|
And it can, somewhat easily be shut down with a 2nd level hideous laughter. (Note: you can prevent an enemy from using aoo's with this spell even if they succeed at the saving throw.
But we just had a TPK at level 20 where one significant element (NOT the only one, but definitely a contributing factor) was the Marilith Demon with her essentially infinite number of AoOs. They CAN matter. A lot.Not when your spellcasters are in range of the Marilith and she crits you it can't :-(. Which she is quite likely to do against a caster. Another of the factors in the fight was that we had very little room to manuever.
And the Marilith was one of the mooks in the encounter :-(. Suggesting that we spend a PCs action to try and reduce the effectiveness of one of the mooks AoOs is kinda making my point that AoO's still very definitely matter
Yes, it seems that in that specific situation, you are right.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing: the vibe I've been getting has been "if it's not optimized, it's not worth your time or ours."
TO be honest I wouldn't put too much stock into advice forums.
As a player; I played a caster Herbalist and put all my feats into that dedication until 6th level and then added a dedication into fighter. It created a lot of flavor and actually came in handy. I really enjoyed that character.
As a GM half my players don't even really care to learn the rules and play un-optimally. WE've had a few people create off the wall combinations that are "watered down." We all still have fun and no major deaths.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing: the vibe I've been getting has been "if it's not optimized, it's not worth your time or ours."
TO be honest I wouldn't put too much stock into advice forums.
As a player; I played a caster Herbalist and put all my feats into that dedication until 6th level and then added a dedication into fighter. It created a lot of flavor and actually came in handy. I really enjoyed that character.
As a GM half my players don't even really care to learn the rules and play un-optimally. WE've had a few people create off the wall combinations that are "watered down." We all still have fun and no major deaths.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that, in practice, it varies a lot by level. By the time you get to level 15+ its a LOT higher than 15% in the published adventures I've played in.
Imo this is way more dependent from adventure context than lvl. What's usually happen in some adventures like AoA due the fact that in the end the players face more well trained humanoid players as far you progress in some conspiratorial organization than mere bestial random opponents.
So in AoA for example AoO is more common in middle books than in earlier and later books.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a world of difference between “perfect” and “I wanted to have a high rating in four out of six ability scores.” Have you considered playing less rigid games than Pathfinder? The constraints of the design don’t seem to be doing you any favors, and more narrative games often have great freedom for high-concept characters.
To clarify, I only WANTED to have a high rating in two of those scores. The problem was my weapon-choice necessitated a high DEX to qualify for the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (monk's spade, because I fell in love with the starfall spade), and I only wanted the INT for more skill ranks so I could invest in technology-making skills.
As for playing other games...I'd like to...I have a bunch of ones on my shelf that I've literally never played before, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find someone willing to teach me how to play these games, at least here. It IS the Paizo Boards, after all, so Paizo's own games are going to be the most popular. Anywhere else, and odds are I'd have to GM these games myself and teach OTHER people how to play it, which absolutely TERRIFIES me. Besides, I've spent so much ON Pathfinder already, so I SHOULD use it.
You can multiclass into a caster class as a martial, but your casting will be a joke. You can multiclass into a martial as a caster, but then you'll be so useless with your weapon it might as well be for show.
... What do I do?1) The Magus is closest to what you are asking for. If you want it in a different tradition ask your GM to home brew something.
2) Ask to play with the Dual Class variant rule.
3) Try other magic rather than direct offensive magic, buffing, healing, illusions, difficult terrain, walls all can work quite well even if you haven't maxed out your spell casting skill, or if you are just a multiclass caster.
Don't forget you can use a full range of wands and scrolls. You can have more magic than you might think.
I'm real leery of Dual Class, like Gestalt before it. Heck, I'm even kind of leery of Free Archetype unless the situation specifically calls for it like in Strength of Thousands. I feel like if the game was MEANT to be played in that way, those would BE the default rules?
Also, I had PLANNED on using magic besides direct offensive magic. I figured my offensive magic wouldn't be that great if I was multiclassing, so I wanted to instead rely on buffs and healing and stuff, like I'd done with that Warpriest I linked earlier. Part of me 1e experience was that buffing and debuffing and battlefield control was always better than a simple fireball anyway.
This seems like an issue with roots in expectations.
So...
What are your expectations of 2e?
