|
I can't even imagine level 1 without a bare minimum of 16 ac.
Martial characters should be at least +4 to hit at level 1
Primary casters need atleast a 16 in their casting stat, partial casters can work with a 13-15 to start
With point buy I often find 17 is a good number for a primary stat, and up it to 18 at 4th level
80% of this game is combat, so if you want to build a non-gestalt Skill Monkey or Social-based character, you're going to suffer in the combat side of things-- because you're taking dips, multi-classing, or sacrificing feats that would otherwise be put towards combat, or possibly even allocating ability score points to Cha or Int for higher skills even though your class might not even use these ability scores. Gestalt certainly helps alleviate this tradeoff when making skill monkeys and social-based characters (because you have the freedom to go bard or rogue + the class you want to play, and invest all other choices into combat prowess), but I don't think it's a "requirement". Tbh, as long as the other 3 members of your group are pulling your weight in combat, skill monkeys and social-based characters can help navigate the 20% of the game that isn't combat-related with significant ease, and it's highly appreciated by the 3 combat aficionados who would undoubtedly struggle or have a 50/50 chance of success in out-of-combat encounters.
Why is it easier to make story-driven choices with your character and not hinder your combat effectiveness with gestalt vs standard character creation?
Isn't Gestalt just getting the best of two classes every level? If I understand it correctly, the answer your question is: because it's mechanically better. It gives you more options, faster, and with bigger numbers.
Just like getting max hp or double wealth by level or using a 50 point buy ability array will make it easier to do...whatever you want really, without hindering combat effectiveness.
I measure my PC's by instinct at this point. Pretty much every game I run involves a few new archetypes, feats and spells, maybe a new class or two and a few adjustments to existing things.
I just want everyone to feel like the playing field is pretty level, and like they have to make smart decisions to succeed. That last part...I mean. That's the whole point of ttrpg's.
Gestalt is applying two classes to your character at the same time... you take the best of their BAB and saves and skills per level, combine their class skills, and enjoy.
I think it allows you to make those creative choices more easily because your 2nd class may, or could, offer bonus feats or full BAB or whatever specific combat BS your character needs to be effective... that 2nd class may very well provide everything you need for combat, allowing you a bunch of open options for story-driven fluff.
It is easy enough to reach the challenge rating benchmarks. You really do not have to ruin a character by making story-driven choices instead of combat oriented choices. If you are in the habit of playing at tables that don't run AP's as-is, or run dangerous homebrew campaigns, you might need to buckle down and actually dedicate yourself to making sure your combat prowess is far above average... maybe story-driven choices take a back seat to combat.
Me, personally, I judge my characters' level of success by how useful they are overall. And being useful in combat is part of that... if you aren't pulling your weight, dealing adequate damages on your turn... you aren't very useful. If I can't participate and contribute to the courtly ball encounter, I don't feel useful. If I can't meaningfully help navigate the dungeon, I don't feel very successful. Sure, you can't be expected to do everything, but I always try to be able to do SOMETHING.
I don't have milestone numbers for stats or a must-have number for damage output by level... I do make sure that I am covering my bases each time I level. Making sure I am still good at what is expected of me, and trying to make whatever was bad a little better this level. I think having a set number in mind for stats can lead to silly decisions upon character creation, and I try make sure no stat is below a 9... something I can "fix" with a HD/4 stat bump down the road. Most of the time, I try not have any negative modifiers on any of my characters... even after racial adjustments.
My characters have never been stellar damage dealers, I don't compete in DPR olympics, but I have never been the cause of grief during combat. I feel that my choices, overall, generally provide decent results... I move my character, I communicate with the party, I deal the damage I need to be dealing. My metric of success is not measured by damage alone. Far from it, in fact.
Meeting the monster creation table milestones should be relatively easy, allowing one to still make story-driven choices and make their character interesting. I put value into teamwork and strategy, so being a team player that can always contribute in some meaningful way is my measure of success. Even if it is as simple/lame as putting one rank in every trained only skill you might have... what if no one else is trained?
The last campaign I ran was a 2yr Evil Gestalt campaign with 5 PC's, and I think they enjoyed the freedom that gestalt afforded naturally. It was our first time ever using gestalt rules and I think everyone enjoyed it. They were able to take PrC's and dips that didn't bring their progression to a metaphorical screeching halt, each of them had an abundance of skills, and having low HP or bad saves was never an issue.
