|
One type of character I always want to play is the cultured warlord type of character, like King Arthur, Charlemagne, and any number of Roman emperors or Japanese daimyo. A character who is not only capable on the field of battle, but also a supreme scholar and statesman during peacetime. The problem I feel is, even with classes like the cavalier, it feels like it's near impossible to build this kind of a character due to (as far as I can tell) a tendency for the game to reward players who specialize in a particular field, and stick to it for their entire career.
Fighters tend to get the most payoff from picking a single weapon to utilize for their entire career, but the types of people I want to play usually relied on different weapons for differing situations. For instance, contrary to popular belief, a samurai was expected to drill in spear-fighting, archery, sword-fighting, horse-riding and train with guns. Plus, fighters tend not to get enough skill ranks to devote time to things like poetry, economics and statecraft. Likewise, classes that DO get a lot of skills tend to be the type to AVOID close-quarters scrapes, like bards or spellcasters, and they lack the feats to make using many different weapons possible. Plus, the skills associated with such characters focus on practical knowledge related to immediate adventuring, like "what can that monster do?" Or "what kind of defenses might we expect in this crypt?" Rather than "how should I plan my capital city?" Or "how should I keep the economy flowing with peasants leaving their farms to pursue careers as artisans in the urban centers?" Or "how do I reduce crime in a fair and just way?" And furthermore, being adept in either area doesn't lend itself to managing the tactics of an army, which the devs have repeatedly stated isn't something Pathfinder does well to begin with.
I'm at a loss. It just feels like, even if I play the class best geared for this, the cavalier, I'll be stuck because I won't be as good at fighting as the player that picks one weapon and uses it near-exclusively, nor will I be as good at founding a nation as someone who's dedicated all their skill-points to an intrigue-heavy playstyle. In summation, I wanna play in a campaign like Kingmaker, but have no clue how to build the kind of character who can flip between actual physical combat and skill-based politicking and simulating and Total-War strategizing! What should I do?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the big problems with a character like that is that if they were as good at fighting as the person who totally specialized in it, or as good at skills as the person who totally specialized in them, they'd be totally overpowered!
I think that you can make some pretty good Jack of All Trades characters, but if you want to make a King Arthur who outfights Lancelot, gives Merlin advice, and puts Galahad's purity and faith to shame your party won't have anything to do!
I think that a Bard or Investigator will be pretty good at covering your baselines from your list of topics. They'll have the skill points to branch out and tackle different problems, but as 3/4 BAB classes with easy access to self/party buffs they can be pretty nasty combatants if you spend some feats on it.
|
|
I agree that generalists being as good as specialists doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm talking more about not having enough to grant basic proficiency in them. My own favorite class, the paladin, is one of the worst offenders. They can be persuasive (Diplomacy and Sense Motive), skilled horse-riders (Handle Animal and Ride) or pious (Heal and Knowledge (religion)), but they can't do ALL of these things because they only get two skill ranks each level, they're too dependent on other abilities to boost their Intelligence to cover them all, and a paladin is ultimately expected to at least be able to DO all these things. And heaven forbid you put points in a cross-class skill like Intimidate to qualify for a prestige class or something!
It'd be like if a knight could woo ladies but didn't know how to ride a horse! He'd be a laughingstock!
I would suggest the Velvet Blade (Slayer) (Ultimate Intrigue 70) or the Warlord (Skald) (Ultimate Intrigue 49)
See if you can get your GM to let you use background skills, from unchained. It's also not the end of the world if you put your favored class bonus into skills. Also, I recommend picking a few or one skill to actually max, and just put a few or one into somethings. For instance, say a paladin is trying to decide whether to put a rank in diplomacy, which he has three ranks in, or know (religion), which he has no ranks in. If he chooses diplomacy, he gains a +1. if he chooses religion, he gains a +4+1d20+Int mod.
I'm not really a fan of 2+Int as the skill points/level of pretty much anything but the Wizard so I won't argue there.
