Fallen Paladins and stupid wizards in PFS?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
nosig wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
nosig wrote:

The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"

...

I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...

Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag phrase bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.

so which is a better response? Jump in and start the flame war or respond to what was said? If he's a troll, he's looking for a response - why give it to him?

Was the "the big red flag" the fact that he used the "P" word? 'Cause when I read "class that really can't use the majority of it's class features?" all I saw was my Street Performer bards who several people have used the same comments about. "You don't Inspire Courage? No Bardic Knowledge either? what good are you then?"

There is a big difference between not having class features (by trading them away via archetypes) and not using the ones you have. I assume that your bard makes use of its Disappearing Act and/or Harmless Performer abilities.

You read it that way, because that is the way it would make sense. Experience indicated the OP meant the more literal interpretation, an anti-optimized character that hamstrings themselves.

Perhaps. Or maybe i read it the way i did because i have often been on the recieving end of a lot of venom on the board myself. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. If they get real bad, I add them to my Ignore list and never see them again. The OP isn't on my Ignore list yet... so he get's the benefit of the doubt.

It does take a lot to make it to my Ignore list though. Heck - BNW isn't on my Ignore list!

Scarab Sages

KingOfAnything wrote:
nosig wrote:

The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"

...

I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...

Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.

If you have a reputation as disruptive, it's best to carefully explain your reasoning or thought process behind a post or else it will be assumed to be more of the same.

Wow, just like metagaming. You take information from outside sources and apply them in a manner which derails the topic at hand. Just like roleplay, treat each thread as if its being viewed by a new character, otherwise you end up derailing, like you are now.

Instead, you could, "Please clarify your question." But that isn't being done. There are a handful of people actually answering the questions, and if the mod could delete the others (and this one), that would be super helpful, since the topic is a legitimate question which is not aimed in any sinister angles.

Regarding reputations, the key thing about those is that they aren't based on my actions. My reputation is based entirely in how others respond to and remember my actions, rather than the actions themselves. Several people on the boards have decided that I'm up to no good, and that's, apparently, why derailing the thread is important.

Mildly curious if posting under another name would result in getting reasonable responses.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
ou take information from outside sources and apply them in a manner which derails the topic at hand. Just like roleplay, treat each thread as if its being viewed by a new character, otherwise you end up derailing, like you are now.

No.


Blindmage wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Blindmage wrote:

I've been searching the forum, and it really doesn't come up as frequently as people think.

The idea of starting as paladin and intentionally falling, to create a crisis of faith (tied appropriately to the scenario) is awesome. Having that character take a few levels to grow and regain their faith, or not, depending on how it goes, is totally valid.

I've been toying with an arcane blooded sorcerer that's only got int 10, focusing on mastering cantrips, having been kicked from wizard school, and shunned by other casters due to his limited understanding, but I'm planning on booting everything with metamagic. Same concept could work as a Wizard, still trying to decide which one, might even take both.

What doesn't come up?

A number of people have said that is kind of post comes up often, he idea of playing a fallen paladin, or incompetent caster, etc.

I know what other people said, but I still saw 3 or 4 different ways your comment could be taken, and while it does not come up every day it comes up enough to be noticed.


Katisha wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
nosig wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
nosig wrote:

The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"

...

I guess the OP has a "history" with the first responders...

Yes, OP does have an... interesting posting history. Combined with the big red flag phrase bolded above, the initial reaction is pretty understandable.

so which is a better response? Jump in and start the flame war or respond to what was said? If he's a troll, he's looking for a response - why give it to him?

Was the "the big red flag" the fact that he used the "P" word? 'Cause when I read "class that really can't use the majority of it's class features?" all I saw was my Street Performer bards who several people have used the same comments about. "You don't Inspire Courage? No Bardic Knowledge either? what good are you then?"

You still have your spells, and you can also engage in combat most likely with weapons. That is a lot different than a wizard who can't cast spells or a paladin without powers, which is basically a warrior(NPC class).

Actually I don't have weapons - well, I did have a dagger that I bought when I was 1st level, but it didn't get pulled out of my pack until I was something like 8th level and got dominated (Low Wisdom) and ordered to attack the nearest friend "with your most damaging weapon". Oh! And I have a Silvered Spiked Gauntlet that I really consider more jewelry... and two whips ("tools of my trade"). But then I reached Seeker level only ever dealing damage twice (both times to myself when I suffered Confusion effects to "Hit Self"). Often though I just avoid combats. Normally I would ask the other players if it was ok - but then often we just avoided the fights.