Well, I hear people saying it's fun, that it's better than other games of its type (ironically I've not PLAYED the most recent edition of that game, as the DM I play with IRL uses a hodgepodge of 2e with massive amounts of his own houserules that I barely understand).
The experience I was expecting was basically similar to what I already knew from 1e Pathfinder.
This is really a 1e problem. In PF2, you can nearly play whatever you want as long as you have a main class and use its main features.
I must admit I'd like to know what concepts you want to make, to get an idea of what is causing issues. Because there's a lot of leeway to play a gish character if you don't have unrealistic expectations.
Well, the first idea I had was playing a Flame Oracle who could engage in melee a bit instead of solely blasting, meant for Age of Ashes. I didn't say I wanted to be as good with a sword as with spells, I just wanted to be able to have a sword and have it not just be for show, sort of like with Gandalf.
I was interested in seeing what an Inventor could do with a Wizard multiclass, seeing how they both depend on Intelligence. Inventor also seems to be the only way I could mimic some of the really interesting weapon I've seen in things like FromSoft games...
Mixing Bard with Champion seems cool, but I'm not sure what I'd actually play it in. Same with a Druid/Champion combo, especially with orders like flame and wave so I'm not saddled with druid class features I never wanted like animal companions and wild shape.
I'd also like to play a Monk/Cleric of some sort, following an idea I had for Council of Thieves back in the day that I never got to follow through on, especially since 2e doesn't make monks who multiclass miss out on enlightenment at level 20.
Another one I haven't even asked about yet was a CG Druid with an Alchemist dedication, whose focus was on environmentally-safe agriculture and brewing, making beers, wines and mead infused with alchemical power to share with his friends and community.
Other ideas I've had included mixing Magus with Champion in various ways (Paladin for a Knight of Lastwall, Redeemer worshiping Nethys to fight evil wizards and use magic for good), or Magus with Alchemist to be kind of like a Witcher.
I've just never quite "clicked" with the idea of playing a class straight except when I'm actively trying to make the character seem plain, like my current and only 2e character. I've always felt like if I did that, I'd eventually run into a situation in a campaign where my character wouldn't be able to contribute, like playing a fighter or rogue and being stuck twiddling my thumbs while the mages are talking theory (and incidentally I've never liked those two classes on their own, I've only really ever USED them to qualify for some sort of multiclass like an eldritch knight or an arcane trickster).
Knowing this 2e is balance oriented, at the expense of hybrid stuff in terms of powercreep, why do you force yourself with this 2e to begin with?
I mean, given the huge amount of systems out there, there's anything you actually like within this 2e that makes it worth it to push towards this specific system?
Well, I like the Champion class' new structure and varieties. I like that there's finally a ruleset where I can get away with playing a half-elf-half-elf without resorting to homebrew. All the new ancestries and stuff are cool, and all the lore and stuff. The APs are great. I REALLY like that classes like the Druid, Barbarian and Monk were released from their alignment restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a world of difference between “perfect” and “I wanted to have a high rating in four out of six ability scores.” Have you considered playing less rigid games than Pathfinder? The constraints of the design don’t seem to be doing you any favors, and more narrative games often have great freedom for high-concept characters.To clarify, I only WANTED to have a high rating in two of those scores. The problem was my weapon-choice necessitated a high DEX to qualify for the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (monk's spade, because I fell in love with the starfall spade), and I only wanted the INT for more skill ranks so I could invest in technology-making skills.
As for playing other games...I'd like to...I have a bunch of ones on my shelf that I've literally never played before, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find someone willing to teach me how to play these games, at least here. It IS the Paizo Boards, after all, so Paizo's own games are going to be the most popular. Anywhere else, and odds are I'd have to GM these games myself and teach OTHER people how to play it, which absolutely TERRIFIES me. Besides, I've spent so much ON Pathfinder already, so I SHOULD use it.
...You can multiclass into a caster class as a martial, but your casting will be a joke. You can multiclass into a martial as a caster, but then you'll be so useless with your weapon it might as well be for show.
... What do I do?1) The Magus is closest to what you are asking for. If you want it in a different tradition ask your GM to home brew something.
2) Ask to play with the Dual Class variant rule.
3) Try other magic rather than direct offensive magic, buffing, healing, illusions, difficult terrain, walls all can work quite well even if you haven't maxed out your spell casting skill, or if you are just a multiclass caster.
Don't forget you can use a
Now that I understand a bit more where you're from, I can honestly say that all of the builds you just listed, ALL of them, they work.
