| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm preparing to guest star as an enchanter in an upcoming game, and I find myself confronting a philosophical point in character building. Is it better to try and cover all your bases (in my case, grabbing threnodic spell or the mesmerist's psychic inception), or are you better served by leaving a few holes in your defenses? Your teammates are supposed to help cover some of your weaknesses after all, and spending too much time plugging holes can leave a build spread thin. I suppose it goes back to the notion of "the Batman wizard" who has a scroll for all occasions.
So here's my question: When you're building a PC, do you always try and shore up your weaknesses? How far do you go? When is it better to focus on your strengths and accept that your dude won't be suited to certain encounters?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally the opposite. I always leave a weakness in my character builds, usually a glaring one. I find that weaknesses add character and interest to a build. Caveat though, I have an extreme level of system mastery. I wouldn't necessarily recommend my approach to a newer player. My character builds are usually on the op can solo the ap side, so leaving weaknesses helps mitigate that. I've also played the game so much, that safe builds aren't very interesting. I'd rather experiment and see if I can make something odd work.
I do try to avoid any weakness that makes me a party liability. That is, I'm fine if my weakness causes my character harm, but I do always aim to have a good counter to confusion and dominate so I won't kill the party. That doesn't necessarily mean a good will save, in fact I often play poor will save characters. There's a lot of ways to get bonuses vs enchantments as well as abilities to shake them off or suppress them.
Embrace your weaknesses, they are part of the character of your character as much as the strengths are if not more.
While I would advise to have cover your weaknesses in the sense of still being able to be useful when for some reason your main guns are out of order - say you are a spellcaster caught in an anti-magic field -, I wouldn't advise to make characters that cannot be overcome. Role-playing failure and defeat are interesting in their own right.
- When I take a drawback, I remind the gamemaster of it every once in a while and even more so with systems that allow the purchase of several negative qualities. What good is it that I am allergic to lavender if it is never encountered? Free points? No, thank you! -
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...When is it better to focus on your strengths and accept that your dude won't be suited to certain encounters?In my opinion, it comes down to the level of risk:
- If you are fairly likely to be slightly hindered or highly unlikely to be 'shut down completely', then you can probably 'focus on your strengths.' For example, specializing in Magic Missile is fairly safe because outright immunity is fairly rare despite the existence of the Shield spell.
- When outright immunity to your focus is fairly common, you really need to have some other options available. The poster child for this situation is, of course, the mind-affecting build as so many creature types (constructs, oozes, plants, undead, and vermin) are outright immune to your, well, charms...
My go-to class is Core rogue, covering its weak points would keep me busy for the entire game. ;o) There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking a few efficient partial fixes to your weak points (like a cloak of resistance or asking the actual martial for flanking help), but beyond that IMO you are better off building on your strenghts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only time that I create characters with glaring weaknesses are because I am intentionally giving myself a particular handicap in order to enhance my own enjoyment of the game, or to just prove a point that a lot of the advice given in optimization forums, while useful, is not the gold standard of character building.
Most of the time, I play fairly well-rounded and versatile characters with the ability to contribute to most types of encounters/challenges adequately. Sometimes, that just means I assist others, or just keep quiet with my 7 charisma, or play the feeble old 'wizard' that is secretly a hulking barbarian that eats magic when you make him mad, but he is still better than you at social encounters.
Crafting a character in Pathfinder is an artform that I enjoy very much. Every aspect of them is intentional and chosen for a reason. The fun part is to walk into a campaign expecting a build to go a certain way, and then the story begins to shape the character just as much as the character shapes the story. I usually never get what I intended when I design a character build. I always get something better than I intended.
it depends on the game. for PFS where I will not know who else is at the table, I make my character a generalist who can cover as much as possible. For Campaign play with a regular, set party, that will be consistent week after week, I make my character a specialist who focuses on his role in the party. this causes him to have weaknesses, with the hopes that a party member will cover for those issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a team game. The team should not have weaknesses. There are thousands of posts on this forum about 'optimising' characters and scant few about how a team of characters are going to be built to maximize individual specialisms without leaving holes in the group's capabilities.