I have never found myself significantly outpaced in such a manner as you described.
Maybe I have not played with nearly as optimized (for damage) teammates, either.
In my personal experience, I have been able to always feel useful, regardless of whether or not I am the one dealing massive damage killing blows. I feel pretty good about being the guy that moved over there, ate that dude's AoO, and set up flanking for the Scout Rogue... who, will undoubtedly, come charging in after me and literally mess this clown's day up in a VERY significany way. Oh yeah, I hit the guy for some damages or something when I moved up, but who's counting? Lol.
I may not have convinced the king, but provoded Aid Another to the person that did.
I may not have casted the spell that won the game, but I stood in the way of the person trying to stop them from casting the spell that won the game. Oh yeah, and I did some damage or something with my AoO, but who's counting?
Not my character. I leave the counting to the GM... I have only played one character even remotely aware of the concept of hit points... and it wasn't the Cleric I played. It was a Tengu Rogue who could smell when people were below half health. And I used it to tell my teammates when to use potions in a game where the GM teacked our HP instead of us.
My baseline?
I meticulously build and over-optimize a character to the limits of the rules to get a good idea of what the character is capable of. Then, I dial it waaaaay back until I am within a certain power level that is more instinctual at this point. At that point, I have a plethora of options and choices I could make to enhance abilities or roles the character can be a substitute for. I like to play versatile characters. Better a jack of all trades than a master of one, especially if that mastery costs you through a HUGE vulnerability.
I have no real interest in playing characters that are overtly powerful for their level. I prefer tactical advantages and the luck that the dice rolls bring. Gestalt can be fun, but its just a means to get more powerful.
He's frustrated that his character isn't better in combat relative to the other PCs in the party...So again... what do you base your character build against?
I think that's a legit complaint. It can suck to feel like you're lagging behind everyone else. Which is why most tables seem to be moving away from rolling ability scores.
Overall I agree with the benchmarking systems you are using, Mark Hoover 330. However, that is left out in your description is the definition of 'beat.'
At level 1 a PC should either be able to beat a 12 AC and deal 3.75 damage,
Does 'beat' here mean that you hit a 12 on anything other than a natural 1? Does it mean you hit it on a roll of a 10? Would a roll needing to be a 15 still count as good enough?
In my mind, I would say on a roll of 10. Same with the other bench marks mentioned. If spellcasting is my main thing and a creatures good save will be a +9 for a CR equivalent enemy, then my DC should be around a 19. (That one is a bit debatable as I shouldn't be shooting at their good save).
All that said, I agree that reasonable benchmarks like this can be made just fine with a 15-PB. People seem to make a much bigger than necessary fit when their PB isn't at least 20.
To me... a game with 25-PB and gestalt rules would just seem CRAZY powerful very quickly.
I just finished a run through Rise of the Runelords with a group of players new to role-playing and/or pathfinder (with one exception). We did 20 point buy and universally the group decided one of the changes for our next campaign was dropping down to 15. They felt quite powerful.
|
|
Namey V: I appreciate those benchmarks! Any particular reason for the AC restriction? Otherwise all of these are doable with a 15 point buy and the RAW avg starting gold for a level 1 PC.
Purely for survivability.
Having a lower AC is less of a big deal after level 1, once you have enough HP to survive a single sneak attack or critAt level 1 most of my characters throw on the heaviest armor they can and grab a shield, proficient or not.
@Mark Hoover
I think one thing that your paladin PC is overlooking is the amount of healing, mitigation, and condition removal he has via high-Cha + LoH/Mercies. And if he hasn't taken the Targeted Mercy at level 6, then he really ought to, because that's a primary survivability/tankability Mercy for both him and his allies.
Teach him to use his LoH's strategically for tanking. Get into combat, and after he's taken dmg and ready for a nice big heal, you LoH as a Swift at the END of the round <---- using LoH at the end of the round is important, because it gives yourself Sanctuary for the entire round until your next turn (or even two turns if you don't attack the following round). This means all enemies have to pass a 10 + 1/2lvl + Cha Will Save to even proceed with an attack or cast a spell against him. Likewise, if his ally is getting beaten up, he can choose to change his order in initiative via Delay or Readied Action and take his turn just AFTER his battered ally, and then LoH him so that Sanctuary is on his ally for as long as possible.
