Hurt Me Plenty


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometime back in the dawn of the computer gaming days someone came up with the brilliant idea that not all players are created equal and to make the game more interesting they should allow the players to set the skill setting. The default setting was Normal, then there was "Easy" for true noobs. I think Wulfenstien 3d had two other settings "Hard" and "Hurt Me Plenty". On the other side of the equation some player would use cheat codes or hacks to make the game even easier than the n00b mode.

...

So how exactly is a competent/ expert player supposed to find this game challenging if the system is rigged around average or even beginning players? My suggestion is self selecting difficulty.

I have some more discussion on my Blog/ G+ Page, I wanted to keep it there where I can modify the idea as needed since editing posts here is time limited. Let me know what you think, here or there, and let me know what you think about the idea of cross posting like this.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Dennis Baker wrote:

Sometime back in the dawn of the computer gaming days someone came up with the brilliant idea that not all players are created equal and to make the game more interesting they should allow the players to set the skill setting. The default setting was Normal, then there was "Easy" for true noobs. I think Wulfenstien 3d had two other settings "Hard" and "Hurt Me Plenty". On the other side of the equation some player would use cheat codes or hacks to make the game even easier than the n00b mode.

...

So how exactly is a competent/ expert player supposed to find this game challenging if the system is rigged around average or even beginning players? My suggestion is self selecting difficulty.

I have some more discussion on my Blog/ G+ Page, I wanted to keep it there where I can modify the idea as needed since editing posts here is time limited. Let me know what you think, here or there, and let me know what you think about the idea of cross posting like this.

This looks awesome. I really want to get a table of people to try out the Hard or Hurt Me Plenty difficulties. Really reminds me of Pokemon Hard Mode.

Grand Lodge

Is it weird that my build's default to hard mode? It's just the way I learned to play. I also try to always play up if the table is willing.

It is nice to see I am not the only one who thinks like this. I also have no problem with you cross posting. At least the site you link to doesn't have pop-ups.:)

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

@WalterGM: Yeah, it is a very similar idea. As I mentioned, I swiped the idea of self handicapping from video game world. It's no surprise someone else did too :D

@Provos: I don't think it's weird at all. It's likely common. For example, many players keep to core and don't like to dump stats, which is two out of three right there. I should probably make hard a little tougher :D

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Hm, I won't be able to look at it until I get home in about 9 hours. What's the idea in a nutshell?

Also, I believe the settings included "Not too rough" and something else beyond "Hurt me plenty". I wish I could remember them all; they were funny. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Also, I believe the settings included "Not too rough" and something else beyond "Hurt me plenty". I wish I could remember them all; they were funny. :)

..

.

I'm too young to die
Hey, not too rough
Hurt me Plenty
Ultra Violence
Nightmare

were the settings for Doom, at least...

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Jiggy wrote:

Hm, I won't be able to look at it until I get home in about 9 hours. What's the idea in a nutshell?

Also, I believe the settings included "Not too rough" and something else beyond "Hurt me plenty". I wish I could remember them all; they were funny. :)

Simply that people who find the game too easy are likely taking the path of least resistance and should consider options that might challenge them a bit.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Midnight_Angel wrote:
Doooom!

Yes, those are exactly what I was thinking of. I was going from memory. I'll revise the blog posting when I get a bit of time.


On the one hand, I agree -- when a player soups up his character and then complains that combats are too easy, that's a bit ridiculous.

But on the other hand, playing a sandbagged character can be a selfish action too, since it may mean that the rest of the party has to work harder and spend more resources to survive. Although, I have to admit that all of the "hard mode" options you picked are quite reasonable with the possible exception of the Vow of Poverty monk (if I ended up in a party with three Vow of Poverty monks and my "normal" PC, I'd be peeved).

P.S. I'd only consider a druid to be "Easy mode" if she had an animal companion and I'd include any other class with a full-power pet (e.g. an Animal domain cleric or a ranger with the Boon Companion feat). Maybe not even then, depending on the current week's iteration of the animal training rules... :-/

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

hogarth wrote:

if I ended up in a party with three Vow of Poverty monks and my "normal" PC, I'd be peeved.

