Hello folks,
I'm currently playing a level 6 Occultist (Haunt Collector) with the Trappings of the Warrior, heavy armor, and a big ol' 2-hander in Return of the Runelords.
The trouble is, we also have a Champion-focused Medium and a Battle Oracle, with big ol' 2-handers and heavy armor. The rest of our party is an Archer Fighter and an Arcanist (Occultist).
I'm noticing some redundancy and duplicative abilities between myself, the Oracle, and the Medium, and some major gaps that our party is facing. Most notably, we're ALWAYS lacking in healing/restoration, and this AP has done all manner of unkind things to us, so that stings a bit. My GM has said that, provided I remain consistent to the spirit of the character, I can pitch him a rebuild/rework.
I am currently the party trapfinder, so I need to stick with that because, well, there are lots of miserable murder-traps, and I have the Accidental Clone campaign trait, so she has to be human. In her past life, she was a Shoanti, so something that fits that general vibe/aesthetic is important, too.
I'd like for her to do a thing in combat that isn't Arcane, isn't archery, and isn't 2-hander + heavy armor melee - trapfinding and secondary (or even primary) healing are priorities.
Any ideas/suggestions on a direction would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, folks.
|
@OP Interesting request. There are quite a few ways to do what you request. Here are some questions and comments:
* Is an animal companion an option?
* Can you change your character class? Occultist is poorly equipped to handle the role of Support and Healing.
* Is your current group well balanced? It sounds like your group is imbalanced, having an excess of Hammers (who inflict damage) and a shortage of Arms (support & healing). This presumes your team's Arcanist (Occultist) concentrates on Battlefield Control - if not then you'll have even more trouble going forward.
* Presuming that you want to fill the Arm role (buffing & support), you have a few ways to do it, all involving spells. The Occultist spell list seems not optimal for what you want, but will almost do. Some handy spells: anything Illusion; Glitterdust; Haste.
* When you say 'with big ol' 2-handers' I presume you mean polearms, not two handed swords. Presumably your group already uses reach weapons and reach tactics. If not this is an unfilled niche that's highly effective in combat, particularly against giants, so someone ought to be doing it. Tripping is especially effective.
* Consider that the most efficient form of healing is to prevent incoming damage so you don't need to heal much. Needing a lot of healing indicates that your team's Battlefield Controller is not doing their job. Look at ways to minimize incoming damage before boosting healing power. E.g. Is your team's Battlefield Controller (aka Anvil) properly configuring the battlefield? E.g. Is someone preventing multi-attacking foes from landing their Full Attack, or is your front line just sucking it up? E.g. Is someone tripping foes before they can attack?
* Your team lacks bardsong. Every group benefits from bardsong.
* Optimal character build to fill the missing Support and Healing roll: evangelist cleric with reach who trips. Best buffer in the game, bar none. Uses reach tactics to mitigate incoming damage. Protects squishies. Can easily be built as a combat-monster. Full prepared caster. Can even double as first-rate Battlefield Control via Summon Monster spells.
* Healing should be done out of combat. If you find your group needs healing in combat then look at ways to mitigate incoming damage. This is both more effective and more efficient than in-combat healing.
* Healbot PCs promote bad tactics. They allow characters to survive doing stupid, foolhardy things that drain a lot of party resources. Absent that safety net and characters will be less reckless and may even use smarter tactics.
* Is an animal companion an option?
Probably not, we have a group of 5 and frequent summons via the Arcanist, so we try to keep things from getting too crowded.
* Can you change your character class? Occultist is poorly equipped to handle the role of Support and Healing.
I'm fairly certain I can, provided I maintain the same personality/character.
* Is your current group well balanced? It sounds like your group is imbalanced, having an excess of Hammers (who inflict damage) and a shortage of Arms (support & healing). This presumes your team's Arcanist (Occultist) concentrates on Battlefield Control - if not then you'll have even more trouble going forward.
Your assessment is correct. We have a lot of damage, some battlefield control, and a shortage of support/healing/debuffing/etc.
