the idea is A LOT of fighting styles are feat starved, meaning if you want feats to fill out your character, you have to delay making your character even work mechanically, so we decided to just give some out every even level you don't gain an ability score.That's cool? This thread is about whether people are willing to sacrifice that combat power to realise characters that require more resources than is available if you're optimising for combat/realising those fighting styles. Your group doesn't want to have to decide so you've instituted houserules. That's neat, but I'm not really seeing the relevance to the intiial post unless you're saying "no. Our characters will be optimised for combat. We'll hand out free resources to make sure this happens while letting us play slightly more interesting characters as well."? Maybe if you tried to explain your point a bit differently? Unless you're not trying to relate to the OP of course and are simply posing your musings unrelated to the initial topic (albeit inspired by it).
I was having a conversation with someone who recommended background skills, so i brought up my houserules about background feats. if you have a problem with that take it up with Jack of Dust.
the intent is that thematic feats are not spent on combat related options (hence the general feats having the proviso that they not be spent on feats with the word spell in their name)
Contributor
|
the idea is A LOT of fighting styles are feat starved, meaning if you want feats to fill out your character, you have to delay making your character even work mechanically, so we decided to just give some out every even level you don't gain an ability score.That's cool? This thread is about whether people are willing to sacrifice that combat power to realise characters that require more resources than is available if you're optimising for combat/realising those fighting styles. Your group doesn't want to have to decide so you've instituted houserules. That's neat, but I'm not really seeing the relevance to the intiial post unless you're saying "no. Our characters will be optimised for combat. We'll hand out free resources to make sure this happens while letting us play slightly more interesting characters as well."? Maybe if you tried to explain your point a bit differently? Unless you're not trying to relate to the OP of course and are simply posing your musings unrelated to the initial topic (albeit inspired by it).I was having a conversation with someone who recommended background skills, so i brought up my houserules about background feats. if you have a problem with that take it up with Jack of Dust.
the intent is that thematic feats are not spent on combat related options (hence the general feats having the proviso that they not be spent on feats with the word spell in their name)
I think he's asking why your group decided that they couldn't afford to take those feats in normal feat slots...
That's what I was wondering, anyway.
he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
take the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.
the idea is A LOT of fighting styles are feat starved, meaning if you want feats to fill out your character, you have to delay making your character even work mechanically, so we decided to just give some out every even level you don't gain an ability score.That's cool? This thread is about whether people are willing to sacrifice that combat power to realise characters that require more resources than is available if you're optimising for combat/realising those fighting styles. Your group doesn't want to have to decide so you've instituted houserules. That's neat, but I'm not really seeing the relevance to the intiial post unless you're saying "no. Our characters will be optimised for combat. We'll hand out free resources to make sure this happens while letting us play slightly more interesting characters as well."? Maybe if you tried to explain your point a bit differently? Unless you're not trying to relate to the OP of course and are simply posing your musings unrelated to the initial topic (albeit inspired by it).I was having a conversation with someone who recommended background skills, so i brought up my houserules about background feats. if you have a problem with that take it up with Jack of Dust.
the intent is that thematic feats are not spent on combat related options (hence the general feats having the proviso that they not be spent on feats with the word spell in their name)
I think he's asking why your group decided that they couldn't afford to take those feats in normal feat slots...
That's what I was wondering, anyway.
i brought it up with the other GM in our group about how i never got to pick magical tails for kitsune or get my flying wings on a kobold, so we were like hey, what if we made a system that made it so that you could. then it just grew from there.
take the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
like I said, He doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, he's not prepared to take up any oder. he's a little lost and he adventures around hoping that the answer will come to him.
like I said, He doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, he's not prepared to take up any oder. he's a little lost and he adventures around hoping that the answer will come to him.take the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
so... he doesn't know if he even wants to be loyal to his companions? this feels like you really just don't want to mold the mechanics of the class to your fluff.
knight erant - edicts: 1. survive 2. help others survive 3. search for something worth while/purpose then stick to it.
if he;s scared of horses, the bravery class feature probably wouldn't fit him well either. :P
...like I said, He doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, he's not prepared to take up any oder. he's a little lost and he adventures around hoping that thetake the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
cavaliers are champions of there order. I consider myself pretty loyal, but I don't know if I could dedicate my life to protecting my allies. what if it I have to make a choice to save my ally or kill the dragon that took my arm, like I said. he's loyal but he's a little lost. it might be a really tough decision for him. he's allies safety is a priority but he's not dedicated to protecting his allies above all elf.
and he could be brave whilst being afraid of horses, he slowly conquers his fear as his bravery bonus increases lol.
