RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not just shoddy roleplaying, I just don't think three 7s should be legal. It's turning your character into a pillbox in this case, so they can dominate combats. In PFS, this is not necessary.
Don't worry; not only is it not necessary, but as soon as they start facing Will saves that matter, they're toast. I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, one might ponder the implications of the Deans of the Pathfinder College letting a candidate with such wracking limitations into the ranks of active agents.
So, let's presume that the PC applied to the Grand Lodge with near-normal or better stats. And somewhere near the end of training, something bad happened. A failed save versus Wisdom-draining effects. An encounter with undead. Potion miscibility mishaps.
And the PC was left with the attributes he displays at 1st level.
|
I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.
but how many tables did they "ruin" before getting their just rewards? Hopefully none, but I've seen too many table's fun reduced because one (or more) player/s character is soo much more combat effective than the rest that most of the players don't even get to act. There is nothing wrong with building an uber-optimized combat monster, but for pete's sake, let everyone else play too.
I have an optimized barbarian/druid/cleric of Gozreh. Between his two-handed weapon, combat feats, rage, swift growth, and an animal companion, he can tear up most encounters, but, I usually spend 2-3 rounds buffing. I also play the animal companion on its own initiative so there are times when it looses its first action because I have not commanded it to do anything yet (and that's just fine with me). It just stays in self-preservation mode.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.but how many tables did they "ruin" before getting their just rewards?
Don't worry, I got 'em at first level. ;)
|
|
Not just shoddy roleplaying, I just don't think three 7s should be legal. It's turning your character into a pillbox in this case, so they can dominate combats. In PFS, this is not necessary.
Almost all Fighter archers dump Int/Wis/Chr. If they don't they're likely dumping Con or some of their damage output. A lot of archers have average Con (10-12). Rangers and Zen Archers dump 2 stats. This surprises veteran GMs? (Maybe I'm just more nosy and check character sheets).
I TPK'd my family once, largely because one of my brothers (who also made his wife's character) thought it best to bring a caster's primary stat to 20 at level 1 and disregard physical stats. The 20CHA/8DEX oracle didn't even slow the BBEG down, and his wife's 20INT/8CON wizard wasn't even a speed bump.
Do you really think that +2 AC or +2 hit points at 1st level would have made the difference? Sounds like they didn't have good martial support, casters aren't the best at low levels.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why not be more well rounded and *gasp* have a 16 dex instead of 18? I always thought that the diminishing returns of pouring in points to high stats would discourage it, but no, it doesn't.
If a group of Jackpots (that is, characters with triple 7s) is generally succeeding, then one of the following is happening:
1) They're getting very lucky in that they're playing scenarios that can be "beaten" through sheer combat power,
2) They're getting very lucky (or have coordinated well) by always having someone else at the table to handle NPC interactions and whatnot, or
3) The GM is inappropriately hand-waving success conditions for non-combat endeavors that are supposed to have serious consequences for failure and can't be solved with brute force.
In any case, the players have done nothing wrong, as long as they're pleasant at the table. Campaign management could have banned that type of build, but hasn't. Of the millions of possible PCs allowed in the campaign, they picked ones that they liked. That's not a bad thing.
For myself, the more I play, the more I appreciate well-rounded PCs. My next one will have (pre-racial) stats of 14/14/13/13/12/12, for crying out loud. That someone else would choose otherwise is fine, though.
Now, if they're somehow skipping out on the consequences of having Jackpot stats (like, apparently, never needing to succeed on a skill check, ever), then THAT is a problem. But that's on the GM's end, not the players'. It's not like the GM is asking for a skill check and the players are just refusing and insisting on getting the reward anyway.
|
I think that it's a combination of factors. For example, the one guys plays in a play group that doesn't enforce -4 from team members for cover. So he's had improved precise since level 1. Additionally, the hand-waiving is likely happening since his fame total indicates that he has *never* failed a prestige mission.
I like the term "jackpot" character :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it's a combination of factors. For example, the one guys plays in a play group that doesn't enforce -4 from team members for cover. So he's had improved precise since level 1. Additionally, the hand-waiving is likely happening since his fame total indicates that he has *never* failed a prestige mission.
Sounds like that's the problem, then. You might want to (politely) confront the GM about running sanctioned games by the rules. Houserules (like removing cover) are for home games, not organized play.
I like the term "jackpot" character :)
Glad you like it! I just thought of it while writing that post. It's the little things, you know? :D
|
|
Sounds like that's the problem, then. You might want to (politely) confront the GM about running sanctioned games by the rules. Houserules (like removing cover) are for home games, not organized play.
FYI, lots of GMs overlook this, and I'm talking about VCs and VLs you'd meet at Gencon. I've actually not seen this enforced a single time. (Well, one player self enforced, but it was with a polearm).
