| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been reading this for awhile. An Int 12 Wizard is like an Wis 12 Cleric or a Str12 fighter. My point is unless that is your highest stat you are already crippling yourself.12 int meeans you can only cast 2nd level and lower spells. A 12 int wizard cant cast haste....Well, a Headband fixes that, and if you're going with Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight X you might well have the money for a +2 headband by the time you have 3rd level spells. And can certainly have used a level up point for Int 13 by then. From there, upgrading the headband takes care of it.
Personally, that seems really low even for a Wizard who doesn't give a damn about Save DCs but it works in theory.
That's debatable and entirely subject to what your options are. For example, if you have access to Deadly Agility (Path of War) then making a Dex-focused Melee warrior isn't off the table.
Yes I understand the point is to improve and it seems like you expect your GM to provide the magic and opportunity to do so. Now consider this a Wizard starting at twelve without magic with the standard stat progression will hit 17 that's assuming he puts every point into his Int. He now can cast seventh level spells. He is still losing out badly, no eighth or nineth level spells. This is a badly designed character not cute or interesting.
Wizards are designed to craft magic items. There is literally nothing stopping you from making a +2 or better headband of intellect to get your 9th level spells with. Clerics and every other caster can as well. It has nothing to do with your GM providing "the magic opportunity".
It's also entirely subject to your design intentions. Again, if your goal is to play a traditional "God Wizard", then having a high Intelligence isn't even necessary since your role is almost entirely about tilting the game in the favor of your team through the use of spells like summon monster, haste, various buff spells, support spells like wind wall, dispel magic, and lots of "no-save just-suck" spells like waves of fatigue.
Unless you're building a wizard that plans to make save DCs a big focus, such as in the case of a Save or Die wizard, you're not really gimping yourself in the slightest, and if you choose to build this way it's probably because you have weighed your options and decided that since you don't plan to cast a lot of save-or spells it would be a waste to invest so much into Intelligence for so little gain when you could invest those points into areas like Constitution so your HP rival's the party's barbarian.
To give an example of a well designed and interesting character let me introduce a character I was using for wrath of the Rightious. Race was an elf, class Wizard nothing new most people choose and elf or human for wizard.
Tieflings and dwarfs make really solid choices for wizards as well. Especially dwarves. Holy crap are they great choices for wizards.
He took a background Trait that said his parents are presumed dead making him something of an orphan. I rolled randomly in Ultimate Campaign for some background details. My character ended up being raised by a Dwarf Jeweler who had befriended my parents before their demise. Now he's where he got interesting because he was pretty much raised by the dwarf he thought and acted more like a dwarf and I role played that. Everyone including the GM went huh? Yet it turned out to be really fun and was interesting.
Nothing about this sounds particularly designed or seems to be well designed. It's just a couple of fluff bits tacked on seemingly because of a random die-roll. Um, okay, but if you're criticizing someone for not having high stats in an iconic ability score why talk about this?
Later when he was able to get Leadership for free I ended up creating a half elf half brother.
Leadership for free?
Elves in older editions have said they often have affairs with others usually going back to their spouses. The half elf was a result of that affair. He was a cohort but now he was family with a reason to be joining me. My GM loved it. Now in and out of combat my character was useful and fun to play never being the weak link in the party.
What does any of that have to do with anything? You begin by talking about the mechanical viability of your character as an example of a "well designed character" and your example is "I was an elf wizard, also here's some fluffage that is entirely irrelevant to both the point being made and everyone else's characters".
Could you...elaborate on what you're talking about?
I love hearing about how Monks suck when, in my opinion, Sohei Monk is a better Fighter than the fighter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love hearing about how Monks suck when, in my opinion, Sohei Monk is a better Fighter than the fighter.
How far do you have to stray from being a monk before you're a monk in name only?
"Are you a monk?"
"No, I'm a sohei."
"Oh, cool then."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love hearing about how Monks suck when, in my opinion, Sohei Monk is a better Fighter than the fighter.How far do you have to stray from being a monk before you're a monk in name only?
"Are you a monk?"
"No, I'm a sohei."
"Oh, cool then."
Barbarian levels, a breastplate, and a glaive.
Lets say someone in a game you were DMing is playing a truly terribly built character that they enjoyed. Would let it be? Tell them to make a better one or version of that character? What would you do.
If a player wants to play something that is mechanically poor, I would first make sure that they understand what they're getting into, and discuss with them if there's maybe a better way to create the character they want to play, but if not I simply ask that they're open to constructive (and "play something else" is not constructive) advice about ways that character could be improved.
That last bit is important because there's a significant difference between "one person enjoys this character, and the rest of the group considers him or her a burden" and "everybody enjoys this character." You don't want to let a character power differential lead to any sort of interparty strife or resentment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My character was interesting because of his background materials.
Which has nothing to with your criticisms of a wizard who doesn't spec Int-Prime.
