This is probably going to sound snarky, but at that point why not just play 13th Age? Do not get me wrong, I enjoy both systems. It just seems like at that point we are playing a different system.Inverse Proposal: Raise the floor.
All PCs have a minimum AC equal to their base Reflex save + their BAB + 8.
All PCs have a minimum damage track as well: Poor BAB is 5 damage per level (10 with spells), Medium BAB is 8 damage per level and Good BAB is 12 damage per level.
Well to be fair I probably deserve the snark because when I first thought to post that I was feeling pretty snarky myself.
But honestly we are simply extending a system already in place with my proposed rules. BAB is nothing more than "Minimum bonus to hit", as the base saves are for save throws too, and the full hit die as hit points at first level + 1/2 hit die +1 after that rule. I'm simply extending it to AC and damage as well.
What this does is give the baseline that the designers know exists. No need for any combat encounter that will be weaker than what these rules provide.
Now I don't think this is a great idea by any means. It rewards people that build characters that do not do 'combat' with a means to be 'effective' in combat without paying any opportunity costs for it. So if a human rogue wanted nothing but skill focus feats and the other related skill feats he could take them and still have these minimums after buying up thousands of gold pieces worth of crap.
However this also means that the other players don't have to worry about keeping him alive as much either or having encounters that aren't even slightly challenging.
I don't think these sorts of rules are the way to go but I would rather see the floor come up which still allows those that want to invest to be the 'best' in what they invest in than see a ceiling that means the focused fighter does no more than the non-combatant bard character.
|
Alright, and what about when the optimizer is hogging all of the glory and hurting the fun of the rest of the table?
Assuming (as seems to be implicit in most of the thread) this means combat oriented optimiser - produce more encounters and/or scenarios where combat isn't the way to solve things.
If 25% of scenarios were along the lines of Library of the Lion or Bid for Alabastrine, where combat is a minimal part of the adventure, Amsmashpunymortal the barbarian would stop being a glory hog.
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?
As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?
A few reasons
On the monsters turn is a large part of when you get to do stuff. If you're stun locked, dead, or one shotted you can't do anything.
Because to some degree you have to empathize with the monsters you're playing to play them.
Because you're telling a story, and if that story has an anticlimactic ending you feel the story wasn't told well.
I agree with all the above.
Take the time where the scenario had an absurdly over complicated end boss using all sorts of rules that I don't know well. I spent well over an hour (likely over 2 hours) preparing that encounter.
And it was a complete cakewalk by the players. Other than knowing Initiative and AC all my preparation was irrelevant.
Maybe you enjoy wasting 2 hours of time but I don't
What scenario was it because if it is what I think it is that wasn't the players fault?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What else is "making the options in the game more comparable" other than a form of forcing equal power levels?
Pretty much every way of doing this involves telling players they HAVE to build their character this way or that way.
That is simply unacceptable.
And it's all to stop what amounts to a handful of problem players, whether they use "too powerful" or "too weak" builds. You'd be affecting, restricting, far more people than just this handful.
I admit I have some personal hangups about this kinda thing. To me it's a sort of passive-aggressive form of problem-solving. It's throwing up new rules to avoid having to directly confront the issue. If it's a rule, after all, it's not ME saying these mean things, it's the rules!
Instead of sitting down and talking, maybe helping these problem players either to get better at build mastery, or learn to read the other players at the table so they can tell when they're overshadowing. And potentially running the risk of hurting someone's feelings or causing a ruckus.
It's trying to solve what amounts to a social contract issue, with legislation. That never really works.
-j
i'm still not sure how it's restrictive to make all the options things that are actually useful (not necessarily to the exact same degree) instead of producing feats like prone shooter that people waste resources on and never benefit from? how is it telling people they're playing the game wrong to make the things they want to take worth taking? the problem is that you and i literally disagree about what the problem is. i disagree that a player wanting to do well at the game and not have his character die is a problem. i also, don't think people wanting to choose flavorful options is a problem. the problem, as i see it, is that the game deliberately makes flavorful options mechanically inferior to such a degree that they're crippling (because that resource is not going to something else) and that risks getting other people's characters killed.
|
What scenario was it because if it is what I think it is that wasn't the players fault?
