Sick of players planning out their characters


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 410 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Voss wrote:


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.'

Though the fantasy genre isn't really all that supportive of "hero sells his Named Weapon to buy a better Named Weapon".

It is fairly supportive of "Hero may usually use X weapon, but is pretty damn badass with whatever's at hand."

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Though the fantasy genre isn't really all that supportive of "hero sells his Named Weapon to buy a better Named Weapon".

What?!!?!?

In MY copy of Lord of the Rings, Aragon upgrades his sword a dozen times, Frodo buys a vorpal dagger and chucks that useless Dagger of Orc Detection +0 in the rubbish. Hell, even Sam Gamgee replaces Bill the Pony with a nightmare. The Fellowship had pony-burgers that night.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually will have the feats for the first 3 or 5 levels determined and if faster the spells I would be learning. Afterwards I just go with what makes sense with what's been going on. My characters aren't very optimal but I'm able to contribute. The thing is if u have a GM who is using scenarios or enemy tactics that require specializing to advance, then u the player would need to start following suit. But u can play pathfinder very easily without having to optimize as well, just be a bit harder but for some people that's exciting.

I don't have a problem with players mapping out their progress. I do have a pet peeve of players building a concept and it requiring items to make it so and the players expecting those items in my games.


I have a plan of sorts, but it's a little hazy. In this case it's more 'I see shiny thing I want, and to get it I have to X'. Honestly, it's going to fit concept, so here I've got two feats planned. The concept is 'I make my own damn weapons, and enchant them too, despite being a frontliner with no magic', so you can guess what my feats at levels at 5 and 7 are, as well as some skill point spending.

I was dithering on the level 3 feat. Then I found how crappy it is to fail Will saves. Hm.

Character's an unchained barbarian, so here I'm picking up rage powers. Still undecided as to what to get (trying to avoid ubercheesiness) but still want cool stuff. So I have Animal Fury (for the joy of having NPCs scream at you trying to EAT them). At 12, Taunting Stance (which means grabbing Combat Reflexes at 9 or 11).

Ouch. So much for feat versatility. Oh well.

Liberty's Edge

Reebo Kesh wrote:

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.

Then next campaign, the player will plan better. I don't see the connection between planning and specializing here; a character without a plan, who has successfully enchanted everything in her path, is more likely to have this problem then a character ran by a player with plan.

Quote:
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.

Was this fun for the player? No matter how much the player plans or doesn't plan, the GM can have his character lose their Strength or be cursed with pacifism or get a cursed ring of antimagic or lose their connection to their god. If it's all fun for everyone, then that's great, but if the player feels the GM is just screwing with them, then it's no fun.

Game-wise, Weapon Focus is a necessity for the fighter. That's just the way the game is set up. Punishing the player for taking a feat is a little mean. Fiction-wise, as others have pointed out, the number of fictional warriors who have gone through multiple weapons is pretty low.


My opinion of the original post is not that the OP is saying that "all planning is bad" but rather that planning to the nth degree and NEVER adjusting is bad.

Having a character concept is a must. But you cant be so limited by a plan that you completely forgo organic growth.

My current druid: i know i want to be able to turn into a bear, wade into combat, hit things bloody hard, and cast self buff spells in combat.
That means i need power attack, natural spell, and some other stuff.
But it hasn't stopped me from taking brew potion because it helps the party, or augmented summon because we need more battlefield control.

Plans are necessary to a degree, but so is a degree of organic growth.

I agree with the OP that having an entire 1-20 plan set in stone and never changing it is a bad thing

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Voss wrote:


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.'

Though the fantasy genre isn't really all that supportive of "hero sells his Named Weapon to buy a better Named Weapon".

It is fairly supportive of "Hero may usually use X weapon, but is pretty damn badass with whatever's at hand."

The swords and sorcery genre was less focused on the maguffin at hand Fafrh and the Gray Mousers weapons had names, but that was what they called the blades they currently used, and they were as apt to thrown then at an enemy, drop them in a volcano, or lose them over the side of the ship, only to show up with a new one with the same name some time later.

Gray Wand and Cats Claw I believe were the name.

Liberty's Edge

Maybe try out the Story Feats section of Ultimate Campaign. Some of them can be really interesting plot points or if you are into homebrew maybe make up some of your own story feats or traits. If they survive an encounter with an aboleth and defeat it they get pluses vs mind effecting and aberrations or other some such.


Personally I've never planned out a character to lvl 20, it just seems too unrealistic to plan that far ahead. I plan to lvl 11 or so usually, as that seems more achievable. Also, my rule of thumb is whatever build I'm going for must be feasible by level 9 at the latest. No convoluted, long-term builds for me.

On the other hand, it doesn't bother me in the least if someone else plans their character out to lvl 20. Not my character, not my problem.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've only planned one character to any significant sort of degree, and that's my -1 in Pathfinder.

I wanted them to be able to cast and use a wand of CLW without UMD, and storywise there was a good opportunity for them to get some religion, so they branched into Cleric as a 'side hobby'.

A couple of levels later they pushed harder into the 'side hobby' because... it was important to have some of the 2nd level spells.

And then at GenCon, at a table with 7-8 (and I was playing 'up' with my Slayer 3/Cleric 3) the fact I could channel 2d6 of heals each turn literally kept the party from TPK.

If I'd gone with my original plan of pure melee combatant? It would not have gone so well.

So while it's not bad to plan a little bit, imo? It's also not necessarily a good thing to be ironclad about advancement. It locks off possibilities that can develop in play.

401 to 410 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Sick of players planning out their characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion