| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the past, I've used three of my non-attacking oriented player characters to measure the versatility of other systems. With Red Flags coming up now seems like the right time to revisit them and noncombat characters in general.
I'm also curious to see how non-attacking characters from other classes shape up in the playtest and if there are any that significantly more viable than their offensive peers (so please share/discuss/analyze any of your favorite non-attacking characters). Of course, I realize that Pathfinder is descended from wargaming but it's broadened into a roleplaying game that can host campaigns that support non-combatant PCs.
Those characters were...
o-- Completely Social Oriented Changeling (Not even a dagger)
o-- Hippocratic Oath Healer (Not quite non-combatant, just non-attacking)
o-- Sickly Subterfuge Focused Thief (Had a dagger but was useless with it)
I hadn’t thought about this for many years but recent events had me looking over old posts at the GitP forums and I spotted the post in which I first decided to use them to measure versatility.
Everyone else was transformed into a caster, a modified sorcerer to be exact. There may be different roles but each class at its core works in exactly the same way. That's great for balance but it sucks for diversity. 3.5 had some serious balance issues because WotC either wouldn't or couldn't devise how to balance non-casters with casters. In 4e (and it's prototype Tome of Battle) they "resolved" that by just making everyone a caster. That's great for people who wanted to play a caster, who wanted their abilities to be limited to what specific powers they had. It sucks for those of us who liked having more open-endedness.
Now, I enjoy playing a sorcerer but sometimes I want to play a rogue or a fighter. Sometimes, I want to do something really crazy and play a completely social-oriented changeling, a healer who never harms other living beings, or a sickly thief who solves problems solely through subterfuge. Yes, you can still do those in 4e but they suck far more than they did in 3.5.
Yes, the 3.5 skills system was flawed. Yes, martial combat in 3.5 was flawed. Yes, the 3.5 magic system was seriously flawed. Making everyone into pumped-up sorcerers with different flavor attached "fixes" that by amputation. It's still a fun game and I enjoy playing 4e, but it's not what it could have been; it's better than 3.5 but less at the same time.
For the sake of that comparison let’s see how competent these non-attacking characters (and any others you have in mind) are in Pathfinder Playtest. There are a few questions I'll be looking to answer.
--| Are they notably better outside of offensive combat than a standard member of their class?
----| If so, what mechanically made them better?
--| What's the most impactful change in the playtest for this style?
--| Do any of the Updates (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 etc) make a substantial difference?
We immediately run into some conversion issues so let’s address those first.
--o Social: No Eberron material here. So I guess we'll do a Goblin instead.
--o Healer*: I hate prepared casting so… Angelic Sorcerer it is!
--o Thief: No problem here. I'll just use the optional voluntary flaws rules to lower CON/STR significantly.
*I realize that the Hippocratic Oath Healer isn't quite the best fit for Red Flags but let's look at it anyway.
Though I'm not sure how any of them would survive (spoilers) in the vault.
=-=-=Willow Wisp=-=-=
Completely Social Oriented Changeling
Goblin Ancestry - Because why not?
Noble Background - Weird for a Goblin but fit the original character...who was a Changeling pretending to be a Noble.
Bard Class - The original character was a Rogue but I decided to take the easy way and go for a Bard.
Are they better at their "niche" than a standard member of their class?
Very marginally. Combat Bards can easily match them but there's more focus and versatility.
If so, what mechanically made them better?
All non-attacking Spells gave slightly more utility. Some abilities, like Inspire Courage, were just wasted.
Equipment was the biggest wildcard. The savings from skipping combat gear were significant.
How viable is their non-attacking style?
As a Bard, they have a ton of tricks that augment a non-offensive play style. Their spell list, in particular, enables them to be a master of manipulation. Four degrees of success is helpful in spells like Charm or Dominate but it's hurt by the Tight Math giving Creatures/NPCs higher success rates. Legendary Negotiator seemed like a gamechanger when I first read it but, at least for a Bard who can cast Dominate, it doesn't make as much of a difference because it comes online so late in the game.
What's the most impactful change in the playtest for this style?
The Tight Math and reduction of static bonuses like Skill Focus. No more insanely high Diplomacy at Level 1.
Does the Update (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc) applied make a substantial difference?
1.2 - Removing Signature Feats was a plus.
=-=-=The Doctor=-=-=
Hippocratic Oath Healer
Human Ancestry - Fit the original.
Scholar Background - No Healer Background?
Sorcerer Class - Original was spontaneous as well.
Are they better at their "niche" than a standard member of their class?
Yes.
If so, what mechanically made them better?
All non-attacking Spells gave slightly more utility. (This is where I complain about how much I miss Life Oracle.)
Equipment was the biggest wildcard. The savings from skipping weapons were significant.
How viable is their non-attacking style?
Your milage may vary. More so in larger groups, less so in smaller groups.
What's the most impactful change in the playtest for this style?
Magic Armor and Magic Weapon parity. Use to be able to blow up AC by giving up a weapon.
