Controlling Powergamers in Pathfinder


Advice

901 to 950 of 1,384 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

ok I went to this thread...

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5ddi&page=1?Top-5-most-powerful-classes-at- Level-20

figured I would find half a dozen OP builds.... and I did, the problem being that it seems almost EVERYTHING is OP at 20th... the alchemical army was pretty funny, the AC70 dwarven smith is pretty funny, but truth is it seems after a set point all it comes down to is who wins init. now I guess I'm not trying to find what IS op I'm trying to find what is most OP from what level to what level... or where does the hurting really begin, where does the OP build skyrocket above the standard or average build. in someways I think first level just because of the discrepency between optimized and non-optimized, but it also appears theres some point at which most optimized characters completely make a joke out of all encounters and it just becomes a contest in init.

btw I was trying to find the diplomancer builds, thats a OP build in another direction I think, IE its just as broken from an RP direction as it is from a combat direction.

last- earlyer I was reading a thread... I think it was labled something like unlimited wishes, and it was talking about how because the crafting of magic items requires no XP cost, and the rules say anything lacking in the crafting formula (IE your 4th level not 20th)only increases the DC by 5, a 4th level character may actually create a pile of wish items in not much time at all. or could create almost any item in the game with a high level spell caster to fire off a spell or two.

To me if that IS the case, the entire magic item crafting system is broken and needs to be re-written because anyone could do this and its only the level to which you decide to abuse the rules which stops you.

there would be the perfect example of something that was OP that needs to be fixed. conceed yet or do I actually have to find the thread?


Baal the game changes past level 13-ish. I mentioned that before. The expectations are not even the same. That is why some GM's stop running close to that level. You need to know the system well as a player and a GM or bad things happen.

Level 20 is crazy, but so are the monsters you fight.

A CR 19 dragon can still reliably hit an AC of 60, and that is a dragon straight from the bestiary. Dragons are custom made for the most part, so if I build my own dragon it will be better than what is in the book, and I can hit that AC of 70.

I see you asked at what point PC's can make jokes out of encounters. Well that depends on the GM, and the player.

Going back to the crafting thing. It cost time, and money so if someone told you a 4th level character can craft a ring of wish in a short time they lied. The ring is so expensive they can't even afford to craft it, not only that it will take 4 months to do so. <----In short that is not true.

No I don't concede because everything you post is false. I don't think you do it on purpose. I think someone is feeding you bad information, and you come here and repeat it. I denounce it, so they feed you more garbage.

The fact that you said a level 3 party needed a CR 13 encounter was one example.
The staff at level 4 was another. Now you some with the wish idea at level 4, which also does not work.

Even if you do find one example that does not mean system is broken it means that part of the system needs to be fixed.

Is the system perfect? No, but it is not as bad as you think it is. If it was you could have found an example by now.


That thread has some good ideas, but nothing broken. In short all of them look better on paper than they actually play.


Fleshgrinder wrote:

Something to consider:

If a game has feats that appear designed to synergize, and class abilities built to work with each other, and skills that synergize, and feats with multi-feat prereqs...

Could one argue that picking feats that work with each other and synergize, and picking class combos that synergize, and picking skills that synergize isn't even minmaxing/powergaming?

Maybe, just maybe, it's simply building a character correctly.

I like the way you think. It is good to make a character that is skilled, but a different thing to make a character with no weaknesses and all high stats. There is synergy, then there is excess, but what is excess and how to control it is what this is about.


Mistwalker wrote:

baalbamoth,

You stated early in the thread that combat was easy, only rolling a few dice, and not important - storytelling was much more important.

I think that that is part of the trouble that you and your GM are having - knowing how the system works, how classes, feats, skill, spells, etc. interact is very important.

The examples that you gave in the this thread illustrate that - When others pointed out that you can upgrade the challenge or target the weakness(es) of the PowerGamer (PG), your response was that the GM had tried - the GM made a multi-armed and armored monstrosity to challenge what you call a (PG) or cast confusion on the PG, who then I presumed rolled 76% or higher on the table and that the nearest individual was a team member.

Those are not very effective was of doing it, in my opinion. Some better options would be:
1) to put in terrain - most people forget about difficult terrain and terrain features that restrict movement (half-walls, pits, rivers, squeezing tunnels, unstable floors, weak/collapsing floors, etc). Terrain will help a lot in reducing full round attacks.
2) The use of creatures that can trip - wolves, tripmasters, etc.
3) Ray spells - Ray of Enfeeblement, Exhaustion, Sickening
4) Sight line control tactics - Smokesticks, obscuring mist spell, etc.. to reduce vision to 5', makes it hard to moves fast, or to avoid traps, etc..
5) Incapacitating spells - command, daze, deep slumber, hideous laughter, hold person, etc. (kept at 4th level or below spells to be as powerful as the confusion spell in your example)
6) Inconveniencing tactics - disarm, reposition, steal, sunder, traps, etc.
7) Defensive spells - blur, displacement, fireshield, mirror image, stoneskin, etc.
8) Misdirection - have things not be what they appear to be. Examples: Describe an enlarge full plate NPC with oversized gauntlets coming to attack them, don’t say that it’s an Iron Golem; The tower shield full plate opponent that seems to be resistant to damage, and keeps drinking potions of healing,...

Good suggestions Mist. On terrain and powergaming builds I recall the ranger archer character is often considered op. Now a naive dm will allow that char to get all arrows off and never hinder their shooting. Of course though, terrain really can mess with sight and what can be seen, provide partial or total cover. It isn't too hard to find foliage so thick, you cannot see 50 in. No reason this can't be in a fantasy game. If a wizard destroys everything they see, much like an archer, then limit what they can see, make them fear the dark, the shadows, what is hiding in the thicket. Terrain is a magnificent balancer, but if the players never have the advantage they will become tired over time.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Fleshgrinder wrote:

Something to consider:

If a game has feats that appear designed to synergize, and class abilities built to work with each other, and skills that synergize, and feats with multi-feat prereqs...

Could one argue that picking feats that work with each other and synergize, and picking class combos that synergize, and picking skills that synergize isn't even minmaxing/powergaming?

Maybe, just maybe, it's simply building a character correctly.

I like the way you think. It is good to make a character that is skilled, but a different thing to make a character with no weaknesses and all high stats. There is synergy, then there is excess, but what is excess and how to control it is what this is about.

Excess and synergy are subjective, since it depends on how good the rest of the group is, and how a GM runs his games.

I have seen posters say that having a weakness on purpose is bad RP. Others have said to have no weakness is bad RP.