He himself was designed to kill demons and he did. Demons often failed against his magic and I blew through any resistances easily.
Okay...but Int has nothing to do with resistances. So it really only matters how much you care about saving throws (and top-end your difference is about 15% so like 20% vs 35% save-rate, not a huge difference).
A feta and mythic tier ability and I rolled twice to overcome resistances taking the better number. Most of my spells and abilities were designed to maim or kill a demon and I did that.
None of which has anything to do with Intelligence.
His acting like a dwarf was about his background and roleplaying it.
Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I can roleplay anything.
My character was never useless unlike some characters designed just to roleplay skipping out on making basic common sense choices.
This seems bizarrely hostile somehow, yet you still haven't made a point about common sense choices. You haven't actually even given any example of a well designed character.
Leadership was given to us because of a weird thing in one module.
So it's 100% meaningless. Gotcha. Thanks. So what's this about the 12 Int wizard?
Monks are not weak. They are the Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee or Steven Segal of Pathfinder. Or even wrestlers. I have played the old Monks and they sucked and were very weak. Pathfinder made them very interesting and powerful.
Call me skeptical.
Have played a few and have never had a problem competing with a fighter or rogue in damage output.
Skepticism confirmed.
At low levels a well built Monk is about comparable to a rogue as far as defense and offense.
Translation = Monks suck.
A wise player plays them smarter then a standard rush into combat armored fighter. Mid level they start to become better.
... >_>
*opens Core rulebook, reads monk*<_< ...
If you say so dude.
At higher levels thy can kick out more damage then a fighter and have comparable ACs. I'd take a Monk over other classes in a second.
Tell me about how you spin straw into gold too. :D
|
A monk, in my opinion, s not a terrible character. I have even seen a halfing monk contribute meaningfully to combat. If you want to play a monk who sacrifices STR, DEX and WIS to get high INT ad CHA, now you are talking about a terrible character. It's one thing not to "MIN/MAX", it's a different thing to "MAX/MIN", designing a character to be bad at what he does.
A caster who does not have a very high casting stat can be just fine. My core PFS cleric has 14 WIS. He uses spells primarily for buffing himself and allies, so low save DC does not matter. His focus is wading into combat, and using his crossbow enough that the Rapid Reload feat is important.
I love hearing about how Monks suck when, in my opinion, Sohei Monk is a better Fighter than the fighter.How far do you have to stray from being a monk before you're a monk in name only?
"Are you a monk?"
"No, I'm a sohei."
"Oh, cool then."
I dont understand your point.
|
My character was interesting because of his background materials.Which has nothing to with your criticisms of a wizard who doesn't spec Int-Prime.
He himself was designed to kill demons and he did. Demons often failed against his magic and I blew through any resistances easily.Okay...but Int has nothing to do with resistances. So it really only matters how much you care about saving throws (and top-end your difference is about 15% so like 20% vs 35% save-rate, not a huge difference).
A feta and mythic tier ability and I rolled twice to overcome resistances taking the better number. Most of my spells and abilities were designed to maim or kill a demon and I did that.None of which has anything to do with Intelligence.
His acting like a dwarf was about his background and roleplaying it.Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. I can roleplay anything.
My character was never useless unlike some characters designed just to roleplay skipping out on making basic common sense choices.This seems bizarrely hostile somehow, yet you still haven't made a point about common sense choices. You haven't actually even given any example of a well designed character.
Leadership was given to us because of a weird thing in one module.So it's 100% meaningless. Gotcha. Thanks. So what's this about the 12 Int wizard?
Monks are not weak. They are the Chuck Norris, Bruce Lee or Steven Segal of Pathfinder. Or even wrestlers. I have played the old Monks and they sucked and were very weak. Pathfinder made them very interesting and powerful.Call me skeptical.
Have played a few and have never had a problem competing with a fighter or rogue in damage output.Skepticism confirmed.
At low levels a well built Monk is about comparable to a rogue as far as defense and offense.Translation = Monks suck.
A wise player plays them...
You haven't likely seen most of Derek's posts.
Apparently, his group plays a VERY different game than what conventional board wisdom tells us.
Regardless, back to the OP, yeah, you can play whatever you want. As long as you play intelligently, you'll contribute and be viable. Stats don't even matter too much in this regard, though it's harder on Martial characters that make poor stat choices.
Scenario C: One player is weak, the other three are optimized
Complaint: This is a pretty hardcore scenario, such as Way of the Wicked Book 2, and we need everyone pulling their weight. Weakening the encounters would cheapen the experience for the three optimized players. The weak player doesn't want to take any advice for building a similar character that wouldn't drag the party.
Realistic Solution: Several players and the GM get frustrated with the campaign since the weak character can't really engage with anything and the player develops a negative attitude. The three optimized players want to have fun again so they intentionally wipe the group and pray next campaign the weak player picks a concept that plays itself.
