Am I actually being problem? Is it that strange to play / build this way?? Home game advice


Advice

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Apologies for the wall but this may need some set up.

So the two more knowledgeable/experienced players at my table seem to keep making an issue of the way I have/tend to make my characters, semi heatedly a few times. First let me start by saying I tend to play the party skill monkey, it's just my favourite role honestly, and this time is no different as I was asked to play the face. I didn't object and built a really cool Kobold slayer with a single snake bite brawler dip who had diplomacy and bluff like nobody's business and by fifth level would would've been throwing a punch along with 4 secondary natural attacks and multiattack, tacking 2d6 sneak attack and studied target to each of those ideally. However as everyone made their characters individually and didn't cooperatively make our back stories he didn't fit in thematically with the group and didn't manage to do exactly what everyone wanted the party face to do us infinite nagging on the build (First time playing at their home group and didn't the nuances of said group)

So now I've rolled this Kitsune, these are his stats at lvl 4:
Str:8
Dex: 20
Con:12
Int: 12
Wis: 8 (meant to represent that he's trusting to a fault)
Cha: 16
These are some strange stats I suppose but he's going Iroran paladin 3 and the rest as Unchained Rouge, he's currently at Iroran Paladin1 unchained rouge 3 (cut purse). He currently deals 1d6+6 (+5dex +1 when nonlethal from absolom bouncer) along with 2d6 sneak attack. He has great social skills outside of intimidate and I'll be grabbing the coax information talent later to cover that but even better, I've thrown a few ranks in some knowledges as other than me we only have two at our disposal so even if I can just throw it that'd be helpful. On top of that this Iroran paladin dip let's nicely weaponize that snazzy charisma score. I have a "stealth buddy" in the ranger to help with perception and a few of the sneaky skills like disable device,she wanted to stealthy and I didn't want to completely steal her thunder ya know?

Yet this character has also only been met with harsh criticism. Like that I'd have 1 more total ac if I just wore a beefed up mithral shirt rather than having a +8 "Dex" bonus to armor. (+5 dex, +3 cha added from confident defense) I prefer having much better touch ac than 1 more total ac but I've been told that's silly. I also keep getting told in spread to thin which I don't understand as I think that's looking pretty good combat wise considering my main job is skill monkey, I mean he isn't optimized I guess but let's be honest, I can't keep pace combat wise with charisma/mental stats in general dumping martials and be the face and general skill monkey. I mean I tend to build, as you can probably tell, to not be super reliant on equipment when put in this role as I expect to be, and already have been, in a situation where being armed would not be acceptable, and would clearly blow my cover. Is that really that bad? I mean I feel he's pretty functional considering combat is not my primary role in the slightest, the entirety of the party is martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems like a resonble character to me. One lower AC for a higher touch AC is a fine trade off to make. You can always get Celestial Armor later so they 'll stop complaining.

A party of all martials probably shouldn't be complaining that someone isn't holding their own...


Doomed Hero wrote:

Seems like a resonble character to me. One lower AC for a higher touch AC is a fine trade off to make. You can always get Celestial Armor later so they 'll stop complaining.

Ray of enfeeblement could be disastrous to me so I was thinking of that among other things lol.

A party of all martials probably shouldn't be complaining that someone isn't holding their own...

Considering I handle about everything else from diomatic dealings, random skills no one else really has the chance to take and can use healing wands (I think?) I thought the same, but I'm open to being wrong.


I see nothing wrong with the skills, stats etc, however, I'm not sure a Paladin would be inclined to "stab people in the back". I could see people having issues with that.


I'd say that anyone giving you grief over 1 potential AC is probably overdoing it, especially if you have a decent reason for your decision (having a better touch AC). Paladin/Cut purse is a pretty ridiculous combo role-play wise, particularly since it seems like you're multi-classing that and not just saying "he's a reformed cut purse who has found the light" or vise-versa.

It's hard to know if their beef is with your build or the way you play the character.

Either way, it sounds like you are not fitting in super well with the group. If you think that there's a chance to win them over in time, then just stick with your build and support them, heal them, do whatever you can to help them. If they will never be satisfied with your build/character then you may have to decide between changing your play style to fit in or finding a new group. But only you can make that determination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looks fine.

"Oh noes, the rogue isn't as combat capable as the fighter!"
Let them pick their own locked doors, disable their own traps, and coax their own information out of NPCs.

The best parties have some diversification of roles among party members, some party balance.
If you are the only non-martial, then you are the only one trying to sure up your party's weaknesses.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You do 3d6+6 damage and have an AC of 18+ (20 or 21 in leather or studded leather?) at 4th level and your allies are being nitpicky about your combat prowess? Even though your main function is social skills?

That IS kind of weird.

Are you being hit a lot in combat, so you keep draining party healing resources?

Are you busy trying Diplomacy checks instead of flanking and attacking once combat has ensued?

Do you spend a lot of table time going off on your own little side quests?

If not, I don't know why they're being so nitpicky. They should let you play the character you want to play. You don't complain that the ranger isn't casting enough fireballs do you? No? Because that's not her job. The rest of players should be happy you are taking on a role they don't wish to fill, but think is vital enough that they asked you to fill it.

