Tired builds


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.

Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?


Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?

I don't believe that they are, but people seem to be moving towards builds without any type of roleplaying reason. It's ooh I can get this feat that adds +X to damage when I tumble into them at 60 feet movement via my third leg and rocket jets. Now if you can give me a reason how you gained the third leg and rocket jets via in-game roleplaying or a unique background, then I don't have a problem with the feat's existence. If you're just doing it to get a feat and have no explanation on a roleplaying concept, now we're dealing with a two-dimensional build that makes little sense to the story of the character or the campaign.


Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?

This. You know that Kitsune Sorcerer in the party that makes the system crumble under her feet? Actually a super memorable character. Just as memorable as the dwarf bard.


stormcrow27 wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?
I don't believe that they are, but people seem to be moving towards builds without any type of roleplaying reason. It's ooh I can get this feat that adds +X to damage when I tumble into them at 60 feet movement via my third leg and rocket jets. Now if you can give me a reason how you gained the third leg and rocket jets via in-game roleplaying or a unique background, then I don't have a problem with the feat's existence. If you're just doing it to get a feat and have no explanation on a roleplaying concept, now we're dealing with a two-dimensional build that makes little sense to the story of the character or the campaign.

That's why the system should always be built around a certain setting and aesthetic, and avoid attaching highly specific fluff to generic effects (e.g. Fey Foundling, Potion Glutton, Reactionary).

In Pathfinder you usually find that optimized mechanics and good fluff line up well (with exceptions like those above), unlike 3.5 where optimized characters end up being weird races with stacked templates who dabble in five prestige classes.

Edit:
A character's fluff is entirely independent of the ruleset, and if you want to start with that side of it first, the ruleset had better be able to represent that character faithfully in its numbers, or the player will have to make concessions: Either altering the fluff to fit the crunch, or being content to play a less effective character. The second option is fine as long as you're at roughly the same power level of the other party members, which incidentally is why balance is important in a cooperative RPG.

Rules-light systems have more abstractions, which tends to give more wiggle room in having numbers that faithfully represent the fluff without compromising effectiveness, which is one reason they're so popular. Some players disdain the "magic tea party" aspect of them, which is fine too, and is why 3.5/PF are so popular.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:


I think the disagreement here is largely based on table differences.

your house rule you mean. I don't think you can expect everyone or even a signifigant chunk of people to play that way as it's not in the rules.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:


I think the disagreement here is largely based on table differences.

your house rule you mean. I don't think you can expect everyone or even a signifigant chunk of people to play that way as it's not in the rules.

It's nothing rigid enough to be considered a houserule, since as I said we make those decisions largely on how we think Pathfinder (as a ROLE playing game, not a RULE playing game) should feel to us. We don't go so far as to apply any additional penalties to characters with high bluff and low charisma or anything like that, but we might talk to that person at character creation about whether or not the decision makes logical sense (again, not whether or not it's rules legal). I do, in fact, expect a significant chunk of people to play that way (note: that's not me demanding they do, only stating my expectation) given that Pathfinder isn't a video game, and therefore isn't constrained by ordained rules from Paizo and everything else be damned. Of course people should play with whatever style makes them happy (that is, after all, the point of playing games). I'm just giving my reasoning for why it makes the most sense to me to play the game in the way that I described.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
...given that Pathfinder isn't a video game, and therefore isn't constrained by ordained rules from Paizo and everything else be damned.

I think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary on this...


silverrey wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
...given that Pathfinder isn't a video game, and therefore isn't constrained by ordained rules from Paizo and everything else be damned.
I think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary on this...

I've read many posts from developers of various level at Paizo that would seem to disagree. Usually they run along the line of, "here are the rules, but if your GM (or in this case the whole group) decides otherwise, then go with that". So there's plenty of room for bending or outright breaking the rules in the interest of an overall more enjoyable experience.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
silverrey wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
...given that Pathfinder isn't a video game, and therefore isn't constrained by ordained rules from Paizo and everything else be damned.
I think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary on this...
I've read many posts from developers of various level at Paizo that would seem to disagree. Usually they run along the line of, "here are the rules, but if your GM (or in this case the whole group) decides otherwise, then go with that". So there's plenty of room for bending or outright breaking the rules in the interest of an overall more enjoyable experience.