I've found that the Unchained rules for Background skills help alleviate that sort of thing a fair bit (maybe your Paladin isn't an expert Theologian, but has quite a few ranks in Lore: My Shiny Perfect God)
|
|
I don't actually HAVE a GM at this point. When I design characters I do it to prepare for the POSSIBILITY that a recruitment thread might show up here so I can just post the character within the first page or so, thus making it more likely that I'll get to play the kind of character I WANT to play instead of the character the party NEEDS to be at least do something, and so I'm not scrambling to meet a deadline and thus making a lower-quality character. Thus I try to design characters so ANY potential GM might recruit them, so I don't have a stable full of hundreds of abandoned aliases representing characters I wrote up on the spur of the moment and can't change the names of anymore due to having more than ten posts and no longer viable because they were written for a specific recruitment that they didn't get picked for.
|
Just off the top of my head their are a few ways you could make this character. If you add in multiclassing it opens it up even more.
In no particular order.
Fighter (Lore Warden)
Cavalier
Samurai
Slayer
Ranger (Urban Ranger)
getting more in to the skill focus
Bard
Skald
Inquisitor
Investigator
Rogue Unchained
If your going with knights of the round table. My best suggestion is Cavalier.
Using a standard 20 point buy.
Human
Str 18
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 8
Cha 14
Human Feat: Power Attack
1: Toughness
Total Skill ranks: 7/Level (With Favored Class Bonus)
HP: 15
Or
Human
Str 18
Dex 10
Con 14
Int 14
Wis 8
Cha 12
Human Feat: Fast Learner
1: Toughness
Total Skill Ranks: 8/Level
HP: 16
I think one of the big problems with a character like that is that if they were as good at fighting as the person who totally specialized in it, or as good at skills as the person who totally specialized in them, they'd be totally overpowered!No they wouldn't. They still only have two hands to wield their weapons with.
Eh? If someone puts all their resources into being the best at fighting shouldn't they be better at fighting than someone who is good at a variety of situations?
|
|
I think Atarlost is referring specifically to the usage of weapons in this instance. It's like Musashi Miyamoto said in his famous Book of Five Rings:
"You should not have a favorite weapon. To become overfamiliar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well...It is bad for commanders...to have likes and dislikes."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
mmmm, i'm more likely to think these people were simply high leveled compared to other people. not actually rounded.
One type of character I always want to play is the cultured warlord type of character, like King Arthur, Charlemagne, and any number of Roman emperors or Japanese daimyo. A character who is not only capable on the field of battle, but also a supreme scholar and statesman during peacetime. The problem I feel is, even with classes like the cavalier, it feels like it's near impossible to build this kind of a character due to (as far as I can tell) a tendency for the game to reward players who specialize in a particular field, and stick to it for their entire career.
Fighters tend to get the most payoff from picking a single weapon to utilize for their entire career, but the types of people I want to play usually relied on different weapons for differing situations. For instance, contrary to popular belief, a samurai was expected to drill in spear-fighting, archery, sword-fighting, horse-riding and train with guns. Plus, fighters tend not to get enough skill ranks to devote time to things like poetry, economics and statecraft. Likewise, classes that DO get a lot of skills tend to be the type to AVOID close-quarters scrapes, like bards or spellcasters, and they lack the feats to make using many different weapons possible. Plus, the skills associated with such characters focus on practical knowledge related to immediate adventuring, like "what can that monster do?" Or "what kind of defenses might we expect in this crypt?" Rather than "how should I plan my capital city?" Or "how should I keep the economy flowing with peasants leaving their farms to pursue careers as artisans in the urban centers?" Or "how do I reduce crime in a fair and just way?" And furthermore, being adept in either area doesn't lend itself to managing the tactics of an army, which the devs have repeatedly stated isn't something Pathfinder does well to begin with.
I'm at a loss. It just feels like, even if I play the class best geared for this, the cavalier, I'll be stuck because I won't be as good at fighting as the player that...
You're issue is your frame of mind. You think you need to be competitive with those who specialize in things to have your character concept work. The problem is, if you can do all those the best then it leaves no one else anything to do and makes your character very overpowered compared to others.
You can make a warrior who is good at diplomacy (and lots of other skills) and can fight well, but you're need to accept the fact that you can't be the pinnacle of fighting perfection and the best diplomat ever. In fact, it doesn't even make sense.
You can be a good diplomat and a good warrior, but you shouldn't be better than someone who has solely focused all their efforts into be one of those things.
Inquisitors, Alchemists, Investigators (and other classes) can all be skillful and adept warriors but they're not necessarily the best at those things.