If I ended up in a group with three monks and my PC, I'd be peeved.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I GM'd a PFS scenario with three monks. It was fairly cool, actually. Lots of d20s flyin' around. ;)

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

hogarth wrote:

On the one hand, I agree -- when a player soups up his character and then complains that combats are too easy, that's a bit ridiculous.

But on the other hand, playing a sandbagged character can be a selfish action too, since it may mean that the rest of the party has to work harder and spend more resources to survive. Although, I have to admit that all of the "hard mode" options you picked are quite reasonable with the possible exception of the Vow of Poverty monk (if I ended up in a party with three Vow of Poverty monks and my "normal" PC, I'd be peeved).

I'm going to rework the challenge levels, the VoP monk is going to be a nightmare character.

I understand where you are coming from on sandbagging, but the game has just gotten to the point where there are too many easy options. The game is written around the concept of the average gamer. I put the VoP monk in there as a bit of an extreme example, but honestly in the hands of a player who knows how to build a good character and how to use tactics a VOP character is likely to be more potent than many average characters out there.

Quote:
P.S. I'd only consider a druid to be "Easy mode" if she had an animal companion and I'd include any other class with a full-power pet (e.g. an Animal domain cleric or a ranger with the Boon Companion feat). Maybe not even then, depending on the current week's iteration of the animal training rules... :-/

I agree, I'll see about updating it to reflect that ;)

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

So, where would you place the iconics?

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

The pregens?

I would have to look at them again, off the cuff I think Meri and Valeros are in one of the tougher settings :D

*I updated the original a bit*

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Jiggy wrote:
I GM'd a PFS scenario with three monks. It was fairly cool, actually. Lots of d20s flyin' around. ;)

But if that's 3 monks out of 4 characters in a game, it may make the scenario a little harder to play :P


Dennis Baker wrote:
I understand where you are coming from on sandbagging, but the game has just gotten to the point where there are too many easy options. The game is written around the concept of the average gamer.

...except for the scenarios that are built around tougher than average characters, which are randomly sprinkled in among the easier scenarios.

:-/ :-(

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Any time you are playing with four players the game is a little harder to play. I think three monks would be better off than three rogues myself.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

hogarth wrote:
Dennis Baker wrote:
I understand where you are coming from on sandbagging, but the game has just gotten to the point where there are too many easy options. The game is written around the concept of the average gamer.

...except for the scenarios that are built around tougher than average characters, which are randomly sprinkled in among the easier scenarios.

:-/ :-(

Yeah... though I'm not certain it's so much that they are tougher in general or that they have a really nasty effect which some characters aren't prepared to counter. For example there were a couple scenarios that leaned heavily on deeper darkness and improved invisibility (at will), for groups with access to daylight and glitterdust those scenarios weren't very tough. That's largely an issue of being prepared more than the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

WalterGM wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I GM'd a PFS scenario with three monks. It was fairly cool, actually. Lots of d20s flyin' around. ;)
But if that's 3 monks out of 4 characters in a game, it may make the scenario a little harder to play :P

There was also a paladin and a ranger and a sorcerer.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Jiggy wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I GM'd a PFS scenario with three monks. It was fairly cool, actually. Lots of d20s flyin' around. ;)
But if that's 3 monks out of 4 characters in a game, it may make the scenario a little harder to play :P
There was also a paladin and a ranger and a sorcerer.

Then that just sounds like an awesome table :)

3/5

A couple of thoughts:

"Never spend prestige" -> "Never acquire an item with prestige."

Spending your first twenty Prestige on a Country Estate, now that's making things harder for yourself.

I also suggest expanding on the attribute section of Hurt Me Plenty. Like:

No Strength or primary casting stat above 17.

For example, a straight Fighter with 18 Cha, he's making things harder for himself by doing that.

Similarly, dump-stats can actually make the game tougher for a given PC (for example, I'm running a 7-Str melee PC); it's what you do with the extra points that matters (ex: +2 to Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate! Wheee!).

Also:

"Avoid tables of six or more players."
"Avoid tables with PC below Hurt Me Plenty difficulty."

-Matt

Grand Lodge 4/5

I really like the dump/high boost stat ruling, but I'm wary about having to close off race/class combinations because they make it 'too easy'.

I'd love to see a rule about percentage of skills spent on practical abilities, and others spent on 'hobbies/interests' that have precious little to no benefit in survival scenarios.