And yet they change (sometimes drastically) or outright remove features because Paizo doesn't like how it is being used.


MeanMutton wrote:
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:
Master summoner super focused on summoning

That's literally the point of the archetype, if you aren't super focused on summoning you don't take it


stormcrow27 wrote:
The beat stick murder hobo lot gets cut down the same way because they encounter something that they can't kill. That's the way it has been in a lot of the games I have played or ran (especially with deadlier systems then PF), but other people's experiences vary. Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying. Hence why I regard characters based only on mechanical considerations a "tired build", especially Rage/lance/pounce or many arrow/rapid shot/shoot or battlefield control/blasting/summon spam.

Rules light isn't so bad, especially with games that are ment to be played fast and loose like Paranoia. Slap down the basic stats, get your laser pistol and a pencil to mark of the clones and off you go.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:


It's nothing rigid enough to be considered a houserule

It most certainly is. No charisma= no charisma based skills.

Quote:
since as I said we make those decisions largely on how we think Pathfinder (as a ROLE playing game, not a RULE playing game)

No.

There is nothing role play enhancing, or what you're not so subtly hinting at "better" about about your role playing because if your house rule. You have different rules, not better one. You would still be just as good and suave and your role playing would be just as good if you were in a standard group with a more minmaxed rogue getting the same bluff score off of a more reasonable investment.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
...given that Pathfinder isn't a video game, and therefore isn't constrained by ordained rules from Paizo and everything else be damned.

Video games are not constrained by ordained rules from the developers. That computer you're using to read this forum? It contains all the tools you need to "house rule" video games as much as you want. You could even write original games from scratch! And you can share your creations with others over the internet.

And yet, no other game company is able to get away with saying "it doesn't matter if the game we released is horrible or even if it works, because players can just fix it." None. If any other game company puts out a game with a critical bug that prevents it from running at all, then either the developers fix it or no one buys the game and it loses money. If any other game company puts out a game which is poorly designed to the point where players don't enjoy it as it is, the developers either make it better or the game loses money. Paizo is the only company that can put out a book and say "pay us for a game we haven't written, and then YOU write the game yourself!" And Paizo can get away with it because customers don't hold Paizo to the standard that every other entertainment company ever are held to.

No, it has nothing to do with whether something is a "video game." Anyone can modify Pathfinder to their liking provided they have
a)The skills needed to design and write a game,
b)Enough free time to (re)write the game, and
c)The willingness to use their design skills and free time writing a game they supposedly paid Paizo to write.

Anyone can modify a video game to their liking provided they have
a)The skills needed to design and write a game,
b)Enough free time to (re)write the game, and
c)The willingness to use their design skills and free time writing a game they supposedly paid the developers to write.

Notice something about those two lists? They're exactly the same. Pathfinder is no less "constrained by ordained rules from [its publisher] and everything else be damned" as every other game in any medium. You're just holding Paizo to a lower standard than you'd hold any other game company.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hold Paizo to a much higher standing because of the way the game is. It's much easier to edit the game so why do those guys sit on your asses and never fix the problems with their system?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:


It's nothing rigid enough to be considered a houserule

It most certainly is. No charisma= no charisma based skills.

Where did I write that we forbade charisma based skills for players with low charisma? What we do instead is if someone wants to have HIGH charisma based skills but a low charisma score, we talk it out to decide if that makes sense in context. We have no group rule regarding (if (xAbility < yThreshold) you can't use zSkill), we just judge each case by feel and in context.

Quote:


No.

There is nothing role play enhancing, or what you're not so subtly hinting at "better" about about your role playing because if your house rule. You have different rules, not better one. You would still be just as good and suave and your role playing would be just as good if you were in a standard group with a more minmaxed rogue getting the same bluff score off of a more reasonable investment.