As to the specific issue of being well trained in a multitude of weapons, I again think this is an issue of frame of mind. BAB is like your baseline representation of aptitude with weapons. Strength applies to melee and dex applies to ranged attacks (normally) so this is like having a slight preference in either being a melee combatant or ranged combatant. If you think of it in terms of natural inclination it makes sense that not all your abilities are equal. To get even more specific into why you're better at a greatsword than say a longsword it's because you took weapon focus(greatsword) which represent training above and beyond what you did with other weapons.
It's all in how you think of it.
I think Atarlost is referring specifically to the usage of weapons in this instance. It's like Musashi Miyamoto said in his famous Book of Five Rings:
"You should not have a favorite weapon. To become overfamiliar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well...It is bad for commanders...to have likes and dislikes."
not to dampen the parade but this is why we have a party of various differently skilled people, each usually up to taking out different types of opponents and challenges.
You need some different assumptions from the Pathfinder baseline to make it work. First, the automatic bonus progression helps, and if you can stretch it to work with any weapon you use rather than just 1-2 it works better (without being overpowered IMO). Trying to keep 4 different weapons up to spec isn't going to work in PF otherwise.
To be able to use a variety of different weapons well you may need more than the standard amount of feats, or some feats may need to be consolidated. Both are common house rules.
Being skilled and martial isn't overpowered and there are some classes which manage it. Slayer and ranger stand out, especially if you're using background skills (PF Unchained). Either can be made as something of a leader. It would help to use something like the warlord or warder from Path of War though; some of the class abilities could substitute and improve on skills as far as being a leader goes. Using some other classes you'll need to accept that some skills you want will need to be a lot less than maxed out. One rank may be enough for flavour, many military leaders were good poets only insofar as they could delegate the job.
I feel like you're not after a class, you're after a higher starting level. No matter how you build them, level 1-3 characters either specialize or suck. From 4-7 it gets a little better, with feats and talents allowing you to branch out slightly. Past level 10, almost any class built with your concepts in mind could work, simply because they have enough resources to spend on different specializations.
And that makes perfect sense. The great leaders and warlords of history and fantasy were not low level peons. They were powerful men with years of experience and training.
No one starts out as a low level Arthur Pendragon. They start as young man Arthur: weak but with potential for greatness. After years of training and trials by fire, they are forged into great heroes and leaders of men. Yet even these great leaders were rarely the absolute best fighters or most skilled strategists. They lead other mean who dedicated their lives to one disciple at the exclusion of all else.
If all you know is the sword, you will lack the wisdom and education to understand how to best use that sword for the greater good, so you follow a leader you respect. A leader who can see and understand the big picture, and use the specialists to their greatest potential. Specialists who don't find a leader usually wander the world aimlessly, beating all who challenge them in their domain, but never leaving any meaningful mark on the world at large and thus quickly forgotten by history.
Sure there are exceptions, but those were either geniuses in real life, or the main protagonists of a story. Pathfinder does not give you the mechanical power to be a genius or main protagonist, because otherwise it would have to be a single player game. There would be no room for other players. You are one hero among many, and until your hero gains significant experience and skill, they cannot be the multi-talented warlord you're trying to build.
All that to say, find a class or play style you enjoy, and build them with the long term goal of being great leaders. Plan for it to come together once your character hits double digits, but until them make sure you have a specialty you can contribute to a party at any level.
Here is a Warlord class I swiftly threw together.
If we're doing shameless plugs I could throw out this class, that I spent 2 weeks on balancing.
It's significantly well rounded but allows for specalization, it's main attributes being Str or Dex; Con and Int.
I should honestly try to get this thing published but the idea scares me.
|
Bards aren't as feeble in melee as you make them out to be. They've got good buffing skills and spells and a decent HD and BAB. Just forget the frivolous singing part and instead practice Churchillian oratory to inspire everyone. And make sure to grab mithral medium armor (Kikko, or Breastplate with Armor Expert trait).
Investigators are quite potent in melee. They've got one of the best spell lists for buffing, and studied combat keeps them competitive with full BAB classes for to-hit (it effectively boosts you to 5/4 BAB and increases damage). If you just put a 16 or 18 in strength, grab Combat Reflexes, Power Attack and a longspear, you can slaughter people. With Monstrous Physique you can fly around as a gargoyle and enjoy four primary natural attacks.