* Presuming that you want to fill the Arm role (buffing & support), you have a few ways to do it, all involving spells. The Occultist spell lists seems not optimal for what you want, but will do. Some handy spells: anything Illusion; Glitterdust; Haste.
The occultist spell list is...limited, but could do the job. I'm looking at alternatives right now, though.
* When you say 'with big ol' 2-handers' I presume you mean polearms, not two handed swords. Presumably your group already uses reach weapons and reach tactics. If not this is an unfilled niche that's highly effective in combat, particularly against giants, so someone ought to be doing it. Tripping is especially effective.
We have a guy with an Earthbreaker, a guy with a Greatsword, and me. I *could* use a polearm, but would want to do something other than damage. Tripping seems only moderately effective, especially for a game that's going to 20, but could be worth doing as a secondary thing.
* Consider that the most efficient form of healing is to prevent incoming damage so you don't need to heal much. Needing a lot of healing indicates that your team's Battlefield Controller is not doing their job. Look at ways to minimize incoming damage before boosting healing power. E.g. Is your team's Battlefield Controller (aka Anvil) properly configuring the battlefield? E.g. Is someone preventing multi-attacking foes from landing their Full Attack, or is your front line just sucking it up? E.g. Is someone tripping foes before they can attack?
The Arcanist is doing what he can to keep us Hasted, keep them Slowed, summon things to run interference, etc. I should clarify that we don't necessarily need "a lot" of healing, but we have very little (A Battle Oracle with a 16 Cha and 4-5 spells/day), so we're burning through consumables.
* Your team lacks bardsong. Every group benefits from bardsong.* Optimal character build to fill the missing Suport and Healing roll: evangelist cleric with reach who trips. Best buffer in the game, bar none. Provides bardsong. Provides healing. Uses reach tactics to mitigate incoming damage. Protects squishies.
I've considered that, minus the tripping part. The trouble there is, a Cleric gets 2 skill points/level and has to dump traits into Disable Device/Perception. The trapfinding/Perception part is a primary concern, since it's the out-of-combat niche I currently fill, and we don't have another person who does it. There's also the question of finding a Shoanti-appropriate deity.
|
|
@OP: Thanks for the helpful answers. A few more comments:
* Your melee fighter PCs are missing the boat by failing to use reach weapons. They could be inflicting ~1.5x more damage and taking less damage if they understood and used reach tactics. They're already built for it.
* If your melee fighters provided a screen with reach weapons your team would take less damage. Thus less need to burn resources. This effect is the primary reason that pike units dominated historical battlefields for centuries. Pathfinder represents this well. Failure to use this effect is likely part of why your team takes so much damage.
* With respect to diabolical traps and tricks: is it possible to just suck up the damage and heal it away with a wand? In other words, is the role of trapfinder really particularly important? My experience has been that most traps can be handled effectively with either Summon Monster I or via a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
* If you really need a skill-monkey then Cleric is not the way to go. Clerics have awful skills. Inquisitor or Bard will get you a full skillmonkey, but at a terrible cost in lost spell slots. I've never seen a party fail for lack of a skill monkey, but I've seen lots of failures due to lack of support and healing.
* Consider tripping as a secondary role. No one on your team does it, which is their loss. Not only will you prevent incoming damage, but you'll also give your front-liners extra damage in the form of prone AoOs. All you need to do this is decent STR and a reach weapon. You do it entirely during enemy movement, so it doesn't even cost your combat action. For 20' reach carry several 50 gp Enlarge Person potions. Do note that foes you try to trip at reach do get an AoO at you but that they have to reach you before they can take that AoO.
How would you and your GM define the 'spirit of the character'? Knowing that would help with what would be appropriate.
Mechanically speaking, I think your party would be better off with a Bard than a Evangelist cleric. Clerics are short on skills, and you have an oracle so condition removal from the cleric list is available (although if not a spell known you might need consumables.) A bard would be better for skills than a cleric, making dealing with traps easier, although the not archetyped bard doesn't have the trapfinding class feature for magical traps (I'm not sure where you are getting that from on your current build, if you have it) and I don't love the bard archetypes that can get it personally.