I agree that the primary fault for that particular scenario was the scenario itself. But it is just a particularly egregious example of the basic problem.
As to people saying "It is a player issue". Of COURSE it is. And OF COURSE one cannot come up with rules to completely solve the problem.
But the problem is significantly exacerbated by the rules system. When the rules allow such a HUGE power discrepancy between two characters that, on the surface, are essentially functionally identical (lets say mid level characters designed to blast their foes into oblivion with area of effect damage) there is a fundamental problem in the rules.
|
|
*The following is a general statement and is not aimed at anyone in particular, nor is it intended to be an attack*
The crux of the problem, as I see it, is the downside of Paizo's desire to be inclusive. I am not saying that this is a bad thing. It is just that the brass has to create rules that protect us from, for lack of a better term, jerks. The problem is that these same rules give equal protection to those same jerks. The price of their inclusiveness is that there must be rules to allow for players that are disruptive to a certain degree. Since the inclusiveness is ultimately a good thing, there is a limit to the amount that the rules can help here.
If someone has a better term then jerks, I am listening.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
What scenario was it because if it is what I think it is that wasn't the players fault?
I agree that the primary fault for that particular scenario was the scenario itself. But it is just a particularly egregious example of the basic problem.
** spoiler omitted **
It's less that and more the fact that Paizo has no clue how that class works. It doesn't work well at all as a solo boss and yet they've tried it twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to people saying "It is a player issue". Of COURSE it is. And OF COURSE one cannot come up with rules to completely solve the problem.
But the problem is significantly exacerbated by the rules system. When the rules allow such a HUGE power discrepancy between two characters that, on the surface, are essentially functionally identical (lets say mid level characters designed to blast their foes into oblivion with area of effect damage) there is a fundamental problem in the rules.
+1
this is what i was trying to say. because it seems we're implying that the guy that does have system mastery and recognizes the trap options, is a jerk for wanting to do well and not wanting to hold back and possibly die. we're assuming his motivation is "i'm a power gamer, and it's only important that i have fun roflstomping scenarios. everyone else's enjoyment is secondary." when the motivation could simply be "character death isn't fun. pfs groups being the p&p equivalent of pugs, it's difficult to know whether or not we'll survive. i'll just make sure i'm as good as i can be, so i can contribute meaningfully to our survival."
obviously, there are players that the first motivation applies to, but that's when you talk to your player because that is a player problem. there are also players that the second applies to and those are not problem players. they are players that recognize that the power discrepancy allowed by the rules can easily and unexpectedly result in their demise and plan accordingly.
|
|
Clearly there are two extremes that need to be avoided. On one end you have what is basically an arms race where only those players with high system mastery stand a chance. On the other end you have a situation where even combat aimed at high level characters rarely last more than one round. The question is where is the happy medium, and are we there now?
|
|
Clearly there are two extremes that need to be avoided. On one end you have what is basically an arms race where only those players with high system mastery stand a chance. On the other end you have a situation where even combat aimed at high level characters rarely last more than one round. The question is where is the happy medium, and are we there now?
It's a problem inherent in the system, especially at very low and very high levels. There's so many ways to die that your only option is rocket tag.
Clearly there are two extremes that need to be avoided. On one end you have what is basically an arms race where only those players with high system mastery stand a chance. On the other end you have a situation where even combat aimed at high level characters rarely last more than one round. The question is where is the happy medium, and are we there now?
This is further exacerbated by the fact that a group can vary so much that a challenge to Group A is a cake walk for Group B and was just right for Group C.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i'm still not sure how it's restrictive to make all the options things that are actually useful (not necessarily to the exact same degree) instead of producing feats like prone shooter that people waste resources on and never benefit from? how is it telling people they're playing the game wrong to make the things they want to take worth taking? the problem is that you and i literally disagree about what the problem is. i disagree that a player wanting to do well at the game and not have his character die is a problem. i also, don't think people wanting to choose flavorful options is a problem. the problem, as i see it, is that the game deliberately makes flavorful options mechanically inferior to such a degree that they're crippling (because that resource is not going to something else) and that risks getting other people's characters...