These GMs are not cheating, they either don't know the rule, aren't enforcing it, or depending on the player to enforce it (which in my experience, doesn't always happen unless reminded).
Another thing I commonly see is that spellcasters aren't taking the -4 penalty for shooting into combat (with a ranged touched attack like Scorching Ray) when they don't have Precise Shot. Makes a huge difference and most GMs don't ask the question/check and let it go.
Like in life, specialized PCs are often a lot more effective than non-specialized PCs, this is why they can "wreck" scenarios. Anyway, this thread has already been derailed enough.
|
|
...You just have to do the best you can...bring your own party! The kind with confetti. Not the other kind. *ahem* VC announcement voice: You are not permitted to bring four of your own characters to a Pathfinder Society game.
But if you bring four of your own characters, the GM can shred them to make confetti!
Seriously, Nani, that is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time. Thanks for sharing!
|
On the topic of Storming the Diamond Gate, I have to sorta scratch my head and wonder just what ultimate storm of suckitude must've formed to culminate in that player having such a lackluster experience in that scenario.
I had the ultimate pleasure of playing under Myron for that scenario, and I can say I'm pretty sure the table had a blast. (that terrain was bloody terrific)
Yes. The scenario is a bit railroady, but that's because you go in, and there's only so many options and directions you have to be able to go in. I mean, when it equates to what is essentially a (highly entertaining) dungeon crawl, there's only so many doors to open before you're taking the only path available.
Now, I can see where there may be complaints about a lack of roleplaying opportunity with what's written in the scenario. On the other hand, what's written in the scenario shouldn't dictate just how much RP is available. For example, we had a party that was half comprised of tieflings. A witch, a rogue, and the most supremely flamboyant dandy around (a Fighter/Monk/Magus). The rogue and the dandy were at each other's throats the entire time, leading to some rather amusing antics. The gnome alchemist kept trying to set everything on fire.
The the final fight was challenging, but I thought it was an absolute scream.
The thing is, a scenario is what you make of it. Even one that's poorly written (not that this was! It was awesome!) in the opinions of players or GMs can be made to be fun based on who you're playing with. At a con, it's like a bag of mixed nuts. You may get lucky with a handful and get delicious walnuts, tasty hazelnuts, and nom-worthy almonds. Or you might get a handful of cashews and brazilnuts causing an allergic reaction of doom.
You can't please everyone, but the direction and fun-times of PFS shouldn't be judged by a single scenario, especially if you didn't have a fun experience in just that one scenario.
I, on the other hand, did. Thanks a heap Myron, it was awesome!
|
|
@Jiggy & David: A party of all Jackpot PCs could actually be awesome for both combat and non-combat, since a Jackpot Bard and Wizard would have most skill challenges covered, while the Jackpot Fighter and Rogue would tend to chew through the combats, especially with Bardic support and the Wizard's AoEs.
On the -4 to hit from not having Precise Shot when doing a ranged attack into melee; and the +4 to the defender's AC when using ranged and reach attacks, both rules seem to be fairly universally followed here in Vegas-land. I may have to claim, "Mea Culpa!", for it, though; since I was the major archer player out here for some time....
And I am at 28 tables of GM credit, 29 once Perry inputs July's Game Day tables. One more table to my second star. Finally!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
3) The GM is inappropriately hand-waving success conditions for non-combat endeavors that are supposed to have serious consequences for failure and can't be solved with brute force.
I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.
This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.
I guess in summary, I blame the (not as rare as it should be) existence of jackpot characters squarely on PFS GMs.
*please don't read this as GMs should be "against" PCs. They shouldn't, but they equally shouldn't be "for" the PCs. GMs are there to narrate at story driven by the PCs and to make sure the players are having fun within the boundaries laid by PFRPG and the Society.
|
|
This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.
Hopefully the point system is simple to master--I remember at the Grand Melee at Paizocon 2011, the point system was confusing enough that one of the GMs heard the winning table's score and called out "How is that even a possible score?" after which a discussion ensued that proved the GM of the winning table correct, even though many of the other GMs had read it differently and their players were gone by the time the winning table ended.
Based on how close these things can be, I have the feeling that an unfortunate amount of honest mistakes combined with GM coddling level (it goes both ways--a GM who reads your post and goes super hardline on points will have the opposite effect) will make the decisions, but that's just a fact of life for these big complex events.
I know one year at Iron Player, through whatever arcane hidden point mechanism they used, a GM who is among the worst I have seen in my entire life won a prize for best GM in contest, even though our table rated him as being abysmal.
|
|
3) The GM is inappropriately hand-waving success conditions for non-combat endeavors that are supposed to have serious consequences for failure and can't be solved with brute force.I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.
This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.
I guess in summary, I blame the (not as rare as it should be) existence of jackpot characters squarely on PFS GMs.