Does the Update (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc) applied make a substantial difference?
1.2 - No more Signature Skills!
1.3 - Treat Wounds!
=-=-=Artful Dodger=-=-=
Sickly Subterfuge Focused Thief
Human Ancestry - Fit the original. (Original was an old man using D&D 3.5's aging rules.)
Street Urchin Background
Rogue Class
Are they better at their "niche" than a standard member of their class?
Marginally. Sadly, lots of dead levels where Rogue class feats are all geared for combat.
If so, what mechanically made them better?
Skipping physical Ability Boosts and skipping combat gear.
The base Rogue has a ton of Skill Feats and Skill Increases that there's no significant difference between attacking and non-attacking on that front.
How viable is their non-attacking style?
Somewhat viable. Skill Feats like Lengthy Diversion make a big difference.
What's the most impactful change in the playtest for this style?
The Tight Math and reduction of static bonuses like Skill Focus. No more insanely high Bluff at Level 1.
Does the Update (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc) applied make a substantial difference?
1.2 - No more Signature Skills!
My druid (built around wild shape) is now almost non functional.
Any scenario with more than 2 encounters and the druid can't use what they're built around. Previously, it had both Wild Claws AND Wild Shape, using two different pools, so pretty much could last a reasonable adventure.
Now, nope.
I emphasize with the poster above but it also got me thinking about potential CHA builds for Druids. That got my thinking back to my first player character. Like the three noted in the opening post, I've built him in a variety of systems...but as an idle exercise rather than a test of versatility. Not quite a non-attacker, he was an indirect attacker: the kind of fellow who would sneak under a table and cast Heat Metal on a guard's armor. In short - a saboteur Chaotic Neutral Druid. More likely to rig a mine to collapse than to cast earthquake and bring it down directly.
=-=-=Grackle Greenleaf=-=-=
Scout and Saboteur Druid
Human Ancestry
Animal Whisper Background
Druid Class
Are they better at their "niche" than a standard member of their class?
No and yes, depending on the update. Druid is full of combat oriented feats, not much on the subterfuge side. Update 1.2 did make a difference.
If so, what mechanically made them better?
Full access to Deception (e.g. I'm just a bird. Pay me no mind), Thievery, and Stealth. Skill Feats make a difference as well. Equipment, as always, has an impact.
Vancian casting makes the typical Druid very versatile so they are on par in regards to spells.
How viable is their non-attacking indirect attacking style?
Not very. Casting a spell or using an action with the manipulate trait breaks Stealth in many cases. No more using Wild Shape to sneak up to someone and surreptitiously cast a spell on them. Scouting has also been significantly limited due to the reduced Wild Shape duration. Also...did they remove Heat Metal? Oh man. I have a ton of nostalgia for that spell.
What's the most impactful change in the playtest for this style?
Nerfs to Wild Shape (reduced duration, emphasis on 'combat forms', and no more Natural Spell). Noncombat use of Wild Shape is very GM reliant, for instance Pest Form states "Your pest form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, or spending most actions with the manipulate trait that require your hands (the GM determines which manipulate actions you can spend if there’s doubt)." So whether or not a Druid with Expert Thievery in Raven form can use a lockpick is up to the GM (I'll convince them with this video!).
Removal of Silent Spell as an option for Druids. This is a big deal for Arcane Tricksters and similar themed characters as well.
Does the Update (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc) applied make a substantial difference?
1.2 - No more Signature Skills!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun little exercise. I found playing that kind of healer pretty viable in game, but I did it as a Cleric. With in combat healing being good, you can sling buffs and utility spells the rest of the time and be contributing frequently without ever actually doing damage.
I think that particular one actually got a boost in the playtest vs 1e.
Fun little exercise.
Thank you. I forgot how much I enjoy toying with character creation in new systems. Problem is that I've run out of non-attacking characters that are 1) different enough from those listed to be worth noting and 2) that I played for more than a couple of sessions.
I found playing that kind of healer pretty viable in game, but I did it as a Cleric.
None of my players have elected to field a Cleric so I've only seen healing from a trio of Sorcerers (Divine, Primal, and Occult), a Druid, a Bard, and an Alchemist. I've read on the forums that Channel Energy puts Clerics in entirely different category when it comes to healing. But my experience with the Angelic Sorcerer was that they weren't able to keep pace with damage (much less outheal it).
With in combat healing being good, you can sling buffs and utility spells the rest of the time and be contributing frequently without ever actually doing damage.
Buffs and utilities are where it's at! In the previous edition casting the right buff to mitigate damage was more effective than healing and resulted in a fun 'predict what the GM is up to' subgame. One of my favorites - going back to Third - was IDing that a Devil had a Vorpal Sword and casting Monstrous Regeneration on a PC...who ended up getting decapitated on a Natural 20.
I think that particular one actually got a boost in the playtest vs 1e.
I'm interested in how that varies from class to class. I'd like all healing classes to have a variant (e.g. Life Oracle, Healing Domain Cleric) that's absurdly good at healing.