The next campaign he decides to play a Slayer Archer. That class plays itself! We can have fun again!
Oh look! This is what happened to my Way of the Wicked campaign! In my experience players who don't put in minimal optimization effort are also the first to tune out of the game, usually because they have nothing to contribute. That tuning out does more harm to the game than the dead weight character.
Malice from ignorance is definitely a thing. You can screw over other players without realizing that's what you're doing, and if they get upset then you (generic "you", not calling out anyone in particular here) should be willing to listen to what they're saying and consider changing what you're doing.
I'd argue that the DM would be screwing over other players by failing to recognize the abilities of the group. The DM would also be screwing over the suboptimal PC by failing to recognize what that player found enjoyable.
* samples the disaster of a character *
* smacks lips, ponders the flavor *
"Delicious.."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Malice from ignorance is definitely a thing. You can screw over other players without realizing that's what you're doing, and if they get upset then you (generic "you", not calling out anyone in particular here) should be willing to listen to what they're saying and consider changing what you're doing.I'd argue that the DM would be screwing over other players by failing to recognize the abilities of the group. The DM would also be screwing over the suboptimal PC by failing to recognize what that player found enjoyable.
GM: "Gee, it's really pretty crap that I can't use enemies like mummies, basilisks, classed NPCs, the vast majority of outsiders, and a number of natural hazards and traps because Timmy is a gimp and wants to be."
GM: "Am I being too lenient at shoveling 150% more wealth at the party just so they can pay for Timmy's continued existence so he doesn't whine about being dead for the 13th time (in 6 sessions)? I mean, the Jane, Ed, and David might have their verisimilitude a little crushed by finding yet another abandoned dragon's horde."
GM: "Man, Ed's been a bit bummed 'cause they never find any good items on their enemies and wishes they were fighting stuff like evil knights on dragons, but if I use enemies that aren't using clubs and loincloths Timmy can't hit them and dies faster."
GM: "Guys, I know it's metagaming now but maybe there's an in character reason your characters would keep resurrecting Timmy and bringing him on your adventures. I can't think of one right now but if we all put our heads together!"
GM: "Yes Timmy, it's entirely fair for enemies to be capable of flying. Timmy, you're 15th level, you shouldn't be landbound. You spent 130% of your WBL on raise dead and restoration fees and feel it's my fault? I'm just saying that maybe you shouldn't have picked a fight with that CR 8 creature, yeah?"
GM: "Timmy, we've decided to play Guilty Gear instead of our RPG today. Everyone else wants to play in games where the characters do heroic, valor-filled things like fight dragons and evil mages and demons and stuff and they're kind of tired of being stuck fighting kobolds and orcs at 11th level because you can't hit the broad side of a gelatinous cube and your backstory about how you were raised by a sewer rat with your other three brothers isn't really helping that at all."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hilarious hyperbole, but so so true....
I remember when we cancelled a DnD session to watch a Naruto movie....
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question is why a group of adventures would even allow a totally incompetent character on their team. I am not taking about the players, but rather the characters. If the rest of the party are seriously bad ass characters who can take on things other people would not even dream of, why the hell are they going to allow butterfly boy to be part of the team?
When I run if a character does not fit the campaign I plan to run it is vetoed. Before I start a campaign I go over what type of campaign I intend to run and make sure my players are on board with what I am planning. If the players are not interested in what I want to run I either change or let someone else run. If someone creates a character that does not fit the campaign they either modify it to fit or create a new character.
If the player is not able to create a suitable character I, or someone else in the group will help them. Sometimes you simply have to tell your player that while their concept is cool it does not fit this campaign. This does not mean that all characters have to be equally competent in combat, just that the character has to be able to offer something of value to the team. One of my most memorable charters was a very poor combatant, but had a lot of noncombat abilities that where very useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally the answer to that is out of character.
I wouldn't be surprised if the most common reason is that the player is your friend and you want to include them/they want to be included. The player may not take kindly to help though, some people are very independent to a fault and find build advice insulting.
Possibly the player wants to just play with his friends and goof around and doesn't see effort spent in character creation as conducive to that experience.
Many things can explain it, but the most important thing is generally that everyone wants to be in the game so we warp the campaign world to make it happen.
1. The Monk is not that bad of a character. I built up a mobile monk character was doing damage on par with a typical fighter and my AC was much higher than the same fighter.
2. this is a ROLE playing game. not a ROLL playing game. players should be allowed to play whatever they want and not really worry about optimization unless they want to.
Don't worry, when his character dies screaming to something he shouldn't have a problem killing, he can just think of you and your point of view.
This is a problem that tends to sort itself out, but it also depends on how you're running your game: does it revolve around CR (they should never encounter something higher than CR+3) or are the character in an environment that doesn't auto-adjust to them (they could have to fight an entire king's royal guard, likely CR+8 or 9, if they are particularly stupid in their choice making).