Relatedly, there are thousands of posts about over powered characters or unbalanced parties and the need to customise encounters to suit the party. None of that would be required if the players built a balanced party to begin with.
To answer the OP. Build a character that fills party weaknesses and enhances their overall capabilities.
Don't leave glaring holes that will get you one shotted. Like try to make your will save not absolutely suck. And maybe don't buy down your Con without a good reason to.
I agree with Meirril. Weaknesses are perfectly fine, but don't leave glaring holes in your defenses (AC, saves) and don't build a castle (your enchantment power) on sand (no way to deal with undead, constructs, vermin, ...).
Though usually there are items to patch these things up to a half-decent level (AC: enchanted armor, saves: resistance cloak) and to help jump insurmountable obstacles a few times per day (enchantment: metamagic rods: coaxing, threnodic, verdant).
These should help getting through the first surprising/unexpected encounters until you have some time out of combat to adapt/strategize with your party: Let them know that your options are limited in these circumstances & that you might use "the Order of the Stick's most frequent strategy" [running]. After all, the GM might want to bring your character to the edge but not go for a total party wipe.
An effective character should always be able to contribute to the success of the party. They should also avoid becoming dead weight. As long as you follow these two rules you should be fine.
Contributing to the success of the party does not mean you need to do everything. Specializing is perfectly acceptable and in fact recommended. But don’t over specialize. If you are playing an enchanter a lot of your spells are going to only be useful vs things with minds. But you should still have other spells besides those. Having some utility and party buffs spells in addition to the enchantment spells is going mean even when you run into something you cannot charm your character is not totally useless.
Instead of trying to eliminate all weakness it is better to minimize them. Everyone has weakness so trying to create a character without any weakness is futile. Don’t try and get your fighters will save to be better than the clerics. That is going to take up too many resources and make your character less effective. Boosting up the fighters will save to the point he has a reasonable chance to avoid getting controlled is good enough.
What it really comes down to is balance. You want to be able to do the things your character is supposed to be good at, but at the same time you don’t want to be glass cannon.
So I think it depends what you mean by weakness. Not being able to handle certain situations is fine as long as other characters in the party can (or if the GM avoids putting your party in situations you can't handle). For instance, your barbarian may view ranged weapons as a weakness and only fight in melee combat (possibly because of a low Dex score). That can be a fun way to turn a mechanic into a personality quirk for the character.
On the flip side, having a weakness that can completely remove you from play puts a lot of pressure on the rest of your team to function. For instance, lacking any spells to handle undead as spellcaster with mostly mind affecting spells. Especially frustrating if your GM throws you into a campaign full of undead. Having something you can do under the circumstance, even if its not an efficient action, is a wise move. Don't make the rest of your team feel like they are carrying you.
On that note, not dying is an important part of adventuring. Dying makes the rest of the team have a harder time, so I'd avoid having your character's weakness involve them being particularly easy to murder.
Lastly, you can always bake in weaknesses made entirely from the fluff of the character rather than the crunch of the mechanics. Perhaps they refuse to fight women or cannot tell a lie. Paladins aren't the only ones with codes and its fun to build your own.
For spellcasters in particular- I prefer not to have an answer for everything, because "I magic the problem away" is always the least interesting solution.
That's actually quite easy to deal with. Encounter/situation variety. If the GM changes up the types, number and difficulty of the various events then it means that spellcasters will have less useful spells available and will be less certain whether to cast the spell or save it for when it's really needed. Consequently, there is more reliance on skills, feats and better tactical play and less on magic.
Pathfinder is a team game. The team should not have weaknesses. There are thousands of posts on this forum about 'optimising' characters and scant few about how a team of characters are going to be built to maximize individual specialisms without leaving holes in the group's capabilities.
Relatedly, there are thousands of posts about over powered characters or unbalanced parties and the need to customise encounters to suit the party. None of that would be required if the players built a balanced party to begin with.
To answer the OP. Build a character that fills party weaknesses and enhances their overall capabilities.
You are correct, in that it is a team game, but trying to force players to play a character they don't want just to make sure a party is balanced is not always a good option. I have found it enjoyable to let people play what they want, and then try to find non-traditional solutions to problems that come around that aren't covered by a character. (i.e. no rogue, well, we need to buy a wand of knock, etc.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying that there isn't flexibility, but it is the players collective responsibility to create a balanced party. If they can't, because they're all insisting on playing hyper specialised builds then that is there decision. When the end result is a bunch of easy encounters, followed by a TPK; that is not the fault of the GM.
To use the rock, paper, scissors analogy: A balanced party should have one of each, an optimised party should aim for diamond, kevlar and chainsaw. If the players have built 3 diamonds then they will destroy scissor encounters, overpower rock and be helpless against paper.
My philosophy is that it is more important to address weaknesses in the overall party moreso than personal character weaknesses.
That being said, I always encourage people to play what they want to, first and foremost. Be and do whatever it is you will enjoy being and doing.
If your level of enjoyment is dependent upon having an optimized character, then optimize it. If you will have fun playing an old man with a bum leg, play an old man with a bum leg.
The party will adapt and overcome... or they won't... but everyone should have fun, regardless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, unless you are running an AP straight from the book society style it is the GM's job to tell story. If they need to adjust an encounter because the PCs cannot handle the current one, it will produce a better experience for everyone involved. Now like, if you heavily hint about something and they make no attempts to avoid the giant pitfall you've built infront of them, that is their fault.
But looking at a party of martial characters and deciding that the next puzzle you're going to put infront of them will involve Knowledge Geography where wrong answers will release swarms that are immune to weapon damage...you're kinda GMing wrong.
It drives some of my friends crazy that I hold off until they've declared. (...) when it comes time to build, I scroll through my mental rolodex of characters, look at the ideas of my fellow players to pare possibilities away, and finally select the "teammate" that fits the new group.
Ever considered that maybe the other players like to have holes in the group's setup? It's one of the reasons I advocate building/selecting characters mostly indepdendently - overcoming challenges is what the game is all about, and needing to come up with creative solutions is a lot of fun; more fun than always having the perfect class feature to trivialize every difficulty they encounter.
Contrasting what others have said, I think the party having weaknesses makes the game better. Unless you want to breeze through the campaign with ease.
When is it better to focus on your strengths and accept that your dude won't be suited to certain encounters?
When the fix would cost you too much. 'Dipping' five levels on your unchained Barbarian just to get flight probably isn't worth it. Picking up a couple Amentum Javelin or later a couple potions of Fly is.
The cost-benefit equation is relevant for both sides, though: Just like a too high cost to shore up a weakness isn't a smart idea (unless the weakness is critical), getting too little bang for your buck when improving a character's strength isn't worth it, either.
People often fall into the trap of "win more" options; that's an option that only improves your character for situations they're already extremely well geared for. An example would be Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, which is only useful in situations where the character can full-attack a target with not-too-high AC and little or no damage reduction - that's exactly the situation the character doesn't need improvement.
The concept is true not just in Pathfinder - in anything competitive, the unfavourable matchups are the ones that recources (e.g. practise time) should be spend on, not the already highly favourable ones.
Eh, unless you are running an AP straight from the book society style it is the GM's job to tell story. If they need to adjust an encounter because the PCs cannot handle the current one, it will produce a better experience for everyone involved. Now like, if you heavily hint about something and they make no attempts to avoid the giant pitfall you've built infront of them, that is their fault.
But looking at a party of martial characters and deciding that the next puzzle you're going to put infront of them will involve Knowledge Geography where wrong answers will release swarms that are immune to weapon damage...you're kinda GMing wrong.
I absolutely agree that designing an adventure so that success is dependant on progressing in one particular way is poor GMing. But I absolutely disagree that a swamp should be mysteriously devoid of mosquitoes because the players made an unbalanced party.
The way I run a campaign is by determining the BBEG and their plots, I also work out the other major actors' and their plots and weave them together. The characters then disrupt those plots and the various NPCs adapt to the situation as they would see it. Consequently there is no railroading but I expect [and tell the players upfront in session 0] the characters to gather information and research what is happening. I reward players who invest in knowledge skills with relevant and pertinent clues based on the character knowledge. I also have taken the three clue rule to heart (as well as several other excellent articles on that site). If the player's actions take them to a swamp then a player who has invested in Survival, Knowledge (geography) or (local) or asked about known dangers would be warned about the hungry swarms of mosquitoes and the crocodiles. From there it's up to them to equip themselves appropriately.
Now like, if you heavily hint about something and they make no attempts to avoid the giant pitfall you've built infront of them, that is their fault.
That falls under this category, usually. As long as the players have been pointed in the right direction, and ignore it, you can mention that they were given the opportunity. Its when they wind up in a situation they can't handle without prior warning that problems occur. If you don't mention the Dark Woods are trapped, its kind of a dick move to put traps there. If they are teleported into the swamp from out of no where and have no access to solutions to those mosquitos, its rude to put swarms there.
Remove the problem, replace it with an equivalent hazard they can overcome. Use larger mosquitos that can be hit with weapons, have individual mosquitos inflict disease (a party of full martial characters will usually have good Fort saves), pick a different critter, put a skill challenge in the way, etc
|
|
I disagree. It's completely fine to put traps all through the woods. If they don't have a way to deal with it, then they leave and figure out a new solution. You can throw anything at your players as long as you let them step back and re-assess. Just don't force them into a no win situation. Let your players blunder, let them figure things out on their own. A campaign where you come pre-equipped with all the answers is boring.
For spellcasters in particular- I prefer not to have an answer for everything, because "I magic the problem away" is always the least interesting solution.
Well now you've got me curious. What kinds of self-imposed restrictions do you tend to put on your casters? As a mesmerist, I obviously have the built-in limitation of mind-affecting focus. Is that the kind of thing you're talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WTF, Wizard?! Today is THE ONE TIME you didn't prepare [insert spell here]?!
Emphasize Wizard when you say it in the most scathing tone possible, so it cuts like a knife.
Sometimes the party NEEDS the situation to be magic'ed away... but there are a lot of times when, you know what, we actually CAN just climb that.
Yes, I do have Fly prepared. No, I will not cast it on you. Last one to the top is a rotten egg... I also have Polymorph Any Object prepared, so you better start climbing. GM, I rolled a 13, my Strength modifier is -2, so an 11.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I play a spellcaster, I try to pay attention to what skills my team mates excel at and not take spells that duplicate any of those skills. If you have another player who is good at stealth, swimming, climbing, disable device, and you prepare invisibility, monkey fish, and knock, you're just competing with the other pc to be the one to complete the same challenges. If someone else already has that covered, then don't double up on it, cover something else.
The situational stuff I make sure to have are ways to deal with invisible creatures, darkness, swarms, and the like. Combat abilities that make encounters extremely frustrating if you don't have the proper counters for them.
I always cover basic physical skills. Even if I make a sorceress with a 7 str, she's still going to have a minimum of +5 in acrobatics, climb, and swim. PCs do a lot of strenuous physical stuff all the time. Being able to make a DC15 when taking 10 on these physical skills is a base requirement of being an adventurer to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...PCs do a lot of strenuous physical stuff all the time. Being able to make a DC15 when taking 10 on these physical skills is a base requirement of being an adventurer to me.
This is my line of thinking as well.
The concept of weak spots is kind of layered. On one hand, I think flaws and weaknesses are what make a character interesting.On the other, I think it's personality flaws that make a character interesting, more so than mechanical ones.
But then on the third hand, I think it makes much, MUCH more sense for a person--especially someone with a lifestyle like your average fantasy rpg PC--to actively strive for well-roundedness and survivability than to consciously pursue being a one-trick pony or going all in on the offense. It's human (or elven or dwarven) nature to survive. The goal of combat is not to gain victory but to avoid defeat, etc. Plus, getting hurt is...bad. So you'd probably want to prevent that.