|
Prime example from our group: the high-dex ranger archer with a large wolf animal companion. Initiative modifier guarantees he goes first; wolf runs in and blocks out all other players by taking up 4 squares (and most PFS maps are not forgiving in this area). The archer can ignore any penalties due to precise shot/improved precise shot feats, while the other non-archer party members can't get past the wolf to melee and have -8 to ranged attacks for cover and melee. Totally legal, and not even that cheesy in some cases (of my 4 archers, 2 are not uber-builds). But this character can kill fun at the table for other players, and that's a problem. Add to that a typical uber-build archer, and the combat ends before several players even get to act.
In a home game, I could change things up to provide things for the other party members to shine at, and/or counter the archer. (I have started counting arrows, which works pretty well... it's amazing how often they forget to buy arrows on their last Chronicle sheet!) In PFS, the ONLY way for this type of character to not kill the fun of other players, is by the player self-limiting him/herself to avoid dominating the other players. You can always pull it out if the ships are down and you need it.
"I am not left-handed!"
|
Okay, this might be an extreme response but I'll throw it out there anyway. What if you outlawed metagame table talk? what I mean is the two players discussing their tactics in extreme detail or the player who yells at another one "don't move there, I was going to charge on my turn and you'll block me." A good portion of the advantages that characters have over the challenges might be mitigated if you limit the table talk to short 5-6 second bursts.
Ok, but that is not really related to your OP and a different subject all together.
I hate Metagame talk and try to limit it when I can.
|
I can remember one adventure where the PCs are instructed to loose. In order to complete the mission they have to insure the bad guys "steal the artifact" and get away. I've played this once and run it twice - a great season 1 adventure. This was very hard for some players. "Now mister Max Damage - remember, you need to MISS them, they have to get away." "But-but- I just got my uber-killing bow! What Kind of adventure IS this?!!"
Puts an entirely different picture on things...
Yeah, that one was actually my first ever PFS GMing experience (of two so far, though I'm scheduled to GM the next two weekends).
We played tier 1-2 with only four players running new characters that they'd never played before, though I think two of them were already level 2 on GM credits. And one of them was a total newbie player in her first game. They still had a hard time with not killing all the mooks in that encounter. They ended up killing most of them before letting one or two "get away" with the "stolen" artifact.
Then, they got their heads handed to them in two of the later encounters, and I sat there sweating that I'd get a reputation as a "killer" GM in my first time running. Luckily, they (barely) won their fights with no PC deaths.
Back to the original topic, I've seen times when a single PC has managed to dominate an encounter, but I tend to agree with some of the earlier posts that it seems to be more a problem with the adventures than the characters.
How can you be mad at a witch for taking the sleeping hex and occasionally using it? Or with a barbarian or fighter who takes power attack? That's just standard stuff. But I've seen those things quickly take down the single boss at the end of a scenario, making the final fight take all of 5 seconds, in rather anticlimactic fashion.
And I agree that the power balance seems to be wrong much of the time in level 1-7 adventures. Usually, this results in tier 1-2 being either too easy or too tough. There are some of those adventures that I just wouldn't run at 1-2, like the Dalsine Affair with its notorious reputation as a PC killer.
|
|
This was very hard for some players. "Now mister Max Damage - remember, you need to MISS them, they have to get away." "But-but- I just got my uber-killing bow! What Kind of adventure IS this?!!"
Chris Mortika will remember the session he ran at Winter War a couple of weeks ago. We were in a combat in which we were supposed to *only* do non-lethal damage (doing actual damage to the other party would mean we'd lost the fight). Our barbarian (played by a boy of about 12) ran up and hit the opposing wizard...and scored a critical hit. Even with non-lethal damage, he did so much damage that he sent the wizard into negative hit points.
