As the title states which side of fence do you stand? Me I’ll always favor the well rounded character both as a player and a GM. Give him flaws make him come alive. I aways get bored at the character that has no real story or flavor but can out damage the rest of the party. To clarify I mean a character whose choice in feats,Skills and traits are not all combat/number crunch but choices that add layers to the story vs. highest possible dice result.
Depends on the amount of party cohesion. Most of the "can handle anything" character builds are because people are playing PFS where they have no idea or control over the party comp so they may need to fill a missing role at any given table. When I play its in a long term group, that sits down and discusses party dynamics before anyone creates a character, so more focused characters get built. Thats not to say everyone's on the bleeding edge of optimization, but having a bad save that gets shored up by some other PC's class abilities, or not making your fighter a particularly good face because someones rolling a 20 cha gnome bard in the party isn't uncommon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you may be falling victim to the stormwind fallacy. I like playing optimized characters. I also love the background rules from ultimate campaign as it makes it easier to create a character with a fully fleshed out background.
Case in point. I made the following character for a new campaign. This is the optimized framework
Mythic Pack Lord Hunter (Cavalier/Hunter)
Build used in Wrath of the Righteous Campaign
Key concepts: A Hunter with two powerful beasts
Deity: Erastil
Race: Human
Racial Traits: Eye for Talent, Fey Magic, Fey Thoughts
Traits: Adopted->Tusked, Threatening Defender, Touched by divinity[Growth/Archon]
Drawbacks: Warded Against Nature
Class: Cavalier (1), Hunter (3), Cavalier (3), Hunter(2), Mammoth Rider(1), Hunter(X)
Archetype(s): Packmaster, Uprooter Scout(Hunter), Mother’s Fang (Cavalier)
Mythic Path(s): Hierophant / Marshal
Surge Ability: Beast’s Fury / Decisive Strike
M. Path abilities: Tactical Genius[Paired Opportunists], Mounted Marshal, Beyond Morality, Blessed Companion, Tactical Genius[Blood for the Empire], Tactical Genius[Shake it off], Inspiring Assault, Mythic Companion, (), ()
A. Comp: Constrictor(1st)/(7th), Cat[big](10th)
Key Feats: Auspicious Birth[Conjunction](1st), Exotic Heritage [K. Nature] (3rd), Eldritch Heritage[Sylvan] (5th), Horse Master(7th), Deific Obedience(9th), Diversified Obedience(11th), [Pick 4] G. Trip, Racial Heritage(Ratfolk), Saoc Brethren Initiate, Combat Reflexes, Favored Animal Focus, Totem Beast, Power Attack
Bonus Feats: EWP Butchering Axe [Cavalier](1st), EWP Orc Hornbow [Cavalier](1st), Combat Expertise [Cavalier](1st), Pack Flanking[Cavalier](5th)
Bonus M. Feats: Dual Path, Eldritch Heritage[Mythic], Racial Heritage[Mythic], Legendary Teamwork, ()
Bonus TW Feats: Precise Strike[Cavalier](1st), Outflank[Hunter](3rd), +1 # of Companions[Hunter](4th), Snapping Flank(11th), (14th), (17th), (20th)
Suggested Teamwork Feat: [Pick 3] Lookout, Escape Route, Broken Wing Gambit, Wounded Paw Gambit, Passing Grace, Bonded Mind, Duck and Cover, Seize the Moment, Tribe Mentality, Rat Stack, Rending Swarm
Suggested Feats: Chain Challenge, Horn of the Criosphinx, Coordinated Charge, Battle Cry, Masked Renown, Planar Focus, Shield Focus, Unhindering Shield, Spirit's Gift
Suggested Gear: General Gear: Mnemonic Vestment, Belt of Impossible Action, Page of Spell Knowledge, Whet Bones, Equestrian Belt, Corset of Delicate Moves, Juggernaut’s Pauldrons, healer’s satchel, Cracked Magenta Prism (Ioun Stone), gauntlets of the skilled maneuver(trip), Ring of Tactical Precision, Vambraces of the Tactician, Commander's Helm, Amulet of Mighty Fists Training[Power Attack], Menacing, Fortuitous(+3 total), Resplendent Uniform, Champion’s Banner, Ring of Sacred Mistletoe, Woodsman’s Clasp, Runestone of Power, Thorny Ioun Stone(Brown), Adhesive(Armor Enchant)
Specialty Weapons: +5 Shrinking, Training [Greater Trip], Impact, Dueling, leveraging, Growing Butchering Axe(+10 total) , War Lance, +1 Resizing, Adaptive Composite Orc hornbow
Specialty Armor: Hosteling Rhino Hide/Mammoth Hide of Jousting
Then after rolling up a background using ultimate campaign I wrote the following backstory for the character.
