The very first character one of my friends made was a monk. He didn't really know much about the system at all and we beat the campaign just fine (it was homebrew). We came close to death a few times, but not because the monk "sucked." It was due to bad luck with saves. The only one who actually died was the powergamer/sometimes munchkin with the disgustingly optimized character (who barely had any backstory/flavor at all). He proceeded to make another backstory-less pile of lame to replace the last one.
This is my view.
How about instead of whining about someone not min/maxing their character, people should bother to see how things go first? If problems occur - and they can be directly correlated to the character in question - then the DM could ask you to "fix" your character.My group only does homebrew though. This seems like a problem that is limited to PFS only. As a DM, I'd rather have a sucky character with a cool concept/backstory than a boring, pile of stats. I can adjust the difficulty of encounters beforehand or even mid-combat if necessary. I guess you can't really do that in PFS (based on my vague understanding of what exactly goes on).
Sorry if this sounded really ranty and aggressive, but I absolutely detest the "optimize or we will all hate you" mentality.
You make it sound like optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive.
Also why would one not want to optimize every character? It makes sense to always choose the most ideal options to accomplish whatever concept you're working with.
Ugh, I knew this would happen. I never said they're mutually exclusive. I optimize my characters too, but to a limit. I stop and backtrack if I find I'm going too far.
I'm not complaining about optimization within the limits of a concept. That's generally okay. I'm talking about making a character precisely to be min/maxed or optimized without giving really any thought to a concept. That's what I was trying to explain with my rant about my friend's decision to not spend any time whatsoever on his character outside of its DPR. I wasn't very clear now that I reread what I wrote.
Basically, I have a problem with two things: optimizing at the expense of your character and situations like the OP posted (where a character is instantly deemed utterly useless because of something like "being a monk"). You shouldn't have to optimize or choose a different class if you don't want to. Similarly, if there just isn't any way to make your concept uber strong, you should still be able to play it without getting chewed out or scapegoated for somehow "making the party suffer."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The very first character one of my friends made was a monk. He didn't really know much about the system at all and we beat the campaign just fine (it was homebrew). We came close to death a few times, but not because the monk "sucked." It was due to bad luck with saves. The only one who actually died was the powergamer/sometimes munchkin with the disgustingly optimized character (who barely had any backstory/flavor at all). He proceeded to make another backstory-less pile of lame to replace the last one.
The flavor/backstory bit is a not sequitur to how optimized the character was. Further, while I'll take your word that he was a "powergamer/sometimes munchkin", you haven't explained how and many titled with the term "powergamer" or even "optimizer" don't actually qualify for the title (if I had a dime for every player who thought they were playing Rogue the most OP class in the game I'd retire). Munchkin also generally suggests that the player is a cheater as well.
There's also the part where I wonder how and/or why that PC died. From personal (anecdotal) experience, I'd be inclined to think that one of the following things occurred.
A) The player was overconfident because he thinks himself a great powergamer and paid the price for it.
B) The player was trying to pick up the slack for someone else in a moment of danger and paid the price for it.
C) The player was overconfident because he considers himself a great powergamer and is actually completely wrong about it and paid the price for it (this is slightly different from A).
D) The player's PC actually was overpowered but got unlucky or dismantled anyway.
E) The player's PC's inflated statistics didn't help them in this case (such as when your 30 Strength Fighter is sealed inside a room with quickened cloudkill + wall of stone.
F) There were dice shenanigans going on (I've seen a lot of GMs intentionally gun for players for what they consider poor roleplaying or powergaming, whether real or imagined).
G) The player thinks powergaming is all about dealing more damage and was taken apart like a snowcone in Asmodaeous' court because offense isn't even half the battle.
This is my view.
How about instead of whining about someone not min/maxing their character, people should bother to see how things go first? If problems occur - and they can be directly correlated to the character in question - then the DM could ask you to "fix" your character.
This is why I try to work with players ahead of time. It's better to nip a problem in the bud than try to cut back the kudzu.
My group only does homebrew though. This seems like a problem that is limited to PFS only.
I don't play PFS and never have and likely never will.
As a DM, I'd rather have a sucky character with a cool concept/backstory than a boring, pile of stats.
Or you could have both. Because as long as the concept can be represented mechanically it should be viable. If there's not anything mechanical to support it (or support it well), time for homebrew.
