Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Tarma, I think the point you are missing is that initiative is not a stat that scales with power level, for the most part*. And it is not the god stat. So most of us don't see it as a problem that PC's have a higher initiative than a demon lord.
If there is ever a scenario that results in "Okay, you see (insert demon lord) ahead of you, roll initiative. ... Okay, you all beat his initiative, and the first four of you kill him before he can go." without a massive, epic adventure leading up to that point, then that is not the fault of high initiative, that is a badly written scenario. These are some of the most guarded, most defended, most powerful creatures in existence, you just don't run into them on their own. These are the creatures that are laughing at you from behind a wall of 40 to 100 lesser demons, tossing those ten wishes at you as you wade through a sea of minions.
So most of us see it as: "Okay, you see (insert demon lord) at the rear of the army ahead of you, roll initiative. ... Okay, you all beat his initiative, and the first four of you kill 10 of his soldiers before he can go. Now he..."
(*as you go up in level, you get more options that *let* you increase your initiative. But usually at the expense of something else. It rarely just gets higher on it's own.)
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I'm not understanding a need for an Initiative cap... as has been said before, why stop there? Why not a Damage cap or Free Action cap?
I routinely make characters that first in combat. I have a ranger/wizard with a +17 initiative (+19 in his favored terrain). Since he usually uses his first round to buff another party member, this means he still gets a chance to act as a melee combatant AFTER he has used his spell casting for the party's benefit. I have a rogue/gunslinger that has a base initiative of +12. As a sniper, he NEEDS to go first; if not, he's not going to ever get the opportunity to use his class features in the advantageous way he was designed for (ranged sneak attack at touch). He's a "one trick pony"... but that means after the first round, everyone ELSE gets a chance to shine. I could go on...
The point I am making though is that a high initiative isn't the problem; it's what you do with it that creates the problem.
YMMV
Tarma your solution is not a solution. There will always be jerks, and they dont have to go first to own a scenario. I am sure letting other players get one action off before owning encounters is also not fun, and that is what happens if they don't go first.
|
|
I'm not understanding a need for an Initiative cap... as has been said before, why stop there? Why not a Damage cap or Free Action cap?
I routinely make characters that first in combat. I have a ranger/wizard with a +17 initiative (+19 in his favored terrain). Since he usually uses his first round to buff another party member, this means he still gets a chance to act as a melee combatant AFTER he has used his spell casting for the party's benefit. I have a rogue/gunslinger that has a base initiative of +12. As a sniper, he NEEDS to go first; if not, he's not going to ever get the opportunity to use his class features in the advantageous way he was designed for (ranged sneak attack at touch). He's a "one trick pony"... but that means after the first round, everyone ELSE gets a chance to shine. I could go on...
The point I am making though is that a high initiative isn't the problem; it's what you do with it that creates the problem.
YMMV
And you make exactly my point, the one that Jason Wu think can resolved speaking with you and asking you to "tone down".
If the encounter is designed in a way that allow you to resolve it by yourself alone with your "one trick", what options has your character?- doing his one trick, and shutting the other players out from the encounter;
- not doing it and negating a good crunch of its abilities.
What options have you as a player?
- using your character;
- making a new character that don't use that kind of one trick ability.
There are characters for which "tone down" equals to "make a new character". Asking someone to make a new character because his character outshine mine seem a bit questionable.
Better designed encounters seem a better solution.
|
|
For the most part encounters from season four trend to too strong. Season 5 is about right in most cases. Earlier seasons trend to too easy, but there are some doozies.
A blanket statement of, "make the encounters better," is not helpful.
If a player can't tone their character down during play (use non-nuclear options first) then that is a flaw in the player, not the game, campaign, scenario, encounter, or initiative.
Now if you are getting defensive because you've ended an encounter on round one before, please stop and reread. We are discussing the same player being the glory big for entire scenarios with all their characters all the time.
|
|
I think the problem with the idea of capping initiaitive is that it cant be done effectively.
So you put the cap to +10. Fine. But +10 is fairly simple for a lot of character types to achieve. It may take a bit of an initial investment, but once that is out of the way, those characters will continue to outshine (everything else being equal) characters who have not made that investment. So maybe make the cap lower? It wont help. It will happen if the cap is at +10, +6, or +2. The law of averages says someone who has a higher modifier will go before someone with a lower modifier. And if that is the case, why bother capping it at all. Who cares if the Init-junkie goes 2 or 22 places before you?
Diego, I am saying to use dialogue because there is no other real solution.
Trying to solve a social issue with rules mechanics does not work. Period.
If a player has built his whole character around a mechanic that tends to shut the other players out of the action, that is his own damn choice. He can either start figuring out new strategies to be more of a team player (if nothing else we have rebuild rules), start a new character, or if he refuses to stop the behavior then perhaps PFS is not the campaign for him.
-j
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Player behavior is a meta-issue beyond the scope of mechanics.
The issues that arise are from a clash of playstyles. (Think of the Bartle Test -- while intended for MUDs and MMOs, it does apply to PFS.)
There is no right or wrong way to play the game. However, your individual enjoyment is greatly enhanced by gaming with a group that meshes with your playstyle.
If you're the sole RPer at a table of hyper-optimized killbots, you're probably not going to have a good time.
If you run the only competent combat build at a table of wacky 'concept' characters, you're blood pressure will probably skyrocket every time the GM says "roll initiative."
If you only play because you enjoy the combats and everything else is window dressing, then sitting at a table of people who play PFS like its their personal social hour at the Ye Olde Pretendy Times Tavern is sheer torture.
If you are the sole player who is out of step with everyone else's playstyle, it's easy to either point to everyone else as ruining your fun or, conversely, them saying your actions which is different than the table's violates the "don't be a jerk" rule.
Everyone has a different personal motivation for playing Pathfinder. Playstyle clashes are inevitable. The best long-term solution is introducing players to other gamers who are compatible with their gaming POV and motivations.
Trying to show someone the 'error of their ways' is condescending at best as you are basically claiming your way is the right way...when it is merely the right way for YOU.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
While I agree that the high initiative is only part of the problem, talking with someone isn't always a solution.
Have you even tried sitting down with "Dante" and talking about this problem with him? Cause if you haven't, you are just as much a part of the problem as Dante is.
No, talking with Dante may not work. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Certainly one should ask Dante to change his ways for the benefit of PFS before one asks all of PFS to change their ways for the benefit of Dante.
If "Dante" character is an inquisitor and killings things is his stitch exactly what options he has that aren't using his high initiative and killing things?
Saying "your character is too optimized for the average player here, stop using it and make a less efficient characters" is almost certainly unfun for him.
The fact that Dante may have less fun if he does this does not justify him sucking all of the fun from everyone else at the table. PFS is a social game. If the only person's fun you are capable of considering is you own then you do not belong in PFS.
I am better at designing strong characters than most of the people in my area. Many of my characters are capable of doing what Dante does. Ninty-five percent of the time I chose not to because I know the other players will not enjoy it if I do. I remember playing at a Con where I ended up fully unloading every combat because every combat, once you saw the monsters go, you knew someone was going to die if you didn't. Even then I apologized to everyone for dominating the table because the monsters all looked so nasty. The table response was, "That's okay. The monsters really were that nasty."
It's all about being aware of the other players and realizing they want to have just as much fun as you do. If you pay attention to that, you will learn when you can take the spotlight and when you shouldn't. Sometimes you get it wrong, but the point is you are trying.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Better designed encounters seem a better solution.
Better designed for who? If you make adventures so that the power gamers can't roflstomp the monsters then the monsters will roflstomp the non-power gaming players. PFS has a huge player base, and that means a huge variety of play stylest and player ability. You have to take all of that into account when designing an adventure. Given that, I find that PFS does a remarkable job with module design.
No, talking with Dante may not work. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Certainly one should ask Dante to change his ways for the benefit of PFS before one asks all of PFS to change their ways for the benefit of Dante.
Not even the benefit of Dante really. Dante doesn't learn anything. If anything you just made him bitter and punished everyone else for Dante's existence. Not the first time a rule was made like that, but its not exactly the best way to handle things.
Given that, I find that PFS does a remarkable job with module design.
Some bad ones slip in here and there still, but that's true for pathfinder in general. Somethings sound great in your head or on paper that don't look awesome once you start them, happens even in homegames.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think that implementing an "Initiative Cap" would be like shingling your house when it's on fire -- there's no point to it, because something else much more problematic is going on.
Other posters have made some comments addressing what I believe the real issue is: poor player behavior. Since these posts may have been lost in the crossfire, here's a quick summary of them again.
The issue isn't initiative, it's what people do with that initiative.
High initiative isn't the problem. Players who don't realize this is a social experience are.
No. High initiative is not a problem. High DPR is not a problem. High DC save or suck/die spells are not a problem. Nearly invulnerable characters are not a problem.
People who don't play well with others are the problem.
High initiative isn't the problem. It's a symptom.
The problem lies with the player.
High initiative isn't the problem; it's what you do with it that creates the problem
Instead of talking about an initiative cap, a better discussion to have would be about how to show players that PFS is a social experience. If everyone understood that, it wouldn't matter who went first.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a social experience, yes. This means both sides need to be respected. The guy whose fun is derived from their sorcerer (initiative +15) laying down 15d6+45 fireballs has just as much right to this as people who prefer non-optimized (or who simply don't yet possess the system mastery to do it) choices. The person whose character can end whole encounters in the blink of an eye should occasionally reserve the final act for after everyone has gotten to have a few turns, I agree, but so too should they be allowed to turn the battlefield (and subsequently the enemies) into a smoldering wasteland in the first turn sometimes. Everyone deserves their fun.
Indeed, if we're going to talk about having the players with more powerful characters practice restraint to ensure that everyone can enjoy themselves, we've also got to make sure they are themselves still afforded their enjoyment. To address one side without acknowledging the other will just create more problems.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
It is a social experience, yes. This means both sides need to be respected. The guy whose fun is derived from their sorcerer (initiative +15) laying down 15d6+45 fireballs has just as much right to this as people who prefer non-optimized (or who simply don't yet possess the system mastery to do it) choices. The person whose character can end whole encounters in the blink of an eye should occasionally reserve the final act for after everyone has gotten to have a few turns, I agree, but so too should they be allowed to turn the battlefield (and subsequently the enemies) into a smoldering wasteland in the first turn sometimes. Everyone deserves their fun.
Indeed, if we're going to talk about having the players with more powerful characters practice restraint to ensure that everyone can enjoy themselves, we've also got to make sure they are themselves still afforded their enjoyment. To address one side without acknowledging the other will just create more problems.
Agreed. However, I think that is something that's difficult for some people to find -- at what point do those players draw the line? How many slumber hexes a game is too much? At what point do they not cast their DC 28 persistent suffocation? At what point do they cast it? How can we help those people find that line? Is it a matter of situational awareness or courtesy?
I'm asking because I have characters that are optimized. I won't even put that word in quotes -- they most certainly are. And, although I always strive to ensure other players have a great time with me, I do worry that sometimes I play them in such a way that other people feel invalidated.
How do we help people understand that this is a social experience? What should we expect from them?
|
|
2.) I take issue whenever someone says my character NEEDS to go first.
I remember having a similar conversation with you about character optimization where you were arguing that a melee character NEEDED a 20 Str to be able to perform...
I think the problem with the idea of capping initiaitive is that it cant be done effectively.
So you put the cap to +10. Fine. But +10 is fairly simple for a lot of character types to achieve. It may take a bit of an initial investment, but once that is out of the way, those characters will continue to outshine (everything else being equal) characters who have not made that investment. So maybe make the cap lower? It wont help. It will happen if the cap is at +10, +6, or +2. The law of averages says someone who has a higher modifier will go before someone with a lower modifier. And if that is the case, why bother capping it at all. Who cares if the Init-junkie goes 2 or 22 places before you?
Part of the idea behind the initiative cap is to try to level it out a little bit. The law of averages only goes so far, If someone has a +21 init modifier and another person only has a +1, that law doesn't apply anymore because player 1 will always go before player 2.
A +10 initiative cap is a little arbitrary and it doesn't mean that the cap would have to stay at 10. But every time a similar issue comes up, the point where the line is draw is also arbitrary. How much damage a turn from a character is too high? 300? 400? How many attacks from one character in a turn is too many? 10? 15? 300 damage can kill most creatures in PFS and Pathfinder no sweat, so is that too much? Or is it fair until you hit the 400 range, then it's too many? 10 attacks a turn takes up a lot of time to calculate, but is that too many? Or is 15 when we draw the line?
All of these are issues that have been brought up and discussed before. I'm not as focused on the +10 initiative cap as I am on getting people to discuss the issue as a whole.
PFS strives to make as few changes to the rules of the game as is, so entry to the game is as friendly as possible.
The point is that this is unecessary. Why ban someone from dumping every little thing they can into a single aspect of their character so they can get as close as possible to going first all the time? Should we then ban someone who wants to make their spell saves too high? Their defense? The skill modifiers? CMB/CMD?
There is no need to do any limiting on any of these things. All of them are fine, as long as the player is nothing being a jerk. If the player is being a jerk, that is a fault with nothing at all but the player. Meaning ONLY THE PLAYER needs to have something done. Nothing else.
|
|
For the most part encounters from season four trend to too strong. Season 5 is about right in most cases. Earlier seasons trend to too easy, but there are some doozies.
A blanket statement of, "make the encounters better," is not helpful.
If a player can't tone their character down during play (use non-nuclear options first) then that is a flaw in the player, not the game, campaign, scenario, encounter, or initiative.
Now if you are getting defensive because you've ended an encounter on round one before, please stop and reread. We are discussing the same player being the glory big for entire scenarios with all their characters all the time.
No, I am the guy with +3 initiative, I generally go last in my group.
Simply I have seen players in this situation, having to choose between toning down to the point where the character lose a lot of his abilities or being the one that resolve most situations.Some classes are made that way, if the adventure designer compound that into routinely putting in game encounters with a single big target, possibly one that can deliver so much damage in one attack that it has a reasonable chance of one hitting one or more of the party members, the situation become explosive.
I dislike rocket tag Pathfinder, but an adventure design can easy push in that direction. For a GM it is way easier to manage a single big adversary than 5 weaker ones. But for a player it is easier to eliminate a single big target than 5 weaker ones, and if you routinely encounter only big targets with big ACs, big saves, strong protections and strong attacks you try to maximize your instant damage dealing capacity (be it hp of damage, hard to save spells or some other thing). It become a glass cannon war, where firing first is the most important thing.
My suggestion would be encounters with more adversaries, people that use the terrain to their advantage so that attacking them will require some maneuvering, not simply a straight line attack.
For social situations, people that will not yield to a simple diplomacy check, but that will change their aptitude and ask for something in return, possibly something that will not be easily delivered by the high charisma guy but would require some group collaboration.
|
|
Better designed for who? If you make adventures so that the power gamers can't roflstomp the monsters then the monsters will roflstomp the non-power gaming players. PFS has a huge player base, and that means a huge variety of play stylest and player ability. You have to take all of that into account when designing an adventure. Given that, I find that PFS does a remarkable job with module design.
Better designed encounters seem a better solution.
I think that phrase is consistently read the wrong way. The first time I did put it in it was "The best solution would be better designed encounters where there is always enough to do for the whole party, but that isn't always doable." but apparently no one noticed it that way, while all people read the iterations as "We need stronger, faster, more powerful monsters".
We don't need "stronger, faster, more powerful monsters", we need encounters where the first player can kill (dominate, banish, whatever) a head guy if that is what he like to do, but there are still enough enemies that are a creditable threat that the other players will feel that they are doing something useful.At the same time it should be an encounter where, if the first player to go don't kill the enemy but instead buff the party, it will not mean instant death for some of the party member.
It is easiest to do in a home campaign, where you can adapt the enemies to the party strengths and weaknesses, but it is worth trying to move in that direction.
|
I'm not understanding the need for an initiative cap. I'll admit too - I didn't read every post here, just scanned over some of them.
But I would like to add a few things and I'm not sure if they've been brought up or not, so hopefully not repeating anyone.
One duty of a GM is to ensure that the game is fair. According to the rules, it's fair (or so it seems).
Another duty is to ensure the game is enjoyable for all players. This seems to not be the case due to some players monopolizing the game. One thing I can suggest is to split the players into two different tables. Put the monopolizers together and the other players on a different table.
If this is not an option due to table size issues, run a homebrew and a Society table. On the Society table, encourage the monopolizers to use a pre-generated character and remind them that they can use their own characters on the homebrew table. I was able to solve a power-gaming issue in this manner back when I ran D&D homebrew and Encounters.
|
|
I'm also finding it interesting that whenever the subject of a race boon comes up, there are a lot of complaints that it won't fit thematically with PFS for whatever reason. But when a level 2 PC has the same initiative modifier as a CR 27 Demon Lord that can cast 10 wishes a day, we're all kind of ok with that. :)Which Demon Lord would that be?
Have you been noticing/seeing the same problem with the new scenarios?
Dagon is a CR 28, has a init of +11
Kostchtchie is a CR 26, has a init of +6
Pazuzu is a CR 30, has an init of +13
Xoveron is a CR 27, has an init +6
Shax is a CR 28, has an init of +18 (which is the highest of the demon lords)
Sifkesh is a CR 28, has an init of +12
Nocticula is a CR 30, has an init of +13.All of them can cast wish 10 times a day and can function as an MR 10 creature.
** spoiler omitted **
The problem is still holding true in newer scenarios as well, my table's encounter with mythic creatures was so one sided that the VC attending the event asked how we obliterated them so quickly.
Where are you getting that they get 10 wishes a day?
As for functioning at MR 10, that is only if they are in their own realm, and if you are using Mythic rules, which PFS is not.
Tarma, your arguments so far seem to be only theory crafting, as you have not provided details of any of the problem games that you have referred to (and only 2 games mentioned). Could you please provide details - that is, the scenario, the particular encounters of that scenario and information on the high initiative PCs that shut down the game (class, level, etc.)
Your demon hunter example leaves a little to be desired, as you have a PC using a weapon that they shouldn't be able to afford until late into 5th level (your example was level 4-5), and you have them making 2 or 3 attacks in that round (second iterative attack only shows up at level 6 for full BAB pcs, not 5-6).
This leaves a...
Actually. Mistwalker, there is a way for a 5th level PC to get 2-3 attacks in a round.
TWF and/or the Haste spell.
Either alone allows two attacks in a round, with both together -- and Haste is available if you have a 5th level Wizard in the party -- and the PC could get a third attack in the same round, before iterative attacks.
And, IIRC, Haste stacks with Rapid Shot, as well, for two or three bow attacks in a round.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
heck, I've had posters point out that I should not raise my PCs Perception so high that he finds the traps on a "Take 10" - you know, there should be a limit on skill bonuses!
I've had a previous VC (now in a different region) complain that one of my PC's Perception bonus makes it possible to spot invisible creatures, let alone the "Take One" to find magical traps. How dare a character have an ability that contributes to the well-being of the party, right?
Of course, my current VC has a PC who is built to find, disable, and/or bypass traps.
I would kind of like to see this discussion wrap up. The gist of it seems to be that someone has a problem with how other people enjoy the game. The proposed solution is to alter the effect of the game mechanics to bring it into lines with this person's expectations. I have no idea why, other than courtesy, this is being entertained at this length.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has been discussed to death, so there's probably little to offer at this point, but I do have a couple of comments.
(i) There's a lot of very pompous declaration that "it's a social game". Well, it's not, really. It IS a role-playing game which is played in a social setting, but that's a bit different from saying it's a "social game". There's no special "duty" in making sure other players have fun; rather, it's really more effective to make sure *you* have fun. If you're doing that, and you conduct yourself in a manner which is respectful to other players (for example, not telling them how to play their characters, which seems to be the prevailing sentiment here), then that's about 90% of the pleasant play experience.
(ii) Lots of talk about good players handicapping themselves; it almost seems like a prideful mantra of "well, I do have optimized characters, but I make sure not to actually play them overly well!" Here's a thought: maybe if those characters are played to the hilt, it will be valuable for newer players? I, personally, value mentoring.
(iii) On a related note vis-à-vis (ii), if somehow we should agree that it *is* right for good players to restrain themselves, perhaps it's fair for "concept" players to strengthen their game? I know I've played at tables where I was having to burn resources and carry far more than my "weight" to keep the table alive... granted, for me that experience is more "awesome" than "onerous", but we may as well keep play modification symmetrical.
One of the great benefits of organized play is that it creates a great proving ground for improving rules knowledge, learning about builds, learning new strategies and spell combinations, and so on - benefits of playing with a ton of people; why try to throw a wrench into that? I'm sure I'm not the only one who has played with isolated "home game" groups which have been laboring under rules misconceptions, confusions with 3/3.5 and so on... problems which get "ironed out" in organized play. That is, if one allows the game to play out in-full.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the last 2 posts of Diego Rossi. As Diego pointed out when designing encounters...stop putting 1 big bad in a combat, and then being upset when a party of six players kill it in one round. Use the environment to your advantage. Stop designing rooms that are barely large enough to fit in all the enemies much less all the party members, and then be surprised when the fighter with great cleave or the wizard with an empowered fireball clears the room. Many authors have no problem challenging players without making them face a Pit Fiend or an Ancient Dragon. For those that have run/played Rats of Round Mountain 1 and 2 I feel Kyle displayed that use of multiple enemies with advantages in darkness, or terrain advantages can challenge optimized paties without making it too tough for an average party that uses good teamwork. In addition, I feel some of the people posting on the boards take for granted that a vast majority of people in the society agree that optimized characters are "bad" for the society. This is a fantasy game, and I do not know too many people that fantasize about being average. The number of people that post regularly on this board represent a miniscule sampling of the entire society. Just because a majority of the people that post on these boards dislike this style of play does not mean that they are in the majority of the society. Just because someone optimizes their character does not mean they do not understand role playing, or that they are not solid role players. By the same token...just because your character is not optimized does not mean you are a good role player. The reason few people post differing opinions is that they know they will be attacked or flamed repeatedly and made out to be bully's or in favor of roll playing rather then role playing. That is why less then a hundred of the thousands of society members post here frequently. While I agree those that are optimized need to be careful not to monopolize every combat I feel that by the same token the opposing view could learn a bit more tolerance and acceptance of differing play styles. Let the flaming begin...
|
|
I think that is something that's difficult for some people to find -- at what point do those players draw the line? How many slumber hexes a game is too much? At what point do they not cast their DC 28 persistent suffocation? At what point do they cast it? How can we help those people find that line? Is it a matter of situational awareness or courtesy?
I'm asking because I have characters that are optimized. I won't even put that word in quotes -- they most certainly are. And, although I always strive to ensure other players have a great time with me, I do worry that sometimes I play them in such a way that other people feel invalidated.
How do we help people understand that this is a social experience? What should we expect from them?
Therein lies the pertinent question. If you know the answer to it then you are certainly a better man than I. The only response I know to give is that it will vary by table. In fact, it will vary so much by table that unless you have a regular crew you play with, you'll probably never be able to correctly gauge whether or not it's time to throttle it back all the time. I just come out and ask people to tell me if they'd like me to dial it back a little bit. I will be the first to admit that I love seeing giant numbers, and I tend to get a little over eager to lay down nukes when using a character capable of producing said high numbers. There's no shame in asking someone if they can tone it down so the rest of the party is able to do what they came to do as well.
Whatever that answer may be, I sincerely hope it is not to arbitrarily impose limitations purely to force the system mastery guys into being less effective.
|
I have 1 character with a really high initiative. He is a wizard and focuses on Crowd Control. My goal with him is to put a wall between the bad guys so we don't have to deal with 3 or 4 Demons at the same time. or just cause them to fall into pits for the same reason.
On the other hand, I have 2 characters with negative Initiatives. My cleric finished the Retirement Arc with a 7 Dex and a max of 15 AC. Things can work if you build around it.(super high Con, Had more hit points then the tank) My other character is a Deaf Oracle with a -4 initiative. Both Characters Heal so if you go first and get out of my reach i guess you aren't getting healing. Most people learn to stay closer and not rush ahead.
Actually. Mistwalker, there is a way for a 5th level PC to get 2-3 attacks in a round.
TWF and/or the Haste spell.
Either alone allows two attacks in a round, with both together -- and Haste is available if you have a 5th level Wizard in the party -- and the PC could get a third attack in the same round, before iterative attacks.
And, IIRC, Haste stacks with Rapid Shot, as well, for two or three bow attacks in a round.
Oh, I agree that a 5th level fighter can get more than one attack a round, if built for that.
However, the example that Tarma provided was that of a fighter with a single demon bane weapon, getting 2-3 attacks a round (doing 18+6d6+weapon damage) in the first round, doing so before anyone else could go (due to high initiative) and ending the encounter due to kiling the BBEG before anyone else could go. That example is the one that I was challenging as not being possible (or if it is, please explain how to do so - I would be quite interested in knowing how it could be done).
What you are mentioning above would not allow for that to happen, and would require the sword wielding fighter to get buffed with haste to get that 3rd attack - hence the fighter could not take out the BBEG by themselves, before anyone else could go.
Where are you getting that they get 10 wishes a day?As for functioning at MR 10, that is only if they are in their own realm, and if you are using Mythic rules, which PFS is not.
My bad, miracle. Because the differences between that and wish are that drastically different. :)
Yes, they can only function that way if they are in their home realm, but that was as an example to show the growth of initiatives.
Since I'm not sure I can directly link to one of the scenarios in question, I will repost it here:
** spoiler omitted **
Also, if you think that there aren't ways for mythic rules to apply to both PC's or creatures in PFS, you may be pleasantly surprised. :)
Thank you for the scenario information. Could you also provide the character information, and a bit about how the fights happened, to put it in context?
Could you also point out where the demon lords get 10 miracles a day?
Could you point me in the direction of the pleasant surprise concerning mythic rules?
The problem is still holding true in newer scenarios as well, my table's encounter with mythic creatures was so one sided that the VC attending the event asked how we obliterated them so quickly.
Could you point out which scenario(s) are using mythic creatures?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that is something that's difficult for some people to find -- at what point do those players draw the line? How many slumber hexes a game is too much? At what point do they not cast their DC 28 persistent suffocation? At what point do they cast it? How can we help those people find that line? Is it a matter of situational awareness or courtesy?
I'm asking because I have characters that are optimized. I won't even put that word in quotes -- they most certainly are. And, although I always strive to ensure other players have a great time with me, I do worry that sometimes I play them in such a way that other people feel invalidated.
How do we help people understand that this is a social experience? What should we expect from them?
Therein lies the pertinent question. If you know the answer to it then you are certainly a better man than I. The only response I know to give is that it will vary by table. In fact, it will vary so much by table that unless you have a regular crew you play with, you'll probably never be able to correctly gauge whether or not it's time to throttle it back all the time. I just come out and ask people to tell me if they'd like me to dial it back a little bit. I will be the first to admit that I love seeing giant numbers, and I tend to get a little over eager to lay down nukes when using a character capable of producing said high numbers. There's no shame in asking someone if they can tone it down so the rest of the party is able to do what they came to do as well.
Whatever that answer may be, I sincerely hope it is not to arbitrarily impose limitations purely to force the system mastery guys into being less effective.
Excellent response; thank you. That's part of the beauty of PFS -- getting to experience play with people outside the norm. That said, aside from conventions, and the occasional out-of-towner, I rarely get the chance to see new faces. And I play or GM 2-3 games a week, which is probably more than most. So I bet most PFS players play with the same core group 95% of the time.
I think I will start asking more of my fellow players, instead of assuming everything is OK. I agree that there's no shame in asking, whether you're the one rocking the encounter or the one sitting in the shadows. If there was a problem with asking, then why would we play this game, right?
I might start a discussion thread on this if I see more topics branch off in this direction, but I think what's been said here so far is a good place to start.
|
|
Actually. Mistwalker, there is a way for a 5th level PC to get 2-3 attacks in a round.
TWF and/or the Haste spell.
Either alone allows two attacks in a round, with both together -- and Haste is available if you have a 5th level Wizard in the party -- and the PC could get a third attack in the same round, before iterative attacks.
And, IIRC, Haste stacks with Rapid Shot, as well, for two or three bow attacks in a round.
Oh, I agree that a 5th level fighter can get more than one attack a round, if built for that.
However, the example that Tarma provided was that of a fighter with a single demon bane weapon, getting 2-3 attacks a round (doing 18+6d6+weapon damage) in the first round, doing so before anyone else could go (due to high initiative) and ending the encounter due to kiling the BBEG before anyone else could go. That example is the one that I was challenging as not being possible (or if it is, please explain how to do so - I would be quite interested in knowing how it could be done).
What you are mentioning above would not allow for that to happen, and would require the sword wielding fighter to get buffed with haste to get that 3rd attack - hence the fighter could not take out the BBEG by themselves, before anyone else could go.
Outside PFS it is fairly simple to get a full attack during your first full turn: quick runner shirt. But it is banned in PFS.
An outsider that can be killed by "18+6d6+weapon damage" is relatively weak. Assuming 2d6 as weapon damage, we have an average of 60 hp, appropriated for a CR 5 monster, a CR 6 babau demon has 73 hp and will survive an attack with that kind of damage.
|
heck, I've had posters point out that I should not raise my PCs Perception so high that he finds the traps on a "Take 10" - you know, there should be a limit on skill bonuses!There is already essentially a limit on skill bonuses as well. While a soft cap, most skills stop gaining benefits once you can hit a DC 40.
is this not true for initiative?