I will say this is less "restrictive" than other proposals so far. It still assumes others share a particular opinion on what is or is not "optimal", but it dosen't do this on a player level.
It's also pretty much impossible.
To 'balance' all rules options to make them equitable would require re-writing half the game. Across how many dozens and dozens of books? And how much manpower and hours would be required to do this?
It's simply never going to happen. You might as well start a new game edition.
And guess what? In a few years, even a new game will have overly powerful and underpowered choices show up as more and more books are published, putting you right back where you came from.
Again, all this to 'fix' problems that really only occur in a fraction of the player population.
I understand the intent but the proposal just is't practical.
-j
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh, I don't know. To make any progress with this "issue", I think first we need to define what "excessive builds" are. And in what instance they are "excessive". And decide if they are really a problem - realizing what is excessive in one situation is kind of useless in another.
I played a game last night at Tier 1-2. We had 5 players.
A 1, three 2's and a level 4 (later "discovered" as level 5).
The 4/5 PC... very much needs to be audited. (The judge talked to the VC after the game - so hopefully the "problem child" will be addressed privately, before he walk into another game, in a less confrontational setting, and get some helpful direction about playing by the rules). This guy stated that he had two +2 equivalent magic weapons, as well as other equipment ("I saved my loot to be able to afford them), and relied on Potion of CLW for healing (that he just never seemed to track during the game) and... goodness, to many issues to go over here. But clearly "excessive"
But you know what? The level 4/5 was pretty close to being useless the entire scenario. And worse yet, seemed to detract from the fun of the game - by being useless. The guy was designed to do one thing - melee combat. And the scenario was for the most part RP. And the player had no idea of how to, and appeared to have no desire to, role play. He wanted to discuss how to write a scenario, and ideas for his home game, and ... so many other things that did not relate to the current adventure or even PFS... He was even kind of "extra" in the final fight. It took place in a "restricted movement" area where the lower level PCs carried the fighting to the BBE, (the "Combat Machine" did get the last attack on the BBE... but the 1st level PC actually delayed his attack that likely would have dropped the BBE so that the 5th level would get to take one attack in the combat. Yeah, the 1st level was modifying his play to include the "excessive build" guy - you know, to include him in the game. Even then the judge had to stop play to figure out how the E.B. guy was +12 on his attacks (two weapon fighting, but with his roll he needed a +12 to get that hit)... Yeah, it was during this melee round (the last as the game was ending) that he announced he was actually 5th level (he needed a BAB of +5 to get his numbers to come out close....). (I didn't get the particulars on the attacks - by this time I was trying to ignore the guy as much as possible.)
So... which of the PCs were "Excessive"?
The 1st level Occultist who was able to get into combat? And had most of the Knowledge skills we needed?
The 2nd level Bolt Ace who was able to shot the BBE and the other monster encountered in the game?
The 2nd level Kineticist who was able to shot the BBE (and added to the RP with "cute PC traits")?
the 2nd level Bard, who talked us thru at least one combat encounter?
Or the 4/5th level guy with way more gear than he could afford?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bringing up a player who is likely cheating, feels like, err, cheating. To me, the problem is more players, who play by the rules, who still manage to make the rest of the party feel like they are not needed. There are also the builds where the GM feels like he might as well just hand everyone their sheets because there is no way that they will loose or expend any resources.
It's also pretty much impossible.
it's not. and saying it is hardly makes it so.
To 'balance' all rules options to make them equitable would require re-writing half the game. Across how many dozens and dozens of books? And how much manpower and hours would be required to do this?
It's simply never going to happen. You might as well start a new game edition.
this is a far more reasonable argument for why it won't happen. it's far from impossible, but it will admittedly never happen.
And guess what? In a few years, even a new game will have overly powerful and underpowered choices show up as more and more books are published, putting you right back where you came from.
only if the developers continue laboring under the delusion that balanced math is entirely irrelevant. it's clearly not the only factor in balance, but the math isn't irrelevant.
Again, all this to 'fix' problems that really only occur in a fraction of the player population.
only because another fraction of the population is doing the work to fix it themselves by heavily house ruling the game or having sufficient system mastery to avoid trap options.
