| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic the Gathering design team uses the names Timmy, Johnny and Spike to describe their player's affinity. They are very often used to describe 3 different ways of interacting with the mechanical side of games.
To simplify:
- Spikes are competitive players. They love difficulty and challenge so they can express their tactical acumen. On these boards, Deriven is a classic example of a Spike.
- Johnnies are combo players. They love to build unexpected things by combining different elements of the game. They generally like to bring unique builds. I'm definitely a Johnny (also a Spike but less than a Johnny).
- Timmies are players who like to play big. They don't necessary look for imbalance but they want to sometimes be extremely impactful, very powerful. They like to shine like diamonds, even if it's only once in a while.
PF2 is a game that definitely appeals to Spikes: The average difficulty is rather high, there are no shortcuts to easily trivialize challenges.
Johnnies are a bit in a grey area. On one side, I can testify there are a lot of appealing things for Johnnies. But on the other side, you need to really know the game well and master a lot of its elements to build really unique characters. It is much easier to create combos in PF1 for example, where they are much easier to spot.
Timmies... well, Timmies are definitely left on the side. I see extremely few builds that would be appealing to Timmies. And that's why I start this discussion, both for us and for Paizo as I really think a lot can be done for them.
I'll give some example of Timmy-oriented gameplays:
The carry
A carry is a character that starts weak but progresses fast to end up stronger than anyone else. It's a term that started with DotA and other similar games. What is important for a carry is to have a build up phase leading them from unimpactful to overpowered.
Classical concepts in a game like PF2 is the self-buffing gish. The self-buffing gish spends the first rounds of combat to buff themselves and ends the combat much stronger than the other characters.
Another concept is the summoner (the real one, not the class): Rounds after rounds, they bring more and more creatures on the board until they completely overwhelm the opposition.
Carries don't exist at all in PF2 and they would be easy to implement.
The crit-fisher
The crit-fisher is basically a character who maximizes the effectiveness of an unlikely random event to extreme levels. Pick builds and low level archers/gunslingers are example of crit-fishers (based on critical hits to attack rolls). Unfortunately, due to the +10/-10 rule for critical hits, crit-fishing is too easy in PF2 and as such critical hits can't be extremely impressive.
Creating extremely unlikely and impactful options would be very simple, for example extra effects when you roll a natural 20 on a check.
The overspecialist
The overspecialist is extremely good in one niche domain. For example, they are so much of a diplomat that they trivialize Diplomacy checks. That is a concept that nearly doesn't exist in PF2 even if it would not imbalance the game. Still, I feel it's a direction Paizo doesn't want to take.
All eggs in the same basket
This type of characters is based on using extremely costly and impactful actions. The classical example is the Magus or Eldritch Archer who siphon 3 actions in one big event, or the spells that need 2 rounds to be cast. This concept is covered in PF2 but nearly unused outside the Magus class. Spells with 2 or 3 rounds of casting time and extreme effectiveness would be a very nice addition to the game, I'm sure lots of people would love them.
High risk high gain
This type of characters will voluntarily take massive penalties to increase one aspect beyond anyone else. Mutagens, Giant Instinct and Come and Get Me! embody this concept in PF2. Still, they are not impactful enough to really incarnate the high risk high gain philosophy. I'm personally not fond of this kind of characters as they tend to impact the other characters in the party strongly (for example by attracting all attention and bleeding hit points like crazy for Come and Get Me! and Giant Instinct).
The opportunist
The opportunist tries to exploit extremely circumstantial events. The classical case in PF2 is weakness exploitation: abilities that generate a lot of "ticks" of damage (Bombs, spells with Persistent Damage) obliterate any enemy with a weakness. Besides Weakness exploitation, I don't see another similar concept in PF2.
I certainly forgot about other concepts that appeal to Timmies. Still, nearly none of these concepts are covered by the game and I think it's an issue for those who live for the big boom.
What are your thoughts? Especially if you are a Timmy.