I can adjust the difficulty of encounters beforehand or even mid-combat if necessary.
"Oop, yeah, about that, the basilisk has a heart attack..."
Sorry if this sounded really ranty and aggressive, but I absolutely detest the "optimize or we will all hate you" mentality.
My theory is that the mentally is pushback for years, literal years, of fallacies concerning people who actually give a darn about the game's mechanics, the constant breaking of disbelief suspension because the party's supposed to be exploring the 9th layer of hell with Drogan the Thunderhammer, Velas the Sorceress, Katta the Apostle, and "Sir Smidgrel Vonderbuff the Fourth; son of Sarona the Deceiver; writer of the epic of Gilganus; half-brother to Lord Moldebutt the Unspeakable; Reciter of the Ancient Ways; Keeper of the Flame; and hater of Dwarves because he's an Elf and that's good roleplaying" the stooge.
Most of the supposed "optimize or we'll hate you" mentality is actually a misunderstanding of what the rage is about. It's not about disliking someone because they're not "optimizing". It's more like "stop simultaneously calling us powergaming optimizers in a derogative way, while also suggesting that you know more about how the game works, all the while suggesting that we're doing it wrong and aren't playing out classes to their potential, and that we'd do so much better at playing classes to their fullest mechanical strength if we'd learn to roleplay".
The backlash against THAT is what you are mistaking for "optimize or we'll hate you".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Int of 12 already screws you. Here's how you can until you can purchase a headband which might take longer then you expect you can only cast second level spells.
*facepalm* Wizards. Craft. Items. By the time you're 5th level, you either already have all the money required to make a crappy little +enhancement item or you have the means to go take the money yourself.
Another problem Int +2 for skills which means you get three.
Given that the DCs of most skills don't scale with your level and only a couple of ranks here and there are needed to do lots of cool things, I can live with it and still not be gimped. Still better than sorcerers, woohoo.
And of course later on you can always make those headbands. They give you lots of skill ranks. You can even cheaply make different headbands for different purposes. And inherent modifiers are a thing too. And of course let's not forget magic items (which you can make) that provide bonuses to skills.
You talk about headband let's assume you plan on making on there's one Spellcraft. Two points for whatever. Skills for a Wizard are part of their power.
Actually it's a part of Intelligence which just happens to synergize really damn well with certain types of wizard builds. And I could always decide to get +1 skill point / level if I didn't want +1 HP/level (but I might make the Fighter feel bad if I have more Hp than he does).
Won't knock the race love Dwarves but you are playing a race that doesn't encourage wizardry.
What's your point? Aside from the fact that "doesn't encourage wizardry" is pointless and meaningless, dwarfs are pretty awesome racial choices for wizards. Wizards don't care much for charisma and have low hit points naturally, and the bonuses to saves and vs poison is pretty great on a class that has poor saves vs poison and such.
They're literally no worse than humans. Really you can make a good wizard with the damndest of things. They're quite versatile.
Stat bump to Con very, stat bump to Wis saves and Perception. As a Wizard your will saves will start good getting better.
Better is better.
There are races where Int gets the bump which is highly recommended if you are a Wizard.
It's optional. It's good for certain types of wizards, it's not required. You do not have to play a race without a +2 to your key stat to be functional.
I've already explained why.
The flavor/backstory bit is a not sequitur to how optimized the character was. Further, while I'll take your word that he was a "powergamer/sometimes munchkin", you haven't explained how and many titled with the term "powergamer" or even "optimizer" don't actually qualify for the title (if I had a dime for every player who thought they were playing Rogue the most OP class in the game I'd retire). Munchkin also generally suggests that the player is a cheater as well.
There's also the part where I wonder how and/or why that PC died. From personal (anecdotal) experience, I'd be inclined to think that one of the following things occurred.
Trying to twist rules and fudge rolls and generally being disruptive/rude/mean defines a "munchkin", right? He doesn't do that all the time, but if something doesn't go his way he'll get like that. That's why I said "part-time."
F) There were dice shenanigans going on (I've seen a lot of GMs intentionally gun for players for what they consider poor roleplaying or powergaming, whether real or imagined).
I wasn't DMing and no that didn't happen luckily!
This is why I try to work with players ahead of time. It's better to nip a problem in the bud than try to cut back the kudzu.
