Advice Against Mix-Maxed Character


Advice

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my current campaign there's two min-maxed players in the party, currently at level 11, both with Dexterity based combat builds, ones a swashbuckler and the other is a Weapon Adept Monk, both have focused on a combination of high dexterity, combined with a race that is a modified Strix (mainly they're small creatures now and a base speed of 50 feet, as well as gliding abilities. Combined with their use of teamwork feats, one of them is able to constantly roll crits (though damage is relatively low at 15-20 damage per attack), while the other one is a straight up high damage dealer, usually putting out 20-35 damage per attack, with AC above 25 (27 on the swashbuckler, 35 on the monk) and attack bonus of at least +21 on their first attacks

Suffice to say I decided to be mildly stupid and multiclassed, using a combination of a modified 3.5 Warblade, Arcane Duelist, and currently prestige classing as a Low Templar, with a Warg as a mount. My AC is still lower than either of the other two players, my damage is 15-20 usually per attack, and they can outmaneuver me on top of beat me on skill rolls. My spells cant hold them down usually since their saves are good enough to beat them most of the time, and at this rate the only reason I am not at a disadvantage is alot of smart roleplaying and now being a member of a Templar Order.

It's gotten to the point where the GM is trying to find ways to get me on an even playing field with them because he can easily see them abusing their builds against the party if they decided to, especially because both players are Chaotic Good and my goal is to fall to Lawful Evil before working my way back to Lawful Good, which could be cut short if the two decided I need to be killed. The other party members aren't much help because one is a monk that really just sneaks around stealing stuff and the other is a rogue thats too busy running away from everyone to be of much use.

In short/aka TL, DR; anyone have any suggestions to cut down Dex-based combat characters with good saves (roughly +8-+10 on all three) down to size either with my character or through use of roleplaying? Some suggestions the GM's given is unleash spiders on them in an ambush or use ranged attacks with poison aimed at Strength and Constitution. Anyone got better ideas than that?

Sczarni

22 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait... you're trying to find a way to kill your fellow player's because they're stronger than you and the GM is in on it? o_o


set tihng to be in your favor.
get improved invisability before you even start the fight,set up strong wind effect taht will blow them out of your way(small + wings are moe effected by wind then non wing\non small)try to set the attack when they are allraedy fighting something hard.try to get some tings that do fear or nausated effect, some of them automaticly inflict shaken and sicken on saves(both lower saves).summon BIG and powerfull things to fight them instead (or touch attacking things like shadows. which are very usfull vs some1 with low str anyway) frame them for murder\treason and let the king\baron army to deal with them.try csting slow .it is hellish for melees.and only after all this and more. go for the kill(remmber to still be invisible).(if you can get it go for negtive enery spells like enversion that only need to touch armor)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Carla the Profane wrote:
Wait... you're trying to find a way to kill your fellow player's because they're stronger than you and the GM is in on it? o_o

Yeah, I agree totally with the tone here.

This situation sounds very powder-keggy, between a kleptomaniac, a coward, your planning-to-fall-to-Evil character and 2 CGs.

From my experience, your game is so far out of the norm that it's going to be tricky to find people that can offer any advice. I mean, it's designed to be a cooperative game, and if the DM and a player are plotting to kill two characters behind everyone else's backs while the other two characters dance around, then...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like two guys made team players and the othe three made solo heroes. I suggest you join the team.
We cannot know how your multiclass build matures with a few more levels, but it sounds like it Can be ok depending on all the house rules you guys seem to be using. I dont Think the "min maxers" Sound very min maxed, at least we just know they put out decent numbers but a level 11 swashbuckler have 1d4 and some bonuses(dex to damage pehaps 6 level to damage 11 weapon training 2, weapon spec 2 a magic fencing stick 3) pehaps the acid gloves and flaming on the rapier. That is not very min maxed.
If you post your build and plan i Will be pleased to suggest how to make it better.
T
But i really Think this one should be taken OOG if the GM is in on it.
TL,DR. Join the team instead of being a sulky solo hero. And if they is not possible post your build and we Can help you.


23 people marked this as a favorite.
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In my current campaign there's two min-maxed players in the party, currently at level 11, both with Dexterity based combat builds, ones a swashbuckler and the other is a Weapon Adept Monk...

Whoah, whoah, whoah, I'm going to have to stop you right there. Those are not min-maxed characters. Those are two of the worst classes in the game--like, easily bottom five. These sound like people who managed to make terrible classes pretty decent, which should be applauded, not hated and plotted against.

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Suffice to say I decided to be mildly stupid and multiclassed, using a combination of a modified 3.5 Warblade, Arcane Duelist, and currently prestige classing as a Low Templar, with a Warg as a mount.

What the heck? If you're allowed Warblade and you have some caster, why didn't you go Jade Phoenix Mage (I love and miss that prestige class)? And where are you getting a mount? I...just don't understand where you're going with this at all.

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
My AC is still lower than either of the other two players, my damage is 15-20 usually per attack, and they can outmaneuver me on top of beat me on skill rolls.

15-20 damage per hit at level 11 is really sad. A level 1 full BAB class with 18 Strength and a Greatsword is dropping 2d6+9 with power attack (16 average)--if you're doing level 1 damage at level 11, maybe stop blaming the "min-maxers" making crappy classes useful and reconsider your own choices?

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
My spells cant hold them down usually

Wait, what? This is a PvP game?

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
It's gotten to the point where the GM is trying to find ways to get me on an even playing field with them because he can easily see them abusing their builds against the party if they decided to, especially because both players are Chaotic Good and my goal is to fall to Lawful Evil before working my way back to Lawful Good, which could be cut short if the two decided I need to be killed.