Gethyc Sundew's Backstory
Gethyc was born in Ustalav to a pair of low class half-nagaji parents. His birth however, was an auspicious one, being born during the celestial conjunction of Castrovel and Aucturn, a good omen. His appearance was practically human with the only trait hinting at his origins being his extraordinarily sharp fangs. Initially, his parents saw his birth as a blessing. The couple was even visited by a stag archon when Gethyc was 3. He was too young to remember it, but he was gifted with a silver broach depicting a bow and arrow (a holy symbol of Erastil). A keepsake he has held on ever since. As Gethyc grew older, his human appearance began to cause talk among the villagers. Eventually, fearing for his life, his parents arranged to have Gethyc adopted by some humans living in the nearby city of Karau, a linen draper that occasionally traded with the village for exotic materials.
Life in the city wasn’t easy but Gethyc adapted to his surroundings. His old home had been built within the ruins of a castle so the stone and wood of the city felt oddly comforting. When Gethyc was 8 he was tricked into entering the sewers. Once there he was attacked by a swarm of rats. Clutching his broach, he begged for protection. His pleas were heard by a crazed gnome druid that lived in the sewers. The druid declared that under the authority of Erastil no animal was to harm the boy, warding him against nature. This decree kept the rats at bay, who then turned on the druid. Gethyc fled, never learning the fate the druid that helped him. But ever since that encounter horses, dogs and other animals refused to approach Gethyc often cowering in terror. As Gethyc grew older he found that he had a hard time making friends. His adoptive father disappeared, having apparently run off with another woman. This created talk which wasn’t helped by his fangs and un-natural aura. Those who tried to put the pieces together, wrongly came to believe that he was at best a damphir and at worst a vampire in disguise. While in other places this might have led to him to be lynched by a mob. In Ustalav, where vampire families have power, Gethyc and his family were merely shunned. It was during this dark time in his life that he grew closer to his adoptive older sister. It was from her display of unconditional love toward him that he gained a deep understanding of what family meant. His world however, would be shattered once he became a teenager.
At the age of 14, he fell in love with a girl. Her name was Selimia and she was an aspiring singer apprenticing at the great opera house. He met her when she visited the family shop and Gethyc would watch when she was measured for dresses. After some time, she even began to fall for him. This did not go un-noticed however, and Gethyc was taken aside by a man named Narthrul, a talented lute player who also sought the affections of Selimia. He convinced Gethyc that a relationship with Selimia would destroy her reputation. That the only way Gethyc could spare her was to publicly denounce and reject her. Gethyc did this and much to his horror it had the exact effect he was trying to avoid. She was humiliated and her association with him caused her to lose her apprenticeship. In shame Gethyc left city, after leaving a note to his family, and traveled along roads that were… oddly familiar.
After several weeks of wandering in the forest he found the nagaji village where he was born. At first he was not recognized by the villagers and would of probably been killed except the guard snakes refused to approach Gethyc. All except one, Flametongue, who not only approached him but wrapped her body around him and took on a protective stance.
This was enough to allow him to stay, while the village decided if he was to have a permanent place among them. During this time, as is common in the area, a terrible storm hit. Gethyc was asked to help gather food and materials for the village before the weather made it too dangerous to do so. It was during this outing that a lightning bolt split a tree that came crashing down on top of the scout party’s leader. Without even thinking Gethyc rushed to their rescue and lifted the tree off of them. When they returned the village, word spread of Gethyc’s actions. It was decided that Gethyc would be allowed to stay and if he wished he would be trained as one of their warriors. Gethyc accepted and over time rose through the ranks eventually becoming a Mother’s Fang, one of their elite guard, with Flametongue as his mount.
Three months ago, Gethyc had a terrible dream. A stag stood with a blazing forest fire behind it. It spoke to him and told him that he needed to travel north into the flames, to the city of Kenabres. That he would be needed in the upcoming conflict. So, after getting his village’s blessing and making a brief stop in Karau to visit his family and to gather supplies, he set off for Kenabres.
So, to summarize. I like building characters that are optimized toward a particular goal. Then I start drawing connections about what the character is like based on the traits, feats, etc. that I chose for the character. One doesn't preclude me from the other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is entirely possible to have an OP character with a 12 page backstory.
Pathfinder is not the only thing that rewards specialization. Real life rewards specialization as well. Look at any highly successful person in real life and for the most part they would be considered optimized one dimensional characters. Bill Gates is not known for his athletic powers. Most athletes are not that big on intellectual capabilities outside their respective game. There are of course exception to this but they are extremely rare. Those people are the equivalent of someone rolling up a character with an extremely high point buy.
Most highly successful people are also quite focused on their specialty. This is the equivalent of taking the optimal choice of feats for the particular role. A successful salesman is more likely to have a decent CHA and take skill focus and persuasive than he is to boost STR and take power attack. The boxer on the other hand will be taking those feats.