If you're running APL, just treat his level as -1 or something if his character is just plain bad at what he does. If his character isn't horrible, then don't worry about it.
My personal experience is that you should try to include at least as many enemies as there are PCs. This means you can be threatening everyone more or less at the same time, and anyone who isn't pulling their weight tends to get weeded out unless they're built to support more deadly characters. There is also the point of using spells that take someone out of the game for a short period of time, E.G. Hold Person, Ghoul Touch, .etc, and effects that cause damage to statistics that do not go away when the spell ends such as Calcific Touch and other like abilities.
If the party is annoyed of having a PC in the party that, well, sucks, then all they have to do is try, somewhat ineffectively, to rescue this monk from a Hold Person or Ghoul Touch followed by a coup de grace.
Next time recommend he play a Druid: their animal companions are beefy as hell. Having him play a Reincarnated Druid can make it so that he doesn't have to worry about death so much.
I dont understand your point.I love hearing about how Monks suck when, in my opinion, Sohei Monk is a better Fighter than the fighter.How far do you have to stray from being a monk before you're a monk in name only?
"Are you a monk?"
"No, I'm a sohei."
"Oh, cool then."
Well, they say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But what if it looks like a tiger, swims like a fish, and screeches like a monkey?
How far from functioning like a class does someone have to go before it's not really representative of the class anymore?
|
What's the point of playing a terrible character? Is it somehow unfun to be competent?
Sometimes it can be great fun to play the incompetent. My PFS lodge has someone who made a paladin with 7 Int and 7 Wis. Granted, he's decided that was a mistake and will be changing this in with his upcoming rebuild. And yet, every time he plays this paladin the entire group is having a blast. Often at his paladin's expense. And yes, he cracks jokes about how dumb his paladin is too. What's better still, is that he gets so in-character that he makes poor tactical decisions accidentally, which fit right in with his character's low Int and Wis.
|
|
I think there is a difference between creating a terrible character because you don't understand the game mechanics for or doing it because you want to have fun with a particular build.
in the first instance I would expect the party to give advice and make suggestions while at the same time accepting that sometimes new players need to learn for themselves, and not have a play style dictated to them.
In the second case other players should say 'hey man, are you sure' and then let you get on with it. It helps that our group always discusses builds and party synergy before starting a campaign anyway.
Sometimes suboptimal is extremely good fun. I have a dwarf sorcerer3/oracle3 in a campaign I'm playing. I chose him because I loved the reaper Derro sorcerer mini I had just painted and wanted to play a mad dwarf. Yes I miss 2nd and 3rd level spells and he is potentially a lot less powerful. However he has a shed load of abilities and can help on lots of small ways. I wouldn't take him all the way to level 20 sure but I can have fun for a bit longer.
Enjoy yourself, as long as you aren't trying to actively screw over your players or DM it is groovy.
For a 3.5 game I made a monk using a 3rd party option. This option made my character the Jackie Chan of the Forgotten Realms setting. I willingly took a delay in damage die increases (which prevented me from ever hitting max damage die), in exchange for having Preform and Disguise as class skills. Reason? I'm an actor in Chinese theater, basically. So flashy and highly impressive looking moves... that are only mildly effective (at best). For example flipping over an ally's head, running along the bannister a few steps, cartwheeling through the air onto the nearby wall, then pushing off into a double front flip and ending with a snap kick aimed at the badguy's head.
Yeah, that involved a LOT of jump checks, balance checks, and what not. And it gave me zero mechanical advantage. All I really was doing was my normal move action (in an excessively impressive way) then a standard attack.
Sub optimal concept, great fun. Too bad the GM for that campaign decided to punish anyone who did anything which could Possibly upstage his NPC epic level barbarian (that the GM supposedly use to play in 1st edition). He gave me DC's in the low 30's for each and every step of my complex movement. Six rolls in total. I made them all. Then I rolled a critical hit (confirmed). So the GM decided that despite me making EVERY skill check and landing the attack, I fall on my face as I come in for the kick (naturally thus fail to make the attack), then roll down the stairs (knocking over the barbarian). Oh, and get an attack of opportunity made against me by the guy I was trying to kick... cause i landed on my face. Oh, and just to further punish me for trying to be flashy, he used MY attack and crit confirm rolls for the AoO instead of rolling.
Sorry bout that rant. I'm still more then a little upset about how taht character got treated, and how that GM pretty much constantly marginalized and punished me. Beginning with forcing me to make a half dragon sorc (instead of using Dragon Disciple to represent slowly growing into that side of the sorc's heritage). Then punishing me because I happened to roll high for Str, and managed to out muscle his prized level 40 barbarian with 25 strength (same as me) in a contested strength roll.
Uhm... Er, guess I'm still ranting.