...like I said, He doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, he's not prepared to take up any oder. he's a little lost and he adventures around hoping that thetake the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
Isn't a Daring Champion mountless? Also if I recall a Knight Errant is mostly about finding a cause to fight for so that fits in pretty well with the "not knowing what to do with your life".
Still to each their own.
...like I said, He doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, he's not prepared to take up any oder. he's a little lost and he adventurestake the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
you really haven't looked at the knight errant order have you. :P its the order that isn't an order, it's the "only me" order.
his order abilities are called: "Self Reliant", "Without Master", and "Chosen Destiny".
...like I said, He doesn't know what he wants to do with his life, he's not prepared to take up any oder. he's a little lost and he adventurestake the knight errant order(i mean dragon's order's edict is be loyal to your companions, but if that's still too much for you), daring champion doesn't have a mount.he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
knight errants serve his own ideals. this character doesn't know what he believes in. although, I'll admit I'm being overly harsh on what the description says.
my 3 edicts were pretty spot on for that character. :P
this is like saying a barbarian's rage MUST mean in roleplay you go insane from anger when you rage.
my 3 edicts were pretty spot on for that character. :P
this is like saying a barbarian's rage MUST mean in roleplay you go insane from anger when you rage.
you laugh but I've had DM's who do enforce that lol.
you laugh but I've had DM's who do enforce that lol.my 3 edicts were pretty spot on for that character. :P
this is like saying a barbarian's rage MUST mean in roleplay you go insane from anger when you rage.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.you laugh but I've had DM's who do enforce that lol.my 3 edicts were pretty spot on for that character. :P
this is like saying a barbarian's rage MUST mean in roleplay you go insane from anger when you rage.
what do you mean? they're both?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.
You state that though it is a fact. In reality it is a preference, probably the way you were taught or learned how to play. There are a lot of players that don't view classes as such.
|
he's not a cavalier because he doesn't know what to do with his life, let alone devote his life to a core set of principles. all he knows is that he wants to kill the dragon that took his arm but he's starting to lose heart in that idea, it won't bring his arm back and he's not even sure if it'll make him get better. thats why he's not a cavalier. also he's afraid of horses.great, you've built an effective on armed fighter. but your effective one armed fighter is still not as effective mechanically as a two armed fighter. which is my point. I would love to play a one armed fighter and play a one armed fighter as best I could but if someone else played a fighter with two arms, the advantage is clearly theres.
I want to play an intelligent barbarian, now I'm going to make this intelligent barbarian as great as I can. thats the mentality of the players I want to see in my games. not, I want to build the best DPS sorcerer I can.
see what I'm getting at now
you apparently don't know how well daring champion does since it can dump str. (he'll also be tankier and faster than the fighter barring mithral fullplate and actually being the fighter class and keeping armor class feature.)
but this is like saying, instead of building a wizard you build a two-handed fighter, for shame.
intelligent barbarian, stamina unlocks with karin style and karin strike.
beyond that hmmmm, skills aren't that useful on a barbarian because rage powers negate a ton of stuff...
on charismatic fighter, why are you not a cavalier?
Have ronin be your order. Then you get to pick your own code. And Daring Champion doesn't get a horse.
Or if you want - be a Swashbuckler. They're not quite as good (though the fort save issue can be solved at level 11 with the Twist Away combo) - but they retain all of the 1-handed combat advantages.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.You state that though it is a fact. In reality it is a preference, probably the way you were taught or learned how to play. There are a lot of players that don't view classes as such.
there is practically no way a bloodrager would define themselves as a bloodrager, or a sorcerer as a sorcerer or an oracle as an oracle. they don't just wake up one day and call themselves a bloodrager.
in APs wizard's usually have a cane but in their stat block it's a club, the developers designed the game with the fluff being highly mutable.
what exactly is a multiclassed cleric and fight? or any other combination of multiclass, the fluff HAS to be mutable or else it simply breaks.
