|
By this, I mean classes like witch where every one has either the misfortune or the slumber hex and all witches cackle. Or summoner (either version) where most eidolons are dpr monsters with an occasional skill monkey but making a manuever master or ranged eidolon is not practical. (In fact, I think the lack of these concepts are part of the summoners image problem)
Basically, I'm wondering what classes fit this criteria, where many options exist on paper, but which for all practical purposes only one or two see play.
What would you do for a player who wanted to buck "the concept" and what classes do you think fit this criteria. Where is it possible to work around it and where is it not so much?
Comments? Opinions?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically the problem with 3.x and false choices.
If you ignore all the bad player options, pf has far less content. Some classes only have one build. Rare are cases like dazing spell, all blasters want that but it is op.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Similar classes allow for build variety for a concept. Witch and Shaman means your "Witch" can wade into melee like a Cleric. Summoner and Spiritualist means you "Eidolon" can focus on debuffing. Maneuver-focused Eidolons are feasible- in fact, required for Protean. I believe Azata Eidolons could do ranged- low feat count hurts, though. I recommend finding or starting lower-op games with players agreeing to take it easier.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
False choices is a fallacy.
All choices are valid, but some forfil certain criteria's poorly.
A player may choose an option for one of may different reasons.
These loosely break down into three classes of priority.
-optimisation based: be it optimising for DPR, to reduce opponents efficacy, or to become better at non-combat encounters.
-concept based: decisions made to support a theme or concept of a character.
-fun based:Decisions based on other elements, such as ensuring a good social enviroment.
They are allin principle equally valid.
They can interact with each other in all sorts of interesting ways.
For instance:
- I flat out consider wizard to be the best class in the game, but it doesn't matter how optimal it might be to play a wizard, if what I want to play in an upcoming game is a fighter, I am going to play a fighter.
-I might be totally sold on the idea of a needle throwing monk poisoner, but if the build is not going to make the assumed power level of the campaign, I may need to put it on hold, because I have agreed to that power-level.
-I might think that the spider themed druid I am building is amazing, but if I have an aracnophobe in the group, i'll probably not be playing them in this game.
and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I play PF now I try to have a competent strategy and then I mess around. I also think wizard is the strongest class but I am current playing a low cha dragon blood sorceress that summons for offense and has a lot of utility spell.
Or I play odd things like eldritch Knight and arcane trickster.
I believe witches get summon monster. That means they don't have to be sleep hex focused.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witches need not be misfortune/slumber bots. Granted those are very strong options, but you can make a witch that is effective and never touches them. Winter Witch and Ley Line Guardian can both make effective blasters. Hedge Witch and Hex Channeler can be effective healers. Flight Hex and water lung are great utility. They can be great summoners, especially swarm summoners.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
to my experience the optimizers you are talking about tend to be bad at optimization, so they either bring sky-blue guide builds or something that they only think it on.
I played with a guy who thought he was soon leet when he grabbed rapid shot for his crossbow on a druid. I came into that group with an 18 strength fighter with power attack and other non-weapon focus crb feats. They thought I was so OP. Then they figured out how to play the game.
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
This is simply not true.
Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they are able to do.
-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy.
By this, I mean classes like witch where every one has either the misfortune or the slumber hex and all witches cackle. Or summoner (either version) where most eidolons are dpr monsters with an occasional skill monkey but making a manuever master or ranged eidolon is not practical.
Neither of these are examples of one-strategy classes, though.
The witch's hexes are certainly strong, but the witch herself is a 9-level caster with wonderful options on her spell list. Even if the witch does spend wealth and feats to optimize hexes, it doesn't mean that wonderful roleplaying spells like "Charm Person" or "Bestow Curse" disappear from her spell list.
Same with the summoner. The summon monster list is seriously huge, and you don't need to go Master Summoner to make use of your 3+Cha uses of it. Even if you don't have Augment Summoning/Superior Summoning, you can still use summons for their SLAs or unique tricks - like 6d6 Lightning Bolt.
Rather, these are classes that have a "primary" strategy and a lot of fallbacks. A true "single strategy" class would be something like the DPR-focused Fighter.
|
|
This is simply not true.
Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they are able to do.
-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy.
And what class features does a fighter have that enable them to do any of that better than than a NPC warrior?
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
To add to why using the term "power gamer" as an pejorative term upsets people, it basically comes of as you saying that those who enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game are having badwrongfun and are terrible people when at the table because of it. Shockingly enough, that sort of attitude isn't exactly going to make friends. I don't know if you actually have that attitude, but it's sure how your posts read.
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?
