you're doing something wrong if these only add up to 100, because one does not diminish the other.Some people like making the same types of characters over and over or being highly optimized. Others enjoy a new journey with each new character, neither is wrong and BOTH are valid. I myself am probably 60% optimize 40% character/story driven.As much as I want my Kineticist to have a cat familiar, she's taking -4 to hit in combat until level 5 or 7 if I do that first. Just as an example.Why wouldn't you want to take feats that focus on the thing you want your PC to be good at?
Furthermore, playing the same type of character repeatedly, being optimized and "enjoying a new journey with each character" are completely independent of each other. There are all sorts of highly optimized builds for all the different classes, so you will almost never feel the need to play the same builds over and over. On top of that, neither playing mechanically similar characters all the time or sticking with optimal builds prohibit each character from going through their own arc. Unless every campaign the GM runs is practically identical, I guess (and maybe not even then).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, how are you supposed to balance all feats against each other?
You have a feat that makes you totally awesome at singing and being diplomatic, but is never going to balance against a feat that makes you deal more damage in combat.
You have a concept for PC that is a master thief, and you spend resources to do that, it shouldn't automatically make you better at splitting skulls.
Hell, I don't see how this pulls away from character defining. "Micky here ain't exactly the best in a fight, but that silver tongue of his usually keeps us outta trouble."
Bam! Character depth, supported by mechanics.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because dealing more damage is a stupid feat on its face? Feats should allow you to do new things, not the same thing five percent more.
I think swinging harder should be a combat option open to everyone. Why is power attack a feat at all? Do you need special training to throw a haymaker instead of a more measured attack? If your concept involves doing a lot of damage, you choose a martial character, feats should not be required for a martial character to be good at damage, thats rediculous. Its like requiring casters to buy spell slots with skill points, otherwise they just cant cast.
I think in that case, the argument is that the feat should provide something besides just raw numbers. If you want to be the badass that mows down enemy combatants left and right, "killing dead faster" isn't necessarily better than "getting in position to kill dead fasterer by doing something cool and flavorful that doesn't have to directly do more damage." Say there's some hypothetical new feat that gives a free trip attempt on anyone you Cleave or Great Cleave. This feat wouldn't actually directly make you kill the enemy any faster, but the -4 to AC and free attack of opportunity if they decided to stand up certainly wouldn't slow down your assault either.
Like how feats increase DCs and damage of spells?
Feats really shouldn't do this, either. It causes all sorts of havoc. Basically, any feat that gives a static bonus is boring (and likely prone to be unbalancing) and probably ought to be built into the system somewhere else.
|
One of the most effective characters I ever played had NO combat skills at all. It was a d20 based Star Wars game and I decided to build a 'human astro-mech droid'. The rest of the party were jedi, bounty hunters, and large scary aliens... all optimized for combat. I could toss a stun grenade in the general direction of bad guys and that was about it... unless you count using engineering skills to break the group out of a security ward, hacking computers to find the data we needed, figuring out astrogation routes and flying a (stolen) ship, and slipping through collapsed rubble (he was short) to use his medical skills on a trapped jedi elder.
That was the first session. Character was next to useless in combat, but could do virtually everything else. So whenever they were fighting he would radio for backup, scout out an escape route, provide medical attention, or once in a blue moon throw a stun grenade... but outside of combat he pretty much ran the show.
The idea that there is only one 'optimal' way to do things is too narrowly focused on combat... and even then it ignores the fact that a diverse variety of abilities can effectively deal with a wider array of obstacles. Unless the entire game is one generic fight after another, variation wins every time.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The idea that there is only one 'optimal' way to do things is too narrowly focused on combat...
Either that, or it recognizes that Pathfinder isn't nearly as supportive of building the type of character you described as the Star Wars game you were playing was.
|
|
The idea that there is only one 'optimal' way to do things is too narrowly focused on combat...Either that, or it recognizes that Pathfinder isn't nearly as supportive of building the type of character you described as the Star Wars game you were playing was.
There is absolutely no reason you couldn't play a similarly non-combat oriented character in Pathfinder. Every example I gave in that post has an analogous situation in Golarion (escape artist, safe cracking, navigation, sailing, et cetera). It really comes down to the kind of games you play. If the GM throws nothing but unavoidable combats at you then combat optimization is the way to go... though personally at that point I could get a similar experience from Xbox. If you're playing in a complex world where 'I kill it' is NOT the answer >50% of the time then diversity is good. Heck, even in kill fests... you want to be able to kill things in different ways or you'll be in trouble when the GM throws something at you which CAN'T be killed in the 'one true optimized way'.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem in PF is that many of those non-combat challenges are best handled by the wizard (or other caster - bard maybe?) - who's also easy to optimize for combat without giving up the non-combat roles.
Yeah - it can work if systems make EVERYONE sacrifice combat for non-combat (spellcasters really don't - and bards/inquisitors get out of combat without sacrificing combat) so that the group can decide if everyone sacrifices a bit of combat - or one person sacrifices so the rest of the group can stay combat focused.
