Average games, average characters, and its ok


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Thought I'd make a new thread since I didn't want to hijack the one that DeathlessOne posted the following excellent point in:

DeathlessOne wrote:
I suppose that's just a long way to say this: Feats are not as important as people think that they need to scrimp and save and get the perfect one. Not for any kind of 'average' game that keeps within the expectations of the CR system.

I've been a big advocate for this for years. Feats, Traits, Archetypes and so on aren't inherently there to make your Barbarian do more DPR, or make your Brown Fur Arcanist nearly indestructible. Instead these are simply tools to round you out into the unique character you want to be.

Think of it like this: pick whatever benchmark system you want to measure your combat ability against; I myself just use the Monster Creation rules but use what you feel comfortable with. Combat is inevitable in a PF1 game unless your GM is running a truly unique campaign. Once you've hit the metrics you need to for defeating a monster of the CR that equals your current level, what if other choices you made for Feats, Traits, Archetypes and so on were based on some non-combat feature of your character?

My point with this post is to open a discussion about the merits of NOT optimizing your PC entirely for combat, or perhaps only optimizing to be "ok" at combat. Here, for myself I'm defining "ok" as being able to hit about 50% or more of the time and deal avg damage or overcome the saves of my enemies about 50% or more of the time, as measured against the Monster Creation chart. Again, your benchmarks may vary.


This is something I've thought about a lot in the past, especially from the context of the GM.

I have a difficulty in mind that I want to achieve. No matter how strong your PC is, I can make an NPC that's stronger, because I don't have to play by the rules. And I wont if I feel like they're standing in my way.

So trying to optimize harder, just means I make stronger enemies.

Conversely, if it's only player doing it such that making enemies too strong would destroy one character and do nothing to another then I take a different approach. Wherein combat becomes incredibly easy and trivial. Everyone kills everything in 1 hit! Now all your investment is pretty meaningless. And I'll focus the game on skill checks and social encounters instead.

I can always find ways to challenge you wherever you're weakest.

And, if as a party some characters excel at combat, others at skills, and others at social encounters (etc) then I will mix everything together and let everyone have a time to shine.

Which gets down to your point. If my players don't try to optimize, then I will lower the bar for the enemy I set against them.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Here, for myself I'm defining "ok" as being able to hit about 50% or more of the time and deal avg damage or overcome the saves of my enemies about 50% or more of the time, as measured against the Monster Creation chart. Again, your benchmarks may vary.

Needless to say, I am generally in agreement with you on the overall matter, though my benchmarks DO vary a tad from your own. I'd be more comfortable with what I am doing having around an 85% chance of succeeding or not before I feel fully comfortable with committing myself or my resources elsewhere. If I am deviating from this standard, its likely because I am attempting to prove a point to someone or because I have a wild idea that I'm testing out.

My philosophy on designing characters to fill active roles is generally: You are *insert class* and are 'good' at *activity* by default. You also want to do *other activity* and you need to expend *insert resources* in order to raise your ability to do so. For example, a Wizard has to expend a decent amount of resources in order to do the job of a Fighter, whether that comes in the form of feats (permanent boosts) or specific spell selections.

That aside, I see the resources you don't spend on trying to do something your class was not designed to be good at, as a way to broaden the reach and versatility of your character. You can interact with the world in so many different ways and overcome the same kind of obstacle with different means. If I didn't have to focus on optimizing my character to stay alive in outrageous situations, I'd do what normal people do when they have more time and resources to spend, invest in entertainment and recreation in the game world and BUILD something outside of myself. (Disclaimer: Those of alignments outside of the assumed 'good' in this statement may make very different choices)


Out of curiosity, I started tracking NPC deaths in a Mummy's Mask game sometime in Book 2.

343 creatures died over the rest of the Campaign.
A full 33 percent was done by one PC, a Monk.
The party's life oracle got 10%
One player, who played 2 different DPS(Slayer and Kineticist) PCs ended up with 21.86 percent.
13 Percent by a player who dropped in book 3 ish(Panoply of the Warrior Occultist), this we largely think, accounts for the increase in kills by the Top Spot.
9 percent for the party Magus, but, killed the most number of bosses. Odd. I think player attendance was an issue for this one, or the PC's small size.
I played a Magus who retrained into Wizard after book 4, ended up at 12 percent. (To be fair, I was also playing a Sarenite who tried to avoid killing people.)A Sphinx NPC got 5% and Self Destructs (A unique feature of Mummy's Mask) got 3 percent.

All that to say is that pretty much half of our party damage was handled by two players and the rest of us just puttered about, doing whatever. Aside from the peculiar case of the Magus, who should have been doing more, I think, no one really expressed any complaints about it. (Aside from the Oracle, who had a lot of anti-undead spells and we fought a lot of living cultists and constructs)

If my PC has a 'thing' I want that thing to work nearly every time. That's what build energy goes into. Everything after that is gravy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

This article is probably relevant, even though it was written for D&D 3.x. Basically, many of the issues that some groups have with 3.x/PF1 are because of (bad) habits from using encounters that are always "challenging" (CR or EL equal to or greater than APL) instead of using a variety of encounters. Because encounters are always challenging, PCs "need" to be "built" for maximum combat effectiveness.

There is another approach, which was actually documented in the 3.0 and 3.5 DMGs, to use encounters with a CR/EL below the APL 30% of the time, CR/EL equal to the APL 50% of the time, CR/EL 1-4 levels above APL 15% of the time, and CL/EL 5+ levels above APL (which most likely cannot be defeated by the party in a straight-up fight and/or without help) 5% of the time. You can tinker with the percentages depending on the type of campaign you want to run.