I didn't subtly hint anything. I explicitly stated that it is a better style of play FOR US, and since it makes logical sense to me, that is why I would expect others to enjoy it as well. That's why I quite clearly acknowledged that it is not a universal absolute and that others enjoy other play styles. Additionally as I said before, sure there are other mechanical ways to get the same in-game effect with different skill point allocation or items, but also like I said before, that wouldn't be as enjoyable to me, which is the whole point of me playing a game in the first place.


137ben wrote:

Video games are not constrained by ordained rules from the developers. That computer you're using to read this forum? It contains all the tools you need to "house rule" video games as much as you want. You could even write original games from scratch! And you can share your creations with others over the internet.

And yet, no other game company is able to get away with saying "it doesn't matter if the game we released is horrible or even if it works, because players can just fix it." None.

Where did I say that was the case with Paizo? Not once did I say that any part of what my group changes is because some mechanic of the game is horrible. You're trying to put words in my mouth.

Quote:

If any other game company puts out a game with a critical bug that prevents it from running at all, then either the developers fix it or no one buys the game and it loses money. If any other game company puts out a game which is poorly designed to the point where players don't enjoy it as it is, the developers either make it better or the game loses money. Paizo is the only company that can put out a book and say "pay us for a game we haven't written, and then YOU write the game yourself!" And Paizo can get away with it because customers don't hold Paizo to the standard that every other entertainment company ever are held to.

No, it has nothing to do with whether something is a "video game." Anyone can modify Pathfinder to their liking provided they have
a)The skills needed to design and write a game,
b)Enough free time to (re)write the game, and
c)The willingness to use their design skills and free time writing a game they supposedly paid Paizo to write.

Anyone can modify a video game to their liking provided they have
a)The skills needed to design and write a game,
b)Enough free time to (re)write the game, and
c)The willingness to use their design skills and free time writing a game they supposedly paid the developers to write.

Notice something about those two lists? They're exactly the same....

You're making a pretty bold claim that a GM saying, "you know, I don't think that your stat block makes sense with how you want to play your character" is equivalent to developing a mod for a video game. My point about it not being a video game is that unless I want to invest a LOT of time and effort to achieve a similar scale of change that can be achieved with a LOT less time and effort in Pathfinder or other similar games in the medium, they aren't really equivalent in terms of rigidity. That's one of the things that's really drawn me to tabletop RPGs. I enjoy the fact that if my group decided, "I do/don't like the way that X works, so let's change X/Y", we can do that in a very short amount of time and with very minimal effort. If I decided that I didn't like the way stat allocation worked in Fallout 4, it would take me a lot longer and I'd have to expend a considerable amount more energy just to figure out how to do it, even before implementation.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

you know what i'm tired of?

this tangent about house rules and charisma.


Anyone who builds a character specifically to steal the glory from others. It won't always work, when it does the table will get upset, and when it doesn't you will get upset. It brings the table down and detracts from the fun of the game.

Anyone who thinks they know how a character will react to a situation better than the one who created it. Maybe my low charisma isn't your low charisma, or perhaps my decision is based on character information I haven't shared with the table because nobody but me wants to read my 5 page backstory.

Anyone who knows how a class should be played. Some people have fun making unusual class/role combinations, like wizards in melee or high-int skill monkey fighters or cleric/druid blasters. Just because someone can do this better than you doesn't mean you won't have fun being worse. As long as you aren't dragging the game down, what does it matter if you think X is better?

Anyone who puts a gap between optimizing and roleplaying. Both can coexist and be fun for yourself and the rest of the party.

I know and am friends with people of the above attitude. They are aspects I am not inherently against, but get tired of hearing about all the time. Not that I would change them, or that their views are wrong necessarily, just some attitudes can get tiring.

And yeah, these aren't builds, just general attitudes that occasionally bug me.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?
This. You know that Kitsune Sorcerer in the party that makes the system crumble under her feet? Actually a super memorable character. Just as memorable as the dwarf bard.