I once played with a guy who played a pregnant were-dolphin monk/cleric that refused to fight or heal for some reason, and that was really annoying because he didn't contribute a lot in or out of combat. It was a pretty combat-focused game, but there were decent roleplaying opportunities too, but he seemed to want to do non-quest related stuff, which is why he eventually was invited to exit the game.

But your situation seems different. You are contributing. You're taking on your face and skill monkey role AND you seem pretty effective in combat. +8 to Hit (+10 when flanking) and doing 3d6+6? That's pretty good, isn't it?


noble peasant wrote:

Apologies for the wall but this may need some set up.

So the two more knowledgeable/experienced players at my table seem to keep making an issue of the way I have/tend to make my characters, semi heatedly a few times. First let me start by saying I tend to play the party skill monkey, it's just my favourite role honestly, and this time is no different as I was asked to play the face. I didn't object and built a really cool Kobold slayer with a single snake bite brawler dip who had diplomacy and bluff like nobody's business and by fifth level would would've been throwing a punch along with 4 secondary natural attacks and multiattack, tacking 2d6 sneak attack and studied target to each of those ideally. However as everyone made their characters individually and didn't cooperatively make our back stories he didn't fit in thematically with the group and didn't manage to do exactly what everyone wanted the party face to do us infinite nagging on the build (First time playing at their home group and didn't the nuances of said group)

So now I've rolled this Kitsune, these are his stats at lvl 4:
Str:8
Dex: 20
Con:12
Int: 12
Wis: 8 (meant to represent that he's trusting to a fault)
Cha: 16
These are some strange stats I suppose but he's going Iroran paladin 3 and the rest as Unchained Rouge, he's currently at Iroran Paladin1 unchained rouge 3 (cut purse). He currently deals 1d6+6 (+5dex +1 when nonlethal from absolom bouncer) along with 2d6 sneak attack. He has great social skills outside of intimidate and I'll be grabbing the coax information talent later to cover that but even better, I've thrown a few ranks in some knowledges as other than me we only have two at our disposal so even if I can just throw it that'd be helpful. On top of that this Iroran paladin dip let's nicely weaponize that snazzy charisma score. I have a "stealth buddy" in the ranger to help with perception and a few of the sneaky skills like disable device,she wanted to stealthy and I didn't want to completely steal her thunder ya...

Spread to thin? You literally have loads of skill points to blow every level.

beef with your AC?

As others have mentioned, you have a higher touch AC.

" I can't keep pace combat wise "

That is why rogues get a lot of skill ranks, and sneak attack.
So that you are harder to hit, can find crafty solutions to obstacles, and so your Sneak attack keeps pace with having lower strength or so.


what are your fellow players unhappy about specifically?


Some people see the game as completely focused on combat, and deride anything that isn't combat focused to the teeth. In their minds focusing a character to do anything but kill enemies is pointless, and any character designed to use skills as opposed to murder is badly designed.

It's not a wrong way to play, but it is a different way than you play. The problem is that there are some people who play these games that also really enjoy being 'right' and like to prove it. So they actually enjoy showing you how 'wrong' your way to play is, because it makes them feel smart and good about themselves.

You can try explaining to the group what you see your job to be, covering all the other skills so that their characters can be death dealing murder machines that they enjoy, but your mileage may vary. Maybe they will see and come to appreciate having a skill monkey in the party, or maybe they will never understand anything but murderhoboing.

Your builds are fine, good skill monkeys!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Red flags go up for me about the implication that the players complained that your kobold character "didn't fit thematically with the rest of the party." Isn't it the job of the entire group to figure out how this ragtag group of adventurers fit together, regardless of how weird a group it is? It seems like "your character is different from mine" is where all inter-party RPing comes from, basically. Were they just unwilling to try to figure out why they were adventuring with a kobold?

IMO the only person who really ought to make "doesn't fit thematically" calls is the GM (e.g. "there are no guns in my setting, so you can't play a musket master"), so what does the GM have to say here? It seems like if several players are ragging on one player with criticism that has ceased to be constructive, that's the sort of situation where the GM should intervene. Like I'd probably throw a bunch of monsters who use attacks that target touch AC just to prove your point.


TxSam88 wrote:

I see nothing wrong with the skills, stats etc, however, I'm not sure a Paladin would be inclined to "stab people in the back". I could see people having issues with that.

He only deals non lethal damage so he's not exactly stabbing people in the back, he knocks them out and knows how to do it.

The beef I'm getting is mostly mechanical, nothing role play wise, the GM is quite content with the Code I've drawn up as Iroran Paladins get a bit more leeway with that or at least that is what the fluff would suggest as I make and adjust my own code to seek betterment, and we've decided to roll with it. This also makes it pretty easy to not be a jerk about my morals which I'm not interested in doing.

Sczarni

I personally love to play moderately optimized characters and dislike seeing people who put too much aspect on numbers on their character sheet. But that's just my opinion and what I prefer. I never object to other players as long as we are all having fun at the gaming table.

That said, it feels as if you have different gaming styles. It could create problems during the game and from what it looks like, it seems that your group is putting heavy aspect on combat. There are multiple ways to approach this, but it essentially boils down to three answers; a) make characters they approve, b) change their opinions of the game or c) quiting the group is always an option in worst case scenario. It also seems that your GM isn't helping much to resolve this "conflict" which he should be doing.

Adam


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Red flags go up for me about the implication that the players complained that your kobold character "didn't fit thematically with the rest of the party." Isn't it the job of the entire group to figure out how this ragtag group of adventurers fit together, regardless of how weird a group it is? It seems like "your character is different from mine" is where all inter-party RPing comes from, basically. Were they just unwilling to try to figure out why they were adventuring with a kobold?

IMO the only person who really ought to make "doesn't fit thematically" calls is the GM (e.g. "there are no guns in my setting, so you can't play a musket master"), so what does the GM have to say here? It seems like if several players are ragging on one player with criticism that has ceased to be constructive, that's the sort of situation where the GM should intervene. Like I'd probably throw a bunch of monsters who use attacks that target touch AC just to prove your point.

I should be more clear on that, I made that call since our characters only motivation for staying together story wise was that we ride the same boat to the same place... Anyway all I knew was a pirate themed campaign and made a gold scaled kobold (all the social skill pluses :D) who's plan was to become a corsair, to show simultaneously to his kobold brothers that we COULD be a part of civilized societies and that we also could be something other than meak cowards. Turns out this Kobold had a little to much class for this party as we almost immediately attacked the government of this port town due to planned plot stuff I couldn't have known about. Either way, his approach didn't suit what the party wanted.

Also on what specifically their beef is... Idk they just seem displeased with my characters in most ways. I suppose it's mostly combat efficiency. However the most concise way they've complained about how I face is that I shouldn't be so much of the subtle, smooth things over and make allies kind of face but rather a "hype man." I suck at speeches man, and don't want to make them. I'm also not exactly a high ranking member of the crew, I'm essentially the butler of this pirate ship, my job is to make sure things are in order and that the crew is well.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hah. Seems like "face" is code for Bard.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Hah. Seems like "face" is code for Bard.

It was recommended lol.


Is everyone else playing standard core races and classes while you mess around with the rare "gm permission" race types like kobold and kitsune?

For some people that can get annoying to play with real quick.


Ryan Freire wrote:

Is everyone else playing standard core races and classes while you mess around with the rare "gm permission" race types like kobold and kitsune?

For some people that can get annoying to play with real quick.

Well no one knows in character he's a kitsune... But that's beside the point, the only races they have beef with is aasimar, Catfolk, and tieflings if you mess with the blood of fiends book. However I was never told of any restrictions to race other than these that will get a few eye rolls. Also there is a bloodrager and a magus in the party so the classes I've chosen shouldn't be "not standard" enough.

No one has said anything about the races I've chosen being a problem, more so what the character is capable of and that I don't face how they want apparently.


Ryan Freire wrote:

Is everyone else playing standard core races and classes while you mess around with the rare "gm permission" race types like kobold and kitsune?

For some people that can get annoying to play with real quick.

Are those people playing the correct game? From where I sit one of the major selling points about Pathfinder versus it's competitors is that this is the game with 40+ classes and countless races, with archetypes and racial features to customize your character to be literally any sort of thing you want and have that be supported by the rules.

Like if you want to be a half-celestial half-fire elemental with 4 classes, 6 archetypes, and a completely separate VMC, this is more or less the only game in town for you.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

Is everyone else playing standard core races and classes while you mess around with the rare "gm permission" race types like kobold and kitsune?

For some people that can get annoying to play with real quick.

Are those people playing the correct game? From where I sit one of the major selling points about Pathfinder versus it's competitors is that this is the game with 40+ classes and countless races, with archetypes and racial features to customize your character to be literally any sort of thing you want and have that be supported by the rules.

Like if you want to be a half-celestial half-fire elemental with 4 classes, 6 archetypes, and a completely separate VMC, this is more or less the only game in town for you.

Tis my thinking anyway. I'm a sucker for animal folk, or really being anything other than human since I'm one of those every day.


Rules set by the gm and what the other players enjoy playing with in game are often two entirely separate things. Any game that develops a lot of options is going to require more player/gm input on what power level and sourcebooks the players want to have flopping around in game. Just like rifts if some players are playing at X power level and others at Y the players at one or the other are likely to be unhappy with the game.

A lot of people do actually play pathfinder without reaching for the esoteric races and rube goldberg class archetypes.

But it doesn't really answer the question, are you the only pc thats some strange race/class combination? Because that is the sort of thing that can sometimes pull other players out of their suspension of disbelief.

As an example, i just wont play in games where one player insists on being a kender, or kenderlike halfling. I find it annoying to deal with and would rather just spare myself the moments of frustration. You may be dealing with players who simply don't like the weird races.


Looks fine to me. Carry on and don't sweat their comments.


Ryan Freire wrote:

Rules set by the gm and what the other players enjoy playing with in game are often two entirely separate things. Any game that develops a lot of options is going to require more player/gm input on what power level and sourcebooks the players want to have flopping around in game. Just like rifts if some players are playing at X power level and others at Y the players at one or the other are likely to be unhappy with the game.

A lot of people do actually play pathfinder without reaching for the esoteric races and rube goldberg class archetypes.

But it doesn't really answer the question, are you the only pc thats some strange race/class combination? Because that is the sort of thing that can sometimes pull other players out of their suspension of disbelief.

As an example, i just wont play in games where one player insists on being a kender, or kenderlike halfling. I find it annoying to deal with and would rather just spare myself the moments of frustration. You may be dealing with players who simply don't like the weird races.

True, but I doubt another rebuild is what they want. Will likely try to stick with them from now on, but at least for one more time they're gonna have to have a kobold cohort. They are an awesome race with a wide variety of race specific options I find tantalizing.

However, I told them I was rolling Kitsune as I liked them and had some racial options and a stat layout that suited what I was asked to do and they had their chance to object then and they even ok'ed it.

Idk, maybe they just don't run skill heavy games and I wasn't aware of that. Dunno. I just want them to be khosher with what I'm doing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It doesn't seem like you're not contributing enough so much as not contributing exactly how they want you to contribute. Your character sounds fine from what you've told us and I personally don't think it's fair to attempt to make you play a role in a specific way. If you've talked to them about it already and they still persist then you might be better off looking for another group to play with.


The complaints cited by the others in your group are unimportant, and should be ignored. If your GM allows the build than all complaints are moot, and if they don't like it they can find another GM for all I care.

That being said; I can see the following issues with this build. None of them are to do with the mechanics of the character per say, but rather your choice of faith.

1) Evil is defined in pathfinder as selfishness over selflessness. Irori is the god of self-perfection, ergo it is my opinion that following Irori's dogma is an evil act (regardless of Irori's alignment being LN).

2) It is specifically stated in Inner Sea Gods that Irori has transcended the concepts of good and evil (regardless of my opinion above that Irori is actually just a popular and moderate evil god); as a result I see no reason why he would empower mortals with the abilities of the paladin (detect & smite evil for example) over those of the Cleric or Inquisitor.

3) Unlike Abadar (another Lawful Neutral Diety), ISG did not publish a paladins code for Irori; indicating either that there are no paladins of Irori, or that they would be required to use the traditional RAW Paladin Code. If the former is the case than the build is illegal, and if the latter is the case, then many of the tactics required to make use of Sneak Attack are dishonorable and will violate your paladin's code and strip you of your powers. Such as striking an opponent who has yet to attack (flat-footed), attacking from hiding or invisibility, or ganging up on an opponent (flanking).
"Being a jerk about morality" is literally one of the balancing mechanisms of the class that should not be able to be bypassed. However this point is moot as your GM has allowed you to write your own Code of Conduct, so any imbalance created by this is his fault.


Cantriped wrote:

The complaints cited by the others in your group are unimportant, and should be ignored. If your GM allows the build than all complaints are moot, and if they don't like it they can find another GM for all I care.

That being said; I can see the following issues with this build. None of them are to do with the mechanics of the character per say, but rather your choice of faith.

1) Evil is defined in pathfinder as selfishness over selflessness. Irori is the god of self-perfection, ergo it is my opinion that following Irori's dogma is an evil act (regardless of Irori's alignment being LN).

2) It is specifically stated in Inner Sea Gods that Irori has transcended the concepts of good and evil (regardless of my opinion above that Irori is actually just a popular and moderate evil god); as a result I see no reason why he would empower mortals with the abilities of the paladin (detect & smite evil for example) over those of the Cleric or Inquisitor.

3) Unlike Abadar (another Lawful Neutral Diety), ISG did not publish a paladins code for Irori; indicating either that there are no paladins of Irori, or that they would be required to use the traditional RAW Paladin Code. If the former is the case than the build is illegal, and if the latter is the case, then many of the tactics required to make use of Sneak Attack are dishonorable and will violate your paladin's code and strip you of your powers. Such as striking an opponent who has yet to attack (flat-footed), attacking from hiding or invisibility, or ganging up on an opponent (flanking).
"Being a jerk about morality" is literally one of the balancing mechanisms of the class that should not be able to be bypassed. However this point is moot as your GM has allowed you to write your own Code of Conduct, so any imbalance created by this is his fault.

Iroran paladin is an archetype though, which states you write your own code, however the alignment restriction is still there. I agree the alignment stuff but I talked about that with the GM already so that should be fine.

Perhaps the Iroran Paladin's conduct could be more of a less self centred betterment. Like pursuing a path where you dedicate yourself to "perfecting" yourself in the interest of bettering those around you by deed and example???