They're not optimal! But they work and they'll be fun.
Pick one, play it, love it, start a thread to tell us anecdotes of how awesome it was.
And maybe if you read some guides you'll have some more ideas? Maybe that wizard with sword proficiency uses a greats word and hand of the apprentice/weapon storm?
That cleric monk build could look into sixth pillar?
That's all there is to it really, we all know the cookie cutter builds on these boards (or have access to them) but I doubt any of us really play them ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the first idea I had was playing a Flame Oracle who could engage in melee a bit instead of solely blasting, meant for Age of Ashes. I didn't say I wanted to be as good with a sword as with spells, I just wanted to be able to have a sword and have it not just be for show, sort of like with Gandalf.
I was interested in seeing what an Inventor could do with a Wizard multiclass, seeing how they both depend on Intelligence. Inventor also seems to be the only way I could mimic some of the really interesting weapon I've seen in things like FromSoft games...
Mixing Bard with Champion seems cool, but I'm not sure what I'd actually play it in. Same with a Druid/Champion combo, especially with orders like flame and wave so I'm not saddled with druid class features I never wanted like animal companions and wild shape.
I'd also like to play a Monk/Cleric of some sort, following an idea I had for Council of Thieves back in the day that I never got to follow through on, especially since 2e doesn't make monks who multiclass miss out on enlightenment at level 20.
Another one I haven't even asked about yet was a CG Druid with an Alchemist dedication, whose focus was on environmentally-safe agriculture and brewing, making beers, wines and mead infused with alchemical power to share with his friends and community.
Other ideas I've had included mixing Magus with Champion in various ways (Paladin for a Knight of Lastwall, Redeemer worshiping Nethys to fight evil wizards and use magic for good), or Magus with Alchemist to be kind of like a Witcher.
As Alastar said, these builds work. And unlike him, I even think some of them are really potent.
But overall, the main difficulty is to choose which will be the main class and which will be the secondary one. Will you play a Monk with a bit of Cleric Spellcasting or a Cleric who can Flurry of Blows at melee range?Champion with Magus Dedication is a strong build (I remember someone playing one on these boards).
Bard/Champion is a very classical build, very potent.
Cleric with Monk Dedication is a bit hard to build and play, but Monk with Cleric Dedication is a nice fit.
Flame Oracle who dives into melee is quite meh (there's a Battle Oracle who's a best fit for such gameplay).
Inventor with Wizard Dedication is not incredible, but you can do it as long as you take the important Inventor feats.
Alchemist Dedication is really nice to take if you want to expend the supportive abilities of your character. It fits nearly everywhere.
Druid Champion is a bit weird to build but can also be a nice build.
So, overall, I think you can go with any of these builds and have fun playing them. Some can even be very nice to play and on par with "optimized builds".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AoO’s becomes increasingly common as you level. And they tend to be on the big boss type monsters.
Yes they can be mitigated. But nothing is free. If you are taking actions and using resources to mitigate AoO for your magus you are doing it instead of what you might otherwise be doing.
And it can be incredibly frustrating to see the core class already doing more than you, then you get punished trying to keep up.
AoOs are part of the monster's power budget though. If you are mitigating them, you are reducing their power. Which is always a good thing in PF2.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a world of difference between “perfect” and “I wanted to have a high rating in four out of six ability scores.” Have you considered playing less rigid games than Pathfinder? The constraints of the design don’t seem to be doing you any favors, and more narrative games often have great freedom for high-concept characters.To clarify, I only WANTED to have a high rating in two of those scores. The problem was my weapon-choice necessitated a high DEX to qualify for the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (monk's spade, because I fell in love with the starfall spade), and I only wanted the INT for more skill ranks so I could invest in technology-making skills.
As for playing other games...I'd like to...I have a bunch of ones on my shelf that I've literally never played before, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find someone willing to teach me how to play these games, at least here. It IS the Paizo Boards, after all, so Paizo's own games are going to be the most popular. Anywhere else, and odds are I'd have to GM these games myself and teach OTHER people how to play it, which absolutely TERRIFIES me. Besides, I've spent so much ON Pathfinder already, so I SHOULD use it.
...You can multiclass into a caster class as a martial, but your casting will be a joke. You can multiclass into a martial as a caster, but then you'll be so useless with your weapon it might as well be for show.
... What do I do?1) The Magus is closest to what you are asking for. If you want it in a different tradition ask your GM to home brew something.
