I just bought the campaign book and plan on running it in a few months. One person in my group (running the Savage Tide path)recommended not allowing splatbooks (or not to many).
What kind of things should I not allow (as game shattering power gaming)?
So far I've said the 'Complete' series is fine (Scoundrel and Champion pending).
Plenty of people here is all into core-only-ism, but as more and more publishers start jumping into the PF wagon those same people are likely to change their opinion from "core-only" to "anything PF"... mainly because it wouldn't be in their best interests if PF as a line sank because customers don't support any products other than Paizo's.
Before asking anyone else whether to censure anything outside of core, I commend you to instead ask yourself how firm is your grasp on the system and your ability to extrapolate, that way you'll be able to check any splatbook and evaluate how much of an impact it would make in your game, and whether that would be for better or worse.
There's no such thing as "game-breaking" for the experienced GM.
Before asking anyone else whether to censure anything outside of core
He was just suggesting this, as he didnt know if the campaign was mostly core and wanted to prepare me (I'm relatively new to DMing).
Also, one of our group is splat-book crazed; he's a power gamer at best or a munchkin at worst. I'm looking to rein him in a bit.
We facetiously (mostly) suggested doing a core only game, but the player in question stated he would not play if that was the case. As I don't want to lose him, I'm trying to compromise. I dont want to dent our friendship.
I DM'ed this campaign with only two players, both power gamers who used all the splatbooks. I had to power up almost every encounter to make it a challenge. I also heavily modified the complete campaign, so it took me a lot of work to prepare.
If you don't mind doing the work, you can allow the splatbooks. If you want to play the adventures as written, I would advise against it, certainly if you have ne or more experienced power-gamers in your group.
I ran the campaign core only. There were some pretty lethal encounters, but nothing the PC's couldn't handle. Especially when their tactics were sound.
The problem with SCAP is that you'll end up doing a lot of modifications no matter what you allow or disallow. It's big, has a lot of open ends and quite a few issues. You can run it as written, but I would advise against it.
my sugestion: ask your power gamer what the attraction is to the splat book and/or what he has in mind and check if it's a deal breaker for you. You could always allow only that choice and ban everything else in the splatbooks.
|
I recommend banning nothing outright, only stating anything outside core is subject to approval before use. And anything is subject to approval AFTER use. Lets them know if they find something broken you're not going to let it pass, core or not. They can make it work once, but if you think it's too much, that's all they're getting.
I'm allowing all the books in my game, which has been running for 2.75. yrs, and sure, there are some pretty "broken" things for min/maxers to exploit. The Book of Exalted Deeds and the Spell Compendium seem to have been the most offensive in my game. I have a Radiant Servant of Pelor cleric with a light spell that goes for days and delivers ongoing 2d6 damage to evil outsiders within 120'. I have a diviner that can spontaneously cast any divination spell. I have a paladin with a +[ridiculous] grapple modifier and a +[insane] amount of grapple damage. The other three PCs are just as potent, each in their own way.
But all of that is easy to adjust for. We've still had some PC deaths, and there have been times where they've had to regroup and try different tactics. I can adjust to all of the above by fudging hit points or other values if necessary. I can throw in a few more creatures, or I can change them out entirely.
My concern would be less with allowing splatbooks and more with balance within the party. It's never fun for the other players when one or two PCs consistently outshine everyone elses', and that's something that the DM can't really adjust for.
The PHB has plenty of "broken" spells, so even if you restrict your players to core-only PCs, there will still be times where your encounters are over before the baddies even get to act. So whatever you decide to allow, make sure your most experienced min-maxers help the other players boost the effectiveness of their characters, so that everyone has fun.
I recommend banning nothing outright, only stating anything outside core is subject to approval before use. And anything is subject to approval AFTER use. Lets them know if they find something broken you're not going to let it pass, core or not. They can make it work once, but if you think it's too much, that's all they're getting.
This is what I did when I ran it (anything not in the PHB was subject to approval, but I was generous with approval), and it worked fine. It turned out that only one player really used non-core stuff anyways, so go figure.
