| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.
Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
I'm pretty sure the question isn't as embarrassing as you think. There has been a lot of concerns regarding "viability" or similar concepts about a game that has been barely out.
I, for one, have as the sole concern when creating a character is "how can represent this character with the options available and does this character is functional?". So, far, I don't feel like I'm creating characters that don't function well, which was fairly easy to do in PF1e due to misconceptions (some of them even because of guides, I might add).
Remember, the game is new, it's an entirely different environment. What was good before may not be good now. Simple example? Combat healing is strong now, this changes the evaluation of some choices that would receive a low "grade" in PF1e for doing the same task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
Okay, well, I'll let myself out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
i do it all the time, get to about level 5 and the rest of my party is actually doing things in combat, so i usually roll up a more standard character after that.
although my GM also doesn't like martials doing extraordinary things, so eventually it's just funner to play a caster anyway.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
That isn't fair. Wanting your character to be viable isn't 'wanting to power build'.
A lot of complaints are "I want to do this, but it makes me an actively worse character." which means that they want to make a character based on a concept, but they can't because it would be ineffective as part of the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
I think this was a joke in response to what might have been a tongue-in-cheek OP.
Richard
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
If the OP was a serious question, then I'll say that I usually mix it up. To make my current Warpriest character I definitely poured over the forums for ideas on making a strong character but I still picked a Deity with less than ideal blessings (Pharasma, healing and death). If I wasn't playing with a couple of other players who are serious min-maxers I'd probably loosen up a bit myself.
Richard
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(...) although my GM also doesn't like martials doing extraordinary things, so eventually it's just funner to play a caster anyway.
Oh, that's so horrible... Is there any chance of improving said situation by yourself?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I make them all the time. I'm pretty sure if someone looked at most of my PF1 characters they'd think I was a totally new player. But I've only ever had one character die out of the two dozen plus I've played in either APs or PFS. And I think most people would say they didn't regret having those characters at the table with them.
It is entirely possible to make a non-"optimal" character that is fun to play but who can still meaningfully contribute at the table.
That being said, when you create a character in a system like pathfinder, you should be aware that the math of the system plays a big part in how your character performs. When you are building a character I feel it behooves a player to acknowledge the role the math will affect things at the table. Role playing games contain within them a social contract, sometimes spoken sometimes not, that when we sit at the table we're all there to work together to have a good time playing the game we love.
If a player shows up with a character they built for fun but that is mechanically unsound no matter how fun the character is when the rubber meets the road it can cause problems not only with the player's enjoyment but with the enjoyment of the other players at the table. For example if someone brings an elf sorcerer to the table who put all their stat increases into STR and WIS because they want their character to be strong and insightful but they have done nothing to address the fact that they have 8 CON and terrible AC that character is going to become a liability at some point and the other characters then have to pick up the slack which isn't a fun position to be in.
I don't feel anyone should feel compelled to subscribe to the "one true build" mentality. The difference between a 16 and 18 in a stat to allow for different choices at character creation is not going to spell the ruination of all things for a character.
As long as a player recognizes the consequences of their choices then play whatever ancestry/background/class combo you want. But I feel like it's the responsibility of every player to develop a good grasp of system mechanics so the choices they make are informed choices. It's when we let the mechanics drive every choice we make that it becomes a problem.
So all the math coversations are good in my opinion. Just don't feel bound by them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work. No matter how cool a concept is, if they aren't able to handle the expected baseline of challenges, they'll stop being fun once put on the table.
Effective gimmicks and fun builds need to both have the novelty/theme and also to "work". PF1 has a lot of builds that outright suck, but with enough system mastery you can make most concepts work "just enough" to hang in there.
We're not at that point yet. A lot of PF2 exotic builds are barely able to function vs On-Level enemies at higher levels.
That's why I think organized play players have a tendency to ruin the game for people that are just trying to play a character without having to agonize over DPS blah blah per round. But hey, one man's BADWRONGFUN is another man's second edition, so more power to ya.
Part of the reason the exotic builds may not be up to par is that we only have one book so far. Gunslinger was nonfunctional when PF1 released... there were no guns. Nor were Alchemists functional, even though you could take craft alchemy and use alchemist's fire and call that a build, if you wanted to...
Anyways @OP,
I like to build for fun AND profit. PF2 math makes that super easy. Very few reasons you can’t have a 16 or 18 in your primary attack's stat, and so long as you have either number, you will be a perfectly capable adventurer. All the rest is neat stuff you can do, flavoring how your character feels and runs.