In my opinion someone who writes up the “Well rounded” character is often writing up something less realistic and quite frankly more boring than an optimized character. What makes a character interesting is how he is different. Ironically the OP talks about giving flaws and giving the character a background. This is actually easier when you have an optimized character. To me the story of Cu Chulainn is a hell of lot more interesting than the character Brian in the Life of Brian. One of them was the descendant of a god and used a unique fighting style taught to him by a mysterious warrior woman. The other was born in Rome around the time of Christ. Can you tell which one would be considered optimized? Which one would you rather play?
Backstory isn’t what I mean by well rounded. Sure the fighter doesn’t need to be a face but what does your character do during downtime to make them interesting and entertaining to listen to. Too many times I’ve seen the optimist only shine in combat then zone out the rest of the game or they always play the “strong silent type” its boring at a table where there is more then combat. For example rhe current game I’m playing they are building a city from scratch. In between upgrades to said city they do out and dungeon crawl for loot to build. The characters that only picked skills to enchance combat are finding they are not as important during the meat of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backstory isn’t what I mean by well rounded. Sure the fighter doesn’t need to be a face but what does your character do during downtime to make them interesting and entertaining to listen to. Too many times I’ve seen the optimist only shine in combat then zone out the rest of the game or they always play the “strong silent type” its boring at a table where there is more then combat. For example rhe current game I’m playing they are building a city from scratch. In between upgrades to said city they do out and dungeon crawl for loot to build. The characters that only picked skills to enchance combat are finding they are not as important during the meat of the game.
What you're describing is making a character that is a one trick pony vs making a character that is versatile. It's possible to make a character that is optimized without them being a one trick pony. Even in games that heavily feature combat a one trick pony can find themselves with little to do if the enemy being faced is immune to their specialty.
Did players know the sort of campaign they would be playing ahead of time? Were they warned that it wouldn't have much combat?
It's not fun in general to play a game where your character is a bad fit for the "meat" of the campaign. Players should be warned what type of game they will be playing prior to the game starting so they can make characters that are appropriate to the expected challenges. If there's a concern that players will walk if they know ahead of time it means that's not the sort of game those players want to play and its disingenuous to trick them into playing.
A player who spent all their feats on combat ability will be bored in a game with little combat. Just as a player who spent all their feats on intrigue will be bored with a mega dungeon. Sure both players occasionally get to do the thing they excel at but such instances will be so rare that it won't make up for the massive bordem they experience the rest of the time.
If you're looking for out of combat activity:
I've played with a combat engineer who was playing a wizard focused on the alchemy skill. He would harvest any strange plant or animal part we came across and invent tools like shocker lizard gloves to allow him to handle electrified items safely.
This same group negotiated a band of raiding hobgoblins into a legitimate trading post, with the party as investors.
Many of my players have established business and guilds.
They were all either optimized for combat or very capable at it. I think it's the players who add the dimensions to the characters rather than the stats.
I think one dimensional characters are usually the result of wargamer mindset rather than roleplayer mindset.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yawn, Stormwind Fallacy. You can have a fascinating Reactionary + Rich Parents venerable Diviner Wizard with Sacred Geometry, Leadership and Dazing Spell + roleplay it in a tantalizingly fascinating manner with a rich backstory while at the same time winning the game, because you're rocking one of the most obscenely powerful optimized combos, leaving any "it's optimization or roleplaying!" people crying since you've just done both and left their Dex 14 CRB Rogue "flawed but fascinating" irrelevant.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well rounded fleshed out characters vs. one dimensional characters
So you've created two sides to the argument, but each side actually has two parts. The well rounded and one dimensional characters are opposites, so it's easy to think you've created a good divide.
HOWEVER
The fleshed out characters are really the opposite of what I'll call "blank slate" characters, and the characters are really the opposite of characters (It's also worth noting that in this context the terms "" and "" refer to intent, rather than effectiveness).
I believe you've done this by accident, so I mean no offense when I say that what you have here is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT (click the link to find out what that means).
I'll also say that well rounded has a positive connotation, while one dimensional has a negative. This is clearly showing your bias (which is fine you said in your opening post which you prefer), but you could re-label the one dimensional characters as specialised and communicate the same idea without putting others on the defensive.
One could make an:
/
specialised / well rounded
blank slate / fleshed out
... character.
While most players will have preferences for these choices, most will vary a little from game to game how much they favour certain methods of character creation. While it can be difficult to play in a group with someone who differs greatly from you in these preferences, none are inherently the wrong choice.
There are also some assumptions about these that are often incorrect:
As I stated above, the / character is about making choices based on their mechanical impact to the game. A player with less knowledge about the game systems may still end up with a character who is not optimal in their chosen role, while a player with more knowledge may make choices that are both flavourful and mechanically strong.
A blank slate character could be a boring character with no effort put in, or it could be used to organically grow a personality through gameplay. A fleshed out character could become stagnant and boring, or if could give the player and GM story hooks to help the character find meaningful moments during the game.