Now I'm starting to run it again, and I'm using the philosophy "Pathfinder only, but if you want something weird and wonderful, just ask and I'll make something up". For instance, there's a wizard with "wild magic" as a school.
|
|
I've come to the conclusion that my job as a DM is to do everything I can to avoid telling my players 'no'. Throw anything my way, and I'll see if I can make it work. In my next SCAP game my friend is considering a ghaele eladrin. Anyone familiar with the adventure can already see the idea I lit upon immediately. ^_^
I've come to the conclusion that my job as a DM is to do everything I can to avoid telling my players 'no'.
what he said.
|
I've come to the conclusion that my job as a DM is to do everything I can to avoid telling my players 'no'. Throw anything my way, and I'll see if I can make it work. In my next SCAP game my friend is considering a ghaele eladrin. Anyone familiar with the adventure can already see the idea I lit upon immediately. ^_^
I agree with this fellow. Many years ago I used to argue with my PCs and tell them "No" anytime I detected the faint scent of power-gaming. The players spent a lot of time arguing with me and they still managed to find broken tactics using ONLY core books! Seriously, take a look at planar binding or planar ally for two examples of core spells that can rape a game.
Now I basically say "Yes" to everything and I've been upgrading my NPCs using the same books and spells as my PCs. Everyone is really powerful and having a lot of fun, and my villains are still wiping the floor with them when they need to. It's all good.
I went a pretty fair route, I think. I read through the splatbooks again and picked and chose things that I wanted to allow. I put them all together in a handy, little Player's Guide and handed it out. I said the core books were fine as well as what was presented in the Player's Guide. This, I felt, gave plenty of non-core variety but cut out some of the crazy power creep that can occur.
I didn't want to have to go through the extra work of upping the monsters and NPCs based on splatbooks, mostly because I'm too lazy. The power level has been fine so far and we're approaching the end.
My party tends to police each (in their 30's-40's though).
The big drawback I've noticed to using splatbooks is ending up with a powerful group of characters that suck as a party. There's a lot to be said for making sure the 'core roles' in any party are adequately covered off.
And there's a LOT to be said for ensuring full-progression spellcasters equipped with a good selection of spells in adventure paths in general.
If you go with the splatbooks, I recommend you spend a gaming session creating the party.
My concern would be less with allowing splatbooks and more with balance within the party. It's never fun for the other players when one or two PCs consistently outshine everyone elses', and that's something that the DM can't really adjust for.
That's what I've experienced with the player I mentioned before; he uses about 10 books for one character, trying to make "unkillable characters" or "Player-character killers".
True, I'm not going to totally going to kill his power-gaming...I just want to make it somewhat manageable. I dont want to spend a 20 minutes of arguing with him because his lvl 15 character took 5 points of damage, and that wasn't supposed to happen because of [insert random magic item or rule]. If we're going to argue over a rule or ability, I want to be familiar with it. I'm not banning everything - the Complete Series, Libris Mortis, and Draconomicon are in. More may be allowed, pending their requests.
A monodrone approaches the party (specifically the "broken" character) with a scroll tube in hand during a battle. It is mistaken for an enemy (guilty by association) and butchered easily by your PC. When the tube is opened by a non-modron, the contents incinerate.
A few adventures later, a group of nine tridrones track down the party and demand that the monk accompany them. They have been instructed not to allow others to come with the monk, and not to take "No" for an answer. Being demanding and attempting isolation is important; PC's never cotton to that and they'll blow through the tridrones.
Shortly thereafter, a Tertian (the judges) appears before the party with four inevitables per party member (tailored to each one).
TERTIAN: "Having ignored our previous communique and summons, Mr. Monk, you are found guilty of high munchkinism and are sentenced to have some sense forcibly battered into your abnormally dense cranium. {aside to the other PCs} No grievance is found against you. However, if you choose to intervene in the lawful order of The One, you shall enjoy similar "illumination."
Give the inevitables monk levels. Give the Tertian paladin levels with smite non-lawful instead of smite evil.
As for cutting back on powergaming and munchkinism, five words:
No Book of Nine Swords.
Everything else can more or less be worked with, aside from a few egregious excesses (pouncing barbarian full-attacks, from Complete Champion).
I've had to face the same problem in my group and I've found that an honest approach works best. I've just told them straight up that we, as a group, have a responsibility to ensure that the game is fun and challenging to everyone. I've explained that the SCAP is designed with core material for 99% of the content so in the interest of balance, it would be to everyone's advantage to ensure that the players use core rules for their characters as well.
I treat them like adults though, and gave them a viable choice. I explained that it would be a LOT easier on the GM if we could keep things core, but if the group really wanted to break into non-core books, I would try to spend the time to redesign the encounters to make them significantly deadlier in order to maintain a challenge for the group.
The group, largely in an effort to ensure the GM's job is minimized as much as possible, chose to stick with core only. The upshot though is that it has really allowed imagination to blossom. I mentioned that if they had some idea from a non-core book that they would like to incorporate, we'll see if we can find a way to make it work within the core rules structure. As a result, I have a player who is making a psionic character by combining aspects of fighter, sorceror, and monk and just reflavoring them as "psionic" abilities. Minor telekinesis is performed with Mage Hand, the monk's unarmed attack has become his Psionic Blast, etc.
People tend to get "bored" with the core rules because they've become reliant on publishers to do their imagining for them. Limiting the ruleset can really help to let their imaginations blossom if you nudge them in the right direction.
Our DM has been struggling with the same issue across a number of his campaigns. Several members of our group have used multiple splat books for character creation, resulting in PCs who overpower the rest of the party. To make things more equal in his upcoming campaign, and still give players lots of options, he is awarding XP based on degree of deviation from the core books. PCs using standard races/classes advance on the fast progression table. As PCs deviate from the core, they progress on the slower tables. I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but it seems as though it may address everyone's concerns in our group.
I'll be interested to see how this plays out, but it seems as though it may address everyone's concerns in our group.
For casters it will turn out great (since they're not so dependant on splatbooks and the most broken stuff is core anyways), and it will suck for everyone else who remains stuck in core. And if they opt to delve into splatbooks, then they progress at a slower late and are, once again, behind casters in power.
Congratulatiosn to your DM, he just made the gap between Casters and non-casters even bigger!
That is certainly true in 3.5, but it looks like it should be less so in Pathfinder.
Should be? Perhaps. But it's not. Spellcasters are still more powerful (albeit not as much as they were) and with every splatbook they publish it will be more and more like 3.5. Keep in mind that many of the people who did 3.5 are on PF now.
Erevis, you make a couple of good points, but I don't understand what you're position is on the original post?
Well, banning whole splatbooks is kinda silly. There isn't a single one splatbook where EVERYTHING is overpowering or even most of it. Every splatbook contains a few good feats/spells/items, some mediocre, a few not worth the paper they're printed on and some splatbooks contain a few truly remarkable/broken feats/spells/items. So, things should be banned on a case to case basis not ban the whole book because of one broken feat.
And even then, some feats that are broken aren't broken if the player who's using it does so moderately.
For example. Complete Divine contains the single best Cleric feat - Divine Metamagic, that lets you spontaneously burn Turn Attempts to fuel metamagic. A great feat, in my opinion, with POTENTIAL to be broken if it's used that way - Player takes Divine Metamagic (Persist Spell), buys a bunch of Nightsticks (rod that grant extra uses of Turn Undead), takes Extra Turning feat and bam, he now has Divine Power and Righteous Might on him for the whole day.
That's broken. But using that feat to, say, twice per day quicken a spell is not broken, it's just good turnout for your investment of two feats.
Point is, lots of stuff has potential to be broken, and in this above-mentioned case DM should ban that particular use of that feat, not the whole Complete Divine just because of one feat.
A case by case basis is best, don't start out with "no"
My DM has seen me play a swordsage and war blade from the book of nine swords and has asked for us not to use that book. He does not own it, it has too many new things, and some of it could be broken once I got to the right level.
Currently i am playing a warlock in SCAP and being able to do all my invocations as much as i want can be broken. All my attacks are touch armor class, so i almost always hit, and can over come SR a lot. The downside is, the dragon, demon, medusa, and any other BBEG go right after the warlock and I spend plenty of time unconcious or running for the healer.
I would push him towards any of the new PF classes, encourage him to try them out since they are new and exciting.
remember, you are the DM, use more Roleplay. Skills he didn't take, because they were not optimal in battle will come back to haunt him. Always randomly target his weakest save when possible. Any rule book he uses, turn against him.
Finaly, If you value his friendship, I hope he values yours, and appreciates the time you put in as a DM. he should be able to understand that some things are broken and it's not going to be fair and enjoyable for everyone.
Players show up and play, DM's have more work.
Actually, Tome of Battle is THE most balanced book WotC published, ever.
The reason why people cry "OMG OP!!!!1!!!111!" at the mere mention of it is because those classes are indeed vastly more powerful than Fighter, Monk and Paladin. But what people forget (or do not know) is that those core melee classes really really suck compared to spellcasters. The improvents that ToB brought still don't put them on par with casters, but they do enough that those classes have meaningful abilities and many new, intresting stuff at every level (as opposed to 'another feat' or 'extra use of smite').
Not to mention it gives melee classes options beyond 'I charge', 'I full attack', 'I power attack' and the combination of those three, which really gets boring after... a level or two.
The only thing ToB did was to reduce the gap between casters and melee classes and remove the "Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards" stigma yet most DMs still force the players to play boring classes for no good reason.