I'm wanting to jump into online play for PFS 2E, but being new to the system and knowing the cooperative emphasis of this game style, I wanted to know if there are any classes or types of characters to avoid building to prevent from being an annoyance.
Many thanks!
|
Probably no build options to specifically avoid.
Your character should want to explore, report, and cooperate. Characters who don't want to do either of those three things (especially cooperate and explore) don't fit well. Your table shouldn't have to convince your character why they want to participate in the action of the scenario. Your character shouldn't be trying to undermine the other characters or the mission.
Back to builds, you should allocate ability boosts responsibly with the idea that a difference of +2 is significant, so the "dumb wizard" or the "weak barbarian" are not easy to make work in the PF2 rules. Don't neglect your AC, either. AC is probably more important than HP.
EDIT: Feats on survival (finding food or shelter) or things that mitigate temperature extremes have less use in organized play scenarios.
|
|
And most scenarios have a mix of combat, skill challenges, and social interactions. Generally making a character who would want to contribute in all those types of things will lead to the player staying more engaged/happy. Often a problem with pure martials (Barbarians, Fighters, and Monks especially) if you don't think about how you want to interact outside of combat settings.
I know a lot of players like to make the asocial/silent type for their characters, but then get bored when 1/4-1/2 of some scenarios end up non-relevant for them.
|
|
I know a lot of players like to make the asocial/silent type for their characters, but then get bored when 1/4-1/2 of some scenarios end up non-relevant for them.
Wow, that's a real polite way of putting it. :D
Aside from the merely-annoying issue of the player experiencing self-inflicted boredom, there's the material issue of the character making it difficult for the rest of the team.
PFS gates a disproportionate number of rewards behind skill checks, and frequently, those skill checks are based on group successes, e.g., Easy Level-based DC, but characters/2 successes are required. Unless you get lucky, what usually ends up happening is that there are 1-2 characters who "should" make the check (needing nat 8- to succeed), 1-2 characters who "shouldn't" succeed (needing nat 12+ to succeed), and the group success ends up depending on the middle characters, the ones that are trained but not optimized, who need nat 9-11s to succeed.
If multiple people show up with The Witcher, you end up needing, say, 3 successes out of 3 PCs, or other longshot scenarios, and you end up dropping Treasure Bundles and/or ending up in unnecessary combat encounters.
PFS combat, as a general rule, is easy, although certain "meat grinder" scenarios certainly do exist. Trading off a little martial capability for a not-embarassing set of noncombat skills is almost certainly worth it in the long run (I've played all of Season 1, all but one of Season 2, and half of Season 3 - I think I've wished for more martial capability on my team 2-3 times, so, that's about 5% of scenarios).
Note that this is completely different from PF2E character creation in general, especially for APs. Unless you're in a very small but very stable player pool, you're not going to know who else is in your party. You can't count on someone showing up with a frontliner, you can't count on someone showing up with a healer, you can't count on someone showing up with a skill monkey. So the characters that can do a little of each - even if it's a champion qualifying as the "healer" by spamming Lay on Hands out of combat - are disproportionately valuable, while the ones that rely on a specific partner may be out of luck.
Note also that some of the game design decisions made for 2E drastically change the group dynamic relative to 1E. In 1E, modifiers were pumpable to levels where many characters auto-succeeded at things. In 2E, the dynamic range for modifiers has intentionally been limited (for better or for worse, it's a done deal). The most optimized characters still need to roll nat 5-ish to succeed; you can almost never have an auto-success.
tl;dr: Grunting martials are annoying to play with.
Venture-Captain, Wisconsin—Franklin
|
When I'm teaching new players or starting experienced players who are new to PFS, I advise that a character build should have three things.
1 Primary Combat trick. At the end of the day, Pathfinder puts emphasis on combat. Have something you want to be doing that contributes to combat. PF2E is a team sport. Things like demoralize, knocking things prone, and flanking help everyone win. And yes, big damage can be your combat trick.
2 Things to do in skill challenges. Pick which skills you're gonna progress ahead of time. It helps to make them do different things. Diplomacy for social challenges, thievery for exploring. Society for urban adventures, Survival for wilderness. If everyone can safely cover two bases, they're in good shape.
3 Backup plans. Know what you want to do when the things you're good aren't working. Have a ranged option, have some way to heal in combat, know what skills you're fine at. Well designed scenarios will try to kick you in the dump stat, know what you'll do about it.
|
And most scenarios have a mix of combat, skill challenges, and social interactions.
Regarding this comment, I have learned to create characters that do well with 2 out of the 3. I have PCs that aren't great in combat, but are very good with skills and/or social interactions and then I have PCs that are great in combat and social interactions, but not many skills, etc...