Not at all. That Kitsune Sorcerer is merely a rules manipulation, not anywhere near as memorable as a dwarf bard with a fun roleplaying set. Building characters to destroy the system either forces the GM into a never ending arms race with the PCs, or gets the other players angry from being forced into creating their own system exploitation machines. Then the group disbands or retrenches into another system. It happens all the time. The only time that it works is when the GM is running at that high of a power level and expects things like that as do the other players. As for rules light, it's fun depending on your players' experience levels and ability to adapt.

And hence goes to the tired build concept the thread originally went to.


Oh, I'm sorry, I was talking about the characters as a whole, not just the mechanics.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?
This. You know that Kitsune Sorcerer in the party that makes the system crumble under her feet? Actually a super memorable character. Just as memorable as the dwarf bard.
Not at all. That Kitsune Sorcerer is merely a rules manipulation, not anywhere near as memorable as a dwarf bard with a fun roleplaying set.

What makes you think the Kitsune Sorcerer doesn't have a fun roleplaying set?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, he was talking about roleplay? I was just skimming it and thought he was just talking about mechanics. I guess you don't consider redeeming the big fiend that's been using the party to beat a bigger fiend and helping a former slave get over her PTSD don't count as interesting to old folks.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, he was talking about roleplay? I was just skimming it and thought he was just talking about mechanics. I guess you don't consider redeeming the big fiend that's been using the party to beat a bigger fiend and helping a former slave get over her PTSD don't count as interesting to old folks.

But did you do it while wearing a horned helmet at the table?


Ventnor wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, he was talking about roleplay? I was just skimming it and thought he was just talking about mechanics. I guess you don't consider redeeming the big fiend that's been using the party to beat a bigger fiend and helping a former slave get over her PTSD don't count as interesting to old folks.
But did you do it while wearing a horned helmet at the table?

My friend was playing the Kitsune, I was the Oracle. Also we play on roll20 because we live in different states.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:


I didn't subtly hint anything.

I know. I said as much. You weren't subtle. You called the alternatives videogamey, as if someone can't start out bad at something and improve to become good at it wasn't a very common theme in fiction, or getting good at something despite your complete lack of ability in it, or turning a weakness into a strength. Nope, all that matters is how good you were born at it, anything else is video gamey.


stormcrow27 wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Not to sound like an old man yelling at kids out on the lawn, but it seems that rolepayers today are moving to either rules-light systems or the never ending theory crafting to get the extra oomph out of XYZ build, without considering the other side to the rules set, making a memorable character through roleplaying.
Why do you think those two are mutually exclusive at all?
This. You know that Kitsune Sorcerer in the party that makes the system crumble under her feet? Actually a super memorable character. Just as memorable as the dwarf bard.

Not at all. That Kitsune Sorcerer is merely a rules manipulation, not anywhere near as memorable as a dwarf bard with a fun roleplaying set. Building characters to destroy the system either forces the GM into a never ending arms race with the PCs, or gets the other players angry from being forced into creating their own system exploitation machines. Then the group disbands or retrenches into another system. It happens all the time. The only time that it works is when the GM is running at that high of a power level and expects things like that as do the other players. As for rules light, it's fun depending on your players' experience levels and ability to adapt.

And hence goes to the tired build concept the thread originally went to.

On the other hand, if the Kitsune Sorcerer is someone exploring the nature of someone with that power and makeup, the mischievous nature of a kitsune mixed with the alien morality of a fey creature from its bloodline, someone that likes to play with the moral quandaries and personality of someone that often can get whatever they want in life just by asking nicely and how and why they go on adventures, I'd say that's quite a lot of roleplaying. Enchantment-heavy characters tend to have a number of morally gray elements to them that can make for a very careful or conflicted character when they're not utter pragmatists or outright evil.

On the other hand, if the Dwarf Bard is ye olde vaguely scottish beer-swilling dwarf #678 with his quirk being that "that's what Bilbo Baggins hates" is one of his class features instead of a one-time thing, I'm not going to be giving that player a roleplaying award just because his concept is less mechanically sound than the Kitsune Sorcerer above.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:


I didn't subtly hint anything.