I prefer to give it a chance to work first, before I determine if his/her character desperately needs a change. I can't instantly tell if something is going to totally suck or not.
Or you could have both. Because as long as the concept can be represented mechanically it should be viable. If there's not anything mechanical to support it (or support it well), time for homebrew.
See my post above. My first post was poorly worded due to my rage-o-vision.
"Oop, yeah, about that, the basilisk has a heart attack..."
C'mon, no reason to make fun of me. I'm not that stupid. I'd decrease the health, AC, damage by a bit or fudge a role in their favor.
My theory is that the mentally is pushback for years, literal years, of fallacies concerning people who actually give a darn about the game's mechanics, the constant breaking of disbelief suspension because the party's supposed to be exploring the 9th layer of hell with Drogan the Thunderhammer, Velas the Sorceress, Katta the Apostle, and "Sir Smidgrel Vonderbuff the Fourth; son of Sarona the Deceiver; writer of the epic of Gilganus; half-brother to Lord Moldebutt the Unspeakable; Reciter of the Ancient Ways; Keeper of the Flame; and hater of Dwarves because he's an Elf and that's good roleplaying" the stooge.
Most of the supposed "optimize or we'll hate you" mentality is actually a misunderstanding of what the rage is about. It's not about disliking someone because they're not "optimizing". It's more like "stop simultaneously calling us powergaming optimizers in a derogative way, while also suggesting that you know more about how the game works, all the while suggesting that we're doing it wrong and aren't playing out classes to their potential, and that we'd do so much better at playing classes to their fullest mechanical strength if we'd learn to roleplay".
The backlash against THAT is what you are mistaking for "optimize or we'll hate you".
I wasn't clear in my original post, sorry. To me, "powergamer" and "munchkin" are bad, but not "optimizer." I used the term "disgustingly optimized" to describe what I perceived as waaaay to much min/maxing. I also never said anything about playing your class better due to roleplaying...that doesn't make sense. Concept maybe, but not class. Playing "the game" better in my opinion could involve roleplaying, but that's just my completely subjective definition of what makes "the game" more enjoyable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cant imagine why a Dwarf Wizard would be bad. Those bonuses vs spells are flippin awesome. In the event of a ye olde wizard battle, shrugging off a save or suck with that +2 is gonna save your arse you can bet your ancestors on that!
|
I cant imagine why a Dwarf Wizard would be bad. Those bonuses vs spells are flippin awesome. In the event of a ye olde wizard battle, shrugging off a save or suck with that +2 is gonna save your arse you can bet your ancestors on that!
Except that any dwarf wizard worth his salt is gonna have Glory of Old and Steel Soul. EAT A +5, SUCKA!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, I knew this would happen. I never said they're mutually exclusive. I optimize my characters too, but to a limit. I stop and backtrack if I find I'm going too far.
I'm not complaining about optimization within the limits of a concept. That's generally okay. I'm talking about making a character precisely to be min/maxed or optimized without giving really any thought to a concept. That's what I was trying to explain with my rant about my friend's decision to not spend any time whatsoever on his character outside of its DPR. I wasn't very clear now that I reread what I wrote.
Basically, I have a problem with two things: optimizing at the expense of your character and situations like the OP posted (where a character is instantly deemed utterly useless because of something like "being a monk"). You shouldn't have to optimize or choose a different class if you don't want to. Similarly, if there just isn't any way to make your concept uber strong, you should still be able to play it without getting chewed out or scapegoated for somehow "making the party suffer."
It seems unfair to criticize your companion who spent no effort on backstory while defending another who spent no effort on making a mechanically sound character.
Granted, the baseline for Pathfinder is so low that you have to actively try to create someone utterly useless, but that doesn't change the facts. Monk is not a super amazing class, Wizards are strong, two-weapon fighting is gimped, these are truths inherent to the system. They are all workable in their own ways, but if one chooses to ignore that then one opens themselves up to deserved criticism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to twist rules and generally being disruptive/rude/mean defines a "munchkin", right? Or do I have that mixed up with a different term?
No, it's right. Just it has nothing to do with the strength of a character outside of whether or not the player is going to try to cheat to be stronger or not. It is apples to oranges.
C'mon, no reason to make fun of me. I'm not that stupid. I'd decrease the health, AC, damage by a bit or fudge a role in their favor.
Cheating is cheating. I'll leave it at that.