But in Pathfinder - some classes get great out of combat utility while giving up very little combat effectiveness. (bard/inquisitor etc)
(It can also work where systems keep combat and non-combat abilities in entirely separate resource pools.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol @ guy complaining about needing to make optimal choices choosing to roll up a FIGHTER.The irony wasn't lost on me either. ;)While the irony is rich, it's still a valid concern on multiple levels:
1. Playing a fighter (or any class) should never be ironic or sub-optimal. All classes should be viable.
2. Fighter or not, the point that so much content (previous posts in this thread suggested as much as 95%) is ignorable and likely ignored by nearly all players is a really big concern.Both of those problems should have never been allowed to exist, and should be fixed. But they won't be. So we all just live with it. I don't blame some players for being jaded by this.
It's part of the sales model for the game.
Every player companion has at most 1-2 worthwhile feats, maybe one good archetype, and maybe something else. It makes them so much money due to PFS since you end up with a character needing about 10 purchases.
Or, as usual, what you are saying is actually just your opinion and some of us find lots of good options in many of the Player Companions...
|
|
1E and 2E didn't have ways of adding extra options, without houserules.
Everything was restricted as hell.
Some people can't get past this "Different is bad. Change is bad." thing.
That's is fine. Play the same old stuff for as long as you want. Have fun with it.
Is it really just this one guy who is up in arms?
If so, the group shouldn't have to make massive changes, just to please one guy.
The game math shouldn't break down so much at high levels that you need bonuses from feats just to stay relevant. If you're getting a bonus from a feat, it should be substantial enough to make you excel at something, not just keep the tactic viable (and combat maneuver feats don't even do that for opponents larger than you at high levels).
You're all doing it wrong!
Yeah, as I recall the math says that the only time Power Attack isn't worth it is at the lowest levels, where a dedicated melee character is probably one-shotting things before power attack. Going from 2d6+6 to 2d6+9 doesn't really matter when your enemy only has 6 hp.
Personally, I've never had to worry about this kind of thing. While trap options certainly exist (whether they don't actually do anything or are too situational to be effective), I have enough system mastery that I can usually find a spot in my character for options that are purely for style. It helps that I have a GM who seems willing to reward me for doing that kind of thing of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is absolutely no reason you couldn't play a similarly non-combat oriented character in Pathfinder. Every example I gave in that post has an analogous situation in Golarion (escape artist, safe cracking, navigation, sailing, et cetera). It really comes down to the kind of games you play. If the GM throws nothing but unavoidable combats at you then combat optimization is the way to go... though personally at that point I could get a similar experience from Xbox. If you're playing in a complex world where 'I kill it' is NOT the answer >50% of the time then diversity is good. Heck, even in kill fests... you want to be able to kill things in different ways or you'll be in trouble when the GM throws something at you which CAN'T be killed in the 'one true optimized way'.The idea that there is only one 'optimal' way to do things is too narrowly focused on combat...Either that, or it recognizes that Pathfinder isn't nearly as supportive of building the type of character you described as the Star Wars game you were playing was.
I think this gets at the heart of what I was trying to explain to my player. Sure, if I'm running a "kill fest" then Weapon Focus/Specialization; Power Attack/Furious Focus and so on.
I frankly don't run like that. I homebrew or use published material that includes a mix of combat, non-combat, traps, puzzles and rarely just empty scenery in the encounters. I try to encourage my players not to just attack every monster and use the world as a giant loot pile.
That being said, if my players want that game and make 4 combat-optimized PCs then I'm not going to stop them and I'll even up the combat to match what they want to see.
But even then I have an expectation that I don't have 4 players solely focused on the same feats and general approach to every combat.
If I have 4 combat-centric players I would hope that I've got a couple focused on range and a couple on melee. Even in that, you could have a maneuvers guy, a ranged touch attack caster, a power attacker and a zen archer, all approaching combat from 4 very different angles.
In short: there's more than one way to "win" encounters.
One thing I tell new players all the time is that ESCAPING from a fight gives you experience. Sometimes resource management means knowing when to just drop a Smokestick, get out the door and beat feet to the main exit.
The other thing I'd mention in regards to the above quote is that just because you're mediocre at combat doesn't mean you're not useful in the game, at least not at my table. I have a player running a druid, currently at 3rd level who's really focused on Perception and Diplomacy. In danger zones he's a scout that keeps the PCs from running into trouble in the first place and thus contributes to combat by helping the party avoid needless ones. Outside normal adventure sites he's gathered tons of info, guided the PCs to key clues and used his charisma and skills to keep a bar fight from breaking out.
Yes, there's probably better builds for it. And also yes; if the party had been optimized for combat and just let the bar fight or kobold ambushes happen they more than likely would've whomped through to victory anyway. But then why don't I just run Descent from Fantasy Flight Games?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I frankly don't run like that. I homebrew or use published material that includes a mix of combat, non-combat, traps, puzzles and rarely just empty scenery in the encounters. I try to encourage my players not to just attack every monster and use the world as a giant loot pile.
This will still require optimization.
Optimization is not completely synonymous with combat monkey. (though there's considerable overlap) If that's your campaign then people still benefit a lot from optimizing but what they're optimizing FOR is a little different. You still go with the classes, spells, abilities, and feats that help you mechanically achieve your objective. (Which is why you'll see a lot of characters with absurd perception and Diplomacy scores in PFS)
Knowing how to get the most bang for your buck is an important skill no matter what kind of campaign you're in.