As for how to control excess, I will repeat what has been said. Talk to the player, and let him know that what he is doing is not acceptable at your table. If he does not respect the table then replace him.


Playing a character with a weakness is bad roleplaying? Hmmmm, we may have found a way to identify powergamers.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Playing a character with a weakness is bad roleplaying? Hmmmm, we may have found a way to identify powergamers.

It was not the so called powergamers that made the argument.

The RP'er's point was that it kills immersion to take someone on mission with you, if they have a deliberate weakness since your life is on the line. If it kills immersion it is bad RP. <--Not my argument.

Other RPer's have said that a weakness shows characters.

Basically both are just matters of opinion.<---My argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Good suggestions Mist. On terrain and powergaming builds I recall the ranger archer character is often considered op. Now a naive dm will allow that char to get all arrows off and never hinder their shooting. Of course though, terrain really can mess with sight and what can be seen, provide partial or total cover. It isn't too hard to find foliage so thick, you cannot see 50 in. No reason this can't be in a fantasy game. If a wizard destroys everything they see, much like an archer, then limit what they can see, make them fear the dark, the shadows, what is hiding in the thicket. Terrain is a magnificent balancer, but if the players never have the advantage they will become tired over time.

Thanks.

Terrain is probably the most overlooked aspect of the game.

For archer builds, terrain can be used to good effect to cause them some problems. As you mentioned, the first one that pops into mind is line of sight - block it and they are no longer putting out as many arrows. There are several other ways of causing an archer build some problems - illusionary walls, wind walls, darkness, smoke, grappling, etc..

GMs need to be well versed in combat to make interesting challenges that do not overpower the non-combat dedicated builds.

I agree that any one counter should not be abused, which is why I said in that earlier post that one technique should not abused or overused. You could allow/encourage the player to find a counter to the counter and let them run with it for a bit. The goal is to allow everyone to have fun and their time in the spotlight.


in all these postings wrath you keep saying things like "powerlevel, Over Powered, Cheese, Loophole, etc. are subjective terms".

Its like your saying there is no baseline and every group determines their own powerlevel, and the encounter levels mean nothing.

I disagree with that. first, there are many threads here asking is xyz overpowered? for some the answer is a clear yes (witch slumber thread) for some its "maybe" (gunslinger thread) and for others its "not at all" (Paladin smite) but regardless of the thread it seems to me there is a concensis that there is a baseline (even if you state that to you there is none, and no matter what proof is presented all character builds are balanced because all will have a weakness).

I believe most PF players who have posted that they think any build is OP will disagree with you, and I think there is a middle point to the bellcurve. The only problem with this is that actually establishing the hard point where it exists... its too nebulus, it changes depending on which DM is being asked. thats very annoying.

In most other games I could have said "yes, a fighter with three attacks, AC-2, who does 1d8+40 at second level... that IS overpowered! and you sir are clearly manipulating the rules!" with pathfinder that does not exist. the fighter will then say "well I can only do that five times a day, and it gives me a -2 to my wil save, and because I put those feats there, I cant get the feat that gives me 10 attacks at +5, so wraith said its balanced and can easily be taken advantage of, if you didnt want me to follow the rules as their written and want to change everyting, why are you even playing this game? go play another!"

very very annoying.


Identifying power gamers is tricky I suppose. Far more difficult than finding munchkins. Munchkins violate rules, ESPECIALLY unwritten rules like RAI or fluff. I guess the best way to identify a power gamer is to look at the results of the characters he builds. Do his characters lay down heavy amounts of damage or otherwise win fights almost single handedly? If yes he is probably a power gamer... But where is that line separating the power gamer from a normal build? Hard to see where to lay it down. I am going to say something controversial (maybe) (and yes I lose more internet battles this way then I can count). I am suggesting that just maybe normal builds that focus on synergizing the main form of attack as well as they can are all power gamer builds.

You will hopefully note that I don't use Power Gamer as a bad thing. And that my stance that "the closer everyone is in power level at the table the easier it becomes to make fun games for them" hasn't changed at all. Even if they are all power gamers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baalbamoth wrote:

In most other games I could have said "yes, a fighter with three attacks, AC-2, who does 1d8+40 at second level... that IS overpowered! and you sir are clearly manipulating the rules!" with pathfinder that does not exist. the fighter will then say "well I can only do that five times a day, and it gives me a -2 to my wil save, and because I put those feats there, I cant get the feat that gives me 10 attacks at +5, so wraith said its balanced and can easily be taken advantage of, if you didnt want me to follow the rules as their written and want to change everyting, why are you even playing this game? go play another!"

very very annoying.

If you're analysing PF as if it's a simple game (like AD&D or something) then I can understand why it's annoying, but it doesnt mean you're correct. Whether you like it or not, there are multiple dimensions with which a character is balanced in PF. It's not my preferred style either, as it happens, but surely "Go play something else" is excellent advice, isnt it?

It's peculiar to read your posts - Wraithstrike continues to ask you to provide what you specifically mean by an overpowered build and you decline on the grounds that he'll just argue that it isnt overpowered....Yet still maintain that you've proved the whole system is flawed. It's a weird approach.

Quote:

in all these postings wrath you keep saying things like "powerlevel, Over Powered, Cheese, Loophole, etc. are subjective terms".

Its like your saying there is no baseline and every group determines their own powerlevel, and the encounter levels mean nothing.

I disagree with that....

Followed by:

Quote:
...I think there is a middle point to the bellcurve. The only problem with this is that actually establishing the hard point where it exists... its too nebulus, it changes depending on which DM is being asked. thats very annoying.

It doesnt sound like you disagree with him at all.


baalbamoth wrote:
in all these postings wrath you keep saying things like "powerlevel, Over Powered, Cheese, Loophole, etc. are subjective terms".

Please don't lie. I never said loophole was a subjective term.

Quote:


Its like your saying there is no baseline and every group determines their own powerlevel, and the encounter levels mean nothing.

What I am saying is that the game allows for a very wide disparity in power levels. As an example you complained about an AC of 70 at level 20, but I told you I had a dragon from the book with no modification that was a CR 19 hit an AC of 60 without needing a nat 20. Obviously I don't expect for everyone to have an AC of 60 to 70, but the fact that a stock monster can do it is a point in my favor. Obviously that 70 is not too impressive.

Quote:

I disagree with that. first, there are many threads here asking is xyz overpowered?