I understand the intent but the proposal just is't practical.
this has always seemed like an excuse not to try harder to me, but fair enough.
|
since grapple is not size-restricted.
You know, I never realized that it didn't have a size limit. It's never really come up on my Brutal Pugilist.
I can see the issue, but you also have to consider things like smaller creatures that are made to grapple like brain spiders.
I feel like a simple fix to it would be that you can grapple a creature of any size, but if it's two categories larger, you can't pin it and it can still move at like half speed without having to make a grapple check (Edit: Or they have to win an opposing strength check to move rather than a grapple check)
It could still be ridiculous later on when you have medium sized creatures grappling colossal ones, but by the point someone could do that consistently, they'd basically be Herculean anyway. They should be able to do things like that in 16+ range I'd say.
|
|
Bringing up a player who is likely cheating, feels like, err, cheating. To me, the problem is more players, who play by the rules, who still manage to make the rest of the party feel like they are not needed. There are also the builds where the GM feels like he might as well just hand everyone their sheets because there is no way that they will loose or expend any resources.
Clearly I failed to convey the point I was trying to make.
The PCs in my example game that "rolled over" the encounters - the ones that were "excessive builds" - were the ones that were fun to play with. It was the Players that made the game fun.
Did we have a PC with "over the top" AC? yeah - the 1st level Occultist had an AC of 24 - and he played like he was un-hittable (and got hit with a poisoned weapon LOL!).
Did we have a PC able to "shut down combats"? Yeah, at games end we found out we had avoided a monster so well, that we had never even seen it - because of a High Diplomacy. Several encounters were easily handled with just RP - because the tricked out social skill character carried the party and let everyone "play" in character... The mechanics was covered.
Each of the PCs were "excessive" in their own way... at one point or another in the game.
But the point was - in that game, it wasn't the PCs or the PC builds that mattered on the enjoyment in the game. It was the Players that made the game fun (and not). More rules wouldn't have changed that, in fact might have gotten in the way of "the play". And I think that is more often true than we realize.
|
The size limitations of Grab, on the other hand, change from Bestiary to Bestiary -_-
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
Format: grab; Location: individual attacks."
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature’s Special Attacks line. Format: grab; Location: individual attacks and special attacks."
Bestiary 2 is the new, updated version: grab works on creatures up to the size of the monster with the grab ability. The next time we do a reprint of the original Bestiary, we'll update all references to grab and similar abilities to reflect this change.
posted March 2011 | back to top"
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). Creatures with grab receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents no larger than the same size category as the creature. If the creature can use grab on sizes other than the default, this is noted in the creature’s Special Attacks line.
Format: grab; Location: individual attacks.
Format: grab (Colossal); Location: Special Attacks."
"Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents no larger than the same size category as the creature. If the creature can use grab on sizes other than the default, this is noted in the creature’s Special Attacks line."
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents at least one size category smaller than the creature. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its combat maneuver check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.
Format: grab; Location: individual attacks."
"Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab works only against opponents the same size category as the creature or smaller. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its combat maneuver check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constrict damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text). Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks to start and maintain a grapple. Format: grab; Location: individual attacks."
In the end, only Bestiary 4 changed after the FAQ. Which seems to be an obvious goof of grabbing the 1st edition bestiary 1 grab text. Bestiary 5 is the newest, though.
In fact, bestiary 2 rewrote the Grab rule. But bestiary 4 copied bestiary 1(1st ed)'s grab text, and bestiary 5 grabbed bestiary 4(or 1)'s and corrected the size mistake instead of reverting to bestiary 2 or 3's grab text.
You can tell this by the two versions of sentence placement in the description.
|
Clearly I failed to convey the point I was trying to make.
Most definitely. The point I thought you were trying to convey was "this guy didn't know how to play pathfinder and was excessive." It was a whole lot of text that didn't convey that at all, imo. Your addendum nicely sums up your point, though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was a kid I played soccer. My team was pretty good, we never lost a match. I played fullback, and spent most of my time hanging near the goal. But, I remember one day the coach took me aside and asked me to let the ball pass me more often. Since I was really good at never letting the ball get near the goalie, the goalie didn't have much too do. I took that advice to heart, realizing that everyone on the team deserved to feel like they were playing.