I don't understand why you don't consider big Fatal D12 builds Timmy builds.
Especially stuff like sniper gunslinger and etc.
They on average have lower output until they score that massive fatal crit, which is the default assumption of any Timmy build.
I quote myself:
Pick builds and low level archers/gunslingers are example of crit-fishers
I've spoken of low level archers and Gunslingers as you get a lower relative increase in damage through Fatal once you start having more static bonuses like Weapon Specialization and Runes.
Repeating yourself doesn't answer my question:
Given that Timmy builds are all about maximizing this one number of their choice even when that means the average suffers, WHY don't you consider the builds that do exactly that "Timmy builds"?
I can hardly answer an unspoken question!
I have considered them. I've exposed the few Timmy builds available in PF2. This post is not to say there are no Timmy appealing builds, but that there are very few of them. Pick/Arquebus, Giant Barbarian and Magus builds put aside, there are none (and even these 3 builds are just slightly leaning toward Timmy's tastes). Which is really few when it'd be rather easy to add more such options.
Are you a Timmy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have two thoughts.
One, I don't see myself represented in any of those three categories. I am more of a thespian/casual player. I'm here for the story and character building. Do I get a category and a name too?
Edit: And by 'character building' I am meaning personality, connections to the other characters, and things like that.
Two, it appears that you have found another mutually exclusive n-fecta. The most well known is the trifecta of 'fast, good, cheap: you can get at most two'. I have mentioned this on different threads, but it fits here too: I am pretty sure that my playstyle is incompatible with the 'Timmy' playstyle.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The math is largely out of the players hands (to the benefit of the edition overall) so there isn't much room for Timmy builds and the ones that are there are fairly superficial. As someone who likes to make a thematic character, this system has me eating good. You just get tools in 2e, neither exceptionally good nor exceptionally bad, and combine them purely based on the character narrative you wish to craft. Stacking for impact was expressly and purposely removed from this edition; you can make what you want...unless what you want us "I want to be leagues better at X". The only way you can get that is if a specific class is made to center on that fantasy. You can't build that YOURSELF. The benefit is no traps, no arms races, no despondent players; you just build what you want, play it, and it just works. No timmying though...
There's a reason those types only apply to card games, since there's usually no story progression in a deck, neither a roleplay aspect on them.
Agreed. Also, M:tg is inherently competitive instead of cooperative.
One, I don't see myself represented in any of those three categories. I am more of a thespian/casual player. I'm here for the story and character building. Do I get a category and a name too?
As I said in the first post, they are archetypes for ways of interacting with the mechanical side of the game. What is your way of interacting with the mechanical side of the game? If it's an aspect of the game you are not really attracted to then you are certainly none of these archetypes.
Also, they are certainly not the sole archetypes, they have just been isolated as the major ones for Magic the Gathering (which also means they don't necessarily apply to TTRPGs, even if I don't see why not).
I am pretty sure that my playstyle is incompatible with the 'Timmy' playstyle.
How come? If another player is building a crit oriented character, how does it negatively affects you?
a build that tries to maximise something like Athletics over everything else is still a Timmy build
I've spoken about maximizing Diplomacy, it is implied that it applies to any skill (or any other niche part of the game).
A fighter with a caster dedication for true strike and bless and a Helping hand familiar to try to maximise his attack bonus through the roof is still a Timmy build.
I partly disagree. Timmy builds are about big effects. Building for maximum reliability is not a Timmy build, it's actually the opposite of a Timmy build. On the other hand, as your build puts a lot of energy into one big action, it's still rather appealing to Timmies. But it's not a classic Timmy build.
"I want to be leagues better at X"
As I said, Timmies don't want to be better, they want big impacts sometimes. Critical hits are for example a feature aimed at Timmies.
The only way you can get that is if a specific class is made to center on that fantasy. You can't build that YOURSELF.
Which is fine for Timmies (unless they also have a strong Johnny aspect). Timmies don't want complex builds or whatever, they want builds that give them big impacts, sometimes.
No timmying though...
I disagree on that, it would not be that hard to add some Timmy-oriented feats and options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My problem with this analytic framework is that it is making assumptions for the wrong kind of game. A table top RPG is a collaborative game, arbitrated by a human being for the sake of everyone at the table having fun. Everyone wins or no one does and if “winning” to one player means “victory in combat over my enemies at all costs” while “telling a fun story together” is another, while “avoiding anything bad happening to these characters I am playing magical fantasy house with,” is another, then conversations between players is the path to collective victory, not character build options in a rulebook.
Looking at pathfinder through the lens of a competitive card game starts the conversation off as a competition between players for character building, which is silly because GMs could implement a whole host of optional rules (not to mention choices in what campaign to play or what tone to set for it) that will change everything about character building.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have two thoughts.
One, I don't see myself represented in any of those three categories. I am more of a thespian/casual player. I'm here for the story and character building. Do I get a category and a name too?
Edit: And by 'character building' I am meaning personality, connections to the other characters, and things like that.
Two, it appears that you have found another mutually exclusive n-fecta. The most well known is the trifecta of 'fast, good, cheap: you can get at most two'. I have mentioned this on different threads, but it fits here too: I am pretty sure that my playstyle is incompatible with the 'Timmy' playstyle.
The MTG term closes to you would probably be "Vorthos," The player more concerned with the lore and themes of the game than the mechanics, as opposed to Melvin/Mel, the mechanics focused player archetype
The Timmy archetype isn't just about "Big Numbers!" though. The archetypical Timmy/Tammy does tend to gravitate to big, splashy effects, but the common denominator is actually the excitement and feeling tied to a game mechanic. They're not trying to generate infinite loops (That's Johnnie/Jane), they want to do something cool. I'd actually call out Swashbuckler and Investigator as the perfect Timmy classes. It doesn't matter that they might do less damage than the rogue or fighter, the important thing is the feeling.
My problem with this analytic framework is that it is making assumptions for the wrong kind of game. A table top RPG is a collaborative game, arbitrated by a human being for the sake of everyone at the table having fun. Everyone wins or no one does and if “winning” to one player means “victory in combat over my enemies at all costs” while “telling a fun story together” is another, while “avoiding anything bad happening to these characters I am playing magical fantasy house with,” is another, then conversations between players is the path to collective victory, not character build options in a rulebook.
Looking at pathfinder through the lens of a competitive card game starts the conversation off as a competition between players for character building, which is silly because GMs could implement a whole host of optional rules (not to mention choices in what campaign to play or what tone to set for it) that will change everything about character building.
I'm speaking of how a player likes to contribute to the story, what character they like to play mechanically (and I insist on mechanically). It has nothing to do with the group. When building the mechanical part of a character, do you focus on efficiency (Spike), uniqueness (Johnny) or shiny moments (Timmy)?
I'd actually call out Swashbuckler
You're right, I forgot about Swashbuckler. But I disagree about Investigator, Devise a Stratagem doesn't have much of a "boom" effect. By default, it's hardly better than a basic Sneak Attack. Even if I agree it should be possible to use it for crit fishing, I just never saw it done.
I have two thoughts.
One, I don't see myself represented in any of those three categories. I am more of a thespian/casual player. I'm here for the story and character building. Do I get a category and a name too?
Edit: And by 'character building' I am meaning personality, connections to the other characters, and things like that.
Two, it appears that you have found another mutually exclusive n-fecta. The most well known is the trifecta of 'fast, good, cheap: you can get at most two'. I have mentioned this on different threads, but it fits here too: I am pretty sure that my playstyle is incompatible with the 'Timmy' playstyle.
There is. I remember first hearing about these types ages ago. There was a fourth type that made decks soly based on things like theming on artist that drew the card art.