I don't think prestige rewards change the difficulty too much except for wand purchases. Those have a huge effect. Perhaps a '5 wand blasts per day' optional rule? Dunno.


Dennis Baker wrote:
Yeah... though I'm not certain it's so much that they are tougher in general or that they have a really nasty effect which some characters aren't prepared to counter.

I can think of scenarios where the author came right out and said they were specifically trying to make a tough scenario.

At any rate, this sort of "make it tougher for me" stuff gives me mixed feelings, particularly because I've personally been much more disappointed by scenarios that are too tough (e.g. scenarios that require a very specific countermeasure, as you note) than by scenarios that are too easy. So when I play a scenario with someone who constantly pressures the table to play up, for instance, it strikes me as kind of selfish. Whereas in a home game with a table full of people who are clearly on the same wavelength and who buy into the concept, I think it would be great.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

*shrug*

I see a fair number of folks complaining about the lack of difficulty. I also have seen too many tables where "expert" players build characters that dominate the table. Yes, they are 'doing their part', but at the same time they are making the game boring for the rest of the table and hogging all the glory.

I hear you on the frustrating aspects, but honestly, would any of the things I mention really make a huge amount of difference? If you are stuck on a boat with no oar, you are stuck on a boat with no oar either way. Daylight/ glitterdust/ see invisible/ obscure damage resistance... all those things are fairly binary in nature, you either have them or you don't.

One thing I was thinking about adding is that if you do something like this you should spend some gold on an escape hatch. For example, you could purchase a scroll of Summon Monster V as early as 2nd or 3rd level and just hang onto it for a rainy day. You could buy Summon Monster IV with 2PA at 1st level which is a pretty decent rainy day spell until you hit 5th level or so.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

KestlerGunner wrote:
I really like the dump/high boost stat ruling, but I'm wary about having to close off race/class combinations because they make it 'too easy'.

It's not a ruling so much as pointing out the obvious. In even moderately skilled hands a summoner or druid with a full animal companion trivialize encounters. It is easy.

When I was talking about spending prestige I was thinking primarily of the fact that it is a ever flowing source of 1st level wands.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Mattastrophic wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

"Never spend prestige" -> "Never acquire an item with prestige."

Spending your first twenty Prestige on a Country Estate, now that's making things harder for yourself.

Or "Any time you visit a new country you must make a foreign contact in that country using your PA"

Before too long you would have a +4 on K(local) everywhere you go :D

Quote:

I also suggest expanding on the attribute section of Hurt Me Plenty. Like:

No Strength or primary casting stat above 17.

For example, a straight Fighter with 18 Cha, he's making things harder for himself by doing that.

Similarly, dump-stats can actually make the game tougher for a given PC (for example, I'm running a 7-Str melee PC); it's what you do with the extra points that matters (ex: +2 to Bluff/Diplomacy/Intimidate! Wheee!).

My intent was to make limits so people could still have pretty effective PCs. For example, a sorcerer with no scores under a 12 and a 16 charisma can be a really fun/ effective character. Similarly, you could make a solid switch hitting ranger starting with middle-high strength/ dex/ con. His peak damage wouldn't be as high, but he would be far more versatile than many of the one hit wonders I see cranked out.

Quote:

"Avoid tables of six or more players."

"Avoid tables with PC below Hurt Me Plenty difficulty."

I like this a lot :D


Dennis Baker wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:


"Avoid tables with PC below Hurt Me Plenty difficulty."
I like this a lot :D

I totally agree; this sort of "upping the ante" is best done at a table of like-minded individuals.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Dennis

I like the general idea - but I think a min/maxer would run loops around your classifications.

I'm too young to die - Summoner - I do play a summoner. It is a Gnome summoner with a small !! Eidolon. The Eidolon has Scent and a Climb speed. The Summoner learned Reduce Person on first level. Yes - the Eidolon can be at Stealth of the chart if it gets reduced in size. A Stealth of +18 helps here a lot. Just don't expect it to deal out big amounts of damage.

The Paladin tin can - no skill above 16, no skill below 10. But Plate Mail+1, Large Shield +1 at level 2. I lately ran a tier 4-5 with such a player. I needed Nat20 to hit despite flatfooted or flanking bonus in the first encounter.

Suprise round - roll of a 19 with a scimitar - GM - what's your AC as I have a possible Thread? Player - no - you don't hit me - AC24 flat footed.

Even more annoying was a level 2 with some feats to get an extra +4 for AoO. he played up but danced deliberately in front of my undead to discharge all of the AoO for other players. Not much to fear as I needed a Nat20 to hit his improved AC26.

Suggested Noob mode - AC > 18 + 1/2 your level

Other ways to crank up difficulty - make use of Prestige Classes. My main character is a Wizard 7 / Pathfinder Chronicler 1 - member of the Grand Lodge.

The Pathfinder Chronicler is nice for skills as well as to overcome encumbrance issues (Str.7) and my wizard might come up with interesting stuff buried in his backpack. But it means he gets the next spell level one level later.

I did this for Roleplay reasons - but I was aware that from a power level it is sub-optimal.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

hogarth,

Is one set more valid self imposed limits any more than the others? Is the guy who shows up with a halfling monk because he thought it was a cool idea any more valid than the guy who wanted to see if he could challenge himself? How do you tell them apart? Is the guy who never buys more than the core book and likes playing rogues somehow doing things wrong? Would you have them sit apart also?

I honestly don't see a difference. I play with one or all of these things nearly every time I sit down at the table. Should I start correcting these people's poor manners for playing sub-optimally?

Thod wrote:
I like the general idea - but I think a min/maxer would run loops around your classifications.

I suppose if you look at it that way. Personally, the idea of putting some self imposed restrictions in place only to work ways around them is a silly exercise. It's more a thought exercise to make people think about their play style, not as hard/ fast rules.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Well, I finally got to read the thing when I got home last night. Very interesting! I was actually expecting it to be about finding ways for the GM to make the scenario more difficult, not guidelines for the player to exercise self-imposed limits to up the difficulty.

I agree with you, Dennis, that it should be a thought exercise to point frustrated "experts" in a satisfying direction rather than a second game to beat.

Another item to consider adding to the list might be something along the lines of keeping your max DPR under a certain amount. (Unless that's already there and I missed it.) Or the sum of your AC and DPR.

Anyway, great ideas, and I'll be keeping them in mind for future characters.


Dennis Baker wrote:

hogarth,

Is one set more valid self imposed limits any more than the others? Is the guy who shows up with a halfling monk because he thought it was a cool idea any more valid than the guy who wanted to see if he could challenge himself?

That's why I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I completely agree that making a tough character and then complaining that the game is too easy is counterproductive. I've made basically the same point before on multiple occasions (Here and Here), so I can't say I disagree with you!

On the other hand, my worst experiences by far with PFS have been cases where one player pressed hard to play up and the scenario turned out to be basically impossible at that difficulty level. That sort of experience gives me incentive to make my characters even more optimized rather than less! And similarly if I end up at a party with four barbarians (say), that give me incentive to bring a character with access to Daylight, See Invisible, Magic Circle Against Evil, etc., etc.

I think your ideas are good, I really do. I just don't think there's a simple way to accomodate people who like "nightmare mode" and people who like "easy mode" at the same table and make everybody happy.

2/5 ****

This, like self-sorting for play styles, works from the assumption that it's better to get a table together of people who all want the same experience than to try to jumble five people who want five different things at the same table.

4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

When I am running tables and see a player that is outclassed by others at the table it bothers me. Simply because a player wants to enjoy a well rounded character or because he does not have the time to devote to maxing his numbers he feels like a side kick. Always afraid that player isn't long for PFS if he doesn't find a group that shares his play pattern.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

hogarth wrote:

That's why I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I completely agree that making a tough character and then complaining that the game is too easy is counterproductive. I've made basically the same point before on multiple occasions (Here and Here), so I can't say I disagree with you!

On the other hand, my worst experiences by far with PFS have been cases where one player pressed hard to play up and the scenario turned out to be basically impossible at that difficulty level. That sort of experience gives me incentive to make my characters even more optimized rather than less! And similarly if I end up at a party with four barbarians (say), that give me incentive to bring a character with access to Daylight, See Invisible, Magic Circle Against Evil, etc., etc.

So first, pressuring people to play up is kind of a jerk move... and way too common. That is IMO the ultimate in selfish play. Designers should be writing scenarios that are utterly lethal to under level characters. The problem is, optimizing your character to enhance survivability doesn't help the other players who can't or won't optimize in a similar situation. Perhaps, if you'd had a less optimized character you would have been less willing to agree and had a better time (ok that's stretching it).

A slightly less cynical perspective; the players wanting to play up were simply looking for more challenge. Next time someone pushes you to play up tell, suggest they find other ways to notch up the challenge instead of putting other players characters at risk. Feel free to point them to this thread ;)

Quote:
I think your ideas are good, I really do. I just don't think there's a simple way to accomodate people who like "nightmare mode" and people who like "easy mode" at the same table and make everybody happy.

Well Nightmare mode is a bit extreme. There is a huge amount of playable concepts within the general guidelines I put under "Hurt Me Plenty" (after I changed around the labels).

I see your points and I'll poke at the original a bit to see if I can address your concerns.

Edit: I edited it, (link). Let me know if you think that is more reasonable.

5/5

I like your post Dennis.

I am thinking mod difficulty should be left up to devolopers. Sure players can make choices to play non optimized characters.

I think mods should not have a single bard for a last encounter.

I think the ultimate hard mod would be a 3 person group with a pregen. Having the players dismiss the pregen, while following the rest of your guide.

I like society, I like skills and I envision a fantasy game with an indiana jones aspect.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Scenario difficulty should be pretty standardized. There aren't enough scenarios where people can opt out of them. I am not happy that

Limiting your group size is a great option if you have that luxury.

Grand Lodge

I just wanted to clairify, no one should pester people into playing up. I usually am in groups with 6 players at a "table" so this is when I will ask if the group wants to play up.


Dennis Baker wrote:
Is one set more valid self imposed limits any more than the others? Is the guy who shows up with a halfling monk because he thought it was a cool idea any more valid than the guy who wanted to see if he could challenge himself? How do you tell them apart? Is the guy who never buys more than the core book and likes playing rogues somehow doing things wrong? Would you have them sit apart also?

I realised I never answered your questions.

(1) Yes, I think some sets of self-imposed limits are more valid than others. I personally feel that PFS and Pathfinder in general is a "team sport" and that everyone needs to contribute. If that means that some interesting ideas aren't feasible outside of a specific party built to work around those limitations, so be it. For instance, I think the idea of a wizard who only casts divination spells would be quite interesting, but I would be disappointed if that character were the only spellcaster in my party (which is quite possible in PFS). Now, I haven't seen anything quite that extreme, but I have seen PCs who would do nothing in combat. While I sympathize with the idea of a strictly non-combat PC, I have to admit that I would have preferred to have a more well-rounded party member instead.

(2) I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with monks or halflings, so this is not a good example in my case. In fact, a number of your "Hurt Me Plenty" options don't seem particularly below average, but it's your list, and personal experience obviously varies.

(3) How do I tell an experienced player apart from an inexperienced player? It's usually pretty obvious, in my experience.

(4) No, a person playing a core-only rogue is not doing anything wrong, providing he's making a good faith effort to contribute to the party just as much as if he were playing a cleric with all of the splatbooks at his disposal.

(5) If a person is knowingly limiting his ability to contribute to the party, then I believe he should sit with a group of people who are cool with that. Don't you?

Grand Lodge 3/5

Provos wrote:
I just wanted to clairify, no one should pester people into playing up. I usually am in groups with 6 players at a "table" so this is when I will ask if the group wants to play up.

Just because it is often misunderstood: playing up is NOT a universal option - it should only occur when the APL is within a certain range.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

hogarth wrote:
In fact, a number of your "Hurt Me Plenty" options don't seem particularly below average, but it's your list, and personal experience obviously varies.

The idea isn't to make below average characters, the idea is limit good players so they can only make slightly above average character so they don't make characters who trivialize encounters. I don't suggest or encourage anyone to make totally nerfed characters who can't contribute, just that they make characters more in line with the typical characters the majority of players bring to the table.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I use index cards to track initiative in combat. If there is a question about playing up/down, I have the players enter their preference when they complete the index card for me. That way their vote is kept confidential and should prevent any peer pressure from "forcing" someone to play up to avoid conflict with the other players.

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I use index cards to track initiative in combat. If there is a question about playing up/down, I have the players enter their preference when they complete the index card for me. That way their vote is kept confidential and should prevent any peer pressure from "forcing" someone to play up to avoid conflict with the other players.

