@Wolflord: I'm glad you got some ideas and advice to help diffuse the party situation. I wanted to touch on the points where we disagree to explain why I felt the way I did. It's certainly up to your team and the GM to assess the best approach and solutions.
Clarifications:
Wolflord wrote:
I disagree, to quote your quote:"For one, blasphemy simply means 'THE ACT or offense of speaking...'" The Cavalier ACTED against his religious principles, as he follows Cayden's edicts (not that he couldn't be lying as you cover later with the questioning topic).
It's just the dictionary definition. I read and understand that to mean "the act of speaking against". Considering the etymology is essentially utterance/talk/speech, I feel I am justified in that interpretation. The term offense is added to indicate that in some areas there are actual laws against blasphemy. (Used to be here, too.) It's okay if you guys run it differently. I just objected to the term. I'm a nerd, I do that sometimes.
Wolflord wrote:
Again, the Cavalier was religious and has openly said it throughout the campaign... and the DM said specifically no additional magic was detected (I had detect magic active)
My point about non-religious is not about lacking in belief. It is about belief being a core mechanic to the character. Certain character classes have built in connections to the gods and collect benefits from that connection but also suffer consequences when they violate that trust by acting against the gods' will. Assigning those consequences to just anyone who puts a god's name on their character sheet provides the same penalty but none of the benefits. This is what I meant about non-religious. Perhaps a better term to use should have been Non-devotional?
Wolflord wrote:
When did I say the orc got punished? I will pass that tid-bit along regarding the sorcerer.
Wolflord wrote:
(the half orc got a slap on the wrist).
I was just wondering why there any repercussions at all. No big deal since they were clearly minor.
There is a catch when it comes to Reach. If you're weapon (a lance?) has greater reach than the mount, your mount cannot attack because movement stops when the lance hits. Make sure that both you and the mount threaten the target at the same time to get maximum benefits.
Is it to make them seem less evil even though not all necromancy spells are evil?
This is basically it. They USED to be necromancy, pre -3e, and rightly so, but when 3e was underway, someone got a bug up their butt about 'necromancy must be nasty-wicked-evil, so we can't have it healing people'.
It's BS, really.
This a hundred times. Necromancy, like atomic power, should be scary only in the hands of a wicked person.
And you've ignored my point of taking that definition literally equating to shenanigans and munchkins having field days at your table. By all means, I can use Swift Actions at any point outside my turn...
There is an enormous difference between taking a specified free action in response to a specified trigger, and taking Free/Swift actions willy nilly.
Frankly, I'm shocked you don't see that.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You can also Ready a Free Action, which is pointless when you can already do so outside your turn, at any time.
See above. Also, Readying an Action is about [/i]timing[/i]. Forcing a specific effect to occur at a specific time. Free Actions can be readied because there is no reason to prevent it if you can ready a more costly action. This has been illustrated before. Readying an Action has no bearing on either argument.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You've explained it, but it hasn't really done anything.
This makes me laugh, because, you know, I am totally getting that feeling, too. I'm glad we can agree on some things.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All you've tried saying is "Can be done in conjunction with other actions," and your ramifications for it to be able to be done outside your turn have zero relevance with the restrictions obviously set with Free Actions;
You mean the restrictions that say:
Free Actions wrote:
Free actions don't take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn. Free actions rarely incur attacks of opportunity. Some common free actions are described below.
Because...those are the Rules As Written, and I'm sorry you don't want that to matter, but it does when the rules are what we're interpreting.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If an Attack of Opportunity is an Action, then what kind of Action is it?
I've already explained my proposal on that. Maybe it was complicated?
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Fine, we'll play this silly game of yours...magically allow...you obviously do... using your own logic and flawed definition...Sure, you can be stupid...
Don't be a jerk. Using inflammatory language doesn't help you.
Finally, since you and I cannot seem to agree that the proper way to run a Free Action is as it is written in the rules (quoted above), I am unsure what further progress is to be made.
Those two are completely separate points. Taking a Free Action during my turn makes no impact with the factor of me being able to use said Free Actions in conjunction with other actions.
Well, since the legally defined restriction of taking a free action isn't "on your turn" but "when you can take other actions". "On your turn" is a subset of "when you can take actions." So that leaves only one remaining point to the opposition...
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But you are forgetting one very important statement: an AoO is not an Action,
This is the only remaining barrier to Grab, whether or not an AoO is an "action". It's not that I'm forgetting it. It's that I do not agree with your interpretation. I have also explained why I disagree.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
NOTHING in that entry makes any mention of being able to use this ability outside your turn, because RAW, you can't initiate a Grapple as a Free Action outside your turn. If you take that second point to work with activities outside your turn, you run into munchkin shenanigans. Here's a prime example of the kind of shenanigans you would run into.
Nothing in that description restricts to being only on my turn. It simply says if I hit, then I do damage and make a grapple check as a free action. The language is imperative, "do damage and grapple." We come back to the singular question: "Is the attack from an attack of opportunity an action?" If the answer is Yes, then we can use a Free Action as required by Grab.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Coming back to Attacks of Opportunity, you take them for free; the context and real-life definition the book gives us means that AoO's are best defined by this entry in the Combat section:
<snipped quote>
AoO's would fall under this, since they do not cite (nor make any mention of requiring) an Action Type that correlates to it. Ergo, it isn't an Action.