After a few minutes of discussing what our options might be, Chris let the kid use a shirt re-roll to re-roll the confirmation roll for the critical hit. The confirmation didn't succeed, and we proceeded, but it was a pretty funny use of a shirt.
|
|
Prime example from our group: the high-dex ranger archer with a large wolf animal companion. Initiative modifier guarantees he goes first; wolf runs in and blocks out all other players by taking up 4 squares (and most PFS maps are not forgiving in this area). The archer can ignore any penalties due to precise shot/improved precise shot feats, while the other non-archer party members can't get past the wolf to melee and have -8 to ranged attacks for cover and melee.
I guess two problems, and Nosig said it best:
"It's not the PC... it's the play style of the Player that is the problem."Seems like pet and summoning classes in general are a problem (or too powerful) in general if their pets can clog up the choke point and they can then finish all opponents solo.
Having said that, I also think there's something wrong with the scenario if a pet can "tank" all of the enemies. Pets should get smushed in 1 round. Some pets have far too much AC and hp (*cough* cough* Summoners), but enemies should still be able to take them out, otherwise the scenario is solo friendly. Obviously there's no need for a PC tank if the pet tank can last more than 1 round. Especially Ranger pets should be very very weak and if anything, he should be afraid of losing his pet and being forced to retrain a new one. (Not that any GMs I've seen enforce any of the animal companion rules at the table or ask questions about what tricks they know, for all of the long debates we have).
|
|
Having said that, I also think there's something wrong with the scenario if a pet can "tank" all of the enemies.Pets should get smushed in 1 round.
Its just the modules narrow confines working for the player rather than against them.
Pets can easily have a decent armor class and start off with more hit points than most fighters at low levels. Anything that would schmush the pet would schmush the barbarian or fighter too.
|
|
Pets can easily have a decent armor class and start off with more hit points than most fighters at low levels. Anything that would schmush the pet would schmush the barbarian or fighter too.
This is actually a really good argument that pet classes (such as Druids and Summoners) are actually too powerful, but that's not up for debate in the PFS forums. I've actually thought Druids have been extremely powerful for a long time, it's just that their concept makes them unpopular and their (general) spell selection has a lot to be desired (to the average inexperienced player).
Ranger pets shouldn't be able to tank though, they should be weak. If they can tank, then the scenario wasn't appropriately challenging because a PC could have tanked better and accomplished the same goals.
|
Ranger pets shouldn't be able to tank though, they should be weak. If they can tank, then the scenario wasn't appropriately challenging because a PC could have tanked better and accomplished the same goals.
Maybe this isn't true where you are, but every Ranger I've seen has taken Boon Companion so that their pet is just as good as a Druid pet.
|
|
How can you be mad at a witch for taking the sleeping hex and occasionally using it? Or with a barbarian or fighter who takes power attack? That's just standard stuff. But I've seen those things quickly take down the single boss at the end of a scenario, making the final fight take all of 5 seconds, in rather anticlimactic fashion
It's not the occasional use of an ability that is the issue. It is when a character is spec'd to the max in an ability that is nearly 100% effective and covers a wide swathe of situations so it can be employed most, if not all, of the time. Is power attack broken? Nope, but it can be a symptom of the problem when it is combined with all the other options available (max weapon enhancements, rage powers, feats, traits, highly optimized ability scores, opto multi-classing, etc).
The best analogy I can come up with is Superman. He is essentially invincible to everything except kryponite and he can win any fight due to his strength (and other powers). Now imagine if he was a member of your party and less than 10% of the scenarios were written to include kryponite? Kinda makes the rest of the PC's superfluous.
|
|
The best analogy I can come up with is Superman. He is essentially invincible to everything except kryponite and he can win any fight due to his strength (and other powers). Now imagine if he was a member of your party and less than 10% of the scenarios were written to include kryponite? Kinda makes the rest of the PC's superfluous.
You've just described every table I've experienced that included a Synthesist.
-Matt
|
|
This is actually a really good argument that pet classes (such as Druids and Summoners) are actually too powerful, but that's not up for debate in the PFS forums.Right, but it means that the problem ISN"T the scenario or the DM. Its a problem with the game.
I've actually thought Druids have been extremely powerful for a long time, it's just that their concept makes them unpopular and their (general) spell selection has a lot to be desired (to the average inexperienced player).Green Power!
As for the summoner, the pet IS supposed to be that strong. The summoner is a class where the Pet/Character dynamic is reversed. The pet is the focus of the classes power and the character is the side kick. (not that you CAN"T play a druid like that but its not the default)
Ranger pets shouldn't be able to tank though, they should be weak. If they can tank, then the scenario wasn't appropriately challenging because a PC could have tanked better and accomplished the same goals.Boon companion fixes that (at least from the rangers pov)
If a fighter isn't specifically set up to be a meat shield they don't always do it particularly well. A large creature comes with a lot of problems , but the benefit is going from meat shield to meat wall in a 10 by 10 corridor.
Bad tactics are always a problem with most groups, especially groups that have never played together and don't know each others abilities.
Now waiting for nosigs head to explode in 5...4...3...2.. :)
How can you be mad at a witch for taking the sleeping hex and occasionally using it? Or with a barbarian or fighter who takes power attack? That's just standard stuff. But I've seen those things quickly take down the single boss at the end of a scenario, making the final fight take all of 5 seconds, in rather anticlimactic fashionIt's not the occasional use of an ability that is the issue. It is when a character is spec'd to the max in an ability that is nearly 100% effective and covers a wide swathe of situations so it can be employed most, if not all, of the time. Is power attack broken? Nope, but it can be a symptom of the problem when it is combined with all the other options available (max weapon enhancements, rage powers, feats, traits, highly optimized ability scores, opto multi-classing, etc).
The best analogy I can come up with is Superman. He is essentially invincible to everything except kryponite and he can win any fight due to his strength (and other powers). Now imagine if he was a member of your party and less than 10% of the scenarios were written to include kryponite? Kinda makes the rest of the PC's superfluous.
Not a blast, but ol' Supes is just as vulnerable to magic as your standard earthling; i.e., John Constantine for the win!
So that's TWO things that could be used against him...
:)
|
|
Maybe this isn't true where you are, but every Ranger I've seen has taken Boon Companion so that their pet is just as good as a Druid pet.
Wow, that's insanely overpowered. That would explain it. I was unaware, I mostly play with the core and APG.
I still think it's mostly a scenario problem, you're just going to notice it a lot more if the scenario is too easy (which is sometimes the case, regardless of class selection).
However if you're going to choose obviously broken options (like Companion Boon, why do they allow something that broken again?), you're going to run into situations where the rest of the party isn't needed, regardless of the scenario. What other conclusion could you draw when the pet is as good of a meat shield as a fighter, does respectable damage, and you're pumping out insane damage as well?
Solution to me is to point insane feats like this out to the PFS organizers and hope they ban it. To me that makes Rangers just too good, with a single feat.
|
|
Companion Boon, why do they allow something that broken again?
It's not anymore broken than many other feat/trait/multi-class/etc options. It becomes a contributing factor to a broken character if s/he focuses on it to the point of making the character equivalent to a CR X+Y, where "X" is the APL and "Y" is an extreme like 3-4 or more.
|
|
It's not anymore broken than many other feat/trait/multi-class/etc options. It becomes a contributing factor to a broken character if s/he focuses on it to the point of making the character equivalent to a CR X+Y, where "X" is the APL and "Y" is an extreme like 3-4 or more.
Come on. It's not even a combination, it's 1 feat!
How much more do you really have to "focus on it" when Ranger archers do as much or more damage than other DPS classes, and then in addition they have animal companions that do another 50% damage in addition to being a meatshield and flanker for other combatants? No feat combinations needed, it's just too good as it is. Why, what more can you do to it to make it better (besides the normal archery feats that allow you to shoot anywhere without penalty)?
Wait, I thought you were supposed to be arguing AGAINST people taking feats like this?
|
|
I have not encountered a single specific rule or game mechanic that is broken.
The Crane Style chain seems to be thus far--I've created a Crane Style character in PFS solely to test that theory, and it's seeming to be the case. Fortunately, it's very defensive and I'm purposefully trying to play to emphasize the other characters, so everyone else shines unless the fight is turning badly, in which case we can auto-survive 90% of encounters. The common wisdom on these boards is that claiming these feats to be broken is "reactionary" and "without playtest data", which is why I even made the character. Once I have a few more scenarios under my belt, I plan to make a thread on that.
The problem is, as a few posters have said so far already, that some options are just going to dominate the typical PFS scenario. High damage fighter types are one (For instance, I had a very well built Polearm Fighter at two of my tables at last weekend's con who could easily do around 100 damage per round at tier 7-8 if he got a Haste or Blessing of Fervor, not counting the AoOs he usually got with reach). I don't think he was trying to min-max a combination of too many different abilities though. He was just a power attacking polearm fighter with a vicious guisarme. And he had a good array of consumables in case he got into a bad spot.
|
|
Come on. It's not even a combination, it's 1 feat!
How much more do you really have to "focus on it" when Ranger archers do as much or more damage than other DPS classes, and then in addition they have animal companions that do another 50% damage in addition to being a meatshield and flanker for other combatants? No feat combinations needed, it's just too good as it is. Why, what more can you do to it to make it better (besides the normal archery feats that allow you to shoot anywhere without penalty)?
IMO, that one feat in no way breaks the ranger, but as you said, add in all the archery cheese, plus additional feats and such for the companion and sure, the build can easily break. the key in all of this is that, no one feat, trait, etc is broken. Only when it is combined with other similar options does it become a problem. YMMV.
Wait, I thought you were supposed to be arguing AGAINST people taking feats like this?
Nope. I have never said to restrict player options regardless of source (feat, trait, etc). I love that the game has enough options that allow a player to virtually create whatever type of character they want to play. However, we need to temper that within the limitations of the organized play campaign keeping in mind your fellow players and what the GM can/not do.
I've created a Crane Style character in PFS solely to test that theory
Actually, I have done this very same thing. So far, it has proven a bit over-the-top power wise. The worst part of it is a character can do a two-level dip into monk(master of many styles) and pick up this feat chain early.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone else has already said what I'm about to, my apologies...I don't have the time right now to read through over 70 posts.
I'm still fairly new to PFS and have not experienced things from the GM side of the table, so my perspective may be limited, but I find myself in disagreement. Please read objectively and be gentle in your replies :)
I want my characters as powerful and self sufficient as I am able. I will pick apart the rules with microscope and tweezers to eek out every last ounce of proficiency I possibly can. I want to be ready for whatever the gaming gods throw at me.
At the same time, I understand and fully agree with the concerns expressed regarding "game-breaking" characters. I would suggest that "game-breaking" is not because of how a character is optimized, but how it is played. Whatever the nature of the table I'm playing at (balanced or imbalanced, experienced or green), I should govern my actions accordingly.
I'm sure I don't need to point out even the most experienced players can go down, sometimes quickly and unexpectedly. If that happens to a few of my co-adventurers, I'd like to have something better than harsh language to throw at the baddies. I want a howitzer...with big pointy teeth! That could be the difference between my own moment in the spotlight, and a TPK.
So in my opinion, optimize optimize optimize, if that's what you want to do...but if you're playing an enchanter, let the melee guy hack away, maybe throw a debuff or something...save the nuke for if and when the melee guy gets in trouble. And if you're playing the melee guy, maybe this time around take out the trash and let the caster have his way with the BBEG.
(And if you're the GM, I know it isn't OK, but I still say it should be OK to fudge a little here and there, though I be burned at the stake for it)
One final note. These characters we make...I won't go so far as to say there's an emotional investment in them (there shouldn't be...that's just too creepy), but there certainly is an investment in time and effort. I want to protect that investment and minimize the chances that my character will die. Having a character with nothing better than a +2 does not accomplish this. Maybe as I grow as a player, and learn to do a better job with the environment, I won't be so set on having at least my primary stat raised very high. But right now, that's my comfort zone, unabashedly so.
|
|
I believe that this thread is more fully enjoyed by also reading what I suspect is Bob's sister thread here.
Comparing the two illustrates a 'vicious circle' style relationship between GMs 'tweaking' scenarios and 'game-breaking' PCs.
Not to criticize PFSOP to harshly, but it seems like most of these problems stem from the ongoing power creep in later releases.
>stand back, this will likely trigger a landslide of objection<
Is there any possibility of differentiating core-class, core-book play only from the 'anything goes' that sprouts from the later releases? I.e., core-class PCs at this table, Magus, Master-of-Many-Styles, etc., etc., over at these tables?
As somebody perfectly happy with the game as it stands in the core rulebook, I'd be absolutely thrilled to not be competing with someone who is twinked-out to heck'n'gone with all the optional additions.
Thoughts?
>ducks behind impromptu tower shield to await the barrage<
|
|
Not to criticize PFSOP to harshly, but it seems like most of these problems stem from the ongoing power creep in later releases.
>stand back, this will likely trigger a landslide of objection<
Is there any possibility of differentiating core-class, core-book play only from the 'anything goes' that sprouts from the later releases? I.e., core-class PCs at this table, Magus, Master-of-Many-Styles, etc., etc., over at these tables?
As somebody perfectly happy with the game as it stands in the core rulebook, I'd be absolutely thrilled to not be competing with someone who is twinked-out to heck'n'gone with all the optional additions.
Thoughts?
>ducks behind impromptu tower shield to await the barrage<
A couple of points:
It is still possible to twink out a PC using just Core book material.And the addition of the extra material increases options, for those who like to have a wider variety of choices.
|
I.e., core-class PCs at this table, Magus, Master-of-Many-Styles, etc., etc., over at these tables?
How many events do you attend are able to afford this level of flexibility?
Many gamedays only have one or two tables. Where there are more than one table, they're often to suit different tier characters. Or players who have already played Scenario A, please seat at Scenario B table.
To then also require Core-class PCs at one table and Non-core PCs at another table might work at larger events (eg, Gencon), but just wouldn't be practical for most events.
HOWEVER, if friends who have a similar gaming style were to seat themselves at one table, that could help isolate optimised characters from say new players.
|
|
Well, PFS is a competitive environment, in the "players vs scenario" sense. Everybody wants to complete the mod, get the prestige, advance further. Nobody will be pulling punches, or not taking Improved Initiative to go first, or not optimizing their characters to a degree.
I disagree
From the guide - page 8 (might not be the latest version ...)
Explore ...
Report ...
Cooperate ...
It doesn't say in the guide - unless I missed it - that it should be competitive instead of cooperative.
In my view a min-maxed character often becomes a problem not because he is so good at something - but because the player uses this to be competitive and not cooperative.
This can be anything from Perception (finding everything), high initiative (always being first) to DPR (I have the most kills) and high AC (I'm untouchable).
I've never seen a problem with fun of other players and high stats if they have been used cooperative. But being used competitive - up to the stage of crowing about the own success can quickly sour the enjoyment of others - the GM included.
|
|
1st. It's also possible to build a mechanically weak PC, should this also be frowned upon? You can make a PC that's equivalent to a CR much LOWER than their level would indicate.
I think it is safe to expect a portion of characters at some tables (eg, new players) to be pre-gens. I don't think that should be frowned on.
|
|
Here is an old article by Monte Cook that talks a bit about system mastery.
Can't look at it while at work. Is that the article that Monte says that players dumb enough to pick intentionally designed bad material deserve to have crappy characters? That opinion by him "endeared" me to him...by endeared I mean made me lose all faith in him as a developer, and anyone who thinks like that.
|
|
Maybe, I get a different message from it though. I see it as the one on Ivory Tower design where he questions that type of design.
