PDA

View Full Version : It's wrong to specialize?



Mentok
2009-09-17, 03:13 AM
I'm playing in a game of Pathfinder, and my DM is giving me two loads because I have a high Perception skill.

17th level, max ranks, class skill = +20 base
Wisdom 20 = +5 ability mod (wearing +6 Wis headband)
Skill Focus (Perception) = +6 (doubled when skill hit rank 10)
Alertness = +4 (same doubling occurred)
Upgraded Eyes of the Eagle = +15 competence (had them for a couple sessions, was comparing to Greater Slick armor property)
Total = +50

The goal was for an alternate method to fight invisible creatures or in the dark (or in a fog cloud and they have blindsight); especially since I'm an archer with a seeking bow. Is it wrong to be really good at something I've spent alot of effort to be really good at at high levels?

JellyPooga
2009-09-17, 03:35 AM
Hell no. Maxing out a skill to defeat a magic effect is a-ok in my books. Magic gets all the attention in this game, so I say plug your mundane abilities for all their worth (even if you are buffing that ability using said magic...)!

Fankly a +50 modifier to a focused skill is probably about right for a high-end game. Only yesterday I was playing with some numbers and managed to total a +160 modifier on Jump for a character completely borked for it (seriously, he was rubbish at anything but Jump), so for a useful character, +50 ain't nuthin' to send home about.

Eloel
2009-09-17, 03:50 AM
To note, Jump is way easier to boost compared to Perception. Speed increases stack quite good.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-17, 04:05 AM
At level 17, the Wizard has 9th level spells. I don't care if you have +Yes to Perception, it's not going to make much of a difference compared to that.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:15 AM
The whole game is designed so that you have to specialize...unless you're a full caster and thus have your spells to do whatever the hell you want regardless of your other sources. Guess why full casters are considered so insane?

But yeah, +50 Perception is pretty normal for a near level-20 character; you only need 25 from auxillary sources as you already have ~24 from skill ranks. Item can grant +10-+15, feats can grant a crapton, racial bonuses, etc. make it easy to hit a consistent +50, and magical boosts like Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar make +100 quite doable.


Indeed, +100 is a good baseline for a level 20 character trying to do something; it's quite doable to get basically anything to 100 (some stats may be hard), but above that tends to require a lot of work and bending the rules.

And yeah, D&D 3.5 (and as an extension, PF - it's the same game) is designed around specialists. You're rewarded for focusing everything on one thing by being really good at that one thing, and being "quite good" at many things just doesn't even begin to compare to a really good guy.

Of course, to a guy who's new to high-level D&D, the "really good" guys may seem too good at what they do, but really, it's just the nature of high level D&D. As nothing is "always applicable", the "really good"-aspects are balanced by sucking at other things.

Mentok
2009-09-17, 04:28 AM
Yeah, I think it's mainly a concern over not being used to the high-level game. It doesn't help the fact another point of frustration with him is any other member of the party does maybe half my average damage (dwarven defender, ranger, and mystic theurge), unless the TWF ranger attacks his very favored enemy, who only slightly outdoes me then.

Eldariel
2009-09-17, 04:32 AM
...how do you get +26 to bow damage? I know a few ways to do it, but most involve spells, psionics or really pimping out the numbers. I don't recall Pathfinder adding Dex to Damage.

Mentok
2009-09-17, 04:35 AM
We're each allowed a single non-core book beyond maybe some items out of the Magic Item Compendium. I chose PHB II for a single feat. All three of us non-casters got ahold of Tomes that gave +5 to Str/Dex; but I assure you, my average damage wasn't less than double theirs before we got the insight bonuses.

Attack = +17 Base, +8 Dex, +2 Gtr Focus, +2 Wpn Mastery, +4 Class, +5 Magic, +2 Bracers, -2 Rapid

Damage = Strength +10, Gtr Weapon Specialization +4, Wpn Mastery +2, Magic +5, Class +4, Gtr Bracers of Archery +1

JellyPooga
2009-09-17, 07:34 AM
...how do you get +26 to bow damage? I know a few ways to do it, but most involve spells, psionics or really pimping out the numbers. I don't recall Pathfinder adding Dex to Damage.

On a slight tangent, I've always wanted to play a Half-Ogre Entomanothrope (Were-Giant Stag Beetle) who wields a Composite Greatbow with a +24 to +28 Str modifier...the cost for the basic bow would be greater than most low level magic items! I just really like the idea of a bow that it would take 8 strong men to draw, let alone string...(for comparison, 26 damage is the average of approximately 7d6)

Gnaeus
2009-09-17, 08:43 AM
Yeah, I think it's mainly a concern over not being used to the high-level game. It doesn't help the fact another point of frustration with him is any other member of the party does maybe half my average damage (dwarven defender, ranger, and mystic theurge), unless the TWF ranger attacks his very favored enemy, who only slightly outdoes me then.

Well, if the mystic theurge is trying to do damage, he has already failed. he should have no problem finding useful things to do in combat that aren't damage. As the party's only caster, he will always have a chance to shine, even if MT is generally poor.

TWF Ranger is not usually a good build. But between his spells, pet, and animal companion, he can contribute, and you said that his damage sometimes equals yours.

D Defender is made of lose. Also, he isn't a damage build, so if he WAS doing damage near yours, it would be really bad.

All in all, it sounds like your build is OK, and their builds are just bad. Don't feel bad. You haven't done anything to break the game with your averagely competent, non magical character.

Now if another player joins, and decides to play any full caster with any level of competence, there will be trouble.

Mentok
2009-09-17, 09:09 AM
The MT very much pulls his own weight through buffing and is now becoming vaguely aware of proper battlefield control. Though most of his work is through damage control (undoing a serious debuff, casting heal on the ranger or me, etc).

Actually, the ranger took a house rule where he gave up his spellcasting and animal companion to gain fighter bonus feats. His feat total is one higher than mine. His average damage only equals mine when he fights giants (his foremost favored enemy); and PF rangers get their favored enemy bonus to both attack and damage, and when it's not a giant, he does about half my average damage.

No idea on what to do for the dwarf guy. He suffers classic tank syndrome, where his lack of mobility and offensive threat means he's almost never actually attacked. Enemies largely spend their time trying to take me out, occasionally going after the others when they make the opportunity easy.

This upsets the DM, because as far as he's concerned, he doesn't build encounters for the party; he builds them for me. Each and every thing we fight will have maximum HP rather than average, for instance.

jiriku
2009-09-17, 10:41 AM
Your DM struggles with building high-level encounters, that's all. Perhaps you could offer to help him.

DragoonWraith
2009-09-17, 10:47 AM
I'm sure there's gotta be some decent Dwarven Defender homebrew fixes out there; that would be a start. Because you've hit the problem with DDs right on the head - they're easily ignored. But it's a commonly commented on probelm, so I figure several tries have been made to fix it. Or if you don't want homebrew but have Tome of Battle, the Deepstone Sentinel is the Martial Adept version of the Dwarven Defender - and therefore almost certainly massively superior (though I have not actually read the class to be sure).

The Ranger made a very poor choice and whoever came up with that houserule made a mistake to even offer it. Both spellcasting and the animal companion are worth more than fighter feats, each, much less both. Maybe give him back one or the other?

The MT, at least, seems to be doing OK, as long as he's happy with the battlefield control/buff/debuff/heal role that MTs should be great at. If he wanted to be a blaster, well, he mischose his class, really. But it sounds like he's doing OK.

Akal Saris
2009-09-17, 11:31 AM
It sounds to me like the DM feels like there is a stronger imbalance than there actually is. A few years ago, I was DMing my first upper-mid level game and I started to feel overwhelmed too, since some of the PCs could suddenly deal 50-70 damage a round, while others weren't breaking the 20-damage mark, and it felt like I had to design every encounter to challenge the kensai.

In retrospect the group wasn't even all that powerful (though having 3 primary melee characters and 1 transmuter/war weaver meant that they were strong on the damage-side) - I just didn't have enough experience as a DM to handle their encounters well.

Here's my suggestions for the DM if you want to show him this thread.

First off, ignore CR as anything more than a loose guideline by this level - learn to judge monsters on how they specifically threaten or interest the party. Double the hit points on your monsters - the base monster typically has no chance to last more than 2 rounds against a decent damage-dealer, and it's better to use a monster that's around 17HD with double HPs than throw a 22HD monster at the party that could slaughter them.

Don't stick to single monsters for all or even most combats. I usually have a minimum of 3 opponents in a fight. Powerful Monsters really should be going after the largest threat (the ranger), but he should also add in opponents in most fights that charge the dwarven defender - not because the monsters will be especially useful to the fight, but because it gives him something to do and feel useful. Occasionally I'd throw a huge bruiser at the group that focuses only on the defender and does a ton of damage, but for whatever reason keeps on fighting the defender while the archer and ranger whittle him down.

To deal with powerful archers, here's some options:
1. Creatures with a high DR such as golems
2. Creatures with a miss chance through Displacement, etc.
3. Other archers that deal equally high damage - turn it into a regular shoot-out!
4. Offensive spell-casters who cast Maze, etc. to ruin his day.
5. Enemies that use terrain to their advantage - hiding behind walls, etc.
6. Restrict magic items that improve the archer's damage, and focus instead on giving him things that enhance his mobility or other roles in the party.

I wouldn't suggest using any of these more than 1-2 in succession, and there are some fights where you should really just let the players shine and deal a ton of damage. Not every fight needs to be a challenge.