I was unaware of the existence of that archetype, which renders all of my previously stated points moot. Regardless of my opinions on the god chosen, you are within one step of their listed alignment, it replaces detect/smite evil and aura of good, and covers the issue of the Paladin's Code. As such I hereby retract my previous statements.
The issue of acting with honor/dishonor is then only a matter of whatever restrictions your GM places on the Code they allow you to write.
This build is perfectly legitimate in my opinion and I would most likely allow it at my table if I felt your Code was sufficiently restrictive to replace to standard code of conduct, and owned the book the archetype was published in. I (as GM) owning the materials used in my game is one of the few restrictions I place on my players.
The other players at your table have nothing worth complaining about, they should just be happy you are in their party as opposed to an opponent controlled by the GM.

Dark Archive

It almost sounds like they only want you there to play someone who buffs them, if that's the case talking to them as one player to another player might help (though possibly be rather uncomfortable if you're not good at bringing up problems, which is perfectly natural for many people). You're playing someone who eminently fits the roll of face, if all they really want is 'Bard!' then they should have told you up front, so that if you didn't want to play that role you could politely refuse.


I see no issue with what you're doing.

It seems a bit nonsensical for them to ask for a face then complain about combat optimization, though; you pretty much have to make sacrifices in one to improve the other.

As a random side note, you should probably try to get a hold of a set of Celestial Armor if you can. It counts as light, so your Confident Defense still works, and it has a +8 max dex bonus. So you'll keep your 18 touch AC, and get to add a set of +3 Chainmail on top of that for 27 total AC.


AC:
So currently your AC is 10 (Base) + 5 (Dex) + 1 (Confident Defense) = 16.

If you put on a set of Leather Armor (10 gp) you would have AC 18 with no armor check penalty and max dex of +6, allowing for your +6 dex bonus.

If you put on a mithral chain shirt (1,100 gp) you would have AC 20 with no armor check penalty and a max dex of +6, allowing for your +6 dex bonus.

Note 1: Confident defense gives you one point of your charisma bonus to AC per level of paladin you have, as you only have one that is capped at one.

I usually recommend at least, AC=(15+level) if you want to melee at all.

With this in mind, I would recommend going

Leather (10 gp)[Now]{AC 18}--> DarkLeaf Rosewood Armor (800 gp)[Lvl 5]{Max Dex +8, No ACP, AC 19 which goes to 20 at 6th}--> +1 Haramaki (1,153 gp)[When your Dex + Confident Defense > +8]{Unlimited Max Dex, No ACP, AC 21}

Then just keep enchanting the Haramaki until +5.

At level 20 this will end up with +6 (Haramaki) +5 (Ring of Protection) +12 (Dex) +3 (Confident Defense) = 36 which is not great but not terrible.

Note no Amulet of Natural Armor as I assume you would use that slot for an amulet of mighty fists. If you can somehow, either via another slot of by crafting it on top of a mighty fists amulet get a natural armor amulet your AC would be a much more respectable 41.

Basically you will always be low on the AC totem pole due to having a competing neck slot and cannot afford to not use armor.

To Hit:
Your to hit should be +5 (Dex) +3 (Bab)= +8

Monster AC at level 4 for an at CR fight, which are not supposed to be difficult, should be ~17.

This would give you a average of 60% chance to hit.

Not bad in comparison to another rogue/bard/cleric which would have ~ the same to hit.

Damage:
Your unarmed strike Damage is 1d6 (weapon) + 5 (Dex) +1 (Trait) +2d6 (if Sneak attacking).

Which averages out to 9.5 not sneak attacking, and 16.5 when.

DPR:

No Sneak: (0.60*9.5)+(0.60*1*0.05*9.5)= 5.7 + 0.285= 5.985

Average HP for a CR 4 is 40 hp, so your rounds to kill are ~7.

With Sneak From Flanking: (0.7*16.5)+(0.7*1*0.05*9.5)= 11.55 + 0.3325= 11.8825

Average HP for a CR 4 is 40 hp, so your rounds to kill are ~4.

When flanking and sneak attacking your damage is ok but not great.

If you take Piranha strike your DPR is as follows.

No Sneak with PS: (0.55*11.5)+(0.55*1*0.05*11.5)= 6.325 + 0.31625= 6.64125

Average HP for a CR 4 is 40 hp, so your rounds to kill are ~6.

With Sneak From Flanking: (0.65*18.5)+(0.65*1*0.05*11.5)= 12.025 + 0.37375= 12.39875

Average HP for a CR 4 is 40 hp, so your rounds to kill are ~4.

Slightly better, but still not anything to write home about. Unfortunately your Bewildered Debilitating Injury lasts only one round so you never benefit from it on your primary attack, and you won't get a secondary until 7th.

Saves:

Your saves are:

Will: +2 (Paladin) +1 (UC Rogue) -1 (Wisdom) = +2

Reflex: +0 (Paladin) +2 (UC Rogue) +5 (Dex) = +7

Fort: +2 (Paladin) +1 (UC Rogue) +1 (Con) = +4

Your will save is terrible, dangerously so as it makes you a prime target for staple spells like charm person, glitterdust, Hypnotic pattern, Suggestion, Hold Person, Deep Slumber or Cause fear. Along with many more and monster abilities. Any informed opponent will easily eliminate you in one round with anything targeting your will save.

Reflex is fine, but is often the least important save unless facing a caster chucking dazing evocations.