In both cases you could take a dip in another class for more exciting weapon proficiencies and perhaps better armor proficiency. But it's not strictly necessary - the benefits of staying in a single class can outweigh a slightly better weapon.
mmmm, i'm more likely to think these people were simply high leveled compared to other people. not actually rounded.
I would completely agree. Dip two levels in rogue, two levels in skald, and the rest in your favorite martial class (fighter, cavalier, paladin, whatever), plus perhaps a prestige or two, and you will have your well-rounded character that is in many ways comparable to these guys. He will not be in any way as good at any one specific task as if he had specialized in it, but he will be better at every task than even your specialized lvl 1 mook will be.
But if you aren't playing solo, comparing yourself to mooks is kind of pointless, because the game will be balanced around your whole party. And thus, you will likely suck compared to them, and it likely won't be much fun as you likely won't feel like you are good at much of anything. Because even if the GM's setting is populated by 90% lvl 1 NPCs, for example, you aren't likely to see 90% of your foes be lvl 1 NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually in both cases you name the leader is not the best combatant in the stories. Both of those leaders had champions who were much better at fighting then they were. Charlemagne had Roland, and Arthur had Lancelot. The question is do you want to be Arthur, or Lancelot?
If you are going for the leader play a human cavalier with at least a 13 INT and put your favored class bonus to skills. This gives you 7 skill points per level which should be more than enough to cover all your social and leadership skills. With this many skill points you can use your feats for combat so you are at least competent in battle. Also realize that you don’t need to max out all skills. You need to have a high enough roll to deal with ordinary people. One or two skills will probably be maxed out but the rest can be spread out. The key to a successful leader is not being the best at everything, but understanding a little of everything and hiring experts to advise you.
You may want to go for a defensive build. A leader’s job in combat is to provide leadership and tactics and survive the battle. Combat Expertise would seem to fit this.
|
If you want to be strong at combat while a talented diplomatic character, I would look no further than the Dandy archetype for the Ranger (Ultimate Intrigue).
6+Int skill points, full BAB, combat style feats to ease up feat tax (heck, Archery nets you the crucial stuff and you can comfortably use both bows and power attack in melee at low-mid levels) a little bardic spellcasting all make for an excellently rounded, intelligent and charismatic commander.
The Favored Nation class feature also sounds like it would excellently suit the character concept you had in mind, and makes much better use of the social skill benefits than Favored Enemy ever did.
|
|
What if you go into a prestige class that doesn't have a caster progression, like Aldori Swordlord? That's the concept I'm angling for, but most of the classes that have been suggested have some degree of casting as part of what makes them work, and Aldori Swordlord seems designed exclusively for Fighters, expecting you to focus on DEX sword fighting and intimidation and that's it!
I'd look for a class that gets bardic knowledge type of ability
Bard, Skald, Perfect Scholar Monk, The questioner investigator
|
|
There are several ways to build such a character. Exactly how you do so will depend upon the route you take.
From what I read, I think you want:
A. To have the skills to be a statesman and skilled leader and to potentially avoid combat
B. To have combat skills to be effective in combat
The easiest single-class way to address the things you want is cavalier. As a human cavalier, you would get 5 skill points per level, even with only 10 Int and no favored class skill points. You also get a number of useful class skills such as bluff, diplomacy, and several knowledge skills. Furthermore, unlike the fighter, your combat abilities do not necessarily encourage you to focus on one weapon type. It's perfectly fine to use a lance when mounted, a lucerne hammer when non-mounted, a bow or pistol at range, and a sword when enemies close with you. All you miss out on is weapon focus and there are plenty of good feats (bodyguard, combat reflexes, quickdraw, step up (to step up and strike), saving shield, etc). You also get some leadership abilities with Tactician and Banner.
Another single-class method would be to just go straight bard as others have suggested. (Arcane Duelist gives you medium armor eventually and some improved fighting skills). Carry a shortbow and a longsword. Make your performance oratory as others have suggested. You have all sorts of knowledge and social skills and more extensive leadership abilities than the cavalier though you do get magic which may not be what you want.
If you are willing to go with a more complex build, battle herald offers a lot of what you want. Full base attack. Expanded leadership abilities from cavalier and inspiration from bard/exemplar brawler/sensei monk/evangelist cleric and magic doesn't advance with your battle herald levels so if you're not interested in magic you can either avoid it entirely (exemplar brawler/sensei monk) or have very limited magical abilities.
