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

[Theo R Cwithin]

In a recent thread, someone brought up the notion of "trap" builds, for which th efollowing defintion was given:

No, it's "code" for "Things which, at first blush, look like they work well, but really don't."

Patryn went on to present an example:

Consider someone who wants to be a light, mobile combatant. You might think that dual-wielding and Spring Attack would work well for this type of character. The problem is that dual-wielding and Spring Attacking are mutually exclusive, and trying to go for both will make your character much less effective than you might want him to be.

Now to my mind, a dual-wielding spring attacker sound awesome... but it's not immediately obvious to me why it's not.

So what I'm curious to see here is examples of this sort: concept that sounds great, along with mechanical explanations of why it's a bad idea. I'm asking as someone horrible at builds and who has difficulty spotting these sorts of "traps" early on. Maybe a "take me by the hand" tutorial would help people like me to see the pitfalls early on.

Hopefully posts in this thread would consist of a (1)a concept that sounds good, along with (2)mechanical reasons why it doesn't work. Rather than "char op", think of this thread as "anti char sub-op". Or something.

I'll invite someone to start with the concept posted just above. Thanks in advance to any takers on this!

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The reason the spring attacking dual wielder is a trap is because you rely on hitting with both weapons and full attacking as a TWF. Even if you got an ability to do a double hit as a standard, it wouldn't work, because Spring Attack is its own full round action. The Paizo team was pretty adament on this, and even went out of their way to clarify how sucky Spring Attack is in regards to (not) working with Vital Strike.

Further, SA actually works best for builds that can deliver one big hit...since you only get one hit. So the big brute with a greatsword is actually the ideal user of SA. Not Drizzd't (spelling), nor the monk...


I'd also like to say that Dex-based combatants in general is a trap in Pathfinder. Weapon Finesse costs a feat and limits you to crappy weapons, and there is no feat (If the DM allows the Dancing Dervish-y feat from whatever splatbook then there is one) to replace str with dex for damage. Even with that Dervish feat, you're losing out on the sexy Str x 1.5 and the potential for 3x the attack penalty with Power Attack. To add insult to injury, Weapon Finesse doesn't even apply to combat maneuvers (which are "just like attacks" except when they arbitrarily are not), you need a spearate feat for that!
Further, a dex fighter, in the classic imagery, would be running around the battlefield, tumbling, flipping, rolling, and just generally being awesome. Two problems with that: As a dex-based fighter, you're probably relying on TWF to keep your damage output respectable, which leads to the problem I already explained about Spring Attack. Secondly, PF nerfed the ever-loving crap out of Tumble, so that it's now a suicide pact to try (look at my thread on Acrobatics: you're looking at getting AoO'd 50% of the time you try to tumble, and you NEED Skill Focus just to keep that meager success % from plummeting by level 10). Simply put: You COULD blow tons of skill points just to eat 1.5 attacks from the monster for every (likely much weaker) one you dish out by doing a tumbling skirmish tactic. Or...you could stand still like a good little PF melee class and make an even trade: full attack for full attack. Except your options aren't even that rosy. PF has a whole feat line begining with "Step Up" to let a monster follow you and AoO you even if you DO make that tumble check! And they're super-duper easy to qualify for!

So, in conclusion, a dextrous, agile fighter concept is an utter trap in Pathfinder, and should be avoided. (Perhaps next time, I'll examine why Ranged Rogues completely and utterly fail in PF, combine it with this proof of combat mobility being suicidal, and prove that in PF the entire Rogue class is a trap )

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Great information, Stream, thanks! That's exactly what I was hoping to see.

(Perhaps next time, I'll examine why Ranged Rogues completely and utterly fail in PF, combine it with this proof of combat mobility being suicidal, and prove that in PF the entire Rogue class is a trap )

That would be cool, I hope you do.

Is anyone else aware of other obvious trap builds in PF, either martial or casters? Spear fighters? Crossbow weilders? Weak sorc bloodlines? Monks?

 

[Systole]

Elementalist Fire Wizards.

Blaster mages in general have issues keeping up at high levels, since everything has an insane Reflex save and Improved Evasion and Spell resistance. Fire wizards are the worst of the lot, because fire resist is the most common resistance on top of all that.

Surprisingly, Fire Sorcerers are not nearly as bad, as their innate fire resist is actually useful.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Is anyone else aware of other obvious trap builds in PF, either martial or casters? Spear fighters? Crossbow weilders? Weak sorc bloodlines? Monks?

Crossbows work fine in PF, they're just more feat-heavy, as in 3E. I think people really underestimate the ability to shoot from prone in a long-range shootout sort of fight, and with the gravity bow spell, the base damage of the heavy crossbow (which you're reloading as a free action thanks to the Crossbow Master feat) makes a decent difference over a longbow, too.

Monks as a whole are a trap, even worse than they were in 3E. Everyone who's played 3E or PF before should know this, but I'll say it definitively for anyone new: the entire monk class is a trap!
Yes, even "that one archetype that looks really cool to you on paper and you're certain fixes the monks myriad problems." I will say...the Zen Archer Monk, by reducing MAD and giving a class based upon full attacks a combat mechanism to actually...full attack often... ALMOST achieves the vaunted status of "not a trap." But a Ranger still does it all with better HD, better skills, REAL genuine 100% authentic full BAB that you can see and touch (and use to qualify for feats at a reasonable character level), spellcasting, and extra combat actions an animal companion, so...still a trap. Also, note that Zen Archer does not modify a normal monk's starting gold at level 1. Look at the price of a bow. Look at what the archer ranger gets for starting gold. Now weep.


On an even more Captain Obvious note related to monks, and I really think this one goes without saying, but just in case you've never read an RPG product before in your life and don't feel like giving game rules a moderate few minutes of mental analyzation...
THE MONK VOWS ARE ALMOST CERTAINLY THE ABSOLUTE MOST GIGANTIC TRAPS EVER WRITTEN IN ANY GAME SYSTEM. EEEEEEEEEEEVER!!!!! DO NOT TAKE THEM! ESPECIALLY VOW OF POVERTY! YOU COULD LITERALLY TRADE AWAY EVERY SINGLE MONK CLASS FEATURE THAT YOU GET FOR ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN RETURN AND ACTUALLY END UP MORE POWERFUL THAN A VOW OF POVERTY MONK!

/public service announcement

I need to go look up how to make text larger, I don't think all caps, bold, and underline give that statement the emphasis it deserves. It's not every day you see the game's own designers, like Sean K. Reynolds, openly coming out and declaring that something is a horrible option that nosane person should ever take and basically mock anyone foolish/naive enough to do so. And yes, that seriously happened. Google seach "Pathfinder Vow of Poverty" or "Pathfinder Vow of Poverty Monk" and you should be able to find the posts if you don't believe me.

 

[DumbPaladin]

My issue with the "trap" label is that the people using the label don't seem to be of one mind.

For some players, a "trap" is any option that is not going to work in an optimal builds. In other words, if there's ever a better choice, then all the "not as good" choices are automatically traps.

For some players, it seems like a "trap" is an option which leads to a bit of confusion from less-experienced players -- or players who aren't reading the rules closely and carefully -- and which do not synergize with other feats as one might assume they would.

But for me, I can't see anything as a "trap" unless my choosing it would make me unable to enjoy my RPG in any way. Is there such a feat?

My most recent experience with the dreaded "trap" label is the Vital Strike tree. It doesn't work with most other combat feats, since it requires you to use the "attack option" for double the weapon damage (and only the weapon damage), which means you would have to give up multiple attacks if you had that option.

I can think of at least a couple reasons you would want to take this feat, and in neither does it seem like a "trap":

1) Your regular weapon damage is 4d6, which would give you 8d6 worth of damage in one swing (this is my Pathfinder character's situation);

2) Due to the -5 penalty with each secondary strike, and your poor rolling luck, you almost NEVER hit a monster except with your first attack at full BAB. If your party never buffs you with any abilities to make additional attacks at full BAB (like haste), you could very likely have only 1 good chance to hit all bad guys ... so you might as well do lots of damage.

What's the "trap", in the above situations?

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Vital Strike would be a lot better if tumble had not been nerfed. You could actually make a decent hit and run skirmisher using vital strike feats. But since tumble is what it is, any enemy that gets sick of you kiting it will just charge and lock you into full attack melee combat, at which point the attack ratios make continued skirmishing a much less appealing/feasible option.

Vital Strike is by no means a trap feat chain, though. It's just not something I'd prioritize generally. If you can get flight and a reach weapon (to avoid AoOs), Flyby Attacking with Vital Strike can be a decent tactic. It won't kill nearly as fast as a full attacking barbarian, but it can certainly be a good harassing tactic. Vital Strike is also good on any turn you can't full attack for whatever reason. The surprise round. The round you move into melee. If a ranged weapon user, any round you need to move and thus can't Rapid Shot. And it's damn sexy to use with a readied attack (especially if it's a set vs. charge w/ a brace weapon )

My issue with the trap label is it's hard to decipher what "seems good," as that will vary person to person. Something like vow of poverty instantly looks like dog turd to me, but for someone not familiar with how INCREDIBLY important magic items are in D&D, especially for non-casters, maybe it's not so obvious. I honestly have no way of knowing such a person's perspective.

 

[DumbPaladin]

That makes sense ... but over on the Paizo messageboards, Vital Strike is so regularly given the "trap" label that I genuinely began to think the label is losing its value. Which is why I brought it up.

I won't be flying anytime soon, but the rest of it I'm trying to do. My current idea is a combination of reach weapon + movement at 40 feet + Spring Attack + lead blades + enlarge person + Vital Strike for a skirmish attack build @ level 5. At that time, I will hopefully have two ways to avoid AoOs: the Spring Attack built-in ability, and the spell grace if I have to wade into combat against multiple minions.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The problem there is that the desgners themselves screwed everything up clarified that you cannot Vital Strike with Spring Attack, as I mentioned in my first reply in this thread. I think that's stupid, and I'm sure many other DMs do too and would be willing to houserule. But you need to check with him, because by RAW you cannot.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

My issue with the "trap" label is that the people using the label don't seem to be of one mind.

My issue with the trap label is it's hard to decipher what "seems good," as that will vary person to person.

Those are good points, so maybe we should narrow down things a bit.

The first bit is "seems like" a good or interesting build. At least when I say something like that, I'm really referring to some archetypal character idea: The trident/net gladiator. The necromancer commanding a horde of undead. The flamboyant rapier waving swashbuckler.

Each of these suggests a mechanical build, not all of which are effective in the end, either in doing what they're expected to do in-game, or in being useful in an adventuring party. It's those builds that fail to acheive even modest success in both competence and concept that I'm thinking of as a "trap".

The pauper fighting monk is a good example. The concept is cool: he forsakes all earthly possessions, in exchange for the ability to lay waste to his enemies with little more than his willpower and bare hands. The suggested route to this is VoP. In practice this falls apart utterly, because of the importance of magic items in D&D.

That is a classic trap: the concept is pretty archetypal, the route to get to it fairly obvious... and the end result is a big letdown for the guy running the character. It's the big let downs or total ineffectiveness of a build-- and lack of obvious alternate routes to that concept-- that, imho, really makes a "trap" a trap.

[edit: is there a list of "trap" builds out there somewhere, or someplace where they're discussed explicitly, rather than buried in op discussions? That'd would make it easier to just grab the common ones and say: "This build is a trap because it relies on Feat X, which doesn't work with Feat Y, so you can't actually accomplish these kinds of actions as you might hope given the desired concept."]