Uh, so, they players that made the best of bad builds are also playing by the normal assumptions of the game (i.e. that they'll be good and work together with their team), but that's bad because you want to script out an alignment fall/redemption storyline ahead of time? Huh?

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In short/aka TL, DR; anyone have any suggestions to cut down Dex-based combat characters with good saves...

I just can't even...this thread feels insane.

Normally, you cut them down by having, you know, normal CR 11-14 enemies, because this party has zero magical support to deal with basic threats. In general, something like an Ooze would wreck a swashbuckler (and the monk, too, if it had some kind of damage shield effect), but, yeah, anything that could kill those two would laugh at you and the other two members of the party (a multi-class nightmare and two other members of the bottom 5 classes). This game sounds like a disaster. The only thing that could be worse was if it was play by post. Wow.

Scarab Sages

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Wu Nakitu wrote:
Carla the Profane wrote:
Wait... you're trying to find a way to kill your fellow player's because they're stronger than you and the GM is in on it? o_o

Yeah, I agree totally with the tone here.

This situation sounds very powder-keggy, between a kleptomaniac, a coward, your planning-to-fall-to-Evil character and 2 CGs.

From my experience, your game is so far out of the norm that it's going to be tricky to find people that can offer any advice. I mean, it's designed to be a cooperative game, and if the DM and a player are plotting to kill two characters behind everyone else's backs while the other two characters dance around, then...

I'm gonna jump on the "woah dude" bandwagon too. This dynamic is really... different.

You're afraid they'll kill you before you can complete your desired roleplaying arc, so you're going to kill them?

And the GM is afraid of them potentially abusing the party, so he's going to help you to actually abuse the party (they are members of the party too)?

Are you friends with these people?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rx2c?Advice-on-Party-Integration-and#13

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah... At the risk of these comments becoming white noise, I'm going to go ahead and join all the reasonable people in saying this whole thing sounds like a train wreck... Betraying and attacking fellow party members if that wasn't an established possibility from the beginning of the campaign is a jerk move (at best) and the fact the your GM is in on it is super messed up. Im assuming he/she is really more friends with you than the other gamers? Or maybe a significant other who feels like they have to indulge this nonsense in order to avoid some childish fit? The scenario you're describing sounds like a great way to destroy your group.

If you want to follow this fallen/redemption plotline, instead of trying to overpower the other players so that they are forced to indulge your desire to play a character whose alignment is literally the opposite of theirs maybe you could just have your character leave for a while... You fall and then flee, make a more reasonable character to play with the party for a while, and talk to the GM about getting together one on one to play through the plotline until you can return to the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyone else read these posts and have a nice chuckle about posters transposing "player" and "character"?

... I mean, at least I am HOPING they are transposing it. ;) Otherwise it might make some of the statements awkward or worse.

Like: "In my current campaign there's two min-maxed players in the party".
Heh... I am also a min-maxed player.

Or: "both players are Chaotic Good and my goal is to fall to Lawful Evil before working my way back to Lawful Good"
Personally, I find that I drift more towards Neutral Good. I don't want to lose any class abilities by changing alignment so I try to keep my alignment right around there.

Or: "Wait... you're trying to find a way to kill your fellow player's because they're stronger than you and the GM is in on it? o_o"
Hang on... did he just... are we talking about real life murder here?!


Wait a sec... the OP just posted this in the other thread:

Quote:
Well for a status update, I did talk to my GM, and he has accepted the no PvP rule without player permission to stick...

Doesn't that make this thread a non-issue?


Lune wrote:

Wait a sec... the OP just posted this in the other thread:

Quote:
Well for a status update, I did talk to my GM, and he has accepted the no PvP rule without player permission to stick...
Doesn't that make this thread a non-issue?

Isn't that thread coming up on three months old?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you want to kill their characters because you're annoyed at how powerful they are, then you should rethink your plans.

If you want to kill their characters because you don't want them to interfere with the progress you have planned for your character's story arc, then have you considered actually just talking to the players outside the game and out of character? If you approach them like, "Hey, guys, I really want my character to fall to Lawful Evil and it will be cool because [reasons]. Once we've explored that, my plan is for him to return to Lawful Good. Can we work out a way for him to do that without the whole party turning against each other?"

I mean, the game sometimes is thought of as collaborative story telling. So, you know, *collaborate*.


Where did that universal response thread go that we can just link to him? You know... the one that says something like: Step 1: Have an adult conversation with the other players/GM.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In my current campaign there's two min-maxed players in the party, currently at level 11, both with Dexterity based combat builds, ones a swashbuckler and the other is a Weapon Adept Monk...
Whoah, whoah, whoah, I'm going to have to stop you right there. Those are not min-maxed characters. Those are two of the worst classes in the game--like, easily bottom five. These sound like people who managed to make terrible classes pretty decent, which should be applauded, not hated and plotted against.
I have to agree with mplindustries here. You're complaining because someone picked a bad class, then made it viable. It is like when someone complains that the Rogue or Ninja is really good on surprise rounds or if they go first after a charge and get 3 - 7 sneak attacks to instantly murderize the big threat before the first round of combat, then vanish and run away.
mplindustries wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Suffice to say I decided to be mildly stupid and multiclassed, using a combination of a modified 3.5 Warblade, Arcane Duelist, and currently prestige classing as a Low Templar, with a Warg as a mount.
What the heck? If you're allowed Warblade and you have some caster, why didn't you go Jade Phoenix Mage (I love and miss that prestige class)? And where are you getting a mount? I...just don't understand where you're going with this at all.

So let me get this right, you made a crap build and are now upset that two other people made passable or, dare I say, good builds? This isn't an excuse to try and kill their characters. Your GM can easily implement things that will counter or marginalize them.

