I think that it depends on your point of view on what constitutes role-playing. For many players, it's "build a character concept THEN stat it, even if the concept is suboptimal, its the GM's job to work with it and make it fun".
Optimizing/Powergaming provides a baseline everyone understands, which imo is why people find it easier to do. Everyone understands "High primary build stat is good". Also, in b4 "You can't play the game wrong" from optimizers. No, not in a vaccuum, but you can play wrong in a particular groups style.
-Idle
This thread EXCELLENTLY illuminates the misconception that having competent, optimized character and role-playing are mutually exclusive activities. And in so doing perfectly illuminates my issue with "real" role-players - "Omg, this character tried to be good at what he does with a *gasp* 18! So we kicked him out of our group."
Have you considered just using the Heroic NPC stat array?
15,14,13,12,10,8
That should eliminate most of your problems with too many dump stats, although Charisma is likely to still be the victim :).
It is what I use for 15 point buy characters. If I get a higher point buy, I add onto this array. My current favorite for 20 point buy is 15,14,14,14,10,8. It provides for a much more rounded character, and you can play MAD characters pretty effectively.
My limited concept of roleplaying is superior to all other concepts of roleplaying. >:O
You're all doing it wrong.
This thread EXCELLENTLY illuminates the misconception that having competent, optimized character and role-playing are mutually exclusive activities. And in so doing perfectly illuminates my issue with "real" role-players - "Omg, this character tried to be good at what he does with a *gasp* 18! So we kicked him out of our group."
I agree with Cartigan, as long as the player don't fall into munchkinism, being good at what you do doesn't mean you can't, at the same time, be a good roleplayer.
For example, if you want to roleplay the big and strong half-orc who is also dumb and ugly, then you have to max out your Strength and Constitution while dumping your Intelligence and Charisma. However, a good roleplayer who's dumping is Intelligence have to play is character like an idiot: if he doesn't, then he's only a powergamer.
I suppose stat array might help, but stats are just the beginning of the problem.Have you considered just using the Heroic NPC stat array?
15,14,13,12,10,8That should eliminate most of your problems with too many dump stats, although Charisma is likely to still be the victim :).
It is what I use for 15 point buy characters. If I get a higher point buy, I add onto this array. My current favorite for 20 point buy is 15,14,14,14,10,8. It provides for a much more rounded character, and you can play MAD characters pretty effectively.
I was simply addressing the problem addressed in your OP :). And not trying to get off track.
Well said Mae, i do hate when said orc spends more time telling the group where to set up so the wizard can hit the most targets with fireball, instead of just running in and seining away
Well, I know a lot of players who, when they're in battle, stop talking "in-character" to give tactical advices to other players. Is that wrong? I think it depends on your play style. For me, it's not a big deal when it happens during a battle, as long as it doesn't slow down the game and as long as it doesn't happen too often. I believe that the PC wizard with 18 Intelligence could have "insight" (read: tactical advice from his pals) during a battle to use his spells in a more effective way. However, I do prefer when everyone keep to himself during battle because it takes less time and feels more realistic.
On the other hand, if the said half-orc his answering to every enigmas, always searching secret doors, using sense motive against every NPCs, using metagame knowledge to win some encounters and crafting devious and complex traps outside of battle, then the player is not roleplaying the stats of his character.
This thread EXCELLENTLY illuminates the misconception that having competent, optimized character and role-playing are mutually exclusive activities. And in so doing perfectly illuminates my issue with "real" role-players - "Omg, this character tried to be good at what he does with a *gasp* 18! So we kicked him out of our group."
But how often do we see that one can't play a character without an 18 in a stat? That's the difference here I think. There is one person doing his own thing and it's bringing the rest of the party down.
As for how to handle the problem, as GM you have the power to control what is available to the players. While I don't think you should deny them fun toys, you should be able to tell them that the particular combo they have is too powerful. Ask the overly powerful player if he would be willing to trade out some of his more powerful items for some items of equal value.
I would also take the time to make sure that the math is right on the other characters. A barbarian dealing 50+ damage at 8th level is one thing but if he's out-damaging the rest of the group by a factor of 4 or more, then there is a problem somewhere. If he is meant to be the primary damage dealer though, and everyone else has an equally valid role, then there may not be a problem in the first place.
I will point out before i get flamed for it, we have had "power campaigns" before. For example, one was with 3 book of nine swords characters and a mystic theurge for arcane/healing. The point is, however, is everyone agreed beforehand, that we were going to power game. We were playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, a dungeon crawl that we more affectionately refer to as "The Meat Grinder"
You are sending mixed signals:
You combine the theme power gaming with Mystic Theurge. One of these isn't like the other.Book of nine swords are tier 3 so while they have options: they aren't more powerful than anything else. You must be thinking of a Witch, Wizard, or Oracle (all Tier 1).
Most people add ToB because they like to not just big dumb Warrior archetype. ToB gives them ability to better make a character: you can parry, deal status effects like disarming (while damaging), etc.
You can be supernatural like Monk by taking Swordsage or be more extraordinary like a Warblade (like a Fighter/Barbarian) or Crusader (like a Paladain but mostly extraordinary).
Both Fighters and Barbs are better damage dealers but they lack options that ToB provides.
Anyway, what this tends to lead to, is that we have a front line putting out ridiculous damage or a caster with ridiculous unmakeable save dc's. Currently we have an 8th level barbarian on one set of characters, who averages 50+ dmg on a full attack, highest was 83 dmg with haste up. Best average damage output by any other member of the group is 15 or so. The main problem here is that anything that is a threat to the...
Possibly the reason is your other members aren't optimized very well not that he is.
Look at it like a scale.He is a 5 out of 10. They are 4 or lower. Isn't he is optimizing but they forget to do minimum.
You have
1) Jester: not a damage dealer unless you omitting info.
2) dwarf cleric of Dumathoin: Could be a damage dealer but you are not describing his output.
3) alchemist: Deals 4d6 + 5 int (I'll assume 20 by level 8 so +5 since you said these aren't optimized) damage up to 2/rd if Fast Bomb (BAB) = 8d8 +10 or 12d6 +15 if Haste.
So he can deal average 38 or 57.
So the Alchemist beats him if it tries.
I feel the issue is only the Barbarian is built toward combat.
Maybe you should design a system/explaination of the maximum you want out of your players.
I mean, look at your players he is the only one choosing a damage dealing class. Your players should realize that he deals damage because he wants to: they could too if they wished. He isn't overpowered.
You say:
.The main problem here is that anything that is a threat to the group, can usually One-shot any member of the group, or has such a high AC that no one can hit it and gets frustrated.
Why do you need to challange him? Why not challenge them seperately?
You are getting high enough level that Wall spells are becoming available.Have a group of enemies cast walls to seperate him from rest: so each is now challenged (mostly them since they deal so little).
He'll likely kill his opponents quickly but be unable to help them till he breaks wall (assuming Ice/Stone).
You don't even to make enemies be able to challenge him: he likes killing them. You just need enough enemies that they can be challenge long enough. Remember he can only kill nearby him (as far as his reach). So multiple enemies will solve this issue.
Boss Fight example:
Bone Devil (was CR 9 but in PF would be CR 8), 3 Ice Golems (CR 5), 3 Bearded Devil (CR 5)
Despite his high damage he wouldn't kill the Bone Devil (due to CDR) in 1 round. Plus, It can make wallds to stop him. His fear aura would stop him as well.
The Beard devils and Golem have low enough AC to be hit, they shouldn't be able to kill (unless bad luck), but they will challenge the party.
Or at least give us an example.
Not in ability scores, What thematic limits are you placing?
What is the max damage you expect a Damage Dealer (a Barbarians only role is damage by the way unlike the rest of you)?