I do not agree with this at all. An AoO is in no way "minor". You're making a melee attack and it correlates directly. Melee Attack is listed as a Standard Action in the action chart and under the definition of Standard Actions. Melee Attacks alone can also significantly change the outcome of a battle. You can make a better argument that an Attack of Opportunity is a Free Action. Which comes back to: "Is the attack from an Attack of Opportunity an action?"
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
As far as RAW is concerned...If the Devs really wanted ...they would've...
This is really not a discussion to start claiming your interpretation is RAW or that you can intuit the intentions of the Developers. We're here to discuss the difference in understanding and get a FAQ reply to put the disparity to rest.
I would then ask what the context of the word 'normally' means here...
My first instinct was to think it means during your (normal) turn.
After all, they could just as easily have said "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action" and that would have been clear enough to understand that free actions can be taken any time another action is make. However, with the word 'normally' included, it infers that there are instances where actions exist which are not 'normal'. Again, my first instinct is to think that these non-normal actions are those taken outside your turn.
EDIT: I guess I can see interpreting the use of 'normal' as any time a full action, standard action, swift action, immediate action, or AOO is taken. It still feels a little broad though.
In this context I feel that "normally" is synonymous with "usually". Indicating that certain situations or abilities may prevent prevent actions.
Now, that may not be the case. If it refers to "Normal" as a broad concept, then I would have to say an AoO is pretty normal. Except for some specifically called out exceptions everyone gets an AoO that they can perform. Sometimes several. They're an integral part of combat and every combat strategy involves accounting for them. So...how normal is that?
Unfortunately, the limit on free actions is written differently:
"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally"
Thats very different. It means I can use a Free Action when I use an Immediate Action, for instance. This could happen not on my turn. Also, the Attack of Opportunity is not an action in and of itself, it is the rule that allows you to take a specific standard action (make a melee attack) out of sequence. The language indicating this is a free attack reinforces that you are not required to lose your action on the previous or following turn to make the attack. The opportunity to attack, in essence, has no inherent cost. Free. Without such language people would instead be arguing that you lose your next standard action when you make an AoO.
As for Vital Strike...that's just more mud in the waters. But I'm glad we're pooling more information and interest. The FAQ quoted doesn't mention Attacks of Opportunity at all. "Charging is a special full-round action" is the first line Charge. I don't think we should be quoting precedent from an ability that is deliberately called out as being "special".
In what manner is the language of the Grab Ability permissive to be usable outside your turn? The general rule regarding when you can use Free Actions is "Only during your turn unless specified." As written, the ability makes no effort to come out and say "Yup, this even works outside your turn," as it only says you perform the ability "as a Free Action." That's all it says.
If you show the RAW where it says you can do it outside your turn, then I'll concede. Problem is, there is no such language, and until such language develops, RAW, the Grab ability cannot be used with AoO's.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying it can't be done because it's an attack; I'm saying it can't be done because it's performed outside the creature's turn, which Free Actions, unless specified otherwise, cannot be taken.
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.
I'm calling out the not-optional language. If a creature with grab hits on the grab attack, it deals damage -and- attempts to start a grapple. Not "can", or "may", but "and" is the way it is written. There is no language stating "only on its turn". When an attack of opportunity hits, and that attack possessed the Grab ability, the creature must attempt to start a grapple. Not just on its turn.
Lastly...
Attack of Opportunity wrote:
An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack
Attack wrote:
Making an attack is a standard action.
Free Action wrote:
You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally
Since we're agreeing that you can't take free actions outside of your turn unless specified, then the wording "An attack of opportunity is a single melee attack" seems pretty clear.
Good so far.
jimibones83 wrote:
It doesn't specify it allows attachable free actions with the attack, nor does the definition of those attachable free actions specify that they can be used during AoO's.
Close. There's a point of logic here. An Attack of Opportunity is a melee attack. If a free action can be done with a melee attack, then the attack of opportunity qualifies because it is a melee attack. The specific language of the ability is permissive, creating an exception.
There are a lot of tangents muddying the waters. So I'm going to see if I can dispel a little of it. (Good luck, right?)
Nobody is trying to claim you can take any free action at any given time. Please remember that the abilities being discussed explicitly state that with an attack you can use a specific free action to achieve a specific effect. This is not about other types of free actions or other situations. If you want to bring up a case about other free actions being taken during or outside of the active turn, then make sure they also use such deliberate language. For many of you who are sticking with apples=apples comparisons, awesome.
Regards to Readying an Action:
There are numerous tactical advantages to readying an action. The cornerstone of each and every one is timing. You ready an action because you need it to happen at a specific point in the round. (I'd like to ready a Free Action to drop a bottle of acid on the portcullis rope after my allies are through.) It's not about the action type, it's about controlling the sequence of events. A further advantage is that Readied actions can interrupt other actions. This neither supports nor denies the assumptions on either side in regards to free actions. Or, more pointedly: It says nothing about the issue at hand, merely provides more options to the character.
You can use Snapshot with any ranged weapon that you can reload with a free action, including guns and crossbows. Since you have to invest feats in order to reduce the load time with those weapons separately, this provides solid evidence that there are specific circumstances where you can perform a free action outside of your turn while taking Attacks of Opportunity.