Actually there are threads where xyz is called out as being OP. That does not make it true. I have also said the game is not perfect. There are loopholes, but not to the level you think there are. The fact that every time you try to bring up an example it is explained away, such as the 70 AC or the 4th level crafter with the staff which is not even possible unless the GM ignores the guidelines speaks to that.

Quote:
for some the answer is a clear yes (witch slumber thread) for some its "maybe" (gunslinger thread) and for others its "not at all" (Paladin smite) but regardless of the thread it seems to me there is a concensis that there is a baseline (even if you state that to you there is none, and no matter what proof is presented all character builds are balanced because all will have a weakness).

The slumber is easy to handle, and at higher levels it falls of the map. That is not even something you need to be good at GM'ing to deal with. The smite is also easy to deal with. If you actually did some research on how to stop them instead of assuming that every thing you read was true you would know that, but you can't or won't. All you do is see the term "OP", bring it back to me. I explain it away. You go find another one. I explain that away. The next time you read something is OP try to find out how to stop it because every time you come here with a bad example such as a 4th level character with a staff you make yourself look bad.

Quote:


I believe most PF players who have posted that they think any build is OP will disagree with you, and I think there is a middle point to the bellcurve. The only problem with this is that actually establishing the hard point where it exists... its too nebulus, it changes depending on which DM is being asked. thats very annoying.

Of course if someone says something they believe it. Going back to the witch example. I had one in kingmaker. At first the players were mostly dealing with animals who have poor will saves so the the witch did well. Later undead came up because I was doing a Kingmaker-AoW mashup, and since undead are immune to many of the witch's debuffs the witch did not do as well. When we faced outsiders who tend to have good saves the witch did not dominate either. In short you have to take everything in before making such claims. Of course it changes depending on the GM. That is what I have been saying. What works for one group will own another table. To me something is not OP unless it causes 99% of all GM's trouble because at that point not even the best GM's can deal with it.

Quote:


In most other games I could have said "yes, a fighter with three attacks, AC-2, who does 1d8+40 at second level... that IS overpowered! and you sir are clearly manipulating the rules!" with pathfinder that does not exist.

You should also stop exaggerating. We both know that is not possible, at least I do anyway barring some crazy GM houserule.

Quote:


the fighter will then say "well I can only do that five times a day, and it gives me a -2 to my wil save, and because I put those feats there, I cant get the feat that gives me 10 attacks at +5, so wraith said its balanced and can easily be taken advantage of, if you didnt want me to follow the rules as their written and want to change everyting, why are you even playing this game? go play another!"

very very annoying.

I am not a RAW person. I am a RAI person. If you try to bring a loophole into my game I shut it down. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When someone considers having a high AC/DPR = OP, I think it demonstrates a lack of system insight.

In my lv15 Kingmaker game, there is a fighter that reliably hits everything I throw at them, and does 30-40 damage per hit, across 8 attacks. Meaning 240-320 DPR or so. And there is a cavalier that can knock planets out of orbit with his lance-charge, and has an AC of "You need 20 to hit".

In the same party is a universalist wizard with Int30, played by a player with REAL system mastery.

We are all quite confident that if the wizard decided to take on the ENTIRE party, he would be able to take them out without even a scratch.

The typical fight goes something like this:

Round 1:
- Wizard wins the fight
- Fighters run up and beat the defeated monsters to death

Round 2:
- Cake


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arianna- exactly, I probably took it too far earlyer in saying pathfinder is more like dragonball z than D&D or that it is the monty hall system, but that is exactly it, all "common" builds work on creating synergy, that synergy does not simply increase powerlevel, it compounds it, so that the more you feed that synergy with feats, stats, magic or class abilities, the more power it gains, and at no point is there a limit in the system where it says "dont go past here or you are a powergamer"

Steve- well... I can see where he is coming from, I dont really agree that just because something has a weakness it is not overpowered for an average game (average meaning the powerlevel most pathfinder games are played at) but it does seem like its a metagame where the DM tries to establish the powerlevel he would like the game to be played at and the players either accept that, or try to build right up to the very limit without pissing off the DM, and again this isnt a very easy thing to establish.

In champions I could say "no attacks over 11 OCV and 60 active points" and everyone would know what that meant, and really there wouldent be a way to screw that up (any combination of powers or skills which created a synergy would also increase the active cost or OCV) champs using hero games system is both one of the most complex systems in the game industry and the least (depending on how many optional rules you want to play with)

but I have no way of doing that with PF, and I really should have one as a starting out DM for it.

I'm still thinking about if I was to give the players a hand out telling them what powerlevel I was shooting for, how would I do that? the players are used to rolled stats, so that wont change (but I wont be letting them roll without supervision the way the other DM did...) I want to let them use all the books because thats what they are accustomed to. but how do I convey to the players that min/maxed optimal combat characters should not be created? how would you even define a powerlevel in PF? that 20% rule I thought was a fairly simple thing to define (never go above 80% of whats possible) but Mist was right, to some it might just be a challenge to see how broken they can get following the rule....


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kamelguru wrote:

When someone considers having a high AC/DPR = OP, I think it demonstrates a lack of system insight.

In my lv15 Kingmaker game, there is a fighter that reliably hits everything I throw at them, and does 30-40 damage per hit, across 8 attacks. Meaning 240-320 DPR or so. And there is a cavalier that can knock planets out of orbit with his lance-charge, and has an AC of "You need 20 to hit".

In the same party is a universalist wizard with Int30, played by a player with REAL system mastery.

We are all quite confident that if the wizard decided to take on the ENTIRE party, he would be able to take them out without even a scratch.

The typical fight goes something like this:

Round 1:
- Wizard wins the fight
- Fighters run up and beat the defeated monsters to death

Round 2:
- Cake

+1.

AC is and high amounts of damage are low on the totem pole when measuring power.

The things that are hard to measure with numbers such as the value of teleport and flight that allow players to take short cuts to where they want to get too are what can give a GM trouble if he is not prepared for it. <--samples only....there are others.


baalbamoth wrote:

Arianna- exactly, I probably took it too far earlyer in saying pathfinder is more like dragonball z than D&D or that it is the monty hall system, but that is exactly it, all "common" builds work on creating synergy, that synergy does not simply increase powerlevel, it compounds it, so that the more you feed that synergy with feats, stats, magic or class abilities, the more power it gains, and at no point is there a limit in the system where it says "dont go past here or you are a powergamer"

Steve- well... I can see where he is coming from, I dont really agree that just because something has a weakness it is not overpowered for an average game (average meaning the powerlevel most pathfinder games are played at) but it does seem like its a metagame where the DM tries to establish the powerlevel he would like the game to be played at and the players either accept that, or try to build right up to the very limit without pissing off the DM, and again this isnt a very easy thing to establish.

