i don't have a problem with banning something because of setting, if your setting doesn't have a place for a class or race or feat, that's fine, what i hate is banning it because you think its "broken"If the super build is used against your group by the DM do you think that is fair? One thing my players know is that they and the NPC have access to the same material. This alone keeps most players in check.
yes, i know that if i can use it the bad guys can use it too, so i have no problem with that, when ever i get into discussions with friends (not members of my gaming group but fellow gamers)i use that as one of my number one arguments to let players use something they find overpowered.
|
yes, i know that if i can use it the bad guys can use it too, so i have no problem with that, when ever i get into discussions with friends (not members of my gaming group but fellow gamers)i use that as one of my number one arguments to let players use something they find overpowered.i don't have a problem with banning something because of setting, if your setting doesn't have a place for a class or race or feat, that's fine, what i hate is banning it because you think its "broken"If the super build is used against your group by the DM do you think that is fair? One thing my players know is that they and the NPC have access to the same material. This alone keeps most players in check.
The problem with this is that it forces players who want to roleplay to powergame just to survive. If one player makes a super build and the DM starts throwing ridiculous stuff back to counter it, suddenly everyone but the powergamer is completely screwed. If every player has a 'broken' character, it isn't an issue, but prohibiting broken rules is more for the protection of player fun than DM fun.
no one in my group power games at least not really, so this never really is an issue.
doesn't it seem really silly that your reasoning for banning something is its potential to be used by power gamers, to me it sounds more like you have problems with power gamers than you do with "Broken" material.
everyone in my group role plays and no one is in it to just crunch numbers to do the most damage or kill the most bad guys.
|
|
no one in my group power games at least not really, so this never really is an issue.
doesn't it seem really silly that your reasoning for banning something is its potential to be used by power gamers, to me it sounds more like you have problems with power gamers than you do with "Broken" material.
I do. I've lost two perfectly good 3.5 campaigns to them and one very fun Rogue/Assassin character in a different one. Broken material isn't that bad if every player is a powergamer, because then the DM can just respond with powergamed enemies. No big deal.
Once again, powergamers are more of a problem for other players more interested in their characters than their stats. If a player doesn't want to take some ridiculous Gish, Hood, or Hurler build because he wants to be a sword and shield-wielding Fighter, good for him. But if someone else in the party decides to play a charge-based Barbarian who deals 1000+ damage per round, it ruins his fun for two reasons. The first is that our sword-and-shield fighter becomes useless, which sucks, and the second is that the DM has to ramp up challenges to suit the charge Barbarian, which makes him further useless. The DM and his infinite resources can always scale challenges to match a powergamer as you said above, but it screws the non-powergamers at the table over.
this is one of those topics where everyone has a side and no matter what they wont change it, from my side of it i just don't want to lose my options and I'm sure the majority of you who want to be able to ban material (I'm guessing most of you in that boat are DM's most of the time) want the choice to get rid of anything they don't like or don't want people to abuse.
The problem with this is that it forces players who want to roleplay to powergame just to survive. If one player makes a super build and the DM starts throwing ridiculous stuff back to counter it, suddenly everyone but the powergamer is completely screwed. If every player has a 'broken' character, it isn't an issue, but prohibiting broken rules is more for the protection of player fun than DM fun.yes, i know that if i can use it the bad guys can use it too, so i have no problem with that, when ever i get into discussions with friends (not members of my gaming group but fellow gamers)i use that as one of my number one arguments to let players use something they find overpowered.i don't have a problem with banning something because of setting, if your setting doesn't have a place for a class or race or feat, that's fine, what i hate is banning it because you think its "broken"If the super build is used against your group by the DM do you think that is fair? One thing my players know is that they and the NPC have access to the same material. This alone keeps most players in check.
Not really. I have no issues giving the most powerful character "special attention". I don't know if you follow basketball, but hack-a-shaq was a technique used by teams because nobody could guard Shaquille in his prime.
no one in my group power games at least not really, so this never really is an issue.
doesn't it seem really silly that your reasoning for banning something is its potential to be used by power gamers, to me it sounds more like you have problems with power gamers than you do with "Broken" material.
everyone in my group role plays and no one is in it to just crunch numbers to do the most damage or kill the most bad guys.
His point was that if you have one super character, and 3 other normal guys it is hard to challenge one without killing the others. I have had a game like this, and it was difficult. I know how to handle it now, but it can be a headache.
this is one of those topics where everyone has a side and no matter what they wont change it, from my side of it i just don't want to lose my options and I'm sure the majority of you who want to be able to ban material (I'm guessing most of you in that boat are DM's most of the time) want the choice to get rid of anything they don't like or don't want people to abuse.
