It's a trap! Builds that seem good, but...

[DumbPaladin]

You mention Vital Strike as not seeming like a trap option to you, but as SotS has pointed out, you're already relying on one houserule / misinterpretation to make it as useful as it is for you.

The problem for Vital Strike is that it works best for creatures who only have a single, big attack - things like T-Rexes, or other natural weapon-using creatures. This generally does not describe PC types, who past a certain point rely more on bonus damage from other sources than their weapons' base dice, it works much less effectively, especially since most of those bonuses apply on their interative attacks.

It doesn't seem like a trap when I can do 8d6 once each round, no. And my mentioning using it with Spring Attack was a mistake -- I know better. It can't be. I don't think Vital Strike can be combined with any feat currently existing in PF other than Power Attack, and a couple new feats released in Ultimate Combat.

But the "I get 3 attacks a round" thing is not a situation I've ever found worked for me. I just finished playing a CL 16 sorcadin who had 3 attacks per round. I never, EVER hit a bad guy 3 times in a round -- my -10 to hit attack (the 3rd attack of the round) usually could ONLY hit on a 20. Barring me receiving an extra attack at my full BAB, there is only realistically one chance for me to hit the bad guy.

For people who have issues with not rolling 19-19-19 each round during combat, paying attention to a second option that throws away the -5 and -10 penalty (and eventually -15) attack attempts seems like a VERY good idea.

If I only did 1d6 damage per round, Vital Strike would be very unimpressive. But if I can do 4d6 damage when standing toe-to-toe with a bad guy, and improve that to 8d6 by giving up my attacks that already have very little chance to hit ... that doesn't seem like a "trap" at all, and the people who label anything they don't consider to be optimal a "trap" begin to look rather histrionic.

That's one of my points. The other is the fact that, yes, I can have fun with practically every option ... so to someone like me, perhaps the "trap" term never works.

I don't consider it a trap, as others do, to play a character who is not more powerful than all other PCs in a party.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

How were you sneak attacking after round 1?

Infrequently, that's how.

But seriously, I mostly just made sure to get the sneak attack on round 1 whenever possible. Sometimes I would use my stealth to go back into hiding and sneak attack more, but usually I just contributed with regular, non-sneak attack arrow-fire after that.

And it was still fun. I agree with DumbPaladin in that I think I can have fun with most-if not all options, so it's hard to call something a trap from my point of view.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

First off you need to remmeber that there really are no bad builds.

A character concept exists to fit the players need. Now there are some mutually exclusive builds that do not work because they require certain things to work together that just cannot work for one reason or another. But that is something different.

What most of the people here "seem" to be talking about is suboptimal builds. I hate this sort of thinking, first off it hands the game to the dice hungry power gamers. I do not want them to own my game or any game that I play in.

Are there some builds that do not crush in combat as well as others? Of course there are, at least of course there are when your running modules which are designed around a rather generic party format. But in a campaign run by a decent DM there are no bad builds. When I DM I tailor the challenge to the party and its members. If a player wants to run a monk then I make sure that one of the long term foes of the party is something a monk works well against. I might add in some wizard or sorcery cult, they are two classes that the skills of a monk works well against. I am not going to make the only foes plate armored and buffed anti-paladins with armor classes in the low to mid 40s.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

First off you need to remmeber that there really are no bad builds.

Yes, there are. If you want to do X with your character, but the build completely and utterly fails at doing it, you have a bad build.

What most of the people here "seem" to be talking about is suboptimal builds. I hate this sort of thinking, first off it hands the game to the dice hungry power gamers. I do not want them to own my game or any game that I play in.

I love you, too.

Are there some builds that do not crush in combat as well as others? Of course there are, at least of course there are when your running modules which are designed around a rather generic party format. But in a campaign run by a decent DM there are no bad builds. When I DM I tailor the challenge to the party and its members. If a player wants to run a monk then I make sure that one of the long term foes of the party is something a monk works well against. I might add in some wizard or sorcery cult, they are two classes that the skills of a monk works well against. I am not going to make the only foes plate armored and buffed anti-paladins with armor classes in the low to mid 40s.

What foe does a monk work well against? An archer that just stands on the ground a fair distance away? A rogue foe with no way of getting sneak attack? Certainly not spellcasters. In PF, they don't even get to add their fast movement to flight and other movement modes (they could in 3E), so they're certainly not reaching the spellcaster any quicker. The only thing they can do against a spellcaster is grapple him, if the spellcaster was careless. And a Fighter or barbarian could grapple the spellcaster MUCH better.

What about the Vow of Poverty option? You think even THAT is not a "bad build"?

 

[Systole]

What most of the people here "seem" to be talking about is suboptimal builds. I hate this sort of thinking, first off it hands the game to the dice hungry power gamers. I do not want them to own my game or any game that I play in.

This is simply not true. We're not talking about min-maxed, "optimal" characters. We're talking about characters that don't even reach the level of "effective."

Building effective characters is not powergaming; it is respecting your fellow PCs enough that you're not asking them to carry you through adventures.

 

[Starbuck_II]

What about the Vow of Poverty option? You think even THAT is not a "bad build"?

Actually, since you are allowed to put all your wealth in one item: you just triple up on what it does:
Lucky Shirt of +5 Deflection, +5 NA, +6 Con, +6 Str, +6 Dex, +6 Wis (etc).
Sure, it costs more but eh.

It says you can have 1 item of any value.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Actually, since you are allowed to put all your wealth in one item: you just triple up on what it does:
Lucky Shirt of +5 Deflection, +5 NA, +6 Con, +6 Str, +6 Dex, +6 Wis (etc).
Sure, it costs more but eh.

It says you can have 1 item of any value.

Yes, the fact that the only thing it does let you own can be of any value (iirc, if not an official rule, it's a general policy that PCs can't start at higher levels w/o more than half their wealth by level spent on one item) makes it even worse from a balance perspective. Not only does it make you suck and fail, it's pretty much encouraging you to go out and find the most imbalanced item for your level possible. I know if I had a VoP monk, I'd probably just go and get a mirror of opposition as soon as I could afford it.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

This is simply not true. We're not talking about min-maxed, "optimal" characters. We're talking about characters that don't even reach the level of "effective."

Building effective characters is not powergaming; it is respecting your fellow PCs enough that you're not asking them to carry you through adventures.

You had to link to TV Tropes without giving any warning didn't you? I was there for nearly three hours...

However since you brought up the load, it brings in the point of whether any particular build exists that can do nothing but be carried. I would say there aren't any. For one thing because relying on your teammates in some situations doesn't make you a load, it makes you a team member. If a build can contribute regularly enough to their team's effort-and I'd say any "trap" build can, maybe not in standard combat, but in some form of useful situation-then it's not a complete trap.

...And there's the whole "If you can have fun with it" argument that's been said a few times.

...respecting your fellow PCs enough that you're not asking them to carry you through adventures

I'm quoting this a second time because I'd like to point out that I'd rather respect my fellow PCs enough to trust them to be able to cover my weaknesses. "Respecting" them enough to not ask them for help (note: help, not "to be carried", because as I've said even "trap" builds can contribute) really seems more like disrespecting them enough that you don't trust them to cover your weaknesses.

 

[Systole]

Every build has weaknesses. Melee needs controls and buffs behind them. Casters and ranged need a BSF to stand behind. Relying on your fellow players to cover the inherent weaknesses of your build is one thing; making a character that is not able to effectively do its job (i.e. cover the weaknesses of the other characters) is quite another.

Basically, we're running into the issue of defining 'trap build' again. It's apparently somewhere between 'uber-optimized' and 'utterly, completely, 100% incapable of ever being useful.'

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Basically, we're running into the issue of defining 'trap build' again. It's apparently somewhere between 'uber-optimized' and 'utterly, completely, 100% incapable of ever being useful.'

Well at least that narrows it down.

You also get into the issue of defining "effectively doing your job" with this. As I've said, I've played a couple of the builds that have been mentioned here (to be honest I sometimes pick the "bad" builds just because I've been told they're no good) and from my experience I'd say they managed to do their job and cover the weaknesses of the party members that depended on them.