|
Assuming that a character is contributing outside of combat, how little can you help in combat without hurting the mission? To give some clarification, help in combat includes everything, even aiding another and Inspiring Courage. At the very least, I would consider spending all of combat out of the away in full defense not hindering.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the very least, I would consider spending all of combat out of the away in full defense not hindering.
But you're not considering the opportunity cost at all.
Sure, someone hiding and going full defense isn't directly hindering the party, but did they take the spot of someone else who would be contributing more? Is there something else they could be doing instead, even as little as Aid Another or plinking with a crossbow? Did the presence of the non-contributing character cause the sub-tier to change?
In any of those circumstances, the non-contributor is hindering the party.
|
Should all Pathfinders also have 3.5*(level/2)^2 skill points (or some other mathematical formula; the number is irrelevant to the point) to contribute outside of combat?
2.5(level/2)^2 total bonus to relevant skills. Profession (Art Critic) need not apply.
Otherwise, you're not pulling your weight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, for what it's worth, crunching some of these (admittedly arbitrary) numbers, I'm pretty sure I've never had a character meet the 'in-combat' requirements (that I just made up) without significant help from other party members.
Numeric thresholds do not make sense in a game that's about teamwork and creative solutions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a non-combat character, I'd suggest someone focused on support roles such as buffing or healing. Aid another to AC is also good, but not sure if that's too "in the mix" in terms of avoiding actual fighting.
I'm going to be honest that if I sit down with a character who spends combat consistently in full defense, taking cover, and/or delaying their action without doing anything I'd probably be a bit frustrated and have a talk with the player about better ways to contribute in combat. Even if the PC is very useful in non-combat situations, Pathfinder Field agents are expected to hold their own in a fight and at least support their allies.
|
I am considering making a very noncombat character, and I thought I would poke at the edges while ideas churned. I want to do something different without hurting people's fun.3.5*(level/2)^2 DPR
Anything less and you're not pulling your weight.
this is so dependent on the other PCs/players at the table.
One person will be offended that you are not doing enough - and at the same time the player beside them will be offended that you are "hogging all the combat" or "not letting me do my thing"...
Always build your PC with some options - then play them the way the adventure unfolds.
PC glances around at all the Mooks drawing pointing sharp things. Turns to "big guy" in the back of the party - "So, Am Barbarian, looks like it's over to you now..." and steps aside to let the more forceful party members do their stuff.
|
|
If you want a non-combat character, I'd suggest someone focused on support roles such as buffing or healing. Aid another to AC is also good, but not sure if that's too "in the mix" in terms of avoiding actual fighting.
I'm going to be honest that if I sit down with a character who spends combat consistently in full defense, taking cover, and/or delaying their action without doing anything I'd probably be a bit frustrated and have a talk with the player about better ways to contribute in combat. Even if the PC is very useful in non-combat situations, Pathfinder Field agents are expected to hold their own in a fight and at least support their allies.
sure! and in non-combat roles too. Next time the judge asks for a Gather Information check at the start of the scenario - ask (In-character of course) if you can "roll to assist" the Diplomacy roll. Even if you have a "-2". And come up with some way I.C. to actually do that. "Ogg know a great barber shop with lots of rumors... maybe we need a hair cut?"
|
Keep in mind that having no meaningful direct ability to participate in combat means that you will likely be ineffective in parties with other support characters. I have been in parties with three support characters (including two bards) and battle was painfully slow, to say the least. This situation can turn deadly when there is nobody to do the fighting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
noncombat chars get other chars killed
And combat-only characters make other characters fail missions and lose prestige, making it harder to afford a raise dead should one be needed.
This is why Pathfinders are supposed to be at least versatile, if not generalists, able to handle combat, skills, and diplomacy on their own. Specialists are more efficient, *if* you can hand-pick a team of them to compliment each other. In PFS, you don't have that luxury.
If you can't fight, you are endangering your colleagues. If you can't think... same thing. If you can't gather information without needing someone else to cast speak with dead... same thing.
|
|
what does your noncom char do when Am Barb took 90% of his health in damage in the surprise round and decides its a good time to exercise his fast movement?
I use my wand of vanish on him... or just use "Disappearing Act" to make him invisible to all the mooks... ;)
been doing that sense 1st level.
Rogue Attacks.
Katisha says "hey everyone! look at me, and make a will save!" and rogue 'vanishes' until he attacks again
Basically - I do anything the Barbarian needs me to do (and I mean "anything" - wink).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I've mentioned elsewhere, when I build a PC, I ask 4 questions:
1. What's my specialty in combat?
2. What do I do in combat when my specialty isn't an option?
3. What's my specialty out of combat?
4. What personality quirk makes the character fun and interesting at the table?
To give a non-hypothetical example that applies to the thread, when I made my gnome prankster bard, I was worried that my answer to #2 might not be good enough.
Out of combat, he's a great social/knowledge skill monkey (bard with 19 starting charisma and 14 int). In combat, his focus is debuffing, using intimidation to demoralize at low levels, the Mock performance from the Prankster archetype, and spells.