I play and DM so I see both side of the issue. I don't ban anything unless I really have too. An example of a banned enhancment is the splitting enhancement from 3.5. I would feel guilty using it as a DM against the players because it would most likely be an insta-kill, and if I won't use it against their PC's then I wont allow it to be used against my NPC's.
Surely I'm not the only one who, upon reading the thread title, though this was going to be a discussion about how the "broken" condition in Pathfinder (pg 565) had a problem?
|
The rules are written to cater for the widest range of people possible and allow them to create a world of their own in which to play if they wish.
Sometimes this means the people designing the rules put something in that allows a character concept to be "legally" built, but it upsets some folk who feel it is now overpowered for their particular game so they cry foul.
A classic example is the recent thread about the crossbow feat from the APG. Some players were upset because it didn't fit their concept of "reality" for their game. Other players had no problems with it as they felt in a game were dragons eat people on a daily basis then crossbows that can be loaded amazingly fast just wasn't such an issue.
The rule itself really isn't the issue, its just that some rules don't work as well for some folks sense of verisimiltude.
The games developers aren't responsible for that issue, the best they can hope for is that their rules allow fo the maximum flexibility possible so more people can find something they want to play.
While I rarely ban anything from games, I certainly change how they work depending on the setting I'm running. This is particularly true of spells. I write my own fluff for spell effects based on how I see magic working in my world. I do however state this up front to anyone who plays in my campaigns. This brings about more realisim for my players and me than purely sticking to the number crunch. I never change the crunch, but the background fluff of the campaign is going to be used by me as the DM to arbitrate what might occur as a consequence of player action.
Powergamers are completely different matter and also don't show a flaw in the rules, more an issue on player dyamics that an entire group needs to address rather than just a DM.
My point, after all of that, don't keep saying stuff is broken and then try to convince others to change the rules to suit you. Your "broken" rules might just be another groups goldmine of roleplay Nirvana. On the flipside, people have to understand that some folk dislike a rule enough that they will change it or ban its use. If yu want to play in their game with them, then you'll need to adapt to their way of thinking.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that if one player is abusing "broken" abilities or items and can handle twice the CR that the rest of the party can, a DM can't send baddies that would challenge the problem character without wiping the rest of the party out as an aside. I ran into that exact problem in a game I ran in 3.5...
So saying "if they found loopholes and obscene power combos more power to them" isn't something I can or want to do.
His point was that if you have one super character, and 3 other normal guys it is hard to challenge one without killing the others. I have had a game like this, and it was difficult. I know how to handle it now, but it can be a headache.
Exactly. I am curious, Wraithstrike... how -did- you handle it in the end?
Powergamers are completely different matter and also don't show a flaw in the rules, more an issue on player dyamics that an entire group needs to address rather than just a DM.You don't have to be a powergamer to find the flaws in PF ... and yes they are flaws.
Building a high DC SoD/SoS caster has always been one of the easier optimizations ... and it's one newbies can very easily stumble over.
There is just no way around it ... Charm Person is cool, sorcerers are cool and simpler to play than Wizards, hey look this core class option gives me +2 to DC, high casting stats and spell focus feats are pretty much standard. All that remains is stumble over the flawed APG metamagic feats/rods and the journey is complete. A character which makes a joke of any encounter which doesn't involve mass combat or charm immune monsters.
The flaws are :
- handing out DC bonuses on SoD/SoS spells
- operating under the belief that forcing a second save isn't just as good as being able to cast a second spell ... whoever came up with the metamagic modifiers for bouncing/persistent doesn't understand the game, that should have been +3/+4 not +1/+2.
Or in other words, use common sense when designing rules. The defeatist attitude towards rule design is never backed up with arguments, it's just presented as a truism. People can present perfectly good alternatives which still make character options worth taking without being overpowered and people will just come in "the game can never be fixed, don't try ... and you didn't have arguments to the contrary LALALALALALALALALA, I didn't hear you".
The things you seem to have an issue with are not an issue to others. You kind of proved his point.
The problem is that if one player is abusing "broken" abilities or items and can handle twice the CR that the rest of the party can, a DM can't send baddies that would challenge the problem character without wiping the rest of the party out as an aside. I ran into that exact problem in a game I ran in 3.5...
So saying "if they found loopholes and obscene power combos more power to them" isn't something I can or want to do.