If you don't like battle herald and want to get more out of charisma than most cavaliers offer, you could take order of the Lion cavalier or multiclass for a couple levels of paladin.
Now, if you do any of these options, will you be as good at dealing damage in your preferred combat style as a weapon master fighter with all the specialization tricks? Probably not but you'll be close when you are challenging an opponent (or maybe even ahead if you go for something like an order of the flame daring champion cavalier) and if you go for one of the teambuilder options like battle herald, you'll probably be pretty close to where said weapon master would be if you weren't buffing him at the same time as you buff yourself. That's a pretty good place to be.
Taking a single level of Lore Oracle on a martial character can dramatically change the 'roots' of their abilities by switching from dexterity to charisma for dodge AC and basing all knowledge checks off charisma instead of intelligence. You can even take the Noble Scion feat to use charisma for initiative.
So something like Lore Oracle 1/ Cavalier can go high strength and charisma, and act like they were high strength and dexterity and intelligence and charisma.
Actually in both cases you name the leader is not the best combatant in the stories. Both of those leaders had champions who were much better at fighting then they were. Charlemagne had Roland, and Arthur had Lancelot. The question is do you want to be Arthur, or Lancelot?
Yeah if you wanted to be a leader and a fighter, you should have been Charlemagne's Grandpa, Charles the Hammer.
That's a reasonable objection to having a full BAB 9 level wizard list caster. It's not a reasonable objection to being able to use both a spear and a sword effectively.not to dampen the parade but this is why we have a party of various differently skilled people, each usually up to taking out different types of opponents and challenges.I think Atarlost is referring specifically to the usage of weapons in this instance. It's like Musashi Miyamoto said in his famous Book of Five Rings:
"You should not have a favorite weapon. To become overfamiliar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well...It is bad for commanders...to have likes and dislikes."
You already can. Both weapons natively you use your strength and BAB.
The only way you use a sword better than a spear is if you decide to specialize in one or the other by taking Weapon Focus/Spec or other similar feats. You use either as effectively as the other. It's only when you specialize into one weapon that it stops being equal.
What it sounds like is you want to be specialized in everything.
And you can even sort of do that with a Fighter's Advanced Weapon Training and the Weapon Specialist Ability.
The issue is magic weapons. That's a specialization choice that you'll either need to make or figure out how to work around not having a magic weapon.
The issue is magic weapons. That's a specialization choice that you'll either need to make or figure out how to work around not having a magic weapon.
Automatic Bonus Progression, you can attune to any weapon once a day (and stays on the weapon until you attune to a new one). So you can go mid-way through the day, unto the middle of a fight, realize you need a different weapon, and switch the bonuses mid-fight.
"Come Nodwick, today I think I'll try to spear instead"
I didn't know he was using that system.
I didn't know he was using that system.
I don't think he is necessarily, just that it's a way around the problem you were talking about.
It's not like a character who wants to have two decent alternate weapons is any worse off than a character who uses two weapons at the same time, or a switch-hitter. In a campaign that isn't PFS it's not nearly as much of an issue anyhow, since there are potentially lots of things to find/craft/receive by GM fiat.
I think the biggest problem with the perfect fighter and perfect statesman is that it doesn't really exist, even in mythic and semi-mythic history.
Arthur beat Lancelot because he wielded a sword that literally guaranteed victory.
He was only a great statesman because he had Merlin advising him, once Merlin was taken out of the picture, Camelot fragmented.
Daimyos were strategists, not fighters. Since their culture stressed absolute obedience to authority, personal combat skills were irrelevant to maintaining their position. Yes, even samurai were expected to be culturally sophisticated, but honestly, this game is a poor choice for emulating cultural sophistication.
Even in fantasy the perfect at everything characters are that way due to powerful and supernatural reasons.
Human Lore Warden, 14 intelligence, Fast Learner = 8 skill points/level.
Invest two of your (many) fighter feats into heavy armor.
Use traits, and possibly Additional Traits, to pick up social skills.
also, the background skills alternative from unchained i think would suit your idea of gameplay quite well. 2 extra points to be used on the 'lesser, more RP-ey' skills is just what many martial classes need
Sounds like those Emperors had quite a few levels of XP and some really great rolled stats. If you've got a high INT and CHA, there's nothing stopping a Fighter from being a great social character; they've even got the feats to spare on non-combat applications. For that matter, there's nothing stopping a powerful martial character from doing a little multiclassing that improves their other aspects while still being a powerful martial character.