Believe it or not there are monsters that annihilate casters. Monsters that martials don't have a prayer against.
The entire reason there are four characters in the iconic party is that each of them handle threats in a specific manner. Wizards blow them up, Clerics dominate them with magic, rogues slit their throats and fighters punch them to death. Your problem is that you more or less have 5 people who punch things to death or slit their throats. This basically means that you're part of a hierarchy of efficiency, the two CG characters you have animosity against being at the top, you probably at the middle and the other two at the bottom.
My advice is to scrap your current character to fill one of the other two required roles. If you play a healer you can fill a powerful role. If you want to have the the fall and redemption story the Witch is a powerful class for this, but so is the Shaman.
mplindustries wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
My AC is still lower than either of the other two players, my damage is 15-20 usually per attack, and they can outmaneuver me on top of beat me on skill rolls.
15-20 damage per hit at level 11 is really sad. A level 1 full BAB class with 18 Strength and a Greatsword is dropping 2d6+9 with power attack (16 average)--if you're doing level 1 damage at level 11, maybe stop blaming the "min-maxers" making crappy classes useful and reconsider your own choices?

It is extremely easy to make a useful character. By level 11 martials should be falling by the wayside with hybrids replacing them, and by now full casters should be coming into their own to more or less make non-casters a formality that is more or less required to breach rooms. I also hate to break it to you guys, but my level 4 Atomie Ninja is out damaging your characters and could probably solo the party one by one by charge ambushing on the surprise round, then TWF on the first round before you act to get sneak attack on all three of the attacks to likely kill your chars.

Pathfinder is more about efficiency of build. If you want to make a poorly optimized "roleplay" build then you should be allowed to retrain as your character changes to fit its new optimizations if you need to in order to be optimal.
mplindustries wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
My spells cant hold them down usually
Wait, what? This is a PvP game?
You know that your spells cannot hold down these guys, how, exactly? Did you just decide to spam hold-person on them during a fight? You shouldn't be fighting your allies. Also, as the Lawful character you should be the one being harassed by the CGs, not the other way around. CGs throw wrenches in LGs well laid plans because they tend to be free-spirited, impatient and impulsive.
mplindustries wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
It's gotten to the point where the GM is trying to find ways to get me on an even playing field with them because he can easily see them abusing their builds against the party if they decided to, especially because both players are Chaotic Good and my goal is to fall to Lawful Evil before working my way back to Lawful Good, which could be cut short if the two decided I need to be killed.
Uh, so, they players that made the best of bad builds are also playing by the normal assumptions of the game (i.e. that they'll be good and work together with their team), but that's bad because you want to script out an alignment fall/redemption storyline ahead of time? Huh?
It is really easy to for the GM to stop people from "using their builds against the party." It is to say, "No. This guy is your companion. You will not attack him unless you observe him doing something you find morally objectionable and refuses to stop when you demand he stop." The same rules apply to good and neutral characters that apply to evil characters, e.g. you don't attack your allies. Full stop. This might sound like overkill to some of our more experience or mature members, but it really sounds like your GM and party is full of people who are quite inexperienced.
mplindustries wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In short/aka TL, DR; anyone have any suggestions to cut down Dex-based combat characters with good saves...

I just can't even...this thread feels insane.

Normally, you cut them down by having, you know, normal CR 11-14 enemies, because this party has zero magical support to deal with basic threats. In general, something like an Ooze would wreck a swashbuckler (and the monk, too, if it had some kind of damage shield effect), but, yeah, anything that could kill those two would laugh at you and the other two members of the party (a multi-class nightmare and two other members of the bottom 5 classes). This game sounds like a disaster. The only thing that could be worse was if it was play by post. Wow.

MPLIndustries is pretty much spot on. Your party is a cluster. You made some mistakes, and now you're trying to blame other people for your mistakes by complaining about their "efficient" builds. However, in reality a well build ambush character would kill you all with no problems.

If you want to kill the other players' characters, take watch, pull out a great axe and coup de grace them. Just be prepared for the alignment shift, the loss of camaraderie at the table and the two people whose characters you just murdered not having a particular liking of you.


MartialPlayer603 wrote:
In short/aka TL, DR; anyone have any suggestions to cut down Dex-based combat characters with good saves (roughly +8-+10 on all three) down to size either with my character or through use of roleplaying? Some suggestions the GM's given is unleash spiders on them in an ambush or use ranged attacks with poison aimed at Strength and Constitution. Anyone got better ideas than that?

Wanna be evil? Or wanna be Evil?

Well, if its the latter, just slit their throats in their sleep when you have the next Neightwatch duty when traveling.
Simple as that.

...

But if the root of you getting mopy is because your strange "sounds-like-a-crippling-multiclassing-trainwreck" of a character gets outshined in the fighting competence department by just average builds, then the solution is to get over the DPS envy and try to treat the real reason.
Which is not that their characters are "min-maxed" overgods, but rather that your charcter sounds objectively weak.

Also you sound to have a bad out-of-game group dynamic going. Trying to solve this in-game might easily tear your gameing group apart.

Liberty's Edge

Without heavily optimizing yourself you're never going to keep up with dex-abusing characters. If you want to beat them, join them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Feral wrote:
Without heavily optimizing yourself you're never going to keep up with dex-abusing characters. If you want to beat them, join them.

Well, unless you're a Str "abusing" character because Str characters do more damage.

1x Dex + 1x Power Attack/Piranha Strike (maybe, if they invested in the 13 Str or use light weapons) <<<<< 1.5x Str + 1.5x Power Attack.

They might have a higher AC than you (though you have the option of having a decent Dex and Heavy Armor yourself, which makes that about even in some cases), and definitely better Ref saves, but on the whole Dex characters are spending Feats to be good, not the best, and will never trump you in damage (though a Swashbuckler or Daring Champion can often MATCH you, with Precise Strike).