If you priorities optimisation greatly over other decision making aspects, the game does exhibit this quality.
The situation is a result of a play style, not an innate truth of the system.
only for the bad classes.
Every fullcaster is bursting with valid builds.
Some half casters are very diverse like hunters, bards, investigators, alchemists, etc. The occult classes have plenty of build diversity.
The bad classes lack diversity. Witch is the exception, people tend to play her for her unique mechanics but they really don't have too to contribute to the party meaningfully.
Not sure their is a single class in PF that can honestly be said to lack diversity.
Could you give an example of a class that you believe does?
Fighters have very few builds that actually work. One or two at the most and they still shouldn't be playing with tier one classes.
Barbarians have one true build with two variants. Magi have two builds. Chained monks have 2-3 builds depending on who you ask.
Chained rogues are bad. No build is vaible. Unchained rogues do far better but will still have three builds.
Warpriest is pretty cookie cutter.
All archers have a severe feat tax problem.
Post errata swashbucklers have one build.
Now if you think slight skill point changes or a different feat or two counts as a different build then no classes fit that, but when it comes to general builds many classes are limited.
To add to why using the term "power gamer" as an pejorative term upsets people, it basically comes of as you saying that those who enjoy the mechanical aspect of the game are having badwrongfun and are terrible people when at the table because of it. Shockingly enough, that sort of attitude isn't exactly going to make friends. I don't know if you actually have that attitude, but it's sure how your posts read.If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
I understand why it does.
I avoid using it where ever I can.
I'd love an alternative term, because frankly, dancing around the term, while describing the sub-group of players to whom it applies, is kind boring.
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?
I find Pathfinder not groups limiting. The gm should be able to throw apl+2 encounters at the party without everyone dieing. It's not the GMs fault if someone's basket weaver peasant is a worthless adventurer
Actually, I can find plenty of ways to build all of the above mentioned classes in different ways on different characters...
ah but more than 3 generally different ways? That work against cr appropriate foes?
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
Insane.
You know why it works?
Because GM.
More specifically, because players who build these characters expect their GM to make all, or at least most, of the challenges fit into the narrow window where their one trick will be applicable. I've seen plenty of arguments on this messageboard that GMs should or even must accommodate these players and that not doing so is considered a "dick move".
The prevailing belief is that, if a player makes a slumber witch and then the GM has a construct or undead campaign, or even just a multi-session dungeon, then that's bad GMing. If a player makes a mounted cavalier built around charging enemies with a lance and then the GM makes lots of underground dungeons with narrow and/or twisty corridors and weird terrain obstacles that prevent the charges, then that's bad GMing. Etc.
These one-trick characters usually do not work out very well in a true sandbox world where every encounter and every dungeon and every treasure hoard is pre-scripted before characters are generated. Build a one-trick character in that kind of campaign and you better expect LOTS of times that your one-trick will fail and the person to blame is the player for building that limited character - assuming the player knew the sandbox nature of the campaign up front.
Insane.
The only sane way anybody could possibly contemplate the life of an adventurer, facing countless, perhaps infinite danger that takes infinite possible forms is to be ready to use a vast array of skills and abilities to handle all these dangers. They must be ready for EVERYTHING. One trick characters who are ready for ONE THING are the OPPOSITE of this idea.
Oh, sigh. Another combat. Is it my turn? Hey, guess what I'm gonna do? Oh, you guys guessed it on the first try? How surprising. Hey, can I just hand the GM my script of what I do every single combat so I can just take a nap during these fights?
Then the player either rolls up a new character or worse, he starts playing his current character as suicidal because killing himself justifies getting a new character. This is my favorite. Instead of just saying "I want a new character", the player does stupid stuff like insulting local nobles, trying to steal stuff from the archmage of questionable alignment, jumping into the pitch black ravine to find out what's at the bottom, etc. Some of this can be very disrupting to the campaign.
And you know what? Usually the new character is a different one-trick character because most players who are drawn to this concept of a single trick to win don't change the concept, they simply change the trick.
As long as GMs coddle these characters, allow the trick to succeed all the time, and avoid encounters that neutralize or frustrate the trick, players will keep making them and they will keep being repetitive, boring, and controversial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you priorities optimisation greatly over other decision making aspects, the game does exhibit this quality.
The situation is a result of a play style, not an innate truth of the system.
only for the bad classes.
Every fullcaster is bursting with valid builds.
Some half casters are very diverse like hunters, bards, investigators, alchemists, etc. The occult classes have plenty of build diversity.
The bad classes lack diversity. Witch is the exception, people tend to play her for her unique mechanics but they really don't have too to contribute to the party meaningfully.