And then there are my opinions...:
Summed up here:
A melee attack is a standard action.
An Attack of Opportunity allows you to make a melee attack (broad rule, standard action) outside of your turn in response to specific triggers(narrow or more specific rule).
Everybody gets one (core combat rule) with a few, deliberate exceptions.
So, an attack of opportunity is a normal event that allows a typically standard action to be done out of turn in response to specific triggers. And since you are being allowed to take an attack action, you should be allowed to take the relevant free action associated with it.
Trip is the best maneuver listed for that assortment of enemies, creatures without weapons are hard to disarm and sunder is not going to do much against an opponent without any gear. I think it would be a good idea to talk to your DM and the player about the dirty trick maneuver from the APG - maybe they can agree on a signature "dirty trick" that fits the character concept, or it can be used as written. Note that the trip weapon property really doesn't help much- it is a move action which provokes to stand up after being tripped and it is a move action which provokes to pick up the weapon after using the trip property.
I also agree with this advice. Dirty Trick is a much better maneuver, scales straight to 20 and is useful in almost every situation. The best part is that you can have a lot of fun making it thematic.
Let's take a look at the list of conditions you can apply:
Dirty Trick wrote:
If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions:
blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened.
You present your Holy Symbol and the light reflects off to blind/dazzle your foe. Or perhaps you flicked holy water, or showed them pictures of Sister Tessa.
You recite the litany of judgement and your foe is shaken.
Cut the buttons to a coat or trousers and entangle them as one must bare all before the deity, or you could make it a class argument if it's somebody rich or powerful. "remove the trappings of sin"
Deafen them with the words of heaven. Bonus points if you do it speaking Celestial.
anoint them with oils to drive out the sin, only the wicked are sickened.
In the end, the justification behind the status effect is up to you and the GM. They could be little curses divinely granted or anything else you prefer.
The Crossing Guard - Reposition and Reach weapons.
Gastrologist - Focus on Breath weapons, Sonic, Acid, Fog and Cloud effects.
Thriller - Dirge Bard + Crossblood(Serpentine/Undeath) Sorcerer 1
Greyskull - Barbarian/Mobile Fighter with a big sword and a penchant for fur bikinis. Remember to describe the musculature as "thews".
Trauma Kit - Defiler Magus, but use Dirty Trick not Trip
Dr. Migraine - Knife Master Sap adept Rogue who focuses on doing as much non-lethal damage as possible in one hit.
Pandora - Summoner with focus on...summoning...named the Eidolon Hope, which should be the most hideous concoction you can devise. There's a reason it was left in the bottom of the box...
Speed Racer - Charge based with a very fast mount
Glam Rocker - Hair Hex Magus, Shocking grasps...
Baptist Preacher - Paladin/Gunslinger
Who Needs a Hug? - A very affectionate Tetori Monk.
Mysterious Kill Stealing Bastard - Inquisitor/Gunslinger
A Good Colonic - Dazzling Display, Enforcer, Thug, Shatter Defenses, etc..
But im talking about actual world results. It doesnt matter if the average is 5.5 if you cant actually roll 5.5.
This is about understanding how science relates to the world you live in, and it makes me a little sad. Being unable to roll 5.5 on a die is not relevant to the information that statistic contains.
Put directly: 5.5 is a real world result. It is not a die roll.
The real world result is performance over time. A weapon with a higher average damage will do more damage in more fights over the career of a given character.
I believe what you mean to be saying is that you don't care about the highest average damage, not that more damage isn't more.
It is. Found here the Falcata is a great one-handed weapon that you can wield in two hands for the big bonus. With improved threat range you could get x3 20% of the time.
I dont know why people have been suggesting warpriest with vital strike. The sacred weapon die is inferior to the regular weapon die until very high levels or mid levels + enlarge. You also dont have the BAB to get power attack/vital strike as you only get full BAB "when attacking", not for the purpose of feats.
IMHO 2d4 is superior to 1d10. Statistically speaking you will get higher rolls with 2d4. 5.5 being the "average" of 1d10 means nothing as you can NEVER get a real world result of 5.5 on a 1d10.
I mean, it's just maths... No need to start accusing it of having no meaning.
After all, you know what I can get on a d10? a 10. I haven't rolled that on 2d4 yet. I keep hoping, though. Optimisim, right?
Also, while I'm thinking about it: 8, 9, and 10... I get that 30% of the time. Like, one in three almost. On 2d4 I get 8, oh... one in sixteen times. That's rough. That imaginary 5.5 guy gets your best damage or better five times for your every one.
I mean, it doesn't mean anything though. It's just maths...
I wouldn't mind that too much if this was done consistantly, but the low int usually get really crafty when it comes to tactical behaviour and that's not correct.
The fox would disagree. They are renowned for being devious. Wolves are also known for cunning and excellent team work. So much so that they became iconic across cultures for this behavior. These are animals without higher reasoning skills, and a systemic value for intelligence of 2. If a wolf can work with a team using team tactics then an Int 7 character certainly can as well.
Knowledge: Nature covers any curiosities on the natural threat. The druid has it. (Or ought to, at least. I mean...it is what they do.) So an informed decision was available.