Here - I'll post this reply as my Bard - feel free to check her out if you like......

Your character can likely get by on skills and spells alone with regard to being useful(not being a hinderance).

1/5 Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the street performer bard is a caster that has maxed their casting stat. Yeah... How is that at all correlating with a dumb(int < 10) wizard or a fallen paladin?

Scarab Sages 5/5

Thomas Hutchins wrote:
So the street performer bard is a caster that has maxed their casting stat. Yeah... How is that at all correlating with a dumb(int < 10) wizard or a fallen paladin?

The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"

Ah... it's not a paladin. It's not a wizard. So maybe it's an example of a class (bard) that can't use the majority of it's class features? - or at least those features that most people EXPECT a bard to have. I have to say, "Sorry, I'm not that kind of a bard" to a lot of people the first time I play with them.

"Sorry, no I don't have Inspire Courage. Or Bardic Knowledge. Or Inspire Competence. Or..." yeah.

Edit: by the way, I personally would consider any wizard with an INT below 16 to be "dumb wizard"... it is below the level I would consider the minimum. But if someone asked about one, I would pull out a couple...

1/5 Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo

1 person marked this as a favorite.

See you being a street performer is picking an archetype that lets you fill a different roll than the class normally does.
Like Martyr paladin, Tortured Crusader paladin, or most the vigilante archetypes, or exemplar brawler, evangelist cleric, Phantom Thief rogue, sage or Empyreal sorcerer, Eldritch Scoundrel rogue, metamorph alchemist, Daring Champion cavalier, Castellan cavalier, Psychic Detective investigator, Questioner investigator.

Like that basically like being upset at the fighter that he's not bringing haste to the party. It's not a class feature.

Now if you were a street performer with <10 charisma, then that's more like what it sounds like the OP is talking about. Then you have basically no Bardic Performance, no Versatile Performance, and no spells. THAT would be not using the majority of the class features you actually do have.

Edit: A 16 int wizard is able to use all of it's class features for it's entire PFS career without any stat increases. That doesn't seem like it "really can't use the majority of it's class features"


Katisha wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
So the street performer bard is a caster that has maxed their casting stat. Yeah... How is that at all correlating with a dumb(int < 10) wizard or a fallen paladin?

The Original Post was "Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?"

Ah... it's not a paladin. It's not a wizard. So maybe it's an example of a class (bard) that can't use the majority of it's class features? - or at least those features that most people EXPECT a bard to have. I have to say, "Sorry, I'm not that kind of a bard" to a lot of people the first time I play with them.

"Sorry, no I don't have Inspire Courage. Or Bardic Knowledge. Or Inspire Competence. Or..." yeah.

I guess my point was not clear when I used the paladin and wizard examples listed by the OP. It is not a case of "can't use most of your class abilities" without context.

My point was that if you become almost useless and/or the equivalent of an NPC class due to the features you are losing access to.

As an example a wizard who can't cast spells is not going to contribute much. A paladin without access to his powers is basically a warrior.

Your bard could not fight in melee, not have inspire courage, but still have spells that can affect fights, and do well with skills. With the charisma modifier, you can force some failed saves by the enemies.

Some might complain about the lack of inspire courage, but that is still not the same as the above examples since the bard could still be made to be useful. In other words the complaint is not about "less than optimal" characters, which could apply to almost any character. Once you(not you specifically) drop below a certain point of effectiveness you become a liability to the party unless the GM softballs encounters. The character in question is not effectively a full functioning PC class despite what is on the character sheet.
.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We have a player, locally, who is very sweet but whose characters are poorly constructed. This player latches on to one thing and one thing only that the character can do; the player never tries anything else. So the bards inspire courage but never make use of spells. The witches do misfortune and nothing else. The character doesn't make decisions and just follows the rest of the party around all scenario.

As well meaning as this player is, the player makes things difficult for everyone. This person is often the fifth player who not only makes the adventure harder, but also often causes everyone to play up. It's tough, because the person either gets resented, or essentially botted by the other players. I've seen her be the cause of other characters nearly dying.

Scenarios are deadly at times. Pathfinder is a teamwork game. Bring characters that can explore, cooperate and report. Don't gimp yourself too much.

___

Back to the original post:

I can see the appeal of some of this from a roleplay perspective, but I would urge those considering such experiments to think first and foremost about what their character brings to the table. How do you help everyone out?

Then, if the concept appeals to you, come up with a different approach to get the fluff of what you want with mechanics that can participate.

Rather than create a character that can't use its class features, build something based on another class. So your wizard that can't cast spells... Instead of an int 7 wizard, build a counterfeit mage rogue. For your fallen paladin... Build him or her in some other class and give the character a divine calling.

I think that it could be potentially far more fun to create something unusual with a great back story that hints at the fluff you desire, but still brings something valuable to the table.

Hmm

3/5

This is something you do not want to ambush the party with. If you want to play a worthless character, well just inform the party you sit down with and make sure they are ok with it.

I often bring over the top powered characters and tend to sit back on the action when we are fine. If you wanna bring low or dead weight let me know so I can step it up. You also do not want to be that jerk that makes other uncomfortable. So I would make an effort to make sure everyone is happy with what you are doing.

I would much rather play with someone enjoying the game playing a weak character then a player that is a crumdegeon.

The goal of PFS is to have fun as a group, and as long as you keep that in mind in your play you are winning.

As for the mechanics. I helped build bad touch wizard that was a beast with 14 int(they do not rely on saves, the dex was more helpful). So if you know where your weak point is in your class design and design around it you can be very successful.

Although I wanted a fallen paladin I would just make him a fighter and say he is fallen.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
nosig wrote:

If they get real bad, I add them to my Ignore list and never see them again. The OP isn't on my Ignore list yet... so he get's the benefit of the doubt.

It does take a lot to make it to my Ignore list though. Heck - BNW isn't on my Ignore list!

I can't bring myself to completely hide the people on my ignore list. But, it is still useful to remind me who to think twice before responding to.

Wow. You are a charitable soul. ;)

Even taking this thread in a vacuum, the OP used language that triggers flashbacks in some posters to some highly ineffective experimental characters. That results in a strong reaction. Rewording or rephrasing to make intentions clear is never a bad strategy for clear communication.


Katisha wrote:
Edit: by the way, I personally would consider any wizard with an INT below 16 to be "dumb wizard"... it is below the level I would consider the minimum. But if someone asked about one, I would pull out a couple...

Side question: What do all of you think is the minimum useable casting stat?

Reason I ask is I tend to count out the attribute adjustments (the every 4 level ones) to figure out when I would need that 19 to cast the 9th level spells, and thus tend to use 15's...

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

As a GM, I'd probably say 12 for a single-classed 9-level caster, so that you can cast your spells before the 4th-level bump. (My bar is generally "can you do the thing at all?" - past that, I try to trust that players know what they're doing.)

For my own characters, it varies heavily. I usually prefer 16+... but I'm not usually multiclassing, dipping, or doing anything particularly avant-garde, especially in PFS. And I only have a few characters anyway,so the data is limited. ^_^

Scarab Sages 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quevven wrote:
Katisha wrote:
Edit: by the way, I personally would consider any wizard with an INT below 16 to be "dumb wizard"... it is below the level I would consider the minimum. But if someone asked about one, I would pull out a couple...

Side question: What do all of you think is the minimum useable casting stat?

Reason I ask is I tend to count out the attribute adjustments (the every 4 level ones) to figure out when I would need that 19 to cast the 9th level spells, and thus tend to use 15's...

The minimum casting stat is generically whatever you need to cast the spell levels you'll eventually want to cast. Including a headband and attribute bumps is fine. The +2 is going to be easy to purchase around 4th level or so, so 12 would be the minimum.

But it really depends what you are going for. Are you largely trying to affect the enemy? If so, high DCs may be important to you. The fastest way to high DCs is a high casting stat. If you are buff, summon, or ray/touch focused, then a high casting stat is really immaterial.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I think you could easily make a Mutation Mind psychic with very low int--13ish. You could also very easily tank their CHA or WIS (I would do CHA) to 7 and let them not have any phrenic pool points at all. I posted a sample a while back in the forums.

If I were to re-do the sample now, I would probably have the character get frostbite from rebirth and spam that along with the natural attacks.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quevven wrote:
Katisha wrote:
Edit: by the way, I personally would consider any wizard with an INT below 16 to be "dumb wizard"... it is below the level I would consider the minimum. But if someone asked about one, I would pull out a couple...

Side question: What do all of you think is the minimum useable casting stat?

Reason I ask is I tend to count out the attribute adjustments (the every 4 level ones) to figure out when I would need that 19 to cast the 9th level spells, and thus tend to use 15's...

As others have said, I'd worry more about save DC's than getting 9th level spells. Most PCs don't get to that high level, and a lot of casting classes don't get that many spells. Besides, you should assume headbands as well as 4 level bumps, so getting to a 19 casting stat really isn't that hard.

For any PC that's worried about save DCs, I've always put at least a 17 in my casting stat up front. I tend to min/max, playing races with the right racial boost to get a 19 or 20. But I'll settle for 17 or 18 if the race doesn't get the right race bonus for that casting class, and I've got a good reason for playing that race despite that.

But for buff/heal types that don't worry about that, and/or secondary casters (usually with less than 9 levels of casting), I seem to usually end up with 14 as the starting casting stat. For instance, my front liner druid, warpriest, and huntmaster inquisitor all have exactly 14 wisdom. It's enough to cast my buffs, and I can bump it up with a headband later.

I even have a 12 on one PC that just gets a little casting from multi-classing and doesn't really focus on it. And as mentioned above, I'll be dipping a level of a cha casting class for a PC with 7 charisma, but that dip is for other class abilities, not the spells.

This is mostly based on my 24 PFS characters, along with advice in helping others build PCs here and there.


Blindmage wrote:


A number of people have said that is kind of post comes up often, he idea of playing a fallen paladin, or incompetent caster, etc.

No... an incompetent caster is the wizard who keeps fireballing his own party members. A wizard with an int score below 10 isn't a caster at all. And for the first couple of levels "buy a wand" is not a pratical answer.

Dark Archive 1/5

For me, I generally don't try for a 20 in any given attribute. I feel that's too dang expensive, and I want things like more Int on my non-int caster for more skill points. Or dex so my ray spells have a better chance to hit. As such I tend to go for 16 to 18 in two attributes. Especially if I can get a +2 in two different attributes. That said, the lowest I'll go on a casting stat is 11. Level 1 spells tend to be useful. And even a self buffing caster will want an easily accessed 12-14 in their casting stat. That's where many useful buffs come into play.

The Exchange 5/5

Early on a 20 in the casting stat gives an extra spell... for a first level caster this would be the difference between two spells and three.

Also it means that by the time you get the ability to cast 2nd level spells (somewhere between 3rd and 5th level) you will likely have enough fame/money to buy a stat bump item - which will give you an extra 2nd level spell... and so on. Stat bumps pushing your casting stat up at about the time you get your next level spells...

Stat 20 gives an extra 1st (and 5th)
Stat 22 gives an extra 2nd (and 6th)
Stat 24 gives an extra 3rd (and 7th)
Stat 26 gives an extra 4th (and 8th)

But buying a 20 doesn't fit for many players play style. It does for mine - but I realize that I am not everyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Blindmage wrote:


A number of people have said that is kind of post comes up often, he idea of playing a fallen paladin, or incompetent caster, etc.

No... an incompetent caster is the wizard who keeps fireballing his own party members. A wizard with an int score below 10 isn't a caster at all. And for the first couple of levels "buy a wand" is not a pratical answer.

Reminds me of my first PFS character, whose sheet is lost, an int 7, str 20 fighter that worshiped Zon Kuthon and was a beast using Boar Style to rip folks apart. His first mission had him hucking alchemists fires at a tower battlement. So he took a level of Alchemist, and threw the bomb components as improvised weapons, every now and then it would combine right, using his one bomb per day. He was a horrible Alchemist, I was planning on sticking wit it until I could get into the Pain Taster PrC.

He was a character that failed pretty hard at the class he had the most levels in, but always contributed and was fun as hell, especially with Contagen boosting his int, made him actually able to strategize and think, not just react.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And that's the trick. Play whatever character you want, but to be fair to the others playing alongside you, the character should be able to contribute in some consistant manner, even if it's in a non-standard way.

-j

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blindmage wrote:


He was a character that failed pretty hard at the class he had the most levels in, but always contributed and was fun as hell, especially with Contagen boosting his int, made him actually able to strategize and think, not just react.

Thats the difference between a [dumb wizard or fallen paladin] or a negative energy channeling cleric or stupid alchemist. Some classes or archtypes have a grab bag full of abilities and if you don't use them all you've still got a pretty good kit.

The wizard is wizard spells. If you ARE a wizard (as opposed to just dipping wizard) thats a very empty bag you're holding. Same with a fallen paladin. That's the difference and it's pretty big, big enough for people to wonder if you're screwing with them.

Scarab Sages

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Blindmage wrote:


A number of people have said that is kind of post comes up often, he idea of playing a fallen paladin, or incompetent caster, etc.

