When people complain about martials, they usually complain about the lack of options; it takes 10 levels to solidify a build, at which point you have one trick you're really good at and that's it. However, I've looked over people's builds and some of those single tricks are REALLY effective.
Do these martial builds get boring, though? If you slug it out long enough to GET to level 10 and master your build, You may be powerful enough for the next 10 levels, but from a player-perspective, is it worth it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had fun playing my pig farming wrestler (brutal pugilist x/Fighter 2/Inquisitor 2) up to 16th level, just by playing up his quirks. Was he the best outside of combat, no..... but being able to understand a silly amount of languages, mostly so he could trade, was quite beneficial in the long run. He doesn't have the options that the silly arcane casters do, but it's out of box thinking that makes him lovable to me.
Teleporting, falling, and grappling is stupid funny.....
Plus nobody suspect that the barbarian is the Linguist of the group.... or can read magic!
I'm not asking about outside of combat, I'm asking about in combat; does it get boring when you've got one schtick you use every combat?
Skills! That, and focus more on the roleplay, I guess. In PF, the one non-caster character I've ever portrayed was a Goblin Gunslinger for a fun romp through those hilarious We Be Goblins modules. It became a light-hearted series where I contented myself to wielding something relatively high-tech in dissonance with his self-destructive society. As to how I would've survived figuring out how to use this boom-stick I found from a shipwreck, maybe some CG deity was looking out for me... (all the times I could've Coup-de-Graced my social betters after they were knocked out... funnier to mangle them trying out these Humie magic sticks of feel-good)
I'm not just DPS that reliably KOs mooks or sand down BBEGs, I'm potentially the only character in my party that would open a book... just to look at the pictures, honest! (Truth-truth, I steal their thoughts!) As that Goblin maliciously lining up sick shots from the background, I end up being the medic as the encounters wind down or end, and boy-howdy, do you not want a boom-stick goblin running up to you with a potion... and prior experience reminds them how Buck-Acky guarantees rapid liquid ingestion on an unconscious patient. "Bottom up-up!"
Edit: Oops just read your follow-up posts. If you are bored mechanically with your character, just choose a caster and tell yourself it's all just special effects or kung-fu. A Druid can bang with the best of them, with a bunch of other roles he can fulfill for the party on the side too, for example.
You just have to roleplay that trick. Rather than, I hit him three times say I smack him in the gut, and pop his jaw with my elbow. Then I smash his back. I personally think it depends on the trick. Having a monk with combat reflexes, greater trip, vicious stomp, felling smash, and snake fang is a heavy investment, but TOTALLY worth it. All the fun of beating someone up!
@Aviricus: I'm not saying I'm bored with a current character, I'm just wondering how people who play these focused builds feel about them in the long-run, if that makes sense.
@Aviricus: I'm not saying I'm bored with a current character, I'm just wondering how people who play these focused builds feel about them in the long-run, if that makes sense.
I assume secure in the knowledge that they are useful to the group and of their own personal accomplishments. My concern for them would be if the DM likewise adapts to them and either totally nullifies their advantage in the future with a perfect counter OR subtly introduce different challenges that are still fair but can encourage one-trick-pony to saddle up another horse just in case of emergency.
I'm guilty of riding a concept like a horse into the dirt should I be succeeding, sometimes at the expense of others. If the same ticket kept me winning every time, I'd start cowboying the execution just to see how far I can take the concept, like where can I actually hit the wall before I fail?
@MageHunter: I love doing that with Magic Missile! I even pantomime the path they take (to embarrassing points on the target nuff said) or even have sarcastic somatic components during casting for spells in general.
|
Go martials get boring? Only if you let them, really. For all the flak they get, most of us like playing them. The simple, visceral feeling of physical combat can be a fun element to explore, even in this magic heavy system. Just set a standard for yourself and try to meet it.
For exampe, the most "martial" character in my PFS roster is my Avenger Vigilante. I wanted to have a fighting style that expresses who she is, so I'm playing a Vishkanya with Snake Style who has trust issues woven into her backstory to tie with her focus in Sense Motive. I made sure to plan the right Talents to keep her damage from falling off. She'll be using the Enforcer feat to apply debuffs as well. Plus, her class has a wide range of skills.