But all of his debuffs rely on the enemies having minds. They don't work on undead, oozes, animals (though those can be demoralized), etc. I was worried about not having enough to do against mindless foes, even with Inspire Courage and a wand of CLW. That's why I took Grease as one of my first spells and made sure he owned a crossbow.
I think as long as you find some little things to help, even if you're not a combat focused PC, people won't think you're wasting space at the table. As others have said, if you're just getting out of the way and going full defense, you're not helping.
|
|
Keep in mind that having no meaningful direct ability to participate in combat means that you will likely be ineffective in parties with other support characters. I have been in parties with three support characters (including two bards) and battle was painfully slow, to say the least. This situation can turn deadly when there is nobody to do the fighting.
so - why not just run a different PC? when you set up the party, if there are two support characters, why play another?
This is like coming to the table and saying...
PC A: "I got 4 great swords - cause I hit things with great swords"
PC B: "what do you do about flying enemies?"
PC A: "Complain"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's far more important for the team to have game against any challenge than any individual to have game against any one particular challenge.
You're part of a team, ideally.
The problem I have with threads like this is that it sounds pretty trolly- -"What's the minimum expected of me? Because I want to toe that line."
|
|
so - why not just run a different PC? when you set up the party, if there are two support characters, why play another?
Because this isn't always possible. When my old group was first getting started no one had more than one PC and with a small number of people that irregularly rotated it wasn't always possible to have all of the basic roles covered, which can lead to 3 support character situations.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My purpose was to find the edges, then work from there to form a happy medium. To take a character in an "extreme" direction that takes a reasonable attempt to not hurt other people's fun.
those "edges" depend on the other PCs/Players at the table, and change each game (sometimes each encounter).
I often play less combative PCs - because when I sit down at a table with strangers I most often find at least one "combat machine" at the table. Someone who plays the game for the combat - and everything else is extra or even a distraction (to them).
But you know what? I don't mind if they have a character who dominates combat. If they can kill the beasties in 0.666 melee rounds, you see, it'll give me more RP time. And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for the Combat Machine! I'll run the investigator that does the Gather Info rolls (and try to get them to aid me, to get them in the game there), that removes the traps that warns the BBEG ("anyone able to 'Aid' on disable device?"), that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it.
So, when someone one shots the current encounters monster (even the final encounters BBE) right after the boxed text - I'll spend the game time saved there in "chatting up the bar-maid" or interacting with the other PCs. This is (at least sometimes) a social game, not just a combat simulation... at least IMHO.
So... if you can't do combat... try to make sure that someone at the table can. And try to support them, you know, kind of like you were on the same team as them...
|
|
It's far more important for the team to have game against any challenge than any individual to have game against any one particular challenge.
You're part of a team, ideally.
The trouble is, not all of us have control over who Drendle Dreng chooses to wake up in the middle of the night to send on this mission. And, none of us know what the mission entails until we're already committed in most cases.
I've seen an all-cleric party, I've seen three barbarians at a wedding, I've seen a party of archers and wizards who needed (and lacked) a tank to hide behind. Unless you play in a group where you can choose your PCs to compliment each other (or each have a bunch you can pull out at will, and don't care about factions or series), it's a good idea to be versatile.
Fromper's list is about the best and most concise way to handle it I've seen. If you only do one of those four, you're probably artificially increasing the APL without benefit.
|
|
Because this isn't always possible. When my old group was first getting started no one had more than one PC and with a small number of people that irregularly rotated it wasn't always possible to have all of the basic roles covered, which can lead to 3 support character situations.so - why not just run a different PC? when you set up the party, if there are two support characters, why play another?
??? Please don't take this wrong, but why not just run an Iconic then?
edit: (bolding above mine)or just pull out another PC that you built. Or did you just build one PC? Everyone only built one? What do you do when everyone shows up with just one weapon - and they all happen to be great swords?
|
|
All of those parties sound fun! Improvisation wins the day, then. They'll be far more memorable than the numersous times everything goes right.
Wizards criticalling with longswords and barbarians getting into drinking contests with NPCs so that both are too drunk to ruin a wedding are the things I remember. The 'another day, another fight' scenarios are a dime-a-dozen.
|
|
All of those parties sound fun! Improvisation wins the day, then. They'll be far more memorable than the numersous times everything goes right.
Wizards criticalling with longswords and barbarians getting into drinking contests with NPCs so that both are too drunk to ruin a wedding are the things I remember. The 'another day, another fight' scenarios are a dime-a-dozen.
whereas I remember a game where careful planning helped. Where, when the monster was flying, and I turned to the barbarian beside me and said - "Here's a Fly extract. Drink it and go chase him down...". When the Monster dropped us in darkness and my cleric cast blessings of the mole. Where the fighter is going down due to a fort save and I remind him that we drank Anti-Toxin at the start of the 'crawl, "...did you count the +5 bonus on that save?".