Your Fort save is very low as well.

Just to be clear an average Caster NPC enemy should have DC's ranging from 14-16.

If you face a PC caster or an NPC with PC Wealth and stats you can see DC's 2-3 higher.

This will get better with your next paladin level but is still dangerous unless you shore it up with feats and abilities like Indomitable faith and Iron Will.

Note 2: All numbers except skills will be one higher when you use your once per day personal trial against the target of that ability.

Skills:
You currently should have 30 skill points from rogue assuming you have put your favored class in skills. The problem is you have only 3 skill points from Paladin and you need at least one more of the Paladin levels to get divine grace. If you stick to your planned three level dip you will only be able to keep 3 skills at max. All others will be at Max-3 or more if you spread yourself around.

Assuming you want Diplomacy, Sense motive and Bluff that means you can have 7 other near max skills one of which I assume will be intimidate.

You also delay the biggest strength of UC rogue for skills, rogue's edge, until 8th level.

In short you will be an okay face but nothing great, passable at some skills, but not great at any and the only unique benefit will not come online until 8th.

Recommended Feats:

UC Rogue: Weapon Finesse
Iorian Paladin: Improved Unarmed Strike
1: Iron Will
UC Rogue 3:
3: Piranha Strike (recommended due to scaling with all to hit buffs you get, and being toggleable.)

Traits:
Absolom Bouncer
Indomitable Faith

Basically you are combining one of the weakest fighting style (Unarmed) with a weaker class (UC rogue) and a restrictive dip (Paladin) to try and shore up your glaring weaknesses.

Even if optimized your DPR is low, due to both a not great weapon and amulet of mighty fists being so expensive, your AC is slightly low, due to a combination of light armor and no amulet of natural armor, you have no spells,your saves are not good except reflex, and your skills are ok but not great.

This is a character that is playable but the only things you really bring to the party are an acceptable but not great amount of face skills and debilitating injury which is an ok debuff but not great compared to something like a bard's inspire courage/haste/heroism, or a Inquisitor's spell list, a shaman with hexes/spells, an oracle with revelations/spells, or even a white haired melle witch. All of the aforementioned could do your face job and sub their other abilities for any missing skill ranks most of the time + having their own extra benefits.

If your really want to play this then focus on flanking, buy a haramaki, get a cloak of resistance as soon as possible and upgrade it first, and realize that this is a weaker build even for a Skill monkey.

If I am wrong in anything please tell me, but this is what I see. I only give you this advice to try and help.

Perhaps if you shared your concept we could all try and get you a more optimized build and see if your GM would let you play that instead.

I hope this helps and happy gaming.


I think it is bad gaming etiquette to critique someone else's character (unless asked to).


Boomerang Nebula wrote:
I think it is bad gaming etiquette to critique someone else's character (unless asked to).

I guess this just goes to show that different tables have different etiquette expectations.

Now please understand the following is just for the table I play at, not meant in any way to disparage or demean any style of gaming. However one of the expectations at our table is that we build a coherent and immersive cooperative story. One way we have found that we enjoy doing that is by being able to overcome even difficult obstacles.

So at our table everyone is expected to build a mechanically sound character that can handle encounters from APL-1 to APL+4, perhaps even higher in rare cases. Our usual method of doing so is by coming up with an image or concept and then optimizing that concept mechanically so as to be able to contribute meaningfully to and handle myriad encounters.

This means we do quite a bit of building and asking each other "Hey what do you think of this?"

Please note that we have a substantial gap in system mastery at the table with some 2 players having a strong grasp of the system, 1 player having a solid but limited grasp, 1 player just learning, and 2 players that only learn what is necessary to play their characters.

This means that at our table it is considered rude or petty to not mention something like "Hey, I see your concept is X. Did you know about feat/ability/spell Y? It might help."

Now after that suggestion it would be considered rude to insist or tell someone how to build/play their character, but at our table that is just how it is.

The OP's character would probably find it difficult at our table, and would struggle to not feel outclassed. This is more a symptom of the game system having some traps than any fault on the OP's part.

Well this has rambled on longer than I meant to, my apologies, I just find this area of the Meta-game interesting.

In short different strokes for different folks.


Ryan Freire wrote:

Rules set by the gm and what the other players enjoy playing with in game are often two entirely separate things. Any game that develops a lot of options is going to require more player/gm input on what power level and sourcebooks the players want to have flopping around in game. Just like rifts if some players are playing at X power level and others at Y the players at one or the other are likely to be unhappy with the game.

A lot of people do actually play pathfinder without reaching for the esoteric races and rube goldberg class archetypes.

But it doesn't really answer the question, are you the only pc thats some strange race/class combination? Because that is the sort of thing that can sometimes pull other players out of their suspension of disbelief.

As an example, i just wont play in games where one player insists on being a kender, or kenderlike halfling. I find it annoying to deal with and would rather just spare myself the moments of frustration. You may be dealing with players who simply don't like the weird races.