It is not really that hard. As an example I have a GM who has almost no freetime. We have never sat down and discussed "what not to do", but with me knowing he does not have the free time to adjust to every build I just make good builds, but I don't push into his free time. It is not an exact science, but it is not hard to grasp for most groups. If a player either "does not get it" or just ignores the GM then you pull him off to the side.

Quote:


In champions I could say "no attacks over 11 OCV and 60 active points" and everyone would know what that meant, and really there wouldent be a way to screw that up (any combination of powers or skills which created a synergy would also increase the active cost or OCV) champs using hero games system is both one of the most complex systems in the game industry and the least (depending on how many optional rules you want to play with)

but I have no way of doing that with PF, and I really should have one as a starting out DM for it.

PF is built with so many options that numbers alone don't really work. I could use options such as teleport with no number attached, and still cause trouble. I think you want the game to be more organized and "new guy" friendly. I can understand that, but that does not mean the game is broken. It just has a steep learning curve for many people. I will admit it is not for everyone.

Quote:
I want to let them use all the books because thats what they are accustomed to. but how do I convey to the players that min/maxed optimal combat characters should not be created? how would you even define a powerlevel in PF? that 20% rule I thought was a fairly simple thing to define (never go above 80% of whats possible) but Mist was right, to some it might just be a challenge to see how broken they can get following the rule....

I have coached players into GMing. They will make mistakes. We all do. I tell them you should done X when I did Y. If they try to give out too much loot I warn them against it. That is what the players in your group should do if they know more than you do. If I provoke an attack of opportunity and they don't call it, I tell them what just happened. I can't stand to see new GM's being taken advantage of.

I would recommend that a new GM only allow the CRB unless he has experience as player and feels ok with other books. I would also suggest he start out no higher than level 3.

At the end of the day everyone in the group should be trying to help each other, not taking advantage of someone else's lack of knowledge.

edit:For that first paragraph I should say it is not as hard as it sounds. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
baalbamoth wrote:
Steve- well... I can see where he is coming from, I dont really agree that just because something has a weakness it is not overpowered for an average game (average meaning the powerlevel most pathfinder games are played at) but it does seem like its a metagame where the DM tries to establish the powerlevel he would like the game to be played at and the players either accept that, or try to build right up to the very limit without pissing off the DM, and again this isnt a very easy thing to establish.

Maybe we play in very different groups after all. We (as a group) have settled on a power level we like - nobody is trying to come up with quirky options and get as close as possible to piss the DM off 'just within the limits'.

This may perhaps be a useful insight though - maybe the problem is this combative attitude: If you (the DM) dont know the rules as well as the players (who are out to push the game to the limits without quite pissing you off) then I can see how PF would give you the impression you've been outlining in this thread. Personally, I'd encourage your friends to chill out and to recognise they're never going to win.

A pissed off DM is a bad outcome at any table, imo.


You know my name is Aranna right... No "i" or "e".


wraithstrike wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:

When someone considers having a high AC/DPR = OP, I think it demonstrates a lack of system insight.

In my lv15 Kingmaker game, there is a fighter that reliably hits everything I throw at them, and does 30-40 damage per hit, across 8 attacks. Meaning 240-320 DPR or so. And there is a cavalier that can knock planets out of orbit with his lance-charge, and has an AC of "You need 20 to hit".

In the same party is a universalist wizard with Int30, played by a player with REAL system mastery.

We are all quite confident that if the wizard decided to take on the ENTIRE party, he would be able to take them out without even a scratch.

The typical fight goes something like this:

Round 1:
- Wizard wins the fight
- Fighters run up and beat the defeated monsters to death

Round 2:
- Cake

+1.

AC is and high amounts of damage are low on the totem pole when measuring power.

I've tried pointing this out no less than three times before. It's gotten ignored every time.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kamelguru wrote:

When someone considers having a high AC/DPR = OP, I think it demonstrates a lack of system insight.

In my lv15 Kingmaker game, there is a fighter that reliably hits everything I throw at them, and does 30-40 damage per hit, across 8 attacks. Meaning 240-320 DPR or so. And there is a cavalier that can knock planets out of orbit with his lance-charge, and has an AC of "You need 20 to hit".

In the same party is a universalist wizard with Int30, played by a player with REAL system mastery.

We are all quite confident that if the wizard decided to take on the ENTIRE party, he would be able to take them out without even a scratch.

The typical fight goes something like this:

Round 1:
- Wizard wins the fight
- Fighters run up and beat the defeated monsters to death

Round 2:
- Cake

Kingmaker is also a notoriously predictable 15 minute work day kind of AP.

Not saying this didn't happen, just saying GM and Game style has a major effect on these kinds of things.


I was avoiding posting this but hell were almost at 1000 posts and I doubt he's going to get this far...

your all kinda right about my DM, he is great in some areas, he is a great RP-er, he can switch from gruff dwarf to absent minded oracle freely and seem completely convincing, he is also very good at describing and setting up scenes. but it seems to me he lacks a lot when it comes to basic DMing skills.

for example, we have spent three gaming sessions, 15 hrs, just getting from one adventure town to the other. why? I have no idea. at least half of this time was spent him looking things up in a book, rolling a few dice, then going back to the book while the players all sat around twiddling dice. a more clear example would be, one of the characters rolled very low on a homebrew rule regarding seasickness, meaning the character had very weak sea legs and got sea sick easily, so with an abundance of money, she wanted to buy a very strong sea sickness potion.

now if it were me... I would have thought "well were in a large port city, a overly priced but more effective sea sickness dram would be a big seller to an alchemist, so wtf, 50 gp per week, roll a d20 and as long as you dont roll a 1 you dont suffer any sea sickness."

but my DM litterally takes an hour and twenty minutes (I actually looked at my watch here)to look up how a improved sea sickness potion could be made. I'm not sure if he was also looking up other adventure stuff or other rules, but players would be asking him questions and he would completely ignore them. twice I think I said "well I think we got every thing we need, lets go!" and on the second time he snaps at me "shut up, dont you see I'm trying to figure this out!"