I don't mean to crap on his feat choice for wrongbadfun reasons, but Quick Draw and Leadership are not good combat feats, and Paladins are feat starved already as it is. These feats could otherwise be spent on power attack, weapon focus, cornugon smash, vital strike, cleave, shield bash, or w/e offensive/defensive dmg/debuffing feats. I think Leadership is great for flavor/fun, but Quick Draw is bad tbqf unless you're going for a Thrown Weapon build. If you're going through a megadungeon (or anywhere you think you're likely to expect combat), your weapon should already be at the ready, and you don't need Quick Draw; if you really feel the need to switch weapons in the middle of combat, then fine, pull it out as a move action. I know he likes playing Casey Jones with the golfbag full of weapons, but he needs to pick either Quick Draw or Leadership, and retrain the other into something more suited for combat. Alternatively, he can keep both, but he needs to understand that Paladins are feat starved and you're simply not going to keep up with the dmg that others can do when you have 40-50% of your available feats devoted to fun/flavor rather than combat prowess.
He should consider going max Intimidate, Cornugon Smash, and a Cruel Weapon enchant since he's got all that Cha. -4 to attack/save = the groups' AC just increased by 4 and Sanctuary DC just increased by 4.
Also, tell him that he has access to the most powerful non-spell buff in the game at level 11: Aura of Justice, aka Aura of Teleportordie. His whole party uses his Cha Bonus to Attack and AC, and his Paladin Level to damage. Evil BBEG? Pfffffft, I cast Aura of Givemeyourloot.
Gestalt is more powerful, but the curve seems about the same. Action economy is unchanged, so nothing too crazy ever happens. Damage happens, but you just plan for more minions and back up enemies, and back up enemies to your back up enemies. You'll be fine.
As soon as it is the ZAM/Inquisitor's turn, it is time for "wave 2", because everything is now dead. Lol. And you move on to the second half of the ambush.
You just have to be both mentally/emotionally prepared for, and willing to, writing off entire fleets of enemies at a time. Eventually, you stop feeling bad for your bad guys and kind of end up cheering for the party... like, wow, that was absolutely disgusting and I didn't know that was possible, I can't believe you pulled that off... I really need to remember this for next time. It's a learning experience, for sure. But it is fun to see what they end up capable of.
Gestatlt is kinda where I decided to really plant my flag. Ironically enough, I have absolutely no interest in Mythic. Lol.
Gestatlt is kinda where I decided to really plant my flag. Ironically enough, I have absolutely no interest in Mythic. Lol.
Same, lol ;)
Same, lol ;)
Gestatlt is kinda where I decided to really plant my flag. Ironically enough, I have absolutely no interest in Mythic. Lol.
I'm more of "how many different roles can I fill in one particular character build and still be good at just about anything". Gestalt just makes that too easy.
I missed this earlier somehow.
I wonder why you automatically assume dipping though? If you're supposedly a socially focused "skills monkey" you could play a 15 point buy halfling chained rogue and start with a 16 Cha, 12 Int, multiple languages known, either the feat Skill Focus: Diplomacy or Persuasive (depending on whether you're going to try and Intimidate as well) and still have tons of skill ranks left to spend.
This PC could also have a "minor" in Dex with a 16 Dex (thanks to Racial bonus) and be making low damage, highly accurate ranged attacks with weapons or be at least a +7 on any Dex based skill they're using. This is before any Traits come into play, if the GM is using them. Why would it be an expectation that as this character levels they'd be dipping into other classes?
I'm not assuming dipping. There's a lot of "or's" and "implied or's" in that statement. My point is that you're making expensive decisions towards fleshing out social/skill stuff rather than focusing on combat prowess.
if you want to build a non-gestalt Skill Monkey or Social-based character, you're going to suffer in the combat side of things-- because you're taking dips, multi-classing, or sacrificing feats that would otherwise be put towards combat, or possibly even allocating ability score points to Cha or Int for higher skills even though your class might not even use these ability scores
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally measure combat effectiveness by the baselines laid out in Monster Creation from the Bestiary.
I use THIS TABLE which is explained in THIS DOC. It's basicly the same thing you're using, but rather than the suggested numbers from the devs, some players have made averages from the actual bestiaries and use the real numbers. I think the basic premise is simple enough to understand, and will give the player the feeling that their concept is working. I also like the idea that there is too much of a good thing .
I can't even imagine level 1 without a bare minimum of 16 ac.
Martial characters should be at least +4 to hit at level 1
Primary casters need atleast a 16 in their casting stat, partial casters can work with a 13-15 to start
With point buy I often find 17 is a good number for a primary stat, and up it to 18 at 4th level
My method with casters is to work backward from where I want them to be.
A 9th level Wizard wants a 28 INT by level 17 . The reason for this is simply that a +9 modifier gives them a bonus 9th level spell-slot.
If you only have a +8 modifier then you're just missing out on one more instance of the most potent abilities available to you. Since getting one more +1 is usually doable it's worth the effort.
If you have a +10 modifier you're giving yourself a bonus 6th level spell-slot, which means you've spent a bunch more resources for something that's ... I mean it's ok, but it's not exactly game breaking at this point.
In order to get 2 bonus 9th level spell-slots you'd need a 36 INT , and given the scaling nature of point-buys this is Much harder to obtain, and probably not worth the cost. Essentially there's a soft-cap for casters where getting higher stats gives less overall benefit.
So if our 17th level wizard has 28 INT, we work backwards. He got +6 from a Headband - so he's actually got 22 INT - and he got +4 from levels, so he started with 18 INT.
So all 9th level casters want to start with 18 in their primary stat .
6th level casters want to get to 22 in their stat by level 16, which usually means getting to 16 in the stat and getting a +6 headband.
4th level casters want to get to 18 in the stat by level 13, though since spells are often NOT their most powerful class feature, they can cap at 14 if they don't want to invest as much - the 14 in their stat is the minimum required to cast 4th level spells.
Because the 6th and 4th level casters don't need to invest quite as much in their casting stat, and because they're probably investing more into physical stats there isn't as much of a level-1 benchmark for them, it's more of a guide to where you want to end up.
Oh, and as to Gestalt - I haven't played it, and I haven't really felt the need for it. Mind you I often do play 1-level dips to add flavour to my characters. I have enough system knowledge to make those dips worthwhile , but I can see where Gestalt lets you add flavour without sacrificing power.
If there are 30 classes then there are 30 different character concepts. If you're playing Gestalt then 30 classes gives you more like 900 concepts .
I don't think you need Gestalt, but I understand why people like it.
Gestalt PF gives you so many class features that you have to devote an unreasonable amount of time to character building to aim them all in one direction. Gestalt D&D 3.5 has fewer features so that's easier of course, and I've only actually played the latter.
Baselines depend on your fellow players. One person with an insistence of scraping up every iota of combat ability can skew that thoroughly, or in a game where combat is actually avoided they can hardly matter. PF is not usually the system for that though.
Gestalt can definitely add an extra step to character creation, and can make character creation quite tedious if you are exploring unfamiliar classes. But over all, if you are halfway familiar with the material you are working with, it is no more difficult than finding archetypes to stack within a single class.
Set goals for the character... I want full BAB, all good saves, and 9th level spells... suddenly that 900 options is more like a dozen, and that is fewer options than PF1 without gestalt. Lol.
Maybe I am willing to run with only two good saves, but I really need full BAB. And instead of 9th level spells, I will mix a 4/9 casting class with a 6/9 casting class.
Or perhaps I really need all good saves for this character, and I am willing to settle for 3/4 BAB because both classes are rich with options.
It is just a matter of knowing what you want, and where to find it. Once those choices have been made, it's easy enough to throw together a 1-20 outline of level by level class features. Highlight the definitions you will use most, the features that likely made you pick that class and archetype in the first place, and figure out your planned stat bumps, your feats/how those feats will interact with class features. When things come "online", and how to mesh your chosen style with teammates on a battlefield.
PF1 is so bloated you can get lost with all the options making a single class character if you allow yourself. Between Bards and Variant Multiclassing, I could probably never leave that one class the rest of my natural pathetic life. Lol. Gestalt doesn't actually change that... it doesn't make it any better, but it doesn't make it any worse than you let it, either.
The primary disadvantage of Gestalt is that you have two classes competing for your Move, Standard, Swift, and Immediate actions, so there are some classes that can really screw each other up so bad your character is indeed broken, because you simply start doing both classes bad, such as Fighter or Barbarian + Witch. Rage = no hexing, and dropping rage = fatigued. Barbarians need Standard Actions to attack and Witches need Standard Actions to hex; Barbs need to use Move Actions to get close to enemies, but Witches need Move Actions for Cackle-- once the Hex drops, they're immune to the Hex for 24 hours-- you can get Accursed Hex feat but this is a bandaid, because Gestalt characters = Gestalt enemies, and combat is 5 rounds+ minimum. Long story short, Fighter or Barb (or any class that needs Move Actions)+Witch is a mess. Warpriest Slayer runs into a similar problem with Move Actions at levels 1-7 and then Swifts level 7+.