Now I have a character with a baseline personality, an effective build to go with it, and the ability to boyh deal and mitigate damage, as expected by a front liner. Skills and class features let me contribute out of combat.
Also, I never suffer the 2+Int skill point non wizard/summoners. To do so is heresy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sad lesson of Pathfinder
The more system mastery you have, the less you find out you can do without the proper feat.
I've been playing a martial for about 8 months and I do find an element of boredom in combat. I try to deal with this by thinking of different things to do in combat, like charging, feinting, combat maneouvers, defending the spellcasters, or even just coming up with varied descriptions for my attacks. It helps that she's pretty keen to prove herself and has a kind of reckless bravery.
Outside of combat this character is a bit more interesting since she is kind of the party face, being the only one who put any skill ranks into bluff, diplomacy, and whatnot.
|
Combat is a fun part of the game, but one I like to run quickly. I usually call it quits around level 14 because the entire combat part of the game gets entirely too unwieldy. That said, no i dont get bored with Martials in combat because I think the system gives you enough classes, archetypes, and feats, that even though you specialize, their is always a new specialty available to try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that my characters get boring when the GM isn't writing adventures that I want to run my characters through. That's for every class, race, game system, etc. I have had a blast with every class I've played when the GM writes interesting adventures. I also try to roleplay a bit more in combat than others. I also try to work tactics into my combat. It makes for a more lively adventure.
Although a lot of people are saying they're not bored in their games, I'm actually hearing that their lack of boredom is more based on what they were able to do to get around the boredom of straight combat, rather than finding combats interesting in and of themselves. Is that right?
|
|
Although a lot of people are saying they're not bored in their games, I'm actually hearing that their lack of boredom is more based on what they were able to do to get around the boredom of straight combat, rather than finding combats interesting in and of themselves. Is that right?
Sort of. Combat is like 25% of the game for me. I like it fine, but if it gets too long, or overly complicated, my boredom kicks in. The system itself at higher levels does this to all classes for me.
Now when it comes to martials i'm ok with specialization because it means there are a lot of types of martials I can try. Being able to do so much as a class makes replay-ability a diminishing returns game. Part of the reason why I love casters but seldom play them. I tend to lean towards Bards and witches because they are the best of both worlds. Though I do have fun making martials. Right now I have a Order of the cockatrice cavalier built to be in and out of the saddle. I also have a ranger Tengu who took the demon slayer archetype for Jade Regent. Neither get boring for me yet.
Personally I absolutely did get bored of playing martials. And indeed, had nothing to do with their effectiveness in combat, just how straightforward things were. Full-Attack or Charge mostly, with some combat maneuvers thrown in occasionally.
Maybe not the place for it, but for me Path of War from Dreamscarred Press was a godsend. I definitely have some issues with balance, some of its maneuvers are way too good, but I have the same issues with spells from the Core book so I don't really care.
Not to begrudge or demean anyone that finds normal Fighters and whatever perfectly fine for them, but I like how dynamic combat became when we had Counters involved. Wasn't so simple as bypass the AC anymore, now it was a question of when to use your counter to stop their attack, and a question of what attack to use against an opponents possible counter. Boosts and Stances make it even more diverse, and my absolute most favorite thing of all is that I can build an actual combat style, or say my character learned from a particular school of fighting/war/dueling.
That's just been enormous for me. Playing a Warder in Jade Regent, and instead of being a Samurai with Power Attack, he's a student of the Mizukaen school of fighting. His assortment of counters, feats, disciplines, and his class all combine to make him *unique*. Like Ryu and Ken learning Ansatsuken, Kenshin learning Hiten Mitsurugi-ryū, or even just the seven lightsaber Forms the Star Wars EU had, I really love that feeling of learning from an ancient tradition or creating your own unique style of combat.
Again, no offense to anyone happy with the Fighter from the Core book. More power to you. But playing a Martial character, even in combat, absolutely did get boring and repetitive. Path of War has its own issues, most definitely, but nothing more disruptive than a spellcaster. And it made fighting really, really FUN. I start fights with other initiator PCs just because the contest between two initiators is totally awesome and I love it. So if you do find Martial characters boring, and you have third party available, I'd recommend it.