Out of curiosity, what is it you find so annoying about a kender/kenderlike halfling? I had to google the word to know what it is and it didn't seem too bad (curious, taunting, fearless were the characteristics listed) but maybe there's a trope associated with it that's completely passed me by? Like, does everyone play it as a squeaky-shrill anime mascot or something?

@OP, I don't really understand their complaints, unless there's some motive of their's that's not entirely apparent or some alternate definition of party face. If they complain again maybe say something along the lines of "face means this, this character does this, and I don't see what a point's difference here or there in a stat spread really has to do with the stated required role of this character". Personally I don't even like stated required roles in these games, not having your character step on other characters' toes is good but any glaring omissions from the party roster like no face skills, no full caster, no one who can take a hit or no healer can make for a really interesting time with a little extra effort.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rashagar wrote:


Out of curiosity, what is it you find so annoying about a kender/kenderlike halfling? I had to google the word to know what it is and it didn't seem too bad (curious, taunting, fearless were the characteristics listed) but maybe there's a trope associated with it that's completely passed me by? Like, does everyone play it as a squeaky-shrill anime mascot or something?

In the novels they tend to steal stuff from their friends all the time, this works fine because it's a novel so it happens that the thing they stole is perfect to save some other companion, etc. However at a tabletop when the rogue is constantly rolling to steal potions, wands, gold, daggers, etc from other players it can get very... frustrating. I'm sure not everyone plays Kender like that, but it is how they act in the books so most that I've come across seem to think it's appropriate behaviour, without considering that other players might not always agree.


The way you ought to RP the kleptomaniacal pickpocket at a real table is that you're constantly pilfering stuff from the NPCs. You don't need to steal things from the PCs because you're going to be hanging around them most of the time, so if you really need something that the party is carrying, well it was nice of them to be carrying it for you all this time.

But understanding where the boundaries of "your roleplaying is hindering other people's experience" is one of the first things you ought to pick up in this hobby anyway.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The stealing from friends bit might work as a special retroactive power that is invoked only when the "kender" is ready to make immediate use of an item that the owner does not currently have in hand. That would prevent the annoyance of an item that a player character wants to use having been stolen when the player needs it, but it would be a neat trick to move an item from somebody who has it stashed away somewhere but is not well positioned to use it to somebody who can make immediate use of it. However, I am not aware of any game system that supports something like this.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

The way you ought to RP the kleptomaniacal pickpocket at a real table is that you're constantly pilfering stuff from the NPCs. You don't need to steal things from the PCs because you're going to be hanging around them most of the time, so if you really need something that the party is carrying, well it was nice of them to be carrying it for you all this time.

But understanding where the boundaries of "your roleplaying is hindering other people's experience" is one of the first things you ought to pick up in this hobby anyway.

I'm not even particularly happy with kleptomania vs npcs because eventually they fail and then one players "kewl" character foible becomes the entire party's problem and risks derailing the entire adventure.


That was some really helpful stuf there Covent, thx for the time an effort. :)

It may have been flawed thinking, but I kind of made him with the thought that I needed to function without equipment well which I'm sure is why this character could never be called min max. Only one party member besides this character can function without equipment, which would be the monk, but even he needs his agile amulet of mighty fists. So if we were ever taken captive (it IS a pirate campaign...) everyone would be completely useless, this way not only could I bust us out, I could potentially take out one guy and get someone a weapon.
Also I don't want to go to diplomatic arrangements armed to the teeth, nor do I want to be vulnerable there. :/

I'm very much a plan for the worst kinda guy I guess.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sounds like a good plan.

Stick to your guns, and soon your fellow players will see how awesome your character is.

:-D


noble peasant wrote:

That was some really helpful stuf there Covent, thx for the time an effort. :)

It may have been flawed thinking, but I kind of made him with the thought that I needed to function without equipment well which I'm sure is why this character could never be called min max. Only one party member besides this character can function without equipment, which would be the monk, but even he needs his agile amulet of mighty fists. So if we were ever taken captive (it IS a pirate campaign...) everyone would be completely useless, this way not only could I bust us out, I could potentially take out one guy and get someone a weapon.
Also I don't want to go to diplomatic arrangements armed to the teeth, nor do I want to be vulnerable there. :/

I'm very much a plan for the worst kinda guy I guess.

NP.

Best of luck, just please be aware that you are at the upper level of the range where the "no equipment" guy trope works at all. If you really want to do that I suggest skipping paladin level 3, hiding while in combat, and realizing you will even fall behind in skills when people start buying items such as circlet of persuasion, shadow armor, or boots of eleven kind. When your fellow players complain they will be right, and in multiple situations they will be carrying you.

Flying opponents, cliffs, chasms 100 ft or wider across, underwater battles, heck even just foreign languages and many others you will have a hard or impossible time dealing with, without others giving you the means to participate or in some cases simply not using their abilities so you can do something at least.

The only way a "no gear" character works is if you can get your GM to let you use something like Vow of Poverty to access something like automatic bonus progression. Pathfinder is very much a gear dependent game.

BTW I do not think your thoughts are faulty at all, I just wanted to make sure you are prepared and have the best game you can, so I am giving you my best advice. The unarmed, unarmored, self focused character is one of my favorite tropes as well, unfortunately Pathfinder does not really support it unless you use an alternate sub-system.


@Covent- no problem, it's all been very constructive, it's not like I won't acquire any gear to help boost the effectiveness of my shenanigans, just gotta scramble around a bit to get the feats abilities and etc., just making it so that I can still function (at lesser capacity obviously) without the trinkets. Also UMD will be handy once I can use it consistently.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
noble peasant wrote:
Like that I'd have 1 more total ac if I just wore a beefed up mithral shirt rather than having a +8 "Dex" bonus to armor.

In general, what you're telling us is that the group doesn't approve of your detailed choices.

The answer to that is they shouldn't know your detailed choices. In our games (and I'm part of a lot of groups), only the DM gets a copy of PC character sheets.

Yeah, they can see your race, and general class information based on what you do at the table, and if they're paying attention, they'll know your AC and attack bonuses. But they won't know where the numbers come from, exactly. Just don't discuss your build. Not their business. Maybe you've got Dodge, maybe you don't. Maybe you're getting your damage from Dex, maybe you're not. Maybe the DM cut you a special deal on some exotic 3rd-party feat, maybe not.

Unless someone needs to play your character because you're missing or something, keep it to yourself. Nobody can criticize what they don't know about.

Also, (from your single side of the story), they're being jerks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anguish wrote:
noble peasant wrote:
Like that I'd have 1 more total ac if I just wore a beefed up mithral shirt rather than having a +8 "Dex" bonus to armor.

In general, what you're telling us is that the group doesn't approve of your detailed choices.

The answer to that is they shouldn't know your detailed choices. In our games (and I'm part of a lot of groups), only the DM gets a copy of PC character sheets.

Yeah, they can see your race, and general class information based on what you do at the table, and if they're paying attention, they'll know your AC and attack bonuses. But they won't know where the numbers come from, exactly. Just don't discuss your build. Not their business. Maybe you've got Dodge, maybe you don't. Maybe you're getting your damage from Dex, maybe you're not. Maybe the DM cut you a special deal on some exotic 3rd-party feat, maybe not.

Unless someone needs to play your character because you're missing or something, keep it to yourself. Nobody can criticize what they don't know about.

Also, (from your single side of the story), they're being jerks.

I have to strongly disagree with this.

If everyone but one person in a group wants to play one way it is not "being a jerk" to point out things, mechanical or role-play based, that differ from the groups desired play style.

Now expressing this in a negative way can be bad, but simply doing so is not.

I strongly recommend an open group out of game conversation with everyone involved, GM or player, to resolve this matter. If the differences cannot be resolved then perhaps finding or founding another group would be best.

Basically be open with everyone and insist they be open with you, so as to avoid drama. Then do what is necessary so everyone can have fun.


The other people in your group sound like dicks.


Yea, having had game night last night it really was me having far different expectations for what situations tend to come up at their table and how they go about things. As I've mentioned this my first time at this table.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Yeah, it's fine to be competent without equipment, but it's even finer to excel with equipment!


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Covent wrote:

I have to strongly disagree with this.

If everyone but one person in a group wants to play one way it is not "being a jerk" to point out things, mechanical or role-play based, that differ from the groups desired play style.

Now expressing this in a negative way can be bad, but simply doing so is not.

I strongly recommend an open group out of game conversation with everyone involved, GM or player, to resolve this matter. If the differences cannot be resolved then perhaps finding or founding another group would be best.

Basically be open with everyone and insist they be open with you, so as to avoid drama. Then do what is necessary so everyone can have fun.

I hear you, and I appreciate the angle you're taking. But. << You knew that was coming, right?

If three out of four people decide that the way to play the game is to point and laugh and call the fourth guy nasty names, they're jerks, regardless of consensus.

Admittedly, that's not necessarily a proper metaphor for what's going on in this case. We just don't know. Which I did mention, since we only have the OP's side of the story.

But with the information available so far, it sucks. It's one thing to offer advice. "Hey, you seem to provoke a lot of AoOs getting into flanking position. Have you considered ranks in Acrobatics?" It's another to tell a dude he's Doing It Wrong because he's chosen to keep a high touch AC at the cost of one overall AC. Really? At that point, you're so deeply conditional and subjective that something's wrong.

I'd love to hear the other side of the story, though. It's always a hoot. It'll turn out the OP had sex with the other three guys' girlfriends accidentally, or something, like the last thread. <Grin>


David knott 242 wrote:

The stealing from friends bit might work as a special retroactive power that is invoked only when the "kender" is ready to make immediate use of an item that the owner does not currently have in hand. That would prevent the annoyance of an item that a player character wants to use having been stolen when the player needs it, but it would be a neat trick to move an item from somebody who has it stashed away somewhere but is not well positioned to use it to somebody who can make immediate use of it. However, I am not aware of any game system that supports something like this.

that's basically how it worked in the original Dragonlance modules. the kender player could reach into his satchel and grab an item from a random table of minor items. It was implied that some of these items might have been ones from the party, but not usually.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Am I actually being problem? Is it that strange to play / build this way?? Home game advice All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.