Anywho, here's my point: Pick two classes that don't compete for Action types. Rather than Barbarian Witch, Brawler Witch w/ Hex Strike & Pummeling Charge = wonderful action economy synergy. Instead of Warpriest Slayer, consider Warpriest Fighter, Slayer Cleric, or Slayer Oracle, or maybe even Rogue Paladin if 6th-9th level spells aren't that important to you.
My benchmark is based on two things :
- The overall strength of the party. I will not suffer being the weakest link in the chain. It’s just not fun for me and makes me actually feel bad for the party. While i’m not the greatest optimizer, my characters are generally effective at what they do, be it support, control, damage, etc.
- The DM’s campaign goal. My goal will be to be effective, without frustrating the DM with an overoptimized character. As a forever DM, I understand that some spells or ability can be frustrating to deal with, so i dial it down whenever i’m asked to and ask for feedback when i feel my DM get frustrated.
I also like to try some janky concept from time to time. One of my favorite character of all time was a Sin Wizard of Wrath with an arcane bonded staff(read actual weakness) that could only use evocation spells. I made that character because i had negative preconception about the evocation school, but this character dispelled almost all of them by being an amazing blaster and controller. Evocation is awesome.
I've also never had an instance that the player running the paladin is having right now. Incidentally RK, I sent the player an email last night with your suggestions but he hasn't gotten back to me yet.
Anyway, I've not competed with other players for my niche or to prove combat effectiveness. Anecdotally I don't understand the need to "go beyond the blue" to paraphrase Mr C upthread. If I'm hitting my baselines, doing enough to help us win fights, then I'm "combat effective."
RK, I apologize if I came off as snarky or obtuse there by the way. I guess I was just trying to make the point that I didn't think you had to dip or gestalt in order to play a less combat focused "skills monkey" character and I think from re-reading that you're saying the same thing, except that the choices made are that much more of an investment if you don't.
All good mang, I didn't think you were being snarky. And I wasn't being snarky in response either, but I did want to clarify what I meant.
Anywho, some other pro-tips for your Paladin PC:
Sometimes you have to come to the aid of an ally who is across the battlefield and a small host of enemies are in your way, so coming to the ally's aid is going to necessitate walking through the Valley of Attacks of Opportunity. When this is the case, you can LoH yourself as a Swift, giving yourself Sanctuary, then perform your Move Action to reach the ally, meanwhile each enemy in "AoO Alley" has to pass the Will Save or their attack immediately fails, then when you reach the ally, you LoH him as a Standard. Now you both have Sanctuary, and any enemy who failed the Will Save cannot attack you until the Sanctuary drops. The enemies save once, and if they fail, it fails until the effect ends.
With high Cha paladins, devoting feats for Extra LoH or Extra Mercy is highly attractive. Because let's face it, the thing that makes a Paladin a Paladin is Smite Evil, but the 2nd thing that makes a Paladin a Paladin are the LoH/Mercies. So if you're only level 9 but you have 4-5 mercies going off every time you LoH when you're only supposed to have 3 mercies, but you also have 1/2 level + 5or6 Cha x LoH per day + an additional 2 LoH's from Extra LoH feat, it's pretty darned sexy, because that's about 10-12 times per day that you're removing Conditions and putting Sanctuary up, and healing for a metric boatload per day too.
Guess I'm old enough that LOH and Divine Health and Detect evil at will are what I consider core paladin abilities. Smite is a nice bonus but not the sine qua non.
I feel the same, i'm sure it's because smite evil was very disappointing back in 3.5 in which i had my longest paladin career.
You guys are OLD! Get with the times! Divine Health is OUT, High Cha Smite Evil is IN! :P
Detect Evil is still cool with the kids these days tho
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guess I'm old enough that LOH and Divine Health and Detect evil at will are what I consider core paladin abilities. Smite is a nice bonus but not the sine qua non.I feel the same, i'm sure it's because smite evil was very disappointing back in 3.5 in which i had my longest paladin career.
Same. I think it was AD&D 2e that offered a kit that let a Paladin deal magic damage to an undead or evil outsider once a day (or more as they level), that is the first that I was introduced to smiting. Then 3.5e with its 'announce before you attack' and only lasted for that attack.