I know this might sound like it off topic... but that is the same advice I would give to any player who finds themselves at a table where one or more characters are being overshadowed by them. Let the opportunity to complete the challenge pass you every now and then. Because everyone deserves to play.
In the end this is a player issue, not a build issue. Power players not power characters. And it is the players that need to change not the rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I was a kid I played soccer. My team was pretty good, we never lost a match. I played fullback, and spent most of my time hanging near the goal. But, I remember one day the coach took me aside and asked me to let the ball pass me more often. Since I was really good at never letting the ball get near the goalie, the goalie didn't have much too do. I took that advice to heart, realizing that everyone on the team deserved to feel like they were playing.
I know this might sound like it off topic... but that is the same advice I would give to any player who finds themselves at a table where one or more characters are being overshadowed by them. Let the opportunity to complete the challenge pass you every now and then. Because everyone deserves to play.
In the end this is a player issue, not a build issue. Power players not power characters. And it is the players that need to change not the rules.
See though, that is crazy logic in PFS and in competitive soccer.
In competitive soccer letting the ball pass you so the goalie gets to play is less likely to win than the goalie never being needed.
Similar in PFS. I don't want my character to die and I want to succeed the mission. If I'm the best smooth talker and motive sensor then I shouldn't let the less skilled person do any important talking because they have a greater chance to fail. If I don't do a full attack I could get hit by some crits or nat 1 a save. It's far safer to have the better person act than hold back.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
See though, that is crazy logic in PFS
No, it really isn't.
If you're fighting 1st level Druids with +3 to hit and 2d6+1 damage, you don't power attack. Maybe you swing for nonlethal at -4.
If you're against two balors, you bring out the dazing maximized chain lightnings or whatever cheese you have.
A response that is commiserate to the challenge before you and that gives other's a chance to contribute is far more enjoyable than ending the fight before it begins so there is no risk to the party.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Similar in PFS. I don't want my character to die and I want to succeed the mission. If I'm the best smooth talker and motive sensor then I shouldn't let the less skilled person do any important talking because they have a greater chance to fail. If I don't do a full attack I could get hit by some crits or nat 1 a save. It's far safer to have the better person act than hold back.
The point is not to win pathfinder. The point is to have fun. that applies to everyone at the table. (for the diplomancing there's ways you can have both: if the dm just takes the higher modifier but spreads the talking spotlight around you're golden)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between "having the better person act" and "being so optimized that some others don't get to meaningfully participate."
This is true in both PFS, and in soccer leagues like kids leagues that are more about having fun than winning at all costs.
It's also better in both contexts to sometimes lose than it is to sit around in too many games not able to participate because somebody else is so good at the mechanics that they can hog the limelight.
|
|
See though, that is crazy logic in PFSNo, it really isn't.
If you're fighting 1st level Druids with +3 to hit and 2d6+1 damage, you don't power attack. Maybe you swing for nonlethal at -4.
If you're against two balors, you bring out the dazing maximized chain lightnings or whatever cheese you have.
A response that is commiserate to the challenge before you and that gives other's a chance to contribute is far more enjoyable than ending the fight before it begins so there is no risk to the party.
If you're fighting lv1 druids then you're likely level 1 or 2 and 2d6+1 is enough to put most characters unconcious at level 1 and wizards at lv2. That druid gets a lucky crit? that's 4d6+2, that's enough to outright kill level 1 or level 2 character from full health.
It's far more enjoyable to efficiently handle that tasks presented to the party than to flounder or waste time and risk life.
|
|
There is a difference between "having the better person act" and "being so optimized that some others don't get to meaningfully participate."
This is true in both PFS, and in soccer leagues like kids leagues that are more about having fun than winning at all costs.
It's also better in both contexts to sometimes lose than it is to sit around in too many games not able to participate because somebody else is so good at the mechanics that they can hog the limelight.
losing is the worst. Losing is having your player die or not completing the mission. It's especially bad if you could have won easily, but someone that wasn't skilled attempted a crucial task and failed blowing the entire thing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was 2s and 3s in the 1-2 thanks to APL. It took 4 channels from my NPC to make the front line actually concerned about their HP.