Exactly. I am curious, Wraithstrike... how -did- you handle it in the end?His point was that if you have one super character, and 3 other normal guys it is hard to challenge one without killing the others. I have had a game like this, and it was difficult. I know how to handle it now, but it can be a headache.
The guy built one trick ponies. Sometimes I would just target his weakness. Now what I would do was use a monster that the player was not good against, but the rest of the party was depending on the situation. There were also rules issues I was not aware of at the time.
I have yet to see a character without a weakness, and I have no issues having a minion run off to tell the BBEG what he saw. That is all I need for the BBEG to send monster/character X after the party.
My BBEG's have no issue sending low level scrubs against the PC's then scrying on them to learn how they fight either. They will die, but his higher level troops will then know how to fight the PC's.
|
|
You don't have to be a powergamer to find the flaws in PF ... and yes they are flaws.
Building a high DC SoD/SoS caster has always been one of the easier optimizations ... and it's one newbies can very easily stumble over.
There is just no way around it ... Charm Person is cool, sorcerers are cool and simpler to play than Wizards, hey look this core class option gives me +2 to DC, high casting stats and spell focus feats are pretty much standard. All that remains is stumble over the flawed APG metamagic feats/rods and the journey is complete. A character which makes a joke of any encounter which doesn't involve mass combat or charm immune monsters.
The flaws are :
- handing out DC bonuses on SoD/SoS spells
- operating under the belief that forcing a second save isn't just as good as being able to cast a second spell ... whoever came up with the metamagic modifiers for bouncing/persistent doesn't understand the game, that should have been +3/+4 not +1/+2.
Or in other words, use common sense when designing rules. The defeatist attitude towards rule design is never backed up with arguments, it's just presented as a truism. People can present perfectly good alternatives which still make character options worth taking without being overpowered and people will just come in "the game can never be fixed, don't try ... and you didn't have arguments to the contrary LALALALALALALALALA, I didn't hear you".
Now see, I don't see an issue with that at all. It really comes down to how you are running your world and what you want to put into it.
I see a character like that as a challenge more than a hinderence.
To answer your specific case - I run games where exerting your will over another is deemed illegal in most cities as it is verging on evil. This simple little addition to my game world has put the breaks on all sorts of charm effects being used ad nausium to "ruin a game". In actual fact, I've set up encounters where the players were using the charm and were caught doing so, and the entire thing was a set up by a crime lord to discredit the group who were investigating his drug ring. Suddenly your all powerful enchantment caster of Uber awesomeness becomes the most hated man in the country and can't get anyone to sell him stuff and has a bounty on his head that attracts the attention of the "good casters" of the world. Hey, a whole new campaign arc.
You also have to remember that charm is not dominate. Imagine if you charm a person into believing you are now thier frind, but you are also attacking their other friends and killing them horribly. How will they act? Maybe they just scream in horror, maybe they run off to get more people to stop their friends fighting (Like the police) maybe they try to disarm everyone or grapple you all to stop you killing each other, basically becoming a wlking hinderance to everyone in the combat (use aid another at random).
If you charm chaotic evil creatures, it might think of you as a friend, but it might treat your companions as competitors to your affection and attack them in a psychotic act of jealous rage.
Now, if you were to go through with the ban hammer and try to fix these "all powerful abilities" I believe you stifle a whole swag of creative plotlines that could arrise from the game.
Don't ban them, or fix them. Work them into your game and use world mechanics to compensate for it.
You mention the metamagic rods. Make them limited in your game and under the control of a guild of mages. "But my guy can craft" you say. So what, he needs to get the recipe or instructions from somewhere, or the ingredients. Have these controlled by a cartel and make him work for his uber power. If he gets it then good for him. There's a reason Paizo have left some details as just mechanics, it's so they aren't tying everyone to just their imagined world. They leave it open for you to create around the mechanics.
Now, to really fix powergame inbalance you need to lok at your players and
- Encourage the other players to adapt to his power level, or vice versa.
- Put in encounters that play to their strengths as well.
- Create NPC's of the same class as them that are built to a similar powergamed level to show what can be done.
- Have hordes of opponents, or attack in waves. In this tactic, use multiple types of creatures of varying abilities so Mr all powerful has to really choose where he's targeting and other players have a chance to do thier thing as well. So what if he's the one who has to drop the really powerful baddies, its what he's there for. If the others aren't dropping some of the other allies he's going to be toast because he'll be overun.
- Use critters immune to enchantment at times. (I know you mentioned this as a bad tactic but it tends to be a wake up call to one trick ponies)
- Have enemies use protection from alignment and most of his sells are scuppered.