As opposed to PF1 where if you were a ranged attacker there were those feats you absolutely had to take or else each shot took a huge penalty and you were wasting everybody's time...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm definitely not saying that you shouldn't make sensible choices with your stats. You obviously don't want to make a character that sucks at their role. But there are so many players who minmax. Being that persnickety just sucks the fun out of the game for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the reason the exotic builds may not be up to par is that we only have one book so far. Gunslinger was nonfunctional when PF1 released... there were no guns. Nor were Alchemists functional, even though you could take craft alchemy and use alchemist's fire and call that a build, if you wanted to...
... Sort Of!
PF2 Core Rulebook has like, some ideas that were almost amazing, but appear to have been intentionally held back. Look at the proficiency debacle, it almost seems like an oversight that it doesn't enable a buncha mixed builds. Fighter multiclass was doing insane things in the playtest and it got neutered, and some feel like barely fail to live up to their potential. Some of the builds people in the forums come up with seem good, but then it turns out they misread/misunderstood some feat or trait and it goes down the drain.I think Core PF2 could have allowed a lot of viable builds, but there was a conscious decision to limit them so they wouldn't get out of control.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw lots of people make flavour characters with D&D 4th ed (Pathfinder as well). Some of those flavour characters were a lot of fun to play. But those (especially in 4th ed) who tried to step out of their class’s box or weren’t sufficiently optimised at level 1, quite frequently became less and less enjoyable to play as the frustration of not being able to hit the expected target numbers got worse and worse. Eventually those players stopped having fun with those characters at all, and consequently stopped enjoying the game.
It is perfectly valid to test whether or not PF2e has inherited those flaws, especially when you consider how much it borrowed from D& D 4th ed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The number crunching is a precursor to play, I crunch out characters that do exactly what I want and it facilitates my roleplaying in game. I don't understand how these are separate.
Maybe it isn't different for some people. And maybe I didn't word it as well as I should've. I'm not against analysing character options. It's just that the way some people discuss their character building just seems so joyless and mechanical. But maybe for them, it isn't.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless someone's streaming their game, you'll never know if someone who's planning out their character with mechanics in mind are roleplaying their character less or not caring about their character's backstory or personality.
Are there people who use PF or D&D as simple math games? Sure. I played with quite a few back in my 3.5 days. Are there people who play these games as narratives first and don't care one bit about their damage output? Yes! I kinda lean that way myself. But I've also played with a lot of people who could be seen as "minmaxers" but care very much about their character's story. They are 100% not mutually exclusive. Good ol' Stormwind's Fallacy.
If you're baffled by players discussing and arguing about the minutia of damage output and AC deficiencies, I'm kinda there with you. As far I can tell, PF2e can be completely functional if you don't minmax as long as you try to make something competent. But we should not assume they're not roleplayers just because they have a different philosophy on character creation. And really, that's all it is. A different philosophy on character creation, not really on play.
I would say that some of the critiques and discussions on the rules are legit people worrying that certain things might not even be bad rules that make the game less fun and make character ideas less viable.
You should also know the difference between making a viable character and minmaxing for power. The first still requires a discussion on rules and builds, as this is still a new system, and some people are worried some stuff might not work. The second is baffling to me as well.
But we all have our ways of play, and we should always keep that in mind.
/my 2cp
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But there are so many players who minmax. Being that persnickety just sucks the fun out of the game for me.
Don't forget that these forums are an "opt in" group of people who feel very strongly about Pathfinder. They don't generally represent all players as a whole. I have players that have been with me since 3/3.5/4e/PF1 that have never once interacted with the game outside of the table. Their experience with role-playing begins when the dice come out and ends when they go away.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate fun. Every time someone even brings up having fun in Pathfinder I get a little sick to my stomach.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have pretty much zero interest in optimization, and my care about much of the rules is borderline vestigial. I’m mostly here for character options that feel evocative and for the lore.
|
Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.
I make-up stories in my free time and characters based off media I consumed here's four I made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYgwbUCFayA| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its like the speed you drive your car at.
Anyone who drives noticeably slower than you is a timid Sunday driver who is impeding traffic and shouldn't be on the road.
Anyone whose character is more effective than yours is a fun stealing munchkin optimizer who can't role-play and you should exclude them from your game for lowering the tone.
Anyone whose character is less effective than yours is endangering the rest of the party by not pulling their weight and you should dump the newb loser.
It takes a few uncomfortable conversations to go through with all that and you may take some social splash damage, but it will eventually lead to the nirvana of a perfect game. Or more likely finding yourself googling "how to play TTRPGs solo?"
Its like the speed you drive your car at. ** spoiler omitted **
Anyone whose character is more effective than yours is a fun stealing munchkin optimizer who can't role-play and you should exclude them from your game for lowering the tone.