As for the OP...grow up, kid.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no idea what is going on in this thread, but I am too disgusted to look away.

I need popcorn. It's storytime.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I sincerely hope this is a troll post, cause lord help the OP if he honestly thinks the characters hes describing are minmaxed, when minimally competent would be the words I would choose.


Soooo ... you are sad that your character can't outdamage and outperform two other characters in the group.

And your solution is to kill them.

I'd seriously hate to be your mechanic, when your car breaks down.

If you want your character to turn evil, slit their throats while they sleep, and lean back and enjoy your short-lived victory as your game group disintegrates.

Your main issue seems to be a colossal case of performance-angst, and you need to get over yourself. If your character gets offed by his teammates for going evil, then so be it. You're the one who is taking the character in an evil direction.

Deal with the consequences.

Causality sucks but it's a thing nonetheless.

You can prepare for what you believe is coming, and yes, you can try to kill off your comrades in a preemptive strike, but for the GM to be anything but a completely neutral force in that is deeply disturbing. Your group sounds about as dysfunctional as the Bundys of Married with Children-fame.

I'm not going to lay the blame at your feet for planning ahead for something you think is coming, like so many others do, but I AM going to take umbrage with a GM who thinks it's his job to level the playing field. That's YOUR job. If you can't level the playing field, you deal with the consequences.

However it plays out, I think your game group is living on borrowed time. It genuinely sounds like only two of the players have understood the cooperative aspect of the game, while everyone else, INCLUDING the GM, thinks it's about winning.

By a hard hat and some fire-retardant clothing, would be my suggestion ... your group is about to crash and burn if this is how things work.


The Alkenstarian wrote:
By a hard hat and some fire-retardant clothing, would be my suggestion ... your group is about to crash and burn if this is how things work.

This is a fair prediction.

The GM's duty is not to level the playing field, aside from to build content that reminds the party that they have flaws.
If the party has too many witches and wizards, then including golems is a fantastic fix to some of that issue. Hell, higher end content ~should~ have things that keep the dedicated martials relevant.

Leveling the playing field against other PCs when he doesn't need to, however, is wrong since it is unfair to the people on the receiving end of punishment.

My advice is to have someone else GM for a while.

One of two things happen when someone dies from PvP encounters either:
1) They accept that they lost in a fight against someone else, and then make a new character.

2) "Go have intercourse with yourself and your little dog, too!" The player(s) leave the group or make "player killer" characters specifically designed as revenge characters. These characters are usually chaotic evil to justify murdering people for no reason, and then proceed to kill the "offending" player's characters repeatedly until said player leaves, the GM intervenes or the players of the chaotic evil characters think the offending player has been punished enough.

It sounds like you're going to end up with option 2. This will be the end of your group. Honestly, if I was your GM everyone who wasn't the two guys working as a team would be getting ganked.
The monk sneaks off to pick peoples' pockets, after he does this enough, say 10 - 20 times (or 10 + 1d10 times for fairness) his alignment shifts to neutral and he takes all of the consequences of BREAKING THE LAW AND CREATING CHAOS. He would then likely get jumped by a band of local rogues, since the thieves guild doesn't take lightly to someone stealing on their ground. People like to say, "Rogues suck," but they only suck because there is less than two of them at a time.

It sort of sounds like your GM has made the world too friendly. It is supposed to be, you sneak off. You encounter something designed for the group to fight. You die horribly unless you have some sort of means by which to avoid death. Potentially reroll.
Example: the Wizard (of all things) wanders off. He encounters a golem. He fails his Knowledge: Arcane check and decides that Scorching Ray will totally be effective. The golem turns out to, in fact as a golem, be immune to magic. Wizard gets grappled. Wizard fails to cast a spell to try and save himself, because golems have surprisingly good CMD, and gets pinned. Now the Wizard dies horribly in agonized screams as his skull is pounded into a fine paste.

Some time later the party stumbles upon the dead wizard and a blood soaked statue that, upon them entering the room lurches to life, and ,because it is most of the party, they destroy it while the late wizard's character grumbles about GM BS.

Just to point this out, as well, people have an uncanny ability to accidentally identify with characters they have made for games, especially if they enjoy these characters. If you kill the Monk and Swashbuckler's characters it could cost you friends. I have seen it happen.

If you want to do your fall and redemption plot, then when your character falls, and therefore becomes incompatible with the group, roll up another character, potentially lawful good or something, who is purpose designed to help redeem your previous character. When he becomes neutral again, have your new character become an NPC and switch back to your redemption character now that he is, you know, redeemed.

There are many ways in which you could fit this into the game. You are just choosing to do it in jerk ways by punishing other people for your decisions. If I decided that I wanted to make a law hating chaotic neutral druid, I'm not going to go out of my way to get the lawful characters killed just because they don't support my vision of a natural and chaotic world. The idea is idiotic.

What you are basically suggesting is that because the CGs do not fit your vision and threaten your desired storyline, you want to off them. These characters are not NPCs, they are not side characters, they are the hand-made characters of two other people that you are more than willing to wipe yourself with just because they are getting in your way.

Have you ever considered, oh—I don't know—telling them what you plan on doing and discussing how to make the characters compatible? Maybe he begrudgingly goes along with them while secretly undermining something else. Perhaps he is their heroic psychopath—he is ok, so long as he is their psychopath that they can reign in.— The point is that this all boils down to communication and the rule of "Yes, and...." not being followed.