In short, an increased number of easier encounters (instead of fewer, more challenging encounters) has several effects on how the players approach the game: it reduces the "15-minute adventuring day" syndrome, players are encouraged to expand beyond "the most optimal" choices for their characters, it encourages more of a "cinematic"/risk-taking play style instead of reinforcing "turtling"/extreme caution, and combat becomes quicker so that more time can be spent on the story and roleplaying.


The adage that "every table/game/group is different" certainly applies here too. I do have to wonder though if, generally, some of the push for optimization doesn't come out of APs and/or society play. I've only ever played in a few such games briefly at a convention, so forgive if this is a false conclusion. The general impression that I get from these threads though, is that such games tend to be more linear and weighted to more frequent combats. The lethality varies to be sure, but if one comes to expect mostly combat from the game, then that's naturally where most will choose to devote the character building resources to.

I try not to min/max too hard, but I'm probably a bit more guilty of it than I realize. I don't really use any external benchmarks when building my characters, I just come up with a list of three to a dozen things I want mechanically to reflect the concept. One or two of these I try to get "big" numerical bonuses in, a few more I try to boost moderately, and any remainders get a single skill point, trait, or feat if I have leftovers.

My current group is very free form and casual. Combats haven't been too dire. My character is a bit all over the map, but I almost always have something to contribute, and I'm having a blast.


If you need 85% success rate or else you're uncomfortable with the action, does this limit your actions? Does this guide you towards only using the stuff you're REALLY good at to resolve any conflict?

There's 2 reasons I set the bar for success so low in my own character builds. First, at least some of my fights aren't going to be one big monster but rather multiple lesser monsters meaning if I can beat a monster whose CR matches my level half the time, I'm that much more effective dealing with the lesser ones. Second, if my GM is running things in "hard mode" and there's lots of APL +1-4 fights happening, if I can survive long enough I can always retrain later and refocus on beating that 50% threshold later.

Plus there's buff spells, items and other stuff to pump my character up. There's also good strategy. Worst case scenario, my more "well-rounded" PCs can always just provide Aid Another bonuses or use Delay or Readied Action to give or take advantage of my allies strategies.

My last PC was a Divine Commander warpriest 5/hunter 3. He was a halfling riding around on his wolf AC. He WAS very combat oriented, I won't lie, but he had very average stats, gear and what not. I balanced my gear around keeping my wolf as optimized as I could.

I never did TONS of damage, but my bonuses to hit in melee or at range were both pretty close to one another. If something got into melee, my wolf helped. I also used spells not just through Fervor but to bless, heal and buff the other PCs around me.

More than all of this I hunted and trapped as we traveled. I made leather goods and kept the party fed. I used diplomacy along with good old fashioned RP, handed out gifts to folks we met along the way, and as a result we had free room and board often. The majority of info we got outside of combat areas came from my character's actions.

I even tried a few times to sway NPCs to our side in the AP. Unfortunately said NPCs were written as such that they would not work with the PCs beyond certain very specific actions, but I did get a small amount of help for the party that way too.

Contrast this with the attitude of all 4 players in my current megadungeon game. For them, combat is everything and they will go out of their way to resolve any conflict with violence if they can. Barring that, even from L1, there have only been three out-of-combat actions worth taking: scouting (Perception, Stealth), finding/removing traps (Disable Device, Perception, Trapfinding) or Gather Info checks (Diplomacy).

Facing a steep climb? That's what spells and gear are for. GM calls for a chase scene? Attack the horse before it gets too far away and just have the cleric stabilize and heal it after the fact. If you can't or shouldn't kill it, then either use one of the 3 non-combat actions or a spell/item.

In combat, I have one switch-hitter, the Scout u-rogue. She of course runs everything through her Dex so its easy for her to use ranged or melee attacks. Since she's a scout getting SA hasn't been too hard, and now at L8 all she needs to do is move 10'. Over time those singular hit SA attacks will wane in damage though, and knowing this player she will be spending feats and talents to fix this issue.

Aside from her however, I've got a u-monk that despite having a secondary focus in grappling sees every combat as a DPR competition and will do everything in his power to flurry. I have a paladin that either has his war bull mount do all the damage or else he's smiting, and I have a fire elementalist who will ONLY make long ranged fire attacks.

These are the best tools in their arsenal, so these are the only tools that matter. Now that we're meeting monsters with Resist Fire 10 or Immune Fire, the wizard is mad at me; if we get into spaces the war bull won't fit, the paladin is grumpy towards me; if the monk is forced to make ranged attacks and misses or deals very little damage, that's somehow my problem.

They all have specific hammers and their only enjoyment in the game comes from using them.

If you only enjoy combat, why not optimize broadly enough to be able to use multiple kinds of attacks? If you enjoy non-combat parts of the game, why only focus on optimization for combat? And if you're striving for an 85% success rate, what are you willing to throw to the wayside to achieve your goal?


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
If you need 85% success rate or else you're uncomfortable with the action, does this limit your actions? Does this guide you towards only using the stuff you're REALLY good at to resolve any conflict?

I never said I was uncomfortable with the action. I said I wouldn't be comfortable allocating resources elsewhere. There is a specific distinction that probably did not come through, that is I don't consider myself 'good' at a specific thing unless I have an 85% chance of being successful at doing it. Remember, this is against CR encounters that are roughly equal to the party (an 'average encounter). When the CR shifts upwards, I expect that percentage to drop.