I'd actually call out SwashbucklerYou're right, I forgot about Swashbuckler. But I disagree about Investigator, Devise a Stratagem doesn't have much of a "boom" effect. By default, it's hardly better than a basic Sneak Attack. Even if I agree it should be possible to use it for crit fishing, I just never saw it done.
Like I said, boiling the archetype to just "Big numbers!" Is reductionist. What draws Timmies and Tammies to investigator are the silver bullet mechanics and unique feats that try to sell the Great Detective fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I never liked these buckets.
I'm a timmy a johny and a spike and a vorthos.
Im happy when I make a deck that does complicated combos for big numbers and wins while being completely themed on something interesting to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who doesn't want an interesting character story(at least to them), that really helps the party effectively, puts out big numbers, and has a bunch of synergies in their build?
My problem with this analytic framework is that it is making assumptions for the wrong kind of game. A table top RPG is a collaborative game, arbitrated by a human being for the sake of everyone at the table having fun. Everyone wins or no one does and if “winning” to one player means “victory in combat over my enemies at all costs” while “telling a fun story together” is another, while “avoiding anything bad happening to these characters I am playing magical fantasy house with,” is another, then conversations between players is the path to collective victory, not character build options in a rulebook.
Looking at pathfinder through the lens of a competitive card game starts the conversation off as a competition between players for character building, which is silly because GMs could implement a whole host of optional rules (not to mention choices in what campaign to play or what tone to set for it) that will change everything about character building.
I'm speaking of how a player likes to contribute to the story, what character they like to play mechanically (and I insist on mechanically). It has nothing to do with the group. When building the mechanical part of a character, do you focus on efficiency (Spike), uniqueness (Johnny) or shiny moments (Timmy)?
In PF2, almost all of this is accomplished as a group, and most importantly, with the consent of the GM, or else people get frustrated. One table might run dual class, free archetype, Automatic Bonus Progression, and even start off a level or 2 ahead of an adventure's suggested level. Another might be set in a place where the highest settlement level is 2 and the players have to find ways to craft their items, all while the pace of the adventure is such that they level up ever 2 or 3 days in game. A unique shiny thing might be getting to use an uncommon weapon, or access to relics/artifacts or rituals that can be cast more quickly because of a new moon or leyline. Even different APs have these kinds of things baked into them and with mythic on the way, we are going to get a lot more of them.
Mechanicallly, a party that wants to play all for one/one for all, might need to be prepared to TPK repeatedly through a campaign while another sends Rogues in as advanced scouts to die regularly, while another would rather take things at a crawl to ensure that the party is almost never at risk of any character dying or else the whole table will lose interest in the adventure.
And each of these styles of play incentivize different kinds of mechanical and narrative approaches to character building. So it is not just about a personal preference, but a Table preference and a GM preference, with the possible exception of PFS, where any type of slow burn character build (like wants an encounter to last 4 to 6 rounds) is never going to get off the ground, and if the table regularly hits 6 players, then fast moving AoE damage is pretty much Timmy and Spike even if it never gets to Johnny.
I'm a little perplexed at the pushback here. I mean, some players really want to have those crowning moments of pure awesome, where everything likes up and they get to do large, impressive, awe-inspiring things. That's a thing. I don't feel like that should be too divisive as a concept. I also don't feel like their desire for the occasional (not terribly common) moment where they get to eat almost all of the spotlight and have a huge impact is necessarily mutually exclusive with anyone else having their own kind of fun.
So... let's try reframing this question a little bit. Say you're a GM. You have a new player, and this is what they want. You know them well enough to know that this is what they want, and any kind of argument where you try to convince them to not want this thing is going to make them unhappy, and then probably make them leave. They've been able to get those glorious moments in lots of other games, and they want to know how to make it happen in PF2. In a general sense, they're a good player and fun to have at the table, and you want them on board. What advice do you give them? What do you suggest to help them get the thing that both of you know they want from this system?
to help out, I'll toss out two new suggestions that might be helpful for thinking about it from different angles..