I turned red, I nearly threw a die at him, then I realized... this was litterally the only game in town, and if I wanted to play an RPG I would just have to endure this. so its kinda rough, I feel like I wanna say "hey guys I run way better than this, so were gonna ditch the game this guy has been running for four years, I'm going to steal you players away, and were going to play a system none of you are familar with because I really like it."

so I plotted differently, Some of the guys agreed to playing PF on another night, I'd have to learn how to run PF, but so much is different in this game than the games I'm used to, that powerlevel no such thing as balance thing has me stymed, and honestly I dont like the high magic in this game, I dont like spell casters having d6 for hp, I dont like a lot of things, but if I do want to show this guy and his group what good DMing is like, I either have to change things to a way I'm more familar with or set very strict limits, or?

anyway got work to do will be on later, give me some suggestions...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
baalbamoth wrote:

last- earlyer I was reading a thread... I think it was labled something like unlimited wishes, and it was talking about how because the crafting of magic items requires no XP cost, and the rules say anything lacking in the crafting formula (IE your 4th level not 20th)only increases the DC by 5, a 4th level character may actually create a pile of wish items in not much time at all. or could create almost any item in the game with a high level spell caster to fire off a spell or two.

To me if that IS the case, the entire magic item crafting system is broken and needs to be re-written because anyone could do this and its only the level to which you decide to abuse the rules which stops you.

You need to look at the rules in context, not in isolation.

For a Ring of Three Wishes, you need to have the Feat Forge Ring, which can only be taken at level 7.
The spellcraft check would be a DC of 25 (cl 20 +5 for missing spell).
Spellcraft: 5 int, 3 class skill, 7 ranks = 15. And it would take 120 days to make it. So possible, if the GM is willing to allow you to take 10, but if they are not allowing it, then there is a chance of losing the gold.
Speaking of gold, the cost would be 97 500 gp to make it. So where is a character who is only supposed to have 23 500 gp getting the other 74 000 gp to make the item? that amount of gold is usually what is available for an character that is midway to 11th level, a character that wouldn't be doing so well if all of their gold was locked up in making a single limited use ring.

Can the crafting rules be abused? Yes. Are they broken? As long as the RAI is followed, I don't think so.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine for just a moment a 10th grade Latin class. Some students in the class spend all their time each night studying for Latin and Latin alone. Some students study a little bit for Latin, but a little bit for other classes as well. Some students spend most of their time in sports practice, and dedicate only a little to Latin each night, if at all. Some do not do any schoolwork period.

As a teacher, what do i do? Do I target the class to the small number who only study Latin, with the rationale that anything easier would be too boring for the students who really care, and since the other students would do poorly anyway, who cares how poorly they do?

Do I aim at the "good students" who study for all of their classes each day? This will bore the very good students, and still be above the level of the "bad students" who do things besides studying.

Do I aim at the "bad students" who spend most of their time outside of school not studying? This allows everyone in the class to do well, but will leave all those who truely love the class bored, and even the good students will feel left out.

I guess the easiest thing to say is that focusing on any one group is a bad policy, because it will never engage anyone. As a teacher, I can give extra work or responsibilities to those who are willing and eager to learn even more Latin. I can give exercised that range from easy to challenging in difficulty, to minimize the time any group feels ignored (or I can assign things with no target difficulty, that allow people to work at their own level with no outside pressure). I can spend time and effort to help the poorly performing students get a grasp on what they are missing.

Also, I have to remember... a students value has nothing to do with how well they do in a Latin class. Maybe they spend all night studying math, practicing guitar, playing basketball. As soon as you put that student into a different context, they will have a chance to show what they are good at.

Also one has to remember that some people are just better than others. it is a little bit Hallmark-y to assume that everyone has one thing that they are just better at than other people. Some people are objectively worse than other people at everything they do. Maybe they have not found their niche, maybe they never will, but even so, it does not affect their value as a person.

When people discuss RPGs, and start using words like powergamer, munchkin, liar, troll... they lose sight of the humanity behind RPGs. They are primarily games about group dynamics. The party in-game and the party out-of-game are equally important. In my experience, there are very few evil people, or even bad people. To assume that the people you are playing with are evil, bad, stupid, etc. is just a way to avoid the problem.

A powergamer is the person who studies Latin all night. They rock in a Latin classroom. The fellow students might be annoyed by this ability. It could be because they are shallow, jealous people, or it could be that they feel that being good at something does not mean you get all the spotlight, can talk down to your fellow classmates, etc. They might even be annoyed because they know they could beat the person in chess, be a better biologist, or simply have more fun than that committed student. Maybe they are upset because they feel like this person is actually better than them, and the disappointment makes them angry.

The teacher might be annoyed as well. Certainly it would be no fun to have a student feel like they are better than the teacher. Even if the student knows more trivia about Latin, Classical History, Mythology etc., that does not mean they have the same life experience, teaching ability, perspective or anything. Dealing with people who feel superior to you is never pleasant.

Does this mean that studying Latin exclusively makes you a bad, prideful person oblivious to the suffering and anguish of others? No, of course not.

The problem is not with the approach. The problem lies in a number of other places. The way the fellow students perceive the student. The way the teacher perceives the student. They way the student perceives everyone else. The way the class is taught. The way the class is managed. The perceived social importance of Latin.

The problem is not with powergaming. The problem is with people. People problems are not solved using RAW or RAI. They are not solved by picking favorites. They are not solved by personal accusations. They are solved by recognizing the cause of the problem, and then by working with people to come to an solution amenable, or at least acceptable to everyone. There is no perfect solution. The solution is different for every group, for every person. If one sinks to anything lower than mutual respect, and honest discussion, the solution will fail for at least one of the people.


baalbamoth wrote:
no but again oversimplification, you can create a set a rules which are "less breakable". As I said before, I never really played 3.5, so I have no real idea how breakable those rules were. it was fun to debate D&D vs PF but your right it was off topic... though I think is interesting finding out what some people think is powergaming or OP in one system isnt powergaming or OP in another.
I didn't oversimplify at all. compare your reply with:
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
but precisely because this is unquantifiable, a not easily defined distinction which varies by group, there is no way to make a "perfect set of rules which are as published completely unbreakable." There are better or worse sets, overall, but no hard-and-fast bright-line, especially since tastes and opinions will vary (as seen here) on just what rules-set accomplishes this goal best.
and my frequent mentions of "less broken"/"breakable."
Quote:
figured I would find half a dozen OP builds.... and I did, the problem being that it seems almost EVERYTHING is OP at 20th...

I'm sure you've seen some of the things pepole could do with just stuff out of published materiels (including modules) in earlier editions past a certain level. Which is one reason why many (most) campaigns never played past a certain level even back in the day (the other being it was much harder to level due to how the EXP charts scaled).

But as someone who had a character who braved Baba Yaga's Hut, and "won" (the one published in Dragon Magazine), I know. The things you could do with spells and items then were pretty OP, too; it was just less openly/clearly specified - a lot of it came from knowing "Guys in Gary's campaign are doing X, so it must be a legit interpretation." Yes, a DM could (and should have) kept things within bounds with stricter interpretation/enforcement of some rules than was often the case, and exclusion of some things/options that were too easily abused (that was right in the rules then, as now), but that's exactly the same as is the case now.

Heck, you should have seen some of the things we did and were able to do in our campaigns at or just above "Name Level" - in part because of cheese, but also in part because the lower rate of leveling, along with sessions of epic length (when I was young it wasn't uncommon for us to have sessions that lasted most of the weekend, with breaks for a bit of sleep) meant that we would legitimately gain loot that the game didn't "expect" characters of that level to have (there were no "WBL" tables then, though a sort of rule-of-thumb rough-and-ready expectation existed).

My excuse was we were in middle and high school. But we were also emulating the play-style of the local University 9of Wisconsin) gaming group's style at the time (some of my friends would sit in at/fanboy their sessions from time to time and then have stories of what/how they're doing stuff).

Point being: this was a great era of gaming and I have some of my fondest memories of it, but you are also, IMO, over-romanticizing it, at least the era as a whole. Perhaps this is because your own experiences, the groups you played in, never had the kind of problems that were actually fairly common then. Problems, as I mentioned in another thread awhile back, which were so prevalent in that era it is, IMO, the reason why Ed Greenwood built into the 'goodly' communities (the ones PCs are not supposed to ransack) the trope of every barkeep/barmade being a retired 12th level badass former mercenary captain and every two-bit village having a reclusive hermit who happens to be an Archmage, a cantankerous guy, but someone who loves village X and will rouse himself to action the second anyone steps out of line (Elminster is not the only one, he is just the most prominent one) (Ed's first "officially published setting" - outside of TD articles - was "The Five Shires" for OD&D/0E - and it has a village of 100 people which is exactly this trope).

These got to the point where IMO the Realms got ridiculous and the atmosphere became that the PC "heroes" were constantly overshadowed by NPCs, but the point is this whole atmosphere originated in an attempt by writers to combat what were real - and fairly widespread (or it wouldn't have been a problem) abuses in that era.

Point being, again, while this was a great era I fondly remember, it wasn't halcyon either and things often did get just as "OP" there, though with more debate over just was and was not "a legitimate interpretation of the rules" (because, as good as they were - and, again, I still like them tons - they were often less clearly specified on what could and couldn't be done inside them, with much more left up to DM judgment; which is fine, but as people have pointed out here, often the biggest cause of "broken-ness power gaming" in even PF is not the rules themselves so much as a DM/gaming group not restraining themselves and keeping things within the bounds that serve the long-term interest of that group's campaign fun).

wraithstrike wrote:
A CR 19 dragon can still reliably hit an AC of 60, and that is a dragon straight from the bestiary. Dragons are custom made for the most part, so if I build my own dragon it will be better than what is in the book, and I can hit that AC of 70.

Past a certain level, as far as I've seen, it gets harder and harder for a PC to get an AC that even matters to most of the things they'll encounter, unless they're specifically built around defense/AC. That may be why so many builds focus on raw damage output - to kill the monster faster than they're killing you.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Baal, I'm suprised that out of my entire post, that's the bit you focused on. The parts before it were important and relevant.


It would very easy to remain a staunch supporter of 3.5 if you have your head buried in the sand with regards to the problems or power creep inherent in the system.

The same could be said of staying blindly loyal to Pathfinder, or any other system for that matter, as well.


Out of interest the level of min/max really does depend on the adventure being run. Baal, taking your "mr joe average" that you seem to think all characters should be and running him through, say, Kingmaker, you could get away with it, probably fairly comfortably.

Take the same character and boost him to tenth level to take on a PF conversion of City of the Spider Queen and he is dying in Chahir's tomb before he even gets into the first dungeon proper.

Sczarni

Man, I go out of town and party for the weekend only to come back to over 300 posts to read!

I am glad nothing has changed since I left.

Thanks to Kobold Cleaver, Orthos, Wraithstrike, Aranna and everyone for keeping the thread going...

I did read all the posts, but I still don't see copies of those character sheets he promised us on like page 4...did I miss those or is he still spouting fallacies and universal statements all-the-while avoiding any real form of proof?


I may be missing something here.

As far as I can recall, even going back to Basic D&D the archetypal party was one tank, one arcane caster, one buffer / healing merchant, one sneaky type. Back then Fighter/ Magic User / Cleric / Thief. The difference today is there are so many other classes and alternatives to make up that classic four-man party. Each member is good at something different and the whole is greater than the sum of the four parts. This leads to good gameplay as each character has their moment in the sun

As has also been said, APs are designed for parties of four and fifteen point build. You can easily accommodate 20 point with very little adjustment. However, from what I can glean, the OP has a party of six and advanced races are allowed in the builds. This is bound to breeze through most APs as the party as a whole is overpowered for the adventure as written.

Player A has done nothing more than use an advanced race with high natural strength to create an excellent barbarian. Barbarians are high-strength, high-constitution hitting machines. Presumably the other places in the archetypal four man party have been taken up, and then the OP has come to design a character, and is finding that his tank isn't as good as the other tank in the party, meaning that his character has no chance to shine. That isn't the fault of the character design rules. It is the fault of the party make-up and the DM for allowing Advanced Races.

Sczarni

Oh and because it hasn't been mentioned (correct me if maybe I missed you say it Wraithstrike), but a few pages back you guys discussed "op/broken builds" and the Gun using Eidolon came into play and so did the 4 arm Alchemist with TWF 2H weapons. The Eidolon build is wrong and I have argued that fact for a long time with friends because I did a full break down and everything they did was just wrong. And the developers of PF have come out and said that the Alchemist's extra arms were not meant to use weapons and people shouldn't be able to do that. Now, are all of those things clear? No. Is it printed in Errata or FAQ that 90% of the population ignore? Yes.


lol here's your proof b

Re: crafting, ok here was the thread I was talking about...

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz637e?So-a-5-weapon-for-2667-GP

I wasnt wrong at all about it, sure its only getting a 50k item for around 3k, sure a 4th level wizard would need a lot of starting capitol to create wish items, but the rules are still broken when it comes to crafting, of particular interest was this part from diego... (mist here's where the money comes from as well...)