Have ronin be your order. Then you get to pick your own code. And Daring Champion doesn't get a horse.Or if you want - be a Swashbuckler. They're not quite as good (though the fort save issue can be solved at level 11 with the Twist Away combo) - but they retain all of the 1-handed combat advantages.
been down that road, :P
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.You state that though it is a fact. In reality it is a preference, probably the way you were taught or learned how to play. There are a lot of players that don't view classes as such.there is practically no way a bloodrager would define themselves as a bloodrager, or a sorcerer as a sorcerer or an oracle as an oracle. they don't just wake up one day and call themselves a bloodrager.
in APs wizard's usually have a cane but in their stat block it's a club, the developers designed the game with the fluff being highly mutable.
I think its more likely that a bloodrager would refer to themselves as a bloodrager than even a barbarian would refer to themselves as a barbarian.
"Our Rage is what makes us strong, but you are different. Your Rage is different because you Have Magic Blood. You are a Bloodrager" I can imagine that coming up pretty organically.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.You state that though it is a fact. In reality it is a preference, probably the way you were taught or learned how to play. There are a lot of players that don't view classes as such.there is practically no way a bloodrager would define themselves as a bloodrager, or a sorcerer as a sorcerer or an oracle as an oracle. they don't just wake up one day and call themselves a bloodrager.
in APs wizard's usually have a cane but in their stat block it's a club, the developers designed the game with the fluff being highly mutable.
I think its more likely that a bloodrager would refer to themselves as a bloodrager than even a barbarian would refer to themselves as a barbarian.
"Our Rage is what makes us strong, but you are different. Your Rage is different because you Have Magic Blood. You are a Bloodrager" I can imagine that coming up pretty organically.
The only restriction is that Skalds must refer to themselves in character as Bardarians.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.You state that though it is a fact. In reality it is a preference, probably the way you were taught or learned how to play. There are a lot of players that don't view classes as such.there is practically no way a bloodrager would define themselves as a bloodrager, or a sorcerer as a sorcerer or an oracle as an oracle. they don't just wake up one day and call themselves a bloodrager.
in APs wizard's usually have a cane but in their stat block it's a club, the developers designed the game with the fluff being highly mutable.
I think its more likely that a bloodrager would refer to themselves as a bloodrager than even a barbarian would refer to themselves as a barbarian.
"Our Rage is what makes us strong, but you are different. Your Rage is different because you Have Magic Blood. You are a Bloodrager" I can imagine that coming up pretty organically.
you might call yourself a bloodrager, but that doesn't have the same meaning as the class, the truth is, they have no idea what they are only that they have some strange powers. just in the same way a swashbuckler is as likely to call themselves a fighter as a fighter is.
I also earlier said a good int-barbarian idea for a wizard that dropped out of school for being to brutish could be played as a arcane bloodrager.
The only restriction is that Skalds must refer to themselves in character as Bardarians.Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.You state that though it is a fact. In reality it is a preference, probably the way you were taught or learned how to play. There are a lot of players that don't view classes as such.there is practically no way a bloodrager would define themselves as a bloodrager, or a sorcerer as a sorcerer or an oracle as an oracle. they don't just wake up one day and call themselves a bloodrager.
in APs wizard's usually have a cane but in their stat block it's a club, the developers designed the game with the fluff being highly mutable.
I think its more likely that a bloodrager would refer to themselves as a bloodrager than even a barbarian would refer to themselves as a barbarian.
"Our Rage is what makes us strong, but you are different. Your Rage is different because you Have Magic Blood. You are a Bloodrager" I can imagine that coming up pretty organically.
why not vikings? who calls themselves a barbarian, in greek it means foreigner.
another detail, a barbarian that takes any of the bloodrager related rage powers, is he somehow less of a bloodrager? his power comes from his blood apparently.
I would honestly say that a lot people tend to confuse "optimal" and "useful". Having someone with (to use the example) one arm can be an interesting character (I'm actually contemplating this exact thing for an upcoming Wrath of the Righteous game that we're going to be running shortly), but having one arm means that you are limiting what you can do (in terms of equipment, mainly), just like saying that being human limits you in what you can do. You can have optimal and suboptimal characters who are useful or not useful. I see this all the time.
|
|
Is it just me - or does it feel like the OP doesn't WANT to be effective?
It feels like he's come up with ideas specifically to be 'different' (not necessarily a bad thing - but can lead to special snowflake syndrom), and then he keeps shooting down all of the potential ideas to make the premises solid mechanically. And then complaining that his ideas aren't solid mechanically.
If you want to go into a game where everyone has non-viable and non-synergistic characters, play PFS. It'll happen eventually and when it does you won't make this topic again.
The main thing to avoid is, again, being ineffective. I think most optimisation talk is more making sure you can't end up, say, swinging ineffectively as you're surrounded by jeering goblins. (Then again, if you can do this, then the other party members can get their weapons bloodied too. This happened in our last session. And I still did my job of 'not getting the others hurt'.)
Concepts can be fun. I've been toying with the idea of an elven gunslinger who is (roleplayed as) incompetent with a bow, and with a tanked Intelligence. Meanwhile, the barbarian I currently have now? Noble-born, but walked out, and higher Int than our cleric. (OOC the last time he said he was on a library run I yelled 'Fechtbücher!' at him.)
The main issue is to make sure, again, you're not outright hindering your party. You can play an atypical role, but make sure you can do it right. This will, sadly, nix some fun ideas (no wizards stupider than a stereotypical fighter), and it might take more work than some might be willing to put in (and might even be rough for a novice player to do), but again somewhere in this forum there's discussion on how to make a kitsune barbarian work. While using Fox Shape in battle.
there is practically no way a bloodrager would define themselves as a bloodrager, or a sorcerer as a sorcerer or an oracle as an oracle. they don't just wake up one day and call themselves a bloodrager.
I never suggested they had to. You stated that classes aren't their fluff, meaning that you can completely divorce the mechanics from the class's description. I stated that while you can do that, that is simply your preference and not the way everyone does it.
As an example, when I am interested in a class that I am not familiar with, I read the description of the class first. Then I read the mechanics. Reading the description helps me understand what the collection of the mechanics are meant to represent.
Often times reading the description of the class helps me to solidify a concept in my head. Then I add on skills and various feats to bring that concept to life.
You can do it your way, just realize other people do it differently.
Is it just me - or does it feel like the OP doesn't WANT to be effective?
I didn't get that impression. I thought this part of the OP summed it up pretty well:
has anyone just wanted to play a game where everyone involved agreed. lets not build optimal characters, lets just build ones which we think are cool and interesting and a bit weird and hopefully the GM will adjust the difficulty accordingly.
I think that type of game could be a lot of fun actually. I have a few oddball character concepts that are definitely not mechanically powerful that I think would be a lot of fun to play.
i think i've only read the description of the fighter, because i was curious what they'd describe such a blank slate as.
Is it just me - or does it feel like the OP doesn't WANT to be effective?
It feels like he's come up with ideas specifically to be 'different' (not necessarily a bad thing - but can lead to special snowflake syndrom), and then he keeps shooting down all of the potential ideas to make the premises solid mechanically. And then complaining that his ideas aren't solid mechanically.
no. you're missing my point. its not about purposely playing unoptimised characters. I'm not shooting down people who take a concept thats mechanically weaker then the alternative and make it as optimal as possible. in fact thats what I'm encouraging. for example, bows are better than crossbows. mechanically, they're just better. I'm encoring a player who says, I think crossbows are cooler than bows so I'm gonna play a crossbowman and do the best I can to make it the best crossbowman I can. I'm advocating character first then mechanics, instead of the opposite, mechanics first then character.
fair everyone who wants clarification on my position. this video pretty much sums up my feelings.
https://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no. you're missing my point. its not about purposely playing unoptimised characters. I'm not shooting down people who take a concept thats mechanically weaker then the alternative and make it as optimal as possible. in fact thats what I'm encouraging. for example, bows are better than crossbows. mechanically, they're just better. I'm encoring a player who says, I think crossbows are cooler than bows so I'm gonna play a crossbowman and do the best I can to make it the best crossbowman I can. I'm advocating character first then mechanics, instead of the opposite, mechanics first then character.Is it just me - or does it feel like the OP doesn't WANT to be effective?
It feels like he's come up with ideas specifically to be 'different' (not necessarily a bad thing - but can lead to special snowflake syndrom), and then he keeps shooting down all of the potential ideas to make the premises solid mechanically. And then complaining that his ideas aren't solid mechanically.
gunslinger -> bolt ace
AAAAAGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I CAN'T STOP!
fair everyone who wants clarification on my position. this video pretty much sums up my feelings.
https://youtu.be/zFuMpYTyRjw
you can see so much disappoint in his face.
|
|
no. you're missing my point. its not about purposely playing unoptimised characters. I'm not shooting down people who take a concept thats mechanically weaker then the alternative and make it as optimal as possible. in fact thats what I'm encouraging. for example, bows are better than crossbows. mechanically, they're just better. I'm encoring a player who says, I think crossbows are cooler than bows so I'm gonna play a crossbowman and do the best I can to make it the best crossbowman I can. I'm advocating character first then mechanics, instead of the opposite, mechanics first then character.Is it just me - or does it feel like the OP doesn't WANT to be effective?
It feels like he's come up with ideas specifically to be 'different' (not necessarily a bad thing - but can lead to special snowflake syndrom), and then he keeps shooting down all of the potential ideas to make the premises solid mechanically. And then complaining that his ideas aren't solid mechanically.
gunslinger -> bolt ace
I was going to say that - and it was kinda my point. Pathfinder has enough options at this point that you can make nearly any option viable, though not necessarily top tier. Slight tweaking of concept and/or fluff may be needed - but not much.
@OP: Honestly, no. I'm very fond of my optimizing. But I know that some people would want to give it a shot, and that's cool.
I think if my group all sat down and suggested it, I'd consider it. It's the least I can do, right?
If you like playing top tier characters, then great. theres nothing wrong with that. but its kinda like that link I just posted. sometimes its nice to have a party of BMX bandits instead of Angel Summoners.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.
That is not how Pathfinder is written. Pathfinder is designed so the mechanics specifically match the fluff. You're welcome to houserule/reflavour whatever you want. But it is a fundamental core aspect of Pathfinder that the mechanics are built to match the fluff. D&D 4th edition pushed the idea of reflavouring and "fluff doesn't matter, use the mechanics for whatever flavour you want" to the forefront and it was hammered (particularly by 3.5e players) for trying to push forward this design philosophy which was so alien to how D&D had worked prior to D&D 4th ed.
Ha, that doesn't even make sense, classes aren't the fluff their just a collection of mechanics.That is not how Pathfinder is written. Pathfinder is designed so the mechanics specifically match the fluff. You're welcome to houserule/reflavour whatever you want. But it is a fundamental core aspect of Pathfinder that the mechanics are built to match the fluff. D&D 4th edition pushed the idea of reflavouring and "fluff doesn't matter, use the mechanics for whatever flavour you want" to the forefront and it was hammered (particularly by 3.5e players) for trying to push forward this design philosophy which was so alien to how D&D had worked prior to D&D 4th ed.
considering the APs yes, it is how they're written. there is a large amount of refluff, especially prior to all our fancy classes out now.
How I see it is that Pathfinder lack the feats, magical items and enchantment special abilities for weapon and armors to make those fun idea shine as bright as they should
When people are gaming for the power-fantasy, 'arms race' is inevitable. A long time ago I would sometimes sit around with some older gamers who would use hardcore rolls and play some really checkered characters, but they really got into it. Cheering on the poor goons to live another day was a lot of fun. It just takes a mentality that seems to be very different that what many people now bring to the table.
It's been awhile since I played him but I had a highly charismatic kitsune barbarian that was fun to play. (Plus Spirit Totem and the Terrifying Howl/Intimidating Glare rage powers rocked. )
But his normal strength without enhancement or rage was like 14 or so.