- If you're somehow in a game that's level 18+ or will get there soon, then some of the lvl 18 kineticist impulses feel like they're awesome in the right ways. They're big, they're splashy, they do Really Impressive Things. Unfortunately, lvl 1-17 kineticist doesn't really have that same level of over-the-top awesomeness, so for most campaigns, that's going to be the wrong choice.
- it might be worth considering a snarecrafter build. Most of the time, doing the snarecrafter thing is kind of finicky, and it eats up a whole bunch of your actions for maybe dubious results. If you can set up a situation where you know that the enemy is coming, though, and you know where they're coming from, and you have time to prepare the field before they get there, then a well-played snarecrafter can do a lot of damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power attack does fit Timmies, while it is almost always a 'bad' choice, it does spike hard, so that one fits, so we have e couple of feats available. Not great but not none existent
Power Attack is a Timmy trap. It's definitely not there to replace Strike or be used regularly, it's meant to go through resistances. So actually it's meant to increase reliability (against Resistances) not explosiveness.
Thinking more about it, I wonder if this could be the reason why so many players focus on Power Attack and scream about it being bad. I thought they were old PF1 players, but now I wonder if they are Timmies instead, lured towards Power Attack as it looks like a Timmy Ability, just to discover it's actually worse than 2 plain Strikes.Actually, even the Swashbuckler has the same effect: the basic Finisher is not meant to have big effects but to be reliable. To get Finishers that really satisfy Timmies, you roughly have to wait for level 8.
The more I look at it, and the more I feel designers hate explosive abilities. Timmies have really very few things to eat. Even the crit fishing builds mostly care about increasing crit chances more than crit effects and as such reliability over explosivity. And the changes to the Swashbuckler in PC2 are also aimed at increasing its reliability. Really, timmies feel abandonned in PF2.
I'm a timmy a johny and a spike and a vorthos.
And that's fine. They are not exclusive categories, they just embodies some fun aspects in a tactical game. So you can be all of them without issues.
Who doesn't want an interesting character story(at least to them), that really helps the party effectively, puts out big numbers, and has a bunch of synergies in their build?
I absolutely don't care about big numbers. I know players who don't care about effectiveness and some who hate when a character is even slightly complex. So most players will love parts of what you say but not everyone will love all of your sentence.
So it is not just about a personal preference, but a Table preference and a GM preference
But it's also about personal preference. Unless the other players at your table are dictators forcing you to play a character you don't like you will have some freedom on how to build it. And with this freedom you'll also express yourself mechanically (unless you absolutely don't care about the mechanical side of the game but then I'd question the choice of PF2 as it's heavy on mechanics).
- it might be worth considering a snarecrafter build.
Around Mathmuse's table, I agree. But around most tables you'll take the high level feats allowing you to use snares during combat as the opportunity to trap things before combat is a really rare one. And the snare builds are really balanced around the ability to use them during combat, considering the extreme number of feats they ask for.
you don't understand timmy mentality.
I very much understand it. You can be a Timmy/Spike, Timmies can care about effectiveness. Timmies care for big numbers more than optimization, it doesn't mean that they will play underpowered characters without feeling bad about it. They'd prefer Timmy abilities to be balanced.
- it might be worth considering a snarecrafter build.Around Mathmuse's table, I agree. But around most tables you'll take the high level feats allowing you to use snares during combat as the opportunity to trap things before combat is a really rare one. And the snare builds are really balanced around the ability to use them during combat, considering the extreme number of feats they ask for.
It's definitely going to be GM-dependent and (to a degree) campaign-dependent. It straight-up won't work in the standard PFS environment. It's some to discuss with your GM prior to building the character, and indeed, I would suggest taking the higher-level snarecrafting feats regardless. At the same time, it is worth having that discussion, if the thing you want is high-impact plays.
Incidentally, it's worth having a discussion with your GM about snares effectiveness before you start investing in them regardless of whether or not you hope for timmy plays. The usefulness of snares is pretty directly dependent on a whole lot of little things about GM approach, and you'll want to be sure that you have a shared understanding on those matters before you take that plunge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Efficiency and consistency are not even in the category of the platonic ideal of Timmy. Of course, real human beings are not platonic ideals. If a game element looks like if will do something cool but fails to deliver, Most people will eventually get frustrated. I don't think Power Attack spam is weak enough to actually run into that for its target audience, though. It still does the big, meaty charged attack that some people want.
Honestly I never liked these buckets.
I'm a timmy a johny and a spike and a vorthos.
Im happy when I make a deck that does complicated combos for big numbers and wins while being completely themed on something interesting to me.
The concepts are very much on a spectrum, and have a lot more to do with deaigning a game/expansion to a game that fulfills the wants of different players. It can also be useful for specifying the type of game you like, but it's just a heuristic. When it stops being useful for you, Don use it.
from the very article you linked:
Timmy cares more about the quality of his win than the quantity of his wins. For example, Timmy sits down and plays ten games. He only wins three games out of ten but the three he wins, he dominates his opponent. Timmy had fun. Timmy walks away happy.
Yes, he cares more about the quality of his win that the quantity of his wins. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about the quantity of his wins at all.
Timmy back in the day of MTG was a player that wanted to use rock hydra and just make it as big as possible.
Didnt matter that terror for 2 mana would waste all of that investment in playing a huge creature. That never stopped a Timmy.
Timmy back in the day of MTG was a player that wanted to use rock hydra and just make it as big as possible.
Didnt matter that terror for 2 mana would waste all of that investment in playing a huge creature. That never stopped a Timmy.
I mean Timmy-Spike was a documentable player type in competitive MtG. Basically ever Oath of Druid deck is for Timmy-Spikes. Oath has been competitively playable since the card was printed, it's just that they keep printing more impressive giant monsters for you to cheat into play.
|
I have only played a tiny amount of MTG so the following comes much more from reading this thread than from my own experience.
MTG is a competitive collectable card game where everybody plays as an individual . Pathfinder 2 is a cooperative role playing game with the players being a group.
Wny the heck would you think that what is (presumably) a reasonably way to separate play styles in one of those (MTG) would apply to a completely and utterly different experience (PF2)?
Or, to put it another way, when I read your original post my instinctive reaction was a massive shudder and a primal scream (internal, didn't want to startle the cats) of NOOOOOO. Just about every one of your suggestions would radically change PF2 into another game, a different game that I personally think would be much worse
Wny the heck would you think that what is (presumably) a reasonably way to separate play styles in one of those (MTG) would apply to a completely and utterly different experience (PF2)?
Why not? The description of the Timmy (and the Johnny and Spike also) really fit some players I've played with in PF2. Liking competition/difficulty, combos or big effects definitely apply to PF2, so it's not much of a stretch to consider there could be similar affinities. As a matter of fact, a lot of posters are directly correlating PF2 mechanics to this profile.
Just about every one of your suggestions would radically change PF2 into another game, a different game that I personally think would be much worse
Well, unless you were there to only share your primal internal scream, you can also elaborate. Because a lot of what I'm talking about is already in the game, just in a limited way.
|
|
Wny the heck would you think that what is (presumably) a reasonably way to separate play styles in one of those (MTG) would apply to a completely and utterly different experience (PF2)?Why not?
ANY attempt to separate a group into subgroups pretty much ALWAYS has tradeoffs, it pretty much always is only partly correct in that many individuals will fit into more than one subgroup. So HOW you split groups is VERY important (you really want to minimize those individuals in multiple groups of the exercise is going to have much value).
So, if you're going to split people into groups then at least START with a grouping intended for RPGS. The odds of getting a good split are probably way higher.
Well, unless you were there to only share your primal internal scream, you can also elaborate. Because a lot of what I'm talking about is already in the game, just in a limited way.