It is far more enjoyable to actually get to participate in the fight rather than have it end after the party's first actions. Character building your way to victory removes a lot of the enjoyment along with the risk.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you saying that you would be fine sitting at the table just being along for the ride?
If my character was useless enough in the situation, sure am. Has happened a few times when I miss-guessed what roles would be needed in the scenario and brought a misfit. One I even declined to make a check offered to me, asking that the skilled one in the group continue to handle things.
I've had two scenario's because of unlucky choices combo'd with nat 1s that my character was unconscious/asleep and unwakable for a good half of the scenario. I felt bad that I wasn't able to help contribute other than letting others use my gear, but it happens.
Like sure you do what you can. Aid another for skills if you can and try not to be useless in any combat situations. But if two wizards blow up the enemies with two fireballs I don't care as a GM or as a player. They just awesomely handled the fight. If they then proceed to make all the needed knowledge checks then that's awesome too, those character were highly effective for this scenario. My character will figure out how to tell the story to make it seem like he did everything when he brags about it back at the lodge.
|
|
losing is the worst.Wasting four hours watching other people roll dice is far worse. At least you lost thanks to your own actions.
Why yes, but that's a person's fault. There's no reason to not participate in the story and the game and with other players if your character is ineffective. Like I just posted, I've had some sessions where my guy was useless and even unconscious for a good chunk or most of the game. Those weren't any less fun because of it.
|
Why yes, but that's a person's fault. There's no reason to not participate in the story and the game and with other players if your character is ineffective.
If your character is being hedged out of the mechanical side of the game, why do you believe you'll be allowed to participate in the social one?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been "talked over" enough and seen it happen to even more (esp. to players younger or more female) to realize that being excluded from the game socially is at least as bad (I actually feel it is worse) as being mechanically excluded.
Absolutely agree. Every player should be engaged to their satisfaction. If you WANT to be disengaged and only roll dice, I can handle that. I'll be disappointed, but I can work with it.
|
|
Why yes, but that's a person's fault. There's no reason to not participate in the story and the game and with other players if your character is ineffective.If your character is being hedged out of the mechanical side of the game, why do you believe you'll be allowed to participate in the social one?
I'm sorry, are you saying social as in the narrative of the game or social as in interacting with the players at the table?
Reason is, interacting with players at the table has no correlation to how effective my character is. If your character is bad and doesn't get to play and the people are jerks that don't talk to you, well, doesn't seem like an event anyone will return to frequently, unless they somehow derive enjoyment from that. Like if your character was the best mechanically, that wouldn't stop mean people from being mean to you.
If you meant social as narrative of the story, you're free to offer up ideas, tell how your character responds to things, have your person be recording notes, etc. Since this is a roleplaying game there's often much of that game that you can play without needing any rolls.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at this another way, would you be if someone sat down at the table then pulled out a book explaining that since their character is not very effective they are just going to catch up on some reading?
That's basically just semantically different from the guy that comes to read a book and roll his d20 that has a +50 to it for stuff. Doesn't care about the story, just wanting his character there to do the mechanics. Heck even just there in case others want him to do the mechanics. Just sits there until asked to do something.
But hey, if that's how they want to play, sure. They probably shouldn't expect us to go out of our way to watch out for or include his guy, since he's indicated he's not wanting that. It obviously must be more enjoyable for them to read at a gaming store at a tabletop game table and supposedly playing it than say reading at home, or reading in the store not playing. So if that's their wish why should I feel the need to say they are doing it wrong?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was a kid I played soccer. My team was pretty good, we never lost a match. I played fullback, and spent most of my time hanging near the goal. But, I remember one day the coach took me aside and asked me to let the ball pass me more often. Since I was really good at never letting the ball get near the goalie, the goalie didn't have much too do. I took that advice to heart, realizing that everyone on the team deserved to feel like they were playing.
I know this might sound like it off topic... but that is the same advice I would give to any player who finds themselves at a table where one or more characters are being overshadowed by them. Let the opportunity to complete the challenge pass you every now and then. Because everyone deserves to play.