Anyway, monks are not by default a bad character. You can badly build one, but they aren't bad just because they're monks. Yeah, they kind of suck till level 5. Especially when they use flurry of blows. But that's because the class is a late bloomer, and more reliant on AC boosting magic gear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a pretty simple question that was entirely doomed from the get-go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But what if it looks like a tiger, swims like a fish, and screeches like a monkey?
You make a Super Bowl Commercial starring it, I guess.
I dont understand your point.I love hearing about how Monks suck when, in my opinion, Sohei Monk is a better Fighter than the fighter.How far do you have to stray from being a monk before you're a monk in name only?
"Are you a monk?"
"No, I'm a sohei."
"Oh, cool then."Well, they say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. But what if it looks like a tiger, swims like a fish, and screeches like a monkey?
How far from functioning like a class does someone have to go before it's not really representative of the class anymore?
...so the Sohei doesn't count as a Monk because that disrupts your view that Monks are useless?..
It's a Monk that Flurrys with a larger pool of weapons and make their mount Monk more Monk-like.
...They still has to be Lawful...
...and use Ki...
...and uses Unarmed Strike...
...and gets Wis to AC (but can choose to wear armor)...
...and gets bonus feats...
...and Evasion...
...also Still Mind, Maneuver Training, Hi Jump, Wholeness of the Body, Improved Evasion, Diamond Soul, Empty Body and Perfect Self...
My question is why a group of adventures would even allow a totally incompetent character on their team. I am not taking about the players, but rather the characters.
Why wouldn't they? In fiction, teams always have a comic relief guy, a sidekick, a non-violent love interest, or a Batman character who doesn't have the powers everyone else does but relies on his wits.
If someone was willing to face the same dangers are you, and wasn't completely useless, why would you kick him out? Sure the players know that if you kick out a bad PC a better one will probably turn up the next day, but the characters don't know this.
|
|
And sometimes the highly optimized murder hobos are just left standing there with their jaws hanging open cause that 'useless actor' did something highly impressive. Oh sure, it'd have been just as effective and a lot easier if they'd simply walked up and punched the badguy. But all those flips, twists, swinging from tapestries, and other acrobatics were just so awe inspiring to watch.
Bonus points if the badguy's minions get distracted while watching the actor pulling off mad wire-fu action stunts that they forget they're in a fight.
Most "useless" concepts can be turned into a highly effective character without giving up your concept. And you don't have to be the gods gift to one shotting giants to be able to contribute.
What's the point of playing a terrible character? Is it somehow unfun to be competent?Sometimes it can be great fun to play the incompetent. My PFS lodge has someone who made a paladin with 7 Int and 7 Wis. Granted, he's decided that was a mistake and will be changing this in with his upcoming rebuild. And yet, every time he plays this paladin the entire group is having a blast. Often at his paladin's expense. And yes, he cracks jokes about how dumb his paladin is too. What's better still, is that he gets so in-character that he makes poor tactical decisions accidentally, which fit right in with his character's low Int and Wis.
Good that he can enjoy playing that character, but paladins are CHA-based. Mechanically speaking he isn't that terrible. His saves are high, his damage is high, he retains spellcasting, etc. I'd hazard a guess that he more then pulls his weight in combat.
Going to the most extreme example possible: why on earth would someone purposefully create a character that is able to contribute absolutely nothing meaningful? Especially when the bar is so low that I expect any and every character to carry their own weight barring anyone whose concept is "I suck".
Good that he can enjoy playing that character, but paladins are CHA-based. Mechanically speaking he isn't that terrible. His saves are high, his damage is high, he retains spellcasting, etc. I'd hazard a guess that he more then pulls his weight in combat.What's the point of playing a terrible character? Is it somehow unfun to be competent?Sometimes it can be great fun to play the incompetent. My PFS lodge has someone who made a paladin with 7 Int and 7 Wis. Granted, he's decided that was a mistake and will be changing this in with his upcoming rebuild. And yet, every time he plays this paladin the entire group is having a blast. Often at his paladin's expense. And yes, he cracks jokes about how dumb his paladin is too. What's better still, is that he gets so in-character that he makes poor tactical decisions accidentally, which fit right in with his character's low Int and Wis.
Out of combat I think he could even be a Forrest Gump style diplomancer.
Oddest builds usually become the most interesting characters narrative wise.
Even if it is a crutch for roleplaying, there is still value to it.
As long as they are close to the effectiveness level of the group, I don't care how odd the build is.
My question is why a group of adventures would even allow a totally incompetent character on their team. I am not taking about the players, but rather the characters.Why wouldn't they? In fiction, teams always have a comic relief guy, a sidekick, a non-violent love interest, or a Batman character who doesn't have the powers everyone else does but relies on his wits.
If someone was willing to face the same dangers are you, and wasn't completely useless, why would you kick him out? Sure the players know that if you kick out a bad PC a better one will probably turn up the next day, but the characters don't know this.
There's a difference between "not as useful" and "actively harming the team with their presence".