Include plenty of giants - this includes ogres, trolls, half-ogres, etc - there's quite a few creatures with the Giant type out there really. Make them more common than usual in your campaign world, just so the 2-weapon fighter has fights where he shines. I play a ranger (archer) in 1 game, and believe me, there's nothing like fighting an orc and dealing 1d8+3 per shot, and then fighting a human and seeing my damage go up to 1d8+12 per shot.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-17, 11:33 AM
Is it wrong to be really good at something I've spent alot of effort to be really good at at high levels?
You aren't doing it as a caster ... so you can't have nice things.

That said, I would personally not allow custom skill bonus items keyed off mental stats (the ones keyed off physical stats are safer generally).

Artanis
2009-09-17, 12:17 PM
I think it's fine to be good at something you specialize in. This is doubly true in something as specialization-centered as 3.5.

However:


This upsets the DM, because as far as he's concerned, he doesn't build encounters for the party; he builds them for me. Each and every thing we fight will have maximum HP rather than average, for instance.

If there's an imbalance between party members, it's easier to change one party member than it is to change all of the rest. You should work with the DM and the rest of the party to try to bring everybody more into balance. If a character sucks (like how the Dwarven Defender sounds to be), you should all work together to help him...and if a character is twice as effective as anybody else in the party, you should consider toning him down a bit so that his sheer power doesn't hog the spotlight.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-17, 02:26 PM
Actually, the ranger took a house rule where he gave up his spellcasting and animal companion to gain fighter bonus feats. His feat total is one higher than mine. His average damage only equals mine when he fights giants (his foremost favored enemy); and PF rangers get their favored enemy bonus to both attack and damage, and when it's not a giant, he does about half my average damage.

Ranger was not planning his houserules well.

Feats do not neccesarily = power (unless you plan very well).

What is the Ranger? TWfing, archery, or 2 handed (which is useful despote no feats from class)?

He does know that Animal companion is worth a Domain (animal domain) alone. Yes, Animal domain gives the Ranger animal companion.

And his spellcasting was the thing that buffed his ranger damage and stuff. Granted, if he is stuck with Pathfinder spells the list is low, but Spell compendruim and Complete Adventurer make his awesome.

Find the gap: Ignore Natural armor bonus! 2nd level spell I think.

Mentok
2009-09-18, 02:00 AM
TWF ranger & not really any of SpC spells were allowed, with an extra emphasis on making sure the ranger/paladin ones didn't come into play.

Not that it much matters anymore. The DM's decided that the campaign's effectively over because he can't think of anything that would challenge the party any more without spending many hours in preparation; as we (really just the MT and I, the other two were barely cannon fodder) recently killed a great wyrm green dragon and its simulacrum (w/full spellcasting) with max HP.

tyckspoon
2009-09-18, 02:05 AM
Not that it much matters anymore. The DM's decided that the campaign's effectively over because he can't think of anything that would challenge the party any more without spending many hours in preparation; as we (really just the MT and I, the other two were barely cannon fodder) recently killed a great wyrm green dragon and its simulacrum (w/full spellcasting) with max HP.

Seriously? An archer and a mystic theurge take down one-and-three-quarters great wyrms? I'm pretty sure your DM would just completely break down in tears if he had to deal with anything that was actually optimized and not just competent.. I mean, it's a freaking great wyrm with a combat buddy. Even if it's fighting stupidly (it shouldn't be, at that age category) it should have been able to TPK your group with a strategy along the lines of "Land on archer. Eat archer. Repeat with rest of group."

Eldariel
2009-09-18, 04:08 AM
...wait, what? Great Wyrm Green Dragon should have the following stats:
43+4 Mage Armor+7 Animated Shield (+5) = 54 at the minimum (and probably more Dex and such so closer to 60)

Energy Immunity: Every friggin' thing, Teleport Contingency to being attacked, ability to Pouncing Charge (epic feat named Dire Charge for which Dragons qualify; it's in SRD) for ~400 points of damage vs. AC 50, saves in the mid 30s, Wall of Force, Forcecage and similars to lock out pestersome individuals, ~900 HP, Clone, etc. I guess the DM didn't bother giving it buff spells and equipment if it was killed...


It really sounds like your DM just isn't familiar with high-level D&D and the things monsters should be getting while PCs grow stronger too...

Artanis
2009-09-18, 11:44 AM
It really sounds like your DM just isn't familiar with high-level D&D and the things monsters should be getting while PCs grow stronger too...

...isn't that what he pretty much just said? :smallconfused:

Eldariel
2009-09-18, 12:38 PM
...isn't that what he pretty much just said? :smallconfused:

I was agreeing with his conclusion?

t_catt11
2009-09-18, 12:55 PM
LOL yep. Great freaking Wyrm PLUS an ally? What sort of sorry DM can't get a TPK out of that?

Ahem, sorry. Didn't mean for that to sound as harsh as it did... sounds like your DM need more experience, yes, but also, more beautiful, tasty hate for his players.