One of my characters, after spending an entire fight unsuccessfully attempting to hit opponents with a magic item that dazes on contact, complains to the city guard when they show up.
"Absolutely I would like to file complaint! The merchant on Merkel Street, the one with the funny hair! He is a fraud! Selling fake magic items! See! This does not work!"
<smacks item on palm> <rolls a 20, followed by another 20 to confirm>
The guards just walked away laughing.
When you're in literal Hell and the paladin decides to Detect Evil.
Then another party member blows a Horn of Goodness and wonders A) why they can still be attacked, and B) why every infernal in hearing range is suddenly making a beeline towards them.
Actually happened. Not at my table, fortunatly, but we had to stop for a few minutes just to watch it happen the table next to us while their GM was trying his best not to cackle with glee.
Bolt Vanderhuge wrote:
A David Ryder table would be awesome
No. Your character may be innocent, but it was your decision, as the player controlling both the character and the intelligent weapon.
The "don't be a jerk" rule applies to players, not just characters.
And playing passive-agressive semantic games with rules wording to try and "push boundries" or "be edgy" isn't particularly following the spirit of that.
"What do you mean I'm likely to encounter negative repercussions for acting in a boorish manner at a high society party? There's no mention of high society parties in the Core rules, so therefore you can't restrict or punish me for behaving boorishly. Even telling me at the table how high society works is against the Core rules."
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.
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.
Alright, and what about when the optimizer is hogging all of the glory and hurting the fun of the rest of the table?
As before, it's not a problem than can be fixed by adding more rules limiting the character.
Because it's not the character that's the problem.
It's the player.
There is where you need to focus the attention on.
And that can only be done by talking to that player.
What is being described is a player problem.
Not a character problem.
Players who don't hold back even if it is detrimental to the fun of the rest of the table will continue to be a problem even if such caps are put into place. They'll just find different ways to optimize.
In all cases the solution is NOT more character rules.
The solution is to TALK to the players in question.
Let them know what they are doing is affecting the others. If they still then continue to run roughshod, perhaps they should seek out a different play venue besides PFS.
Expect to feel sub-par til 5th level, then distinctly overpowered for the next few levels.
Rapid Reload, paper cartridges, and the archetype's musket abilities will eventually make reloading a free action. Meaning you can take all of your iterative attacks without wasting actions on reloading. Add to that hit-on-touch and the 5th level dex-to-damage, which for Musket Masters work at decent ranges, and you quickly become a walking machinegun. Distance enchantment is excellent, and reliable is just great - with the volume of fire you van put out, misfires are a very real issue.
When you get there, you will be spending money like water on ammo, even with the Alchemy rank discount. Get used to it. You might as well be shooting gold pieces out of that musket. Get a good Day Job to defray the costs.
Also past 5th level you may consider multiclassing. The Gunslinger class is very front-loaded and past 5th level you can easily switch classes and not lose too much. I personally went bard but you can branch out in many possible directions.
I am reminded of a player character from an old campaign. The player had a special helmet made that was big enough to let the ioun stones orbit inside it. When described, the other players and GMs immediately came to the conclusion that his head must look like a mushroom.
Much mirth was to be had at his expense. Including things like the character not being able to hear stuff over the rolling sound of ioun stones across metal.
The Morphling wrote:
...unless there's actually a book called "Pathfinder Campaign Setting."
Technically there WAS one. It's from 3.5, out of date, and no longer legal for PFS except the few rules bits that haven't been updated in a later publication, so long as your character obtained it before the cutoff date.
But yeah, that AR entry is probably MEANT to be Inner Sea Faiths.
Mike Bramnik wrote:
I have a two-shield brawler!
Now we just need a fourth and we'd be a table.
"When you have magical bows and arrows, does a weapon ability which increases the enhancement bonus apply to the enhancement bonus of the bow, the enhancement bonus of the arrow, or whichever is higher?"
I think that is a FAQ-worthy question, since the actual written text is not entirely clear.
I know that people have opinions on how the current text should be interpreted, but that doesn't mean that text couldn't use some clarifying.
Been trying to get a couple of official FAQ responses for ages, but perhaps PFS clarifications are good enough for now:
1) Given that the White Haired Witch archetype is more or less the Prehensile Hair hex made into an entire class, is it really supposed to only use Intelligence for 'hair' damage rolls but not attack rolls, when the original hex uses Intelligence for both attack and damage? Or was it simply an oversight in the writing?
2) A few classes like the Brawler and Warpriest have the ability to substitute the base damage dice of weapons with dice specified by that class and class level. If you have an effect that further alters the size category or the weapon in question, does the size increase adjustment get applied to the original damage dice, the substituted damage dice, both, or neither?
Yeah, I think the problem here is NOT that the player wants to play a non-combatant, it's that she presents herself as a combatant and then doesn't do the job.
If you want to play a particular concept, that's great! Just don't claim, out of character, you're playing something else. That's just being deceptive and borderline jerkish.
With run speed enhancement, some characters get pretty impressive charge distances.
If you can get the Pounce special ability, via several possible sources, you can even make a full attack at the end instead of just one attack.
More than a few bad guys have been startled by an axe-wielding barbarian hurtling in their face out of nowhere.
Belladonna DeCastri 12 wrote:
Heh. I used to play a druid in a different campaign that spent most of the time in animal form. Would eat the bodies of the particularly troublesome fallen partly because it prevented Raise Dead. Also, feeling a bit peckish.
She kinda had a different morality than most folks. Nature isn't particularly nice.
Here is the reality of those that steal the show constantly or otherwise run roughshod over their fellow players.
It's because they're jerks.
Powergaming or not.
How they do it is really kinda irrelevant to the larger issue, that they are putting their own enjoyment over others.
It is not a rules problem. It is a player problem.