A use activate whetstone of greater magic weapon would cost 120.000 gp, have a DC of 25, +5 for overcasting: DC 30.
A "common" wizard with 18 stating intelligence and skill focus in spellcraft would be capable to make one at level 8 with ease (base int raised to 20, +2 int circlet = +6 for intelligence, +3 for the feat, +3 as it is a class skill, 8 rank in the skill = +20 skill bonus).
So your 4 party members chip in 15.000 gp each at level 8 and get to have all their weapons enchanted to +5 constantly, leaving the space for plenty of interesting enchantment on their weapons.
The same wizard would have to wait for another 12 levels before casting the same spell by hand.
And note that he is not really trying to push it. With the right trait/feat he could do the same thing at a way lower level.

broken... simply... broken.

Porphy- heh our group avoided that stuff not because players didnt try to bring it in, but because our DM refused to let anything into the game he could imagine would break it. we'd have to wait months to use a new class book. again, I dont mind the iorn hand as long as it directly serves a purpose. further, because those game breaking mechanics didnt really get into the game till after 12-13th level, and the DM could completely control what spells you had access to, that never entered into our games either. also our world was extremely low magic, an 8th level character say would have two or three +2 class items, maybe one misc item, and some potions. and thats it, the idea of buying or having items created that you wanted... all but impossible. but through all of this, though we knew what other people were doing with their 40th+ level "immortal" "you can trade XP for magic items" level games... nothing came close to the amount of gritty fun we were having in ours, mostly because I think the DM was using it as a kind of moral delema drama, heros always had to make choices between the lessor evils.

In some ways thats what I'd like to be able to re-create in PF should I run... but people have done very well in convincing me my playstle is 1) outdated 2) not possible within a ruleset that is so open. we'll see...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
baalbamoth wrote:

lol here's your proof b

Re: crafting, ok here was the thread I was talking about...

http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz637e?So-a-5-weapon-for-2667-GP

I wasnt wrong at all about it, sure its only getting a 50k item for around 3k, sure a 4th level wizard would need a lot of starting capitol to create wish items, but the rules are still broken when it comes to crafting, of particular interest was this part from diego... (mist here's where the money comes from as well...)

A use activate whetstone of greater magic weapon would cost 120.000 gp, have a DC of 25, +5 for overcasting: DC 30.
A "common" wizard with 18 stating intelligence and skill focus in spellcraft would be capable to make one at level 8 with ease (base int raised to 20, +2 int circlet = +6 for intelligence, +3 for the feat, +3 as it is a class skill, 8 rank in the skill = +20 skill bonus).
So your 4 party members chip in 15.000 gp each at level 8 and get to have all their weapons enchanted to +5 constantly, leaving the space for plenty of interesting enchantment on their weapons.
The same wizard would have to wait for another 12 levels before casting the same spell by hand.
And note that he is not really trying to push it. With the right trait/feat he could do the same thing at a way lower level.

broken... simply... broken.

Porphy- heh our group avoided that stuff not because players didnt try to bring it in, but because our DM refused to let anything into the game he could imagine would break it. we'd have to wait months to use a new class book. again, I dont mind the iorn hand as long as it directly serves a purpose. further, because those game breaking mechanics didnt really get into the game till after 12-13th level, and the DM could completely control what spells you had access to, that never entered into our games either. also our world was extremely low magic, an 8th level character say would have two or three +2 class items, maybe one misc item, and some potions. and thats it, the idea of buying or having items created that you...

Yep if you have a bad GM and a table full of terribad players...

Quote:
Table: Character Wealth by Level can also be used to budget gear for characters starting above 1st level, such as a new character created to replace a dead one. Characters should spend no more than half their total wealth on any single item. For a balanced approach, PCs that are built after 1st level should spend no more than 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable items like potions, scrolls, and wands, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins. Different character types might spend their wealth differently than these percentages suggest; for example, arcane casters might spend very little on weapons but a great deal more on other magic items and disposable items.

Link to quote

(See how sources are linked...do more of this)

The only thing broken about your post is the GMs inability to know the system and the player's ability to capitalize on it. THIS is an good example of "powergaming". The players taking advantage of a known loophole in the system due to the GM being ill equipped to deal with it. See how its not creative...its down right WRONG and abused. You are talking about CUSTOM CREATED MAGIC ITEMS...this isn't something printed so it has NOT been approved by Paizo for use in Pathfinder and therefore can not be used as a source of balancing issues.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am going to defend item crafting.

Remember all items are subject to GM approval. I don't know any GMs who would allow abusive at-will items like this at any cost.

Sczarni

His GM would...he likes breaking his own games it seems.


Ossian- an 8th level character has 33k wealth, spending 15k IS half, each character effectively owns 1/4 of a magic item. is it rules lawyering? yes it is.

but to go a bit further, what if rather than new 8th level characters, you have 4 8th level characters that decide to sell the magical gear they have in exchage to purchace/create an item like this? would that be impossible as well? how would a DM stop that other than to have the characters robbed or to have the items only be purchaced for a value greatly below the actual value?

and what do you mean its not printed... its right here...

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.html


ossian666 wrote:
I did read all the posts, but I still don't see copies of those character sheets he promised us on like page 4...did I miss those or is he still spouting fallacies and universal statements all-the-while avoiding any real form of proof?

No sheets, nope. I've given up and have stepped out of the attempts at conversation, myself. I read through part of the thread earlier today and saw some unanswered questions I'd really like to see touched on, but I figure the headache of trying to snag them isn't worth the effort.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Round and round we go, where Baal stops, only Mork knows.


ugg fine you really want my character sheet? fine I dont see what friggin purpose it serves but I'll type it up. if you want me to scan it I can do that too. this is my 8th lev sheet of when I started the game

flowing monk 1, Phalanx 7
str 21, dex 18, con16, int 11, wis 9, cha 10, AC 24, HP 77
feats:
Power attack
double slice
cleave
spiked destroyer
combat reflexes
Imp sheild bash
Imp bull rush
Improved trip
sheild slam
two weapon fighting
greater cleave
viccious stomp

As I said, I was gonna ask the barb guy for his character sheet but he was getting all redfaced and angry when we were talking about this thread at the weekly game and I didnt wanna push him so no I never got his character sheet, and wont be asking for it.

next?

Silver Crusade

You admit yourself that your DM seems to be pretty lost in his role ; you declare the game broken without being able to prove it with a build that isn't flawlessly superior to everything else ; and yet you only show us more with each post how much of the system you don't know and/or understand.