For me, paladins were holy warriors specifically trained to fight outsiders and undead, priests with delayed and limited cleric casting/turning ability, and resistance outsider/undead specific types of attacks because ability drain was TERRIBLE in AD&D.
You guys are OLD! Get with the times! Divine Health is OUT, High Cha Smite Evil is IN! :P
Detect Evil is still cool with the kids these days tho
No u! Paladin nowaydays use spell slot to power their strikes with 1d8+spell slot level used radiant damage! (5e)
Side note, i like that now some creatures have ''none'' for aura. It really helped dealing with the lawful stupid paladin that detect evil on every commoner in each corner of the world.
For me, paladins were holy warriors specifically trained to fight outsiders and undead, priests with delayed and limited cleric casting/turning ability, and resistance outsider/undead specific types of attacks because ability drain was TERRIBLE in AD&D.
Ennemy-based Specialist are cool conceptualy but i've never really had fun playing one. I feel like you're gonna spend your career being subpar outside of a few encounters.
Lastly, Mr C talks about working backwards from the numbers you want at the end of your character's career. My players and I don't do that so for the uber optimizers I'll suggest that method.
I usually build my characters from level 1 forward, only planning out to about level 6. Since a lot of campaigns others run for me die between levels 4-8 due to scheduling or personal issues and such, I figure level 6 is the sweet spot.
In case I wasn't clear on this point, I work backwards to get base stats so that I can have that extra spell-slot at the highest that level we play. If you're playing in PFS and only expect to get to level 11 then you only need a 22 INT Wizard . If you assume you can get a +4 headband and +2 from leveling then you can reasonably start with a 16 INT and reach the benchmarks you care about.
I actually don't think that hits the benchmark DCs and stuff, so if you're playing a Save-Or-Suck Wizard you might find those stats a bit disappointing. I actually don't tend to play 9th level casters often, and when I do I tend to play a little more buff-focused , but those benchmarks seem fine to me.
Ennemy-based Specialist are cool conceptualy but i've never really had fun playing one. I feel like you're gonna spend your career being subpar outside of a few encounters.
I think Paladins are specialists, but when they're not dealing with Undead/Demons/etc they're also the tankiest tanks ever to tank in Tankdom. Also Mercies and Auras have great utility. So they end up being defensive walls with some utility for the party, and when you get to the boss fight they can solo the boss.
So yeah for most of the game I think LoH and Divine Grace are the real stars of the Paladin tool-kit, but Smite is a nice thematic ability that helps remind people not to get on your naughty list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What baselines are you building your characters to?
I pretty much only deal with gimmick builds, tbh. At the level the gimmick is online I compare it to the table linked by MrCharisma (average monster stats) and see if the build is too weak or too strong. That works fine for builds that will primarily deal damage.
Then if I feel it is in a good spot I ask myself if I'm taking liberties with RAI. Would most GMs allow me to treat Undine Loyalty as Solo Tactics for a single feat, let skeletons drink the alcohol from Tears to Wine, or let me add Dex-to-dmg to melee attacks with an Axe Musket from Musket Training (which doesn't specify ranged attacks)?
Probably not.
Then "is this build fun to play?"
Then "is this build fun to GM for?"
I think Paladins are specialists, but when they're not dealing with Undead/Demons/etc they're also the tankiest tanks ever to tank in Tankdom. Also Mercies and Auras have great utility. So they end up being defensive walls with some utility for the party, and when you get to the boss fight they can solo the boss.
So yeah for most of the game I think LoH and Divine Grace are the real stars of the Paladin tool-kit, but Smite is a nice thematic ability that helps remind people not to get on your naughty list.
IMO, Paladins are now fine, maybe even overtuned. They are specialized against evil foes (read 90% of meaningfull ennemies) and happens to be really great at slaying Evil Outsiders, Undead, dragons with the double smite damage bonus.
Lay on hand is also really great in PF, there's whole build that focus on it. In 3.5, it was ''okay'' you could burst it heal or oblitarate one undead, which was funny, but it wasn't great either.
I can't even imagine level 1 without a bare minimum of 16 ac.
Martial characters should be at least +4 to hit at level 1
Primary casters need atleast a 16 in their casting stat, partial casters can work with a 13-15 to start
With point buy I often find 17 is a good number for a primary stat, and up it to 18 at 4th level
huh, I got all these same benchmarks too.