In the end this is a player issue, not a build issue. Power players not power characters. And it is the players that need to change not the rules.
See though, that is crazy logic in PFS and in competitive soccer.
In competitive soccer letting the ball pass you so the goalie gets to play is less likely to win than the goalie never being needed.
Similar in PFS. I don't want my character to die and I want to succeed the mission. If I'm the best smooth talker and motive sensor then I shouldn't let the less skilled do any important talking because they have a greater chance to fail. If I don't do a full attack I could get hit by some crits or nat 1 a save. It's far safer to have the better person act than hold back.
But neither Pathfinder Society or kids' soccer is a competitive sport.
You don't play to "beat" anyone. You play to have a good time. Hopefully everyone else does too. Part of that is making sure everyone gets a chance to participate. If you are the reason other people aren't having fun, there's a problem.
It's not deciding to rush up next to the BBEG and not swing at him. It's deciding to stay in the back for a round or two so the other players can get to show off, ready to pounce for 100+ damage if things go downhill instead of making that the first action. It's not saying nothing while the Charisma-dumped fighter negotiates with the natives. It's saying a few words of encouragement and goodwill during talks instead of insisting that your character is the only one who should say anything.
If you know your character can solo the adventure...don't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a long post but deleted it. Here's my final thought.
Just because one character is "the best" that doesn't automatically make the other characters "bad."
I have an acquaintance who tells fascinating stories of things that happened to him. He's got great timing. They are very humorous and ride that line of "surely he must be making that up...right?" It's a real blast to listen to him talk. But he doesn't get invited to many events. Because when you get a group together at dinner, no one else can get a word in edgewise. As soon as he finishes a story, someone starts a sentence and that immediately reminds him of another story. And the rest of us don't get a chance to talk.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
There are several aspects of this not getting discussed.
When fights are too short the whole party doesn't get to contribute. That isn't solely the fault of the optimizers. Paizo has made a conscious effort to increase damage per hit so that fights simply don't take as many rounds as they have in, for instance 1st or 2nd Edition D&D. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself. I don't think anyone really wants to go back to fights taking multiple hours to complete. However PFS scenarios have taken this to an extreme. The CR budget for the encounters is clearly too low. Reducing the number of encounters or increasing the budget by perhaps 1/4th would do wonders for the length of encounters and letting everyone participate.
Well part of the problem and something that later editions fixed is that it clearly doesn't matter how hard an enemy hits if he's going down in one round. A lot of fights are often 1 vs 6 and 1 vs 7 and if your party isn't completely borked in some weird way its dying in one round.
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed. I know Paizo wants to sell books. But Paizo wants PFS to be healthy and at the rate its going it won't be for much longer. A lot of flavor options could be left in while a lot of the obvious power stuff could simply be banned. Sure the whiners will whine if stuff starts getting banned. How is that different than it is now? People whine for banned stuff to get unbanned, people demand that stuff get approved faster, people whine that AP's that should never have been sanctioned get sanctioned. Do a bunch of the worst stuff in one fell swoop like ripping off a bandage and get it over with. Make PFS more attractive to the more casual player who...
Can you name a few examples because I always feel like people who say that don't usually pick the most powerful of options to ban?
See though, that is crazy logic in PFSNo, it really isn't.
If you're fighting 1st level Druids with +3 to hit and 2d6+1 damage, you don't power attack. Maybe you swing for nonlethal at -4.
If you're against two balors, you bring out the dazing maximized chain lightnings or whatever cheese you have.
A response that is commiserate to the challenge before you and that gives other's a chance to contribute is far more enjoyable than ending the fight before it begins so there is no risk to the party.
If you're fighting lv1 druids then you're likely level 1 or 2 and 2d6+1 is enough to put most characters unconcious at level 1 and wizards at lv2. That druid gets a lucky crit? that's 4d6+2, that's enough to outright kill level 1 or level 2 character from full health.
It's far more enjoyable to efficiently handle that tasks presented to the party than to flounder or waste time and risk life.
And then you loose prestige because you weren't supposed to kill them. Something I need to remind a lot of people because it does come up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed.
The most overpowered classes, spells, and feats in all of Pathfinder are directly from the Core Rulebook. Fullstop.