As for killing players, over-powered encounters, and a breathing world...:
Let me start out by saying that I am ruthless as a GM and I kill without compunction. I make a point to provide all obvious information and to allow skill use for further details. I encourage the players to independently assess their threats and odds for survival and make their own decision. I always allow my players to make their own decisions. I reward those decisions with appropriate consequences.
When players engage in a situation without the feeling of true danger, that their choices do not really matter, then the game is boring. The adventure is way more of a railroad when I cannot lose, because the story goes one way. Sure there may be some bends, but in the end I'm going to win, and that was never in question. I have found that I get players taking notes, keeping old hand outs, scribbling quotes and biting their tongues in concern by letting them run their own character straight into the grave or to victory. If you decide to ignore this story thread about the missing shipment and instead head straight to the Land of Horrible Death...I have no sympathy when Horrible Death meets up with you. If you decide to spend time in the Land of Butterflies then I have no sympathy when Butterflies happen, either. It was your choice, as a player, to make. Even if it means incredible boredom or instant death, it was your choice. That is what role playing is.
As the GM it is my job to provide a dynamic, rich sounding board for the PC's to bounce off. NPC's that they can interact with and remember. I provide the setting, the arena in which the story gets told. The real story-tellers are the players. Their struggle with the dark forces and their choices on how to handle it. Do they sacrifice the small towns to shore up the defenses of the big city? Do they succumb to tainted power in order to defeat their opponent? Can they hold faith when all their other efforts have failed and persevere through the dark times? These are the elements that make a meaningful story. Struggle, personal decisions, personal courage, personal defeats are all part of making the story matter to the players. When the story matters, the characters matter. When the characters matter you're doing it right.
Otherwise, we're just jerking around the table playing simulation computer game. "I'm sorry, that input is invalid. Please try a different option." "I'm sorry, that will result in inevitable death, please try a different option." "Correct! The blue key unlocks the blue door and inside you see..." I don't go through the effort of table top gaming to play something that is as restrictive as an XBox. I play to use my imagination, because imagination is what it is about. You're never going to capture your players' imaginations if you throttle their ability to explore, to make bad choices, and to reap the benefits of that behavior. Everyone at the table has to feel free to stand up and do something stupid or something brilliant and that whatever the case may be, the only limit was themselves.
For clarity of reference: Stealth. This is also quoted above us by Malachi.
Stealth clearly reads that cover or concealment is used to not be observed. In fact the language is even weaker on cover or concealment because it states "most creatures". Bluff is used to create a moment when you are not observed. If you are crossing observed terrain you can take a -10 on your check to stay hidden as you find another spot that is unobserved. The keystone of each sentence where it talks about being unable to stealth is observation. So, in order to stealth you need: To not be observed. Bluff checks, concealment, cover, all of this provides a conduit to that one condition. Removing that one condition allows you to Hide in Plain Sight.
I see this a lot. Many people mistake nobility, honor, and valor for stupidly suicidal. There are a ton of ways to go about it, but the core contention is how the player frames the type of character they are playing. If you can, engage him in a dialogue and see if you can't come to an understanding. You can pull up actual copies of the code of Bushido, or a code of Chivalry from one of the orders. Many of these men were, ultimately, soldiers in an armed force and had to obey battlefield commands to tactical advantage. If discussions do not work, then his choice to commit suicide is his choice. Honor that privilege and eat him for lunch. I hear they go good with ketchup.
As an aside...How noble is sacrifice when the dinosaur is going to go through him like a chicken nugget? Not only did he fail to buy any reasonable time, the dino can just ignore him and head to the larger group of meat tasties. Samurai goals achieved: 0. Lunches achieved: All. Now he's lost all his honor by completely failing to do anything to preserve the lives of his colleagues. So, even with his assessment of ethical obligations being considered accurate...the tactic itself is absurdly ineffective. I would have assumed he merely hated his character and wanted to die, then eaten him up.
I have no vested interest in this build. Ascribing motivation to me is only going to color your impression of why I might be making any given argument, and obliquely ridiculing me by using the silliest-sounding objects is not becoming of you, sir. Given how profusely posters on this forum argue for strict RAW readings, it seems to me that one might look at what the rules say.
Sure, I presumed that you had a vested interest. My mistake. The derision of the items is kind of sad though. Jackie Chan used the bucket, the ladder, and the horse shoe to devastating cinematic effect in his movies, and the wind chime came from an old era spy movie where it became an improvised garrote. Improvised weapons often seem silly, and part of the appeal, in my opinion, of using them is to be able to point out you beat some big bad npc with a herring or some such. Even in the recent Bourne movies the main character primarily defeated his attacker with a rolled up magazine and other sundries. If you feel obliquely ridiculed by the various improvised weapon examples that is unfortunate.
As for what the rules say, I felt that Malachi has been doing an excellent job indicating where the rules support masterwork crafting and improvised weapons. If it was vague, then let us focus on what happens when you create a masterwork version of an object. Since the absurdist examples will not suffice as they are not distinctly covered we can look at the moderate examples. Items that can be made masterwork but are not weapons, such as a shovel, clothing, etc become masterwork tools. These provide a +2 circumstance bonus to the purpose at which the tool was intended to be used. The game refers to this as the skill check associated with the tool use.