What is the best DC you expect for a level?
If you don't know, how can you expect him to exceed it accidently.
I've played with a lot of power gamers over the years... some of them are good at role-playing and optimizing WHILE making choices for their characters that make sense for what they have been doing in the campaign. Then their are the "these make my character bad A**" PG's who don't try to make sense they just pick the most optimized feats and run with it. Now technically either form of play isn't "wrong" however for any group that likes to role-play the second form can be disrupting because it steals away from the fun of other party members and can become quite irritating.
Unfortunately the second one is generally formed from the Video game mentality, which is the "i must win", not "i must help my party".
You might need to talk to the player and let him know that he is really stealing the fun from the other players and try to work something out.
And Cartigan, im not saying that theirs anything wrong with optimizing, but you need to keep in mind the other people around. Optimizing without thought as to the type of game you are currently in and the people around you is...well... selfish. If your going to be optimizing then help the people around you who might not see their optimization or you can try and optimize here and their.
anyway my 2 cp, peace, need to get back to my sunday game :)
On the other hand, if the said half-orc his answering to every enigmas, always searching secret doors, using sense motive against every NPCs, using metagame knowledge to win some encounters and crafting devious and complex traps outside of battle, then the player is not roleplaying the stats of his character.
all of those could be interpreted as matters of wisdom. i never heard of a reasonably well informed player who dumps wisdom. my saturday group mostly isn't that rules saavy. because my DM has a tendency to penalize anyone with a lick of optimzation skill through control over the treasure horde.
low int=less book smarts
low wis=moron
a high int low wis character is like an acadamic scholar with no common sense. possibly an autistic genius.
a low int high wis character is not a moron and would actually be a better tactician than the high int low wis character.
This is more or less what I'm talking about... Maybe not to that extent, but yes.
Personally, I'm against counting squares on the grid before droping a fireball. Period. I know the birds eye view with a battle grid gives the feel like your playing a video game with satellite grid lines for targeting, but come on barbarian, stop telling everyone where to stand so the fire ball hits every enemy while missing every friendly... Just throw a dice down and start calculating squares based on your chosen grid intersection.
Maybe as the caster you should be doing this in between turns, but not as the barbarian, just pick something and attack it IMO ( that is, if your have dump stats in your int/wis )
Try this :
When the caster wants to use an AoE spell, he choose a single SQUARE (not an intersection) as the center of the AoE. Then, roll 1d4 to determine which intersection of this square will be the real center of the AoE. It should at least take care of that specific problem. :)
Don't do that for Line and Cone however.
When the caster wants to use an AoE spell, he choose a single SQUARE (not an intersection) as the center of the AoE. Then, roll 1d4 to determine which intersection of this square will be the real center of the AoE. It should at least take care of that specific problem. :)I did something like that once to him, resulted in a 100% miss, no friendlies, no enemies, nothing... LMAO for about 3 minutes solid
Yup nothing like wasting a limited use per day ability to no effect to put the jollies into a gaming session.
all of those could be interpreted as matters of wisdom. i never heard of a reasonably well informed player who dumps wisdom. my saturday group mostly isn't that rules saavy. because my DM has a tendency to penalize anyone with a lick of optimzation skill through control over the treasure horde.
low int=less book smarts
low wis=moron
a high int low wis character is like an acadamic scholar with no common sense. possibly an autistic genius.
a low int high wis character is not a moron and would actually be a better tactician than the high int low wis character.
I believe that developping a tactic/strategy/trap would be more Intelligence-related while not falling into your opponent's trap would be Wisdom related. However, I conceide that sense motive is clearly Wisdom-related. Strangely enough, search is Wisdom-related in Pathfinder, but someone who have a good understanding of architecture (read high Int) would be more likely to investigate for a secret door.
I would view the low-Int high-Wis half-orc as an strong willed brute that is able to feel danger with some kind of sixth sense. However, he wouldn't understand the world around him very well. For him, science and magic would be the same thing. He would also be very close minded and superstitious. This is all IMO, of course.
|
I don't have trouble with power-gamers so long as their characters make sens (but that goes for any character). I tend to run balanced games (equal parts combat, investigation, social, etc.) so if a character shines at one aspect, someone else will likely shine in another. Everyone knows what to expect going in so, rather than feel bad when the combat-optimized character whoops some tail, they rely on it. Similarly, when it comes time to deal with a political situation between feuding nobles, the party knows who will be in the limelight then, too. Where possible (and logical), people will still cross-invest at least a little so they can play a part by helping the spotlighted character.
I know some players in my group would go full-fledged into either the roleplaying carebear camp or the powergaming munchkin troop if they could but, after many years playing in my games, my players just know its not a good idea and, I'm somewhat happy to say, many of my habits and trends have caught on with the others when they get the bug to GM (which happens far too infrequently!!).
Yup nothing like wasting a limited use per day ability to no effect to put the jollies into a gaming session.
Sorry, I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.
However I should also have mentionned that spells with a small AoE (like Grease and Sound Burst) should not be modified by this house rule. It only makes sense with spells that have a large AoE (like Fireball and Web).
|
Okay...so I'm getting the feeling that you really have no idea what power gaming or optimization is elven blade. You think MT is powerful and wizards should be doing AoE damage and that ToB is something beyond just middle of the road. Now I'm not doubting that the odd man out is more powerful then your group...but I'm getting the feeling this is because you guys are playing gimped characters and not so much the other player is being overly power gamey. what level is the barbarian at +23 damage? Unless your at single digits, this would actually be considered weak in general. You mentioned 120 DPR so I assume level 11+. If so, then yeah the rest of your players are a joke and the reason you can't find a good 4th is because you guys are SO far below the norm that the chances of you guys finding another player that makes characters that gimped will be low.
|
Sound to me, like it is more of a play style issue than anything. One player wants one style of game play and the rest want something else. There is nothing wrong with optimized, though it is good if they make sense and just don't take the best of all.
In my experience when this becomes a issue is, what is a challenge for the one character is very hard for the rest. What is a challenge for the rest is a joke for him. The last game I played with such a character was set in the Iron Kingdoms in 3.5 DnD.
The character was
Ogrin fighter/Barb(think half ogre) - with his stats and 2h weapon he could do as much damage in one round as the rest of us combined.
Human Thief - my character
Gobber Cleric (think goblin)
Human Gun Mage (partial caster that can enhance guns with magic, IK has guns)
The fights tended to be a joke, the GM ramped up the bad guys and added more. The Ogrin would kill most and the rest of us would combine for finish off the rest. It worked until a fighter where the Ogrin player just had ungodly bad luck, misses, fumbles, etc and he dropped with out hardly doing any damage. End result was a TPK cause the rest of us couldn't fight them. Each of the rest of us was each dropped in 1 or 2 rounds and unable only dropped one more of the 5 mobs.
No I am only sharing the story for the OP see he can see what happened with my group in a situation like that.
There is nothing wrong with optimized characters but they tend not to mix well with characters who spread themselves out to be well rounded and not great at anything.
Yup nothing like wasting a limited use per day ability to no effect to put the jollies into a gaming session.Sorry, I can't tell if you're sarcastic or not.
However I should also have mentionned that spells with a small AoE (like Grease and Sound Burst) should not be modified by this house rule. It only makes sense with spells that have a large AoE (like Fireball and Web).
I'm being sarcastic -- Spells are limited by nature and really are not as "super powered" as a lot of people want to make them out to be, and have lots of means to be useless already without adding more in.
*I am not saying that spell casters are useless, or powerless or anything of that sort -- just that the balance point is fine where it currently is.*
I think some of the problem is a perception issue. in pathfinder melee characters do a lot more damage than previous editions and if no one in your group has previously played a 2h power attacking melee character it can be startling.
just taking an18 in a stat doesn't make one a power gamer. if the guy with the half Orc had made a 16 in wizard sit spell focus and g spell focus and did no damage butbdropped glitter dust and grease and pits every where would anyone have reacted negatively to him?
that said I'd never personally make a char with 2 stats at 7 though I have had a 7 str cleric before.
Just wondering but shouldn't the barbarian be doing much more damage than everyone else?
I'd not kick the guy out.
I'd sit down and talk to him about how you want the campaign to work. In this case- "you" being the entire group.
Nothing is wrong with power gaming or not power gaming- but the entire group needs to be on the same page.. and your group is a text book example of why. One guy is tweaking to the 9's for combat and the rest of you aren't.
The solution is for Him to tone his character down- to be more useful outside combat and less useful in combat. less useful can even still be "better" than the rest of you- (since he is playing a heavy melee bruiser) but just tone it back a notch or three.
The key is communication first. talk to him, have the DM(s) in question help the guy tone the character back abit. It will require some redoing of the ability scores and/or feats and/or magical items.
Only if he is unwilling to do so, do you have to chop him from the team. But then- its his fault for being unwilling to go with the majority. D&D is a team sport. You can't all get together to play hockey and have one joker with a bat trying to play baseball. It just doesn't work.
-S
|
|
Greetings Elven_blades.
Ability scores can be a very touchy subject. There is a lot of people out there who will simply not play point buy because they think it is bad role play. I find it helps to look at ability scores in the beginning as mechanics only. Either you buy them or you roll them. Then use them as a guide for your role playing like you would with alignment.
When it comes to optimizing and role play it really serves better to think of the two as exclusive subjects and not an either or scenario. Some folks want to get together and play a tactical board game. Others want to crate a story with characters to immerse themselves in. There is always a mix of the two and I believe that is where many arguments begin. Maybe you really wanted to discuss social contract and group cohesion? Might be an excellent topic for your next thread.
As a player, I've felt the pain of being in a game with a power gamer. This was a power gamer who was also interested in playing a character, but was still beyond the realm of not okay.
First of all, let me mention that our game had a few BIG mistakes going into it, that left the power-scale wide open to abuse, but for the most part, the majority of us were using the systems in place to fully flesh out our characters. We could all be total, optimized beasts, and still manage to find resources to be other flavorful things.
Well, one guy didn't get the memo. Age of Worms adventure path, Krathanos, one round, his character only. The DM for that game had to work at least six thousand kinds of stat-fu to keep encounters meaningful when a single party member was over-optimized.
I think the point about power-gaming in a group of 'its more about the story' players is that one person, using the rules has the ability to smash through anything and everything, leaving everyone else feeling left behind. So now the GM wants to build better/smarter encounters to face off against the kill-machine and the other players start adjusting towards a more optimized build, and oh look at that, an arms race.
Building specialized encounters to neutralize a threat will make that player feel picked on, but not directly addressing them leaves the other players left out of meaningful combat. The other players could try to reinvent their role such that are full participants in the combats without making the actual killing a part of their job, but that is asking three players to change so one doesn't have to.
In the end, I would try being direct, and telling this problem player that they are disruptive in your group. Don't attack them, just let them know that the way they are playing isn't one with the flow, and offer specific solutions that explore other aspects of their character's role. Don't try to take away, but try to encourage new growth.
[spite]If this fails, have a few rigorously non-violent game sessions. Put character's skills (and not just the d20+modifier ones) to the test, and let their personalities be what makes the scene. A bland, unformed blob of conceptual killing will feel useless here, and the player might feel inspired to give their stat-block some personality (if this is even a part of the issue).[/spite]
I'm being sarcastic -- Spells are limited by nature and really are not as "super powered" as a lot of people want to make them out to be, and have lots of means to be useless already without adding more in.
*I am not saying that spell casters are useless, or powerless or anything of that sort -- just that the balance point is fine where it currently is.*
Abraham, spell power his not even an issue here (at least for me). I don't think that the perfect/precise targeting of large AoE spells make them overpowered. The suggestion I made was not to nerf large AoE spells (even if it does that a little), it was to eliminate the somewhat ridiculous scenario where the wizard (w) throw a 40ft wide fireball (x) to burn to ashes an opponent (o) who's in melee with the fighter (f) without harming the fighter, like this :
w-----------
-----xx-----
----xxxx----
---xxxxxx---
--xxxxxxxx--
-foxxxxxxx--
---xxxxxx---
----xxxx----
-----xx-----
------------
- = empty square
While the house rule I proposed does nerf the fireball in such a context, I think that there's better spells to use in this situation and using those spells would, at the same time, create a better immersion. If your friend was in melee with an opponent, would you throw a grenade behind your opponent to help your friend?
This thread EXCELLENTLY illuminates the misconception that having competent, optimized character and role-playing are mutually exclusive activities. And in so doing perfectly illuminates my issue with "real" role-players - "Omg, this character tried to be good at what he does with a *gasp* 18! So we kicked him out of our group."Kicking out of the group is exactly what we are trying to avoid, but if me(the gm) and the other 3 players are unhappy with the player, i think it will come down to him not playing, or all of us not playing
Perhaps it's not the stats that are the issue but what it leads too. For example, I started my elven rogue off with an 18, (20 after adjustment), but at the same level as this barbarian, i could hit for around 10 without flank, or with average roles considered, about 35 on 2 attack. I considered this rogue pretty optimized ( to the limit of how far i personally optimize, i limit myself in this group) but still, thats 35 on 2 hits with flank vs 70+ on 2 attacks at any time.
Inexplicably, the Barbarian consistently does alot of damage. Who could've seen that coming?
|
|
Nothing is wrong with power gaming or not power gaming- but the entire group needs to be on the same page.. and your group is a text book example of why. One guy is tweaking to the 9's for combat and the rest of you aren't.The solution is for Him to tone his character down- to be more useful outside combat and less useful in combat. less useful can even still be "better" than the rest of you- (since he is playing a heavy melee bruiser) but just tone it back a notch or three.
-S
Except of course that I don't think the player is tweaked to the 9's for combat. A barbarian with +23 damage at level 11 is like tweaked to the 4s...maybe even 3s. Honestly the barbarian may have to not only take skill focus basket weaving...but he may have to start removing basic class features before he comes in line with the rest of the group as the alchemist can't even do half the damage he should using his class features. Once again I assume level 11+ as the barb would need 3 attacks to reach 120+ DPR. In such a case having the group come up is better then having the one player come down unless they really don't want a 4th.
I think some of the problem is a perception issue. in pathfinder melee characters do a lot more damage than previous editions and if no one in your group has previously played a 2h power attacking melee character it can be startling.
just taking an18 in a stat doesn't make one a power gamer. if the guy with the half Orc had made a 16 in wizard sit spell focus and g spell focus and did no damage butbdropped glitter dust and grease and pits every where would anyone have reacted negatively to him?
that said I'd never personally make a char with 2 stats at 7 though I have had a 7 str cleric before.
This is so true, focusing on DPR is only one (and not the best) strategy in Pathfinder.
This thread EXCELLENTLY illuminates the misconception that having competent, optimized character and role-playing are mutually exclusive activities. And in so doing perfectly illuminates my issue with "real" role-players - "Omg, this character tried to be good at what he does with a *gasp* 18! So we kicked him out of our group."
Usually I dont agree with you but this time you are right on
|
|
Okay elven blade...+23 at level 7 is on PAR...but then the 120 DPR is misleading as your NOT doing that without 4 attacks unless you roll higher then normal for 3 attacks and just plain old out of the question with 2 that the barbarian normally has. In anycase yeah your not too tweaked barbarian will see that at level 7 range. And level 1 with 23 ac? He somehow managed to get beyond WBL somehow and got access to mithril fullplate with 14 dex and a large shield? And that doesn't even include the issue with proficiency. I assume this was when he wasn't raging as well...otherwise he has magic items of a level 3-4 character at level 1. Are you sure your playing by the rules? You know things can break if you don't play by the rules.