Not sure their is a single class in PF that can honestly be said to lack diversity.
Could you give an example of a class that you believe does?
Fighters have very few builds that actually work. One or two at the most and they still shouldn't be playing with tier one classes.
Barbarians have one true build with two variants. Magi have two builds. Chained monks have 2-3 builds depending on who you ask.
Chained rogues are bad. No build is vaible. Unchained rogues do far better but will still have three builds.
Warpriest is pretty cookie cutter.
All archers have a severe feat tax problem.
Post errata swashbucklers have one build.
Now if you think slight skill point changes or a different feat or two counts as a different build then no classes fit that, but when it comes to general builds many classes are limited.
None of those classes lack diversity, in a non-heavily optimised game.
In fact, rogues have a huge range of possible builds in a low optimization game.
The mistake your making is assuming that because a class doesn't work well with your chosen style of play, that it is a bad class.
If you priorities optimisation greatly over other decision making aspects, the game does exhibit this quality.
The situation is a result of a play style, not an innate truth of the system.
only for the bad classes.
Every fullcaster is bursting with valid builds.
Some half casters are very diverse like hunters, bards, investigators, alchemists, etc. The occult classes have plenty of build diversity.
The bad classes lack diversity. Witch is the exception, people tend to play her for her unique mechanics but they really don't have too to contribute to the party meaningfully.
Not sure their is a single class in PF that can honestly be said to lack diversity.
Could you give an example of a class that you believe does?
Fighters have very few builds that actually work. One or two at the most and they still shouldn't be playing with tier one classes.
Barbarians have one true build with two variants. Magi have two builds. Chained monks have 2-3 builds depending on who you ask.
Chained rogues are bad. No build is vaible. Unchained rogues do far better but will still have three builds.
Warpriest is pretty cookie cutter.
All archers have a severe feat tax problem.
Post errata swashbucklers have one build.
Now if you think slight skill point changes or a different feat or two counts as a different build then no classes fit that, but when it comes to general builds many classes are limited.
None of those build lack diversity, in a non-heavily optimised game.
In fact, rogues have a huge range of possible builds in a low optimization game.
The mistake your making is assuming that because a class doesn't work well with your chosen style of play, that it is a bad class.
hey if they can't survive all encounters they are trash. If the party losses to apl+2 encounters then they are bad, if no amount of luck or gm playing the monsters dumb will let a party beat an apl+4 encounter them they can't compete a campaign.
No not every game is like that, but those who throw out the game part of rpg for combat are not the people we consider when saying a class is bad.
Edit: also out of combat would also require kid gloves going. For most of us. Talking being the only challenging part of the game is boring and hallow when combats still take hours but we were always going to win regardless of what we did.
[starts formulating a post - delets it]
What DM_Blake wrote. can express it better.
Why yes. About 1-3 for every class to out-do all the cr appropriate foes (give or take a few... I'm looking at you, rogue. And some monsters are very powerful for their cr as well) and plenty to beat around the same area. I'm not claiming that all builds are optimized to the fullest. But from what I've seen it really doesn't need to be to pull your cr appropriate weight.Actually, I can find plenty of ways to build all of the above mentioned classes in different ways on different characters...ah but more than 3 generally different ways? That work against cr appropriate foes?
ah but you need more than three less you be a filthy power gamer /s
I find Pathfinder not groups limiting. The gm should be able to throw apl+2 encounters at the party without everyone dieing. It's not the GMs fault if someone's basket weaver peasant is a worthless adventurerIf you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?
And yet I can throw an APL+2 encounter at a party that the basket weaving peasant can beat that the equal level wizard can't.
The system has deep complexity, with a fairly high level of randomness added on top. The idea that what your describing is possible is just straight up wrong.
Let me put it this way. A while back I played in an encounter that would have wiped the party, of 5th level, highly optimised characters I was playing with.
I pulled the parties bum out of the fire.
