/social interaction or more dungeon crawls? Until I know, I don't plan.
Interesting. I find NOT planning difficult for the same reason.
There are a billion options in this game, if I don't have a Feat I want to take, most of the time it then takes me FOREVER to level up after while.
Though, it's not like planning makes your build rigid. You can swap things out, or plan flexibly. A lot of my stuff looks like this (this is my Paladin):
1.) Fey Foundling
3.) Power Attack
5.) Greater Mercy
7.) Skill Focus: Survival, Deific Obedience, or Extra Lay on Hands
9.) Ultimate Mercy or Eldritch Heritage: Orc
11.) Eldritch Heritage: Orc or Ultimate Mercy
13.) Improved Eldritch Heritage: Orc(???)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, so many of the decent to good options in Pathfinder have prerequisites that it's almost impossible to not do some degree of planning if you actually want to take any of them.
Unless you are playing a spellcaster. Paizo doesn't believe in limiting spellcaster options by burdening them with prerequisites.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, so many of the decent to good options in Pathfinder have prerequisites that it's almost impossible to not do some degree of planning if you actually want to take any of them.
I agree. I really dislike retraining, but with the current rules, it feels like a necessity at times.
I'd like to see combat feats move away from having other feats as pre-reqs and instead have just base attack bonus as a pre-req.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im going to use a real life example of why planning is not the end all be all of bad.
Back in 2008 I went to college. After my first semester, I knew what I wanted to get a degree in. So I went to the guidance councilor, and we planned my entire college transcript. Now each semester I would need to make small changes here and there, but overall I stuck to that plan. Why? Because without it I wouldn't have had enough credits to graduate. In fact, I needed to go full bore every semester to barely make it in the window my financial aid gave me to graduate.
Pathfinder is similar. Where you want to be at later levels requires that you put in some level of planning in the earlier ones. If I want to be an Arcane Archer I need to make sure I pick up all the pre-reqs.
A lot of what the OP complained about has nothing to do with planning, but inflexibility in the player to adapt in the most minor of ways. That's a problem, but not planning out your character in advance doesn't solve an inflexable approach to the game.
Are there any players out there who do not plan out their characters level progression?
I've grown tired of players who have every skill and feat planned to 20th level. It leaves no scope for the character to grow and develop because of the encounters and experiences they face.
I rarely see them planned out to 20. 10ish seems more realistic (or even optimistic) for how long campaigns last.
But, honestly, this is D&D/PF. Characters _don't_ grow (in abilities) based on encounters/experiences they face. They grow based on what they think is coming next (or more often, the general trends of the system), and just because they beat up were-rats in the sewers today, doesn't mean they'll be dealing with were-anythings next week. This is true for adventure paths (take Carrion Crown for each chapter having its own theme) or third party or even home brewed adventures (which, lets be honest, can be just be a random grab bag of stuff out the bestiary).
A common example is the "I must wield one type of weapon and commit all my feats to it!" then a nice piece of gear is found and they PCs just sell it.
Blame the mechanics of feats for this. If you take weapon focus [blah] at any point, you are locked into whatever [blah] is, otherwise the previous feat was a complete waste of resources. And frankly the fantasy genre is more supportive of 'the hero wields Named Weapon' than 'the hero sorts through his golf bag of random stuff.'
Maybe a more gestalt approach would work. You build a base character who can fight and as she progresses in levels she seeks out things she'd like to do - become a mage, a rogue, join a church etc
Sounds pretty awful, honestly. People like to be consistent and grow a theme, not just take off in random, unrelated directions at every milestone. When I make a character I want to be X concept, not suffer through being Y until I can get to X.