I'd play as the character primarily as a support buffer and 'safety.' Support buffer is pretty obvious, bard song and eventually haste will be your go to first round tactic. The 'safety' aspect would be having cure spells to at least stabilize any downed companions as well as carrying some consumables for healing and condition removal (via UMD.) Spending feats to get a mount wouldn't be a horrible plan, so you could move (your mount) pull a consumable from a haversack (your move action) and activate it (standard) in a single round. Since you aren't going for a mount in combat, initially just a mundane mount would probably be fine, eventually you will probably want at least a Character level-3 mount. Being able to do things like see invisible and then glitter dust invisible opponents is also important.
You will probably also want something to do on rounds where you have already done your buffing and there isn't anything urgent requiring your attention. Being in the second line and using a reach weapon is a possiblity, although I expect you will find getting enough STR to make it really worth it difficult. Archery is also a possibility. I also like the dazzling display feat with this sort of character, a multi-target debuff that is basically -2 to everything is pretty good, especially if your party is somewhat weak on battlefield control anyway. Bards have no problem getting a high intimidate (via versatile performance.)
I would expect that with 2 2-handed melee attackers in the party you would find trying to use reach tactics to be more frustrating than useful, and I'm not positive it would be more effective anyway. There is something to be said for overwhelming offence.
|
|
@Dave Justus: how could two two-handed melee attackers become less effective if they switch to reach weapons? They might be un-coordinated and get in each others' way, which would deny them AoOs, but they'd still get all the same attacks during their own round, and with slightly greater targeting flexibility. Plus, even if they are un-coordinated, they'd still provide a protective screen for the squishy. In other words, reach weapons in unskilled hands are still more effective than other two handed weapons, just not totally awesome.
Personally, I've found reach tactics to be more effective when all the melee fighters use reach. Where this tactical approach fails is when one melee PC builds to require a full attack (i.e. two-weapon-fighter or natural-weapon-fighter) and insists on immediately rushing the foe, rather than waiting to full-attack anything that gets past the reach-screen. I agree that effective reach tactics do require more tactical coordination than, say, pure reckless aggression.
P.s. Dave, I've read your comments here for many years and value your opinion.
P.P.s. I agree with Dave that a Bard might be better than a Cleric, in this case. Clerics are more powerful but Bards have better skills.
We are talking about rebuilding one character, not an entire party. I'm assuming that the other characters, particularly since they are 3/4 BAB probably have weapons specific feats and are high STR, low DEX so combat reflexes isn't a great option either. Given that, it would be one character with reach while the rest of the party would have to adapt their combat style to them. Besides any feat issues, they also have doubtless invested wealth into their weapons, and changing them would be costly.
Beyond that, while I do appreciate reach tactics in general, I don't think they are anywhere near the last word on combat tactics. Reach is one of the easiest things in the game to overcome, only taking an acrobatics role and this is particularly true if you are trying to base it on a 3/4 BaB character (lower CMB.) Later game, reach tactics continue to offer diminishing returns as foes either become larger or smarter and with more special abilities.
One real problem with reach tactics, which may or may not manifest depending on GM style, is that you are effectively conceding the initiative to your opponents waiting for them to initiate the action. Depending on what they are bringing, that can be disastrous.
How would you and your GM define the 'spirit of the character'? Knowing that would help with what would be appropriate.
(continued...)
So, by my best estimation, it's important that Eskah retains her Shoanti heritage, remains a Sorshen clone, and is relatively curmudgeonly. Not particularly outdoorsy/woodsy, and not especially religious, although Pharasma or maybe Desna would be acceptable deities, given the character thus far. She's not into the use of a mount or animal companion, both for logistical reasons and because it doesn't fit her surly, tough-lady demeanor.