And I can remember party that were standing at the entrance to [redacted] and I asked if they had a light... and no one had one. Not even a torch. so they went back to town to get one. Only to discover a short time later that no one had a rope... so back to town again. you know what? that game ran long... and the party only got 1 PP.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Assuming that a character is contributing outside of combat, how little can you help in combat without hurting the mission? To give some clarification, help in combat includes everything, even aiding another and Inspiring Courage. At the very least, I would consider spending all of combat out of the away in full defense not hindering.
I wouldn't consider that enough of a contribution. You may threaten, but no AoO if you are in full defense and certainly you aren't helping resolve the situation.
Using your knowledges to tell the party critical information they will need to fight the monster is useful. Even better if you play the Archivist Bard archetype so that you give a bonus for providing the information.
There are other Bard and Skald archetypes that provide unusual methods of aiding the party even when not using a weapon.
Intimidation can also be effective against some enemies. Without some feats or class abilities, you are only intimidating one opponent at a time. Much better if you look at some intimidate builds and use some of those tricks.
|
|
It's far more important for the team to have game against any challenge than any individual to have game against any one particular challenge.
You're part of a team, ideally.
The problem I have with threads like this is that it sounds pretty trolly- -"What's the minimum expected of me? Because I want to toe that line."
I like this post by Jeff... "You're part of a team,..." yeah.
How would we feel if this thread was titled "What Is The Min Help Needed?" and the OP was asking what was the minimum he could get away with doing at the table and still be counted as "part of the team"."What if I don't do any skill checks?"
or
"What if I never say anything?"
or even
"What if I just leave the room whenever the judge is at the table, and you guys just push my figure around?"
At the risk of derailing my own thread, there are some players out who are the last two. Just because it is PFS does not mean that there are not any of the "I show up just to hang" players. There are also certain players where it would be an improvement if they did nothing.
|
|
Different groups have different thresholds. Depending on what the local metagame is, a given character might be nowhere near the line or they might be so far past it that nobody wants to play with them. Talk to your fellow players, not us!
It'll also vary from party to party, right? If a character stinks at combat and is mediocre at a bunch of skills they'll probably fit in better with the party of clerics, fighters, and paladins than they will with the Traveling Bardic College. Some parties are just not going to do well in some scenarios and no matter how broadly acceptable each of the characters in that party is, they're still going to fail.
Also, not the first time I've said this, but Fromper's checklist is a good checklist.
|
|
I don't think there's a specific minimum. Just have options and something you can do to contribute.
That being said, if all you are doing in combat is going total defense, the character starts to be more like an npc scholar that the group is escorting and has to keep alive and less like a pathfinder. While specializing is a valid thing to do with a character, ignoring half of the encounters (either combat or skills) completely means you're only contributing to half of the situations. It doesn't matter to me if you can't do damage. Find something else. A Wand of Bless costs 2 prestige. So does a Wand of Vanish as has been mentioned. Even a small investment can give you some kind of options for combat.
Likewise, if you're a combat character and only get 1 skill point/level because you dumped Int, find a way to help out. My Monk has an 8 Int and a 9 Cha (racial bonus, so bought down to 7), but he has maxed Sense Motive and Perception, and he's thrown a random point into a class skill knowledge skill. Sometimes he's the only one who can make a knowledge roll, and even at only +3, he can still roll a 23 if he's lucky, which gets a decent amount of information. Also, he'll often act as the trap disabler thanks to Improved Evasion. Almost all of his gold and all of his stats are based around combat. That doesn't mean there's nothing he can do to help out of combat.
If I have time later and the thread is still going, I'll post an anecdote about my Investigator, who was very heavily skills focused for the first 6 levels and ended up in a potential TPK situation without much he could do about it.
|
|
3.5*(level/2)^2 DPR
Anything less and you're not pulling your weight.
Should all Pathfinders also have 3.5*(level/2)^2 skill points (or some other mathematical formula; the number is irrelevant to the point) to contribute outside of combat?
The original numbers didn't make sense, but I didn't let that stop me! I hereby define the Hazuka/Lamplighter Law of Pathfinder PC Utility. Facetious equation below:
DPR + TSM
---------------- = utility relative to the average
12(level) + 8
where DPR is average damage per round and TSM is the total of all of that character's skill modifiers.
|
|
My husband runs a monk with both a vow of peace and a vow of truth. At the beginning of the session, he explains (in character) that he personally can't attack someone first without giving them a chance to surrender, and he personally cannot lie. He will clarify that he does not expect the rest of the party to follow his rules, and he points out that he can stay silent while someone else lies but warns them not to ask him to back up their lie, because he can't.
He points out that if the other party initiates combat, all bets are off, and he doesn't have to offer surrender to things like undead or non-sentient monsters. He can also defend comrades, remove people from danger, etc., without violating his vow.
The main thing is that he makes sure that everyone else at the table understands his character's restrictions and knows how work to around them (or with them, if they choose). So far, he hasn't any issues.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, realize combat can be chaotic. Bruno make helpful flowchart!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori monk, realize combat can be chaotic. Bruno make helpful flowchart!I'm a little concerned about the right side of the chart.
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful Tetori, is very versatile.