2) Ask to play with the Dual Class variant rule.
3) Try other magic rather than direct offensive magic, buffing, healing, illusions, difficult terrain, walls all can work quite well even if you haven't maxed out your spell casting skill, or if you are just a multiclass caster.
Don't forget you can use a
I hope I will have time later on to give a full answer to your many interesting points.
To sum up my impression, I think you are currently in the hardest place, as one who learnt and adapted to PF1's DOs and DON'Ts and wants to go into PF2.
The simplest way to go at it IMO is forget all the hard-earned PF1 wisdom and focus on what you want your character to be good at, and then see how you can use PF2 building blocks to achieve it.
I think you will be fine.
To clarify, I only WANTED to have a high rating in two of those scores.
Sorry but when you talk about this just remembers me the CoDzilla from older versions of D20 games. The idea of having a char very good in two or more different things in a RPG is interesting in concept but usually is bad in game balance due fact that these kind of characters tend to overshadow other players and lacks weak points to be explored to be protected and compensated by other players and gameplay strategies.
The problem was my weapon-choice necessitated a high DEX to qualify for the Two-Weapon Fighting feats (monk's spade, because I fell in love with the starfall spade), and I only wanted the INT for more skill ranks so I could invest in technology-making skills.
Sorry but I don't see why you can't do this in 2E.
OK we don't have Starfall Spade in this edition (yet maybe) but you can do some similar thing with Ki Blast and even better IMO due the fact you aren weapon independent and can do more times having sufficient focus points.And having high INT to making things in 2e is easier because we have a way more free usage of skills than older versions yet they aren't for free you have to face a MAD and reduce other thing (like CON or STR) but this already happens in older versions too.
Besides, I've spent so much ON Pathfinder already, so I SHOULD use it.
Sorry, but this way of thinking will only bring you unhappiness with any game.
The only thing I think about multi-concept characters I think that cames too late was about wavecasters. If this was come with CRB probably we would have better hybrid class options like more martial warpriest and bards (the wavecasting would be a great solution to improve the class martial abilities without remove the spellcasting capabilities totally and would allow to keep things like divine font and bard focus spells without unballance) but maybe a solution like this could come in some unchained version latter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the thing: the vibe I've been getting has been "if it's not optimized, it's not worth your time or ours."
This isn't true. At least one of those responses you got was from gesalt, who is a great optimizer but gets tunnel vision around the point as well.
I'm playing a battle oracle right now and it absolutely rocks, despite half the forum calling it a drain. Your flame Oracle concept won't be as good with a sword as my battle Oracle, but you can get pretty close. Use an ancestry feat to get the sword at level 1 and armor proficiency through the general feat, sentinel, or champion. Bespell Weapon gives you a solid damage buff-- blast plus strike can actually be incredible damage. The major curse makes you extra dangerous in melee The main problem is your moderate curse concealment, which at least cuts both ways. (Also, note that oracles are one of the hardest classes to play against type with because the curses really really push you towards a very specific playstyle. But you also don't have to lean very hard into your curse.)
Wizard with a gun work fine. Reload is a little awkward with your action economy but you still get Bespell Weapon and native access to True Strike. True Strike is such an incredible spell on a weapon user, and it actually makes you a decent crit fisher, which is especially nice on a fatal weapon.
Just because your class needs to use their spells to be effective doesn't mean their sword is for show-- spell + strike is actually incredibly strong. You just approach using your weapon as secondary to using your spells, but the weapon is an excellent third action and source of at will damage.
The baseline of optimization in PF2 is really just:
-build your ability scores to the right weapons and armor (or vice versa)
-get your offensive stat to 18, or 16 if your playing somewhere it isn't your key stat.
-figure out what you want to do in combat and pick a class that favors it.
I've got a guide that might be helpful to you.
Https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1aO5JSdq_9tjjSfb8yIWfPa2eyItNV-B0lYe OAiS3xsM/mobilebasic
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope I will have time later on to give a full answer to your many interesting points.
To sum up my impression, I think you are currently in the hardest place, as one who learnt and adapted to PF1's DOs and DON'Ts and wants to go into PF2.
The simplest way to go at it IMO is forget all the hard-earned PF1 wisdom and focus on what you want your character to be good at, and then see how you can use PF2 building blocks to achieve it.
I think you will be fine.