I wasn't clear in my original post, sorry. To me, "powergamer" and "munchkin" are bad, but not "optimizer." I used the term "disgustingly optimized" to describe what I perceive as waaay to much min/maxing. I also never said anything about playing your class better due to roleplaying...that doesn't make sense. Playing "the game" better in my opinion could involve roleplaying, but that's just my completely subjective definition of what makes "the game" more enjoyable.
You might not have but others have, and will continue to do so. I said years of this nonsense. And likely many years yet still. What you see as "optimize or we hate you", I strongly believe is the manifestation of a growing sense of satisfaction with the way that those who actually study the game and know how it works and discuss how it works and use how it works to make a better game are treated.
Want to reduce it? Here are some easy steps.
1. When discussing the validity of mechanics don't even bring up roleplaying.
2. When you say something is true mechanically, provide sources, explain your case, answer and address those who disagree - and don't bring up their ability to roleplay or tell stories.
3. If you think a class isn't getting a fair deal in the community, show why it's good. Show us. It doesn't require a specific build, just explain in fair terms what they have going for them that makes them worth having around and if asked break it down mechanically as well.
Then you'll speak our language and we'll have a real great conversation. However, if you rant at us, tell us we're wrong without providing a good argument as to why, or utter the word "roleplaying" as if that means something in a mechanical discussion outside of the mechanics facilitating that roleplaying, effect to feel that unique tension in the air.
Because we do.
Ugh, I knew this would happen. I never said they're mutually exclusive. I optimize my characters too, but to a limit. I stop and backtrack if I find I'm going too far.
I'm not complaining about optimization within the limits of a concept. That's generally okay. I'm talking about making a character precisely to be min/maxed or optimized without giving really any thought to a concept. That's what I was trying to explain with my rant about my friend's decision to not spend any time whatsoever on his character outside of its DPR. I wasn't very clear now that I reread what I wrote.
Basically, I have a problem with two things: optimizing at the expense of your character and situations like the OP posted (where a character is instantly deemed utterly useless because of something like "being a monk"). You shouldn't have to optimize or choose a different class if you don't want to. Similarly, if there just isn't any way to make your concept uber strong, you should still be able to play it without getting chewed out or scapegoated for somehow "making the party suffer."
It seems unfair to criticize your companion who spent no effort on backstory while defending another who spent no effort on making a mechanically sound character.
Granted, the baseline for Pathfinder is so low that you have to actively try to create someone utterly useless, but that doesn't change the facts. Monk is not a super amazing class, Wizards are strong, two-weapon fighting is gimped, these are truths inherent to the system. They are all workable in their own ways, but if one chooses to ignore that then one opens themselves up to deserved criticism.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I view a complete lack of a backstory (I don't mean something like one paragraph, I mean literally nothing whatsoever) as a sign of less effort than a terrible character. Perhaps you're right and it is unfair of me, but its just my opinion.
I prefer to have backstories grow during the game, not before.
They should! I don't think that's an excuse to not even have one sentence though...
You should still at least have something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I view a complete lack of a backstory (I don't mean something like one paragraph, I mean literally nothing whatsoever) as a sign of less effort than a terrible character. Perhaps you're right and it is unfair of me, but its just my opinion.Ugh, I knew this would happen. I never said they're mutually exclusive. I optimize my characters too, but to a limit. I stop and backtrack if I find I'm going too far.
I'm not complaining about optimization within the limits of a concept. That's generally okay. I'm talking about making a character precisely to be min/maxed or optimized without giving really any thought to a concept. That's what I was trying to explain with my rant about my friend's decision to not spend any time whatsoever on his character outside of its DPR. I wasn't very clear now that I reread what I wrote.
Basically, I have a problem with two things: optimizing at the expense of your character and situations like the OP posted (where a character is instantly deemed utterly useless because of something like "being a monk"). You shouldn't have to optimize or choose a different class if you don't want to. Similarly, if there just isn't any way to make your concept uber strong, you should still be able to play it without getting chewed out or scapegoated for somehow "making the party suffer."
It seems unfair to criticize your companion who spent no effort on backstory while defending another who spent no effort on making a mechanically sound character.
Granted, the baseline for Pathfinder is so low that you have to actively try to create someone utterly useless, but that doesn't change the facts. Monk is not a super amazing class, Wizards are strong, two-weapon fighting is gimped, these are truths inherent to the system. They are all workable in their own ways, but if one chooses to ignore that then one opens themselves up to deserved criticism.