I could have solo'ed that encounter with a level 1 commoner, with High dex, improved initative and a sunrod, and a two good rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
Your post should end this thread (of course, it won't). Perfect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm having trouble thinking of a single class that only has 1-2 workable builds... especially with the glut of options that have come out recently...
yes, there will always be some builds that are more effective at a specific goal than others, but that only limits your options if you make and keep that one goal as the only one.
for example, lets look at the fighter (generally considered on the boards to be one of the most limited classes): if you're goal is always DPR you're likely going to focus on archery or a big two-hander. those aren't the only good DPR options though. Mounted Combat has a lot of potential and their high feat total makes nature soul/animal ally/boon companion a relatively inexpensive option for gaining an animal companion mount. Or, for that matter, they could build as 2WF with an animal companion and handful of teamwork feats to offset having to split/balance Str and Dex. And that's all just DPR builds, if you decide to buff/debuff there are feats and traits to augment aid another, combat maneuvers like dirty trick, and a fair number of feats for applying status conditions; plus they can take VMC Bard (which, again, is less costly for them because of their high feat count) for bardic performance. Moving outside of combat, their skills are limited but there are a couple of archetypes that boost number of skill points and traits can make nearly any skill a class skill (with a +1 usually); add to that feats like skill focus and amateur investigator or bardic knowledge from the previously mentioned VMC Bard and they can be pretty solid on a handful of skills. I know what you're thinking- 'yeah but without magic they'll always be behind the curve'- well, there's at least one archetype that gives them UMD as a class skill (and they can afford skill focus); Cha is often a dump stat but it doesn't have to be and dropping a few points into it opens up options like Eldritch heritage.
Ok, that got longer than i expected... the point is 2 of my favorite fighters were a vanilla one with UMD, Eldritch Heritage, and a wand-wielding improved familiar (back when SLAs could open that up for you), and a lore warden/martial master fighter with VMC Magus. Neither were cookie cutter builds but both did just fine at DPR while bringin some cool flavor and out of combat options. I think you could do that with pretty much every class.
Also, +1 to GM Blake's post. Coddling players who make 1 dimensional characters is terrible.
And yet I can throw an APL+2 encounter at a party that the basket weaving peasant can beat that the equal level wizard can't.
The system has deep complexity, with a fairly high level of randomness added on top. The idea that what your describing is possible is just straight up wrong.
Let me put it this way. A while back I played in an encounter that would have wiped the party, of 5th level, highly optimised characters I was playing with.
I pulled the parties bum out of the fire.
I could have solo'ed that encounter with a level 1 commoner, with High dex, improved initative and a sunrod, and a two good rolls.
If you don't mind, I'm interested in hearing more about this encounter. Can you provide some descriptions of what the enemies/challenges were and what the party tried that made them almost TPK?
I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.
i'm having trouble thinking of a single class that only has 1-2 workable builds... especially with the glut of options that have come out recently...
Gunslinger?
If you have a non-pejorative term that as accurately or more accurately describes the class of player who focuses on optimization to the exclusion and/or detriment of other factors in character building, then we can use it.
From my observations it is an inevitability. Certainly, I have never been in a game with players who are highly focused on optimisition where my haven't been pushed by the game into a limited the field of classes or approaches, so that I can stay involved with the game, in a way that does not happen in games where their is a far greater focus on fun/group dynamic and theme/concept.
Perhaps you should accept that your experience isn't the summation of reality. I've regularly played PF from day one with two groups who make strong characters and I haven't begun to see concept stalenses. The group I run for are always finding new ways to approach characters that are (1) very powerful and (2) not cookie cuttered from a guide.
I can tell you unequivocally that the result described in the OP isn't inevitable.
Also, I don't object to the term powergamer, I object to its use as a pejorative.
So do you feel able to play every character concept that you can possibly come up with, with those groups?
Yes absolutely. But I feel it is important to be clear here; I can play any character concept NOT any mechanical build. I don't hold any allegiance to the suggested fluff for a class. If I have a concept to play a derring-do, sneaky, trap finding, stabby-stabby type I have no problem writing "Magus" on my character sheet.
Between VMC and the cross-class accessibility that came online with the ACG, I literally cannot think of a concept that I couldn't build to hang with a group of people who play at 8-9 on the optimization scale for levels 1-14.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
An 18th level character can't afford 750gp for a potion of flying? Much less any permanent flight magic item? That's a player problem, not a GM one.
It was a weird arse, shadow monster. It had tenticles and a long reach, I remember that. Genuinely can't remember what it was called. It was hiding in the roof of the lift we were in.
The rest of the group where all hyper specialists, and as memory serves, they as a group had had an oversight that meant they were going to be pretty bad at killing it.
I was playing a bard, so I cast light on a coin, and threw it up through the hole. Because of what it was, it had to retreat from light, it had nowhere to go, and it's right up meant it took damage from light.
It wouldn't have occur to them, I don't think, to do that, because their focus was so on increasing DPR or getting the best crowd control spell, rather than, what interesting way can I defeat this encounter with the resources I have.
I don't need a high DPR in a game, because slicing the rope bridge, and riding it over the gorge, while half the bad guys fall their doom is just so much more fun.