It depends on the style of game. If you're in a "roll attack, you do X damage" game, then yes marital combat gets pretty boring. "I attack" or if you specialized well enough I do my one combat maneuver" can get old.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people complain about martials, they usually complain about the lack of options; it takes 10 levels to solidify a build, at which point you have one trick you're really good at and that's it. However, I've looked over people's builds and some of those single tricks are REALLY effective.
Do these martial builds get boring, though? If you slug it out long enough to GET to level 10 and master your build, You may be powerful enough for the next 10 levels, but from a player-perspective, is it worth it?
No, martials do not get boring, at least, not for me.
No, it does not take 10 level to solidify most builds. It is not difficult to put together a martial that works at low level.
No, martials don't have to suffer from a lack of options. Complaints along those lines are usually either the result of min/maxing (and subsequent complaints about the character being ineffective at everything except what he was maximized for) or lack of creativity on the part of the player. Neither is due to poor class design or game mechanics.
Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
I like playing my Arcane Duelist. He's fine in melee. I like that I can cast certain spells like Mirror image or Heroism or other help spells. Inspire Courage helps the group all the time.
I used to not like spell casters, but my next character is going to be a melee/spellcaster of some kind.
Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
I agree that Inquisitors, Oracles, and Skalds are good, but they're casters, not martials.
Do martials get boring? Depends on who you call a martial. If you are talking about fighter-alikes, they start out boring and never really grow out of it. If it's about Paladins and Rangers, they can be quite interesting to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes and no. <-----This applies to all classes, and it is dependent on the person playing them.
I agree that Inquisitors, Oracles, and Skalds are good, but they're casters, not martials.Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
Must one exclude the other?
When people complain about martials, they usually complain about the lack of options; it takes 10 levels to solidify a build, at which point you have one trick you're really good at and that's it. However, I've looked over people's builds and some of those single tricks are REALLY effective.
Do these martial builds get boring, though? If you slug it out long enough to GET to level 10 and master your build, You may be powerful enough for the next 10 levels, but from a player-perspective, is it worth it?
It's not inherently more exciting to cast the same spells than it is to simply strike the same sword strikes. Games get boring no matter what your class if the focus remains solely on character mechanics. It's what you do beyond the mechanics that keeps the game fresh.
And for most campaigns, much of it is ending said campaign once you hit 12th level or so. Because after that, it's a lot harder to write campaign materials and encounters to properly challenge high level characters. The AP's prove that it can be done, but a study of them shows that you have to completely regear your thinking to do so.
Must one exclude the other?I agree that Inquisitors, Oracles, and Skalds are good, but they're casters, not martials.Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
Considering that in these kinds of threads Martial is defined as "cannot cast spells," yes.
Considering that in these kinds of threads Martial is defined as "cannot cast spells," yes.Must one exclude the other?I agree that Inquisitors, Oracles, and Skalds are good, but they're casters, not martials.Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
Hear that, Commoners, Rogues, Monks, and Experts! You're Martials!
Hear that, Commoners, Rogues, Monks, and Experts! You're Martials!Considering that in these kinds of threads Martial is defined as "cannot cast spells," yes.Must one exclude the other?I agree that Inquisitors, Oracles, and Skalds are good, but they're casters, not martials.Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
Well... yes, they are, aren't they?
The monk's in kind of a weird place due to the whole Ki thing, admittedly. But considering that none of the abilities it gets really compare to the things that half-casters or full-casters get, I think it could be considered a martial yes. It's main avenue of problems solving, after all, is still hitting things.
Hear that, Commoners, Rogues, Monks, and Experts! You're Martials!Considering that in these kinds of threads Martial is defined as "cannot cast spells," yes.Must one exclude the other?I agree that Inquisitors, Oracles, and Skalds are good, but they're casters, not martials.Inquisitor martials are great. Skills, spells, and full attacks all rolled into one package. Add in a bunch of features that let me fine tune how much power I need, great RP options and a couple of unique abilities and it never gets old.