I played a game that had a LG, CG, LE and CE character in a party together. They all hated one another, bitter arguments between characters about what decisions we should make ensued on a regular basis. However, one thing was quite clear: our characters were arguing with each other, not us. Every session was a sitcom of drama with suspicions aimed at everyone else because each of the characters were either not trustworthy or trying to make sure no one was doing anything they didn't approve of.

If you want to do a redemption story, you want this kind of drama, because I can guarantee you that your character's life expectancy after murdering these two guys characters is going to drop to 0% when they make their characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Alkenstarian wrote:
... [The OPs] group sounds about as dysfunctional as the Bundys of Married with Children-fame.

The Bundys got along a LOT better than this group. Sure, they bickered, had their small rivalries and so on - but when things got serious they backed each other's plays.


Turin the Mad wrote:
The Bundys got along a LOT better than this group. Sure, they bickered, had their small rivalries and so on - but when things got serious they backed each other's plays.

You know ... you're right. I stand corrected. That RP group is worse than the Bundys. I acknowledge it.


The Alkenstarian wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
The Bundys got along a LOT better than this group. Sure, they bickered, had their small rivalries and so on - but when things got serious they backed each other's plays.
You know ... you're right. I stand corrected. That RP group is worse than the Bundys. I acknowledge it.

This is...actually rather depressing.


Whoa, I leave the forums for two months and I read all this and realize I phrased this whole thing in a manner that came out entirely different from what I wanted to asked.

(*Deep breath/face palm at my own inability to phrase my question for advice*)

Okay, some clarifications. Note: I sincerely apologize for the TL;DR that will follow.

First, this isn't an outright "kill two party members" plan, its a contingency plan for if the two players decide to turn against the party in the name of money because if such a thing were to occur the rest of the group is kinda screwed. I have discussed this with the two players and they say they're fine with it because due to the powder-keg of a party we have it makes perfect for them to take that course of action if the party becomes too divisive.

Another thing is due to the campaign magic is limited, with divine magic being completely gone (and is the focus for the campaign since the party is trying to find out why and fix this issue), and arcane magic is limited (meaning most magic we deal with is against boss enemies)

A correction I should've made is the party is composed of this: (now level 13)

Weapon Adept Monk that has such high AC/saves that so far the GM has nothing in any encounters that has broken it yet (on the flip side, he has the second smallest health pool of the party), who's goal is literally engineering checks and works on helping their (in-game) sister continue making crits. I've talked to him and due to a combination of bad choices by (in-game) sister he hasn't been too much help in the past two encounters due to being stuck working on the airship the party uses while the rest of the party is caught in a fight. No longer an issue.

Swashbuckler (aka the sister to the monk) that has good AC/good saves that is focused on being able to constantly hit and do damage to their target with an expanded crit range rapier. Ironically the problem now isn't so much with combat as it is not out of combat. In game the swashbuckler is captain of the ship and honestly I dont know if its the player of the character now that is having a power trip and constantly making in game choices solely on how well they can make alot of money rather than the plot, as well as threatening to boot my character and another character off for not being on board with that train of thought. Also as a side effect because of above situation with the monk every time she takes damage she immediately flee's rather than continuing to fight to help the party (even though she has the third largest health pool in the party, right behind the two tanks)

Rogue who mostly pilots the ship and helps the two above characters steal important documents/items to assist them with their goals and literally is along to have some fun and avoid her (in-game) fiance who wants to marry her and use her just to obtain more wealth. Only major issue I've seen is she doesn't do much damage and is slow compared to the monk and swashbuckler so she usually doesn't even get to make an attack before the encounter is over.

NEW GUY: Weird DMPC character that is best characterized as a fighter that is actually a young adult dragon disguised as a human because apparently he was sealed in the body of a human as a curse from an evil arcane user and the rogue has knowledge of a magic item capable of turning him back. Great tank who is convenient at helping make getaways through making mists and the like.

The above characters are controlled by Team Couch (you'll understand what I mean after I finish covering the other characters)

Warblade/Bard/Templar hybrid. Currently working on improving damage and is evening the playing field by now having contacts across the region to help locate enemies and make things more convenient. He also is the unoffical healer/vanguard due to his spells (focused on CLW/Darkness/Blind) and a bag of holding full of healing potions. Not a major issue once I get caught up to speed on dealing a decent amount of damage reliably. Also apparently useful for having a higher fortitude save over everyone else, meaning when others get crippled by magical effects the dragon guy and myself are still standing.

Monk(Assassin idea turned into a monk) made by a heavy roleplayer that wanted a character that was literally an assassin from the Assassins Creed franchise. Surprisingly decent at attacks (does roughly 30-40 damage if she lands all her attacks and rolls in the middle) but unfortunately runs away from fights or gets in over her head (aka she decided it was smart to jump down on a boss enemy and got knocked out form one full attack from boss and only survived because the GM made the attacks all non lethal), and also has the lowest health pool of the party (Even the GM is worried that 64 HP at level 13 is a bit small)

These two characters compose Team Barstool

Now to explain the teams. Literally three players sit on a couch and have one preference for playing the game, the other tow players sit on barstools and have another preference for playing.

The former enjoy constant combat that shows off their combat abilities and doing things for laughs, mostly trolling or watching tons of enemies get turned into corposes, whereas the latter is more into roleplay and mostly enjoy combat when it advances the plot or achieves an objective.

Teamwork has improved, though its mostly in pairs since now fights seem to be a team-up of the monk/swashbuckler, the rogue/fighter, and the warblade/assassin working together as partners. The first pair enjoy self sufficiency and try to take as many kills as possible, the second pair is usually a case of the rogue running away and the latter covering her escape, and the last pair is usually me healing the fighter and dragging the assassin out before she gets herself killed.