Should you use the spell masterwork transformation the result is the same. The crafted item becomes masterwork at its intended purpose. It could then be used to create a wondrous item but the masterwork quality does not extend to combat. The rules specifically spell out the items' qualities as a tool with a distinct purpose. Not a weapon as supported by the definitions provided here and the lack of an entry on any weapon table. Further, there are clear enchanting rules set up for both weapons, armor, shields, and wondrous items. Of specific interest is the clear wording from Magic Weapons
Magic Weapons, PRD wrote:
All magic weapons are also masterwork weapons, but their masterwork bonuses on attack rolls do not stack with their enhancement bonuses on attack rolls.
A masterwork bowl is not a masterwork weapon. It is a masterwork tool. In order for it to become a magic weapon it would also require status as a masterwork weapon, which, as a tool, it cannot obtain.
Bizbag wrote:
Well, then what about the part of the entry for Shields that says you can? PRG 152: "but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
You were discussing the facts about enchanting enhancement bonuses to add to attack and damage and some allegedly conflicting statements made by another forum member. I was merely attempting to clarify that specific misunderstanding. I did not realize it was necessary to include full details from the previous debate points to ensure clarity. I will try to read the situation more clearly in the future.
Code of Behaviour. Plenty of historic and fictional examples around. It can be fun to come up with, too. Think of it like a Paladin's code, only you can add things like "Any who wrong me shall be paid in kind" and "Death to betrayers, there is no forgiveness" or "Bunnies shall be loved and protected above all others, for they are cute and fluffy in my arms".
@Kazumetsa Raijin: I do not think your combination smacks of douchebaggery. Whether or not anyone at your table feels like you're just being a jerk is all about how you portray it. Have a personality, have fun with the interactions, take every slice of humble pie handed to you with grace, and you won't have an issue. It really boils down to whether or not they feel you just wanted to play the character build because it resembled Kraft Macaroni and Cheese (it's the cheesiest). So, use your powers, kick butt, don't play like a douche, and you won't end up perceived as one. When questions come up about what you can do, just explain "Well, when I was looking for options as to my feat/power/whatever I spent a lot of time going over the choices and I just felt this one was the best fit. I'm really satisfied with how it works out." i think you have a significant strength in that argument considering how often you have hit these message boards looking for help and engaging in discussions as to how the class features/feats/etc interplay. Further, Druids and Monks require a little more thought to play effectively than a Paladin (arguably more powerful depending on build) or Gunslinger (hated by popular demand regardless of power comparisons) or a few other common overachievers.
My bottom line?
You have spent a lot of energy and effort making this character for yourself. Don't let guilt (over it turning out amazing) prevent you from seeing that come to life.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Unarmed Strikes =/= Martial Arts. Monks excel at Unarmed Strikes better than most, but so do Unarmed Fighters, and those guys aren't Martial Artists.
Let's take one of your build examples and say he transforms into a bear. Bears generally swat at bee nests for honey and such, not caring about the bees themselves (hence the thick fur they have). Quite frankly, bears swatting at stuff like that can constitute as unarmed strikes.
In addition, bears are generally huge (especially Grizzly's). Their body is more than capable of smashing into enemies and causing a great deal of pain. The Unarmed Strike rolls can constitute as this.
Honestly, unless you transform into something with a humanoid-like shape (i.e. Elemental), you'll be physically incapable of "Kung-Fu," but RAW, you're still not limited from your Unarmed Strikes which you can use other parts of your body for (Headbutt, Hindleg Swatting, etc.) I don't see a problem with it, mechanics-wise OR roleplay-wise.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here... Maybe make that diplomacy/linguistics check again?
So let me ask you this, then, ErrantPursuit and Ninten:
What do you do when you have a heavily optimized character who is outshining the un-optimized characters to such a degree that they are thinking of leaving the table?
Well?
Should we say, "Hey, you need to optimize your character!" Some of these new players spend hours, nay days building their characters. They do not want their characters to be changed, they, instead, want to be able to play their characters.
So, what are your suggestions? Eh? Lose players so the one guy who refuses to not limit himself can feel smug?
This is an excellent question.
In my home games, I talk over character design and builds with the player. In that way I know exactly what I'm getting and how to design my encounters. It also means I incorporate the background and story elements of story heavy characters into my game. They often thoroughly enjoy seeing their hard work come to life in the game. It also allows me to deter any truly detrimental choices away. I also am able to set expectations and discuss strategies so that the player knows how to play their character and what tactics work.
Bottom line, I talk with my players. I involve them in the process of the game and the story. Everyone knows who they are sitting down with, and what they can expect from each other. The only problems I usually have along the lines you describe are from my younger players as they work on concepts like sharing face time with NPC's and rolling big numbers more often, (or occasionally claiming they rolled big numbers because they want to win, though that behaviour doesn't persist very long.)
I'm going to be nice and just say this to your fit of rage from this evidently happening to you once.
Has not happened to me ever. I just don't think it's your place to tell other people how to play their character, or to determine how good a character is allowed to be at one thing or another. Especially when many of the "balance" flaws come down to the GM have a poorer level of system mastery than his or her players and not being willing to learn from them.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
I do not play PFS for the simple reason that I am not allowed to dictate these things.
Dictatorships are bad. Mkay?
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Also, note, I do tell these people what my intentions are. It is their choice to do what they want. If they break the game for everyone at the table leaving them disgruntled then I break their character so everyone is happy again. I'd rather lose one power-player than lose three role-players any day.