I know. I said as much. You weren't subtle. You called the alternatives videogamey, as if someone can't start out bad at something and improve to become good at it wasn't a very common theme in fiction, or getting good at something despite your complete lack of ability in it, or turning a weakness into a strength. Nope, all that matters is how good you were born at it, anything else is video gamey.

I don't think you're thoroughly reading what I'm actually writing. I didn't say that any specific alternative is "videogamey", I said that Pathfinder isn't a video game as justification for why it's perfectly reasonable to not strictly adhere to the rules if you don't think that the rules really make sense in a specific context. Additionally, I never said anything about anyone being unable to become good at a skill without having been born naturally talented (in fact, I very clearly said the opposite). What I said was it doesn't make much sense for someone to greatly advance in a skill while the attribute upon which that skill is based doesn't advance anywhere relatively near as much, if at all, and even less so if that attribute is below average. Please respond to what I'm actually saying, not whatever hidden message you think might be behind my words.


I'll say this, what makes the dwarf interesting isn't that he's a bard, though it helps at times. What makes him interesting is that his entire clan is made up of the fantasy equivalent of mad scientists.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

"Optimized character played by munchkin" vs "unoptimized character played by True ROLEplayer" (or, I dare say, "deliberately mechanically poor character played by contrarian grognard") is not a valid comparison.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Ventnor wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, he was talking about roleplay? I was just skimming it and thought he was just talking about mechanics. I guess you don't consider redeeming the big fiend that's been using the party to beat a bigger fiend and helping a former slave get over her PTSD don't count as interesting to old folks.
But did you do it while wearing a horned helmet at the table?
My friend was playing the Kitsune, I was the Oracle. Also we play on roll20 because we live in different states.

Oh, well in that case it doesn't count. I hereby declare your subjective experience to be objectively invalid. This is apparently a power that I possess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
"Optimized character played by munchkin" vs "unoptimized character played by True ROLEplayer" (or, I dare say, "deliberately mechanically poor character played by contrarian grognard") is not a valid comparison.

I think the latter definitely fits in this thread though.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, we're well and truly sidetracked here, but I'm going to try and address the subject being had and try to tie it back into the OP.

Mechanics should inform roleplay, and vice versa. Rules and roleplay/acting are two pillars that support the game of Pathfinder, and they should be in balance. In my opinion, if you're hamming it up at the table and taking the time to write carefully constructed speeches for your Diplomacy checks and carefully reasoning your way through complex puzzles, but your character sheet says you're CHA 8, INT 8 barbarian with nothing invested in the appropriate skills or abilities, you're a bad roleplayer. Also in my opinion, if you rely on the GM to reward your "roleplaying" by letting you do things you didn't build to do but other characters did, you're a bad tablemate and a bad team player.

Well designed characters should support and encourage roleplay. There is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive about good roleplaying and mechanical optimization. Yes, the three-armed ratfolk Gulchgunner/Plague Chemist may be a hideous freak of nature and affront to the natural order, but maybe there's a really entertaining reason this little freak is running around. If a dwarven Alchemist with a well focused build calls himself a safe-cracker and does all the rogue stuff, he doesn't need Rogue levels to be the party "rogue", and I can damn near guarantee you he's going to be a better roleplayer and teammate than another g+*-d++n lone wolf Rogue who steals from party members because "that's what my character would do" and is constantly dragging the group down one way or another. Yes, mechanical optimization for the sake of optimization can go too far. So can so-called "roleplay" that's not supported by a character with the ability to actually do the things they're saying they're doing. Being "good" at optimization or roleplaying does not mean you're inherently "less good" at the other. Ideally, mechanical optimization makes you a better roleplayer by giving your character a firm foundation, and being a good roleplayer helps translate your mechanics into personality and character skills, making you a better addition to the game you and your friends are playing.

Two of the most tired "builds" I ever see at tables?

1) Lone wolf Rogues who suck at everything because "they're here for the roleplaying". You're there for a group experience. Being an intentionally worthless character at any of the things your group will expect you to be able to do isn't good roleplaying, it's poor teamwork.