When in doubt about what I am generally speaking of, assume an average counter equal to the average party level. There are too many specific instances of where things might differ to cover them all with a universal statement.

Quote:
Plus there's buff spells, items and other stuff to pump my character up. There's also good strategy. Worst case scenario, my more "well-rounded" PCs can always just provide Aid Another bonuses or use Delay or Readied Action to give or take advantage of my allies strategies.

These things are what I consider 'additional resources' and are there to bring your percentages up when needed. Buff spells should be saved for the more difficult encounters. Not just for the melee guys during the boss fight, but also for the mixed role teammates that need that little extra 'push' to help them perform better in a more common kind of fight.

Quote:
If you only enjoy combat, why not optimize broadly enough to be able to use multiple kinds of attacks? If you enjoy non-combat parts of the game, why only focus on optimization for combat? And if you're striving for an 85% success rate, what are you willing to throw to the wayside to achieve your goal?

I enjoy all aspects of the game, from combat to social encounters, and I thread the optimization line for all of them based on the overall expectations of the adventure. As to what I throw away in order to reach that 85% success rate? What I need to in order to create a fairly proficient adventurer that has weak points that push him to join an adventuring group to maximize his odds of success.


Sorry DO, I was probably reading your original comments with blinders on. Seriously though, at my own tables, players actually WILL choose not to commit to an action or an aspect of their character if they can't get that 85%, or at least 75%. Like, I described a particular NPC as being highly acrobatic and dexterous, and one of the melee guys missed her in combat. The fire wizard only had Scorching Ray left as a spell or a L1 Enlarge Person and chose to cast Enlarge Person specifically b/c "well, I don't want to MISS!"

No, instead the paladin with the reach weapon went up a size category but got no actual benefit to hit, kept missing, and eventually had to get bailed out by the party's NPC cleric hireling.

Anyway, I should probably read more closely so I apologize for misinterpreting/misreading your original post. I get it, I'm also someone that likes all aspects of the game so I optimize around combat and non-combat when I get to play. I envy folks that have players like this in their games.

Also on a side note pre-dark-times I have changed up my gaming groups several times. I've had a couple combat/non-combat folks like myself here and there, but the majority of my players fit the "murderhobo" stereotype.


IMC, the PCs have above average stats (25 points or thereabouts) but they're not remotely optimised (at least not by the standards of this place). Rather, they built around RP concepts and didn't make deliberately stupid choices. But mostly, they behave like actual people, rather than professional adventurers*. And it's fine.

But as a GM, I throw in lots of sub-EL encounters and lots of mooks; if I go above APL+2 it's probably by mistake. And while combat is a major element of the game, it's not the entire game, so out-of-combat abilities are properly useful.

* it rather irks me that some people play from 1st level as though their PCs have been training all their adolescence to be Adventurers and so know all the cheesy tricks and exactly what kit to buy and so forth, rather than being the local kids who were thrown by circumstance into being Heroes. Or rather, it's not that they play like that; rather that they insist that everyone should play like that because stoopid newb otherwise. Cue badwrongfun discussion, of course.


I definitely prefer to build characters that are decent at a number of things rather than really good at one thing, so I will never optimise to be great at combat to the detriment of everything else. I never dump stats and I usually don’t have any glaring weaknesses.

For instance in one campaign I ran a pacifist cleric who was great at healing, status removal and buffing team mates but I actually favoured charisma over wisdom so I could act as party face as well. That character had negligible offence, but was very hard to take down (good AC, saves etc.) so could act as party tank in a pinch.

More recently I ran a ranger character with archery style, so I was decent at combat, but my feat choices were split between archery feats and skill boosting feats, plus I picked up a level of rogue so I could act as a few different roles: party tank (due to point blank master), ranged damage dealer, scout and trap finder with a number of other useful skills.

Within our group my character is never the best at anything, but my character is usually the second best at everything. There are two advantages to this:

1) I can always contribute to the success of the party, regardless of the situation, so I’m always engaged with what is going on.

And

2) My characters have high survivability. In our three longest running campaigns my three characters were the only ones to survive from start to finish in all three.

Number 1 is why I design characters the way I do, it basically gives me more game time without hogging the spotlight and ruining anyone else’s fun, number 2 is just a side benefit.


Elbore of the Northern Duskmoon Mining Company:

Spoiler:
NG Male Human Cleric of Benorus 1

Str 12, Dex 13, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 16 (14 +2 Racial)

Alt Race Trait: Fey Magic

Traits Exalted of the Society, Resilient

Domains Earth, Rune (Wards)

Feats L1 Energy Channel (Earth/Acid), L1 Bonus Extra Channel, Scribe Scroll

SLA 1/day in Underground terrain (CL = Character Level): Create Water, Know Direction, Purify Food and Water; Expeditious Excavation

Skills Diplomacy +7, Knowledge (Religion) +5, Perception +6, Profession (Miner) +6; Note - Perception and Use Magic Device are Class skills per Alt Race Trait

Special Abilities: Channel Positive Energy 9/day (DC 14; 1d6)

Free action to spend 1 Channel Positive Energy to instead deliver +2 Acid damage on up to 3 weapon attacks or until the end of the fight, whichever happens first

Elbore is the keeper of the keys in the mines (casts Arcane Lock 1/day as a Domain spell), the way out in a collapse (Know Direction 1/day underground) and the recoverer of lost ones in a collapse (Expeditious Excavation 1/day, Resilient so he can resist thin air or gasses slightly better, healing and other spells).