"I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. "
It does have a another bit where he mentions rewarding players with more power who have figured out which options are actually good, as opposed to just looking cool. (Maybe this is what you're talking about?)
|
|
There was an article he discussed "Toughness" in 3.5 where he said that a player who chose an "obviously" defective feat, deserved to have a bad character. That struck me as fundamentally wrong for a design concept, the idea you should litter your product with defective abilities, or abilities you know are not a good choice in any situation.
|
|
Maybe this isn't true where you are, but every Ranger I've seen has taken Boon Companion so that their pet is just as good as a Druid pet.Wow, that's insanely overpowered. That would explain it. I was unaware, I mostly play with the core and APG.
I still think it's mostly a scenario problem, you're just going to notice it a lot more if the scenario is too easy (which is sometimes the case, regardless of class selection).
However if you're going to choose obviously broken options (like Companion Boon, why do they allow something that broken again?), you're going to run into situations where the rest of the party isn't needed, regardless of the scenario. What other conclusion could you draw when the pet is as good of a meat shield as a fighter, does respectable damage, and you're pumping out insane damage as well?
Solution to me is to point insane feats like this out to the PFS organizers and hope they ban it. To me that makes Rangers just too good, with a single feat.
I play a Ranger with a cheetah animal companion. I took Boon Companion. Why, because an APL -3 animal companion is of little use. Boon Companion brings it up to a survivability level. Please remember, Rangers have a limited selection of animal companions. I have a cheetah, not a Large Lion. I also spent a fair amount of gold on barding to keep it alive. That's gold I could have put into my own armor or weapons.
All that said, again it's how the player builds his character. I saw a Paladin with a Large Lion mount that he never road.
I don't consider Boon Companion obviously broken. It can be miss used and I can see a Beastmaster Ranger archtype with Boon Companion causing problems, but that's more that the Beastmaster archtype adds much more to the class (opening up all Druid animal companions) than it takes away (one combat style feat). Again, that's a min/maxing combination choice.
How much more do you really have to "focus on it" when Ranger archers do as much or more damage than other DPS classes, and then in addition they have animal companions that do another 50% damage in addition to being a meatshield and flanker for other combatants? No feat combinations needed, it's just too good as it is. Why, what more can you do to it to make it better (besides the normal archery feats that allow you to shoot anywhere without penalty)?
My cheetah, with a feat, does pathetic damage with my 9th level Ranger. Like 1d6+4 and maybe an extra 1d4 with a full attack. I'd need to add some magic to bring it up to a poor damage producer. On the other hand, until my last adventure, it had a better AC. I don't believe in Animal Companions that are throwaway meat shields.
Someone who is min/maxing, sure they can cheese the system. But I don't want to limit the system to stop the cheese at the expense of all the rest of us who use the rules appropriately.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
|
Dan, I am at a loss about half my characters have toughness:(. I am not kidding. Rest not targeted toward Dan.
So, I personally think of my self as a half optimizer. My goal is not to attain a high Save or Die, DC. But generally follow George Carlin's goal of life "Try not to die". When building a character I choose how to create a character that fills totally unique, with allot of interesting feats.
For instance I have a cleric 8/PFS Savant 1. His ac is 11. I have a wand of mage armor. I play him very egotistical, I have chosen feats when I created him that I have yet ever used. He is a negative channeler to add in.
While I really like playing him, at some points I have to keep other players expectations up a little a second level blindness at DC14 can still kill an encounter.
At other times I have to scramble to keep my other players alive.
|
|
Dan, I am at a loss about half my characters have toughness:(. I am not kidding. Rest not targeted toward Dan.
Monte Cook was referring to 3.5 toughness +3HP...that's it. The article was also written in the 3.5 era. He considered it a dumb player trap intentionally put there to trip players up. He alluded to other defective material put there for that reason throughout the 3.5 books too. Since reading that article and that point of view. I lost all faith in Monte Cook as a game mechanics designer. Can't peruse most gaming sites at the moment or I'd see if I can find it again. It's at least 5+ years old.
EDIT: As far as PFRPG toughness goes. I think they corrected Monte's mistake. It's now worth taking.