2) Hideously over-focused characters with no attempt at all made to establish a backstory, and no respect given to any explanations you may have been given regarding the group's average optimization levels or the type of game that will be played. Saw a new mounted barbarian build that can deal 2.8k damage a round and thought your friends' intrigue focused game of court intrigue and political sabotage would be a good place to try it out? Mad because there wasn't even one fight last session? That's on you for not respecting the game everyone agreed to play and showing up with a character that wasn't appropriate.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HyperMissingno wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, I was talking about the characters as a whole, not just the mechanics.

I made a kitsune sorcerer a while ago and i've been gone for about a year... I don't remember people bringing them up, did they become more apparent when PFS changed their races or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
HyperMissingno wrote:
Oh, I'm sorry, I was talking about the characters as a whole, not just the mechanics.
I made a kitsune sorcerer a while ago and i've been gone for about a year... I don't remember people bringing them up, did they become more apparent when PFS changed their races or whatever.

Our table is full of weebs that like animal ears on girls, myself included. = w=


Aren't PF kitsunes anthropomorphic though? That sounds more like an especially adorable skinwalker.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
swoosh wrote:
Aren't PF kitsunes anthropomorphic though? That sounds more like an especially adorable skinwalker.

bad disguise check in human form I'd imagine having tails and ears occasionally, but otherwise, yeah.


swoosh wrote:
Aren't PF kitsunes anthropomorphic though? That sounds more like an especially adorable skinwalker.

We houserule that they can take a half-shifted form with just the ears and the tail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
stormcrow27 wrote:

The best mechanical match is not always the right one. This game isn't about winning or constant success because you figured your super build via 10000 hours of combing every supplement only to find it got nerfed in another supplement. It's about options you enjoy and your fellow players find enjoyable. Also, players pigeonholing you into a role because you play a specific class is silly. Play what you want, and you can have people take a dip in another class to gain class skills or use leadership to fill the holes you might have. The neverending mantra of optimization that pops up in all versions of D&D, even white box basic, is the best example of a tired build.

Some groups of people enjoy rifling through hundreds of supplements to find silly mechanical combos. If people like making super-builds and the DM is willing to throw an appropriate challenge at them, then you have a good table.

I'm tired of people thinking that minmaxing is the bloody devil, it isn't.


HyperMissingno wrote:
I'll say this, what makes the dwarf interesting isn't that he's a bard, though it helps at times. What makes him interesting is that his entire clan is made up of the fantasy equivalent of mad scientists.

That sounds awesome! Though it reminds me of another build I'm personally tired of: The mad scientist, mostly because of one player who never makes anything else.

One day, I swear I'll get the man to build a character that doesn't revolve around having maximized alchemy, disable device, engineering, and UMD. So far though, nope. At least he varies class for it. Since I started playing with him I've seen a mad scientist done with alchemist, cleric, fighter, investigator, occultist, ranger, rogue, and wizard.

Honestly I just prefer varying it up. I guess it's cool if you've tried a lot and then settled into a character type you enjoy, but I dislike seeing players settle into a role without even trying anything else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another build I tire of seeing is the bard who uses Lingering Performance to triple his performance rounds. Kinda feels silly after a while.
"Far Over..."
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"The Misty Mountains..."
...
...


Paradozen wrote:
Another build I tire of seeing is the bard who uses Lingering Performance to triple his performance rounds.

You're telling me. I'm tired of having to take it it on low level and/or Archaeologist Bards.

As for its silliness I guess it depends on the performance. An oratory Bard would sound sillier if he was just straight-up speechifying rather than yelling occasional inspirational phrases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

Another build I tire of seeing is the bard who uses Lingering Performance to triple his performance rounds. Kinda feels silly after a while.

"Far Over..."
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"The Misty Mountains..."
...
...

That's another case of a 'stupid not to take it' feat.