I can sympathize with that, but on the other hand I find it tedious to play with people who have character backstories longer than three paragraphs AND people who have characters that can't tell the ass-end of a sword from the point.
To put it more plainly: it is a chore to sit at the same table as someone who chooses not to play the game well. I feel it is inherent to the game that one should strive to do well, be it mechanics or roleplaying or whatever, to create a better experience for everyone. Choosing not to do so, especially in a game that takes hours to set up and play, strikes me as either lazy or selfish.
Since you can play an Unchained Rogue now there are no such thing as a "bad class" in pathfinder. You can take any class and make it either great or terrible by how you choose feats, race, stats, etc. Even if someone wanted to play something that I know isn't "best spec" as long as the person behind the character isn't playing badly then it will work out.
I can sympathize with that, but on the other hand I find it tedious to play with people who have character backstories longer than three paragraphs AND people who have characters that can't tell the ass-end of a sword from the point.
To put it more plainly: it is a chore to sit at the same table as someone who chooses not to play the game well. I feel it is inherent to the game that one should strive to do well, be it mechanics or roleplaying or whatever, to create a better experience for everyone. Choosing not to do so, especially in a game that takes hours to set up and play, strikes me as either lazy or selfish.
Oh yeah, I don't go too crazy with backstories. Three to four (maybe five) paragraphs with a few other small ones for descriptions of appearance, motivations, etc. are all I do.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. If someone made their character to the point where group wipes are caused by them, it could be annoying. But that's what I meant by "causing problems" in my original post. If you actually are dying horribly due to that character then they should change it. I just don't find the chances of one character spelling your doom to be probable. If its not really hurting anyone but them self (and they don't mind), then they shouldn't be forced to optimize if they don't want to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should still at least have something.
I'm not really sure how you even roleplay the first scene without *some* idea about who your character is. Like if someone is aggressive towards you in a conversation, do you push back, deflect, laugh it off, start a fight, capitulate, what? If I don't have some idea about who the character is, I'm not sure I can roleplay anybody except myself.
I can sympathize with that, but on the other hand I find it tedious to play with people who have character backstories longer than three paragraphs AND people who have characters that can't tell the ass-end of a sword from the point.
To put it more plainly: it is a chore to sit at the same table as someone who chooses not to play the game well. I feel it is inherent to the game that one should strive to do well, be it mechanics or roleplaying or whatever, to create a better experience for everyone. Choosing not to do so, especially in a game that takes hours to set up and play, strikes me as either lazy or selfish.
Oh yeah, I don't go too crazy with backstories. Three to four (maybe five) paragraphs with a few other small ones for descriptions of appearance, motivations, etc. are all I do.
Yeah, I suppose you're right. If someone made their character to the point where group wipes are caused by them, it could be annoying. But that's what I meant by "causing problems" in my original post. If you actually are dying horribly due to that character then they should change it. I just don't find the chances of one character spelling your doom to be probable. If its not really hurting anyone but them self (and they don't mind), then they shouldn't be forced to optimize if they don't want to.
I don't think anyone is proposing a policy of forced optimization, though I do advocate optimizing a concept whenever possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have another sort of question, because I honestly do not get this
It seems to me that the only way to really "optimize" a character is to know exactly what adventure you are about to play, so yeah, we are doing RotRL, or IG, or module "x" or adventure path "y" which everybody knows so, sure optimize away if that is what you want to do.
But if you sit down at a table to make first level characters who are all residents of the coastal fishing community of Gloan, and the DM tells you
"Lightning splits the dark night sky but the thunder never comes. Far out at sea the fishing boats drift on the tide coming home from a long day of casting their nets into the ocean's bounty. You and your friends wait patiently at the long table of Minnick's Black Boot tavern for the nightwatchman to check in one last time before you set out for the city gate, and what lies beyond..."
And that's it. She tells you nothing else, no hints about what types of monsters you will encounter. She doesn't tell you if there is a sinister plot brewing in an old castle, or if there are dangerous kobolds in the forest, or if a mysterious cave is sprouting skeletons. Nothing.
How do you optimize for that?
Optimizing isn't really context sensitive. As a general philosophy, it is to make sure whatever role your character fills is filled well.