He's a tall, broad-shouldered man, not the type you'd expect in cramped quarters, but he's kind, with a deliberate patience his fellow workers have come to respect. He may not preach openly about Benorus but he invokes his deity every morning as he opens the mines for work, then again at close of business.

Elbore is fairly agile for his size. He tries to lighten the spirits of the laborers and travels among them throughout the day with a pair of water pails on a pole across his back. Elbore's hair is shorn short and his great jaw and nose jut from his ruddy face so much that it's the favorite jeer his fellows enjoy.

Thankfully they ignore Elbore's eyes.

As a lad, Elbore began having a hard time playing out in the sunlight with the other boys and girls. His mother recognized the issue at once; he has eyes like those of the Pechs long back in the lineage of Elbore's family. Thick, black and glassy like spheres of obsidian in his head, Elbore's sight eventually adjusted such that he can see well enough in daylight, but twice as well by the dim candleflames in the mines.

That's a PC I'd play in a L1 adventure. He likely wouldn't hit all the time in combat; he'd really be relying on knowing adventure was in store, casting Magic Stone early on and trying to use either his sling or his Acid Darts plus Energy Channel in combat.

Out of combat though, he's a soft-spoken, charmingly gawky kid around 19 in suspenders and britches. Elbore knows his way around the mines and mining in general, and is more at home underground than out in the sunlight. With the blood of pechs running through his veins, there could easily be ways to multiclass using that as the basis for new powers

My idea to advance him over time would be to focus on Elbore's ability to add damage to any weapon he's using. Right now I don't really have an attack stat or strategy in mind. Thanks to Scribe Scroll, he'd want to be constantly making himself lots of cheap buff spells either for his own benefit or that of the party.

As to his goals, Elbore isn't the "I want to own and operate my own mine" type of PC. Rather, he wants to be a protector for those working down in the earth. Advocating for laborer's rights, using spells not just for healing/restoration but also to clear cave-ins faster, make safer supports and installing Continual Light instead of open flames to keep sparks to a minimum.

Long term I could see this PC seeking out one of those hidden conclaves of pech miners hidden in the Darklands (or whatever the Deep Dark is called in PF1). Elbore doesn't just want to reconnect with the race of fey that mingled with his own bloodline generations ago, but he'd like to learn from them, perhaps strike an accord of mutual benefit between them and the mortals closer to the surface.


My actual pet peeve is that there are highly complex rules for combat, but diplomacy is like, 4 dice rolls at most?

Especially in actual negotiations.


Well, if a lot of work goes into crafting an encounter, it's tempting to make it challenging - to make it worth the trouble. It's frustrating to build an encounter for an hour or more, and to see it ended within a single round of combat. Had this last session, again. Sigh.

So IMO easy encounters should mean little preparation effort:

1) Use creatures right from a book. No tweaking beyond a name change.
2) Use simple creatures. One special ability is more than enough when chances are slim it actually gets use.
3) Reuse the creatures within the session. Players actually don't mind some repetition, rather feel empowered when they can use the knowledge from fighting these enemies before.

Further, it helps to keep in mind that there are good reasons for easy encounters:

1) They can introduce players into a new area.
2) They make players feel empowered, especially if the creatures were challenging a few levels ago.
3) They allow players to use less-than-optimal tactics. Your sorcerer player has an itch to go melee for once? Now it's the time.
4) They make hard encounters appear even harder, due to the contrast in difficulty. Without the hard encounter becoming more lethal (but see below).

I encountered one major issue with easy encounters: They result in overconfidence. Two easy ones followed by a surprisingly tough one can be a deathtrap for PCs, because players underestimate the third one. So I try to increase difficulty slowly.


Sheepish,

One thing to remember though is that building "easier" fights for higher level PCs is a lot different than for lower level. Consider 4 PCs, level 8:

As an "easy" fight I added several base wights (CR 3) using very basic tactics to encounters with Brute Wights, a single Cairn Wight and 2 elite homebrewed wights with NPC levels. In one of the encounter areas, the common wights began by exiting a crypt area on the map; this area had one exit.

One of the PCs has an animal companion with an AC of 30. That's right; he's spent so much of his WBL on this creature it has an AC of 30. Said AC moved to block the one exit of the crypt and went full defense. One wight at a time had a 1 in 20 chance of ever affecting the AC, essentially removing them and the AC from the fight.

However, since I'd DESIGNED the fight with these extra CR3 wights in mind, the only other opponents in the combat were a pair of brute wights, essentially a CR 7 threat to 4 well optimized CR 8 PCs. It wasn't really much of an "empowering" combat. In fact, one of the players after finishing the second Brute Wight asked if we could just "handwave" the standard wights being defeated so they could move on.

Now, if those were "average" PCs - 15 point buy, modest level of optimization, those CR 3 wights may still have posed an actual threat. As it is, I did end up just narrating the undead being destroyed by the PCs and ended the scene.


I had an average character once. Lol. Izzek was a 15pt buy, cRogue... Strength-based Tengu using a Greatsword via the Tengu's Swordtrained racial feature. He took a trait for Know:Nature, took the Nature Magic feat and Wild Magic Rogue Talent so he could always lead the party [constant Know Direction], he could use Purify Food and Water 1/day, and Create Water 3/day. Team player, Izzek was. Izzek was so average he started as a vanilla cRogue... had "earn" the Scout archetype by being reduced to 1hp by an AoO whilst charging an enemy to keep them from literally sacrificing a member of the party (at level 4, it was one of THOSE campaigns).

I actually prefer this approach, quite honestly. I will drop combat feats for things like Deific Obedience without thinking twice. My eagerness to include fun feats has actually changed the way I prioritize combat feats... I will generally not use any feat that comes with an accuracy penalty unless it is prerquisite for something else. Never miss. May just deal average damage, and that's okay. But never miss.

I absolutely enjoy the characters I build now more than when I was optimizing for murderhobo munchkin madness. The depth and quality of character, the value to the party or story has increased exponentially. Damage will happen, even if everyone in the party deals average damage, so what? Things might, MIGHT, last more than 3-5 rounds? Oh no. Now it's a party, let's dance. Killing epic dragons in 3 rounds is not fun for anyone... not the GM, not the players, and certainly not the dragon.

When epic encounters end quickly, it leaves everyone feeling/thinking like "where's the rest of it?" That was it, you over-optimized murderhobos! You win. There's literally nothing left to kill. Hope you're happy. Hope you're proud. Lol.

My favorite character of all time was a gestalt Cleric/UnMonk with "Dazing Channel" [rulership variant channel]... Hbob used Aid Another more than he casted spells, more than he ever attacked, literally more than anything else Hbob used Aid Another/Bodyguard. I didn't even focus on Aid Another outside of Adopted:Helpful, and I can really optimize me some Aid Another, if I want... but I didn't optimize Hbob for anything, other than flavor and fun. He had a wicked Channel DC due to being a Charisma-based UnMonk, but only used his Dazing Channel a handful of times as a get out of jail free card when the party got overwhelmed. I think the party had Hbob use his Dazing Channel exactly one time offensively. I would cast buff spells and condition removal spells when needed, I would Flurry when cornered, but most of all it was all about Bodyguard and Aid Another. So much fun.

Never going back to that murderhobo BS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VoodistMonk wrote:
Never going back to that murderhobo BS.

The sheer satisfaction of seeing someone reach this particular evolution of player is immensely gratifying. It is akin to realizing that there never was a spoon. Or that the real adventure happens in the small moments of the journey.


--Here is my checklist for "is my character a murderhobo"

--Does my character think that sessions without combat are not neccessarily boring but not at their full potential?

--Is the most impactfull thing that happened in the campaign to him combat related?

--Is the thing he looks forward the most in the campaign combat related?

--Did he ever feel a pang of regret when a situation was resolved by bluff or diplomacy, thus depriving him of loot?

--Did he ever feel a pang of regret when a situation that could have been resolved by bluff or diplomacy instead turned violent?

Of my current chars hmm:

CN Skald in WOTR:

-Yes, I like fighting
-I got one shot by my fully munchkinned (by me) NPC rival half brother
-Nope, if trying to summon Nocticula for tacit cooperation in early act 3 result in combat, I would quite literally be f~&&ed.
-Nope, I do the diplomacy/bluff for that
-Yes, I would have hoped to not get one shot by my half brother

CN DND Echo knight in a homebrew:

-Yes I like fighting
-I got my wisdom reduced to 3 during combat, when we found a ancient sleeping dwarfen mage in a stasis, my character decided that he read that fable before and kissed the mage awake, thinking it would turn into a frog prince and then into a princess! But it actually just made the mage wakeup, but she was a pretty kindly granny so all is fine!
-I dont know what the module has in store for me
-Hasnt happened yet
-I probably will.

CE Bloodrager in Way of the Wicked:

-I dont mind infiltration missions, typically, at some point cover gets blown and a fight is on.
-Kind of? I got out of a Gylous private parts by a cunning cast of enlarge person from our arcanist.
-Look forward to dating the Gylou, that fight was fun.
-Yes, but I appreciate bluffing them, so that they later return with even moar loot.
-Nope, dude, this is way of the wicked...


I usually shoot for a B+ power level. Not that I always hit the target correctly.

I have went all out a few times though ie: A+. Not that I was ruining the game for any of the other players though.

I don't always focus on combat. The PC I was playing in War for the Crown was straight social mechanics and was next to useless in combat. Loved that PC.

I always make sure my pcs have a backstory that makes sense and is fun/interesting etc. Mechanically I try and at least pull my weight and match the theme of the character. I also generally try to always be able to do something in any situation.

If I make a combat interested pc they will have a reason for it. ie: One of my recent theory crafts was an Inquisitor of Nulgreth. Granted Inquisitors are pretty multifaceted.

Lately I've been trying to make pcs with unusual play mechanics that are still mechanically competent. Not that I ever did much normal stuff...my druid in Irongfang is the party face for example. :)


I feel like I have been beating my head against the optimizer-dominated conventional wisdom for nearly two decades now (especially on the Giantitp forum; neither Paizo nor Enworld was quite as bad).

It's refreshing to see some opinions at least vaguely similar to mine here.

In my experience, you don't need an uber-powerful PC to succeed against the challenges of an AP as published.

And, IMO, rocket tag is boring and not epic.

So, I like to aim for an A- on defense and a B- on offense. Enough to drop the foe in a few rounds, but enough defense to withstand those few rounds. Good defense also allows for running away or changing strategies if overmatched; glass cannons win or die quickly. And there absolutely can be RP, dramatic decisions, character moments, and excitement in combat - just not generally in rocket tag.