Many of the 'rounds per day' mechanics need a boost that doesn't come from a 'must-have' feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:

Another build I tire of seeing is the bard who uses Lingering Performance to triple his performance rounds. Kinda feels silly after a while.

"Far Over..."
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
"The Misty Mountains..."
...
...

Hey , if you're doing that song right and underground the echoing reverb at least makes sense


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Frogsplosion wrote:
stormcrow27 wrote:

The best mechanical match is not always the right one. This game isn't about winning or constant success because you figured your super build via 10000 hours of combing every supplement only to find it got nerfed in another supplement. It's about options you enjoy and your fellow players find enjoyable. Also, players pigeonholing you into a role because you play a specific class is silly. Play what you want, and you can have people take a dip in another class to gain class skills or use leadership to fill the holes you might have. The neverending mantra of optimization that pops up in all versions of D&D, even white box basic, is the best example of a tired build.

Some groups of people enjoy rifling through hundreds of supplements to find silly mechanical combos. If people like making super-builds and the DM is willing to throw an appropriate challenge at them, then you have a good table.

I'm tired of people thinking that minmaxing is the bloody devil, it isn't.

People don't like min maxing for the same reason no one in OPM likes saitama. A hero shouldn't be perfect, people in general think a hero should be like mumen rider, you know, trash at heroing but still never giving up. This is at ends with the actual goals of the PnP system which is to succeed.

People want their heros to be showmen not powerful, people could care less about how powerful a hero is, they need to be able to put on a show. A hero is someone who managed to take down a dragon with just a knife, taking them down with the Anti-dragon cannon he bought from Weapons Inc. really isn't the same.

This is also the reason, if you pay attention to the Darksouls community, people dislike DamnNoHtml so much until he started using different weapons. being the best really isn't a thing people appreciate.

It frustrates me when society doesn't make sense.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are two related groups I don't like.

1) Characters who don't want to be in the party

2) Characters who a reasonable party wouldn't want to have around if they didn't have PC stamped on their forehead

The first group is mostly the lone wolves. Even if they're mechanically productive it just doesn't make sense. This also covers late added characters with built in friction like an elf hating dwarf in a party that already contains an elf or visa versa.

The second group covers annoying roleplay (eg. kender syndrome), characters that don't pull their weight, and characters that really shouldn't be adventuring at all like children, deaf/mutes, people who can't see more than thirty feet, cripples, and noncombatants.

In case you can't tell I'm really not a fan of the oracle class.


Atarlost wrote:
This also covers late added characters with built in friction like an elf hating dwarf in a party that already contains an elf or visa versa.

That's something I can't stand in general: elf/dwarf hatred. It's hard to be a more blatant, uninspired LotR copy than that.

MannyGoblin wrote:
(...)a whole tribe of ARBBLAGGHH!BLOODFORTHEBLOODGOD! orks (...)

Great, and now I got a song stuck in my head!


Atarlost wrote:

There are two related groups I don't like.

1) Characters who don't want to be in the party

2) Characters who a reasonable party wouldn't want to have around if they didn't have PC stamped on their forehead

The first group is mostly the lone wolves. Even if they're mechanically productive it just doesn't make sense. This also covers late added characters with built in friction like an elf hating dwarf in a party that already contains an elf or visa versa.

The second group covers annoying roleplay (eg. kender syndrome), characters that don't pull their weight, and characters that really shouldn't be adventuring at all like children, deaf/mutes, people who can't see more than thirty feet, cripples, and noncombatants.

In case you can't tell I'm really not a fan of the oracle class.

I'm not a big fan of the Oracle class either, and I absolutely hate the Curse mechanic. That said, the curses aren't all completely debilitating, some of them really don't have that big of a negative impact.

Besides, I'm pretty sure you'd want a deaf/mute guy around if he could magically make any injury, disease or toxin go away instantaneously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

People don't like min maxing for the same reason no one in OPM likes saitama. A hero shouldn't be perfect, people in general think a hero should be like mumen rider, you know, trash at heroing but still never giving up. This is at ends with the actual goals of the PnP system which is to succeed.