If you're a buffer/controller wizard, you take feats like Spell Focus and Improved Familiar and spells like Haste.
If you're a DPR Fighter you take a greatsword and Power Attack.
If you're a charismatic bard you take Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.
The core of how to build characters is universal, and while information about certain APs may be helpful (a large presences of undead or swarms that are a pain to deal with, for example) it is largely irrelevant. If you want to have an idea of what a character of a certain level will be facing check out the rules for encounter and monster creation.
|
How do you optimize for that?
By following the general guidelines of 'What exists in the rules? Prepare for that.'
You don't need to know the plot of the adventure to know you will need to deal with ranged/flying enemies, with DR, with invisible foes. You already know the general idea of what you will face. Prepare for that and gather information for more specific challenges.
Unless the GM is just making things up out of whole cloth, you will never be truly unprepared.
Most of the supposed "optimize or we'll hate you" mentality is actually a misunderstanding of what the rage is about. It's not about disliking someone because they're not "optimizing". It's more like "stop simultaneously calling us powergaming optimizers in a derogative way, while also suggesting that you know more about how the game works, all the while suggesting that we're doing it wrong and aren't playing out classes to their potential, and that we'd do so much better at playing classes to their fullest mechanical strength if we'd learn to roleplay".
The backlash against THAT is what you are mistaking for "optimize or we'll hate you".
This is the most hilarious opinion i have read on this site.
You should still at least have something.It's nice, but not required.
in my games, after the guy who literally kept forgetting his characters name, it is.
I have another sort of question, because I honestly do not get this
It seems to me that the only way to really "optimize" a character is to know exactly what adventure you are about to play, so yeah, we are doing RotRL, or IG, or module "x" or adventure path "y" which everybody knows so, sure optimize away if that is what you want to do.
...
How do you optimize for that?
I think everybody who's not completely green has the basic idea of how to optimize, simply because some choices are better than others. It's pretty clear that a fighter is better off with high strength than high charisma; we know that power attack is a better level 1 feat than Skill Focus (Appraise); taking a race with a penalty to your most important stat probably isn't ideal. Beyond simply noticing which things are more useful, powerful it's simply an issue of realizing what things go together well and which things don't.
Depending on whether or not the GM just tells you this stuff in advance (or is otherwise part of the introductory material), "there's going to be a lot of undead to fight, so I'm going to specialize in killing undead" sort of goes beyond "optimizing" and into the realm of "metagaming" which is generally frowned upon.
So to "optimize" you just build a character that is strong in the most probable situations, useless in relatively few situations, has made good choices where applicable, and has abilities that work well together or at least don't conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually seen poorly built characters out-perform optimized characters due to this more times than I've ever seen a weak character cause a problem.
One of my players is an experienced theory-crafter who hates playing optimized characters and rolls an unbelievable streak of natural 1s.
After his optimized polymorphing sorceror with 70 strength failed a save or die, he built a commoner character to buy some time while he thought of a new idea. It was a low-level dock worker who reminded me lot of a particular drunken pirate....
This character ruled! My friend went haywire with it, pulling crazy swashbuckler moves and finally rolling well for the first time in the 4 years I've known him.
Play style and a bit of luck with dice made a lot more difference than optimized or intentionally under powered stats.
I've actually seen poorly built characters out-perform optimized characters due to this more times than I've ever seen a weak character cause a problem.One of my players is an experienced theory-crafter who hates playing optimized characters and rolls an unbelievable streak of natural 1s.
After his optimized polymorphing sorceror with 70 strength failed a save or die, he built a commoner character to buy some time while he thought of a new idea. It was a low-level dock worker who reminded me lot of a particular drunken pirate....
This character ruled! My friend went haywire with it, pulling crazy swashbuckler moves and finally rolling well for the first time in the 4 years I've known him.
Play style and a bit of luck with dice made a lot more difference than optimized or intentionally under powered stats.
Yup. My game experience is similar to yours. Despite some posters' false assumptions that there is one "by the book" way to play PF, we all do it differently and we all enjoy different things. Some of my best RPG experiences have been when playing / DMing strange and VERY suboptimal characters.
I can see that my play style is very different than some of the most outspoken contributors to this thread. I find it really unfortunate when someone carries an assumption that some ways of Roleplaying aren't right. It really cuts down opportunities for good discussion, for one thing.