Most APs seem to end up with the GM scaling up encounters even if the PCs are just 'normally' optimized. So what I would love is to run is a game for the less optimal options, just to prove that with halfway intelligent play you can beat an AP (as written) with something like a Phantom Thief Rogue, an Unbreakable Fighter, a Sacred Fist Warpriest, and a... uh... 3.5 Green Star Adept or Spellsword? Not sure if there are any arcane classes seen as Tier 4/5.


I don't know what A- or B+ ratings are. I don't know the tier rankings of the various classes. I've been in this system for nearly 13 years now and I've barely branched out from the Core classes and feats.

I have never then seen any value in picking ONE aspect of my PC to focus on entirely. Sometimes I pick a class specifically so that I can put aspects of my character growth on autopilot. Wizard or Barbarian are good choices for this.

If you play a wizard you've got a broad enough range of spell choices that there's likely always SOMETHING you can do effectively in combat. Barbarian is: max out combat stat, choose your archetype (or lack thereof) to support the combat stat you maxed, and manage your rounds of rage. Other than that you don't NEED much to be effective except a way to get at your foes.

In this manner I can put that aspect of my PC to bed and focus on something else. "Ok, my 18 Str human barbarian has Weapon Focus: Greatsword. So long as I spend some money over time improving my weapon I SHOULD be fine for the next 4-5 levels. Now, what does this guy do in his spare time..."


In my mind, "A-" means "excellent, but not the absolute best it could be" and "B-" means "pretty good".

Just qualitative descriptors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I have spent so much time in the Big Dumb Fighter/murderhobo mindset that I can optimize for combat almost by accident... I already know which traits and feats deliver results, I know which options are traps and which are effective... and knowing is half the battle (violence is the other half).

I used to never give a $#!+ who my character worshipped unless that deity had something to offer me mechanically... like Gorum's Swordmanship, or Desna's Shooting Star. I would change my alignment to match, as necessary. Core things like alignment mattered so little it was left open until the end of character creation. A background could be made up on the spot by summarizing the traits, alternative racial features, and/or starting feats I chose... and those traits, alternative racial features, and starting feats were likely chosen purely for their mechanical benefits.

Disgusting. Shallow. Sad.

But, I'm better now. Lol.

It has proven to be more satifying as a player, and to provide a more noticed/appreciated contribution to the story since I switched the way I develop characters. The other players at the table like my characters more. I am more actively engaged with the party and involved in the story more. I have more to do in more situations. The party is better off due to my expanded potential, too.

I didn't forget how to fight. Lol. My characters just aren't killing everything they touch in one hit, anymore. I actually have to coordinate with my team. I actually have to move more tactically now, rather than Rhino Charge/Vital Strike or whatever. But that change in tempo has opened my eyes to other uses for my actions, like Aid Another. Now, I more than make up for the lesser damages in skills, flavor, teamwork, and roleplay. Everyone is happier because of it.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
In fact, one of the players after finishing the second Brute Wight asked if we could just "handwave" the standard wights being defeated so they could move on.

I see two alternatives to handwaiving them:

1) They could have called off the animal companion from the exit, and then engage the wights together, for a quicker but more risky victory.

2) You could have the wights retreat back into the crypt. They are not mindless zombies, though hate against the living might cloud their judgment.

I guess they usually wouldn't come up with something like 1) - or agree if it's proposed to them. Because their optimization is fear-driven: They worry what could happen if they would optimize less. Worry about feeling helpless, being told they are "useless" or missing out on something. Sometimes such fears are justified, but often they are not.

An arms race between GM and players only justifies these fears (and has further issues, like someone not keeping up, increased preparation effort and worsened game balance).

For me it worked to sit down with my most ambitious player and tell him: "Nope, you don't have to optimize that hard, my campaigns are not that difficult". They might nod, but they won't really believe you. So you have to stay true to what you said - no sudden difficulty bursts and no encounters where players barely can't do anything. Over time trust will slowly build up and players will relax. Next campaign they might try something more risky, and the one afterwards they might even play something original.

Of course this is slowww. I consider to speed it up by radical new things next campaign: They can't die in encounters and every negative condition is removed after a full night's rest. Blasphemy? No, modern game design, and actually taken from the Pathfinder: Kingmaker computer game. My next campaign has a rich story (Curse of the Crimson Throne), so I assume I can remove thrilling battles as a pillar of gameplay.


@Sheepish:

They wanted to handwave to avoid #1. They didn't want to have to dice it all out. I don't think they were necessarily afraid of the wights though; we've been at this particular leg of the campaign for a few sessions now and the players want to move on.

#2 has one problem: they don't leave loose ends. Seriously. I've sat and watched as they went systematically through a kobold den, clearing it out. The den is on L1 of the megadungeon and the PCs were L6 by this point.

The kobolds were never changed to face the PCs' level. I telegraphed, far in advance, that they could call up "elite" individuals to deal with the party, but that the den itself was as written in the original module I'm using. This meant that when the PCs had finally had enough of these little buggers they went into the kobold den area, slew the 3 "elites" they encountered along with dozens of 1/4 CR kobolds, disabled some CR 1 and 2 traps... THEN they went to work.

They went room by room after the stragglers. I threw in one more big trap to try and slow them down with a collapsing ceiling, but the wizard had a scroll of stoneshape. They obliterated the kobolds down to the last one and when I asked the PALADIN player why they'd murdered every single kobold he explained that they couldn't risk having foes sneaking up behind the party since they still come and go on foot in the megadungeon, traversing to level 2 down a staircase near the kobold area.

So... the wights retreating wouldn't have been ignored. If I didn't handwave and said "the wights flee back into the darkness of the crypts" the PCs would've likely hunted them all down and destroyed them all anyway.


Aldizog wrote:

I feel like I have been beating my head against the optimizer-dominated conventional wisdom for nearly two decades now (especially on the Giantitp forum; neither Paizo nor Enworld was quite as bad).

It's refreshing to see some opinions at least vaguely similar to mine here.

As someone who is still quite active on the Giantitp forums (under a different username, naturally), I can certainly empathize with you on that. Though, I've seen it get nearly as bad here as well but the particular crowd behind most of it has moved on with the newer (and 'popular') editions.

Quote:
In my experience, you don't need an uber-powerful PC to succeed against the challenges of an AP as published.

I generally agree with this statement, except for two particular adventure paths that just seem ... maliciously intent on making your life difficult. Strange Aeons and Tyrant's Grasp... I'm talking about you. Those two particular paths (even while I enjoyed one and AM enjoying the other) have tempted me to stir that simmering pool of optimization more than a few times.

Quote:
So, I like to aim for an A- on defense and a B- on offense. Enough to drop the foe in a few rounds, but enough defense to withstand those few rounds. Good defense also allows for running away or changing strategies if overmatched; glass cannons win or die quickly. And there absolutely can be RP, dramatic decisions, character moments, and excitement in combat - just not generally in rocket tag.

I'm a solid 'B' kind of player in all aspects. My comment about 85% being my chance of succeeding falls in line for what was considered a minimum level of competence to earn a grade of 'B' in school, "above average" (85%-93% for my area/time of education). I do explore that absolute maximum possible power a particular character build can achieve so that I can fully assess its capabilities, but I always dial that back down when it comes to actually playing them.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
he explained that they couldn't risk having foes sneaking up behind the party

Yup, they are fear-driven. Players of level 6+ PCs worry about kobolds.

Now Tucker's Kobolds are famous, but without vulnerable targets (packmules etc.) and with PCs' Perception modifiers through the roof they don't work that well in Pathfinder.

Leaving wights behind is a borderline case IMO, they could become a problem when ambushing a weakened party. But if you assume they'd go for them without any discussion among themselves, they are quite risk-averse - at least in my book.

Deathless One wrote:
I generally agree with this statement, except for two particular adventure paths that just seem ... maliciously intent on making your life difficult. Strange Aeons and Tyrant's Grasp... I'm talking about you. Those two particular paths (even while I enjoyed one and AM enjoying the other) have tempted me to stir that simmering pool of optimization more than a few times.

Well, they are both horror themed, so from a designer's perspective it's actually desirable they are very hard, to the point of unfair and mean. It's intended to be a different experience from fantasy: People struggle to survive and might still fail, opposed to heroes who struggle to win and will usually succeed.

So if optimization works out well, the entire experience of the table might shift to classic fantasy. IMO it's better to make this happen based on a conscious and common decision, if it's desired at all.


I appreciate folks' input and dialogue on all of this. I know I'm not breaking new ground here. I suppose based on the vibe I get from folks talking about what letter grades on their PCs mean to them, I'm probably a c or b character gamer.

I've always been this way. In D&D 1e I was often the cleric or wizard of the party. In Marvel Super Heroes we almost always made up our own supers, but my PCs often ended up being around kid sidekick level compared to the other characters.

I still don't know if I'd commit to the 85% accuracy benchmark though. I set my bar so low (usually about 55%) not only because I can always commit to improving that later if it's bumming me out but also b/c I expect fights to last 2-4 rounds and be a team sport. Keeping my bonuses closer to "average" is a built in way to force me to think about things like terrain, other PCs for flanking, Aid Another bonuses and such.

This is one last thing I'd like to ask: when you have combat-optimized PCs getting played at your tables, how often do you see players thinking about these kinds of group tactics?

When games are anywhere from level 1-6, I always point out spots on my battle maps with objects/terrain features that can be used for Cover or to gain Higher Ground. I try to remind my players that they can Fight Defensively, go Full Defense or use Aid Another and Flanking with fellow PCs. The only time any of these EVER gets used, with the exception of the AC blocking a doorway, is when a PC has failed to slay a monster outright and another martial PC has to come over to help.

Point is, I have folks who only seem to concentrate on what THEIR character does best. All of their actions then center around doing that thing, to the ignorance of the rest of the map or the other PCs. I wonder if that's an optimizer thing or something else.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's far more enjoyable to me to play a moderately-powered character and need to play tactically to succeed, rather than come in with some overpowered juggernaut who can just "kick in the door" and walk over everything.

It's pretty hard to get that experience in PFS, with the rotating cast of characters, but in APs I have had some really good times figuring out group tactics with other PCs.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
I still don't know if I'd commit to the 85% accuracy benchmark though. I set my bar so low (usually about 55%) not only because I can always commit to improving that later if it's bumming me out but also b/c I expect fights to last 2-4 rounds and be a team sport. Keeping my bonuses closer to "average" is a built in way to force me to think about things like terrain, other PCs for flanking, Aid Another bonuses and such.

I prefer mine being around 65%+, or succeeding on an 8. Getting to the level of 85% usually means investing a disproportionate amount of resources to the task.


SheepishEidolon wrote:

Well, they are both horror themed, so from a designer's perspective it's actually desirable they are very hard, to the point of unfair and mean. It's intended to be a different experience from fantasy: People struggle to survive and might still fail, opposed to heroes who struggle to win and will usually succeed.