So, you don't tell a player whose character you are about to murder for metagame reasons that you have a problem with how things are working out and feel that the best solution is to assassinate their character? Do I need to expand on how wrong this is? Also, maybe it is just your luck of the draw, but in 20 years of gaming in systems including AD&D2E, Talislanta, Feng Shui: Action Movie RPG, White Wolf RPG's, Palladium RPGs, Champions, Warhammer Fantasy (not the tactical warfare game), Imagine, and a few more, I have learned that role playing and effective character design are not mutually exclusive. Some of the most amazing games I have been part of were with intelligent, engaging individuals who knew the system, how their characters worked, and how to role play. I am really sorry if you haven't experienced that. It is amazing.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
I have been in many a group that has dissolved because of this issue
So, nobody in that group was mature enough to work that issue out? I'm sorry to hear that. I have played with 50+ gamers and under 10 gamers. I have yet to come across an issue with anyone at my table that we could not discuss and address. We have had individuals, after talking it out, realize that they wanted to play a different story than the rest of the group wanted to tell. In those cases we either compromised or moved along.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
I've had a player just leave outright after a few days playing with a power-guy. The problem is obvious to me. I'm sorry that you do not agree.
Based on your earlier comments, it sounds like your table suffers from severe player attrition. Healthy games have a stable player base and low rotation. I am not convinced the problem is as obvious as you seem to believe.
I did not do this because some people come in with OP characters and then limit themselves intentionally. I have had gunslingers in campaigns pull out repeating crossbows. I have had gunslingers shoot all enemies equally, hence spreading their damage out. I have had people play broken characters in ways that are not broken.
The point is that the players in question made characters that were far more powerful than the other characters. The responsibility now falls to the players of said characters to control how powerful they are when compared to other members of the party.
Hell, I am playing a broken character at my level (Warrior 1 Werewolf [natural]) and we are at the beginning of Second Darkness. I could solo the party, solo all of the encounters, and then proceed to go on without them because my DR10 and resistances from Aasimar are too powerful for the monsters to get through without critting. So what do I do? I hang near the back, whip out my short-bow and shoot at enemies from afar until someone gets incapacitated, and then, only then, do I put the bow away and tear things apart with my bite (wolf) and two claws (Aspect of the Beast). It helps that my character was raised by Astarathian in Pangolais, Nidal as a favor to his afflicted werewolf mother.
Any OP character can be played in broken ways, or in not broken ways. Imagine a Nova Magus who does not cast that 10d6 shocking grasp and hold it, then discharge the 10d6 SG out of his sword on the first hit as well as discharge his held, and then cast anotehr 10d6 and discharge that all on the same round. Imagine if he instead decides to cast one 10d6 SG on a tough enemy but use his spell with spell combat the cast cantrips to inhibit enemies.
When the DM tells you that you can play a character but that you are way too powerful that is the DM's way of telling you:
"You have a chance to be allowed to play this character.
If you play
in such a way
that you, lone, do not save the day
then part of the party you can stay."
It isn't being passive aggressive, that would be tell him the game is over so he doesn't show up again. My actions were, instead, being kind and assuming that he will, in turn, be kind to the party. Instead, he decided to play a god, and as we all know the Mantis god was not amused by such assertions!
Oh
My
God
Alright, in your home game, behave in whatever way you like...
Killing people with legal characters in a PFS or other organized play event by changing the prescribed tactics of the scenario in order to murder them and "teach them a lesson" about not...building better characters than other people?
Who do you think you are?
Who made you judge and jury of what was acceptable for people to play at a table? You, during a public event, decided you could arbitrate what was allowed at the table regardless of the rules you were there to represent and play by?
The characters these people created were legal in the system you were playing with. The only crime was they were better constructed, mechanically, than the other characters at the table. For that you determined that EVERY PLAYER DESERVED TO DIE.I am ashamed to play the same game as you. I am ashamed to represent the same company as you at events. I am disgusted you feel proud of your actions.
You can be any kind of table-nazi you want at your home game. At an event, at a public representation of the system and the rules, you are honor bound to be neutral and let no bias interfere with an accurate accounting of the events. Especially when it is:
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
at the game show I was hosting
where you are the responsible party for the entire show, and how Pathfinder is represented there.
You have failed in the most basic responsibility of a GM: To fairly and accurately account for the resolution of conflicts and the progression of the story. You decided it was your job to dictate to players how they should play their characters. It is not your character. The choices are not yours to make. How dare you? How dare you tell someone else that they cannot play their character, that instead their character must be played the way you want it to? Whether it is the weakest PC you have ever seen or the most mechanically exploited construct of mathematics you have no right. It is not your character to make decisions for.
You are wrong about arrows and bullets piercing plate btw. The plate worn at Agnincourt could stop the bodkin arrow. The mud won that battle. Bullets couldn't pierce a good breastplate, they even proofed them by firing at them point blank. If you saw the tiny dent you knew it was a good piece. The reason why they stopped wearing plate is because it was too expensive to waste on troops, and warfare moved away from nobles fighting pick up battles and the occasional big battle (which was actually rare) to massive armies moving constantly devouring the country side like locusts. Heavy pieces of steel strapped to yourself feels awful and tires you out too much.
