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



## Theo R Cwithin (Aug 2, 2011)

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







Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> 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 (Aug 2, 2011)

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 (Aug 2, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

Theo R Cwithin said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

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 (Aug 3, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


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





StreamOfTheSky said:


> 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."_]


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 3, 2011)

While 3E VoP was still a trap for a monk, at least it GAVE you things.  It feels wrong even mentioning it in the same breath as PF VoP, as if the former is a "trap" then the latter is so so so much beyond "trap" that we'd need to invent a new word for it.

But I can understand your meaning now.  Monk with no worldly possessions is definitely a type of character that's popular and has a strong background in media.

I'm not sure if there's an actual thread of every trap, as there are so very many of them, and a lot are a matter of opinion.  I'd be shocked if there's one for PF specifically, PF just doesn't have nearly the character optimization presence and analysis as 3E did.  Feel free to start a "Trap Compendium" if you want.


----------



## SnowleopardVK (Aug 3, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> 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?*




Agreed, and I haven't personally run into anything that's managed to take my enjoyment of the game aside from the actions and attitudes of other players or a DM.

Heck I've even played a ranged rogue before, which was one of the specific examples given earlier of a "trap".

It was quite fun as I recall.


----------



## Dingo333 (Aug 3, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> 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?




The trap depends on the crit range of the weapon. I know there are only a few weapons with it, but say this weapon crits on a 15-20/x2 (keen or some other effect). In this case, the vital strike is the trap. 
If you VS, and crit, you get 12d6. 
If you VS and do not, you get 8d6. 

If you Full attack and crit once, you get 12d6, 
if you crit twice, you get 16d6. 
If you do not crit at all but hit with both, you get 8d6, 
if you hit once, you get 4d6

So, VS gives us 8-12 d6 hit
FA gives us 4-16 d6.

You have a wider amount of damage you can do in the FA, but with the cost of half the damage minimum. There is also DR but that is often rare enough at low levels that we do not need to worry about it here

Now, for the -5 penalty. Lets assume the weapon is not criting every 4 attacks. A CR 6 monster should have an AC around 19. +1bab, +2Str, +1MWK/magic, +1WF. +5 to hit with the second hit. means a 14 or better to hit the target. Not terrible, and to me, worth the risk of the 4d6+STR(3 in this case with a 2 handed weapon)

Lets look at a CR 11 enemy and fast forward the character to lvl 11 as well.
CR 11 has AC 25

Lvl 11 player; 
+18(11Bab+3Str+2Magic+2WF) need a 7
+13(6Bab+3Str+2Magic+2WF) need a 12
+8(1Bab+3Str+2Magic+2WF) need a 17

so you are likely to miss with attack 3, but, the other 2 will hit. is the 4d6+5 worth losing for the very likely 8d6+10 when an IVS will only get you 12d6+5


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 3, 2011)

SnowleopardVK said:


> Heck I've even played a ranged rogue before, which was one of the specific examples given earlier of a "trap".




How were you sneak attacking after round 1?




SnowleopardVK said:


> It was quite fun as I recall.




A trap can still be fun.  I really enjoyed my DMPC that was meant to be a parody of the "must keep this NPC alive" trope -- normally in games or movies, such a character is irritatingly reckless and babysitting him is a major pain -- this NPC was spec'd out in every single way possible to save his own skin, didn't have a single offensive spell or ability whatsoever, and made it perectly clear he'd be fine using the party as meat shields to cover his retreat if things went south.  He was amazingly cowardly and paranoid.  The party needed half an hour just to find him hidden in his ridiculously trap-laden home.  Aside from his skill at decyphering scripts that lead the party to needing him, he provided absolutely nothing to the party whatsoever and was 100% useless in combat.  He was a blast to roleplay, though.

You don't have to be good at anything or even provide any use to the party at all for it to be a fun character.  Doesn't make X not a trap, though.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 3, 2011)

DumbPaladin said:


> 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?*




By this logic, absolutely nothing is a trap, because even playing a one-armed, one-eyed, lamed kobold minion can result in a fun RPG session.

While the scope creep in the definition of "trap" may make it slightly less useful for purposes of discussion, deciding instead that the word is absolutely meaningless is even worse.

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.


----------



## Dingo333 (Aug 3, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> How were you sneak attacking after round 1?




Well, depending on the level, invisibility is cheap

Vanish is about 1k for a wand 2nd caster level
Greater invisibility cast on you will do it even better

Then there is a Stealth check+a good distance, ie, maximum sneak attack range for a sniper variant rouge(30+10 per 3 levels) (any ideas what kinda penalties there are to being spotted 40ft away in a battle, there is a reason only half an army's archers were actually on the battle field)

Continuing, sniper goggles are a great investment, 20k to sneak attack at any distance, and a +2 per sneak attack die to damage after they get to 30ft or less

Optimal? probably not, but it is not a trap imho.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 3, 2011)

The 'problem" with Vital Strike, IMO, is that it's a fallback option.  It's the feat to use when conditions aren't ideal (full attacking or charging) to...suck less.  It reminds me ALOT of the 3E feat Close Quarters Fighting.  In case you don't know, CQF feat let you get an AoO on someone trying to grapple you.  Even if they had Imp. Grab/Grapple.  And if they did have that and you hit, you got to add your damage to your opposed grapple check.  It was really really handy.  Because if you're an archer, 2H weapon user, mage, or TWF...being grappled is bad.  But I've never seen anyone take it, and I myself have never taken it.  I always _wanted_ to take it, but there was always some other feat that was better or that boosted my "when things go right" combat schtick, and I ended up passing up on it.

Because, ultimately, fall back options aren't sexy.  And a lot of people choose feats based on the sexy.  Say I could use my feat to take VS or Shield Slam.  The latter gives me an OMG so badass punt ability when I hit someone.  Is it essential to my build?  Hell no!  But it's really cool and I can do my normal schtick without disruption and benefit from it.  The former actually could prove very important if things go south (what if I get slowed and only have a standard attack each turn?).  But its boring.  Really boring.  And it completely messes up my schtick if I want to use it.


Just my view of why VS is underappreciated and underused.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Aug 3, 2011)

Dingo333 said:


> Well, depending on the level, invisibility is cheap
> 
> Vanish is about 1k for a wand 2nd caster level
> Greater invisibility cast on you will do it even better
> ...




Yes, if you're willing to burn through money you can get a single SA per round.  If you're willing to spend a TON of money, do an Arcane Trickster multiclass, or *beg the party caster really really hard*, you can possibly even full attack like a normal person.  but that's an awful lot of work/money/begging for something so simple.  PF went out of their way to make ranged SA very very hard.  Blinking doesn't work.  Grease doesn't work (you can ready to shoot on the foe's turn, but if you want to blow two standard actions for one SA, just get a wand of vanish).  Throwing flasks doesn't work.  It's nuts!

You are right that sniper goggles + being too far away to be seen almost singlehandedly makes a ranged rogue viable.  But that's a long wait just to be able to full attack from range w/ SA reliably.  And in plenty of circumstances, distancing yourself so far from the party in order to do this may not work out / be wise.

And unfortunately Sniper Rogue is a trap.  As written, the sniper goggles make the archetype's main feature completely obsolete, and you can buy them at a point where the archetype's only giving you another +30 ft anyway.  Personally, I think Sniper Rogue's extended SA range should apply to the sniper goggle's +2 damage per die range so that it actually serves a purpose.  But as written, that is not the case.


----------



## Systole (Aug 3, 2011)

I think the qualifications of trap build are:

Looks good up front.
Probably still workable in the early and middle stages.
Is clearly subpar if not outright worthless at later levels.
Fire wizards are a good example I think, because fire wizards are great at low levels ... then you start hitting spell resist and fire resist.  They're  a build that lulls you into believing you're going to be a superpower at level 10.

That said, there's nothing wrong with playing a trap build, if you know your adventure is stopping at level 4, or maybe you just want to play a sub-suboptimal character for a change.  There's a guy playing a commoner and having a blast, for Pete's sake.  Warning: Clicking link will suck away hours of your life.


----------



## Dingo333 (Aug 3, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Yes, if you're willing to burn through money you can get a single SA per round.  If you're willing to spend a TON of money, do an Arcane Trickster multiclass, or *beg the party caster really really hard*, you can possibly even full attack like a normal person.  but that's an awful lot of work/money/begging for something so simple.  PF went out of their way to make ranged SA very very hard.  Blinking doesn't work.  Grease doesn't work (you can ready to shoot on the foe's turn, but if you want to blow two standard actions for one SA, just get a wand of vanish).  Throwing flasks doesn't work.  It's nuts!




To enable a main feature, well, sorry fighter, your magic weapon maces you a trap. Sorry wizard, your spells make you a trap. I dont think it is all that bad to spend money to enhance a main feature of your class.

Also, I do know the goggles and the archtype do not work together, thus those were separate points in my post

And, if the wizard is not willing to buff the rouge, why does he have the spell (if they take it). Rouge makes the most use out of the invisibility spells, (almost) pointless casting it on any of the other martial classes, and invisibility is better to cover your escape anyway, longer duration.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Aug 4, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> 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 (Aug 4, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2011)

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 (Aug 5, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> 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.




DocMoriartty said:


> 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.



DocMoriartty said:


> 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 (Aug 5, 2011)

DocMoriartty said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2011)

Starbuck_II said:


> 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 (Aug 7, 2011)

Systole said:


> 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.



Systole said:


> ...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 (Aug 8, 2011)

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 (Aug 9, 2011)

Systole said:


> 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.


----------



## Kaodi (Aug 9, 2011)

I no longer play video games of any sort, but this thread reminds me of a DDO character concept which I started but only levelled up to 3 before I quit: a Cleric 6/Wizard 7/Sorcerer 7, hehehe...


----------



## Ebony Dragon (Aug 9, 2011)

> 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!




Its funny you say this because in the Pathfinder/3.5 game that I am playing we have a Monk PC who has a couple levels in Psychic Warrior to get the Lion's Pounce power, gets buffed with Strong Jaw from the Druid most fights, and does so much damage per hit he makes the rest of the party look useless.  We are level 18 now and he puts out damage in the range of 200-300 per round very easily. With some good rolls he does over 400. This includes the first round of combat and when switching targets or chasing (due to Lion's Pounce).  

It is really astonishing to me and actually kills some of the fun for the rest of the party I think (at least it does a little bit for me) since our main tactic is just "let the monk kill it."  If the monk gets disabled or killed somehow our main tactic becomes "get the monk back into the fight somehow or we're boned" because the GM had to balance challenging encounters taking into account his massive dps.

Look at how many hitpoints monsters in the CR 18-20 range have.  Unless they have some kind of special defense against a Monk hitting them in the face they routinely go from full life down to about 20% life after one attack round from him.  The rest of the party can usually manage that other 20%.

Granted, Lion's Pounce (which is non-pathfinder) is a big part of the reason this character is so busted, but it just solves the same problem any melee character has with having to get into range first. Once in range the Monk seems pretty effective from my POV.


----------