Anyone whose character is less effective than yours is endangering the rest of the party by not pulling their weight and you should dump the newb loser.
No...no dumping and exclusion...they just need to realize the errors of their ways and come join the right side :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't minmax in general, however, when I come up with a character concept I try to make it as effective as possible within that concept.
For example, I wanted to make a Fighter that uses Whips. Okay, so I'm committing myself to d4 damage - that's Whip damage and it makes sense. If there's a way to increase it, awesome, if there isn't, that's okay too.
What bugs me is when the limitation feels inconsistent or overly limited. This is why I am annoyed with the weapon/armour proficiency status. Only Martials can get Master? Sure, makes sense. Only Fighters can get to Legendary weapons? Very cool, makes sense, they are the undisputed weapon masters; non-martials can't get past Expert makes sense too.
But when they artifically limit the weapons to which I can get to Expert with the weapon it's been using from level 1, now we have a problem. Especially if feats exist to become trained, stay trained, and then suddenly a Bard knows how to wield a Longsword they haven't picked up in ages better than the Temple Sword it's been using since 1st level. Why? This makes no sense. It feels simply wrong for my character concept. And yes, numbers matter, not because my character is suddenly unplayable, but because IT MAKES NO SENSE.
And no, multiclassing and/or picking a particular race isn't an option, precisely because of the roleplaying aspect. I'm not building a Fightery Bard. I'm building a Bard that is very Bardy except they use a weapon that normal Bards do not. I do not wish to be better than other Bards at fighting, I just want to use the weapon that the miniature I'm using has.
I suppose I try to make my characters as effective as I can. I've never dipped into another class for extra power but I do look over my class and feat (I guess ancestry and skill now too) options and choose what I believe would be the most effective for what I'm trying to do. Since RP and character concept isn't really something that can be debated very easily as it's so subjective these forums tend to gravitate towards rules and builds. DPR can be a fun activity when one isn't playing the game but want to still experience the game. Just my 2cp.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you think people can't do both? I'm a handsdown powergamer, ask anyone I play with. Not ashamed. HOWEVER, everyone of my 40+ PFS1 characters, my 2 D+D5E, and all my other RPG characters, have a theme, for story purposes. Just because I make them ALSO quite good at what they do, and powerful to boot, doesn't mean I am compromising my 'theme'.
For example, I have a PFS1 Grippli that licks people all the time, and uses his tongue like most people use their hands. So I went aberration bloodline, and made him capable of delivering touch spells at up to 25' at level 9. I focused on Spell pen, and maximizing my dice/damage per spell, but he is VERY often getting in trouble because of his theme.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My current PF1e character is basically the Androffan equivalent to Megaman.
When I created him, I made a checklist of all of Megaman's defining features and I researched every class and archetype.
I gave a numeric value to each feature the class gave depending on how closely it came to being like Megaman.
I deducted points for features that ran counter to my definition of Megaman.
I deducted half points for superfluous feature that did nothing of interest.
And I did this all with no regard to viability.
I had hella fun building Nth.
I have lots of fun playing him, because he feels pretty close to Megsman.
Is he as strong as he could have been as a Ranger?
No.
But he is definitely more fun.
(...) although my GM also doesn't like martials doing extraordinary things, so eventually it's just funner to play a caster anyway.Oh, that's so horrible... Is there any chance of improving said situation by yourself?
yeah, just being a caster.
tbc, we were using spheres of might and power, it just took too much convincing that is was okay from a mechanically point of view for me to pick up various 'martial' abilities, because they were too crazy. like wall running which takes 3 talents(as a martial) versus flight which takes 2(as a caster) and lets you just float in the air. both come online around level 7.
we're playing Way of the Wicked, a high power level AP so it's not about limiting options, it really just came down to it not making sense that someone not focusing in the arcane arts had these abilities, as my guy is explicitly magical, and i explained him being able to do the things as magical (that were Su abilities anyway).
so, i'm just playing a divination Wizard with streaks of transmutation and necromancy.
I like to crunch the numbers.
There's me playing a bad ass, effortlessly slaying orc commando death knights with every attack, then I place my dice squarely on the table and in a firm clear voice say "turn". Then Mr RPdamagedon'tmatter shakily picks up his dice in his sweaty hands and ineffectively paws at the blind goblin cripple, he drops his dice and whimpers out a turn as the table try not to look at him.
Wow you sound like a condecending pain in the neck to have at a table. I play minmaxed characters my self in 1e, but god am I glad I don't have the need to feel superior to others at my table and write drivel like this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if that's what all of you want, the trick is to play a different style of game where "effective" doesn't depend so much on combat.