My main fear is that new players will see a thread like this and imagine they're playing the game wrong. How lame would it be if even a single roleplayer-to-be was turned away from the hobby because they read a thread like this and came away thinking the game (and dms) wouldn't allow playing a character they'd enjoy, above all else?
If you want to call to light a specific example ITT, go ahead. Mincing words for the sake of totally new players may not be the best route though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as a new player I wish I had been given a lecture like we find in one of these threads. I would have loved to have skipped the disaster that was my first couple Pathfinder characters when I didn't know what I was doing and was thoroughly useless in pretty much every scenario. That was not a fun experience for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, as a new player I wish I had been given a lecture like we find in one of these threads. I would have loved to have skipped the disaster that was my first couple Pathfinder characters when I didn't know what I was doing and was thoroughly useless in pretty much every scenario. That was not a fun experience for me.
Likewise. My first character was a dual wielding rogue. My second was a fighter. It was terrible.
My main fear is that new players will see a thread like this and imagine they're playing the game wrong. How lame would it be if even a single roleplayer-to-be was turned away from the hobby because they read a thread like this and came away thinking the game (and dms) wouldn't allow playing a character they'd enjoy, above all else?
It's also possible that a new player could be turned away because they read online that role-playing is important, and they don't want to roleplay.
You might think no big deal, because they weren't going to be a good player anyway, but that just shows the true goal behind your statement is you want more people to play the game the way you do.
We're all guilty of that to some degree or another, but as there isn't one best way to play, we all just continue making our points and hoping people agree with them.
Honestly, as a new player I wish I had been given a lecture like we find in one of these threads. I would have loved to have skipped the disaster that was my first couple Pathfinder characters when I didn't know what I was doing and was thoroughly useless in pretty much every scenario. That was not a fun experience for me.Likewise. My first character was a dual wielding rogue. My second was a fighter. It was terrible.
Good lord my first rogue was terrible. Dual wielding throwing daggers >_<
I loved him to death but gods he was useless.
Monk is not a super amazing class, Wizards are strong, two-weapon fighting is gimped, these are truths inherent to the system. They are all workable in their own ways, but if one chooses to ignore that then one opens themselves up to deserved criticism.I disagree with both the Monk and Fighter. Not saying you are wrong just saying I have seen really bad ass Monks and dual weapon fighters. Did they compete with the high level wizard, in some situations yes. Not knocking the wizard at all.
It's a question of diminishing returns. How much do you have to put into a class and what you get back out of it. Fighters can work but you have to build them more carefully then, say, a barbarian. Meanwhile on the other end of the spectrum you have classes that are so easy to build that they practically do it themselves; Wizards, Clerics - classes that require barely any feat support to work at all. These are the classes that are generally considered strong.
In practice classes like Monk or Kineticist who have class abilities that are the equivalent of 1st-level spells need a lot of polish to be stellar. Sure, throw a guided amulet on a monk and suddenly he's a SAD killing-machine but that doesn't say all that much about the class itself. Rogue is fine, URogue is better, and Ninja is better still. Ranger is good but Hunter is stronger. TWF is workable but 2H is a lot easier to pull off. So on and so forth.
Just one player? Try two in a three person party where you're the third.
Catfolk Slayer trying to focus on rapier, gets crossbow ranger style, complains they're not doing as much damage as the power-attacking paladin.
Paladin who can't think past breakfast and throws themselves into the waiting arms of their enemies like long-lost lovers and complains when he gets focused down in the first round of combat.
GM had to give the Slayer stat boosts to the equivalent of a 40 point buy along with numerous spell-like abilities as well as extra feats, and the Paladin got a weightless full-plate directly from their god.
This was all at level 2.
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.
He is the Mascot. Think Snarf and the Thundercats.
There should be no guarantees. If there are, why play at all, since you already know you are going to win?I guess I don't get it. I'm probably missing something important so I'll stop offering my opinion.
I think we're on the same page now. A lot of people are unhappy precisely because of this situation.
It's like playing a game with cheat codes. Sure it's fun for a while, but it gets boring having ultimate power.
The thing is you don't know you're going to win but you don't play to fail either. The complaints being lodged are akin to saying "Well you can't be sure that your Fighter can buy chainmail, even if it says it's an assumed thing in the book and says you can buy it at settlements of X size".