The only example you gave that might fall under the second category is the love interest, and useless love interests are only tolerated because, well, they are love interests. Bad PCs are generally not love interests. They are failures who are swallowing large amounts of wealth and forcing party tactics to revolve around protecting them but giving the party almost nothing in return. The question of "why are we letting this clown be around us when his presence puts our lives in jeopardy" is a very reasonable one for a group of professional mercenaries and monster slayers* to be asking when one of their members is making their job harder and endangering their lives.
Lets say someone in a game you were DMing is playing a truly terribly built character that they enjoyed. Would let it be? Tell them to make a better one or version of that character? What would you do.
Personally speaking, I think it is the GM's responsibility to make sure the gaming environment allows for everyone to have fun. As such, if one PC was significantly weaker than the rest, than that PC would get boosted in some way.
It could be a blessing from some magical being, it could be that some NPCs look favorably on the PC, it could be that gear drops are tailored to the PC, etc.
If I was running an AP or module and was trying to test it as written or found myself in a situation where boosting the PC wasn't doable, then I'd probably ask one of the optimizer players in the group to assist the player of the weak PC while retaining the spirit of the character that the player had envisioned.
All depends if you are going for the most powerful character out there. I've played a monk in PF (dwarven drunken monk who fought with two dwarven war tankarks (reskinned brass knuckles)) and had a complete and utter blast with it. Tumbling through a group of mooks to get up close and personal with the enemy caster (after the party cleric casts silence on my tankard...), parkouring up walls and over pits. yeah, not a DPS character, but a whole lot of fun.
Bad PCs are generally not love interests. They are failures who are swallowing large amounts of wealth and forcing party tactics to revolve around protecting them but giving the party almost nothing in return.
I think we're imagining different types of bad PC here.
The example of a 'bad PC' we were given at the start of the thread was 'a monk'.
'Bad PCs' I've seen tend to be the ones who don't contribute significantly in combat beyond being a meat-shield. They're not actively harmful to the group, unless they're played idiotically, such as a PC who alerts all the enemies when everyone else is being stealthy.
My question is why a group of adventures would even allow a totally incompetent character on their team. I am not taking about the players, but rather the characters.Why wouldn't they? In fiction, teams always have a comic relief guy, a sidekick, a non-violent love interest, or a Batman character who doesn't have the powers everyone else does but relies on his wits.
If someone was willing to face the same dangers are you, and wasn't completely useless, why would you kick him out? Sure the players know that if you kick out a bad PC a better one will probably turn up the next day, but the characters don't know this.
If the character is too incompetent then he is more trouble than he is worth. I have been in situations like that in real life. It was not about combat but about a job. I had a coworker that screws up so much it was easier for me to do his work than to correct his problems. When the boss came to me about whether to keep him I told him it was more trouble fixing his mistakes and getting rid of him would actually make my job easier.
The same should happen in a game. If the character is so incompetent that he is endangering the part they would not keep him. The monk does not fall under this category no class really does, but some characters do. Those that do should not be part of the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at it from this perspective. Two Wizards identical stats save for Int. Yours is twelve mine is sixteen.
Immediately your argument is flawed. Having a 12 Int rather than a 16 Int means that you've got 8 additional points to spend (it takes 2 points to reach Int 12, and 10 points to reach Int 16), which means that the two wizards will not have identical stats.
Now at first level I will have more starting spells in my spellbook. Now at third level which is the earliest level you can create a magic item I will not have an extra spell per day to cast while you will not.
Yeah, duh. It just depends on how much you value that +1 bonus spell. It's not that hard to live without it if you're playing a God-wizard.
We both create a +6 Headband you hit 18 still can't cast ninth level spells I hit 22.
In case you forgot, you get a +1 at 4th and 8th level.
I now can and my spells per day jumped. Now with level progression stat bump you hit 22 finally now you can cast ninth level spells. I hit 26.
You can cast 9th level spells at Int 19, which is really low. At top end you're looking at a 15% difference in save-DCs. Even the bonus spells aren't much different since 12 (base) + 5 (levels) + 6 (enhancement) + 5 (inherents) = Int 28. You'd at best hit 34 if you began with a 20 instead, which actually doesn't grant any more 9th level spells than Int 28. In fact, bonus spells in general are - as I said - note nearly as impactful as things like pearls of power or mnemonic enhancer.
My point your Wizard even at first level is inferior to mine. At third my character becomes even better getting a bonus second level spell.
The problem is you're arguing that they're otherwise equal. They aren't. One is going to have higher statistics elsewhere, and the margin of difference in their casting ability is minor.
This is assuming my stat is only 16. Depending on how stats are generated I could easily hit 20. At 20 I am superior to you in every way and only continue to be more and more powerful to you.
And you're wrong. You're different and there are some things you're better at but there will also be things the lower Int wizard is better at, such as having better Hp, AC, and saves, as well as better +hit with rays and such.