And yes, even in 3.5 damage was easy for fighter types. It was the do other stuff that they couldn't do that made them suck. The damage that ToB put out was a pittance compared to what fighters put out...but the ToB is a higher tier class because they can do something OTHER then damage.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think part of the problem may be accounting. Pathfinder really rewards buffing mellee PCs. From the AC and numbers in other places there seems to be either wealth increases which serve as a buff or lots of actual castings of buff spells (or character sheet mistakes).
If the issue is buffing:
Part of the issue is scaling...he probably scales betters with buffs than other party members, especially lower level buffs to strength and the extra attack from haste.
You mention haste and the alchemist tossing buffs around and that may be part of the issue. The barb will disproportionately benefit from those buffs. Damage buffs are more effective because he has a higher hit rate, to hit bonuses are more effective because of his high damage, and extra attack bonuses are more effective because of the above two.
You mention fireball and the difficulty of getting 100 damage out of it. Consider an equivalent level haste spell. Getting a hundred damage out of a haste spell is easy. The barbarian has an extra attack for 30 per round, the alchemist can throw another 20 or so fire damage around, plus the 15 or so for another character...65 extra damage a round for up to 7 rounds is a TON of damage.
Say you cast haste on round 1 of a 4 round fight. Depending on how you tally, the caster of haste is either 100 damage behind the fireball caster or 160 damage ahead.
So I suppose there are two ways of looking at the problem. One is that the barbarian is eating up encounters. The other is that the party is really helping him eat up encounters.
|
|
To pan, I would say we are looking for a mix between the 2 (tactical board game/roleplaying story) it seems the power gamer only looks at one half of this, and ignores the other.
Yes that can be an issue I think all gamers face at some point. I hope things work out for the best. In case it doesn't, I might suggest having try outs to find your next replacement. Try PFS one shots to test out how players mix with your group. Maybe even do something different too like a Call of Cthulhu, burning wheel, etc...etc..
While the house rule I proposed does nerf the fireball in such a context, I think that there's better spells to use in this situation and using those spells would, at the same time, create a better immersion. If your friend was in melee with an opponent, would you throw a grenade behind your opponent to help your friend?
If I knew that I would get the opponent without getting my friend? Yes. Which is the case with fireball -- it's not a grenade, it's an exact placement of a 40 foot sphere and nothing more (since it doesn't go beyond the area of the spell) -- this has more to do with "realism" in the game though than the placement of the spell -- I would expect IRL that a fireball going off five feet in front of you would scorch you some -- yet in pathfinder I can place it so that exact thing happens -- and you are prefectly ok. I wouldn't expect someone to shoot 6+ arrows (or a scattergun!) at someone in melee with me either but we don't get after the archer for doing just that in pathfinder (even when he has to shoot over my shoulder to hit the target).
Is your rule a huge nerf? No -- but it is more than what is needed considering all the other reality inconsistencies in the game already.
Oh and for the sake of posting something relatively on topic:
I call stormwind fallacy.
Use the dice pool system from p. 15 of the Core Rulebook - he'll hate it. Hah!
|
|
Draino, the first half of your post pretty accurately describes my problems with said gamer. To be very specific, I'm running the Cauldron (Shackled City) campaign path, and have been re-writing nearly every monster since chapter 2 to keep things at least mildly challenging, while making CRs artificially low, sometimes extremely low, to keep them from advancing beyond projected level by chapter, and therefore gaining even more power than they are supposed to have.
I would say then you should be thanking this player. Shackled city is for 6 players not 4...and even with average characters that is a good chance of a TPK. With a group that is doing 25 DPR at level 7, it's a promise of death once you get to the half way point.