People want their heros to be showmen not powerful, people could care less about how powerful a hero is, they need to be able to put on a show. A hero is someone who managed to take down a dragon with just a knife, taking them down with the Anti-dragon cannon he bought from Weapons Inc. really isn't the same.

This is also the reason, if you pay attention to the Darksouls community, people dislike DamnNoHtml so much until he started using different weapons. being the best really isn't a thing people appreciate.

I don't really think that's true at all. Superman alone is counter to the idea that people in general don't want a hero to be powerful. Now, I realize there are many, many people that think Superman is boring, but since he's still a popular hero I don't think its the majority opinion. Even coming in with an Anti-Dragon Cannon is still cool too. Like the Iron Man movie, when he drops in and rescues the people being killed with weapons his company had produced. Those tanks and missiles had no real chance of hurting Iron Man, but it was still cool to see him come in and completely stomp everything.

And your Dark Souls example doesn't really seem like a good sample, because from what I understand people like that game because its hard and you have to do stuff like fight Dragons with knives, or something to that effect. So they'd be against a character that doesn't fit the idea of the game.

I think people are against min-maxing when they don't want to do it but also don't want characters that are into it showing up and screwing up encounters. Which I think is a totally acceptable reason. Its just when they start phrasing it like however they play is the superior way and caring about your stats is 'roll'playing. I optimize because I don't expect the world to bend itself around to let me succeed, I believe my characters should actually be as good as they claim to be, and not optimizing them is in effect 'cheating' by having the DM weaken the world to suit my ideas. That's not for everyone, but its how I play.

And I optimize because I love characters like Superman. I like how powerful Superman is, because I LOVE seeing Superman show up and feeling like things are going to be alright, because Superman is here. I still like Batman's struggles against powerful forces or even Superman being defeated by enemies like Darkseid. But seeing Superman show up against some seemingly unstoppable force and laying down some smack like only the Man of Steel can deliver still excites me. And by extension, I've enjoyed situations where the party has their backs against the wall, and I take the gloves off to start unleashing what my characters are fully capable of. I also enjoy when other characters get to be the ones to turn the tide, its really cool to me.

As for the primary topic though, I'm really tired of Dexterity-Intelligence based warriors/swordsmen. Not because its a bad concept, but there's one guy that plays them a lot and don't just don't like the characters he keeps coming up with. They follow Atarlost's complaint about 'Lone Wolves' and refer to Strength based warriors insulting, like they are clumsy or stupid. That and the Intelligence fighting isn't really played up well, just getting bonuses out of the score without demonstrating how, like tactical insight or planning or something. Just Int/Dex to whatever.

I'm also sick of 'Prodigy' characters, played by the same guy. Much prefer characters that work to maintain their skill/abilities. Don't mind the occasional 'I'm just that good.' character, I'm even playing one at the moment, but when that's all there is too them it grates on my nerves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with the last one is that there's at least three classes that force you into the prodigy area, Oracle, Sorcerer, and Kinetisist. One has divine power shoved into them, another draws it from their blood, and I don't even know where the last one gets their powers.


More just a pet peeve because I'm tired of seeing them. There's actually a Sorcerer in a party I'm with, I assume he's a Prodigy as well, but it never comes up because its expected like you say.

And I'm even playing a Prodigy in a different game, but I'm doing that because I built that character to be good at many, many different things and I can't properly explain them all through careful study and training. Also, that's a Skull and Shackles game, and that character is the Captain. All of his time is wrapped up in dealing with the crew and plotting out schemes of plunder, I don't have free-time to have him studying or practicing swordplay, he needs to be on top of the many problems arising on the ship.

Its not entirely the idea of a Prodigy that puts me off, its using it as a lazy excuse for storytelling that's irritating me. If your character doesn't train, study, or really do anything in their off-time but brood, it grates on my nerves that they're still supposed to be a master swordsman or something. At least when it comes up as often as it has.

Definitely not making a judgement on Prodigies in other games. But I don't like most of the ones I've seen in my own games.

301 to 350 of 463 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Tired builds All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.