Oracle Martials are also fun. Combat buffs and social skills, the ability to help the whole party, and a wealth of unique class features combine into a very engaging combats.
Brawler always interests me, with the ability to master combat maneuvers in moments, debuff as I pump out damage, and serve as party scout out of fights.
Skald is cool, I can buff the party (with metal), then move into flank, cast a few buffs/debuffs, and smash away.
As long as my viable list of options are wider than "use a magic item" "move and attack" and "full attack" it stays interesting. Its why I shy away from fighters for full characters.
You forgot nobles. ANd monks are actually a corner-case, similar to Barbs, since they have magical abilities, and can outright gain magical powers for basically no cost with an archetype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some do. I realized it when I played a Gunslinger in a Play by Post campaign, and ran out of ways to write variations on "I reload, aim, and fire".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it really depends on the encounter design.
A bunch of fights against simple opponents in empty boxes can get boring.
If the opponents are complex (either tactically or if they have special abilities or carrier effects) and/or the terrain and features of the combat's location is complex, then it is a lot less boring.
I've known archers that get bored with standing there and full attacking, even though that can be a very effective tactic.
I like dynamic fights with lots of movement and interaction with terrain features.
The last two characters I made are both melee fighters. They are different from the wizards and rogues I had before, of course. Thus far I have not been bored by my choices in combat. Whacking aberrations with blunt instruments is still shiny and new, and I have noticed that combat maneuvers work decently against rank-and-file enemies even if I don't have Improved X feats for them (I have Improved trip for one fighter now, but I have actually bull rushed more enemies). I think it depends on the GM and other players. I find fights with many mid-level threats more interesting than so-called boss fights, where a bunch of heroes go against a single bigger critter.
When I have the HP to take a few hits and the AC to avoid many, I can move closer to the enemy group, hit them where I want, and herd them. I can control the battle by moving closer to certain enemies or chokepoints, pull others to protect them, and use terrain to restrict their movement. It helps that the GM is a devious old monster who plays these enemies well. They do not behave like chess pawns, and do not always fight to the last HP. Escape and surrender are possible for both sides.
Boss fights are more static. There is no maneuver to speak of. Casters do their thing, martials make their saves against fear or other stuff, and then most of the fight is "flank if possible" and try to make your saves. Combat maneuvers either rarely work (non-caster enemy), or work so well that the fight ends the moment I get close (humanoid caster), and that is a bit boring. Action economy is very hard on lone enemies.
Some background. My main group swapped roles a bit. I have traditionally been the know-it-all egghead caster, but now I have the meat shield and another barbarian-prone guy runs a snooty elf wizard and gets to rub our ignorance on us with every knowledge check. Thus far we have liked the change. But please note this: in this group the wizard has the greatest stopping power. My fighter is a bit like a sheepdog, running between the other players and enemies, troubleshooting. And I don't mind. It's a nice change of pace for me. I have saved the other party members a couple of times, and they have saved me. The team works.
Neither fighter has reached level 10, where the fun supposedly stops. Neither is optimized for a single weapon or tactic, or has dump stats (the sheepdog is pretty much the party face, too). Both have useful levels of UMD for minor buffs, though they do not always work, and their low duration sometimes forces me to take risks or go to defensive.
Expectations matter, I think. I don't expect (or plan) to succeed on my every combat maneuver, so I don't worry too much about getting every feat or item I would need for the perfect build. It gives the character a bit more room to grow. I can take failure or a bad roll, since there are other members in the party. I don't weep when I have to miss an iterative attack because of movement, and I take childish pleasure when my Combat Reflexes triggers against the enemy who tried to charge the healer. If it's easy, it isn't fun.
I think a dump stat can make a character interesting if roleplayed well. But often it's just a liability with no flavor. It really depends on the character, the player, and the campaign.
Totally subjective question when martials can act.
It becomes more objective when they can't act. If every time you speak the gm calls for a skill check and you didn't bring social skills on your "gruff" character then you are out of social encounters.
If the enemy is flying out of range or moving too fast and you don't have the range feats to bypass the standard -8 range attack penalty on top of your range option being weaker then you are out of that combat.
If you have no skills to help exploration and your gm treats low perception as effectively blind, then you are out of that pillar of game play too.
THEN your martial is objectively boring when you can't do anything because the gm is playing by rules, running monsters smart, in a published AP.
It's pretty easy to make martials feel OK, but when you are nerf hamming every spell combo and a few smacks go the fighters way, now the fighter is ruined and the casters have new spells.
Honestly, any class gets boring when you have one option that is so much more effective than anything else that it ends up being the only thing you do. I had a hand-canoneer pregen I ran through a short story arc that left me cold. Combat consisted of determining if my damage type was appropriate to the situation, and BOOM.....BOOM....BOOM ad-nauseum. All one trick ponies eventually pale.
It ultimately depends on the Martial, as well as the build being emulated.
If a Martial dumps his Intelligence to maximize his damage potential, he won't have skills to contribute to things outside of combat.
If a Martial doesn't have some form of spellcasting in his kit, he will be lacking in versatility, both inside and outside of combat. He'll also probably not have any buffs for himself, and that's just plain bad.
If a Martial doesn't have a method of attack other than hit point damage, then his relevance in combats will be linear; there are encounters where simply dealing hit point damage will not work, a lot of them are endgame encounters too, and in those encounters, the Martial will just have to sit on the side until his time to shine comes forward.
If a Martial can't protect his right and ability to contribute to combat, he's just going to be a liability (or even a detriment in certain instances). And ironically enough, in those instances, they probably aren't having fun, since their only actual time to shine is taken away from them.
A Martial is only as boring and unfun as the mechanics of the Pathfinder chassis, the Martial's class, and based on how much his build allow hims to be. Truthfully, those who optimize for pure hit point damage, and nothing else, find fun in being able to deal that much damage in a given attack sequence, or simply pumping as much damage as possible; in other words, playing the numbers game. And quite frankly, the Pathfinder chassis rewards optimization and specialization, so expecting Martials to be the best at more than one thing is an expectation made impossible due to the mechanics of the game.
When did dump stats become something to sneer at? Never understood that.
No sneering or snarling involved, despite the gnoll face. Just figured I'd note what I was working with. The actual stat array at level 1 was 14+2, 14, 13, 14, 10, 12. Social side of the campaign warranted a human with at least rudimentary social ability, and I elected myself to fill that role (other players then gleefully picked nonhumans). Int for skill points and feat preqs, Cha to smoothen the way a little. Iron Will to help with average Wisdom.
I tend to make my non-casters flexible, and often multiclass on a whim, depending on where the campaign is going and how our fortunes go. There was no intention to go "nyah, my gaming style is so much better than you" or anything.
That being said, I think many GMs do punish creative character building!The game has a CR system that makes some assumptions about optimisation. GMs aren't automatically made super-competent at encounter adjustment just by being GMs, so there's some significant reliance on the tools they're given - the CR system being the big one. The game can't get away with no responsibility.
Buuuut many GMs will castrate combos because they seem hacks even when a basic spell does far more.
I've seen more ruffled feathers from a kineticist heal talent than simulacrum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the base job of a martial has to be the following:
1) Good at grapple range. (Good meaning can do excellent physical damage and hit reliably).
2) Good at melee/weaponless range
3) Good at reach.
4) Good at thrown weapon range.
5) Good at bow/missile weapon range.
6) Good at long range. (Siege weapons!)
7) Can overcome material DR
8) Can overcome damage type DR.
9) IS hard to kill with physical damage.
10) Can withstand magical assaults.
11) Can aid less combat adept companions.
12) Can recover from magical attacks.
13) Can move quickly to wherever needed in any environment.
The class features of Fighters make it very hard to do this. at 1-6, a fighter is good if it can do 2 of the combat ranges, 3 is exceptional.
The average fighter never gets DR to withstand damage, he just gets an ac boost he may or may not be able to make use of if his Dex isn't high enough.
He can't withstand magical assaults very well at all, nor does he have recovery options, or movement options.
In other words, he has to spend gold, and a LOT of it, to get these options.
The fighter is a tool user, and his tools are VERY expensive.
Casters have tools, too, but their tools are MUCH more flexible, and don't cost a thing.