These are all specific to your particular case, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. What you think of as broken, I think of as a chance to grow my world. It isn't broken, be creative.
(and if you are legitimately struggling to come up with solutions for what the players are doing to your game, do it back to them and see what they come up with. Players can be cunning little sods, let them do the hard work and have your baddies learn from them.)
Cheers
|
|
Adding exotic material components to an item for creation is little different from simply bumping the metamagic modifier to adjust cost, you're houseruling it either way.
If you say so. It almost sounds by your definition that any campaign world is a house rule.
I look at it a little differently. While your method changes the actual crunch of the game(changng the numbers to suit your game), mine merely adds a "fluff" component that can allow you to limit things you see as an issue (note I don't have an issue with it). Your method puts a limit on things that can be overcome by just earning more gold. My method adds a whole new challenge to a character that requires something other than gold to solve.
I say the crunch is left a little ambiguous so people can use them creatively. This is particulalry true of things such as material costs for magic items.
Admittedly, there are groups that prefer to play the game without so much depth of gameworld for such things. Plenty of groups merely handwave item creation and tracking money. For those groups there are the other methods of dealing with your issue that I listed above.
For the record, I ran Age of Worms all the way through and we allowed absolutely everything from 3.5 that we owned as a group.(3.5 being a system that whole teams of people on these boards will argue as broken with all the splat books). We worked as a group to make sure some of the folk who were less experienced with the game were given support and ideas on how to keep their characters up in the bell curve. We never had a problem with powergaming ruining things, because everyone worked to ensure their characters were built well. I didn't ban anything, and dealt with any potential problems with campaign world mechanics. No one complained, everyone enjoyed themselves, and it was challenging for everyone.
I will stand by my statement that powergaming is not a fault of the game, but an issue with a specific groups dynamics. Not that I think I'll ever convince you of it,but I've enjoyed the discussion around the topic.
Cheers
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
it is one thing to be prepared it is another to say "oh that's broken you cant use it"
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
... so you say rather than be a DM and prepare your game based on your players you would rather just remove something because you're lazy.
Just a note on posting style here, northbrb. You've gone from discussing a topic, to insulting people who disagree with you. That may be your intention; if so, hey, it's the internet, go right ahead. But if that was not your intention, then I'd recomend you (a) apologize, and (b) watch your tone.
If the rules for rhinohide armor and the Blade Barrier spell worked in 3.0, why were they so drastically changed in 3.5?
no one in my group power games at least not really, so this never really is an issue.
doesn't it seem really silly that your reasoning for banning something is its potential to be used by power gamers, to me it sounds more like you have problems with power gamers than you do with "Broken" material.
everyone in my group role plays and no one is in it to just crunch numbers to do the most damage or kill the most bad guys.
So wait. Your opinion is formed due to a lack of experience when it comes to banning material to prevent overt abuse by players who are out to game the system?
I'm sorry, but why are you even commenting on a topic you admit you have little experience with?
...how can you truly enjoy a game if you don't trust the game to work?...
Joining the conversation late. Well, the answer to this question is you can't, at least it's this way for me.
This is why, although I play pathfinder and played 3.x, I don't think I'd every feel 100% comfortable running them. It's the same complaint I'd have for 4e too. A system designed without my particular views in mind. It's not their fault of course, I'm just an odd bird.
It's a matter of tolerance. If you want to play a quick, pickup game with little future potential, play by core and leave it at that. Tolerate it.
Aside from that, the only real solution is to modify, redact, add, and change things up or, if you're in the mood for more unorthodox solutions, go completely homebrew (my favored choice, YMMV).
I look at it a little differently. While your method changes the actual crunch of the game(changng the numbers to suit your game), mine merely adds a "fluff" component that can allow you to limit things you see as an issue (note I don't have an issue with it).
While I agree with your conclusion (powergaming is more of a dynamic problem than a game problem) I have some trouble with the above statement. Basically, the exact sort of player whom you need to manipulate in that sort of way is also the exact sort who's going to react the most poorly to an attempt to do so. It's an elegant solution, but sometimes you just need a brick on a chain.
|
|
I look at it a little differently. While your method changes the actual crunch of the game(changng the numbers to suit your game), mine merely adds a "fluff" component that can allow you to limit things you see as an issue (note I don't have an issue with it).While I agree with your conclusion (powergaming is more of a dynamic problem than a game problem) I have some trouble with the above statement. Basically, the exact sort of player whom you need to manipulate in that sort of way is also the exact sort who's going to react the most poorly to an attempt to do so. It's an elegant solution, but sometimes you just need a brick on a chain.
Yeah, you can run in to trouble on that, however the big issue with gamers of that type is they often stand alone in a group. That's where you get the imbalance that many are worried about.
If everyone builds with the same level of number optimization in your group then there is no problem, as you can tailor gmaes to suit easily. This is when it becomes a group dynamic and needs to be handled by the group rather than the mechanics.
I also think there's a bigger issue going to crop up if you have a game where the GM is interested in immersive background driven games, but some players just want to hand wave stuff to ensure they can get their specific optimum build. That is going to cause issues bigger than the mechanics I can tell you.
Cheers
i fully respect that a DM should enjoy a game just as much as any player but i find any time a DM "Outlaw" material from a game because he see's it as "Broken" i fell like he is imposing his enjoyment over mine.
A good GM makes a rules call--including banning a feature she feels is unbalanced or unfair--to ensure the players' enjoyment, not to take away from it.
And ultimately, a happy GM is one who has happy players--and vice versa.
Of course, in the real world, there are GMs who say "no" for no other reason than the petty, very small little power trip it gives them. All you can do is--after being certain that is the issue--call them on it and/or find another GM. (And you WILL find another one, I promise.)
At the same time, it neither helps the player nor the GM for the player to immediately assume that a GM is saying "no" just to make things unfun for the players. Again, a good GM knows better than that, and a good GM cares that her players are having fun. But even good GMs can be immensely frustrated by players who insist upon a "me versus you" mentality. And they can especially get frustrated by players who don't care that an ability that perhaps makes them unfairly more powerful than other player characters can breed tension in the gaming group that could result in the disruption of the campaign. The hard part about being a GM is that they not only have to have your best interests at heart, they have to have everyone's.
Sometimes GMs feel they have to say "no." Often, they actually have a good reason for it. Before assuming the worst, I suggest giving the GM the benefit of the doubt--regardless of whatever poor word choices that GM uses--that there is actually a good reason for it, taking into account the particular play style of said GM and of fellow players.
If, however, the GM is clearly being unfair for the sake of being able to say no, by all means, again, call him on it. None of this has anything to do with the word "broken" and everything to do with how fairly a GM arbitrates use of material, regardless of their eloquence.
Apologies for somewhat repeating what has already been said.
In a solo adventure, use whatever you want. Your Half-Dragon Half-Celestial Drow Monk w/ Vow of Poverty and Ancestral Weapon is fine in a solo adventure. As a DM, I can adjust the encounters to match so it's still fun and challenging.
That same character dropped into a party of 4 characters who are completely normal PCs, however, "breaks" the game. If I challenge the broken character, the others can't participate or die immediately. If I scale the encounter appropriately for them, the powergamer kills everything and the others hardly get to play.
Time for me to show my ignorance - I understand fluff, crunch, and DPR - what's "Gish"?
Buh?
You do realize that is a weak character.1/day breath weapon (low DC), some SR, some stats (+12 Str/+6 Con)
But can't use any magic items (meaning he carries all this money/gear for charity)
Remember he would be minimum: ECL 4 (1/2 Dragon) 4 (1/2 Celes) 2 (Drow)= 10 LA. Meaning in a level 11 Campaign he has but 1 HD.
Power gamer this guy ain't (or isn't in grammers case). He'll be killed by a full magic missile (which is pretty sad).
Really, it isn't the amount of abilities you get, but the synergy between them.
Same reason Monks aren't overpowered (little synergy).
If you can't challenge this guy: I'm worried.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a solo adventure, use whatever you want. Your Half-Dragon Half-Celestial Drow Monk w/ Vow of Poverty and Ancestral Weapon is fine in a solo adventure. As a DM, I can adjust the encounters to match so it's still fun and challenging.
That same character dropped into a party of 4 characters who are completely normal PCs, however, "breaks" the game. If I challenge the broken character, the others can't participate or die immediately. If I scale the encounter appropriately for them, the powergamer kills everything and the others hardly get to play.
Time for me to show my ignorance - I understand fluff, crunch, and DPR - what's "Gish"?
Buh?
You do realize that is a weak character.
1/day breath weapon (low DC), some SR, some stats (+12 Str/+6 Con)
But can't use any magic items (meaning he carries all this money/gear for charity)
Remember he would be minimum: ECL 4 (1/2 Dragon) 4 (1/2 Celes) 2 (Drow)= 10 LA. Meaning in a level 11 Campaign he has but 1 HD.
Power gamer this guy ain't (or isn't in grammers case). He'll be killed by a full magic missile (which is pretty sad).Really, it isn't the amount of abilities you get, but the synergy between them.
Same reason Monks aren't overpowered (little synergy).If you can't challenge this guy: I'm worried.
It's my favorite thing when people make up examples of "broken characters" because they're always hilariously weak. They always have pointless multiclassing, terrible LA, "questionable" feats that don't really work with the character, and (although missing in this case), over-expensive equipment that doesn't do much.
Know what overpowered character I had to ban in my 3.5 games? Druid 20.
it is one thing to be prepared it is another to say "oh that's broken you cant use it"
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
... so you say rather than be a DM and prepare your game based on your players you would rather just remove something because you're lazy.
Just a note on posting style here, northbrb. You've gone from discussing a topic, to insulting people who disagree with you. That may be your intention; if so, hey, it's the internet, go right ahead. But if that was not your intention, then I'd recomend you (a) apologize, and (b) watch your tone.
If the rules for rhinohide armor and the Blade Barrier spell worked in 3.0, why were they so drastically changed in 3.5?
my tone was not meant to be insulting or offensive, so if you like i will apologize but i do think it is lazy to ban something just because you don't like it.
|
|
Night stick DMM cleric for me. I made somebody cry (he deserved it).
Know what overpowered character I had to ban in my 3.5 games? Druid 20.
I had one of those in my game. He was so much better than the rest of the party it wasn't even funny.
In my new campaign, mentioning Divine Metamagic causes 30 points of damage.
my tone was not meant to be insulting or offensive, so if you like i will apologize but i do think it is lazy to ban something just because you don't like it.it is one thing to be prepared it is another to say "oh that's broken you cant use it"
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
... so you say rather than be a DM and prepare your game based on your players you would rather just remove something because you're lazy.
Just a note on posting style here, northbrb. You've gone from discussing a topic, to insulting people who disagree with you. That may be your intention; if so, hey, it's the internet, go right ahead. But if that was not your intention, then I'd recomend you (a) apologize, and (b) watch your tone.
If the rules for rhinohide armor and the Blade Barrier spell worked in 3.0, why were they so drastically changed in 3.5?
Most dm's dont ban things just because they dont like it. they ban it for the overall enjoyment of the group,or for one of the other reasons I named earlier.
If "I dont like it" was the main reason a DM banned something I would not stay at the table.I don't like it because (insert reasonable answer), is another story altogether.
my tone was not meant to be insulting or offensive, so if you like i will apologize but i do think it is lazy to ban something just because you don't like it.it is one thing to be prepared it is another to say "oh that's broken you cant use it"
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
... so you say rather than be a DM and prepare your game based on your players you would rather just remove something because you're lazy.
Just a note on posting style here, northbrb. You've gone from discussing a topic, to insulting people who disagree with you. That may be your intention; if so, hey, it's the internet, go right ahead. But if that was not your intention, then I'd recomend you (a) apologize, and (b) watch your tone.
If the rules for rhinohide armor and the Blade Barrier spell worked in 3.0, why were they so drastically changed in 3.5?
Most dm's dont ban things just because they dont like it. they ban it for the overall enjoyment of the group,or for one of the other reasons I named earlier.
If "I dont like it" was the main reason a DM banned something I would not stay at the table.I don't like it because (insert reasonable answer), is another story altogether.
I feel the need to make the caveat that many DMs DO ban things because "I don't like it," they just utilize another excuse to hide it ;)
His point was that if you have one super character, and 3 other normal guys it is hard to challenge one without killing the others. I have had a game like this, and it was difficult. I know how to handle it now, but it can be a headache.
Share this secret, please. :D It's always been one of the things which vexed me most in my own campaigns.
Oh, and I banned Blink from my game, because it works very funky with most other defensive Wizard spells. But that's about the only thing so far. Although I'm looking kinda sceptical at the remaining pre-9th level SoD spells, Phantasmal Killer, Flesh to Stone, Baleful Polymorph and Polymorph any Object. ^^
|
The terms seems to come up a lot more regularly in discussion of wargames. I those cases it's because you can clearly see units or models which are clearly overpowered for their point cost. I RPGs I think a GM has far more leeway to say "No, no Ur-Priest for you" or to be able to sit a player down and say "Listen after the last few sessions since you've levelled up you've been dominating social situations / combat, perhaps we should look at a rebuild for you with less focus and a bit of generality". Players in my experience are usually happy enough to hold their hands up and go with GM advice. Where as a wargame has no such balancing individual and some fellows can get might prickly if you say their favourite model that wins them games is unbalanced.
I think in RPGs the terms broken does only seem to come up in seriousness on venues like this, internet forums. We are the vocal minority, their are plenty of gamers out there playing games but not posting on message boards, because the like the game they are not as invested in the mechanics as our posting minority.
|
Sorry to say but some things are indeed broken. If Power Attack wasn't broken why did it get changed in Pathfinder? To accomplish the same thing with Combat Expertise (use full BAB) you had to take TWO feats. Also it isn't so much that any one thing is broken, it comes from power creep (which is something that Paizo has said they aretrying to avoid) when you take Feat X, and Spell Y and Alternate Class ability Z and combine them you get (wait for it) BROKEN! While by themselves X,Y, and Z might be completely balanced and totally playable when you combine options from a dozen or so different books it can get pretty crazy. And to northbrb, you sir, are lying when you say your group doesn't power game, everybody's got a little power gamer in them. EVERYONE.
No, in my experience not everyone is. I would even go sofar to say most people I played made chars on the weak side rather than power game.
I met some real power gamers in my almost 30 years of GMing.
This was the reason I first hailed 4th ed - gone where the plethora of books that often were lame in the sense that they didn't offer interesting options but only served to make an already strong aspect of a char even stronger.
So broken is usually not a single option but lumping together several options from all kind of sources (aka half-giant hulking hurler with 30+ strength at level 8).
In this sense, yes, there is broken material in 3.5 - I've yet to see something like it in PFRG.
|
|
No, in my experience not everyone is. I would even go sofar to say most people I played made chars on the weak side rather than power game.
I said a little power gamer, just like everybody has a bit of most (if not all) of the 'gamer traits'. Power Gaming in and of itself isn't bad, it's when it's taken to extremes (or is the only 'gamer trait') that it becomes a problem.
a good DM would let you play what is in the book and design a game around it, not give up and say no.
Should the DM require all other players to use overpower-classes as well, nevermind what they want to play? Or should one player get to be head and shoulders above everyone else?
Of course, maybe the DM likes using poorly designed monsters that will kill the party in two rounds. If he likes that then surely you won't try to put your fun over his.
There may be people out there throwing the word "broken" around in a thoughtless, braindead matter. But if that was the problem then the thread should be about incorrectly distinguishing between truly broken things and things falsely identified as such.
There are broken things out there. Expecting broken things to be allowed just because someone published it is simply putting a single player's expectation of fun over the fun of everyone else at the table.
And suggesting that anything in a book should be ok because someone has falsely called something else "broken" is completely flawed logic.
There are groups out there for which balance is completely irrelevant. But the are other groups for which it is important. If you can't get along with a group, it is wrong to declare that group bad just because they don't agree with your assessment. If your approach doesn't mesh with the group, find another group.
Just as there are people who go overboard with "broken", there are also plenty of people who will whine and abuse rules, all in an attempt to be outside the expected power levels and "win" then game. Personally, I will ban those players faster than I will ban a rule or class. For example, PF was an excellent game before the APG came out. Including all of the APG except one class will not undo that. But one player trying to undermine the game WILL certainly undo the fun for that group.
If you can't go to a DM and try to find a compromise, then you probably are not being reasonable.
my tone was not meant to be insulting or offensive, so if you like i will apologize but i do think it is lazy to ban something just because you don't like it.
I only have one question for you northbrb - how often do you GM?
|
|
One thing that I think would help out PF would be to take a page from Mutants and Masterminds and simply have caps on various abilities and powers at certain levels.
With MM you can only ever have an attack value of your level +10, likewise with Defense. So no matter what combo you work out with your character there is a ceiling on how far it can go.
While those caps wouldn't solve everything, there are many different ways to break the game, it could seal up a lot of the nonsense that gets min-maxed.
What's great about this approach is that it isn't invasive on the system itself, being just an extra meta-layer that is draped on top of it. It would also, quite clearly, give a line where one could appropriately say something is "broken."
Nice thought but M&M works that way because you don't 'break levels', once you make your guy he's pretty much gonna stay that way forever.
This just in, any class that is not my personal favorite is over powered !
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
no one in my group power games at least not really, so this never really is an issue.
doesn't it seem really silly that your reasoning for banning something is its potential to be used by power gamers, to me it sounds more like you have problems with power gamers than you do with "Broken" material.
everyone in my group role plays and no one is in it to just crunch numbers to do the most damage or kill the most bad guys.
This is why your rule about allowing everything works for your group. You don't have anyone who abuses the rules.
Quite a few groups do not have this dynamic, which is why DMs often have to ban certain rules. Otherwise, you have one PC outshining others, or scenarios that challenge one PC at the expense of everyone else.
DMs have to live up to their number one responsibility - making sure the game is fun for their players. That's it. For some groups, like yours, it means allowing everything from any source in game. For others who do not share the same attitude as your group, a bit of a leash has to be used to make sure everyone at the table is enjoying the game and no one is left behind because of one player's greater knowledge of the rules and/or willingness to abuse those rules to his/her benefit at the expense of the other players at the table (aka, the powergamer/munchkin).
Your argument has merit - for YOUR group - but doesn't really apply as a universal rule for every group. Every gaming group has its own dynamic, and the DM is responsible for "reading" his group and adjusting his game accordingly.
One thing that I think would help out PF would be to take a page from Mutants and Masterminds and simply have caps on various abilities and powers at certain levels.
With MM you can only ever have an attack value of your level +10, likewise with Defense. So no matter what combo you work out with your character there is a ceiling on how far it can go.
While those caps wouldn't solve everything, there are many different ways to break the game, it could seal up a lot of the nonsense that gets min-maxed.
What's great about this approach is that it isn't invasive on the system itself, being just an extra meta-layer that is draped on top of it. It would also, quite clearly, give a line where one could appropriately say something is "broken."
I personally -hate- that aspect of M&M. I also hate that if your attack, defense, damage and toughness aren't at PL max, you're considered a "gimped" character... so essentially with some small differences every M&M character is essentially the same. I hate homogeneity in RPGs.
Hmmm. Rule changes by committee works about as well as anything else by committee (iow, not well at all).
The GM runs the game. How he chooses to run it is really up to him. If he does so badly, he'll have no players. If he does so well, people will line up.
If a player doesn't like it, he's not being tied up at the table, he's free to go (at least, I would hope that's the case).
The key, though, is to let any house rules be known before the game starts, and not throw a "oh, sorry, not using that" in the middle of the game. That's not cool.
It's an RPG, not a chess tournament, the rules are guidelines. That distinction is made in most RPG rule books these days.
Hmmm. Rule changes by committee works about as well as anything else by committee (iow, not well at all).
The GM runs the game. How he chooses to run it is really up to him. If he does so badly, he'll have no players. If he does so well, people will line up.
If a player doesn't like it, he's not being tied up at the table, he's free to go (at least, I would hope that's the case).
The key, though, is to let any house rules be known before the game starts, and not throw a "oh, sorry, not using that" in the middle of the game. That's not cool.
It's an RPG, not a chess tournament, the rules are guidelines. That distinction is made in most RPG rule books these days.
Dunno, rule changes by committe work ok in my group. Mostly because we have rotating dms. With 4-6 people in the group actively running a game at the same time, it would be a nightmare to keep track of houserules if there wasnt some kind of concensus.
I do however strongly agree that houserules need to be explained prior to the game and not dropped in the middle of it.
I personally -hate- that aspect of M&M. I also hate that if your attack, defense, damage and toughness aren't at PL max, you're considered a "gimped" character... so essentially with some small differences every M&M character is essentially the same. I hate homogeneity in RPGs.One thing that I think would help out PF would be to take a page from Mutants and Masterminds and simply have caps on various abilities and powers at certain levels.
With MM you can only ever have an attack value of your level +10, likewise with Defense. So no matter what combo you work out with your character there is a ceiling on how far it can go.
While those caps wouldn't solve everything, there are many different ways to break the game, it could seal up a lot of the nonsense that gets min-maxed.
What's great about this approach is that it isn't invasive on the system itself, being just an extra meta-layer that is draped on top of it. It would also, quite clearly, give a line where one could appropriately say something is "broken."
I agree that I don't think the M&M caps are a good idea for Pathfinder (although it's not bad to provide a general guideline to go by).
I don't know where you get this latter thought, however (that you're "gimped" if you don't max your attack and defense bonuses). I've never even heard that. I played a good long M&M campaign and that sentiment was never once shared (and my own character's combat stats were not maxed and she was very effective for the shapeshifter-detective role that she played).
Hmm, another DM flamebait thread.
These pop up every once in awhile.
And that sums it all up.
But I'll bite a bit: Needless to say, the original post (and subsequent ones) are a pile of h@+~@##$+.