IN SUMMARY/ IF YOU DESIRE TO SKIP THE TL;DR: Its improved, but a better question I should ask is whats the best way to deal with two players that always play high-dex builds that dont seem to want help and convince them they do indeed need the rest of the party rather than thinking of themselves?


Another question that could work better is if their is any good way to deal with the fact that the players have two subgroups desiring entirely different things out of the campaign in terms of what they enjoy?


Perhaps you should think about separating into two groups, and then each group can enjoy the play style that it wants? Sounds like you're playing in a very rules-optional, anything goes, only-makes-sense-to-your-group sort of way.

Now my head kind of hurts from reading all of that.


I do sincerely apologize for the TL;DR chunk, but it seemed that some people were, in a logical manner, misinterpreting my poorly written first post on the matter.

And in a way we've separated into two groups, usually with the split being between the two teams, with the only major issue being that the GM has trouble juggling the two groups and keeping them both equally engaged, which is reasonable since theres not much for the other group to do when they decide to take drastically different paths of doing things with differing results (Case in point, Couch is out gathering intel for example, and either they get it and get a bunch of money on the side, or they get it and leave a trail of bodies behind them, whereas Barstool goes for intel that is entirely different or covers a different angle and usually is either they get away unseen or the warblade has to wade into a fight and drag the assassin out from a prickly situation). Usually it only lasts half a session and they get together as a group again.


Well you're worried about making a lawful evil character and how it's going to interact with the chaotic good ones. You are also worried they will sell out and kill for cash.

I put it to you that the wrong person is worried about who would sell out whom for cash.

Problem solved.

For you. For them? Stop looking at them like targets or would be opponents.

Problem solved.

Sovereign Court

MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Combined with their use of teamwork feats, one of them is able to constantly roll crits (though damage is relatively low at 15-20 damage per attack), while the other one is a straight up high damage dealer, usually putting out 20-35 damage per attack, with AC above 25 (27 on the swashbuckler, 35 on the monk) and attack bonus of at least +21 on their first attacks.

None of those things is very impressive on a level 11 character.

My martials have an 27 AC by level 5-7 - and 35 @ 11 is decent - but nothing to write home about, especially for a monk. The monk could easily be into the 40's if he tried hard.

+21 on attacks @ 11 is similarly decent, but unimpressive. +9 BAB (for monk - includes -2 from flurry), +7 stat (not impressive), +1 Weapon Focus, +3 weapon (min - should have higher), +1 small size. It's not very hard to do - far easier for the Swash who gets Weapon Training, Greater Weapon Focus, and +11 BAB.

Basically - it sounds like you have 2 decent characters (monk probably the better of the 2) in a group a badly built ones - and with a homebrew somewhat OP race. (50ft base is far too much)

I'd just ask the GM to allow you to rebuild, and ask those 2 players for tips to be at their level. (Or go grab any of a dozen guides to be considerably better if you'd prefer.) Possibly the GM should allow the other 2 players to rebuild as well.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Combined with their use of teamwork feats, one of them is able to constantly roll crits (though damage is relatively low at 15-20 damage per attack), while the other one is a straight up high damage dealer, usually putting out 20-35 damage per attack, with AC above 25 (27 on the swashbuckler, 35 on the monk) and attack bonus of at least +21 on their first attacks.

None of those things is very impressive on a level 11 character.

My martials have an 27 AC by level 5-7 - and 35 @ 11 is decent - but nothing to write home about, especially for a monk. The monk could easily be into the 40's if he tried hard.

+21 on attacks @ 11 is similarly decent, but unimpressive. +9 BAB (for monk - includes -2 from flurry), +7 stat (not impressive), +1 Weapon Focus, +3 weapon (min - should have higher), +1 small size. It's not very hard to do - far easier for the Swash who gets Weapon Training, Greater Weapon Focus, and +11 BAB.

Basically - it sounds like you have 2 decent characters (monk probably the better of the 2) in a group a badly built ones - and with a homebrew somewhat OP race. (50ft base is far too much)

I'd just ask the GM to allow you to rebuild, and ask those 2 players for tips to be at their level. (Or go grab any of a dozen guides to be considerably better if you'd prefer.) Possibly the GM should allow the other 2 players to rebuild as well.

I'm kinda surprised a +7 stat is not impressive, seeing as we consider normal a +4 on at least two scores considered the normal for our level, and it may be the DM's fault, maybe the players fault, maybe a mix of both, but because of the amount of funds we get only one of us has a +3 weapon at this point, with most of us having an array of +2 weapons.

Though I'm gonna take a look at the rebuild idea, since I have a feeling I need to change out all my feats and adjust my warblade maneuvers in order to build a better character.


MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
MartialPlayer603 wrote:
Combined with their use of teamwork feats, one of them is able to constantly roll crits (though damage is relatively low at 15-20 damage per attack), while the other one is a straight up high damage dealer, usually putting out 20-35 damage per attack, with AC above 25 (27 on the swashbuckler, 35 on the monk) and attack bonus of at least +21 on their first attacks.

None of those things is very impressive on a level 11 character.

My martials have an 27 AC by level 5-7 - and 35 @ 11 is decent - but nothing to write home about, especially for a monk. The monk could easily be into the 40's if he tried hard.

+21 on attacks @ 11 is similarly decent, but unimpressive. +9 BAB (for monk - includes -2 from flurry), +7 stat (not impressive), +1 Weapon Focus, +3 weapon (min - should have higher), +1 small size. It's not very hard to do - far easier for the Swash who gets Weapon Training, Greater Weapon Focus, and +11 BAB.

Basically - it sounds like you have 2 decent characters (monk probably the better of the 2) in a group a badly built ones - and with a homebrew somewhat OP race. (50ft base is far too much)

I'd just ask the GM to allow you to rebuild, and ask those 2 players for tips to be at their level. (Or go grab any of a dozen guides to be considerably better if you'd prefer.) Possibly the GM should allow the other 2 players to rebuild as well.