My point is; if you can do well in 2 out of the 3, you have a PC that's beneficial to the group.
|
|
I know a lot of players like to make the asocial/silent type for their characters, but then get bored when 1/4-1/2 of some scenarios end up non-relevant for them.
In my experience that comes from having been forced by GMs to come up specific words that your character says just to be allowed to roll a social (diplomacy) skill check. Usually with the condition that if the GM deems the words to be unsatisfactory to them personally then the player isn't even allowed to roll the check. Or is forced to take back the result of the roll when the GM says roll a diplomacy check (die rolls and result is calculated and stated) "but, what SPECIFICly does your character say".
|
|
That is built into a lot of scenarios, though. Especially ones using Discovery and Influence. Sometimes saying the right thing gives you a bonus, saying the wrong thing gives you a penalty, and saying something irrelevant doesn't even get the NPC's attention.
In 10 years of society play I have yet to encounter any scenario which contains EXPLICIT language that says “the player must use these words” to be permitted to roll this diplomacy or influence check.
|
Probably no build options to specifically avoid.Avoid two weapon fighting builds not based on the way of the drifter gunslinger. You will never have enough actions to actually use your full build without having to request the GM suspend the 3 action limit for you.
Yes and no.
Flurry rangers can do quite well with two weapon fighting. As can fighters that use double-slice (sword and board fighters are actually very effective with this feat, including Valeros!)
It isn't about getting more actions, it is about getting more out of your actions. Probably not something you will do well out of the gate, but there are viable builds along these lines, too!
My take on builds is this:
- Have a way to deal damage in combat. That could be whack them with your sword, cast a spell, what have you. But, in general, have a way to deal damage.
- Always have something to do with your 3rd action other than just crit-fish. Raise your shield. Demoralize or feint (note, this might be your first action instead of last). Step back away from your foe. Recall Knowledge (knowing an enemies weakness can sometimes be the difference between your life and death)
- Have a way to interact in a social encounter. Usually this means a social skill, but might also be Society or another knowledge-based skill.
- Have skills that don't directly relate to combat (acrobatics, athletics, etc), so that you can help on all of the knowledge checks! There will be plenty!
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
- Always have something to do with your 3rd action other than just crit-fish. Raise your shield. Demoralize or feint (note, this might be your first action instead of last). Step back away from your foe. Recall Knowledge (knowing an enemies weakness can sometimes be the difference between your life and death)
This. Doesn't have to be all the time, but enemies are accurate and hit HARD. Standing next to an opponent just means they'll try to hit you three times. I've seen several hit and run build work very well. They don't deal the most damage, but it forces enemies to come to you, rather than you to them.
Combats in general are much more mobile than in PF1/D&D. Don't be afraid to zip all over the map if you have to.---
Have a "secondary stat" (usually a mental stat). Your main stat is most likely the one you're dealing damage with (Strength for melee characters, DEX for ranged characters/Thief Rogues, or your casting stat for casters), but character creation allows you (most of the time) to have a decent secondary stat as well (of about 14, maybe perhaps 16 if you minmax some stuff). As others have said, skill challenges are important, and I've seen some characters just shut off outside of combat because they don't have any way to help.
Even if you're not a physically strong character, invest in either Acrobatics or Athletics (I think Acrobatics is a higher priority). I've seen mages be completely lost in the wild because they can't climb a 10-foot cliff or swim across a stream.
Try to maximise your AC. If you have no or light armour proficiency, get as close to 18 as you can. 14 for medium armour, 10-12 for heavy. You'll get crit a lot if you're lagging behind in AC, trust me.
|
That is built into a lot of scenarios, though. Especially ones using Discovery and Influence. Sometimes saying the right thing gives you a bonus, saying the wrong thing gives you a penalty, and saying something irrelevant doesn't even get the NPC's attention.In 10 years of society play I have yet to encounter any scenario which contains EXPLICIT language that says “the player must use these words” to be permitted to roll this diplomacy or influence check.
It does not look like you have GMed many Scenarios (judging by your Glyphs and Stars, at least). I can think of several examples.
And that's explicitly how the 2E Discovery/Influence system works:
The DC, and whether success is possible, depend on the NPC’s preferences (typically found in the NPC’s influence stat block).
In fact I recently ran a Social Encounter where Diplomacy only worked when combined with "boosting [name's] confidence".
|
|
That is built into a lot of scenarios, though. Especially ones using Discovery and Influence. Sometimes saying the right thing gives you a bonus, saying the wrong thing gives you a penalty, and saying something irrelevant doesn't even get the NPC's attention.In 10 years of society play I have yet to encounter any scenario which contains EXPLICIT language that says “the player must use these words” to be permitted to roll this diplomacy or influence check.
In contrast, I have played and run a lot that list topics to bring up in the social interaction and instruction to the effect on the roll.