There's another aspect to this as well: some of my earliest experiences actually came from PC games like Neverwinter Nights, and they had this thing where certain quests were only accessible to specific classes, so the only way an obsessive completionist like me could check off all the quests was to play a weird multiclass (the easiest in my experience was druid and bard, since one quest depended was tiered and you accessed each tier by being a level X druid).
Then Neverwinter Nights 2 came around and the campaign was littered with skill checks only your main character could do, especially if you wanted to get Influence with your party members, and you couldn't just farm out these skill checks to other members of your party like modern games let you do. So it behooved you to play a class that had a lot of skills like a rogue or bard, or be a dirty little cheater like me and set your Intelligence at 20+ right in the prologue. To say nothing of the fact that some of the best rewards in the fortress-building minigame late in the campaign were locked behind Appraise checks, a skill the game NEVER made use of in the campaign before then so most players don't expect to take it, especially since if you've played its parent game, you already KNOW Appraise is a wasteful skill.
Even in games completely separated from the tabletop basis like Dragon Age did this, where certain questlines were inaccessible if you didn't build your character the right way (looking at YOU, Slim Couldry!). My point is that this has taught me to try and cover as many bases as possible when it comes to designing my characters, irrespective of the actual storyline, and since oftentimes when I do regular tabletop games, it's play-by-post with a bunch of complete strangers, I have no idea what bases will and won't be covered by the party or how the GM will allow us to get around not having THAT ONE SKILL or SPELL. And since from what's been said in the threads I've asked around in, 2e is very much balanced around the idea of specializing and trusting the rest of your party to pick up the slack, I'm running up against YEARS of experiences that have taught me that's a trap and versatility is the way to avoid it.
While I get that coming from a CRPG background can set some weird/wrong expectations, I'm not quite sure how you can still try to apply those after having some experience with PnP. It is NOT your job to cover everything. It's not even your party's or the GM's job you make sure you don't miss anything. More often than not, you outright won't know if you've missed anything so why does it matter?
A completionist mindset makes very little sense in a pen and paper RPG. What are you gonna do if you miss something? Reload?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can read the AP books. I do that to try and make my characters fit the narrative arc the AP is trying to tell, so I'm not doing something like playing an amurran barbarian in a city-based intrigue AP that's in Taldor, or a tiefling monk in Kingmaker, where fiends and martial arts don't play a prominent role in the story. I see other players do this kind of thing all the time and it irritates my sensibilities as a former English major, so I end up going "well if THEY'RE not going to engage with the intended themes and narrative arc Paizo set, I'll have to do it with MY character." I can't control other players or the GM, I can only control myself.
|
|
The player's guides don't tell you things like "make sure at least ONE member of the party is some form of Chaotic and can use a bastard sword as a weapon, or the big plot-important sword in book 5 will be useless." or "this AP features a lot of tiefling enemies, so playing a tiefling yourself will allow them to act as foils to you for more drama."
They only give you the information to START, not to plan out your entire dramatic arc so it's consistent and meshes well with the plot of the AP. My own writing's terrible and juvenile, so I need to use Paizo's as a crutch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. That is what I would want from a player's guide.
Having my character react to new, surprising, and suboptimal situations sounds like a lot of fun.
I don't know why a particular sword would be important (Legend of Zelda vibes there...), but if it is, then that is why retraining is a thing. Have someone pick up martial weapon proficiency or something like that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to agree with the other posters. All of those concepts sound fine to me. Some are pretty classic.
I'd suggest just building one or two of them and trying them out in PFS (still lots of online games available if there aren't any local games) and see how they work. That way there isn't too much investment on your part and you can easily switch if the character isn't doing what you want it to.
One downside of PFS is that you'll be starting at level 1 but in all honesty that is the best place to start with a new game system anyway. Things are simpler and generally more forgiving there. And it only takes 3 sessions to get to level 2 :-).
Elf with the Ancient heritage even lets you play a dual classed character from level 1. So you wanna play a flurrying cleric you can do so although it will have to be an elf :-(
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The player's guides don't tell you things like "make sure at least ONE member of the party is some form of Chaotic and can use a bastard sword as a weapon, or the big plot-important sword in book 5 will be useless." or "this AP features a lot of tiefling enemies, so playing a tiefling yourself will allow them to act as foils to you for more drama."
They only give you the information to START, not to plan out your entire dramatic arc so it's consistent and meshes well with the plot of the AP. My own writing's terrible and juvenile, so I need to use Paizo's as a crutch.
