|
I'm gonna come out and say it: I struggle with making characters in Pathfinder. I feel like the system rewards certain styles of play EXTREMELY heavily (optimization and a variety of powerful builds), but generally doesn't encourage sub-optimal, flavor-oriented choices.
Now, as a DM, I don't mind this. I can customize my content for the level of optimization and playstyle of my group, but as a player I'm often concerned with the whole idea. What if my DM throws really hard encounters at us because he expects me to optimize well?
The easiest solution, and the one I expect immediately, is talk to the DM ahead of time and make your intentions clear. I intend to do so. However, here's a more interesting question:
Pathfinder, as a system assumes competency, and by that I mean viability with some optimization. How should I talk to a DM about the level of difficulty I would like, and how would I go about making interesting decisions in the character creation process that allow for abilities and effects that, while sometimes suboptimal, provide great narrative potential?
It's as much a question of getting other players to adopt flavorful suboptimal choices like yours. Because, to invert The Incredibles adage: "If everyone's suboptimal, no one is."
Suboptimal really varies by campaign type. Most of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue are a waste of time... unless you're playing in an intrigue-centered game. Talk through precisely what kind of campaign this will be: exploration, hack n slash, high magic, Intrigue, heist, kingdom-building, survival horror, etc.
Another thing you can do is while talking to the group, really dissect what each other player wants. After all, if you are playing a sub-optimal character, and the DM is running an "average" CRB game that follows CR, it might be okay for that one optimizer to actually go full tilt and play as the party's protector.
This actually happened in my Hell's Vengeance campaign, the Antipaladin is the damage dealing powerhouse able to take on entire squads of enemies, but the rest of the party are the diplomats, information brokers, and face characters.
The thing I see the most often is when a group thinks this split of "utility" and "power" is bad and they assume that it might not be fun. I contend with the right expectations and open communication it can be fun without making the "sub-optimal" characters side kicks.
If you're bad at combat, you die.
If you're bad at social encounters, you might create conflict, which (potentially) enhances the narrative.
If you're bad at exploration, you might end off the beaten trail, which can lead to wandering monsters or other side quests and encounters.
So you want to avoid being bad at combat. You don't need to be Dr. Murderkiller, but you should be able to hold your own.
If your campaigns are anything like every campaign I've ever been in, the exploration and social encounters are used to get to the combat encounters. They're a means to an end, and ideally, that end is of the BBEG and not the PCs!
I guess what I'm trying to say is: Don't worry about not being optimized for non-combat encounters. Just don't forget to have some combat capability.
Even if it's just being good at running away...
Talk to your GM about loot.
As a GM, I would have no issue if one of my players came up to me during character creation and said, "I want to take this sh!%%y archetype because I really like the flavor - I'll give it a shot, but if I'm really struggling in combat could you drop me some cool gear?" Then if I saw that they were consistently ineffective, I'd either find an excuse to give monsters nice gear that's custom-suited to that player, or else let them complete a side-quest and have an NPC pull the old "This has been in my family for generations, but I want you to have it."
It's as much a question of getting other players to adopt flavorful suboptimal choices like yours. Because, to invert The Incredibles adage: "If everyone's suboptimal, no one is."
Suboptimal really varies by campaign type. Most of the feats in Ultimate Intrigue are a waste of time... unless you're playing in an intrigue-centered game. Talk through precisely what kind of campaign this will be: exploration, hack n slash, high magic, Intrigue, heist, kingdom-building, survival horror, etc.
This.
On multiple different threads over the years, I've asserted that everyone (all the players and the GM) needs to be on the same page where the relative power level is going to be. If everyone is playing super-munchkins, the GM can plan for it and still give challenging and interesting encounters. The same is true if everyone is playing fluffy, interesting builds that are far less than optimal.
However, if there is disconnect between what the players expect and what the GM expects, or a disconnect among what the various players expect, there will be tension at the table.
Why not just let everyone build the character they want to build, and then even things out somewhat with loot drops?
|
I 100% of the time, always come up with a character concept and at least a rough draft of a backstory before I even start looking at rules or builds.
Once I have done that, I start looking into race/class combos that fit the bill. Then I look at archetypes, feats, traits, etc. Next I start crunching numbers to see if the character will be viable for the game...do they do enough damage, if they aren't a damage dealer, do they contribute in combat other ways (buffs/debuffs/etc). Do they have any role out of combat? etc.
Sometimes this will lead me to a character concept that simply does not work...most of the time though, even a sub-optimal character concept can be made to work if you are willing to do a bit of reading, run some math, maybe ask for help on the forums, etc. (I have a Gnome Unchained Monk in PFS who can hang tough with anything short of a masterfully min/maxed martial character...even those he will give a run for their money)
I once tried making a "consulting detective" in 3.5 to PF out of a chaos gnome brass dragon shaman. I think we might have houseruled it into a 4+ skill point class, but even that didn't work. I spent my first 2 feats on Urban Tracking and something else from Eberron (Examine Clues?), and it didn't really work well as a private investigator, and the campaign didn't really support that kind of adventure, but once I started getting Breath Weapon feats, it was all good. The dragon shaman was a really fun class, but if I played one again, I would play a half-giant instead of a gnome, and not try to be a skill monkey-type.
My big concern for mystery-type adventures is divination magic. I think it might even be better to just let the PCs solve the mysteries super fast with magic, then focus more on the arrest (battle(s) to capture the perps).