I would have thought that getting from private to officer in the Roman Legion (and beyond) would have very little to do with fighting. Fighting in the sense of "standing at the front of a formation stabbing barbarians with a pointy stick", that is. That's the only time that their skill as a physical combatant would matter.
The rest of the time, all the army things that they do would be represented by skill checks, and thus would be far better done by a Warrior 1/Expert X than a Fighter X.
...except that the primary reason a common soldier would have any chance of starting to rise to a rank where Expert X mattered worth a damn was being exceptional as a fighting soldier. Low officers were chosen from among the best fighting-men specifically because their established prowess was respected by the rank-and-file. Even centurions tended to have more of a reputation for being really, really tough SOBs than for their administrative skills. "Follow me in my revolt against the pretender to the throne men!!! Remember my expert filing system and many logistical successes!!!"
|
|
First of all, thank you all for helping me see some things from a different perspective. Daw, you're very right that King Arthur wasn't necessarily good at EVERYTHING, and had a lot of help from people who were much more skilled and specialized at things than he was. I think to clarify: I don't want to be THE BEST at everything. I just want to be competent enough that I can actually contribute to the party rather than being basically a third wheel who's constantly overshadowed by the more specialized party members. For example, I don't want to run into situations like:
"Let ME do the log-chopping competition, I've got higher strength than you!"
"Let ME do the lying competition, I've got ranks in ALL the social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive). You only have ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive."
"Let ME do the archery competition, I have Weapon Focus (Longbow) and Precise Shot."
"But...but what do I do, then?!"
Or worse:
"Sorry, PCs. You can't compete in the joust for this tournament. None of you have ranks in Ride!"
"Oh, your party's mostly casters? Sorry! You can't compete in enough events to qualify to win!"
I suppose part of it's a sort of "If you want something done right you've got to do it yourself" mentality on my part. When I'm making a character, I don't know what the other players might make, so I don't know if there'll be quests or XP we'll miss out on or plot-relevant items we won't be able to use (like, say, a LN intelligent weapon in a party made up primarily of CG characters or something) because our characters don't meet the prerequisites. Or plot elements that are left unexplored because none of the players picked up on it and thus a less-cohesive narrative emerges.
So it's less about being better than everyone else as much as it is about NOT being superfluous. I can have the most well-crafted backstory of all time and I'd still not get into PbPs if I can't fill a niche the party's lacking.
|
|
The issue is magic weapons. That's a specialization choice that you'll either need to make or figure out how to work around not having a magic weapon.
It's not actually as much of an issue as you might think. Say you're level 6, maybe you blew half your gold on a single +2 weapon. Or you have two +1 weapons and a little extra cash for something else. Not a problem. Or say you're 11th level and you have a +1 holy lucerne hammer and a +1 ghost touch, undead bane longsword rather than having a single +4 lucerne hammer. Is that going to hurt your effectiveness? Maybe a little bit in some situations, but if you run into ghosts or dread wraiths, you're actually better off.
If your party has a habit of getting non-enhancement bonus powers on their weapons and then buffing weapons with greater magic weapon to make up the enhancement bonus difference, you may not even notice the difference.
Also, if your DM does not tailor treasure to the party, you can use the +1 weapon whether it is a longspear, a morning star, a greatsword, or a lance but the guy who specialized in Khopesh is waiting for a bad guy with a magic Khopesh.
First of all, thank you all for helping me see some things from a different perspective. Daw, you're very right that King Arthur wasn't necessarily good at EVERYTHING, and had a lot of help from people who were much more skilled and specialized at things than he was. I think to clarify: I don't want to be THE BEST at everything. I just want to be competent enough that I can actually contribute to the party rather than being basically a third wheel who's constantly overshadowed by the more specialized party members. For example, I don't want to run into situations like:
** spoiler omitted **
I suppose part of it's a sort of "If you want something done right you've got to do it yourself" mentality on my part. When I'm making a character, I don't know what the other players might make, so I don't know if there'll be quests or XP we'll miss out on or plot-relevant items we won't be able to use (like, say, a LN intelligent weapon in a party made up primarily of CG characters or something) because our characters don't meet the prerequisites. Or plot elements that are left unexplored because none of the players picked up on it and thus a less-cohesive narrative emerges.So it's less about being better than everyone else as much as it is about NOT being superfluous. I can...