Basically, we're either talking about playing Pathfinder or we aren't. If we are, then certain things are true unless noted as house rules (such as being able to buy chainmail or find spellcasters in settlements of X size or larger). Unless something screwy is going on, a player can assume that they can go to a settlement of X size or larger and purchase a potion of cure light wounds because that's how the rules of the game work.
If we're not using the rules of the game when discussing the game then we're not talking about the game, we're talking about someone's "almost Pathfinder" game they're running and there input on anything Pathfinder related is useless.
"Rogues are freaking OP man"
"Why so?"
"Because they can dual-wield lightsabers which ignore armor and are light finesse weapons"
"Um, where did they get lightsabers?"
"They're available to buy on the planet Jelluko where the sorcerer knights make them,"
"I...there isn't really anything relevant I can say for your situation,"
Silly, Lightsabers don't ignore armor. They ignore DR.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329227-Jedi-(3-5-Base-Class-S tar-Wars)
Silly, Lightsabers don't ignore armor. They ignore DR.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329227-Jedi-(3-5-Base-Class-S tar-Wars)
|
As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.
--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.
Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;
Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).
"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.
As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.
And a bunch of people are about to tell you that A's and B's aren't mutually exclusive.
As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.And a bunch of people are about to tell you that A's and B's aren't mutually exclusive.
Gospel
|
|
As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.And a bunch of people are about to tell you that A's and B's aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, but there's a lot of ways that you can now go "All IN B-STYLE" which may result in some people calling such characters "useless", unless the GM has a plan from the get go, or is good at adapting on the fly...
I'm aware that you can go "AB positive" and not create something that's a complete fail A or B-wise. For example, one of my players created just that, in my homecampaign: a character that is a great mix of strong feats and roleplay feats (Fighter with Additional Traits and Cosmopolitan feat, decent Int, with diplomacy, stealth and a couple of knowledge skills as class skills; we use the Background Skills option from Unchained, and he uses those to great effect, having a backstory associated to Taldor's nobility; sure he could have gone for something that makes him better in melee but over the entire course of the campaign this character will be more memorable than most fighter and fit in social settings as much as within a dungeon)
PS: A and B stuff discussed above assumes homebrew... this model is not so great for APs or PFS.
PS2: My homebrew party, so far (6 players):
-> AB positives x3
-> A x2
-> B x1
(It's pretty much a dream team as far as I'm concerned... no pun intended for the player who took Lucid Dreamer trait and feat... :P )
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I've come to the realization that there is one crucial question you must ask each player before they start rolling a character.
--> Do you want a character that is:
A. Powerful/Optimized; or
B. Less Powerful/Optmized, but more central to the story.Answer A: delegate character creation help to one of your other players with high system mastery;
Answer B: work closely with the player and suggest various "non-mechanical" feats, traits and abilities, including but not limited to several artistry and/or lore skill suggestions (see Unchained).
"A-type" players will feel rewarded when they pull everyone's bacon out of a fire during combats, and "B-type" players will feel rewarded when they properly identify subtle plot clues, take the proper cues and effectively advise and lead the party in the proper direction.
As will love having Bs around, and vice-versa.
In the end it all boils down to how much thought the player is willing to put towards the character and towards the character actions later.
In my group, I'm playing about the least combat effective character that I possibly could. His role is to talk the party into and out of trouble. Sometimes he fights. A year or two ago (game time) he had a life and death struggle with a beach crab, and the crab very nearly came close to winning. (By the way, that was at level 6)
The rest of the table plays characters who don't think about what they're getting into and my little coward is often the one attempting to apply the brakes so we actually do some preparation before a battle. - It doesn't always work, but often enough.
You can have the most optimized character builds on the block, but if you're not willing to do basic common sense things like gear up with holy weapons before taking a fight to a group of demons, it doesn't matter all that much.
In the end I tend to think of it is failure to optimize the situation, rather than failure to optimize the character.
In the end I tend to think of it is failure to optimize the situation, rather than failure to optimize the character.
Yeah, how good the build is doesn't matter if the player has no idea how to effectively utilize the character's abilities. I once had a player who showed up with a wonderfully built Witch he probably came up with by going over guides and consulting with experienced players. He then proceeded to give his Witch a spear and try to use it as a melee character, almost never casting spells or using hexes despite his character being built as a standard high-Int strength-dumped caster.