Here is a wiki article talking about platemail. You'll note that the decline of platemail is immediately attributed to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armor at a considerable distance.
I appreciate your opinion, but historic fact is that you are wrong. Event he article on plate armor indicates arrows and crossbows could pierce it.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
So, what you are saying is that there is no problem with this single feat being effectively worth between 32,000 and 50,000 GP (the cost of a +4 & +5 enchant)?
Oh wait, it also ignores EPIC DR as well so bump that up to 200,000 GP value for this feat.
Hmmm, that sounds balanced to me.
Perhaps it is YOU who should take a step back and "look at the rules set put forth" before making comments like this.
Most of the "value" rhetoric has been adequately pursued by karlbadmannersV2. Here are some points about the feat and comparison to melee which was the original point of discussion.
Clustered Shots does not ignore DR, it allows you to make (and miss) all of your regular shots before calculating DR. This assists in bypassing DR, but does not ignore it.
Every melee combatant can add Strength or Strength(1.5) to his attacks. Strength is also the melee accuracy stat, meaning you can add both accuracy and power off of one stat.
Range attackers must use Dexterity for accuracy and if they choose to add damage they must purchase a specific type of weapon for variable costs and invest in a second attribute to enhance that effect. Some classes have special features that work around this. None of those features are available at early levels, so a significant investment is required.
With every feat applied, range attackers receive 6 attacks per round at the top. Melee attackers receive between 4 and 7 with full feat investment. Both groups can add 1 attack with haste.
Melee attackers threaten nearby squares and can make attacks of opportunity without investing feats. Range attackers cannot do this at all without investing significant feats (the Snapshot chain is a commitment).
Range attack bonuses to damage rarely exceed double digits and rarely have more than a few dice to contribute from enchantments. Yes, there are exceptions, but to get even that far they must be committed to using a ranged weapon exclusively. Melee attackers can exceed double digits on damage bonuses (and the extra dice from enchantments) several levels sooner, and can often commit only partially to this and then move on to do other things.
There are several arguments I have not brought up, but the bottom line is that hating on Clustered Shots is from a position of personal bias, not because it is breaking the game. If you do not know how to handle a ranged attacker in your game, then you should sit down with the rules and look at what makes them work, and what they have to sacrifice to get there. A good CMD is often missing, and an entire archer line can usually be stumped with a good selection of Summoned Monster options. If you did not design the encounter that is being overrun...then the encounter designer clearly did not anticipate a broad array of threats. Poor encounter design is a common problem. More often than not, when I hear GM's complaining about a class or a feat, it is because they do not understand how to interact with it, and what the NPC's should do to cope.
As a control wizard might say "Just because you can throw 16d6 on the table doesn't mean I have to sit there and take it".
You are referring to Clustered Shots. Which is what prevents ranged attackers from being completely stopped by damage reduction. Melee Fighters get some very serious ways to boost damage, and you pick on a feat that lets an archer tally up all the damage she already had to do before subtracting the effects of damage reduction?
Melee attackers get Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike, which is arguably much better. Also the ability to grapple, entangle, trip (okay, Archers can Trip with a special arrow), reposition, bull rush, drag, overrun and more... An archer really only gets to do one thing. Damage. They are never very competitive at the other options.
Still, if you think it's better to tell them to stop using a feat that specifically exists to shore up a weakness because, "That's too much trouble. I don't want you being effective against creatures with DR" then I guess telling them to get rid of it is the simpler solution, but not optimal by any means. I'd recommend learning to play before I told my players to stop playing better than me.
the only thing I can add to this for all of you saying just learn the class and suck it up is:
When you have 2 11th level characters (Gunslinger + Zen Archer) one round a CR 20 Balor with Mythic Levels in a published scenario without taking any damage and laughing at it there is a problem with the rules.
I disagree. There is a problem with the published scenario. It begins with what it takes to make one of these published scenarios. Broad-spectrum playability is top on the list. An optimized party, played by skilled players and designed to work as a team will rip these things apart in no time. I see it all the time. A skilled group of players optimized to work together will rip apart almost every encounter that is not tailored to challenge them specifically.
That's what optimizing is. That's what being a skilled player is. Did you think getting the most out of your character and playing it to the best advantage meant dickering about with shoelaces for ten rounds before getting serious? Of course not! The reality just often leaves people shocked and a little distraught. That's okay. Have a hot cuppa and let the shakes subside. Then move on and think it through better next time. One of the keys is how you let the combat get engaged, the other is what choices you make with the powers you have available.
I've had a drink or so, and now my self-control has dropped to the point I'm posting on this overkill thread.
To the He broke my game GMs:
If you are running a module out of the box for PFS, then suck it up and get moving.
If you are running your own campaign and discovered that certain class mechanics are not behaving the way you thought they would, then all I can say to you is: Learn.
Just learn it. If your long term villains are at all realistic, then they will recruit and cultivate capable individuals to overcome the threat. Don't tailor your encounters to one player, that's absurd. Tailor the encounter to the entire party. Grapple the crap out of that Gunslinger. He doesn't have feats invested in it, and your summoned monster does.
Are you unsure how to counter a developing power house and maintain the feeling that every character is a main character in this story?
Just learn it.
No matter what, if you run enough games for enough people, or long enough, you will encounter things that completely throw you. As the Arbiter of the game you are beholden to the same rules as the players. It is the agreement. "I won't cheat as a player, and you won't cheat as a GM". Let the NPC die, let the character die. The world goes on. It hurts, there is emotional involvement, but in the end, the sun sets and the moon rises.
You must be adaptable.
A player leaves town. Dice rolls go the wrong way. Players fail to pick up on some serious hints you've been dropping. Whatever it is, it changes the "plan". Go with it. The BBEG died ten sessions early. Think it through. Who takes over, what steps in to fill the void. Do any lieutenants try to pick up where he left off? Does a separate power base move in? Don't run your game on a rail. You expect your characters to be resilient to multiple encounters and all kinds of setbacks, shouldn't you be?
Whining because a particular player has started to force you to work harder at system mastery, or storytelling, is just poor performance. Suck it up GM's. You chose to be the world. The living, breathing, dynamic world. That is not easy. It means sacrifice. Your time is sacrificed on that altar. Your NPC's are sacrificed on that altar. Your very story is sacrificed on that altar. The only way to save the game is to prepare yourself and your players. Set expectations appropriately, live up to them appropriately, let players get the "Holy Unexpected Victory Batman! What a dice roll!" moments. You, as the GM, have to be adaptable and just learn it.
By far this is not a complete list. Also, you didn't mention what you have in your equipment slots. Further, a lot of defensive items are about preventing or shoring up different areas. Immunity to this here and that there can significantly add up to a very resilient character.
Do you have a familiar that can use magic items? One that can get you both buffed up with very effective action economy, leaving you available for other options is not exactly passive, but still great.
Look into weapon enchants that provide defensive qualities to accessorize your existing equipment. Get a buckler and enchant it. You still have your hands free to cast, and defensive enchantments are often great.
So, I was thinking of building a Control style Sorcerer. I ended up with a race boon(Ifrit) for PFS and was toying around with different builds using that race.
One of the advantages I saw was the incredible bonus to initiative I could establish: +4 Race, +4 Imp Init, +4 Familiar(Varisian Tattoo Archetype), +4 Deuling weapon (spiked gauntlet), + Dex Mod, +2 Trait mod. This could be around +20 to Initiative without too much expense.
DC's could be +6 at level 1 (Elemental(Fire) Bloodline and Cha).
Any suggestions or advice on how to put something like this together? I haven't spent much time building casters so this would be difficult terrain for me in Pathfinder.
I have so many ways I want to argue this that they have train-wrecked in my brain. So now you get the train wreck.
All I play is PFS, as far as Pathfinder is concerned. I could write a marketing pamphlet as to why, but bottom line is I find it worthwhile.
Dumping stats is exactly what gets you far. If you don't know why you're dumping a stat and how to behave in situations when your weakness is foremost, then you are in for some rough times. Otherwise it's just another good answer to getting more bang for your buck. Also, if you're not investing skill points in an area (and even if you are) the -1 or -2 is inconsequential over the long term. You're still not making the DC 30 check (or you are because of feats, traits, abilities, etc...). The same basically goes for saving throws which are more important. In fact, a successful adventurer needs to have an answer for weak saves (or just not have weak saves).
To be successful with flaws in your character is to embrace that you are NOT something, but you are very good at something else. Learn to play your strengths and compensate, work around, or minimize your disadvantages. That philosophy is not min-maxing or optimizing, it is merely learning to play any character.
The archetype indicates you take the penalties if you choose to do that many extra maneuvers and it uses the plural combat maneuver checks. I feel like the two valid interpretations are: -2 to all maneuvers if you only choose to do one extra. -5 to all maneuvers if you choose to do two extra, and -12 if you choose to do three extra. This would indicate you declare your intent to use them all before rolling any dice.
OR
First extra maneuver is -2, Second extra maneuver is -5, Third extra maneuver is -12. All checks associated with your maneuvers on that iteration are at the penalty and subsequent checks would be made at that penalty (in the case where an opponent forced a check before your turn came around again or something similar.)
A lot of gamers (who have not tried Live Action Role Playing or Interactive Theatre or some other situation in which real people are really trying to hit other real people) often seem to lose perspective about combat.
If reasonable arguments like "It is actually not that easy to hit only one of two guys who are trying to kill each other. Much less to hit exactly the correct one." do not sway the player then try this practical demonstration.
Get two buckets, two tennis balls, a fairly long rope and go to your local park.
Drape the rope over the monkey bars or swing set.
Tie the buckets about chest high off the ground. If you have enough slack you can leave leads that you pull, otherwise you'll need to give them a good swing.
Walk a good 20ish feet away and hand the tennis balls to your player.
Explain he has 6 seconds to hit the far bucket twice when you give the word.
Walk back to the buckets and pull the leads or set them swinging.
Realistically the buckets have an approximate AC of about 5, so a character should have good odds of hitting them every time. Unless the player has had some practice they won't perform that well.
Usually simple demonstrations like this handle the situation long term for a small trade off of personal time. You could also look up How To and Learning To videos. Like this one. Or, more official than a random Felicia Day webcast where she and a friend go get Archery lessons while wearing elf ears.
When that fails, inform the player that he can have an opinion on how silly the combat rules are when he returns from a tour of active duty.