Custom magic items are explicitely off-the-charts, and not even supposed to be accepted in a game, as they are the pure example of homebrew's potential to break the game, even within the guidelines.
Yet you use the obvious example of the wish items ? Really ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baalbamoth wrote:

I was avoiding posting this but hell were almost at 1000 posts and I doubt he's going to get this far...

your all kinda right about my DM, he is great in some areas, he is a great RP-er, he can switch from gruff dwarf to absent minded oracle freely and seem completely convincing, he is also very good at describing and setting up scenes. but it seems to me he lacks a lot when it comes to basic DMing skills.

for example, we have spent three gaming sessions, 15 hrs, just getting from one adventure town to the other. why? I have no idea. at least half of this time was spent him looking things up in a book, rolling a few dice, then going back to the book while the players all sat around twiddling dice. a more clear example would be, one of the characters rolled very low on a homebrew rule regarding seasickness, meaning the character had very weak sea legs and got sea sick easily, so with an abundance of money, she wanted to buy a very strong sea sickness potion.

now if it were me... I would have thought "well were in a large port city, a overly priced but more effective sea sickness dram would be a big seller to an alchemist, so wtf, 50 gp per week, roll a d20 and as long as you dont roll a 1 you dont suffer any sea sickness."

but my DM litterally takes an hour and twenty minutes (I actually looked at my watch here)to look up how a improved sea sickness potion could be made. I'm not sure if he was also looking up other adventure stuff or other rules, but players would be asking him questions and he would completely ignore them. twice I think I said "well I think we got every thing we need, lets go!" and on the second time he snaps at me "shut up, dont you see I'm trying to figure this out!"

I turned red, I nearly threw a die at him, then I realized... this was litterally the only game in town, and if I wanted to play an RPG I would just have to endure this. so its kinda rough, I feel like I wanna say "hey guys I run way better than this, so were gonna ditch the game this guy has been running for...

Tell the dm to hurry up, and that the exact specifics of the obscure rule he is looking for in the books does not matter in the here and now.

I know a new dm, and damn that guy loves to read up on rules when the game should be moving forward. Let your agitation show and be clear time is not to be wasted. Players can keep a dm on task too.

Sczarni

baalbamoth wrote:

Ossian- an 8th level character has 33k wealth, spending 15k IS half, each character effectively owns 1/4 of a magic item. is it rules lawyering? yes it is.

but to go a bit further, what if rather than new 8th level characters, you have 4 8th level characters that decide to sell the magical gear they have in exchage to purchace/create an item like this? would that be impossible as well? how would a DM stop that other than to have the characters robbed or to have the items only be purchaced for a value greatly below the actual value?

and what do you mean its not printed... its right here...

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.html

That is for creating things that already have rules. Like go into your Core Rulebook and look at the bottom of any of the Magical Items. See the spell and component requirements? Thats what that is for. If you allow custom magic items to be created in your game you are ASKING for people to break the game. Not to mention in order to make the item you are concerned about it would take 120 days. If my players wanted to roleplay 120 days worth of eating, crafting, and dice rolls then cool so be it...who am I to rob them of such mundane "fun".

I wouldn't rob them...if they spend all their wealth on this, cool more power to them. I am sure their AC sucks and they will be susceptible to curses and other things. It won't completely destroy the game when they can't function due to penalties which conveniently negate that +5 bonus they spent all of their resources on...


Maxx- I refer back to a thread on this forum where people are discussing the problems with the creation of a staff that should cost 50k gold but in fact costs less than 3k due to a flaw in the staff magus archtype when combined with flaws in the item creation rules.

If custom items are "off the charts," why is there an official Paizo "chart" for estimating the value of "new" (IE. custom) magic items?

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And how do you have 12 feats?

What weapons are you using?

What armor are you wearing?

What magic items do you have?

What is your race?

How did you get those stats?

What is your diety?

Can't have Imp Trip without Combat Expertise which you don't meet pre-reqs for...

So anything else that I am sure you lied and fabricated for the sake of this argument I'd expect you to fix before you post up your info again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
baalbamoth wrote:

Maxx- I refer back to a thread on this forum where people are discussing the problems with the creation of a staff that should cost 50k gold but in fact costs less than 3k due to a flaw in the staff magus archtype when combined with flaws in the item creation rules.

If custom items are "off the charts," why is there an official Paizo "chart" for estimating the value of "new" (IE. custom) magic items?

Emphasis mine. You state right there. Its an estimation. It is then up to the GM to compare the item to other completed items and adjust the price accordingly.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
baalbamoth wrote:

Maxx- I refer back to a thread on this forum where people are discussing the problems with the creation of a staff that should cost 50k gold but in fact costs less than 3k due to a flaw in the staff magus archtype when combined with flaws in the item creation rules.

If custom items are "off the charts," why is there an official Paizo "chart" for estimating the value of "new" (IE. custom) magic items?

Because people asked for such rules ? Because they are GUIDELINES, not cold rules you have to follow to "play it right", and even then, such items are explicitely subject to DM fiat because you can spend some thousands to get a ring of Shield of Force while the same official +4 Ring of Protection is worth 32 000 ?


ossian666 wrote:

And how do you have 12 feats?

What weapons are you using?

What armor are you wearing?

What magic items do you have?

What is your race?

How did you get those stats?

What is your diety?

Can't have Imp Trip without Combat Expertise which you don't meet pre-reqs for...

So anything else that I am sure you lied and fabricated for the sake of this argument I'd expect you to fix before you post up your info again.

Well spotted.


Fleshgrinder wrote:
Round and round we go, where Baal stops, only Mork knows.

Pardon me, I seem to have lost my orc. Don't suppose you've seen him? Big fellow, tall, green, carries an axe, doesn't talk so well....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Think I added cleave and improved cleave when I leveled, armor is +1 full plate, +1 mith sheild of bashing, +1 keen guisame, got a "custom" magic item "thorm body" CL3 as spell at will, (think I paid about 4k for it), human Kellid, stats rolled, Gorim Diety. If there are errors this was the first PF character I ever made, without direction and without reading a book, if there are errors here I didnt catch em and neither did the DM (or he didnt care)

nothing in this was fabricated, or lied about, and do you have a point with this or are you still just trying to make the same point

that being "the guy is new to PF and does not know what he is talking about and he's stupid so there! neener neener neener!"

Just because I am new and inexpirenced with PF does not mean that the arguements do not hold water.

901 to 950 of 1,384 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Controlling Powergamers in Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.