Nice, I will swipe this.

5/5

I agree great idea TK.

Sovereign Court 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I forget what's it's called, but there this loose society amongst movie directors, "Dogma" or something, where they all agree to certain, self-imposed limits, things like only using natural light or not using digital effects to eliminate people's blemishes. Nobody makes them do it, but certain directors feels it creates a better movie, so they follow the guidelines and put a stamp at the end of their movie for those who care.

I would be more than happy to join a society with the Pathfinder Society that followed a more strict code of character creation, something with some limits to avoid min/max and encourage character development.

What it would involve, in my mind, is coming up with a list norms, kind of like what the OP did, only maybe run it through a democratic vetting process, and then having those interested sign on - it could be as simple as a thread here in the PFS forums with the req's at the top and people signing up below. You might even have some regular PFS characters and a special hurt-me-bad "Dogma" character. You could just write "Dogma" or whatever the society-within-a-society is called on top of the character sheet, or somebody could come up with a little logo to paste on. Eventually, Dogma players could look for other Dogma players and try to put together Dogma tables. All characters would be legit by PFS rules, so other folks at the table shouldn't complain, but, yes, it would be better for like-minded folks to play together. It would be neat if there were certain in-game benefits to being a Dogma player (like PA boons), but ultimately, it would probably be just braggin' rights - "Oh yeah? I beat the mod with a Dogma character you min/max shlub."

After reading a lot of people saying PFS is too easy, there might actually be enough folks to start something like this on a small scale. I'd be game.


Dennis Baker wrote:
My suggestion is self selecting difficulty.

If WoW had this, I'd probably still be playing (WoW is too easy).

Also, I think it's great that this suggestion is out there, and I think it's great people weigh in on if they like the suggestion or not, but I think we might as well leave the specific implementations to the professionals.

3/5

Mosaic wrote:
After reading a lot of people saying PFS is too easy, there might actually be enough folks to start something like this on a small scale. I'd be game.

That's a really good idea. We could even borrow terms from the aforementioned Dogme 95 film movement, like the "Vow of Chastity" and having a "Confession" of any elements of the PC which don't entirely conform to the vows.

The key here is to focus on just which elements of a PC can overpower PFS modules.

For example, having a 7 in a stat does not in itself overpower PFS, so there is no reason to have a vow to not do that.

However, having a gigantic AC sure can. So, an appropriate vow would be to keep AC below a certain amount. Then, an appropriate confession would be something like "During module X, I received a Shield of Faith, and my AC went over the cap."

-Matt

The Exchange 2/5 Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Having some limits to AC requires a table of allowable ACs, presumably based on character class, whether you have an off hand weapon, etc.

Having a max DPS requires a similar table which will also have to take into account a bunch of things. An alchemist with TWF, Rapid Shot, Haste, and Rapid Bombs is likely going to have a low DPS on average, but can Nova like nobodies business which breaks things pretty bad.

Having no dump stats is like forcing a 16 point build instead of a 20 point build. Essentially it pulls people into being more generalists.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Having a cap on the DC necessary to resist a PC's spells might be one aspect. If my charm person and dominate person virtually always succeed, that can break a scenario.

Sovereign Court 2/5

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
Having a cap on the DC necessary to resist a PC's spells might be one aspect. If my charm person and dominate person virtually always succeed, that can break a scenario.

But how could you cap that yourself? If the goal is, basically, gimp yourself a little. Maybe back to stats - if your key stat is a little lower, your DCs aren't going to be as high.

But I GM a Kingmaker campaign where players rolled 3d6 for stats (their idea, not mine) and ended up with low stats. They're still breaking the game with certain spells and crazy ACs, saves, hits, etc. from magic items. Maybe that's part of it; don't buy stat boost items or cloaks of resistance, or any of the "Big 5."


Dennis Baker wrote:
hogarth wrote:
In fact, a number of your "Hurt Me Plenty" options don't seem particularly below average, but it's your list, and personal experience obviously varies.
The idea isn't to make below average characters, the idea is limit good players so they can only make slightly above average character so they don't make characters who trivialize encounters.

So you don't think the monk class is below average in terms of power, for instance? I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

Is there any class that you would consider below average, or are all of them average or above?

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Hurt Me Plenty All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.