A specialised character could become a boring one-trick pony, or could be an interesting character with strengths and weaknesses that test the player. A well rounded character may give enough options for the character to participate more fully in the game, or they could end up feeling like they have no personality.
There is also nothing wrong with those who play the game purely from a mechanical standpoint. Mastering a set of rules and conditions, then testing yourself by completing challenges as efficiently as possible is the basis of competetive games and sports. Once again though, it can be difficult to play in a group who's opinion differs greatly from yours regarding this.
I have played the big dumb Fighter, and the self-righteous Paladin... both probably fell into the specialized, more one dimensional side of the argument. They were good for their purpose, but offered little more to the party than their greatsword. Sure, you can pick up a horse, or chop it half, but you have exactly three skills and they all involve your muscles.
I have found that I enjoy playing characters that are helpful in a variety of ways. The Aid Another Kobold Cleric is one of the most fun characters I have ever played. I am having a tremendous amount of fun playing an Arcane Duelist Bard in a friend's homebrew game. Even the Strength-based, greatsword wielding, Tengu Rogue proved useful for his skills. Every one of these characters had a presence in combat, but they really shined in ways not related directly to damage.
I have found that I use the Additional Traits feat quite a bit these days. I like to use it for both story and mechanical purposes. I like to take it around level 5, to represent your character adapting to life as an adventurer. Use it to pick up your weakest save, or for the armor check penalty trait so you can wear that Mithral breastplate you aren't proficient with but can finally afford, grab a few new skills... I like this feat quite a bit.
I used to play the super combat focused, tireless damage machine... but more recently I have been having a lot of fun playing support characters. Actually using Aid Another has really changed the way I play, as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MrCharisma hit the nail on the head, here. A character that is effective mechanically can also be one that is interesting within the narrative, just as a mechanically unsound character can be dull within the story.
Myself, I don't do the "extreme optimization" type of stuff. I don't use traits in my games, for example. I don't use much in the way of supplemental source materials (especially in Pathfinder, where extra races, classes, feats and items have been added on and added on until the bloated mass of this system has become truly unapproachable. Hence the need for 2nd, I would imagine).
But I regularly tweak and design stuff for my players and games. New feats and spells, sometimes classes. Nearly all of the monsters and definitely all of the magic items are custom made. Because, while I and the rules-lawyering, rules-twisting, win-at-all-costs player in the corner will never get along, I do not want to punish my players for choices they have made to make their characters interesting and three-dimensional.
Your character is a brewer? Let's make potions not suck. You say you want a regular sized hawk as an animal companion? Let's see what we can do to make that mechanically sound.
Really, I don't think it's a matter of how you approach role playing games or the sorts of characters you prefer to play. I think it's a matter of whether or not you're a decent person.
Do you want to deliberately ruin my attempts to tell a compelling story? Do you want to impose your will on other players and rob them of agency? Do you want to prove how much better, smarter and cooler you are, and leave everyone else at the table in awe of your sheer amazing-ness?
Then it's not that you're a power gamer or that you can't "role play". It'sthat you're not a very good person.
If you can't or do not wish to follow the Golden Rule, then I don't want to game with you. Or be around you at all, for that matter.
In my experience the jerky, selfish, inconsiderate or immoral players have a tendency to also be in the "optimized/specialized/blank slate" camps, but not all. I've also had to struggle with players who scoffed at anyone who didn't deliberately hamstring their build "for the sake of the character" and wasn't totally fine with losing a character to the most absurd and unfair circumstances imaginable. So they were definitely in the well-rounded/un-optimized/fleshed-out categories.
In my games, I insist on characters that feel real. I don't do joke characters or gimmicky ones that feel more like video game avatars than people. They don't fit into the worlds I build or the stories I tell.
And I tend to reward being well-rounded, because to me, the greatest heroes were not hyper-specialized damage machines. The Indiana Jones's and the Aragorns of the world are bent on survival, not on doing one thing super incredibly well and just hoping that their blind spots are never taken advantage of.
But with that said, flaws make characters interesting far more than strengths.
I prefer characters that are both well rounded and optimized.
For example; a ratfolk bladebound kensai with the trapfinder and seeker traits.
DEX primary, INT secondary, he handles traps, scouts, gets really good perception bonuses, his racial bonuses are optimal for his class and role, and he can still nova wit the best of them. Add a headband of vast intelligence and it both improves melee optimization and gives decent social skills.
It is entirely possible to have an OP character with a 12 page backstory.
Long doesn't equal interesting. As a matter of fact, many of the convoluted backstories (to explain how a character got an exotic weapon proficiency from one race and some adopted racial boon from a different race) are the cringeworthiest.
I won't speak for others, but my definition of well-rounded is practical. How many different PFS 4-hour scenarios can you play with the character and not be useless? How many different parties can you be a part of and contribute?
Having an optimized killer is great, but any party can only have so many of them before the party grinds to a halt. And if it were the case that the "I prefer optimized characters" were split between optimized combatants and optimized socialites, then I could see a case for preferring optimization. But on a practical level, "I prefer optimized characters" translates into "I will take a bathroom break during every social encounter" 90% of the time.
Well-rounded (to me) means being able to fill in for the tank when he gets unexpectedly crit; and being able to fill in for the archer when your party gets ambushed from behind; and being able to grab a wand off of the spellcaster's dead body and stabilizing the situation; and being able to negotiate a truce with the people who ambushed you when you're the last one standing - in the same character. And if you can't do at least two of those things, you're putting an awful burden om the rest of your party.
...So you've created two sides to the argument, but each side actually has two parts. The well rounded and one dimensional characters are opposites, so it's easy to think you've created a good divide...
Thank you for wording this way better than I could've!
Now, to answer the original question (or, more accurately, perhaps to answer the intended question):
Fleshed-out versus one-dimensional:
I prefer the characters to have a good, cohesive backstory.
If you're just taking the most optimised choices for no reason and your character is nothing more than a stat block with powers that doesn't react to the world around them then I will have a hard time having them be included in the story but hey, if you're enjoying the game and not ruining the fun for anyone else then it doesn't bother me very much.
If you're taking horrible options with no reason and your character is nothing more than a stat block with powers that doesn't react.... etc, etc, etc. Same thing as above.
Now, if you've taken choices that don't make sense to me, weather optimised or not I'm going to ask for an explanation and will likely allow it so long as there's some sort of story connected to the choices. EG: If you're playing an elf that has the racial traits Sovyrian-Born and Jininese Weapon Mastery I want a story beyond "uuuuh, I wanted to use a katana and have a higher Knowledge History"
I'll answer towards the spirit of the question:
In a game that is more focused on pure mechanics than an overall narrative story (ie, PFS), I find I do not derive as much enjoyment as I do from a more narrative based game. The reason is that, for me, short periods where I play a character with very few weaknesses and specific tricks to solve problems becomes incredibly boring over time. In the more narrative games, I find that I turn to my character sheet less often and simply adopt the role of the character, using the sheet only when specific calls are ASKED for (not me saying: I roll diplomacy).
Don't get me wrong. I love the number crunch as much as the next theoretical optimization fanatic. But for me, it is more of an interesting side game that I always (ALWAYS, without exception) dial back down to a more narrative game-play style fit. Rough outline to see the potential of the character, sort of an idea where I want him/her to go, but then I let the theme of the game take over from there. Most of the time, I don't end up following the same path I laid out at character creation.
I think parties work fine as long as the party is ready for any challenge.
I agree, but ...
Sometimes someone else writes a specialist character and he doesn't want you solving 'his' encounters. Even if you can. People can be greedy that way. Don't ruin that guys moment 'Mr. Well Rounded'.
... what happens if the specialist rolls a natural 1? Does everyone just expect a Deus ex GM to appear?
The last question was not totally rhetorical. I think it is exactly the case that combat specialists expect their party to bail them out of all noncombat encounters, and a GM bailout when their noncombat allies all fail a skill check.
And when I ever experience the joy of having an optimized noncombat specialist cover his face with his hat and say during combat, "Wake me up when someone needs diplomacy," I'll be able to report what happens in the flipped scenario. Because everyone knows that nobody brings a STR/CON double dumped skill monkey to a PFS game and totally relies on others for combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I optimize characters so that they don't die, but I'll also take level dips for story reasons occasionally. Not all of them have fleshed out personalities or backstories to begin with. Some of them do. The ones that don't will end up with one when I play them and start getting a feeling of what that character is like.
Sometimes when I build a character, I just start with a race and class and see how to do it. For example, I wanted to make a Dwarf Warpriest. So I made a Dwarf Warpriest and when I ever play her, she'll get a personality.
Othertimes I have a character idea and see what classes and/or races work best. For example, a tomboy princess whose parents made her take music lessons, not knowing she was sneaking out to take magic and sword lessons. She disguises herself so she can go on adventures. A level of Bard took care of music and magic, a level of Swashbuckler for sword skills, and Vigilante for the rest.
Well rounded fleshed out characters vs. one dimensional charactersSo you've created two sides to the argument, but each side actually has two parts. The well rounded and one dimensional characters are opposites, so it's easy to think you've created a good divide.
HOWEVER
The fleshed out characters are really the opposite of what I'll call "blank slate" characters, and the characters are really the opposite of characters (It's also worth noting that in this context the terms "" and "" refer to intent, rather than effectiveness).
I believe you've done this by accident, so I mean no offense when I say that what you have here is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT (click the link to find out what that means).
I'll also say that well rounded has a positive connotation, while one dimensional has a negative. This is clearly showing your bias (which is fine you said in your opening post which you prefer), but you could re-label the one dimensional characters as specialised and communicate the same idea without putting others on the defensive.
More of a false dilemma, IMO.
As you clearly lay out:
One could make an:
/
specialised / well rounded
blank slate / fleshed out
... character.
There are many more choices for character creation than "well rounded fleshed out" and "optimized one dimensional." Also, characters exist on a continuum for each axis of optimized/un-optimized, specialized/well rounded, blank slate/fleshed out, etc.
Heck, you can get even more granular by specific activity, background, personality, and character growth in play so that they are optimized in some respects, un-optimized in others, specialized in one or two activities, well rounded in a few more, some parts of the background undefined, others developed, some personality traits fleshed out, but other aspects to be developed during play, etc. And there is nothing wrong with that if you and the rest of the group are engaged and having fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you clearly lay out:
There are many more choices for character creation than "well rounded fleshed out" and "optimized one dimensional."One could make an:
/
specialised / well rounded
blank slate / fleshed out
... character.
Yes there are, I was simply addressing the ones brought up in the title. I don't think the specifics are as important as recognizing the general problem though.
Also, characters exist on a continuum for each axis of optimized/un-optimized, specialized/well rounded, blank slate/fleshed out, etc.
Yeah this is a really good point. All of those choices aren't really "A or B", they're a scale of "A to Z".
Another thing worth noting is that all of us have biases, and different ways of grouping information. I spent over an hour on my other post because I'd read back through it and realise that my biases were coming through in negative ways, or that I was putting up a my own false dichotomy because I was grouping X trait with Y behavior. I tried to present everything as clearly and neutrally as possible, but I'm only human. Hopefully the ideas are strong enough to speak for themselves.
... what happens if the specialist rolls a natural 1? Does everyone just expect a Deus ex GM to appear?
No, it means that the group has to find a different solution to the problem.
There should never be a thing in a campaign that can only be solved one way and depends on someone succeeding at a roll.
I'll leverage my knowledge - and yours^^ - of the game engine as much as necessary for the combat part to flow as it should be, with tension but a victory from the players the great majority of the time with my character an active part of it but won't push much further and will dedicate as much resources as possible to having mechanics reflect the abstract idea that the character.
In short, optimise as much as needed, flavour as much as possible.
- I tend to prefer games without levels in classes, where one can spend X.P. as he pleases. 7th Sea/L5R and Shadowrun are good examples, to the point where in L5R, it is expected the player will spend a few points to become knowledgeable in strange fields purely for the sake of it, such as knowledge : kites -
One thing that I noticed is l that everyone is assuming that optimization/specialization is only applies to dealing in combat. While it is true that most of the time players focus on combat it is quite possible to optimize for other things. The oracle of life who can keep the party at full HP pretty much all the time is just as optimized as the fighter who can deal a ton of damage. It is even possible to optimize for non-combat activities. An archeologist bard can boost all of his skills to obscene levels. Many people would consider this to be a “Well rounded character”.
I think a lot of how player build character is based on the games they play. I don’t play PFS so I cannot say how those games play. In the campaigns I run you will not find a lot of players ignoring the out of combat roles because I incorporate that into the game. I use the background skill rules and call for skill roles all the time. The fact the cleric had professional skill librarian allowed him to actually find the information the party needed. If he had not had the skill the party would have had to pay someone to find the information and it would have taken a lot longer.
Many classes simply do not have enough skill points to waste on non-essential skills. Without the extra skill points the cleric would not have had the points for professional skills or secondary knowledge skills. He would have and did spend them on things like knowledge religion, diplomacy, healing, and sense motive. If you want to have well rounded characters give the players what they need to build them without taking away from their primary roles. The two extra skill points from background skill option go a long way to saving solving this problem.
Backstory isn’t what I mean by well rounded. Sure the fighter doesn’t need to be a face but what does your character do during downtime to make them interesting and entertaining to listen to. Too many times I’ve seen the optimist only shine in combat then zone out the rest of the game or they always play the “strong silent type” its boring at a table where there is more then combat. For example rhe current game I’m playing they are building a city from scratch. In between upgrades to said city they do out and dungeon crawl for loot to build. The characters that only picked skills to enchance combat are finding they are not as important during the meat of the game.
Pathfinder has an ability that controls everything social, and which nothing else uses. Unless you have a class based around charisma, you are pretty much worthless for any social encounter.
As for other down time activities, if you aren't a caster you get shafted there no matter what. Magic Item crafting trumps anything mundane, and pretty much any skill you might want to max with skill points and feats, ''there's a spell for that''.
And broadly speaking, it's generally more useful (and fun) to be better than everyone at one thing, than able to do a lot of things no better than another.
As another pointed out, if Mcbrains doesnt know something, your 12 int half ranks versatile fighter won't either.
Doesnt help that the game doesnt want fighters to do any skill checks though, with that shameful 2+int ranks per level.
This effect varies according to party size and composition though. But generally 1 wizard + 1 bard and you've got everything non damage related covered.
Min-max'ing can be a fun minigame, but without Roleplaying, it becomes somewhat sad and pointless, neh?
It's sad and pointless for you, but not for everyone.
Or should I say BADWRONGFUN!!
Some people might play with a harsher GM, or with a longer adventuring day, or with a more restrictive character generation method, or maybe they just want to be able to kill every enemy on the field in round one.
Whatever they and their group find fun is totally fine, the important thing is that you find a group who likes to do things a similar way to you.
Random Aside: Once the Glass Cannon Podcast finishes playing Giantslayer (my whole group listens to it) I'm planning a super-deadly run through the AP for them where I'll give everyone a 30 point buy and Gestalt characters, but I'm gonna actively try to murder them. Min-maxing will be necessary there.
I'm expecting they'll roleplay their super min-maxed characters fairly well though.
Min-max'ing can be a fun minigame, but without Roleplaying, it becomes somewhat sad and pointless, neh?
I know people who design horrible broken builds, show them to eachother, giggle a bit. And then play low-optimized characters. Because Pathfinder isn't really designed for hard min-max'ing. Or more precisely, isn't really balanced for it.
Luckily, there's no 'roleplay' stat that people can dump to min-max further.
We genrally need to min max some for our characters to stay relevant, but nobody tries to break the game and we consult when things start to smell too cheesy.
As others have stated in similar threads, if there's any link between roll-playing and role-playing, it's that both tend to go hand in hand. Someone who spends time for one aspect is more likely to also do so for the other. But in the end, they are also mostly independant. Some people are just shy, others simply like to hog the spotlight. Some are good in theatricals, some aren't. Some are good at maths and spotting synergies, others aren't. And some have lots of relevant gaming experience while others do not.
Honestly, if your character is interesting enough to feel fleshed out, then they're probably pretty well optimized. A character who can't reliably do anything, is also going to seem vague at best, or ironic at worst. Sucking at everything isn't usually a character trait for heroes or main characters in something that isn't either slice-of-life or slapstick.
I'm not a fan of stoic and intimidating characters who dumped charisma and have no bonus to their will save. Building the character mechanically and then determining their personality based on their abilities, always results in a more realistic character.
Honestly, if your character is interesting enough to feel fleshed out, then they're probably pretty well optimized. A character who can't reliably do anything, is also going to seem vague at best, or ironic at worst. Sucking at everything isn't usually a character trait for heroes or main characters in something that isn't either slice-of-life or slapstick.
I'm not a fan of stoic and intimidating characters who dumped charisma and have no bonus to their will save. Building the character mechanically and then determining their personality based on their abilities, always results in a more realistic character.
The game would probably be better off without charisma, or having it much altered. Diplomacy off wis, intimidate off strength, and so on. Wis too could have been handled better. Growing old makes your eyesight better? I guess dementia is the trademark of the wiseman.
Overall I agree that the character is better made to fit the stats, instead of existing despite them. But the stats also largely ignore themselves as well. A barbarian with 24 strength should be pretty damn intimidating to just about anyone, but odds are a level 1 sorcerer will have a better intimidate check than he will. Because according to the game, being scary is a skill you train in. And with the few skill points martials get, unless you build specifically for this skill, just about no martial character is expected to be scary, no matter how strong, skilled, and lethal they may be, and regardless of their exploits.
Unless you have a class based around charisma, you are pretty much worthless for any social encounter.
Bruising Intellect, Clever Wordplay, Cunning Liar, Empathic Diplomat, Student of Philosophy
I see you're in the pocket of Big Charisma, you class traitor.
Unless you have a class based around charisma, you are pretty much worthless for any social encounter.Bruising Intellect, Clever Wordplay, Cunning Liar, Empathic Diplomat, Student of Philosophy
I see you're in the pocket of Big Charisma, you class traitor.
Investments are for the rich, you filthy bourgeois.
Just because there are ways to gain things by spending feats, does not mean all can afford said feats.
Should a non-human barbarian spend some feats to still not be able to compete with the Face? No, hell no.
Besides, our full BAB martials will rarely be able to invest a ton in int/wis and social skills anyways. A fighter spending one of his many feats to use int instead of cha to diplomacy doesn't change a thing to his 2 skill points per level he's gimped with as a fighter. Hope he's not a mounted fighter...
They're traits though, so half of a feat.
I see you're in the pocket of Big Charisma, you class traitor.Investments are for the rich, you filthy bourgeois.
Accountability result in responsibility, you slimy fatalist.
You're not gonna be good at anything without investing in it. If you're complaining that you aren't as proficient in social interactions as the oracle when you've spent all of your feats, gold, and traits to become better at archery, then you reap what you sow.
The fighter could spend one trait on Empathic Diplomat, and grab the AWT (Versatile Training) feat at lv 5 to gain both Diplomacy and Sense Motive maxed. With dumped charisma and a weak will save, you should at the very least have a +1/+2 wisdom modifier at character creation.
But indeed, the same fighter could instead choose to not invest any resources into social capabilities. They can choose to dump all their mental stats to 7 and then complain whenever there's no fighting going on. That's their choice.
I've fiddled with getting rid of charisma quite a bit. I've also been working on splitting strength up into dexterity and constitution depending on whether it's a mass or coordination task. The game would be much better for it I think.
Rather than picking a class and making sure it can be intimidating, I think you're better off looking for a class that lends itself to being intimidating without going out of it's way as much. Spending a fighter's once per five level feats on skill points seems like too high a cost as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dumping everything to 7 doesnt necessarily optimize either. Point buy has diminishing returns, wis and int have non social uses.
Besides if you do that with your fighter, when negotiation comes the paladin will still put his hand on your shoulder and smuggly say "I got this", while the barb laughs at you for having wasted your precious feats and skills into something you'll never use.
Fact remains that downtime is a minor part of gameplay and that skills are largely irrelevant for it anyways. When social checks are important the party will have the Face handle them, that's why he's there. For the rest, it doesn't even matter if you are good at it or not. If you want to craft sculptures you can do it at +2 check just as much as at +22. The income gained will be irrelevant compared to adventuring anyways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides if you do that with your fighter, when negotiation comes the paladin will still put his hand on your shoulder and smuggly say "I got this", while the barb laughs at you for having wasted your precious feats and skills into something you'll never use.
At least make it a bard. The Paladin doesn't have enough skill ranks to wipe their own ass, and charisma is a secondary stat for them. The wisdom fighter would definitely rival them.
And this is actually the question that the thread partly was made about. Well rounded vs Specialized. Completely disregarding any social aspect of your character and refusing to invest resources into it just means you've chosen to be more specialized than the hypothetical fighter.
This is often a good idea for skills such as disable device and knowledge, but not for social skills. You don't have to be the best but you sure as hell should be able to cover your basics. Having to ask your paladin for help whenever you need something out of a NPC is exhausting and demeaning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it better to have a bland jack-of-all-trades character or a distinctive focused character with traits that are extreme enough to be memorable?
Besides if you do that with your fighter, when negotiation comes the paladin will still put his hand on your shoulder and smuggly say "I got this", while the barb laughs at you for having wasted your precious feats and skills into something you'll never use.At least make it a bard. The Paladin doesn't have enough skill ranks to wipe their own ass, and charisma is a secondary stat for them. The wisdom fighter would definitely rival them.
And this is actually the question that the thread partly was made about. Well rounded vs Specialized. Completely disregarding any social aspect of your character and refusing to invest resources into it just means you've chosen to be more specialized than the hypothetical fighter.
This is often a good idea for skills such as disable device and knowledge, but not for social skills. You don't have to be the best but you sure as hell should be able to cover your basics. Having to ask your paladin for help whenever you need something out of a NPC is exhausting and demeaning.
Nah, man. Paul McFace the Paladin would still shame your fighter wannabe. Paladins get a ton of stuff off charisma, at our table, they tend to have a pretty strong diplo modifier, and often the highest one of the group. Sure, you can cheese the diplo score much higher with a good bard build, but even a paladin can effortlessly shame an invested fighter.
Besides, the difference needs not be large. If the party faces a bouncer, and need to haggle their way in. Are they gonna have Paul McFace talk to him with his zero feats and +10 modifier on diplo checks, or Fite McWanna, the fighter with three social feats for a total of a +9 modifier on the diplo checks? Paul McFace the paladin, of course. The amount of wasted resources will be irrelevant, the one with the highest modifier will be called upon.
Because you do have to be the best in most meaningful situations. When are you going to have to haggle with NPCs? Except for the rare party split situations, the only times you'll be split is times where the stakes are incredibly low. Maybe you won't call in your buddy to negotiate with merchants for a better price. But in the end, paying a few more coppers is still worth making more sensible use of your skill points.
The title is a false association, though. Some level of roundness is part of optimization. And fleshing out is independent of optimization. Generally, an optimal character will have skills and capacities that exceed those of anyone else in his party, while also limiting flaws and vulnerabilities that will hamper the party. A character that can deal 5000 damage in one turn, but that fails every single will save, is not really all that optimized. Part of working towards damage output (for example) is making sure you stay up to dish out that damage. "The Charmer" maxed out cha chick is no more fleshed out than the "BigStick McGee" who just goes and grunts at things.
Fleshing out characters has nothing to do with rounding the build. It's about establishing who the character is. Where do they come from? What do they strive for? What motivates them? What do they fear? What principles guide them? None of that fits on one's character sheet, but establishes "character" much more than what Perform skill you chose to invest in.