Taking a low stat for your primary stat for your class isn't about role playing it's harming yourself and the party.
I never said it was about roleplaying. I said that the statement that a 12 Int wizard is somehow useless or gimped is a joke. Anyone who really knows how to wizard isn't going to be phased by it in the least and quite frankly they will still be more powerful and more versatile than most of the party combined.
Magic helps never said it didn't but magic only goes so far. A fighter with a 12 str has only a plus one to hit before feats and his CMB and CMD are going to suck.
Notice I never said anything about Fighters. Fighters suck. Fighters have sucked since 3.x. A high Strength score isn't going to fix that. But martial characters typically rely on those stats to do anything meaningful at all. Their options are "hit it" or "don't hit it".
Casters tend to have a significantly wider breadth of options, which in turn, means that they can more or less ignore the numerical disadvantages of having fewer +1s here and there, because a wizard can perform their job and bend reality over their knee without ever asking for a saving throw.
Now he gets a belt of +6 he is now only catching up to a fighter who already put his highest stat into str. Magic improves him even further and again exceeding the 12 stst fighter.
The problem is you're comparing apples to steam engines. Fighters are stuck on a linear path of "is my modifier high enough to hit it?" and that is the extent of their options. Many, many, many spells - most of the best spells in the game in fact - don't really care what the wizard's Int score is as long as it's high enough for them to simply cast it. Because of this, having a higher Int score is nice but it's by no means required.
Regarding the Monk. All first level characters suck in some ways. Even a fighter at first level sucks.
Fighters suck at all levels.
His Will save is crappy and doesn't get much better. At third a fighter will be better then most classes for combat.
Not really. In fact he's outpaced by the core martials. Barbarians start off stronger than Fighters and stay stronger than Fighters, and by 3rd level Barbarians and Paladins and Rangers are all just better than Fighters (Fighters have no bonuses to hit and damage aside from perhaps Weapon Focus until 4th level at the earliest and that's if they burn their feat on weapon specialization - a great trap; whereas by that time Barbarians are laughing because they've been doing that since 1st level and have way better goodies, Paladins make you look like a frail origami piece, and Rangers just got another body on the field).
That doesn't mean a Monk sucks. I've played a Monk that actually had a better AC then the fighter and hit about the same.
This isn't really anything to write home about. With a lot of magic items a monk can - eventually - reach decent ACs. Martial and even hybrid characters can as well. As for hitting as well as the Fighter, well, maybe if the Fighter sucks or something (Fighters do tend to suck). Mathematically, however, monks cannot actually keep pace with real martials. They have no means of raising their attack & damage rolls outside of "MORE STRENGTH" and they're already behind the curve by 25%.
It's about what you do with him. Now in your case you probably are giving his prime stats the lowest numbers you have instead of your highest. Any character with low stats are going to suck as well.
I'll be sure to take your timeless wisdom into consideration, good sir. Perhaps you can enthrall us ignorant newbies with tales of your daring success, so that we may aspire to understand these weird, esoteric, mechanical things. :3
I disagree to a certain extent about this. New players having little or no experience it falls to the group not just the GM for helping him make a character.
To each their own. When I am a player, I don't let the other players see my character sheet. I think it is important for the PCs to learn about their companions IC rather than OOC.
For brand new players, if I am the GM I'd rather assist the player in making their first PC rather than rely on the group to do so. Especially if I don't know the other players well.
As for the rest of your post, I've seen people online detail the player that intentionally makes a poor PC with the aim of endangering the other PCs because they apparently have fun getting the other PCs killed.
Fortunantely, I've never encountered that type of player in an actual campaign.
|
Actually I'd be worried about APs more then homebrew, as homebrew can be easily adjusted. APs expect a certain competence, as well as party balance.
The GM can just ask the other players who made optimized characters - how hardcore do you want to get? If the other players say sunshine and rainbows, the GM tells them to unoptimize so as to have same power levels as the guy with a poorly made character, and alters the difficulty setting of the campaign. It could contain more talky talky, skill checks, creative solutions etc.
If the others say oh we want normal stuff, GM points out to the guy with a poorly made character his character is going to hinder the group as he can't pull his own weight, then asks him to rebuild.
If he doesn't rebuild, let in game consequences show why such a poorly made character is a bad idea.
Problem settled :)
So long as they didn't moan and whine about being bad, sure.
Your GM is suspicious because people who say they want stuff like this, 90% of the time, even though they swear up and down they're fine with a weak character, they end up being passive-agressive about thier character's uselessness and want to spent game time devoted to moaning about how they can't do anything well.
So sure, go right ahead. But do try not to be that person. And if discord arises from this, remember that it was entirely, 100%, your fault.
|
Fighters don't suck you don't play them right.That's a pretty bold statement, and not all that nice to boot.
