Balancing group power


Advice


My rather large group of players is starting up Pathfinder for the first time. Most of us are older gamers with families and work obligations so we all do not have time to pour over every spell, feat, or obscure rule to min max our characters. We just make a character that looks like fun, and fumbling forward we just go with what we think works to best describe our character. However a few players at the table do have the time to go over every single rule and run the numbers so to speak.

Mind you this is our first Pathfinder experience GM included and right out the gate we have a 2 cheese builds that will (in a few levels) tip the balance of power. All sorts of cheese dipping and archtyping to squeeze out every + that can be found.

I'm not buying the argument that it's the nature of 3.5 and Pathfinder to cheese build. By level 7 I expect the party will be the Pathfinder equivalent of Aquaman, the Wonder Twins, Robin and then Superman. That's no fun for anyone but Superman.

Any thoughts or suggestions on how to fix the situation before it turns into this?

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4x3v?What-to-do-about-an-unbalancing-PC

I don't want that to happen.


Sit down at the table and talk about it like mature adults. Ask the player who min/maxes to help the others, if they want it.


People have fun in different ways. Some people really enjoy building and optimizing and number crunching while others can't be bothered. To minimize a disparity in power levels between characters I would go with Weables' solution. Talk to the min-maxing player(s) and see if they would be willing to help you find strong options for the characters the rest of the group want to portray, or see if they would feel that they would have less fun if they toned down their characters a bit.


Just because they go through every book does not mean they will always have the spotlight. Player potential is more important than character potential. I would wait for the game to start, and then try to fix things.

PS:I have seen NPC classes be more useful that PC classes because the player was that good, and the others were not so good.


Only if the lower tier players care should you even bother worrying about it. I play with two optimizers and unless it's going to be a hardcore campaign I generally don't ask for help since I'm a lateral thinker and generally end up saving every one through not die rolling but actually being genre savvy and cutting sideways through the plotline.

Really the arguments we had for a while were them demanding I optimize and me refusing since I wanted to try something entirely suboptimal. In the end after a few sessions I got it out of my system and did what they wanted since it turned out they were right lol...

(basically we were playing Exalted and I was running an Ess 1 Infernal with only excellencies. If you never played that game, trust me, it's the stupidest idea I've ever had for a character lol)

But normally I stand my ground if someone complains "I'm doing it wrong" if I'm having fun, who cares? The one time I truly was dragging the party down, I admitted it and changed my guy. From experience asking an optimizer not to optimize is a bad plan since usually the suboptimal will be willing to upgrade, and if not, as long as they are having fun and okay with not being the best at what they do, it shouldn't be a concern.


A difference in power levels among the group CAN definitely be a problem but is not necessarily so. The big thing that you need to do is determine if there is even a problem. Does it bother the people at the table? I am assuming it does at least bother you as you are posting this.

Next, the optimizers are not to blame for the problem. This is basically a disparity in involvement in the game. If you have someone who is not willing to involve themselves in a game and then gets mad at people who do because they do better at aspects of that game... that person has a problem.

They have choices:

- Don't ever play games with people who understand the rules better than you, application of the rules to a complicated game just ruin your fun. I don't get that attitude but it's valid I suppose.

- Ask for help. If those optimizers enjoy the process and challenge of creating builds (and many do), they will be more than happy to help create a build for you. Don't expect this to be quite as good as theirs though. Not because they will hold back, but because they are just more excited about their own character and will put more into it (that excitement is what got them to play that character).

- Come to accept that you can be happy contributing to a team even if you are not the highest performer on the team. Imagine a football team with people quitting or complaining that they couldn't make as many touchdowns as the best performer on the team... it seems silly, everyone plays their part even if everyone isn't getting the spotlight for it.

- Pick a different area to be good at than combat. Invest yourself in the story and find ways of moving it forward and enjoy that you are doing that and be ok that when you aren't doing that other people are having their turn (I have people who only show up for combat and sit quietly letting others RP when it is time... it's the same thing). The trick here is that you actually have to be willing to invest yourself in the game... not just expect it to come to you and somehow still be the best at everything.

Sean Mahoney


@zen bullet
Assuming you are talking about 2nd edition, yes it is one of the stupidiest idea i have heard. (exalted top 5 surely)

@OP
You must understand the difference between a decent combatant, an optimized character, a dialed up to 11 character and a character who cheats. The barbarian in the thread you linked is a decent combatant (and won't be even that in a couple of levels if he continues that way), if you and the rest of the group want to play a bunch of intentionally weak characters then you should tell the other players so they can act accordingly, either not play in that game or make intentionally weak characters themselves.


Having a session dedicated to character building. A "session 0" if you will. That way, players who don't have as much time to look things over can set a side a good chunk of time to build a character and get feed back from the GM, and more knowledgeable players.