I'm kinda surprised a +7 stat is not impressive, seeing as we consider normal a +4 on at least two scores considered the normal for our level, and it may be the DM's fault, maybe the players fault, maybe a mix of both, but because of the amount of funds we get only one of us has a +3 weapon at this point, with most of us having an array of +2 weapons.

Though I'm gonna take a look at the rebuild idea, since I have a feeling I need to change out all my feats and adjust my warblade maneuvers in order to build a better character.

You have to understand 90% of people don't play a character who starts with less than +4 to their prime stat [if not +5]

This then becomes +5 at either level 4 or 8 depending on whether they started with 18 or 19, then becomes +6 with a +2 item, then becomes +7 with a +4 item [which is high on my list of things to acquire by level 10.]

+7 is 'not impressive' because it's 'standard.' +8 is a bit above standard.

EDIT: heck your dex-based friends could have gone Goblin [another small race and one with normal speed (not the super speed their current race has but not the sluggish speed of normal small creatures either)] and had a +4 racial bonus to speed for a potential of +9. Now THAT, +9 at level 11, that would be impressive.


This initial post ranks as the absolute worst case scenario I've ever heard for a gaming table. I don't allow evil at my table for just these reasons, unless your goal is to have players vs players, in which case it's anything goes.

I am going to take a stab and say everyone playing is very young. I have trouble keeping my own younger players under control when they play because they think they're playing Magic or Hero Clix and are always trying to work against the party for their own ends.

Sovereign Court

MartialPlayer603 wrote:


I'm kinda surprised a +7 stat is not impressive, seeing as we consider normal a +4 on at least two scores considered the normal for our level, and it may be the DM's fault, maybe the players fault, maybe a mix of both, but because of the amount of funds we get only one of us has a +3 weapon at this point, with most of us having an array of +2 weapons.

Well - part of that is that your GM has you well below standard WBL (82,000gp each at 11). But if you have an 18-19 in your prime stat at level 1 (pretty standard - 20 for SAD classes) - it'd be 20 by 11 sans magic, and then a +4 stat belt isn't that expensive by 11 in a standard WBL game.

Edit: Borderline ninja'd by kyrt-ryder

Liberty's Edge

Just thinking that 50 points of damage a round at somewhere around 11th-13th is only pretty good, myself. I've seen plenty of non min-maxed characters do so much more - and with AC in the low 30s.

I've seen non min-maxed lvl 5-6 characters put out the damage you're talking about.


Brother Fen wrote:
This initial post ranks as the absolute worst case scenario I've ever heard for a gaming table. I don't allow evil at my table for just these reasons, unless your goal is to have players vs players, in which case it's anything goes.

I've seen player vs player in all-good parties.

I've also seen Evil and Good cooperate wonderfully.

Lastly, I've seen PvP used exceptionally well for the sake of story.

I will note that I always allow evil in my campaigns, and actively discourage but do permit PvP. In essence, if PvP happens I want it to be very meaningful and impactful, while not being something that is going to seriously upset any of the players.

Quote:
trying to work against the party for their own ends.

Although the young players you used this in reference to are unlikely to do so, working 'against the party for their own ends' can be a really fun campaign for all involved if handled right.


Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:


You have to understand 90% of people don't play a character who starts with less than +4 to their prime stat [if not +5]

This then becomes +5 at either level 4 or 8 depending on whether they started with 18 or 19, then becomes +6 with a +2 item, then becomes +7 with a +4 item [which is high on my list of things to acquire by level 10.]

+7 is 'not impressive' because it's 'standard.' +8 is a bit above standard.

I don't have a single character with a +4 modifier in their attribute. Many of them are at +3.

I sincerely doubt your figure that 90% of people do that.

There certainly are groups that do this, but I have no reason to believe they are in the majority.


BretI wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


You have to understand 90% of people don't play a character who starts with less than +4 to their prime stat [if not +5]

This then becomes +5 at either level 4 or 8 depending on whether they started with 18 or 19, then becomes +6 with a +2 item, then becomes +7 with a +4 item [which is high on my list of things to acquire by level 10.]

+7 is 'not impressive' because it's 'standard.' +8 is a bit above standard.

I don't have a single character with a +4 modifier in their attribute. Many of them are at +3.

I sincerely doubt your figure that 90% of people do that.

There certainly are groups that do this, but I have no reason to believe they are in the majority.

You may be right. I'm basing my information on forum discussions I've read/seen and every game I've ever participated in.

I've never actually SEEN somebody not start with an 18 or better in their primary stat at the table. Ever.

Liberty's Edge

BretI wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


You have to understand 90% of people don't play a character who starts with less than +4 to their prime stat [if not +5]

This then becomes +5 at either level 4 or 8 depending on whether they started with 18 or 19, then becomes +6 with a +2 item, then becomes +7 with a +4 item [which is high on my list of things to acquire by level 10.]

+7 is 'not impressive' because it's 'standard.' +8 is a bit above standard.

I don't have a single character with a +4 modifier in their attribute. Many of them are at +3.

I sincerely doubt your figure that 90% of people do that.

There certainly are groups that do this, but I have no reason to believe they are in the majority.

You may be right, there, but it's certainly very common. Depending on how stats are generated, 18+ can be very high.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
BretI wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


You have to understand 90% of people don't play a character who starts with less than +4 to their prime stat [if not +5]

This then becomes +5 at either level 4 or 8 depending on whether they started with 18 or 19, then becomes +6 with a +2 item, then becomes +7 with a +4 item [which is high on my list of things to acquire by level 10.]

+7 is 'not impressive' because it's 'standard.' +8 is a bit above standard.

I don't have a single character with a +4 modifier in their attribute. Many of them are at +3.

I sincerely doubt your figure that 90% of people do that.

There certainly are groups that do this, but I have no reason to believe they are in the majority.

You may be right. I'm basing my information on forum discussions I've read/seen and every game I've ever participated in.

I've never actually SEEN somebody not start with an 18 or better in their primary stat at the table. Ever.

Wow. Seriously? I've seen dozens.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
I've never actually SEEN somebody not start with an 18 or better in their primary stat at the table. Ever.

I assume you play exclusively with point-buy stat generation method?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
This initial post ranks as the absolute worst case scenario I've ever heard for a gaming table. I don't allow evil at my table for just these reasons, unless your goal is to have players vs players, in which case it's anything goes.

I've seen player vs player in all-good parties.

I've also seen Evil and Good cooperate wonderfully.

Lastly, I've seen PvP used exceptionally well for the sake of story.

I will note that I always allow evil in my campaigns, and actively discourage but do permit PvP. In essence, if PvP happens I want it to be very meaningful and impactful, while not being something that is going to seriously upset any of the players.

Quote:
trying to work against the party for their own ends.
Although the young players you used this in reference to are unlikely to do so, working 'against the party for their own ends' can be a really fun campaign for all involved if handled right.

Right. If handled right. I'm not currently running those sorts of campaigns so it's a no go. No way. No how. I tell everyone that up front.

If PvP happens, it all has to be part of the scenario, not because the players are plotting against each other.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
This initial post ranks as the absolute worst case scenario I've ever heard for a gaming table. I don't allow evil at my table for just these reasons, unless your goal is to have players vs players, in which case it's anything goes.

I've seen player vs player in all-good parties.

I've also seen Evil and Good cooperate wonderfully.

Lastly, I've seen PvP used exceptionally well for the sake of story.

I will note that I always allow evil in my campaigns, and actively discourage but do permit PvP. In essence, if PvP happens I want it to be very meaningful and impactful, while not being something that is going to seriously upset any of the players.

Quote:
trying to work against the party for their own ends.
Although the young players you used this in reference to are unlikely to do so, working 'against the party for their own ends' can be a really fun campaign for all involved if handled right.

So you approve of this initial post?

How would you handle it?


Brother Fen wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
This initial post ranks as the absolute worst case scenario I've ever heard for a gaming table. I don't allow evil at my table for just these reasons, unless your goal is to have players vs players, in which case it's anything goes.

I've seen player vs player in all-good parties.

I've also seen Evil and Good cooperate wonderfully.

Lastly, I've seen PvP used exceptionally well for the sake of story.

I will note that I always allow evil in my campaigns, and actively discourage but do permit PvP. In essence, if PvP happens I want it to be very meaningful and impactful, while not being something that is going to seriously upset any of the players.

Quote:
trying to work against the party for their own ends.
Although the young players you used this in reference to are unlikely to do so, working 'against the party for their own ends' can be a really fun campaign for all involved if handled right.

So you approve of this initial post?

How would you handle it?

I wouldn't necessarily say I approve of it. There seems to be a LOT of friction hanging in the air among the players and that's somehting I'd like to avoid.

But sure, I'll give it another read and give my own method of dealing with it.


Tormsskull wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I've never actually SEEN somebody not start with an 18 or better in their primary stat at the table. Ever.
I assume you play exclusively with point-buy stat generation method?

The players I've played with were prone to suicide their characters either openly via reroll or subtly via Leeroy Jenkins style play, until they acquired a character whose stats they were happy with. [Keep in mind starting with an 18 only requires having a 16 in the base stat before racial mods.]

Myself? I'm the type who seems to have tremendous luck with the 4d6 but horrible luck with the d20. It's not uncommon for me to roll two 18's and nothing under 10.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
The players I've played with were prone to suicide their characters either openly via reroll or subtly via Leeroy Jenkins style play, until they acquired a character whose stats they were happy with. [Keep in mind starting with an 18 only requires having a 16 in the base stat before racial mods.]

That is painting a much more clear picture. In my experience, catering to players with a "take my ball and go home if I don't get my way" mindset is a losing proposition.


Warblade is like the most broken-powerful class ever made. If you aren't leaving them far behind broken-wise, you are doing something wrong. Keep taking levels in Warblade, and you'll catch up.

How well do you do when you are Blind? I bet they're not so hot. Acquire Scent and take the Blind Fighting Feat, then get an Eversmoking Bottle. Everyone within 20' of you will be Blind, but between Scent and Blindfighting, you'll be almost unimpaired. The Rogue will lose his Sneak Attack. Both will lose their Dex bonuses to AC.

Aggressive minmaxed character builds usually have areas of weakness where they are minned when they should be maxxed. Another approach might be for you to develop a character that compliments theirs rather than competes with theirs, you know, work as a team. They're all Dex-based strikers? Be a Goblin Alchemist shooting exploding arrows. Be a handy little halfling or Gnome who always has just the right piece of equipment that everyone else forgot to bring.


Tormsskull wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The players I've played with were prone to suicide their characters either openly via reroll or subtly via Leeroy Jenkins style play, until they acquired a character whose stats they were happy with. [Keep in mind starting with an 18 only requires having a 16 in the base stat before racial mods.]
That is painting a much more clear picture. In my experience, catering to players with a "take my ball and go home if I don't get my way" mindset is a losing proposition.

There's some give and take to be had. It's good for everyone to be happy with their character, and it's good to have a group of actual people to play with.

It's the same reason so many on these boards use very generous rolling methods, because nobody wants to have a character that they feel sucks.

1 to 50 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Advice Against Mix-Maxed Character All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.