Wizards [...] have low Hit Points and even with magic their AC is generally lower then a fighters. A tough monster can kill a wizard in one full attack.Why is your wizard even facing a full attack? It's trivially easy to avoid being full attacked, even more so with the wizard spell list.
At higher levels half the monsters have spell resistance and high saves. Even with the right build blasting past spell resistance can be challenging then they have their saves. Most of the higher level spells are save or die essentially. Monsters usually save and hence nothing happens wasted spell.You remember the part where plenty of the best spells don't allow saves or SR? Even among the ones that do, targeting a low save or blowing through SR is pretty easy even if you aren't trying much.
Monsters like that tend to be balanced by having lower AC which a Wizard still won't hit with a melee attack.Why does the wizard care about hitting it with a melee attack?
A fighter on the other hand will hit him every time.
Yeah that's the point of fighters: to hit things. Though even so, he won't hit with every attack, and he struggles to get into a position to make that full attack in the first place. And he doesn't even have other options aside from trying to make that full attack. You have 1 solution: negate it with HP damage. And although the wizard might have to force a save or break SR, the fighter always has to beat AC, even when other defenses are in play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My argument is valid because I said otherwise identical stats. I'm not talking about point buy system or anything like that I said identical meaning exactly that. You putting a 12 in Int when you don't have to is stupid. No I didn't forget the stat boost at four and eight. You actually by twenty have +5 stats I did add that in.
Fighters don't suck you don't play them right. Every class with a few exceptions balance out at mid level and at high levels have their strengths and weaknesses. Wizards at high level have powerful spells. However they have low Hit Points and even with magic their AC is generally lower then a fighters. A tough monster can kill a wizard in one full attack. At higher levels half the monsters have spell resistance and high saves. Even with the right build blasting past spell resistance can be challenging then they have their saves. Most of the higher level spells are save or die essentially. Monsters usually save and hence nothing happens wasted spell. Monsters like that tend to be balanced by having lower AC which a Wizard still won't hit with a melee attack. A fighter on the other hand will hit him every time.
Yes with a low point buy system you won't have high stats, no one will. One of the reasons half the groups I've played or talked to don't use it. Low stats means more of a challenge except at some point most people get really disappointed with a character that can't even handle a low level monster because their stats are so low.
My argument is valid you are missing what I posted and assuming after the first sentence my statement. Please read everything I wrote and you will see I have taken what you said in mind.
He specifically replied to EVERYTHING you posted. XD
So, in this setup, you're assuming you didn't use point-buy, you're assuming someone rolled an array of all of the same stats, but got an extra 16 the second time he rolled the array instead of a 12, and had the choice between the two arrays. I've never seen a DM do that, but sure, let's go with that.
The point that Ashiel is making is that the fact that your save DC's are slightly worse doesn't really matter in the long run. Summoning, one of the most potent things spellcasters can do, has no saving throws. Glitterdust has a saving throw, but one of the coolest things it does is outline the location of invisible creatures. A Fog Cloud is just a Fog Cloud, Jump still gives you the full bonus, flying doesn't care how intelligent you are, grease requires flat acrobatics checks and still reduces movement speed... I could go on. There are LOTS of things a Wizard, or most spellcasters, can do with a low casting attribute. Heck, most Melee-Centric Druid/Cleric builds start with a base casting stat of 13 because a headband will give them the stat boost they need to get max level spells. There is almost nothing from stopping a low-int Wizard from going into Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, or just sucking it up and becoming a dedicated summoner with added options and perks.
Either way, his other stats are likely higher, meaning he probably has a pretty rocking constitution and/or dexterity, which means his Initiative might be a little higher, and he'll probably have a good deal more HP, not to mention better saves. Sure, he's more limited in his spell choices than a traditional, high-Int wizard, but he still has access to all the things that make wizards great.
The difference between a fighter with 12 as his primary combat stat and one with a 16 matters because EVERYTHING the fighter does in combat is reliant upon this number. And, more on topic, so does the monk (though, I will admit, if you're willing to super-pump your Con via going Dwarf, you can make a pretty rockin' pseudo-spellcaster by playing a drunken master/quinggong monk. Another character I've always wanted to try).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a player play a Gelatinous Cube through Iron Gods.
It was far from optimal.
Sploosh got in the way in some fights, didn't even see other fights, and took too long to get involved in other fights to the point where he didn't actively participate.
HOWEVER.
Sploosh also single-handedly defeated WAY more encounters than he had any right too.
His plethora of weird and janky abilities allowed the party to bypass some particularly nasty encounters, mitigating CRs up to three above the APL with minimal rolls.
And the player played the cube right.
He was fun and memorable.
The terms "Can I eat that?" and "Goo tube please" are now running jokes in our group.
My point is, in the end, it's about the fun.
Now, different groups and different people have different opinions on what makes fun.
But if your character brings fun to the table, it really doesn't matter how good nor bad they are.