*please don't read this as GMs should be "against" PCs. They shouldn't, but they equally shouldn't be "for" the PCs. GMs are there to narrate at story driven by the PCs and to make sure the players are having fun within the boundaries laid by PFRPG and the Society.
I've noticed this as well, but thankfully it seems to be pretty uncommon where I game. Very few GMs hand out the goodies like candy, though I have noticed some players that get pretty upset when they fail their faction mission or don't get all the gold for a scenario (or complain about the cost of a raise).
Heck, I, myself, am guilty of being an entitled little snot from time to time, though I am trying very hard not to do that. I mean, just because I'm irritated at losing a prestige point over a single pass/fail dice roll, doesn't mean I need it to be handed to me on a silver platter. Sure, I may try to sucker... err... ask a friend to let me borrow their shirt reroll for the day, but if I can't get the point it's not the end of the world. It's just irritating.
That being said, my irritation is not grounds for a GM to softball things. Success is all that much more enjoyable when you know the bitter taste of failure. Like the awful burnt taste of Starshmucks coffee.
Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible.
|
|
Once Perry...Kinevon,
I apologize, I put in the incorrect society number for you. I have corrected the number for July; please let me know if you are displaying proper credit.
-Perry
Not a problem, Perry. I just thought the report sheets hadn't reached you, yet.
All my credit is good, now, other than a couple of games you weren't involved in.
29 tables of GM credit, and counting...
Which reminds me, I have been delayed responding to your note because of various real worlkd issues, but you should be hearing from me shortly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still a firm believer that authors can do a better job of giving both GMs and players options within a scenario to experience their preferred choice. When I wrote Rats 1 I put in encounters that allow players to try to talk their way through fights, but if the players want to kill stuff, they can. The NPCs have roughly average tactics, but also have consumables or spells or abilities that allow them to react to especially difficult PCs should they need to.
One of the reasons I absolutely love Daigle and Fortune's Blight is because it was the first time PCs are actually told what they're going up against and allowed to come up with their own ideas and solutions for how to deal with it. The ways the PCs deal with the Hag (not really a spoiler) has been amazing and hilarious.
The best thing we can do is empower the players to come up with their own methods and reward/penalize accordingly. The worst thing we can do is drop the PCs in a small room and auto-attack them with the NPC.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have found an inappropriate number of GMs who simply can't stand to see PCs fail at anything. Happiness doesn't always equal success. Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible. I remember a player retiring a character because he had a negative boon. I remember a player not getting a character raised because it would put his character too far behind the wealth curve.
This type of behavior from players and the GMs that coddle them has me worried for Race for the Runecarved Key. All I can hope is that GMs don't feel the need to try to advance their table to Part 2. There are literally dozens of opportunities to gain points in Part 1. I'm expecting that some GMs out there won't bother to deduct points when the scenario dictates they must.
Oh! oh! I'm a girl! Pick me to be your GM for Race to the Runecarved Key! The nice lady GM surely would go really easy on you, and never do anything horrible to you, or deduct points ruthlessly, and would never kill anyone! Pick me!
|
|
About everything!!!
I am equally enthusiastic about killing PCs as I am about not killing PCs. Additionally, I am also enthusiastic about threatening to kill players in a humorous fashion, keeping my players continually guessing as to my true intentions, pushing them to play their best under percieved threats, while guaranteeing an optimally enjoyable play experience. I am also enthusiastic about run-on sentences.
I am a nondiscriminatory equal opportunity enthusiast! YAY!
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Enthusiastic About everything!!!I hope I get you as a GM for RftRCK, Nani. :-)
I want a GM who is enthusiastic about GMing (as I'm sure we all do). I'd gladly have Kyle as a GM too, he's going to be very enthusiastic (about killing characters!)
Nah, I think he's going to be enthusiastically focused on killing Joseph Caubo's cleric...
I'm still a firm believer that authors can do a better job of giving both GMs and players options within a scenario to experience their preferred choice.
[..]
The best thing we can do is empower the players to come up with their own methods and reward/penalize accordingly. The worst thing we can do is drop the PCs in a small room and auto-attack them with the NPC.
I can't argue with that. I can argue with this, though:
Unfortunately I see that trend going in the US, where people can't be happy unless they're always rewarded every gold star possible.
I think that's a perfectly valid way to play and I don't think it's an unfortunate trend at all.
Am I hearing you to say "it's perfectly valid to want to succeed at all the parts of all the scenarios and not be happy unless you do?"
Just checking.
Sure. And you'd probably be perfectly happy playing some of the easier scenarios from earlier seasons.
I don't believe in "Bad Wrong Fun".
|
|
This is fostering a two class society in PFS - those of us who got the coveted "GenCon Fivespice Cookie Bars" and those of us who have to adventure without!
I find the tears of your anguish delicious. I'll be thinking of you as I eat all the tasty goodies provided by the all the baking ladies of PFS at Gen Con.
:D