You need to be aware that many (almost certainly most, quite likely nearly all) people consider it cheating for a player to read the AP/Scenario/Module before playing it. The fact that you're publicly admitting that you do this makes me believe that you are unaware of this.
Yeah, it lets you create the perfect character. But that is the point. You should NOT be able to create the perfect character. And a huge part of the fun for the entire table is seeing the unexpected, trying to overcome the unknown, taking characters that are NOT perfectly fitted to the challenge and overcoming it anyway.
The Players Guides are an attempt to give the player enough information to come up with a good thematic fit while NOT spoiling the fun. While they're not perfect they generally do a reasonable job. Limiting yourself to them, to the public blurbs and to any GM advice is pretty much what you're expected to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that this particular sword (ovinrbaane, ennemy of all ennemies if memory serves) is encouraged to be modified from a bastard sword to any other weapon one of the PC's use by the AP I think, so a good gm will modify.
In pf2e however IMO the bastard sword is one of the greatest weapons around and I find myself hard pressed not to equip all my NPC's with it when they don't have a defining weapon . It allows you to sword and board and go two hand if your shield breaks, or go two hand and drop a hand if you need to free one, or dual handed assault to go from one hand, to two hand, to one hand. Its quite good and a martial weapon unlike in pf1e!
|
|
Not to mention that this particular sword (ovinrbaane, ennemy of all ennemies if memory serves) is encouraged to be modified from a bastard sword to any other weapon one of the PC's use by the AP I think, so a good gm will modify.
No, Ovinrbaane is a greatsword, I was thinking of Briar. But the same principle applies: the less you have to ask of the GM the better, because they already are being pretty generous by running the game for you in the first place, running a game is a lot of hard work and organization and stress, and placing even more burdens on them with additional requests is selfish and rude.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that this particular sword (ovinrbaane, ennemy of all ennemies if memory serves) is encouraged to be modified from a bastard sword to any other weapon one of the PC's use by the AP I think, so a good gm will modify.No, Ovinrbaane is a greatsword, I was thinking of Briar. But the same principle applies: the less you have to ask of the GM the better, because they already are being pretty generous by running the game for you in the first place, running a game is a lot of hard work and organization and stress, and placing even more burdens on them with additional requests is selfish and rude.
Speaking as a GM, no. Every other GM I've ever discussed this with would agree. Reading stuff before hand is unacceptable.
I guess I should add that there is one HUGE exception to that. As long as you tell the GM ahead of time (way ahead of time if possible) that you have run, played or read something then they'll quite possibly be ok with it. They can change things, they can keep an eye on whether they think that you're consciously or unconsciously using information you shouldn't, etc.
Or they can just say no.
But it is THEIR decision and not yours.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every group has different standards around which they lay the expectations of their game, but in my games, a player reading ahead in the adventure would at best be very annoying and rather pointless. While I appreciate a player who is strongly interested in playing the 'right' sort of character for the adventure, reading ahead doesn't feel like that, it feels like a player who is treating the adventure as a game to be won with optimal choices, not a story to be shared and told. Furthermore, since I'm always already tweaking the adventure as written to conform to my preferences and group dynamic such a player may find that their efforts have been in vain as I decided the do a simple swap of the weapon type.
I don't want to look down on what might be working for another group, but a player spoiling the adventure for themselves so that they can tailor their character without GM input into the perfect protagonist would definitely sour my experience, where a player asking me what things they can do to make their character more thematically suit the adventure would delight me and encourage me to work with them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yah, if you know in advance you can create expectation subversion.
My current kingmaker campaign plays a lot on what people expect because it's my third time running that AP and also because of the video game.
No one expected the surprise dwarven invasion instead of the trolls !
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am an extremely permissive GM. People get Rare options from me all the time, and I go out of my way to make weird concepts work with whatever story I'm running. (I once let someone play a Werecow in PF1, and made them live with the fact that their jokey character was fully integrated and compelling.)
If someone told me they were reading ahead in the AP I am running I would feel totally betrayed, and likely stop that campaign or just kick them out of it.
|
|
Not to mention that this particular sword (ovinrbaane, ennemy of all ennemies if memory serves) is encouraged to be modified from a bastard sword to any other weapon one of the PC's use by the AP I think, so a good gm will modify.No, Ovinrbaane is a greatsword, I was thinking of Briar. But the same principle applies: the less you have to ask of the GM the better, because they already are being pretty generous by running the game for you in the first place, running a game is a lot of hard work and organization and stress, and placing even more burdens on them with additional requests is selfish and rude.Speaking as a GM, no. Every other GM I've ever discussed this with would agree. Reading stuff before hand is unacceptable.
I guess I should add that there is one HUGE exception to that. As long as you tell the GM ahead of time (way ahead of time if possible) that you have run, played or read something then they'll quite possibly be ok with it. They can change things, they can keep an eye on whether they think that you're consciously or unconsciously using information you shouldn't, etc.
Or they can just say no.
But it is THEIR decision and not yours.
Exactly! I'm upfront with this and I don't impose on things, I just want things to run smoothly for the GM offering to run something so I get picked in the audition because I'm DESPERATE to play through the APs, and after nearly ten years on these forums, and dozens of campaigns, only ONE has ever made it through all six books (incidentally, that badly-optimized warpriest I linked earlier was the character I played in that AP).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly! I'm upfront with this
That changes everything.
If you want to complete a campaign I'd advise you to do one of the following, with the first being much easier to do
1) Play with various groups in one off or short adventures. PFS is a good tool for this but there are others. Look for people playing a module. Use this to hone your style and to try and find people with an approach to the game compatible to yours. Basically, make gaming friends. This can be done on line or it can be done in person if there are local options. Only AFTER you've got to know some people should you try and get into an AP. Running or playing an AP is a huge commitment, people don't want to do that with strangers very much
Different groups and people have different styles. In order to have fun AND to have them want to play with you you need to find a group with a style compatible with yours. The above is a good way of eventually finding such a group
2) Sometimes an existing group will get a vacancy (somebody moved, had a kid, whatever) and be looking to fill a spot. Take that spot. You'll probably be limited in character options and even in gaming style (you'll be adjusting to their style far more than them adjusting to your style) but if the styles are close enough it can work out well.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely something I would want the GM in on. And as a GM I'd be happy to give generic advice about what kind of character options would suit the later stages if a player felt it was so important that they would read ahead.
I tend to find the mismatched party makes the experience even more chaotically fun, but I also understand the joy of having a character perfectly fit the narrative. (GMing organized play allowed me to slot such characters into scenarios when I played them without any concern about cheating.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I straight up told my players I have no way of enforcing a "don't read the modules in advance" rule, so I don't. Rather, I strongly discourage it, on the basis that it will most likely make the games less enjoyable, and likely for the other players as well.
I have at least one player who I KNOW went ahead and did it anyway. How? He lead the party straight to the McGuffin without clues or aid, and despite numerous social obstacles standing in their way. Ended up forcing a boss battle three levels too early and derailed the whole campaign for a session or two.
So my advice is don't tell them any such thing. Tell them they are a cheating devil if they do and bring the pain if they ignore your warnings.
But that's totally different than someone who played some, but had their group fall apart, or a GM who thought he was going to host it, read some, then had his players go with something else. Especially if they alert you to the fact in advance and don't metagame constantly.
We just have conversations about APs before they are released. A la "we have the solicitations for this AP, does anybody want to run it? Is there enough interest from the rest of the group of playing it?"
You don't need very much except for the premise to have these conversations, and if you put "we're going to play Blood Lords once we're done with the current campaign" out there in the open, people know not to read it in the interim.
Reading an AP *after* the group has played through it is pretty standard for us. It's not like maintaining a "to be read" pile is uncommon among people who buy books.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading an AP *after* the group has played through it is pretty standard for us. It's not like maintaining a "to be read" pile is uncommon among people who buy books.
IN my case, I almost HAVE to do this. I have severe hearing loss, and often miss important details during games. If I didn't look up things from time to time (always after said details are no longer that relevant) I'd have no idea what we're doing or why by the time we hop into the next area of the adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading an AP *after* the group has played through it is pretty standard for us. It's not like maintaining a "to be read" pile is uncommon among people who buy books.IN my case, I almost HAVE to do this. I have severe hearing loss, and often miss important details during games. If I didn't look up things from time to time (always after said details are no longer that relevant) I'd have no idea what we're doing or why by the time we hop into the next area of the adventure.
Same here, except for the hearing loss. I can't wait to finish EC so I can run some stats on how many xulgaths were killed.
Wana see if we breach the 4 digits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Answering the first post...
Here's novelty concept:
How about round concepts with round rules?
PF2e is probably one of the best game to realize your character concepts. Not only you'll not be punished for choosing flavor over mechanic, but the flavorful choices will often offer satisfactory mechanics as well.
Just to clarify, I do not think that picking an assortment of character options that "combo" together mechanically but don't fit thematically at all can be called a character "concept". That's just picking the best mechanical build you can and justifying them later while coming up with a backstory.
Nothing wrong with creating character this way, of course, but this is quite often the kind of creative style that ends up giving people issues with new systems. Because their usual choices are tied to mechanical options of other systems. They won't find the same or similar mechanical options in other systems and will, by extension, feel like they don't "have the same amount of choices".
It's basically like playing Elder complaining that you don't have your Fallout choices available, so you can't build the character you want.
I have 200+ character concepts done in PF2e, aside from the Alchemist, I had no trouble realizing concepts with any class to my satisfaction.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OP, how do you deal with home campaigns, where you cannot read the adventures beforehand ?
You mean in-person games? The only one I'm in doesn't even USE pre-written adventures, and frankly there aren't as many opportunities for roleplaying, as the DM runs it more like a wargame, heavy on dungeon-crawling, tactical combat and traps, etc. Really old-school stuff. And I couldn't really follow my method of character writing to fit themes and such because I didn't even get to MAKE my own character: in our first session, he laid out about 10 or 12 character sheets he'd filled our himself beforehand and let us pick which one we wanted. I gave my character a name, Tarkhan, but most of the time he's just "Cavalier."
And that's why I depend on play-by-post gaming as a more creative outlet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e is probably one of the best game to realize your character concepts. Not only you'll not be punished for choosing flavor over mechanic, but the flavorful choices will often offer satisfactory mechanics as well.
Certainly, I for one have always thought so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e is probably one of the best game to realize your character concepts. Not only you'll not be punished for choosing flavor over mechanic, but the flavorful choices will often offer satisfactory mechanics as well.Certainly, I for one have always thought so.
I was going to mention your "crazy character emporium", but ended up forgetting. My bad.
You have really interesting characters and I even added a couple of them to my collection (The Black Queen is my favorite).
Well this is sort of a bad take. Being able to mix and match options while ignoring the default lore is often the only way to create some types of characters. Not to mention that being able to do this type of stuff is a great mark as to how flexible a system is.
Not to mention that the very archetype system in PF2 was created specially to allow that type of mix and matching. But lacks the options for certain type of characters. Ex: The ranged archetypes are extremely specific to either bow or guns, and then randomly you have Drow Shootist for crossbow. Or literally every caster archetype being extremely specific about their lore.
In the end while it may work great for you to make characters only using "lore that matches". Many others make awesome character without being constrained by only using options with "matching lore".
My take was geared more towards those characters that are clearly just a gimmick disguised as a PC. Specially those with clashing tones without any reasonable explanation beyond the fact that it combos well with another feature.
Off beat characters that goes against type are one of my favorite kinds of characters to make, which is what makes Aasimars and Tieflings my favorite ancestries, because of their existence creates all kinds of interesting dynamics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to mention your "crazy character emporium", but ended up forgetting. My bad.
You have really interesting characters and I even added a couple of them to my collection (The Black Queen is my favorite).
Thanks! The Black Queen is one of my favorites as well. I think it's even cooler that she is a powerful witch, a class purported by many to be quite weak.
Could have fooled me.
Off beat characters that goes against type are one of my favorite kinds of characters to make, which is what makes Aasimars and Tieflings my favorite ancestries, because of their existence creates all kinds of interesting dynamics.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(I don't have a lot to offer right now but wanted to chime in what a few others said about your circumstances making it understandable reasonable to me why you consider pre-reading the adventure helpful and necessary. I'm not very sure it is as effective as hoped for your purposes, but I can respect the struggle to see a play by post game to its completion rather than dissolution.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The recommendation I got (from AlastarOG, I believe) was a Red Dragon Instinct Barbarian/Flame Oracle combo. Tempting, but I'm not used to playing Barbarians, and I felt like it might be TOO on-the-nose for Age of Ashes, believe it or not.
One of my tips about Age of Ashes is not worrying about exploiting weaknesses. It doesn't come up nowhere near enough, despite what the AP implies.
Also, warn your GM that the Charau-Ka Butchers have higher Hit and Damage bonuses than they're supposed to have, if you check out enemies of the same level, you'll notice that they don't have the same numbers. It was, most likely, a misprint.