A Bard or something akin to a Bard is a good call, I'm also considering Investigator with the Infusion discovery to help out with buffing/condition removal.
Ideal world, the three things I'm looking for, in order of priority, are:
1. Decent skills, especially Perception/Disable Device (The magical trap part of Trapfinding can be a trait, like it is for me currently, but I still want those two skills to be pretty high).
2. Secondary healing/condition removal/support spells
3. Not Strength-based, so either doing something in melee with Dex, or doing a non-damage thing in combat (debuffing, combat maneuvers, buffing, intimidate/fear, etc. are all reasonable options)
If you want to up the 'Shoanti' feeling of the character, a Savage Skald archetype bard might help. I don't love the things you get with archetype, but it has lots of flavor and I don't particulary love the things you give away either, is getting flavor would be a fine trade for me. Thundercaller also has a nice barbaric feel and doesn't trade out too much of value either.
Along those lines, in some ways a Skald would be excellent. In particular spell kenning would be a huge plus for condition removal and such. I think though with the 3/4 BaB caster front line you have rage is going to be a lot less useful than inspire courage.
Two other things from your previous posts.
1) if your Arcanist is doing battlefield control (good for him) he shouldn't be providing the haste. Waiting for the second round to try and control the battlefield largely means failing to control it. He needs to be able to focus on his job. Obviously haste is a great spell, so you being able to take that over is pretty important (7th level bard, investigators who are infusion based can't really cover this at all, outside UMD.)
2) Using consumables for healing out of combat isn't a bad thing at all. Wands of CLW are cheap, and well worth it. Outside of some specialized builds, healing during combat is usually a waste and those actions are better spent getting the combat done with so you can heal at leisure. If you are cheap, the above mentioned healers hands feat isn't horrible, and as a bard you would have more skills than anyone else to make this work.
|
|
@Dave Justus: Thanks. Good answer. I agree. What you say about the psychology of previous investment is probably true. We're only changing this one PC. While the other melee PCs might be more effective if they carried a non-magical longspear instead of their magic greatword, the prospect of doing so hurts too much to consider, so they probably won't do it.
Perhaps the OP can, at least, mention this option to the other melee PCs.
I agree that reach tactics get less effective in the late game. Relatively few Paizo-published foes can use acrobatics to get inside reach, but some can. PCs often build to defeat reach, but foes rarely do.
I would never advocate using reach tactics in a situation that brooks no delay. Reach tactics work well against certain foes and poorly against others. Reach tactics are most effective against melee foes who lack effective ranged attacks. High level foes typically have effective ranged attacks, which is part of what makes them more dangerous.
Mostly I want all players to know that reach tactics exist as an option. It's not discussed in any rule book, so many players overlook this option. It only becomes a viable tactic once one has acquired sufficient system mastery. For example, had those other two two-handed melee PCs used reach weapons from the start they could only be more, not less, effective at both destroying their foes and protecting their team. But this is not obvious from looking at the weapon charts, so it's often overlooked.
Obviously the meta of a game matters. For a PFS character, reach tactics are almost always going to be viable.
For a non-PFS game, that is generally less true. When I GM I want my players to have interesting, challenging encounters and if a certain tactic (whatever it is) it trivializing encounter I am going to assume that the world has adapted (within the rules) to deal with that tactic.
That doesn't mean I am going to hard shut down my players, or counter their builds, but I am going to have at least some encounters adapt to them.
I also think you underestimate the times when reach weapons are a liability. I have seen plenty of cases where a 5' step away wasn't an option and changing weapons isn't a trivial issue either. Not only are you giving up your best weapon, you are sacrificing a full attack to get out another one (or going with a probably even less optimal option like a spiked gauntlet.)
Understanding reach weapons is good. Reach weapon builds can be effective and fun. They are not the only answer to the tactical problems presented by the game though. Honestly, If I was to pick the 'best' tactical answer to the most situations it would be ranged weapons and mounts, but that has situations where it falls down too.
Magda:
We're a pretty experienced group with a pretty high degree of system mastery. We're familiar with reach tactics, the use of polearms/tripping, etc. There are a number of factors that make that suggestion suboptimal for this situation:
1. I've specifically stated I don't want to play a Strength-based character.
2. My teammates have a fair amount of investment in the weapons/feats that have already been selected.
3. We have nobody with full BAB to pull of tripping with any consistency.
4. Tripping loses effectiveness when things start flying. This is a campaign about Runelords that is going to level 20. Things *will* be flying regularly in the not-distant future.
That said, Dave, I sincerely appreciate your input/insight. I hadn't really considered Bard as an option since I recently played a TWF Desna-worshipping Arcane Duelist with Divine Fighting Technique (6 attacks for 1d3+30 was hilarious), but you've given me some things worth considering, in the form of a more supportive bard, especially with our Arcanist's summons. I'm still eyeing the Investigator for all of the sweet Alchemical Allocation tricks/fun talents, and also giving Inquisitor a second look, but Bard is giving me something worth perusing as well.
Investigator and Inquisitor are both good classes with a lot of fun potential and can certainly be effective in your group. I think bard would be more effective, but whether or not it would be more fun would be a question only you can answer.
You might also consider a Magus.
Good skills since INT based.
Can be Dex based.
Great burst damage.
Can caste Haste to take pressure off your controller.
Very maneuverable, spells like bladed dash can take you right to the back lines of your enemies and take them out, something the other melee in your group might find difficult to do.
|
|
Cool oh! A few years ago I GMd the last book of Rise of the Runelords. The characters were hyper-optimized and had been crushing every fight way too easily. Their GM was having a hard time challenging the PCs. Their GM asked me to step in as GM and to switch things up to put the game in Hard Mode, per the players' request.
That part of the adventure featured a city of giants. The PCs had several optimized reach builds that just crushed giants, even the bigger ones. PCs had been using these techniques for a long time and their foes had plenty of time to observe and adjust. This is where I took over.
The villains noticed PC tactics and adjusted. I didn't change the foes' numbers at all. I only changed their behavior.
My changes were twofold:
#1 All the giants carried a longspear and used reach tactics by default.
#2 Instead of staying put until the PCs came to kill them, giants would gather and move according to pre-arranged drill.
That was all it took to knock the PCs off their pedestal!
Foes formed larger groups and moved around, instead of waiting around in small groups to be killed. The PCs now had to sometimes retreat, instead of easily stomping everything they met. The players enjoyed this a lot more.
Giving every giant a longspear tilted the odds back towards the giants even more than clumping in groups! Giants with longspears are a lot more combat-capable than giants lacking longspears. Previously the size of the giants had hampered them, preventing more than 2 or 3 from ever attacking a front line PC. Now, with reach, suddenly 4 to 9 giants could attack each front line PC! Giants were also able to flank far more often. Previously, flanking was something that PCs did to monsters, not the other way around! PCs basically had to contend with trying to break giant pike squares, and found the task quite difficult!
This situation continued for several sessions, with PCs gradually gaining an advantage. Then PCs made a critical big error and got caught between two roving giant patrols and got the stuffing beat out of them. PCs activated their 'emergency escape' options and fled the field just as they were about to fall to a thicket of giant longspears. So the PCs were defeated, failed to complete the AP, and fled the field, but were not slain. PCs had so many layers-of-escape that there was basically zero chance of anything, except possibly the end boss, killing them.
The players told me they had a rollicking good time. They told me it was terrific to be tactically challenged. They gave me kudos for giving them such a hard time using deeply inferior foes, just by playing those inferior foes with more intelligence and better tactical acumen. They said it was more fun to lose to worthy foes than to win against easy pickings.
Things I learned from this:
#1 Monsters are way more dangerous when they work as a group.
#2 Giants with reach weapons are really powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify, this is for RETURN of the Runelords. Not Rise. Giants are not a thing.
But, that sounds like a super cool adventure for your party!