And expanding that currently limited way to appeal to Timmies (who I personally have never met at the RPG table) would almost certainly change the game significantly into a game that I personally would NOT like as much.
Heck, I'm already not a huge fan of the Timmy elements that exist. Fighters with picks are already swingier than I'd like.
I currently play 13th Age. That game significantly embraces the random element which I'm guessing is something Timmies would like. That is one aspect of the game that I really don't like. But if you do, then 13th Age is there for you.
ANY attempt to separate a group into subgroups pretty much ALWAYS has tradeoffs, it pretty much always is only partly correct in that many individuals will fit into more than one subgroup. So HOW you split groups is VERY important (you really want to minimize those individuals in multiple groups of the exercise is going to have much value).
So, if you're going to split people into groups then at least START with a grouping intended for RPGS. The odds of getting a good split are probably way higher.
These traits are not exclusive. You can be a bit of all, with some being more dominant than others. So these are no "groups" per se.
Heck, I'm already not a huge fan of the Timmy elements that exist. Fighters with picks are already swingier than I'd like.
So if you have a fellow teammate playing a Fighter with a Pick it negatively impacts your experience? Or are you just not a Timmy and as such not interested in elements that appeal to Timmies?
Now a leshy fighter with grasping reach and a heavy pick. now that's just clever and swingy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like there are a lot of Timmy options in the game. Big crit weapons with fatal or deadly and classes like the fighter and giant barbarian who hammer big. Lots of ways to build up skills to be real powerful and specialized like trip builds stacked with item and circumstance bonuses. Lots of skills builds for socials like Intimidate or Diplomacy where you can use a skill to really shine like Quick Coercion and super negotiator high level Diplomacy feats. If you focus on them, you can be quite good at those skills. Same with Stealth.
PF2 does reward specialization, but the DM has to make that specialization meaningful out of combat.
You just do specialized builds for combat and wait for crits or big damage like a magus spellstrike. Magus is probably the most Timmy class in PF2. I imagine it greatly appeals to that type of player who wants to see some huge hit every once in a while.
Spell crits are very Timmy.
I think there needs to be a tacit acceptance of the premise of the thread for those that largely agree with the premise. Regardless of teamwork aspects, there is a value in identifying mechanical approaches to combat and effectiveness.
Personally it isn’t my cup of tea. And I would give serious side-eye to any Fighter “just happening” to wield a pick. It’s pretty ridiculous. “Oh great Black Fang, I had you from my father and he from his father and he from his father before him. Ever have I had your happenstancily awesome mechanical greatness at my side, and truly you are a not-at-all-ridiculous looking weapon, sung about in many many ballads and depicted countless times in popular culture. Yea, though thou be niche, thy fell rulings mean I should swing you with abandon. Find the weak spots in yonder dragon. Swing mightily Black Fang!
But folks like to wrap pretty convincing and playable verisimilitudinous stories about…all manner of things. So, where they want to chat about combat and effectiveness, I say let them have at it.
Spell crits are very Timmy.
The Magus I played who wanted to True Strike a lunging spellstrike with a Staff of Divination with hope of critting on a Disintegrate was pretty Timmy, especially because I had a like 35' range to make a melee strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even in the context of Magic the Gathering, I find the "Timmy/Johnny/Spike" categories fairly flawed. Mark Rosewater - who invented the terms in this context - has changed the definitions of what he means by them over time so that even in a MTG context there's not always agreement as to what 'counts' as what, and ported onto an entirely different game system makes it further muddled.
Plus the whole theoretical premise that divide is based on is 'Psychographics', which is explicitly about how to market something to people rather than who they actually are
That said, if I had to, I'd point out that the broad and least derogatory description of Timmies is that they are there for the big experience. That means to me options that'd appeal to them are big 'number goes up' aspects, or 'big swing with high reward if it works' options. Meaning Barbarians and fighters, blaster mages, wild-shpae druids . Swashbucklers with their panache seem a good thematic fit too.