Tell him to take a level of Bloodrager and the Extra Rage feat at his next odd level ... and the Fatigue mercy if he doesn't already have it. This gives him a mini-smite that works on everyone for ~12 rounds per day, and stacks with actual Smite if needed. The Fatigue mercy lets him use it in 1-round bursts if needed, which means he should be able to make it last more-or-less all day.
The paladin player in my megadungeon game measures his combat effectiveness through DPR. He didn't set out to compete with the other players in the party and didn't have a need to be the BEST at DPR, so he didn't optimize his stats or feats around this measurement.
It doesn't take much to be effiencient in melee. Does he have power attack? Given that he already have quick draw and a plethora of weapons, he could pick his shield when needed. If he wants, reach weapons with combat reflexes are also pretty good even at 13 dex.
MrCharisma advice seems solid as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I assume you've talked to this player about their perspective, expectations and etc.?
Because the problem is 100% in their head. There are so many ways to contribute to a game, to a combat.
Your player could make a few changes to be more "optimal". But that's only a small piece of the issue.
If you've talked to them and they can't see the truth, then...I guess just let them be dissatisfied?
There's only so much a GM can do, you know?
A long time ago, I had a player who told me that they really weren't enjoying the game we were currently playing. So we stopped that game and started another. 3-5 sessions or so in, they weren't having fun.
They said they finally figured it out; they really just enjoyed playing big, strong characters that beat face. But their last two characters were a crafty researcher and a sneaky conman.
So, new game. Big tough strong character. 3-5 sessions in, "my character is just...not very interesting."
I'd known this person for 20 years. I've never spoken to them since. The level of self-absorbtion is stunning,but even more was this bizarre idea that it was solely MY responsibility to ensure that THEY had fun.
We all have a hand in each other's enjoyment of this hobby, of course. It's a collaborative effort. But if you can't make yourself happy, don't look to your GM like some kind of magician.
None of my players are intellectual slackers so they'd grasp the concept easily enough, but I wouldn't dare suggest gestalt characters to them. Our gaming has become even more a casual pastime than it ever has been and it's a lot more work they'd be willing to put in and frankly, no one would bother creating one.
For me, my benchmarks are "Not going to get killed by a single simple mistake" and "Can contribute in some way to most things."
Both my monk and pair of warpriests that I'm currently playing have a low amount of skill ranks. But I made sure to have a minimum of one rank in each Knowledge skill so I would always be able to make a roll. Will I be great at those skills? Unlikely. Will there be another character that's better at that skill? Very likely. But I will always be able to help out and make the roll if I need to.
As for gestalt, I always try to pick a class that complements the primary class in either mechanics or theme. For example, my orc bard was given Fighter as the gestalt. There were a lot of cool tricks that I didn't have room for in the original build but with the Fighter's bonus feat I could take them. So I could expand his combat prowess as well as out-of-combat usefulness.
My Feral Champion Warpriest was given Hunter as the gestalt class. It matched the theme of him being nature oriented and gave him an animal companion for free so that I didn't need to use feats to get him one. Which left room for other things.
I'm also currently adjusting a character for gestalt. (Living world group that allows multiple characters.) His original build is IB Swash 1 / Paladin 2 / ES Magus 17. Now I can don't have to lose caster levels and go ES Magus 20 // IB Swash 1/Paladin 19.
I'm the most rules and numbers inclined of the group, but my characters tend to be more concept driven.
This is a good point to bring up , most of us here on the forums are probably the optimisers of our groups - not necessarily because of intention, but because of ability.
Those of us who spend more time on the forums are exposed to more build ideas, more combos, more feat/spell/whatever options so the power-ceiling raises the longer we've been around. Even someone totally uninvested in the power-game will absorb information just by hanging around.
Also, those of us who frequent the Paizo forums, Giantitp forums, Reddit threads, etc are clearly spending more time thinking about the game, so we're more likely to be interested in the mechanics than those who don't.
With that in mind, what we think of as reasonable benchmarks may he incredibly high by the standards of our group if they don't spend time on forums like this one.
None of us are really what I would think of as a "power gamer", but we also don't like to be especially vulnerable, so we generate more powerful characters.
This is something else. Do ANY of us think of ourselves as Power Gamers? I certsinly don't think of myself as one, but my character solo'd a dragon in 1 round receny. The GM thought this was going to be a serious problem for us, and ... it wasn't .
Just something to think about ... am I a Power Gamer? =P