No... an incompetent caster is the wizard who keeps fireballing his own party members. A wizard with an int score below 10 isn't a caster at all. And for the first couple of levels "buy a wand" is not a pratical answer.

Buying a wand could work, but you'd be a UMD wizard. Could work, but as mentioned by others above, if UMD is plan for casting, then their are some rogue archetypes that could do this better.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blindmage wrote:


He was a character that failed pretty hard at the class he had the most levels in, but always contributed and was fun as hell, especially with Contagen boosting his int, made him actually able to strategize and think, not just react.

Thats the difference between a [dumb wizard or fallen paladin] or a negative energy channeling cleric or stupid alchemist. Some classes or archtypes have a grab bag full of abilities and if you don't use them all you've still got a pretty good kit.

The wizard is wizard spells. If you ARE a wizard (as opposed to just dipping wizard) thats a very empty bag you're holding. Same with a fallen paladin. That's the difference and it's pretty big, big enough for people to wonder if you're screwing with them.

Condisering my int was so low that I didn't get any Alchemist 'spells', I was totally reliant on Mutagens, the Bombs feature was basically useless. I was the worst Alchemist ever. I got by thanks to str 20 and throwing things.

I could make a wizard that's dumped int and focuses on school powers, or having an amazing familiar, I don't see how that's any worse off.

As long as everyone has fun and is contributing in some way, it works, even if that's a wizard with a wonderful theoretical understanding of magic, but no actual ability, so he uses wands, or, hells, he could have str 20 and be throwing some of the crazy things that are in his spell component paunch, there's some sweet improvised weapons in there!

Dark Archive 1/5

I honestly don't see the point of making a single class paladin you intend to fall over and over. Why not just make a fighter or cavalier, and say in backstory they use to be a paladin but fell? Mechanically, it would be a better fit for the party. You wouldn't lose any flavor from your concept either. And you'd still be able to fully contribute.

1/5

One question that intrigues me reading this - when you sit down at a table do you expect to know what class(es)/archetype(s)/race etc the other characters are?

Or do you assume that the guy in armour with an earthbreaker is some sort of warrior, and not an Int-dumping wizard, until he does something to demonstrate his weird build?

Dark Archive 1/5

My experience is people usually mention at least what class they're playing. If they're using an archtype, they mention that too. So if someone came to the table and said they are a level 6 paladin, but then prove to have no paladin class abilities beyond weapon and armor proficiency I'm probably going to give them weird looks. Similarly, if someone says they're a level 6 wizard I'm going to assume they can actually cast spells. So if the only thing they're doing is using their arcane ability to telekinetic toss a weapon at an enemy then have it return, I'm going to be concerned. Especially if they then demonstrate only having 1 skill point.

An uncharismatic bard? Okay, I suppose that could work. A rogue who isn't particularly agile or intelligent? Fine, sounds like a stereotypical thug. Fighter who isn't very strong and devoted almost all their feats to using a bull whip? Uh... I'll have to see how that goes. Sorcerer who has 7 charisma? Er, I'm wondering what they bring to the table now. But I suppose it could work with the right build.

Your class is suppose to provide a solid foundation for the character. As such, deliberately undermining that foundation can be a bad thing. Yes, it can work with the right build. And it can be rather fun to play such a disadvantaged character. But most times such a build could justifiably be seen as 'trolling'.

Silver Crusade 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Neriathale wrote:

One question that intrigues me reading this - when you sit down at a table do you expect to know what class(es)/archetype(s)/race etc the other characters are?

Or do you assume that the guy in armour with an earthbreaker is some sort of warrior, and not an Int-dumping wizard, until he does something to demonstrate his weird build?

I like to introduce some of my characters without mentioning their class at all. We've had this discussion before, and I had some good examples there. From that thread, here's how some of my PCs introduce themselves (after I give a physical description). See if you can guess what class each one is.

1. "My name is Misaki. I'm a warrior these days, I guess."
2. "I'm Sister Isabella, priestess of Sarenrae."
3. "My name is Celia, priestess of Gozreh."
4. "I am Qassir, dervish swordsman from Qadira." (said in a vaguely faux-Arabian accent)
5. "My... name... is... Varg. ... Please... ac-cept... this... rose... from... the... church... of... She-lyn." *hands out small, hand crafted wood carvings of roses* (This is after describing him as a big guy in heavy armor with weapons)
6. "My name is Boon Sai Hong, and I am the greatest quarterstaff master in all of Golarion!" A monkey jumps on to Boon's shoulder and hits him on the back of the head. "Hey! Stop that! ... And this furball is Po Po. He helps... supposedly."
7. "I'm Green Beard the Pirate, because what else would you call a half-orc pirate?"
8. "My name is Erevel Heldanlissil, archer extraordinaire. We elves know how to shoot bows properly, unlike you... lower races, so pay attention, and you might learn something."

Hint: That last one is the only one that's Core.

Scarab Sages

Neriathale wrote:

One question that intrigues me reading this - when you sit down at a table do you expect to know what class(es)/archetype(s)/race etc the other characters are?

Or do you assume that the guy in armour with an earthbreaker is some sort of warrior, and not an Int-dumping wizard, until he does something to demonstrate his weird build?

GMs often insist on introductions that describe characters by classes, at least with my local PFS. I do think it's counter productive from a roleplaying stance, but it is what it is.

Though in all reality, PFS should start each session with a dossier for each character, that lists the character name, race (or the race they appear as), and their "special skills" they bring to the PFS. Would eliminate the entire issue of preconceptions of classes. Then players can pass those around, and Role Play introductions from there.

Scarab Sages

Fromper wrote:


8. "My name is Erevel Heldanlissil, archer extraordinaire. We elves know how to shoot bows properly, unlike you... lower races, so pay attention, and you might learn something."

I feel like I've met this elf before....

1/5 Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the time you present yourself is at the beginning, and you just need to convey what you do. As people decide which character to play.

The simplest is if you're pretty standard version of the class is to say your class.
Wizard, sorcerer, cleric(which is assumed positive), negative cleric.
If your class imitates another that also works.
Like I have a bloodrager/fighter that I reference as a barbarian. Cause he just rages and hits things like a barb does.
If you're lacking a "core feature" then say that too like.
I'm a wizard but I don't have haste.
the examples Fromper gave are also really good.

And at low levels EVERYTHING works. A melee wizard with 18 str. Cool you're 1 accuracy behind a full bab.

But it's at mid and high levels that you're going to have a harder time being worthwhile. Like a full str no int wizard that spent all feats on armor. You're basically worth a fighter of half your level, and people can usually notice that. NPC classes are banned for a reason, which I think is to force people onto PC classes that actually have class features. So to pick a PC class and then purposely make it so you CAN'T use any of your class features kind rubs wrong against that rule

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
PFS should start each session with a dossier for each character, that lists the character name, race (or the race they appear as), and their "special skills" they bring to the PFS. Would eliminate the entire issue of preconceptions of classes. Then players can pass those around, and Role Play introductions from there.

That would be a fun thing to add to the community-created PFS faction journals.

Dark Archive 1/5

If I was going to play the monk style archtype for kineticists again, I might introduce the character as a martial artist who seeks enlightenment. The other players might assume I'm playing a monk, which would generally be a good assumption with that introduction. And the archtype does play a lot like a monk, especially at low levels. Not that I'm likely to use that archtype again. While it was okay, the loss of elemental defense is painful. And kinetic fist is kind of meh to build an archtype around. Granted, raising the damage die type for kinetic fist is a nice feature of the archtype.

Scarab Sages

Thomas Hutchins wrote:

And at low levels EVERYTHING works. A melee wizard with 18 str. Cool you're 1 accuracy behind a full bab.

But it's at mid and high levels that you're going to have a harder time being worthwhile. Like a full str no int wizard that spent all feats on armor. You're basically worth a fighter of half your level, and people can usually notice that. NPC classes are banned for a reason, which I think is to force people onto PC classes that actually have class features. So to pick a PC class and then purposely make it so you CAN'T use any of your class features kind rubs wrong against that rule

Actually, at first level the wizard is on par, thanks to the Bonded weapon being masterwork. The 0 BAB hurts at first if your bonded weapon needs to be drawn each combat.

They key was not using the "majority" of the class features. And again, question was regarding Good builds that do so, so obviously if the class is totally worthless, then that's not what I'm talking about. But then again, if the class is totally worthless, it will die on it's own before it becomes a larger issue to the group.

Regarding NPC classes, not really sure, but the point of PFS seems around Pay to play, at to a certain degree at least. Paizo isn't exactly planning a bunch of NPC archetypes to be released anytime soon, so it really isn't a good class from the pay to play model. That's my understanding on why NPC classes banned.

Dark Archive 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My take on the npc class ban is that it's because those classes are intended for... background npcs who need to be statted out. Yeah, shocker isn't it? They weren't designed as a player class. Instead they were designed to be applied to non-player characters. The warrior npc class for example is the generic soldiers and town guards, and as such is not able to keep up with a fully trained fighter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the gearcentric approach pathfinder has, let alone PFS, I have a feeling any class can manage if they buy the right things. Sure, they won't shine, but I have a feeling you could run a commoner, and still contribute meaningfully with smart purchases.

Scarab Sages

Though on topic with worthless classes, I did a dwarven blood kineticist. Took toughness and Tribal Scars and had starting CON of 20, which is the casting stat. Although untyped and auto-hits, that Blood Wrack only does 2-3 damage per turn (1/4th normal damage). So I really have durable character, but he's boring to play, beyond the basic concept, and doesn't even contribute as much as a magic missile wand user would. And that's with a max casting stat and 20 HP at first level (yeah, 20).


Neriathale wrote:

One question that intrigues me reading this - when you sit down at a table do you expect to know what class(es)/archetype(s)/race etc the other characters are?

Or do you assume that the guy in armour with an earthbreaker is some sort of warrior, and not an Int-dumping wizard, until he does something to demonstrate his weird build?

The basic assumption is that when you sit down at a table, your fellow Pathfinders will be both able to contribute to the success of the mission, and that they remember that they are part of a group, not just a special snowflake performing at a stage meant for them alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blindmage wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blindmage wrote:


He was a character that failed pretty hard at the class he had the most levels in, but always contributed and was fun as hell, especially with Contagen boosting his int, made him actually able to strategize and think, not just react.

Thats the difference between a [dumb wizard or fallen paladin] or a negative energy channeling cleric or stupid alchemist. Some classes or archtypes have a grab bag full of abilities and if you don't use them all you've still got a pretty good kit.

The wizard is wizard spells. If you ARE a wizard (as opposed to just dipping wizard) thats a very empty bag you're holding. Same with a fallen paladin. That's the difference and it's pretty big, big enough for people to wonder if you're screwing with them.

Condisering my int was so low that I didn't get any Alchemist 'spells', I was totally reliant on Mutagens, the Bombs feature was basically useless. I was the worst Alchemist ever. I got by thanks to str 20 and throwing things.

I could make a wizard that's dumped int and focuses on school powers, or having an amazing familiar, I don't see how that's any worse off.

As long as everyone has fun and is contributing in some way, it works, even if that's a wizard with a wonderful theoretical understanding of magic, but no actual ability, so he uses wands, or, hells, he could have str 20 and be throwing some of the crazy things that are in his spell component paunch, there's some sweet improvised weapons in there!

The difference is level of effectiveness, but if you can actually pull your weight then I don't think people would care. It is not so much about "I lost my class features" as it is about "Can I not be a strain on the party?".


Blindmage wrote:
With the gearcentric approach pathfinder has, let alone PFS, I have a feeling any class can manage if they buy the right things. Sure, they won't shine, but I have a feeling you could run a commoner, and still contribute meaningfully with smart purchases.

Nope, it wont happen. The commoner is not going to be a meaningful member of a group without GM softballing.

If all that mattered were purchases you would take a party of NPC classes through an AP, and I don't see that happening without a GM playing down, and some PFS scenarios are more difficult than some chapters in AP's.

1/5 Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo

Being a beatstick is pretty easy, as your base is the fighter. So if you can hit things about as well as a fighter could of equal level then congrats, you've made a beatstick. There's even an archetype for alchemist that removes extras and bombs and gives you long duration alter self.

But if all you got was the throw anything and mutagen you'd probably have been better off being a mutagenic mauler brawler and pick up throw anything with one of your bonus feats.

The issue is that wizard with no spells is a d6 half bab body, aka a commoner. making a wizard with 12-14 int is a fine wizard as you get your spells that you can use to buff yourself with. If that's the thing the OP is talking about then he should clarify that. (example of why it's bad to use words instead of mechanics to describe something)
cause you can get a few builds of a gish wizard and MANY posts saying to use a better class for your idea in like an hour.


Thomas Hutchins wrote:


But if all you got was the throw anything and mutagen you'd probably have been better off being a mutagenic mauler brawler and pick up throw anything with one of your bonus feats.

When I made the character those options weren't there. If I were to start him over again, I'd probably go with something more fitting.

Granted part of the fun was, if I remember right, when I used my Contegen to boost my int, I gain bomb uses per day and was able to access the most basic of the extracts. It was pretty cool.

Personally, my minimum for a caster is casting cantrips/orsons. If I can do that, I can contribute in creative and upside the box ways,

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Mostly curious, anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?

** spoiler omitted **

Alright, Murdock. I've kept up with this thread, and I don't want to jump to conclusions, so I'm just going to ask questions.

When you say intentionally fallen Paladin, how do you mean? Fallen with a 1 level dip, or with many levels? Is there any attempt to retrain those levels as part of roleplaying that story? Do you plan on just keeping the fallen levels? Will there be any attempt at atonement?

What qualifies as a "stupid" Wizard? Below 10 Int? Below 16? If the Wizard has no spells because their Int is below 10, what are your proposals for counterbalancing that loss with something else that they could do? Also keep in mind, that with a low Int Wizard, you're also leaving them with less skill points, so that diminishes another way Wizards could contribute to party success.

Anyhow, I'm just trying to understand what you want to accomplish here, and maybe a little bit of your motivations before I feel I could offer interesting ideas for you.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Blindmage wrote:


Condisering my int was so low that I didn't get any Alchemist 'spells', I was totally reliant on Mutagens, the Bombs feature was basically useless. I was the worst Alchemist ever. I got by thanks to str 20 and throwing things.

The bombs still work perfectly well against swarms.

The mutagen though is a big +2 hit and +2 or 3 to damage for the boss fight, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Quote:
I could make a wizard that's dumped int and focuses on school powers, or having an amazing familiar, I don't see how that's any worse off.

It's possible, and this is where knowing the other poster comes in. If you know the other person can make solid contributions optimizing an unoptimized build then there's nothing to worry about.

It also depends on the exact build. If you're doing a familiar build on a wizard there's really no reason not to invest in the 14 int so you can throw some buff spells on them. NOT doing that seems to be unoptimizing for unoptimizations sake... which is kinda not fair to your group.

Quote:
As long as everyone has fun and is contributing in some way, it works, even if that's a wizard with a wonderful theoretical understanding of magic, but no actual ability, so he uses wands, or, hells, he could have str 20 and be throwing some of the crazy things that are in his spell component paunch, there's some sweet improvised weapons in there!

There's no reason not to make that concept work with a different chasis than wizard.

Scarab Sages 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


This isn't what the OP is talking about. He's not talking about dipping. He's talking about making a single class player who can't perform in his class.

Love it. Don't ask, just assume I'm doing something to screw with you. My entire point is purely curiosity of what others had tried. And specifically, I was/am looking for "good" builds which focus on ignoring some key part of a class.

Except thats not waht you said.

Murdock Mudeater wrote:
anyone tried building an intentionally fallen paladins, stupid wizards, or other class that really can't use the majority of it's class features? Anyone find any good builds?

You said you wanted to see if anyone had success with a build which could not use most of its class features. Your second wizard Doesn't qualify, he finds workarounds to use his class features.

Your 'for flavor' decision to make a fighter with a 1/2 bab class with a d6 hit points with almost no weapon proficiency and absolutely no armor proficiency is not a good build idea. Its an interestingly flavored build, but those stat enhancements aren't going to make up for your lack of armor or weapons. and they wont keep up with all the features you lose.

You, in context and with examples, asked for a build in which a character can not perform in his own class. That was an entirely accurate assessment.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyone can be unique
Anyone can be useful

Putting them together? THAT's the trick.

3/5 ** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Blindmage wrote:


Condisering my int was so low that I didn't get any Alchemist 'spells', I was totally reliant on Mutagens, the Bombs feature was basically useless. I was the worst Alchemist ever. I got by thanks to str 20 and throwing things.

I could make a wizard that's dumped int and focuses on school powers, or having an amazing familiar, I don't see how that's any worse off.

You can't make a Wizard that isnt even close in power to an intelligence dumped Alchemist. In fact I'll make one tonight just because I've been wanting a nice Halloween themed build.

Dark Archive 1/5

I could almost see a few sorcerer builds that dump their casting stat. Dragon bloodline for example might be able to get away with it. Well, other then the fact the claws can only be used a set number of rounds per day. And the limit is determined by charisma.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kahel Stormbender wrote:
I could almost see a few sorcerer builds that dump their casting stat. Dragon bloodline for example might be able to get away with it. Well, other then the fact the claws can only be used a set number of rounds per day. And the limit is determined by charisma.

They can't finagle the Empyreal archtype and a 14 wisdom into the build?

101 to 150 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Fallen Paladins and stupid wizards in PFS? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.