Well... that's kind of part of being a generalist... The more party members you have, the more likely you are to always be second-best, at best.
Honestly I think the importance of this depends a lot on the GM, his style. If it's an adventure path with situations like the one you presented, well... there's really not a whole lot to do, by design generalists will be subpar. In a game my friend GMed, there was a certain temple that was filled with trials, physical trials mostly, and "points" would be earned for success. We needed at least one of us to succeed in each trial, but the more of us who succeeded, the better the end result. In this kind of situation, a generalist actually shines, because he's not trying to be the best at every trial, but rather to pass as many trials as possible. A specialist will pass with flying colors in his area of expertise, but fail in many others. The design of encounters will also influence how useful a generalist is. If some elements of the encounter are often only defeatable by one means, and that it is frequent for PCs to be incapped or otherwise prevented from achieving their task, a generalist can come in and save the day.
|
|
That's part of it, certainly, but there's also the fact that for the types of people I'm interested in emulating, they would have done many things (meaning they had skill points) in things that aren't directly suited to adventuring: things like hunting and falconry, poetry and calligraphy, dancing and painting. And in the end, I feel like even if I played a high skill-point class like the Investigator or Bard, there STILL wouldn't be enough skill points to go around AND still have skills that are actually relevant to adventuring like the big four Knowledges (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Nature and Religion) and the all-important Perception.
I feel like I'm stuck between deciding whether to be AUTHENTIC or USEFUL.
I've always seen 'non-adventuring skills' as part of the RP angle, and not drawing on skill ranks much if at all. That would be more ability score related if anything.
That's a reasonable objection to having a full BAB 9 level wizard list caster. It's not a reasonable objection to being able to use both a spear and a sword effectively.not to dampen the parade but this is why we have a party of various differently skilled people, each usually up to taking out different types of opponents and challenges.I think Atarlost is referring specifically to the usage of weapons in this instance. It's like Musashi Miyamoto said in his famous Book of Five Rings:
"You should not have a favorite weapon. To become overfamiliar with one weapon is as much a fault as not knowing it sufficiently well...It is bad for commanders...to have likes and dislikes."
You already can. Both weapons natively you use your strength and BAB.
The only way you use a sword better than a spear is if you decide to specialize in one or the other by taking Weapon Focus/Spec or other similar feats. You use either as effectively as the other. It's only when you specialize into one weapon that it stops being equal.
What it sounds like is you want to be specialized in everything.
And you can even sort of do that with a Fighter's Advanced Weapon Training and the Weapon Specialist Ability.
to add to this, you can still specialize in a spear AND a sword at the same time, you just need to level up.
The list of skills focus mainly on adventuring skills because that is what is important to the game. The background skills are almost an afterthought because they rarely play an important role in the game. Things that have direct consequences on the game usually have their own skill and if you want to use them you have to invest in them.
You can also save some points by making use of professional skills to cover much of what you need. The list of professions in the book is only a start. You could probably take the professional skill noble and cover just about anything you are talking about. You don’t need to be able to create poetry, just to quote it. The same goes for a lot of other activities that would be appropriate for your character. Essentially this is a little more PG version of the professional skill courtesan although that may actually be the correct skill at least according to its original definition.
Just because someone engages in an activity does not mean they are highly skilled at it. Assuming a slightly above average score (12) in the relevant stat and the skill in question being a class skill this gives you a +5 in the skill. You can boost that by +2 for using the equivalent of a masterwork item to a +7. You can also have someone use the aid another for an additional +2. This does not even factor in circumstance bonuses. Being able to get a +9 bonus on a skill roll should be more than enough to be able to do anything background type skill.
You will probably at least of few points in handle animal, and survival. Take a trait to make survival a class skill and max out the appropriate professional skill. Adjust your stats so you have a 12 or higher in INT and WIS and a good CHA score. Then build the rest of the character for combat. Keep in mind that kings you are basing your character on where not 1st level characters so you will not start out with all the skills they had. But by about 5th to 7th level you should be able to do what they did.