That isn't fair. Wanting your character to be viable isn't 'wanting to power build'.A lot of complaints are "I want to do this, but it makes me an actively worse character." which means that they want to make a character based on a concept, but they can't because it would be ineffective as part of the party.
I disagree completely. If we got a few more options and like 2 minor changes to the rules, you could create a lot of character concepts within 2e while still being effective part of the party. That's what a lot of the 'minmaxers' are asking for, they want like one thing that will make their concept viable within the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if that's what all of you want, the trick is to play a different style of game where "effective" doesn't depend so much on combat.
Sucking out of combat just because of silly restrictions is just as bad. There isn't a restrictions saying that Barbarians can't advance Arcana past trained just because they didn't gain the skill from class but instead spent a general feat on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if that's what all of you want, the trick is to play a different style of game where "effective" doesn't depend so much on combat.
That isn't fair. Wanting your character to be viable isn't 'wanting to power build'.A lot of complaints are "I want to do this, but it makes me an actively worse character." which means that they want to make a character based on a concept, but they can't because it would be ineffective as part of the party.
Combat is such an important part of the game. Look at any Paizo AP, even the roleplay heavy ones easily have combat take up a third of the time. You know what isn’t fun? Not contributing to the success of the game for a third of the time. Remember fighters from PF1e? How they had nothing to contribute outside of combat? That was the number 1 complaint about the class. Why is it ok to complain about that, but not okay to complain about having the same problem in combat?
I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work.Your notion of what's fun to roleplay seems to exclude a fair amount of things mine do not, and I appreciate the game supporting both parts of that range.
Its easy to play an ineffective combat character. Spread your stats so your highest score is a 14 (or put your highest score in charisma on a non-Sorcerer/bard. The game does support your style of play. What people are checking/complaining about is whether it supports their style of play.
I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work.Your notion of what's fun to roleplay seems to exclude a fair amount of things mine do not, and I appreciate the game supporting both parts of that range.
I crunched the numbers to check whether starting with a 16 in your primary stat was viable. That’s right. I did a dirty thing and crunched numbers on a non-optimal choice. In fact, I’ve largely been doing that. Why? Because I want to see what the tolerance is for not min/maxing.
So before you pat yourself on the back as a superior role player, you might want to look at the context in which numbers are getting crunched.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you've forgotten what a joke is.Wow you sound like a condecending pain in the neck to have at a table. I play minmaxed characters my self in 1e, but god am I glad I don't have the need to feel superior to others at my table and write drivel like this.I like to crunch the numbers.
There's me playing a bad ass, effortlessly slaying orc commando death knights with every attack, then I place my dice squarely on the table and in a firm clear voice say "turn". Then Mr RPdamagedon'tmatter shakily picks up his dice in his sweaty hands and ineffectively paws at the blind goblin cripple, he drops his dice and whimpers out a turn as the table try not to look at him.
To be fair, it's an easy mistake to make, since I think we've all seen that person at one time or another. Poe's law, y'know.
In regards to the thread topic, it's pretty simple - no one wants to be useless at the table. Thus, the math has to work.
Its easy to play an ineffective combat character. Spread your stats so your highest score is a 14 (or put your highest score in charisma on a non-Sorcerer/bard. The game does support your style of play. What people are checking/complaining about is whether it supports their style of play.I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work.Your notion of what's fun to roleplay seems to exclude a fair amount of things mine do not, and I appreciate the game supporting both parts of that range.
I'd say a 16 Dex/16-18 Cha Scoundrel rogue is pretty viable. Maybe not exactly what one would expect from a Rogue, but it should work pretty well.
I'd say a 16 Dex/16-18 Cha Scoundrel rogue is pretty viable. Maybe not exactly what one would expect from a Rogue, but it should work pretty well.Its easy to play an ineffective combat character. Spread your stats so your highest score is a 14 (or put your highest score in charisma on a non-Sorcerer/bard. The game does support your style of play. What people are checking/complaining about is whether it supports their style of play.I mean... There is a minimum line that any build has to cross before it's "viable". And being viable is not just about "winning", but about "fun". It's not fun to suck, to get owned by monsters, to miss more than half the time, that your spells never work.Your notion of what's fun to roleplay seems to exclude a fair amount of things mine do not, and I appreciate the game supporting both parts of that range.
That wasn’t what I was saying. I was something more like
STR 14
CON 14
DEX 12
INT 14
WIS 12
CHA 12
Pretty sure with human, right background and rogue such a character is possible. If you want to play an ineffective combat character the above would definitely help achieve it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly with the TEML proficiency system and the increased ability boosts, I'm much less concerned about number crunching in 2e than I was in 1e. It seems alot easier to build decent characters in this edition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
CharOp is just a game to play in between sessions.