I've done this basically every singe time I've played, and every character has come out to be around the same power level. It also helps people become more cognizant of what everyone else is doing and can even spawn some interesting character-to-character interactions that otherwise wouldn't be there. (Such as being siblings, known childhood friends, or the other person's pet)

Silver Crusade

I must be the worst DM ever then. I let the players make there characters before we start the game. Before we start the game I go over the characters. I find mistakes or purely made characters. Math errors happen and all to often in pathfinder. Poorly made characters result in me handing back the character sheet. Pleas get with the other players and fix that before we start. I'll comment on whats broken in asked. The biggest problem is we play AP's all the time. I'm getting lazy with Paz putting out such good material. That dose mean the characters have to function from 1 to 13 ~ 16 level range. The can have some off levels but not Meany because of how AP's are set up. I never tell them what they have to play. The exception to this is Kingmaker I'm running right now. The picked what roles in the kingdom they where going to fill then made characters for it. Even with that the kingdom building is giving them problems. I don't care what there idea for the character is. Just if it can do the job the character was made to do. There not optimized for each bonus. There optimized for the character concept.


Face it; combat dominates this game so be good at combat. Also know that the combat-centric characters will belittle the non-combaters any chance they get. Finally, and worst of all; don't play a cleric since all they are good for is healing.

Have I got your attention now? Good. Building the right character is like cooking without a recipe; since you don't have a set of instructions telling you EXACTLY how to achieve success you have to cook by taste.

Don't just sample your own broth either; try to catch the wafting flavor of the other characters, the aroma of the genre and type of game your GM runs, and build from there.

The point is; don't worry so much about being powerful as being right, as in the right character for you. If you play a pacifist cleric that is a healing machine with a specialty in ancient history and languages then so be it. You won't be the toughest kid on the block but you'll be roleplaying what you want and the GM may reward you with some ridiculous Sleep or Mercy weapon.

I'm a huge fan of the underdog, the mean weenie, the small fry no one every cares about til he needs to do his thing to pull everyone's bacon out of the fire. My one and only piece of advice numbers wise? Pick a specialty and don't let go.

It doesn't have to be the Power Attack feat tree. Be the best Performance: Dancing Bard you can, or maybe you take the oft-mocked 2wf style of sword and board, focusing most of your energies on your shield component. The point is; do something and do it well. Even if it isn't superman you'll know that in this one thing you're absolutely aces and if your GM's worth their salt they'll land you in a situation that only someone REALLY good with the Heal skill could solve.

Always remember: the JLA also had Green Arrow. The avengers had Hawkeye. Take away some of the fancier arrow tips and these are just really good bow hunters in tights. They held their own among Superman, Iron Man, Batman and Thor. You get the idea.


I do not think there SHOULD be balance. A fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin SHOULD outdamage the classes who are not solely focused on combat. Just like a wizard SHOULD outcast the half-casters and so on.

Is anyone surprised when a pro heavyweight boxer hits harder than an ambulance driver, a librarian and a arts major? No. Then why be all up in arms when the barbarian wielding a two-hander outdamages classes and builds NOT made to do damage.

In fact, if I made a combat-focused character, and DIDN'T wipe the floor with the enemy easier than others, I would not be very pleased with my character. It is ALL he is supposed to be good for, while the others hog the spotlight whenever smashing is not on the agenda.


@Calagar: I'm not sure who that's directed to. If it's in response to my post then I'm going to say that the folks I play with do something similar, but it's more or less before there's even any inkling of play going on for that session.

Every player gets to and does make their own character, fleshing out the concept and what they want to do. The group as always lends a hand in fleshing out the crunch of it.

and @Kamelguru: I don't think the OP's post is one where he wants everyone to be able to do everything equally, he's just afraid that some of the more math-savy players might create characters that make the experience less enjoyable for the others.


leo1925 wrote:

@zen bullet

Assuming you are talking about 2nd edition, yes it is one of the stupidiest idea i have heard. (exalted top 5 surely)

@OP
You must understand the difference between a decent combatant, an optimized character, a dialed up to 11 character and a character who cheats. The barbarian in the thread you linked is a decent combatant (and won't be even that in a couple of levels if he continues that way), if you and the rest of the group want to play a bunch of intentionally weak characters then you should tell the other players so they can act accordingly, either not play in that game or make intentionally weak characters themselves.

Where do you get "intentionally weak" out of regular characters? Maybe you need to understand the difference between those things yourself.

A player whose experience has led him to assume that rolling up a decent character should be enough to have fun by is the norm. It's the people who "dial it to 11," as you said, and who totally optimize, who are by and large the odd men out. That doesn't mean we should gimp them or treat them badly. But their existence does not make a normal character "weak" or weird. And it doesn't make the player of a normal character who innocently tries to play, unsuspecting of the thorough game wrecking abilities of the optimizers, into somebody innately inferior.

I think it's okay to dial back the hostility. Your game politics are showing.


I was super concerned about this in my campaign a while ago, the rogue was uber, the rest were low average characters. Had a sit down discussion with the rogue's player and he agreed to help the others out a bit.

Surprisingly some players took his advice, some ignored it. Seems that most were happy to have the rogue save the day from time to time.

I also try to balance out the party in other ways. Light weight characters often receive neat artifacts that are best in their hands.
Also giving the spotlight to a player and making the adventure enjoyable for them doesn't need to hinge on making them the combat powerhouse. Centering your plot around the character or giving them non-combatant ways to excel through diplomacy, puzzle solving, or pure theatrics can be fun.

Give the non-min maxers more leash.
One of my favorite character's in my present campaign is a aged male cleric stuck in the body of the youthful female criminal, his good mental stats, her stellar physical stats. It's only possible cause I know the player isn't in it to be a combat god, He just like's the concept and we get allot of mileage out of the many questions the character's dual nature brings up and we're about to go into our third adventure centered around that character.


Maugan22 wrote:


I also try to balance out the party in other ways. Light weight characters often receive neat artifacts that are best in their hands.
Also giving the spotlight to a player and making the adventure enjoyable for them doesn't need to hinge on making them the combat powerhouse. Centering your plot around the character or giving them non-combatant ways to excel through diplomacy, puzzle solving, or pure theatrics can be fun.

Give the non-min maxers more leash.
One of my favorite character's in my present campaign is a aged male cleric stuck in the body of the youthful female criminal, his good mental stats, her stellar physical stats. It's only possible cause I know the player isn't in it to be a combat god, He just like's the concept and we get allot of mileage out of the many questions the character's dual nature brings up and we're about to go into our third adventure centered around that character.

Just a note. Don't treat your players too differently. My friend and I were minmaxers in a campaign. Our dm decided to put us up against a god right from level 1 and had her mind controlling my friends character every single time she made any kind of check. No will saves were involved and length was indefinite.

2nd time he played with a co gm from the aforementioned campaign. She could bull him over on any rule and often convinced him that she autosucceeded on checks where the rules specifically stated she had to make them. To this day we don't know how good her character actually was because everytime in memory she needed to make any kind of check she bullied the gm into just letting her win.


What does everybody have against Robin? I like Robin...

Lantern Lodge

Split the Party... :)


SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
What does everybody have against Robin?

He's not Batman.


Jeranimus Rex wrote:
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:
What does everybody have against Robin?
He's not Batman.

Meh Batman's overrated to me, I always preferred Dick Grayson myself


He's still not Batman.

And really, I don't care much for his sidekicks.


One of the things you have to recognize is that some classes start hot and cool off, others start cold and heat up. What looks overpowered right now might be less impressive late in the game.


I see where you're coming from, but I can't help with the metaphor. Once it became canon that part of "controlling all creatures of the deep" included Cthulhu, Aquaman stopped being a poster-boy for "underpowered" or "overly situational."

Silver Crusade

Jeranimus Rex wrote:

@Calagar: I'm not sure who that's directed to. If it's in response to my post then I'm going to say that the folks I play with do something similar, but it's more or less before there's even any inkling of play going on for that session.

Every player gets to and does make their own character, fleshing out the concept and what they want to do. The group as always lends a hand in fleshing out the crunch of it.

and @Kamelguru: I don't think the OP's post is one where he wants everyone to be able to do everything equally, he's just afraid that some of the more math-savy players might create characters that make the experience less enjoyable for the others.

Not directed at any one. Just a general statement. As a DM I make sure the characters will function. I'm not concerned with what the flavor behind it is. I'm concerned about there ability to do there job. It's the player that needs to be concerned about flavor.

As a DM before I start a game and especially something as long as a AP. That the characters are made well. This will help at the table with the characters ability's matching the concept of the character. Any time the character is made that fits a concept but dose not preform well in there intended area. It makes it very hard for the player to get immersed in the game because there character is not able to do what they envisioned for them.


1) take the talk BEFORE play. Once you have played a char you start to get attached to him/her. And if that char is just broken compared to all other players (such as a syntestist - I hate those guys) agree to band/nerf certain builds.

2) decide before play what kind of party you want - if you have 2 melee types get a general idea of what power level the two will have. If one seems to be truly optimized and would outclass the other on every turn peerhaps it's time to consider a diffent build.

3) Loot - maybe the syntesist with 6 claws that hits like great swords and a natural armor above mortal men doesn't need loot... Then forget about WBL and let the other less broken class have most of the loot - you got to play something that worked without loot...

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Balancing group power All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice