Mechanically strong character- all the time.

So in another thread the issue came up of how a player should make a mechanically strong character all of the time and just dial it back in game play if needed.

I argued against that and it was even said that there will be people and tables where having a mechanically strong character could be seen as rude. I argued that it was about taking the temperature of the room so to speak before making a character for the table.

Recent experiences (and some not so recent) support my feelings.

Last weekend, I played in a 7-9 scenario. I played my nightmare touch monk (bewildering koan, 2+ saves per hit, 2-4 additional debuffs per hit, additional effects as desired per hit...). My monk is a ki mystic and sensei and Qinggong and has levels of inquisitor and other crap, but mostly inquisitor.

Our party had a rogue (thug archetype), a paladin and another monk....who was a ki mystic with levels in inquisitor.

This monk had every single knowledge skill, and honestly, it felt like he put a point in every possible skill so that he could always contribute to every possible situation. By having monster lore, ki in his pool and a high wisdom, a large number of skills were at good bonus in general and great bonus in somewhat more specific cases. When I say he had skills in everything, he had profession artist and craft calligraphy- which happened to be uniquely useful in that scenario. Sure, monks do calligraphy. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt there. But he also had bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, and on and on and on. Anything the gm asked- he rolled for it.

Gm: Got profession butterscotch maker?
Player: even better, I have profession candymaker, and craft confections.
Me: are you %&3c8!ng $#1t!ng me?
Gm: OK, sounds legit.
Me: *tosses up hands*

Our paladin had the best diplomacy. But Mr monk was rolling well all night so fought to make the diplomacy checks, fought to make every knowledge check (always beating me by at least 1-2 points), and made all the rest of the checks for the entire group. He also overshadowed us in the social aspects with personality and generally over talking myself and others. There was a point where I felt like literally saying 'blah blahblah' because I was evidently not being listened to or acknowledged but figured that if I had done so it may be construed as rude. Poor psychology. Being trivialized and ignored was far more rude.

Keep in mind that said monk was a level lower than the paladin and I.
in combat he was....there. Nothing special. So in a fight I could definitely be more memorable but our group had two pure DPs machines so the combat was boring and unenjoyable as we didn't get to like...you know, fight. The most I got to do was reduce an enemies ac by 7 at which point it just up and fled.....yay.

But even if our monk had not been socially overbearing, it would have been just as annoying to effectively be competing on every freaking skill check....except bluff. I am pretty obnoxiously decent with that skill.
Had he dialed it back it would have been fine because it was for pfs. But in a home game it would be a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. I'd feel cheated out of all meaning where I to find out that god was with us and, even though we won without him using his divine powers, we were never really going to die because he was there. Or if he did use his powers to save us, then that act and our knowledge of what he can do, undermines the value of the game.

While making mechanically strong characters isn't a bad thing, it can be annoying as hell under the wrong circumstances. I wanted to share a circumstance where someone's mechanical strength in a large portion of the game made for a rather boring and unfun game where I (and others) were marginalized as a result. Having evil monsters and a paladin and having a thug with a 20 base str and greatsword just made combat too quick and unnoticeable. In this case, optimization and strong mechanics really diametrically opposed the fun element (for me). 4 hours of spectating. Yay.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

Sounds like the player was a tool, rather than there being an issue with his build.

Being useful is.. well.. useful. You never know when you'll run into a PFS table where a skill has been ignored by everyone. Working as a team is also good- everyone rolling and using the highest roll isn't a bad idea. It is in how the people play their character (and how the DM responds to them) that makes it good or bad.

In your scenario, the player was a tool and the DM listened to him instead of the rest of you. (when a player talks over others, the DM should shut him up.)

I would say.. a jerk can make any build be bad. :\

-S

There are two issues here. One is mechanical strength, the other is the social contract.

For mechanical strength, i don't mind so much. You could be playing up, you could be short a player. And why build a weak character?

For the social contract, this player failed. He's 1/6 of the players, and as such, deserves 1/6 of the spotlight. Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should elbow everyone else aside to do so. The game is ultimately best when all the participants help each other be better.

For someone who knows so many rules, he doesn't know much about how to play.

As for you, first, recognize that this is PFS. The variety of players is a strength too.

And just add this guy to your 'no thanks' list.

My best trick, upon seeing on of these people, is to ask 'hey, what tier are you playing?' Then i say a different tier and or scenario. Works pretty well.

First off, I am not saying that mechanical strength is always bad, just that maybe it is not always good. Had this guy been pleasant and shares the spotlight, I still would have felt like a spectator because, let's face it, if he can do a good deal of what I can do but better, I am going to suggest he do that stuff to increase our chances of success. Sure, I will play second fiddle and either aid or provide backup rolls, but I feel that that is overall boring gameplay to know I am really not neecessary except as a safety net (in case the hero overlooks something I get to be the awesome guy who tells him what he missed so he can continue being the hero- yay).

There seems to be a point in optimization and being good at what you do, especially damage dealing, where you can be too effective. I have played up in many scenario's before and whenever I have had excellent DPR characters in the group, specifically paladins, archers, and gunslingers, the games lost a lot of meaning. Sure, some went KO and honestly, those were the most interesting and fun rounds, where everything wasn't constantly dying in a single round, where there was actually an opportunity to employ strategy and tactics- not that you get much of either in pfs but still.

This all being said, I may be a hypocrite to a degree.

Also, it is not about making weak characters but making ones with consideration to the experience of the table, I guess. To me, it would be about finding that balance between useful and strong vs too good at what you do and what you do being too relevant too often to the point of it dominating.

This can happen at any table, in pfs or home games.

I think the problem was that both of you were playing essentially the same character. The problem was not so much that he had a strong mechanical build, but that he was a stronger version of your character. If you think that build was bad for skills try an elven archeologist bard with breadth of experience. Between archeologist luck, heroism and bardic lore his skills are going to be even better.

I say that it sounds like the problem you have was that he was good at skills. You said he wasn't super strong in combat. So he had is purpose, Do skills, help fight. Then you had your "fighters" who COMBAT!!!!! what was your purpose/plan for your guy? I feel this is more of, my guy has no point or purpose in life, instead of This guy does everything too well. As you said, even if this guy wasn't "hogging the spotlight" you'd still be backup. So it's the point of, what do you do in the game? If you were to be out of combat useful and he's better at it, tough luck.

So I could understand if you were mad because the guy was being a dick and hogging everyone's playtime, but you've said that isn't the case.

Then let me get this straight, this thread is just you whining about someone being good at what they made their character to do? And you being mad that your character who was not built to do the same thing wasn't as good at doing that thing?

Excuse me while I cry you a river, I guess.

Especially since you're crying about PFS of all places, where "making [characters] with consideration to the experience of the table" is impossible.

My advice? Get over it.

Make a character who is good at what he does. Other people will make characters who are good at what they do.

Unfortunately, you play PFS, which as a format is inflexible and random. So sometimes you'll come across people who are good at the same thing you are. Or better.

It happens. They're better at the game than you, in a character building sense.

That's not something the other person needs to be ashamed of. They don't need to gimp themselves because someone, somewhere down the line, like you, is going to feel bad about them making a character who is good at a thing and they enjoy.

I like characters who can contribute to pretty much everything. I also like characters who are really, really good at one thing. I like everything in between as well.

What I don't like is when others expect my character to fall into one of the above categories and either belittle it or call it cheese. There's little point in it when even the player might not know what challenges lie ahead, much less random Internetvolk, and apart from that I don't define my characters by their optimality.

@Chess,
What I do in a nutshell is prevent multiple key targets from being threats at all. I simultaneously supply offensive caster support and provide increased potential defense for the party while also improving allies combat ability and providing a fair deal of combat flexibility that can adapt to a given situation. Out of combat, I can improve allies out of combat utility, contribute socially to all social skills but am only specialized in two (and not the best two). I play solid second fiddle in some other out of combat areas such as knowledge checks but have a couple where I am more specialized and able. The character is well-rounded, versatile and largely relevant in more than enough circumstances. He does his thing and others still get to do theirs. When there is overlap, like say with a bard, he functions well as he has plenty of other options available to him.

I am not excluding myself from my own evaluation here. I think I do it, too, at least with some characters. I used the recent session as an example. But there are others. I guess it was missed that this was 'one example' and not the crux of my argument. Was this guy better at making knowledge checks than me? Yeah. So what? Did he have all of the knowledge skills? Yep. So at this point there was less/little need for anybody else to bother making them as he had that entire in and out of combat area covered reliably. Did this guy have points in tons of other skills? Yep. Not a big deal. But the point was that he covered a lot of bases very well. Even obscure ones. And while that is normally to a characters credit, there is a point where if you are doing everything and doing it well, why are other people around? Logically, the only mechanical reason to have a second character make a roll is in case you roll poorly and fail the check. As long as you roll average (and I admit, he rolled well all night so that definitely had something to do with it) other peoples actions are not necessary or become less relevant.

In the example above, other people who wanted or tried to make skill checks were in the same boat I was in. Some of us were quite good, even better than him, at making a given skill check. But his overarching competence in so many areas made the show all about him and not anybody else. The paladin actively complained about not being able to do anything and told the gm he would make all of his own rolls. But since Mr. Monk rolled nearly as well and always passed the DC, it didn't matter. The rogue seemed fine (and I think the monk and rogue were friends IRL) but I noticed that he got to do very little since the monk covered so much.

The only reasons most of us needed dice that game was to make saving throws, roll initiative and to hit and deal damage. Beyond that, the monk took care of everything else, including things others could do as well or better (with very few exceptions).

So imagine being in another game where someone is that mechanically sound and you are about to spend 4-8 hours watching this play out. It doesn't matter that you're better at them at something else. It doesn't matter that you're as good as they are or better in some of the things they are doing. When the math works out that you and everyone else are only there to keep all the monsters from swarming one dude...that's pretty lame and boring.

This is my point about being too mechanically strong. Most people don't show up to a table to watch someone else play and do everything. You don't have to be a specialist, but you also don't want to make everyone else irrelevant and ruin the aspect of teamwork. On the flip side, most people don't want to be in a party of all characters who can do everything well all the me. It's fine as a temporary thing but most people want some level of challenge and depth, which is removed when everyone always passes all checks. In literature, we give heroes flaws and vulnerabilities.

The character does not sound very mechanically strong. He in fact sounds very weak.

The player just doesn't know how to pull it back.

Last weekend, I played in a 7-9 scenario. I played my nightmare touch monk (bewildering koan, 2+ saves per hit, 2-4 additional debuffs per hit, additional effects as desired per hit...). My monk is a ki mystic and sensei and Qinggong and has levels of inquisitor and other crap, but mostly inquisitor... What I do in a nutshell is prevent multiple key targets from being threats at all.

You are complaining because someone made you feel inadequate in social situations yet your own description of your playstyle seems to make any person in combat feel useless. It's all in perspective. "I Slumber the BBEG" and "I Bewildering Koan the BBEG" is pretty much the same thing.

Complaining about mechanically strong characters when you have a Qinggong Ki Mystic Sensei Monk with levels in Inquisitor and other classes. Not sure where you are going with this.

Then let me get this straight, this thread is just you whining about someone being good at what they made their character to do? And you being mad that your character who was not built to do the same thing wasn't as good at doing that thing?

Nope. You may want to stop, think, and especially read the title again. You may also want to actually read some of what I said. Words such as 'example' seem to strike me as relevant. Are we using selective reading? Further, I sense a very rude tone in your entire reply. I don't appreciate it. Especially as I do not recall saying anything rude or doing anything disrespectful to you. Your entire response is therefor off putting and offensive.

Excuse me while I cry you a river, I guess.

....and you prove my point.

Especially since you're crying about PFS of all places, where "making [characters] with consideration to the experience of the table" is impossible.

No. No I am not crying about pfs...did you bother to read my example or the title? Seriously. I am pretty sure you are completely missunderstanding me now.

My advice? Get over it.

Again, in context, this is just rude.

Make a character who is good at what he does. Other people will make characters who are good at what they do.

Unfortunately, you play PFS, which as a format is inflexible and random. So sometimes you'll come across people who are good at the same thing you are. Or better.

I gave an example that was in pfs. I could give a non RPG related example if that will shake you from the fixation you have that I am complaining only about this specific example I gave and which people have grossly taken out of context.

You're a superhero on a team. Superman is on your team. Superman can fly faster than light, is invulnerable and infinitely strong. A bad guy and his army shows up in a distance large city and starts to do bad things!

Now, you take your superhero pill, someone else puts on their wings of flight, another guy gets his guns and preps his hypersonic jet.

About a third of the way there, superman flies by, handles the problem and returns to base then radio's you that the problem is solved and you can come back to base. As a team (without him), you could have fixed the problem. None of you could alone, but three or five of you could have. Superman has invalidated you. He did too many things too well and made your presence unecessary. And not just you, in particular, but the entire team. This right here is an example. I definitely need to make it clear because that point has been repeatedly missed. I want it clear that I am not talking about superman as my complaint, or pfs, or the monk who did everything. They are just examples.

My 10 year old roommate understood my argument and even gave an example from his own experience.

Again what I am about to say is just an example. It is not my actual argument. Read the title of the post for that.

He and I were playing a fun tower defense game on PlayStation called Dungeon Defenders. I am a tower building wizard and he is a melee DPs monk with high speed. We played on a challenge Map where no towers were allowed. So this map played to his strength and attacked my weakness. However, my wizard is a competent DPs character because he hits multiple targets and has a knock back attack, despite dealing low damage. Combine this with his attacks being ranged, and I am a solid contributor. I also have a pet which attacks at range and does decent damage very quickly. But I didn't get to play. The monk (Man, monks ruining my day lately?) ran through the entire map with his very high speed (superman speed) and in 1-2 hits killed what was in front of him (superman strength). He was on my half of the map before I could even get in range of the monsters (my wizard is slow) and he killed them all before I could do anything. After a not, I simply didn't even try. I stayed still when the game started and got up to do other things. See, I was completely able to participate. I could have covered my whole side. But he wouldn't let me. Once things got more difficult and monsters got within range, I still did nothing because there was no point. I was playing with superman. He took care of everything. My contributions would not have mattered. Eventually, he actually needed help. The point was that until then, I could have played but there was no point and that detracted from the fun.

It happens. They're better at the game than you, in a character building sense.

I doubt that. Now we are making assumptions that don't seem very valid. I choose not to make characters that make other players useless and/or unneeded at the table. Pathfinder is not single player, so....

That's not something the other person needs to be ashamed of. They don't need to gimp themselves because someone, somewhere down the line, like you, is going to feel bad about them making a character who is good at a thing and they enjoy.

Gimping yourself and not being superman are totally different things. When you play a social game, you play cyclops, captain america, hawkman, night wing, iceman, the flash, Spiderman, Wolverine, Gambit, thing. You don't play Magneto, superman, Thor, apocalypse, doomsday, darkseid, thanos, the beyonder, Pheonix, gladiator, or Galactus. Sure, anyone can make punpun, but then everyone else at the table is bored because of you.

Don't play punpun (or remotely similar conceptual characters).
Similarly, don't play spiderman, cyclops or wolverine when others are running daredevil and the punisher. This can't be helped in situations like pfs. But I am speaking in generalities and demonstrating that always playing a mechanically powerful character is not necessarily something everyone should always do as has been stipulated in other posts.

That is my point.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Dark Immortal wrote:

Last weekend, I played in a 7-9 scenario. I played my nightmare touch monk (bewildering koan, 2+ saves per hit, 2-4 additional debuffs per hit, additional effects as desired per hit...). My monk is a ki mystic and sensei and Qinggong and has levels of inquisitor and other crap, but mostly inquisitor... What I do in a nutshell is prevent multiple key targets from being threats at all.

You are complaining because someone made you feel inadequate in social situations yet your own description of your playstyle seems to make any person in combat feel useless. It's all in perspective. "I Slumber the BBEG" and "I Bewildering Koan the BBEG" is pretty much the same thing.

Complaining about mechanically strong characters when you have a Qinggong Ki Mystic Sensei Monk with levels in Inquisitor and other classes. Not sure where you are going with this.

I am not exempt from my own assertions. I know that many GM's dislike my charaxter showing up at a table. I have had to apologize in advance for my upcoming actions (usually preventing two of the most dangerous enemies from being dangerous at all). Being too good at some things, be it damage, control, etc, can also be problematic. Where I am going is that it is ok to be good but you don't always have to make a character that is at the zenith of ability or who can handle everything and that looking at who you are playing with should be an indicator of what extent of power a character should be aiming for. Defaulting to 'I will make the most powerful version of this idea that I mechanically can' or 'I will make the most powerful character this game allows' is not something people should always be doing. Not that sometimes you shouldn't. But it's not a defacto rule or even always a good idea. And I already gave examples of how dialing it back doesn't necessarily mean anything. The presence of god on ones' side reduces the fear of death and cheapens your victories. At least, it does for many people.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

...Yeah, forgive me if I choose a better role model than Lazarus Long.

So you were better in combat than him but had people in your group better at combat than you while being less useful outside of combat which is where you were also worse than him at.

You've encountered the tragic situation of being a generalist in a party of specialization. Sound like you were out of place in that party.

I also wouldn't bring any kind of personal expectation or hopes on player/character etiquette to a PFS game.

bookrat wrote:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

...Yeah, forgive me if I choose a better role model than Lazarus Long.

Huh. I thought you'd like it since you're the one who said you like characters who can contribute to everything.

This may be the more relevant quote:

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"
-George Carlin

Gimping yourself and not being superman are totally different things. When you play a social game, you play cyclops, captain america, hawkman, night wing, iceman, the flash, Spiderman, Wolverine, Gambit, thing. You don't play Magneto, superman, Thor, apocalypse, doomsday, darkseid, thanos, the beyonder, Pheonix, gladiator, or Galactus. Sure, anyone can make punpun, but then everyone else at the table is bored because of you.

Then you should have picked a better example to prove your point than a character who is firmly in the "Daredevil" power category at best, considering you said other people were better than him at some things, and he sucked in combat.

Your entire argument flies out the window when your version of "Superman" is simply Green Arrow being a prick and doing things other people can easily do as well.

Don't play punpun (or remotely similar conceptual characters).

Similarly, don't play spiderman, cyclops or wolverine when others are running daredevil and the punisher. This can't be helped in situations like pfs. But I am speaking in generalities and demonstrating that always playing a mechanically powerful character is not necessarily something everyone should always do as has been stipulated in other posts.

That is my point.

It's a bad point.

In a game like this, it's your fault for choosing to play the Punisher when the game easily supports you playing Spiderman.

You're asking other people to play poorly to accomodate you. It's a similar concept to getting mad at someone for being better than you.

It happens (man I used to get PISSED when my friend would beat me at Soul Calibur IV for the 35th match in a row...funnily enough partly because he was skilled with higher tier characters, so the example fits), but it's still petty jealousy.

This may be the more relevant quote:

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"
-George Carlin

I always liked the Magic the Gathering deck version of that:

Competitive decks are decks that better then mine and casual decks are decks that are worse then mine.

Although we could always go with the D&D version of that:

Overpowered characters are those that are better then mine and underpowered characters are those that are worse then mine.

@Rynjin: I'm the opposite. I have a friend who has routinely cleaned everyone's clock at Dragonball Z Budokai Tenkaichi 2. I have lost many many many many times in a row. That being said, I'm very confident in my ability to wipe the floor with virtually anyone else in that game mostly from having my clock cleaned so thoroughly. In fact the only time I ever got upset was when it became clear he was going easy on me. Of course it probably helps that when we play Soul Calibur IV, he loses many many many times in a row to me. Though I imagine he has similarly gotten much much better at it.

blahpers wrote:

bookrat wrote:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

...Yeah, forgive me if I choose a better role model than Lazarus Long.

Huh. I thought you'd like it since you're the one who said you like characters who can contribute to everything.

I like lots of kinds of characters. Some of them are generalists. Some of them specialize. Most of them are somewhere in-between. But I'd never go so far as to say that specialization is better than generalization (or the other way around).

bookrat wrote:

blahpers wrote:

bookrat wrote:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

...Yeah, forgive me if I choose a better role model than Lazarus Long.

Huh. I thought you'd like it since you're the one who said you like characters who can contribute to everything.

I like lots of kinds of characters. Some of them are generalists. Some of them specialize. Most of them are somewhere in-between. But I'd never go so far as to say that specialization is better than generalization (or the other way around).

I'd agree with that.

bookrat wrote:

blahpers wrote:

bookrat wrote:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

...Yeah, forgive me if I choose a better role model than Lazarus Long.

Huh. I thought you'd like it since you're the one who said you like characters who can contribute to everything.

I like lots of kinds of characters. Some of them are generalists. Some of them specialize. Most of them are somewhere in-between. But I'd never go so far as to say that specialization is better than generalization (or the other way around).

Being a generalist in a party of specialists however is usually a bad idea. Likewise the opposite is also often true.

Dark Immortal wrote:

Gimping yourself and not being superman are totally different things. When you play a social game, you play cyclops, captain america, hawkman, night wing, iceman, the flash, Spiderman, Wolverine, Gambit, thing. You don't play Magneto, superman, Thor, apocalypse, doomsday, darkseid, thanos, the beyonder, Pheonix, gladiator, or Galactus. Sure, anyone can make punpun, but then everyone else at the table is bored because of you.

Then you should have picked a better example to prove your point than a character who is firmly in the "Daredevil" power category at best, considering you said other people were better than him at some things, and he sucked in combat.

I didn't think I would need to since I was under the impression that people responding would read my post and reply to the point as though that was my argument and not the example given as though that was my argument instead. The example only served to facilitate but it appears that people want to obssess over it and make the entire discussion only about the example and not what I am actually attempting to discuss. It's become tedious.

Your entire argument flies out the window when your version of "Superman" is simply Green Arrow being a prick and doing things other people can easily do as well.

It has nothing to do with what my version of superman may or may not be and everything to do with who is actually at your table and what you then bring to it. Sometimes superman is only daredevil and other times he's goku. It is entirely relative and I am just saying that bringing someone far beyond the rest of the group or who makes multiple other players just sit back and watch is demonstrating a lack of good sportsmanshi or understanding in a social game such as this. The goal is for everyone to have fun. If playing punpun in a group of 'normals' is something you feel is fine and fun, I am here to argue that it probably isn't for the other players and is well beyond being necessary.

Dark Immortal wrote:

Don't play punpun (or remotely similar conceptual characters).

Similarly, don't play spiderman, cyclops or wolverine when others are running daredevil and the punisher. This can't be helped in situations like pfs. But I am speaking in generalities and demonstrating that always playing a mechanically powerful character is not necessarily something everyone should always do as has been stipulated in other posts.

That is my point.

It's a bad point.

In a game like this, it's your fault for choosing to play the Punisher when the game easily supports you playing Spiderman.

You're asking other people to play poorly to accomodate you. It's a similar concept to getting mad at someone for being better than you.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I thought this would have been obvious but I seem to have been mistaken.

I am in no way asking to be accommodated, stating that I am playing a low tier or weak character, or upset that his character was good at something and better at some things. In the specific example which you refuse to take simply for what it is, I (and others) was annoyed because of an inability to meaningfully participate. If you can't understand that, you might be missing some key aspects of the game and human social interaction. I mean this as no sleight but as an actual honest statement. If you cannot participate or there is no purpose to your actions, then why are you there? People don't play games to watch other people play. You could just YouTube that. The characters in our group were not punishers but were stronger characters. And I saw no need to mention having played with said monk before and not having had the same experience because I thought people would be able to use the example provided in the context in which it was given. I did not expect.....this. The example served merely to demonstrate how his character was superman in that session and how a superman can make other valid heroes sit home and eat cheetos because they aren't needed despite being very good at what they do and covering multiple useful areas.

I should state that the reverse is true, though. It touches on what you said, if everyone is playing Iron Man, Hulk, Storm, and Cable, you need to bring a similarly powerful and capable hero to the mix or you're going to not only lag behind but hold people back. However, anyone playing a superman should consider carefully if that character is OK to play in the group they are in.

Obviously, you don't join a game filled with highly optimized characters of all top tier classes and bring an unoptimized low tier to the front unless that's your thing. And it should have been clear as pre-industrial age air that I wasn't saying to do that or anything remotely close to it.

It happens (man I used to get PISSED when my friend would beat me at Soul Calibur IV for the 35th match in a row...funnily enough partly because he was skilled with higher tier characters, so the example fits), but it's still petty jealousy.

I'm not now, nor was I previously, jealous. Nor do I feel I am or was being petty by merely using an example to facilitate my argument.

Had I known an example would convolute and confuse people so easily I would not have used one, though seeing the effectiveness here, I may use them in the future to completely and utterly derail other threads since it has worked so magnificently (if unintentionally) here.

Topic: Is pizza the ultimate food item: Why or why not?
Example in post: Pizza has many of the food groups. Though, I did have a desert pizza once with only 2-3 food groups.
Discussion: pizza only has 2-3 food groups it is therefor not an ultimate food or healthy! Pizza is only desert, it barely qualifies as food! How dare you suggest people treat desert as a replacement for healthy eating!?
Why do so man americans want normal food made into deserts-this is why we are getting fat. Etc.
Me: I am not freaking talking about deserts! Are any of you actually listening to what I am saying at all? Can we get back to talking about (rather can we start talking about) pizza now?

My apologies.

When normal people use an example, it's generally assumed that the example is related to the argument they're making or topic they're discussing.

But not in your case, apparently.

I have been gaming for ages by now. I have done the extreme power character so many times that I find it a) too easy, b) usually boring to chew the rules that hard, and c) unnecessarily disruptive to a campaign which usually ends up with the GM flubbing the challenge for some participants (either challenge the power freaks and kill the others or challenge the others and bore the power freaks). I want my characters to have weaknesses, and if someone exploits these in interaction or story-wise, that is usually the sign of something that I will enjoy playing.

Sure, the rules system allows for freakishly strong characters, usually these are good at only One. Single. Thing. Glass cannon is a thing. Players who make these tend to whine insufferably if their One. Skill. can't be used in an encounter, say, a trip master who encounters an ooze. See, it's not just the mechanically strong build, it is also about players trying to shape the game to give the player in question maximum returns for the build. Other characters are designed to be so overwhelming (say, in damage output) that the GM has to adapt every encounter to counter tactic X or see the character flush it down the drain, which is also a drag after a few encounters. Encounter variety is a significant part of the interest in playing the game, at least for me, so anything that limits that, I will consider a problem.

Finally, the idea that it's a good idea to have a mechanically superior character, but not use it fully so as not to annoy the other players, is frankly a pitiful one. The only sense this makes is if you are so afraid of "losing" that you MUST have an answer for precisely everything. I can understand that playing with a "killer GM" may lead you to this perspective, but really, give it a rest. Relax, calm down, nobody is going to kill your character to show they are superior to you. And so, if you have a character that can kill any monster in the four manuals in a single blow, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU WON. Now let's put that character in a permanent retirement demiplane somewhere and make some new ones that can actually be challenged.

The thing is, that's not what he's talking about when he says optimized character. And TBH, a character "optimized" to do one thing and one thing only isn't optimized.

The Fighter with 300 DPR is not optimized if he had to sacrifice everything to do it.

The Inquisitor with 200 DPR, a f+%+ ton of skills, and answers for multiple challenges, however, is.

I don't see how anyone has a problem with that second one. They're not overwhelmingly good at anything or everything, but they are competent to very good at a number of things.

And why should I be ashamed of making that character?

I should feel bad because I made a guy who can do things well? Why?

That's like whacking your dog on the nose with a newspaper because it caught the frisbee you threw at it. It doesn't make any sense.

Sure, there's times when it can go overboard, but I'd rather have a character who's too powerful than one who can't contribute, and it's easier to shoot up and dial back than it is to fix a character you've already f!&~ed up.

I'm not a PFS guru.

I have one PFS character, he's a druid, I took a domain instead of
ac

I wanted to have armor, melee, range, spells and healing.

with my limited PFS experience, Id say I am almost always a fish out water, and it's semi amusing and fun.

An adventurer isnt going to say, "lost tomb of the zombie king" oh im a druid...thats not my thing. guess ill sit this one out.

OF the few scenrios IVe played, Id have to ssy no one made these scenrios for a menhir savant with no AC in mind

But Ive also never come close to dying and IVe also had something I could do more useful than throwing my hands up in the air or inspecting my boogers.

old school DnD was basiclly "one fighter, one cleric, one magic user snd one theif" and the other guy couldnt do "MY" thing....new age gaming isnt that way.

To be fair, Menhir Savants are pretty rad, especially if you're dealing with undead. Or half the things in the bestiary that aren't humanoids.

"Oh you thought you were sneaky? THINK AGAIN!" *Pew Pew*

So in another thread the issue came up of how a player should make a mechanically strong character all of the time and just dial it back in game play if needed.

I argued against that and it was even said that there will be people and tables where having a mechanically strong character could be seen as rude. I argued that it was about taking the temperature of the room so to speak before making a character for the table.

If you never play a character up to his strengths they should not know, and if they see it as rude that is a problem with them. At the same time I think you should optimize for the group you are playing with, but within reason(don't be too strong, but don't put your character's life on the line because someone else sucks at making characters).

So yes, I have no problem with the temperature test, but at the same time nobody should think you are rude because you have a strong character. The idea is silly to me.

Remember we are talking about "making" a character not using it to ruin everyone's fun which is an entirely different topic. I am not saying it wont offend someone, but someone will be bothered no matter what you do.

As for your PFS example let say it is a home game that is similar to the PFS scenario where there seemed to be a lot of out of combat things to do. This player built his character to be an "out of combat" specialist much like a bard or inquisitor would have been, and he is decent in combat, but not great, much like a bard or inquisitor would have been. The problem was not the character, but that he just happened to have the perfect character for the scenario, just as if someone was running a paladin in an undead campaign. Now if Mr.OOC-Master was in a more combat oriented game he would not have done as well, and you and the others would have been more valuable.

When complaining about someone's character being too strong take all points into consideration, and also remember that sometimes the problem is with the person who is upset. Being upset does not automatically transfer the blame or fault to the other person. You can be upset and still be wrong.

To be fair, Menhir Savants are pretty rad, especially if you're dealing with undead. Or half the things in the bestiary that aren't humanoids.

"Oh you thought you were sneaky? THINK AGAIN!" *Pew Pew*

maybe he just hasnt come into his own yet.

I was thinking elf stones of shanara when i built him (the druid allanon)

Rynjin wrote:

To be fair, Menhir Savants are pretty rad, especially if you're dealing with undead. Or half the things in the bestiary that aren't humanoids.

"Oh you thought you were sneaky? THINK AGAIN!" *Pew Pew*

maybe he just hasnt come into his own yet.

I was thinking elf stones of shanara when i built him (the druid allanon)

Haven't read Shannara, was never the biggest fan of Brooks' writing.

But I was just talking about the "Instantly detects any Undead, Fey, Outsiders, Incorporeal, or Ethereal creatures" thing.

They're like Druid+, IMO, and Druids are a solid class already. Not so much better I'd call it broken or anything, but some real neat toys while trimming the less desirable abilities from Druid.

Dark Immortal wrote:

So in another thread the issue came up of how a player should make a mechanically strong character all of the time and just dial it back in game play if needed.

I argued against that and it was even said that there will be people and tables where having a mechanically strong character could be seen as rude. I argued that it was about taking the temperature of the room so to speak before making a character for the table.

If you never play a character up to his strengths they should not know, and if they see it as rude that is a problem with them. At the same time I think you should optimize for the group you are playing with, but within reason(don't be too strong, but don't put your character's life on the line because someone else sucks at making characters).

I am not quite sure what you meant by the first part but yes, you essentially got the gist of what I was saying. Make a character that's in line, power-wise, with the group you are playing with. Going overboard is going to be disruptive and likely ruin other peoples fun. This can be considered rude by those people who now are not having fun because you showed up to an established table of warriors and adepts and experts with an inquisitor or magus. This is why I said making a mechanicaly strong ccharacter all of the time is not necessarily a thing to always do just because you can. The example I just gave is an exaggeration, of course.

Remember we are talking about "making" a character not using it to ruin everyone's fun which is an entirely different topic. I am not saying it wont offend someone, but someone will be bothered no matter what you do.

Yes, but I am attacking the idea that making someone mechanically powerful is always necessary when it isn't. I am only attacking the 'making', though my original example naturally showcased some of the 'playing'. And it is entirely possible to play a character in such a way as to seem powerful or effective and be rude by doing so, whether the character actually is powerful or effective mechanically or not. But that is a tangential subject.

As for your PFS example let say it is a home game that is similar to the PFS scenario where there seemed to be a lot of out of combat things to do. This player built his character to be an "out of combat" specialist much like a bard or inquisitor would have been, and he is decent in combat, but not great, much like a bard or inquisitor would have been. The problem was not the character, but that he just happened to have the perfect character for the scenario, just as if someone was running a paladin in an undead campaign. Now if Mr.OOC-Master was in a more combat oriented game he would not have done as well, and you and the others would have been more valuable.

No, this is true. I admitted as much in my walls of text, somewhere. This is why I dislike paladins and a few other classes with overbearing features like that. I've played a few too many games where, even though everyone contributed, the paladin (or whatever) simply was a bit too dang good at annihilating what would have otherwise been a fun and engaging encounter. Smite evil doesn't always apply and paladins do have some glaring weaknesses, but their overbearing smite can make enough combats or even scenarios pretty unsatisfying. Sometimes it is luck and crits, and sometimes it is just because smite evil freaking rocks. And sure, a bard can cover a lot of bases, as can an inquisitor. But you know, I have played with both in home and pfs games and nnever had issue with them being overbearing out of or in combat. The classes and builds I have played with usually did several things well but there were still enough untouched areas for muktiple other characters to have relevant things to do. In the particular example I first gave and in that partixular scenario, nobody really had much to do except for one guy. You don't want to make characters who can do that all of the time. I think, overall, that's kind of rude.

When complaining about someone's character being too strong take all points into consideration, and also remember that sometimes the problem is with the person...

Eh, it was just an example and a shared personal experience. Just because I feel a certain way or dislike something doesn't mean there is a problem or that I have one. If anything, not feeling a certain way would actually indicate that I had a problem. And I think, all things considered, my complaining was valid in a general human sense. If any of you showed up to a table to play for several hours and instead got to sit back and watch, you might also feel pretty annoyed that you got almost 0 participation. People play this game to play, if memory serves. Just because the reason O couldn't play was because of someone else's character and other related factors doesn't invalidate my irritation at sitting through 4-5 hours of warming the bench. It just so happens that my reason for not participating (a character that was mechanically a bit too viable in this particular scenario- and likely some portion being due to rolling well) was related to my topic.

The thing is, that's not what he's talking about when he says optimized character. And TBH, a character "optimized" to do one thing and one thing only isn't optimized.

The Fighter with 300 DPR is not optimized if he had to sacrifice everything to do it.

The Inquisitor with 200 DPR, a f&*~ ton of skills, and answers for multiple challenges, however, is.

I don't see how anyone has a problem with that second one. They're not overwhelmingly good at anything or everything, but they are competent to very good at a number of things.

There is a lot of Grey area here. Being so good at combat that there isn't one....eh. On the over specialization it's a tough call. I am talking about it, though. I would say that it is a judgment call. I mean, casters have save or lose spells, a fighter who one shots everything is doing the same. But do you or your party want to play like that and just one shot and auto kill stuff? Maybe. Again, depends on the table. At a table where the other melees cannot or are not hitting for enough to annihilate deities, you probably don't want to show up with god slayer and maybe run with something more in line with what the oher martials are able to do. Not that you can't do some things better. But the degree is what matters.

And why should I be ashamed of making that character?

I didn't say to be shamed. Well, at this point I don't remmember what I posted in my first few replies. But it's not about being ashamed. Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. Just consider that if you show up to a table with a really strong character that makes everyone else substantially less useful or who invalidates other characters, you may not be making friends at that table. It's a good idea to play something in line with what others are playing and adjust from there. Everyone is playing a tier 4 or 5? Cool, maybe it's not a great idea to join in with an optimized tier 1.....how about an optimized tier 5 or a generic tier 3 who takes care not to step on too many areas that other people already cover? If you show up and bring your new optimized tier 1 who standard action summons monsters as good as the fighters, has plenty of invisibility spells and utility spells to make the rogue not need to do anything, a familiar as strong as another player, and so on, you're probably going to piss some people off. Is this point really that hard to understand? And god, if you did bring said tier 1 to the tier 4-5 party and did that, I think maybe you really should be ashamed. My measure of decency says that is just uncool. But hey, ymmmv (I can think of a few cases where that would be simply hilarious instead of rude, or better the group/players).

I should feel bad because I made a guy who can do things well? Why?

sigh Maybe what I said above clarifies. If not, then I don't know, man.

That's like whacking your dog on the nose with a newspaper because it caught the frisbee you threw at it. It doesn't make any sense.

If you 'honestly' think this you probably are not comprehending my point either through your own failing or my inability to clearly express the idea I am trying to convey.

Sure, there's times when it can go overboard, but I'd rather have a character who's too powerful than one who can't contribute, and it's easier to shoot up and dial back than it is to fix a character you've already f!#@ed up.

No. I agree! I would argue the same thing. I am not saying not to make a character who cannot contribute. I am saying that making one who contributes so well to so many things that other people don't need to play you got this, or making a character so much better than everyone else at a few really common and important things when others already are able to cover or need to cover such a roll is a bad idea socially and can be considered rude.

In my home game we have a good bit of overlap due to having an inquisitor and two additional primary full casters. Yet, none of us specialized in things like spellcraft (which most of us could do) because we all have invested ranks in it. Someone getting items for it, skill focus spellcraft and so on, would make those ranks everyone else invested worthless. At some point, that may end up being the case anyway, but at this stage in the game, spellcraft is collaborative with each of us being backup to the other because none of us can succeed on the checks too reliably (but we are getting there). And no, none of us are int based characters so that has something to do with it. A new player probably shouldn't join as a caster and probably doesn't need to be amazing at spellcraft.

That's the only weak example I can give from the home game because all of our characters are optimized well enough that it would be difficult to show up and make us all feel useless. Difficult, but not impossible. We have a new player joining next week. If he shows up with a character that can make us all feel useless, we won't want him playing with us. It's sort of an unspoken social contract or social common sense. You don't get a 'mature discussion' where you are asked to tone it down or anything. You forfeited that by lacking the wisdom to not make such a decision in the first place. We already sent one player away from our table because he optimized like a munchkin and it made role playing really silly. He got no conversation. We just told him that we'd let him know if his character was needed.

When I say he had skills in everything, he had profession artist and craft calligraphy- which happened to be uniquely useful in that scenario. Sure, monks do calligraphy. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt there. But he also had bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, and on and on and on. Anything the gm asked- he rolled for it.

Gm: Got profession butterscotch maker?
Player: even better, I have profession candymaker, and craft confections.
Me: are you %&3c8!ng $#1t!ng me?
Gm: OK, sounds legit.
Me: *tosses up hands*

Our paladin had the best diplomacy. But Mr monk was rolling well all night so fought to make the diplomacy checks, fought to make every knowledge check (always beating me by at least 1-2 points), and made all the rest of the checks for

He had all the skills ans always rolled better than the rest... You shure the guy wasn't just cheating(fudging dice, lieing about some skills)?

That being said I never tried building allrounders in Pathfinder(not believing it's possible anyway). I like to find some cool ability and optimize it. Normally you won't have to worry about being a one-trick pony. The Trip Fighter is still a two handed power attacker, the save or suck wizard still can pack some buffs/utility spells.

This whole thread sounds to me like...

"Hey guys i made a rogue and optimized my skills, but all we see is encounters. Meanwhile the paladin was smiting the lich, what a jerk he is, aint he?."

Wait? Candymaker is on the list of professions now? Awesome! The witch with evil animate gummy bear minions will finally be mine to play!

It sounds to me like there was an issue of gaming table etiquette here. Try to lead by example and play characters that work well in a group (ie Cooperate), not dominate it. If you actively do this, the others in your local PFS community might follow suit.

Obviously if you are playing in a group, it is best if every character, and every player has a similar degree of usefulness. If other players are weak at character building, either making a weaker character than you can or helping them build a better character is a good idea. Similarly if your group is into backstory, choosing sub-optimal choices because of flavor, etc. it behooves you to follow suit and make similar characters. Everyone should have opportunities to have fun and shine.

Mostly though, this problem usually isn't character based, but is player based. If you don't have the best knowledge skill, you should be assisting, not rolling on it. You should be willing to let other players have their time in the spotlight and they should do the same to you.

Obviously, not all players have equally developed social skills. In the example, it appears to me that both the OP and the 'problem player' were equally deficient in that regard, and since in this particular case the other player 'won' the OP was unhappy. Developing social skills in others is difficult at best, but one can always focus on developing one's own social skills and often other people will follow your example. In this case, I would suggest focusing on generosity of spirit and learning to celebrate an other persons success, realizing that them doing well only detracts from you having fun if you are fundamentally selfish.

I find that the best kind of character for people with lots of system mastery are ones that facilitate general party success through buffs and debuffs. No one gets their nickers in a twist when you make them more awesome.

Pendagast wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

To be fair, Menhir Savants are pretty rad, especially if you're dealing with undead. Or half the things in the bestiary that aren't humanoids.

"Oh you thought you were sneaky? THINK AGAIN!" *Pew Pew*

maybe he just hasnt come into his own yet.

I was thinking elf stones of shanara when i built him (the druid allanon)

Haven't read Shannara, was never the biggest fan of Brooks' writing.

But I was just talking about the "Instantly detects any Undead, Fey, Outsiders, Incorporeal, or Ethereal creatures" thing.

They're like Druid+, IMO, and Druids are a solid class already. Not so much better I'd call it broken or anything, but some real neat toys while trimming the less desirable abilities from Druid.

Yea True.

I'd really like to trade something out for wild shape, not interested in it at all.

It might be semi useful for hiding, escaping or traveling (like turning into a bird to fly up somewhere I couldn't normally get.)

But overall I use spells for that sort of thing if I had to.

I like the detect thing, It's useful.
character is pretty much a Divine Gish.

If I had him to build over, Id probably be a hunter… AC is more useful with the teamwork feats.

Rynjin wrote:

Pendagast wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

To be fair, Menhir Savants are pretty rad, especially if you're dealing with undead. Or half the things in the bestiary that aren't humanoids.

"Oh you thought you were sneaky? THINK AGAIN!" *Pew Pew*

maybe he just hasnt come into his own yet.

I was thinking elf stones of shanara when i built him (the druid allanon)

Haven't read Shannara, was never the biggest fan of Brooks' writing.

But I was just talking about the "Instantly detects any Undead, Fey, Outsiders, Incorporeal, or Ethereal creatures" thing.

They're like Druid+, IMO, and Druids are a solid class already. Not so much better I'd call it broken or anything, but some real neat toys while trimming the less desirable abilities from Druid.

Yea True.

I'd really like to trade something out for wild shape, not interested in it at all.

It might be semi useful for hiding, escaping or traveling (like turning into a bird to fly up somewhere I couldn't normally get.)

But overall I use spells for that sort of thing if I had to.

I like the detect thing, It's useful.
character is pretty much a Divine Gish.

If I had him to build over, Id probably be a hunter… AC is more useful with the teamwork feats.

Ask and ye shall receive.

right, but i don't see the evidence that the sneak attach scales at all…so do you only ever just get 1d6?

Yeah.

IMO it's not a particularly good trade (I like Favored Target and all but it's not exactly up to the extreme versatility and/or raw power Wild Shape can offer), but if you were going to trade out Wild Shape because you never used it, it's not a bad trade, and Slayer Talents are pretty solid.

If you wanted a "Divine Gish" with some Druid stuff it's a good choice. Bonus Feats, Trapfinding, and some other neat things, alongside spells and such. Flame Blade with Favored Target could be pretty awesome.

i would like to trade wild shape for channel energy :)

i never understood why a druid wouldn't get to turn undead, seeing as undead are defined as Unnatural

Actually, they aren't. There's even a Druid specific Undead that keeps all the Druid powers and still "reveres nature", and a Vampire Druid in one AP.

So Druids don't seem to have any particular hangups in the rules about Undead.

Though at this point, I think Shaman may be the class you're looking for.

Or you could play with my Freeform Class Selection houserules and just have a Druid with Channel Energy. =p

Given the hypothetical perfect player, there is no reason why they couldn't create a mechanically strong character and adjust their power level on the fly as needed.

That said, this hypothetical player has several notable qualities:

• He can build a character that can easily adjust power levels on the fly.
  
• He knows how to gauge his fellow characters. What they're good and bad at, and by extension what niches to avoid filling
  
• Similarly, he knows how to gauge his fellow players, what they do and do not appreciate.
  
• He knows when to back off, even from (one of) his specialty(-ies), to let others shine.

How well the concept works in reality is directly related to the strength of the correlation between player and hypothetical player. If someone really can pull all of that off, then they're fine. If they do tend to glory-hound, the idea of dialing back is not for them.

That said, a specific note about the argument:

I haven't seen anything presented in this thread to back the notion that the core idea is fundamentally unsound. In particular, all of the examples are ones in which there was a need to dial it back and the player intentionally chose not to. This shifts the focus from not an attack on concept but to an attack on execution, which is a very different form of argument. To put it another way: this is not an argument that one shouldn't play a mechanically strong character and dial things back as needed, this is an argument that one should not play a mechanically strong character unless they can dial back as needed.

This is an important distinction. One of them (the latter) is something that most players recognize as a poor idea unless done very, very carefully. The other (the former) is something many players are, in the abstract at least, okay with.

Basically: Do I want Superman to come with me and casually waste everything with heat vision, or do I want Superman to come along and just punch out the bad guys next to me, or do I not want Superman to come along at all?

Do I want that Monk to cover the entire map, or just his side of the map, or should he just let me play on my own?

Do I want the Super Skill Monk(ey) to roll all the skills, or just the skills he's best at, or stay home?

The first in each instance is the mechanically strong character going all out-- what you posit as the negative impact of having this player at the table. The second in each instance is the mechanically strong player doing as the original theory suggests and dialing back to a more 'acceptable' level. The third is effectively your solution of not having a mechanically strong character at all (more realistically, it would be Superman stays home and Shining Knight shows up instead, but the point is understood I hope).

Yes, drawing this distinction relies on your examples. But if your examples are not an accurate to your point, why do they exist?

So, to try to bring the whole discussion to the original point: Why is it bad to play a mechanically stronger character than your tablemates, assuming you can and will dial back as necessary?

This whole thread sounds to me like...

"Hey guys i made a rogue and optimized my skills, but all we see is encounters. Meanwhile the paladin was smiting the lich, what a jerk he is, aint he?."

This response sounds like you may have missed a lot of things stated throughout the thread. Some examples justify your response but that is taken out of context and missing the point.

@Kestral, you're correct about the differences. However, to answer your question: There exist the very real possibility of a negative catch 22 where you show up to an established table with superman but keep your powers in check, thereby effectively providing the most ideal of situations. Unfortunately, the players discover that you are superman and now feel like they don't matter because you could just heat vision everything, even if you never do. On the other hand if you do use those powers only when absolutely necessary, those same players can feel that their rewards were not valid because they had superman save them instead of someone who had to try. Having that level of power can, in some groups, undermine the value of playing at all no matter what the mechanically strong character does or doesn't do. Existing within the party becomes the problem. It is simply better to play something in line with what others are running. Not that you can't still make a good character but some finesse comes in the design since you are playing with other people and not in a single player game. One of the many levels of finesse is- how strong should I make this character in relation to the rest of the group? There exist enough probable circumstance to warrant not always making the best possible option within the systems capacity, just because you can and you want to be capable. You can be plenty capable and useful aside.

You do seem to clearly understand the subject, though. I was beginning to get worried that I was speaking crazy based on how many replies were so far removed from the topic and my points. :)

kestral: I think the answer to this can be clearly expressed best by the old adage about why people don't like the Forgotten Realms: Because there are dozens of ultra-high-power NPCs running around. Basically, since these exist, why don't they always deal with the current world-shaking crisis? What space is there for a hero in the presence of all those giants?

The central issue is this: Alice and Bob are out adventuring, fighting tooth and nail against an evil orc chief. Setbacks, crises and difficulties abound, but in the end, Alice and Bob manage to kill the orc chieftain. The year of struggling, the death of Charlie, the intrigue to make the threat known, the wounds, the uncertainty... it all feels like it MEANT something. Why? Because they fought through it all and won through their own skill and determination.

Now Alice and Bob hear of a new threat. A necromancer has risen in the North and needs to be fought. So they recruit Dave, a wizard. Dave is a massively powerful spellcaster, far beyond Alice's and Bob's growing skills. After this becomes obvious and leads to a conflict within the party, he tells them "Don't worry, I will only use my full power if it becomes absolutely necessary. The rest of the time, I will stay at your level."

That should have improved things, but didn't. See, as soon as anything seriously threatened the party, Dave blasted it, flew them through it, conjured something to solve the issue, at one point he even went toe-to-toe in melee against the blackguard and didn't break a sweat in killing it. See, Dave knew there was a serious risk this enemy might kill one or more of Alice or Bob, and thus it was "absolutely necessary".

They did kill the necromancer (or rather, Dave did). After this, Alice and Bob retired from adventuring.

Should we just hand our character sheets over so you can craft them "to your level"? How about you just keep mine and play it too. I know you'll have fun then.