So if optimization works out well, the entire experience of the table might shift to classic fantasy. IMO it's better to make this happen based on a conscious and common decision, if it's desired at all.

Oh, I am well aware of the overall theme of the campaigns and I was well prepared for that specific kind of gameplay, however there are fairly numerous and specific areas in the adventure path (right in your direct path through the story) that seems specifically designed to screw over your character (and several of them, to be specific).

I won't spoil exactly what and where these things are but ... let's just say that throwing (permanent) curses and ability drain at your characters when they have neither the required levels, access to resources, or downtime in order to deal with them (and high enough DC on instant death effects to almost certainly guarantee a failure)... Well, I may have (definitely did) had some choice words for the designer of that particular book in the series... I'm not a person prone to anger, so the irritation faded almost immediately, but *narrows eyes* I still remember.

I'll give them at least this much, they certainly had our characters intimately aware of how much serious refuse they were in, but it was enough that it shattered my suspension of belief and immersion when all semblance of balanced design went out the window. Again, no spoilers but every one of our characters (even the Paladin and Cleric of Saranrae who BOTH had encounters of significance with said deity or representative of) were considering GTFO of there despite the deadly thing that was supposed to prevent such things.

Maybe slightly spoilerish:
A deadly fog of mcguffin kept you within a town that got blown the hell up and did some serious damage if you breathed it in. My character could rage for well over a minute at the point, could hold his breath for slightly longer than that even at a full tilt run, AND had a movement speed of 50ft if I pushed it (200ft a round). I was more than confident that I'd be able to run through a HALF MILE of this deadly stuff, and make the ongoing CON saves to keep holding my breath, just to get away from the shenanigans. Keep in mind, this character was GOOD, had an EXTREMELY powerful motivating reason for pressing on, and was as stubborn as it is possible to be... and he STILL considered running away. The only reason he didn't was because one of his grandchildren (the Paladin of the group) wouldn't have been able to keep up and like Hell would he leave her alone there. He knew the other party members from the time they had been in diapers too, but...

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
This is one last thing I'd like to ask: when you have combat-optimized PCs getting played at your tables, how often do you see players thinking about these kinds of group tactics?

Tactics is generally the very thing that we take into account when considering our effectiveness. It is not a separate value. Maneuvering into strategic positions is expected of a group that works together as a whole. Putting the enemy on the defensive, knocking them down, repositioning them, etc.

But, just to clarify... reaching that 85% effectiveness at the thing your class is supposed to be 'good' at should NOT be consuming ANY of your additional resources outside of class abilities. Those character feats (rather than class feats) are what you should be using to make up for deficiencies elsewhere that bring your numbers down (let's say a main ability score like STR being LOWER than 16 to start with would indicate that you need to take weapon focus or similar, or you are playing a 3/4 BAB class with 16 STR and need to catch up with the full BAB class). If your Will Save is low because you chose to have a low Wisdom AND you have a poor base save for it, you probably SHOULD take Iron Will. Things like this are important.


DeathlessOne wrote:
Aldizog wrote:


In my experience, you don't need an uber-powerful PC to succeed against the challenges of an AP as published.

I generally agree with this statement, except for two particular adventure paths that just seem ... maliciously intent on making your life difficult. Strange Aeons and Tyrant's Grasp... I'm talking about you. Those two particular paths (even while I enjoyed one and AM enjoying the other) have tempted me to stir that simmering pool of optimization more than a few times.

Whilst parties may vary, we played Strange Aeons with a party of three, plus a sub-par cohort for about half of it, and only had 3 or 4 deaths across the entire thing, which didn't seem extremely dangerous (one death being because psychic oozes are immune to mind effecting abilities... not that I am bitter about that or anything :-)).

But I've had parties TPK in Mummy's Mask and Hell's Rebels, in both cases because we were running with less than four PCs, and decided to take on a horde of lower-level minions. Action economy was a killer.


Neriathale wrote:
Whilst parties may vary, we played Strange Aeons with a party of three, plus a sub-par cohort for about half of it, and only had 3 or 4 deaths across the entire thing, which didn't seem extremely dangerous (one death being because psychic oozes are immune to mind effecting abilities... not that I am bitter about that or anything :-)).

I remember that particular encounter. My character literally picked up two of his fallen allies and ran the hell away while it was distracted with a summoned monster. I had a multiclassed Archeologist bard/Sleuth Investigator and used the Run like Hell ability to beat feet. Even slowed down "because carrying two of the (lighter) party members and sprinting was unrealistic", that character could MOVE.

... Yes, running away is a valid tactic. The heroes don't have to be truthful about every aspect of their adventure. And I was playing the bard. I had to make sure he survived so that he could tell the tale and recruit others to help. Luckily, we survived. Somehow.

Quote:
But I've had parties TPK in Mummy's Mask and Hell's Rebels, in both cases because we were running with less than four PCs, and decided to take on a horde of lower-level minions. Action economy was a killer.

I haven't played Mummy's Mask yet, though its on the list. Hell's Rebels stalled on us but we are set to pick it back up after we finish Tyrant's Grasp... if we ever do.


Tyrants grasp was tough for us, our party, figuring that their souls were messed up anyway, decided that they would hire the best assassin in the setting, selling their souls to her.
She did end up saving half he party from getting nuked, the big bad self nuked himself and said assassin finalized her ascension via the star stone.

She turned out to be a surprisingly reasonable and decent boss actually.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Average games, average characters, and its ok All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion