I'm wondering how many people are using pathfinder b/c the 3.5 material just got broken and out of hand! I just had a player join the party assuming they would create a PC with the Pathfinder rules. Instead I got a PC that used every single book in 3.5!! All those messed up subraces, crazy feats, and broken spells! Ect..ect...ect...Thoughts please!
|
I think your problem is more a case of the GM not being specific on what books are and are not allowed. Personally for any game I run (I dpon't run PF), I tend only to allow books that I own to be used so I can at least review the material at any time. Even then I may limit certains races, gear, spells etc and provide a list of what is and is not allowed.
A lot of people seem to be using the shift to Pathfinder to clearly delineate what products are available in their game - specifying only Pathfinder RPG products and no 3.5 material.
I am actually curious what percentage of Pathfinder GMs actually have banned 3.5 material in their game (as it would indicate whether Paizo were right to try to retain some level of backwards compatibility).
|
|
One of the selling points of "Pathfinder" for my group was that the massive library of 3.x books we have could still be used.
I do however restrict access to non core Pathfinder books. Players have access to the core book and the advanced players guide at character creation.
As the characters gain levels....starting at level 6 and every two levels after(8..10..12 etc) player can select one book(with gm approval) that they can use to advance characters. Gaining access to feats...classes..spells etc in that tome. Basicly the players unlock individual books for there specific character as the character becomes more experienced.
I have found that this helps to keep the characters reasonable, and really cuts down the amount of time needed to advance characters.
As a DM you have every right to say "not in my game" to any supplement you think is inappropriate, whether for power level, tone or because you don't have that particular book.
Of course to be fair you need to communicate this to your players so they know this.
Best way forward - politely say to the player that only certain classes etc are allowed and get to generate a new character.
Cheers
Mark
My rule is anything that isnt pathfinder core, or published by super genius games requires approval prior to the day of the game.
|
I rarely run, but when I do, I allow just about anything since I always play with same people and I know that they won't try that hard to outdo one another with output. But, if you are concerned about a person abusing the chaos of 3e splatbooks, explain to him that it's not exactly the same system and that his char might get nerfed on the way
Actually, just the fact that he showed up to pathfinder with a weird 3e build is a bit suspicious. Then again, it could have been worse, like, if he came with a gurps character or a borderlands character saved on a usb stick
simple fix, look at his character sheet then tell him to start over using the correct rules. Maybe I'm just a jerk but when I run 3.5 (or any system for that matter) I give a list of approved books at the start of campaign and to any players that join mid campaign (usually just core and complete series with exception to warlocks which are always banned.) and along with that list I include my "subject to GM approval" disclaimer.
I think there are 3 big problems with using a ton of 3.x material in your Pathfinder games.
1)Plenty of 3.x stuff is cool but is fundamentally underpowered when placed in comparison to Pathfinder material. Let's face it there are a bunch of traps in 3.x and while Pathfinder ironed out some of them there are plenty left (Hybrid Casters, etc). Letting in 3.x stuff can in theory lead to grossly suboptimal character (CW Samurai anyone?)
2)Hidden Synergies-3.x and Pathfinder have a lot of issues with system mastery. It's less easy to make a game breaking combo in Pathfinder than it was in 3.x. Importing 3.x material can often mean that some of the broken combos from yesteryear get brought into your Pathfinder game. Unless you have an extensive knowledge of the extended 3.x ruleset it can even be difficult to realize a player is going for a game-breaking combo until it's too late. Considering fixing stuff after the fact is always challenging and threatening to the long term stability of a campaign it's better to be proactive at the beginning.
3)Conflicting Design Paradigms-One of the things that Pathfinder pushed was that SoS/SoD should be somewhat downgraded. However there are plenty of spells that haven't been converted over from 3.x to Pathfinder. Letting in a big book like Spell Compendium might open options for the players but it also places an administrative burden on the DM to make sure old spells comply with new standards. Considering that many DMs are pressed for time I think expecting them to Pathfinderize extensive spell lists is a bit too demanding.
I think there is plenty of good stuff out there that can be converted over from 3.x but I think it needs to be negotiated between the player and DM so that time spent converting is minimized and limited to the most relevant game crunch.
|
If I must run, then I want to look at the player's characters first. I do this because I know how to break over any system I willingly run, so I know what to look for. Looking through the magic item compendium there are some very nasty items many of which I simply won't allow until the end of the bloody game.
I'm wondering how many people are using pathfinder b/c the 3.5 material just got broken and out of hand! I just had a player join the party assuming they would create a PC with the Pathfinder rules. Instead I got a PC that used every single book in 3.5!! All those messed up subraces, crazy feats, and broken spells! Ect..ect...ect...Thoughts please!
One, nothing in an RPG is broken unless the GM allows it to be or is just not creative enough to punish PCs with broken monsters to lay the smackdown on them. In my games, I've made sure to let a PC know "Sure, have 100 Strength. The monster you're fighting now has 500 Strength."
It let's them realize, very quickly, that playing a Tabletop RPG just to "break" things is stupid, boring, and unfair to everyone but yourself. They're in the wrong game. Find something else.
Even with Pathfinder material, you can probably find some pretty nasty combinations. They're inevitable. My groups tend to have a lot of players with gish-like characters. My answer? A lot of spellcasters with dispel magic solves the problem quickly. You just have to be one step ahead.
Of course, it's no fun undermining everything a PC does. But there has to be a line drawn. Once established, and respected, things are fine.
Second thing, there's always Rule Zero. If a PC wants a combination too broken, don't ban a feat or spell. Ban the combination itself.
I run a 3.5e/Pathfinder hybrid. Things are fine. My only problem is finding "duplicates" in both systems, where two feats are too similiar or two spells. Other than that, everything is gravy.
I think your problem is more a case of the GM not being specific on what books are and are not allowed. Personally for any game I run (I dpon't run PF), I tend only to allow books that I own to be used so I can at least review the material at any time. Even then I may limit certains races, gear, spells etc and provide a list of what is and is not allowed.
A lot of people seem to be using the shift to Pathfinder to clearly delineate what products are available in their game - specifying only Pathfinder RPG products and no 3.5 material.
I am actually curious what percentage of Pathfinder GMs actually have banned 3.5 material in their game (as it would indicate whether Paizo were right to try to retain some level of backwards compatibility).
I haven't banned 3.5 stuff but it also doesn't seem to come up in our games much. I'll use some 3.5 stuff, monsters mostly and sometime the odd magic item. The players though seem to stick with PF material only. I can only guess why. I know if played I'd probably do that too. Too much to explore before I'd want to start dipping into 3.5 material as player.
a lot of redundant 3.5. stuff got gobbled up in pathfinder. 3.5. should just be used for the stuff that is not swallowed up by pathfinder. which i will leave to everyone to determine. most of the classes in 3.5. splatbooks were just redundant patch ups to existing classes that either got thier niche eaten by the relevant core ability or turned into an archtype.
instead of all these redundant classes, why couldn't we have had feats, alternate class featurres, substitution levels and archtypes that simulated these abiltiies instead? some of those redundant patch up classes that fixed a core feature should just be tacked on to the class ability itself in the first place.
most of the PRCS in the "Complete X" series could be easily turned into a chain of feats.
|
|
simple fix, look at his character sheet then tell him to start over using the correct rules.
I didn't get the impression that he didn't use the correct rules, i.e. I believe he used the PF RPG core rulebook instead of the 3.5 PHB & DMG.
Instead I believe, in leiu of the GM saying otherwise, he assumed all other 3.5 supplements were allowable and used them.
If the GM hasn't said otherwise, and considering so much of Paizo's marketing strategy was that Pathfinder is compatible with 3.5 (going so far as to say "3.5 Thrives") I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption to make.
I think your problem is more a case of the GM not being specific on what books are and are not allowed. Personally for any game I run (I dpon't run PF), I tend only to allow books that I own to be used so I can at least review the material at any time. Even then I may limit certains races, gear, spells etc and provide a list of what is and is not allowed.
A lot of people seem to be using the shift to Pathfinder to clearly delineate what products are available in their game - specifying only Pathfinder RPG products and no 3.5 material.
I am actually curious what percentage of Pathfinder GMs actually have banned 3.5 material in their game (as it would indicate whether Paizo were right to try to retain some level of backwards compatibility).
I agree. 3.5 is not bad to use. You just have to approve every feat, spell and class on a case by case basis.
a lot of redundant 3.5. stuff got gobbled up in pathfinder. 3.5. should just be used for the stuff that is not swallowed up by pathfinder. which i will leave to everyone to determine. most of the classes in 3.5. splatbooks were just redundant patch ups to existing classes that either got thier niche eaten by the relevant core ability or turned into an archtype.
instead of all these redundant classes, why couldn't we have had feats, alternate class featurres, substitution levels and archtypes that simulated these abiltiies instead? some of those redundant patch up classes that fixed a core feature should just be tacked on to the class ability itself in the first place.
most of the PRCS in the "Complete X" series could be easily turned into a chain of feats.
There are arguments to both sides of this. But really it's about ease of use for me. If everything is feats or alternate class features it make building towards a specific theme that much harder, because the feats and options are likley spread out some. It its a base class its very easy to do. Take a look at star wars saga edition, say, "I wanna play a [insert one of the 5 base classes here] character" and realize you havent actually made a descision about your character. So you have to start flipping through the options scattered in 20 books to find some single option or feature that inspires you to put together a character. Or you have a concept in mind and have to dig through those 20 books to find the options that make it work.
On the flip side, base classes are easy, self contained and have distinct flavor and mechanics to them. For instance this past weekend, one of my players joined a game he had missed the first handfull of sessions of (so the players were level 5). Normally building characters with this particular person is like pulling teeth as he isnt particularly good with mechanics and doesnt have an in depth understanding of the options. But he looked through the TITLES of my super genius base classes, picked the time theif, and because it had a distinct flavor that appealed to him and all the options were contained within a few page pdf, he built the character himself in under an hour. This had never happened before. Now this class could easily be a couple alternate class features for the rogue and a handful of new rogue talents. But it makes choosing it puting the character together significantly harder.
|
I had this discussion with my players recently. My problem is not so much the books themselves as to the sheer panoply of options you get creating a freak show of a PC party.
In the game I ran last night we have:
Human Ranger
Half Elf Cleric
Half Orc Barbarian
Gnome Druid
Elf Sorcerer
And that's great. Its cool, classic and reasonable.
The problem is with Splatbook Syndrome is you can end up with an arms race of player characters all trying to outdo themselves with rediculous powers, races, feats and classes.
You get all sorts of weird stuff. Drow exiles, obscure lizardkin weirdos, flying elves and that's before we get to the horror that is half race templates. If a group like this arrives it's like the circus has come to town!
I have a friend who is playing a game where all the PC's have a feat that heals them through negative energy, a Half dragon PC and more splatbook horror than you can shake a stick at.
He then told me he had died. I asked him what he was playing next and he said (somewhat to my surprise) a Human Monk. Then he said "oh with a vow of poverty" and I cried a little bit...
Little minor things like the odd spell, prestige class or feat I will happily allow. I will even allow an alternate race or class but when it starts getting rediculous and there is the threat that half the group has something odd about them then I start to say no.
Little minor things like the odd spell, prestige class or feat I will happily allow. I will even allow an alternate race or class but when it starts getting rediculous and there is the threat that half the group has something odd about them then I start to say no.
I think thats a very reasonable approach to it, and more or less what I do also. Usually I allow or disallow things in the context of what the players are trying to do with them. Most feats and options from the splatbooks are not broken on their own (some are but most arent) its when you start mixing and matching that it gets crazy. And that is easy enough to prevent if you make it on an approval basis and not open acceptance basis.
To me in all practical applications its no different then the transition between 3.0 and 3.5. Most material will be okay, some will be sub-the-new-par (like was already sub-par), some total whacked (was likely already broken in its native revision). I never understood why so many DMs who switched from 3.0 to 3.5 completely flipped out when you tried to bring that older material to the game. It was probably the greatest harm 3e suffered because of that over reaction.
Currently, I am running Core Rulebook only, but will be introducing the APG soon, as soon as I am confident I have a good grasp on its material. That is really my bottom line. I won't allow material from a book I haven't read and gotten comfortable with. If I'm going to GM it, I need to know the rules, or at least be able to know where to look them up quickly. After reading them, I like to discuss them with the whole group and come to a joint decision (with GM as final arbiter) about what will be allowed or not. We've banned whole books before, or individual feats or spells, or changes some to our liking. Key is getting buy in from the group for what you are doing. I can see that as being problematic if you have a whole group of powergamers who consider the GM the enemy and want to create the most uber characters ever, but it works for us. Peer pressure from other players can definitely be a restraining factor for anyone with munchkin tendencies.
Final point is that everyone should know what the groundrules are before they create a character. Easier to head someone off at the pass before they get started than try to walk them back once they already have a character they are excited about. That's one reason we prefer to create characters together. That way I can give my input and help the player shape something that will be both fun/effective and fit into the campaign well. I realize a lot of folks don't like to "waste" their gametime doing character creation (quote marks because I don't consider such time wasterd - I consider it an integral and fun part of the game), but we prefer it that way.
Look up the item Belt of Battle. That alone is reason enough to not let everything in 3.5 go.
Funny. S**t like the Belt of Battle is half the reason I made the switch to Pathfinder in the first place. The 3.5 willingness to gleefully demolish its own action economy (not as a capstone ability or major item, but with dozens of little trinkets and mid-level spells), was one of the things that most contributed to power imbalance amongst the classes, as well as making broken combinations that much easier to pull off.
My own ruling is that WotC products are now treated the same way as any third-party developer. Their material is allowed, on a case-by-case basis, and subject to banning or nerfing if any of it proves unbalancing.
Interestingly, most of my players don't seem too eager to go back for any 3.5 material. They've found that most every concept they want to pull off can be managed through what Pathfinder's provided thus far.
For my part, the only 3.5 material I've reintroduced so far is the Binder from Tome of Magic (vestiges hold a particular place in my world's mythology, and did so before I ever had the mechanics to model it), the Spell Compendium (with heavy rebalancing of the spells to fit the PF design philosophy), and the Sculpt Spell feat from Complete Arcane.
|
|
In my own PF game (Concluded early this spring), I allowed
PF Core material
WOTC 3.5 material
Some d20 modern/future material (There was some dimension-crossing, and guns and related feats got into the mix, some enemies used mecha)
Dreamscarred Press material
third-party, homebrew, and Dragon material if reviewed by me first (this didn't come up much, a little Dragon stuff was used, races and fighter variants. One NPC I used was a homebrew alchemist from the boards)
However, we had converted from a 3.5 game (In which I allowed some PF Beta material after it came out).
If I were to run a game now... I would recommend PF material, but if someone has an idea that works better with 3.5 options, fine. DSP stuff is good, and anything else run by me. However, I am someone who is actually familiar with a lot of 3.5 stuff, and I have enough 3.5 min-max experience to know what to expect and throw harder stuff at my party, and I can trust my players not to try to use any charop theoretical-only stuff.
To a GM with less extensive knowledge of 3.5 stuff, I would recommend PF material (look if you're GMing you can take the time to at least glance over most of the player material in the core book and APG), along with Dreamscarred Press PF Beta material if someone wants psionics, and then have players run anything else by you, with the caveat that if you can't understand it or they can't convince you it's not broken it will be disallowed and even then it will only be allowed on a probationary basis. Of course, this should vary somewhat according to how well you can trust your players not to try to slip stuff past you.
Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, and the Warlock present special problems as they use unique systems to do things. If a player wants to use one of these, see if you can spare the time to read the relevant class entry, and the options (soulmelds, invocations, maneuvers, whatever) that the particular player wants and evaluate those. After all, you don't need to learn what every maneuver in the book does if they're only going to be using a few -- especially if you're starting at a fairly low level so they'll only start with a few and gain options at an easy-to-absorb pace as they level up. And especially if someone wants to use a feat to take like, one soulmeld or maneuver, there's really no reason to not look over the one thing.
If you're at all skeptical about something possibly getting out of control, read the relevant rules in as restrictive a manner as the writing allows and see if it would still be too powerful.
Of course, I'm a very open-minded GM and love the idea of a world where all of these things can coexist in the same setting. I don't like restrictive settings, but if you think that, say, psionics just doesn't fit into your world (sigh, but they're so neat!), then your players will just have to deal. That said, in that case listen to players who just like the mechanics of something and are willing to reflavor it to something that does fit into your world.
So that's my 2 cents.
I always make a list of what is allowed and not allowed during character creation. Also, I prefer for players to discuss what type of character they want to play before I give the go ahead. This is mainly so I can stop any nonsense about playing a hybrid Half-dragon, half-celestial, lycanthrope tiefling who has only 2 levels of fighter, 2 levels of rogue and a bunch of other classes in order to take the best options of each.
In my Pathfinder games I allow everything from the Core rulebook and I allow other Pathfinder, 3.5, or 3.0 material on a case by case basis. All I ask is a heads up on the material they are looking at so I can take my time and decide whether to allow it or not.
I would strongly recommend not using ANY 3.5 materials in premade adventure paths. They are toned and made for core characters, and my Kingmaker campain is so over the top overpowered that I have to spend hours re-tooling the encounters so the wizard and rogue won't end it before anything gets to act.
Seriously, I think any given two character from my party could EASILY take on the rest of the parts, even the bosses.
The big screaming warning-signs for me are:
- Magic Item Compendium. If you have a dedicated crafter in your party, this books will kill the balance completely.
and
- Spell compendium. 9 out of 10 times, the spells in here are better than what is in the Core or APG.
I use 3.5 material all the time on a case by case basis.
I don't think I could admit all Pathfinder RPG material without GM review, but the core rules are pretty solid.
Everything else generally needs GM approval.
However, there is a huge body of great 3.5 material that can be used unaltered... Not all of it is high profile WotC splatbooks and latter-day base classes. Some of it is pretty cool stuff like Cry Havoc or Noble Steeds, or monster books, etc.
Basically, stuff on the scale of what I would house rule (a feat, a spell, etc) is admissible.
But in the end, always, always, always check with you GM when you're making a PC.
Look up the item Belt of Battle. That alone is reason enough to not let everything in 3.5 go.
Um, what's wrong with belt of battle? 12k item that only grants one, maybe two extra actions in a round, out of the dozens of rounds and actions that happen during an adventure?
I think people's labeling of "broken" is horribly skewed. To the point where if someone in 3.5e took levels of their favored class to avoid multiclass XP penalty is OMG BROKEN! AGGHH!! (even though it's CLEARLY what it was meant for and is spelled out)
Look up the item Belt of Battle. That alone is reason enough to not let everything in 3.5 go.Um, what's wrong with belt of battle? 12k item that only grants one, maybe two extra actions in a round, out of the dozens of rounds and actions that happen during an adventure?
I think people's labeling of "broken" is horribly skewed. To the point where if someone in 3.5e took levels of their favored class to avoid multiclass XP penalty is OMG BROKEN! AGGHH!! (even though it's CLEARLY what it was meant for and is spelled out)
there is nothing wrong with the belt of battle.
the real problem is the 15 minute adventure day, which only occurs when the dungeon master completely forfeits control of the pace of encounters to the players.
when a DM submits to the "players'" schedule, stops using random encounters and allows the 15 minute adventure day to become the standard. then the 15 minute adventure day is the problem, not the belt of battle.
|
|
Look up the item Belt of Battle. That alone is reason enough to not let everything in 3.5 go.Um, what's wrong with belt of battle? 12k item that only grants one, maybe two extra actions in a round, out of the dozens of rounds and actions that happen during an adventure?
I think people's labeling of "broken" is horribly skewed. To the point where if someone in 3.5e took levels of their favored class to avoid multiclass XP penalty is OMG BROKEN! AGGHH!! (even though it's CLEARLY what it was meant for and is spelled out)
there is nothing wrong with the belt of battle.
the real problem is the 15 minute adventure day, which only occurs when the dungeon master completely forfeits control of the pace of encounters to the players.
when a DM submits to the "players'" schedule, stops using random encounters and allows the 15 minute adventure day to become the standard. then the 15 minute adventure day is the problem, not the belt of battle.
The problem with the belt of Battle is that you can very easily have more than one of them and it destroys the action economy. For what they do they are far too cheap, instead of buying a +5 weapon, you could buy a +2 weapon and 3 of them. One of my nastiest 3.5 builds was one for destroying armies, you have to be at least 4th level, 1 rogue, 4 in scout you require boots of the skirmisher, the belt of battle, someone to cast the fly spell on you, a potion of arrowsplit, a splitting bow, and a scroll of arrow storm.
Fly over the army in question (move action), take the potion (standard action), have the scroll cast on you, use the belt, hit everyone in one range incriminate for 2d4+1 or 4d4 (depending on which one takes precedence) arrows, and everyone within 30ft (or 60 feet if you took the ranged skirmish feet) gets hit for an additional 2d6 points of damage minimum, if you took the time to have invisibility cast on you beforehand you can hit them all for 5d6, now this isn't very plausible for a level 4 character, but around level 12 or so it's not just plausible, it's likely to happen, if your player is aiming for that, and to make things worse that scout/rogue is still dangerous outside of that, which he will be able to do very, very often. Oh, and you can do this 3 times as you still have 1 attack and a full-round action left.
The other thing you get is casters doing horrible things like casting multiple times in a single round. Which simply takes the action economy, balance, challenge and defenestrates it with nary a farewell or tip of the hat.
I also never said it was broken, it clearly works just fine, and perhaps a little too well. What I would call it is unbalanced.
it takes actions to change belts. it takes a swift action to burn charges from said belt. the charges recover daily, and the 12,000 gold per belt is deducted from a PC's wealth by level. which isn't 100% cash. the cash one finds in a dungeon nowhere near rivals the value of the magic items they find. found items sell for half price, communities have gold piece limits, and what magic items are available in a given community is determined randomly by the roll of the dice. comissioning the creation of a magic item requires additional fees (to find and hire the crafter) and a diplomacy check (to convince said crafter). these features all balance the belt of battle and none of them are house rules.
|
|
it takes actions to change belts. it takes a swift action to burn charges from said belt. the charges recover daily, and the 12,000 gold per belt is deducted from a PC's wealth by level. which isn't 100% cash. the cash one finds in a dungeon nowhere near rivals the value of the magic items they find. found items sell for half price, communities have gold piece limits, and what magic items are available in a given community is determined randomly by the roll of the dice. comissioning the creation of a magic item requires additional fees (to find and hire the crafter) and a diplomacy check (to convince said crafter). these features all balance the belt of battle and none of them are house rules.
That was with only one belt. Also, anyone using more than one magic iten of a single type probably took Craft:X item, unless they already have someone with that feat in the party. Then the items are even cheaper. Which means the scout/rogue can do that several times a day while still being dangerous in fights not involving armies. On top of that you can use the gems out of the same book that will allow you to use skirmish and sneak attack dice on constructs and undead, so it doesn't matter if you face an army of zombies, robots, or people. You can destroy them all. On the budget of a 12th level character, using the statistics of a 4th level character. God forbid you go with a character who has money-appropriate levels, then he's hitting for gobs more damage.
|
|
I'm somehow not convinced that an item is broken because a 4th level character with a 12th level character's wealth can do that. Show me what a 4th level character with appropriate wealth can do, then what a 12th level character with appropriate wealth can do, and prove to me they aren't level appropriate actions. Then show me how those characters handle other encounters in that day.
it takes actions to change belts. it takes a swift action to burn charges from said belt. the charges recover daily, and the 12,000 gold per belt is deducted from a PC's wealth by level. which isn't 100% cash. the cash one finds in a dungeon nowhere near rivals the value of the magic items they find. found items sell for half price, communities have gold piece limits, and what magic items are available in a given community is determined randomly by the roll of the dice. comissioning the creation of a magic item requires additional fees (to find and hire the crafter) and a diplomacy check (to convince said crafter). these features all balance the belt of battle and none of them are house rules.That was with only one belt. Also, anyone using more than one magic iten of a single type probably took Craft:X item, unless they already have someone with that feat in the party. Then the items are even cheaper. Which means the scout/rogue can do that several times a day while still being dangerous in fights not involving armies. On top of that you can use the gems out of the same book that will allow you to use skirmish and sneak attack dice on constructs and undead, so it doesn't matter if you face an army of zombies, robots, or people. You can destroy them all. On the budget of a 12th level character, using the statistics of a 4th level character. God forbid you go with a character who has money-appropriate levels, then he's hitting for gobs more damage.
lots of dice gives the illusion of dealing lots of damage. most of that damage doesn't even multiply on a crit. scout/rogue is relying on a scroll, a potion and multiple buffs. that have to be done every time this tactic is used. blowing through scrolls, potions, buffs, a specific pair of boots, and a specific magic bow, all of which require convincing a supplier in some form. actually it becomes a case of not your scout/rogue destroying armies as much as it is a case of the synergistic combination of magical items destroying armies by using your rogue/scout as a channeled vessel.
|
|
I'm somehow not convinced that an item is broken because a 4th level character with a 12th level character's wealth can do that. Show me what a 4th level character with appropriate wealth can do, then what a 12th level character with appropriate wealth can do, and prove to me they aren't level appropriate actions. Then show me how those characters handle other encounters in that day.
That was an example, and I'm not actually sure it was 12th level wealth either, I originally saw the potential for that when I was building a 12th level character. I think it's actually something someone lower level can do. According to what I've seen a character can't even afford the belt until 6th level, using wealth by level. Though it's possible by level 10, just buying those items outright instead of making them. You attach those to a character of the appropriate level and watch how swift your fights are.
Again I never said it was broken, it's unbalanced. Stop using that word.
lots of dice gives the illusion of dealing lots of damage. most of that damage doesn't even multiply on a crit. scout/rogue is relying on a scroll, a potion and multiple buffs. that have to be done every time this tactic is used. blowing through scrolls, potions, buffs, a specific pair of boots, and a specific magic bow, all of which require convincing a supplier in some form. actually it becomes a case of not your scout/rogue destroying armies as much as it is a case of the synergistic combination of magical items destroying armies by using your rogue/scout as a channeled vessel.
On average, each shot you make is dealing 230 ([5d6=17.5]+[1d8=4.5]+1X[4d4=10] 23x10=230) points of damage per person in 60 feet. That's the average. Sure you can apply DR 10 times, but holy crap that's still a ton of damage. No illusion about it. On average you are killing most things in the game. No strength, no bonuses from anywhere else, just pure blam.
When I GM:
All Pathfinder published stuff is legal as long as I own it.
3PP stuff must be shown to me and discussed.
3.5 stuff must be approved by me.
Same here, except that Jon Brazer Enterprises material is always legal at my table. ;)
To the OP, if you are the game master, you have the authority to tell the player the rules and make them change their character (or come up with a new one). If you don't what WotC material at your table, feel free to tell them. And stand your ground.
~scribbles some notes on a notepad~
|
|
~scribbles some notes on a notepad~
Don't actually use that, it makes the game kind of boring combat wise, even non-combat wise, both of those classes have tons of skill points making it bloody hard to fail at anything but will saves, to make things worse, you are probably going first with that build. Against everything. I saw the potential for that and refused to do it because it would be boring. The only thing it would be missing is levels in Paladin so that all of your saves are awesome.
For things like Magic Item and Spell Compendiums I like to make them the stuff characters don't automatically have access to. Things they have to learn about or acquire in game treating the 'standard' magic items and spells as what are either relatively commonly known or known about and thus easily researched. Then when the PC's slay an enemy or another wizard I might consider tossing some new spells from the SC into his spell book, or when they fight that warlord I might reveal he has a healing belt (incredibly handy magic item btw). After that they are free to research it and eventually make it.
Any player who tried the tactic Kais86 keeps mentioning are likely not the type of gamer I want in my group. They're the type I haven't seen since high school. 3.X makes creating power builds just challenging enough for power gamers to find it fun. There are some systems that are deliberately unbalanced, like Rifts, where making an absolute god is, quite frankly, easy. They actively discourage powergaming because it's so easy and thus loses it's appeal rather quickly (granted some people never learn), least that's my take on the matter.
|
|
For things like Magic Item and Spell Compendiums I like to make them the stuff characters don't automatically have access to. Things they have to learn about or acquire in game treating the 'standard' magic items and spells as what are either relatively commonly known or known about and thus easily researched. Then when the PC's slay an enemy or another wizard I might consider tossing some new spells from the SC into his spell book, or when they fight that warlord I might reveal he has a healing belt (incredibly handy magic item btw). After that they are free to research it and eventually make it.
Any player who tried the tactic Kais86 keeps mentioning are likely not the type of gamer I want in my group. They're the type I haven't seen since high school. 3.X makes creating power builds just challenging enough for power gamers to find it fun. There are some systems that are deliberately unbalanced, like Rifts, where making an absolute god is, quite frankly, easy. They actively discourage powergaming because it's so easy and thus loses it's appeal rather quickly (granted some people never learn), least that's my take on the matter.
I saw it, but I refused to actually use it. I don't like power gamers, they typically don't understand that the GM can simply tell them "No, you aren't playing in my game with that character or attitude. I don't care what your character can do, you can't make me run this game for you." nor do they understand that even if they slip an overpowered character under the GM's radar that he's still subject to the GM's whims. Also power gamers make a GM's life more difficult than it has to be, most of them like to gloat about how powerful their character is, when all it takes is one sentence to take that character out of the picture.
I only continued discussing it, because the others didn't understand why it was so nasty, so I had to elaborate... a lot more than I would have liked to frankly. I even stated I didn't want others using that build, because it's boring for everyone involved.
but the DM/GM can also ask the powergamer to help him minmax his monsters in between sessions. or create an opposing team of advenurers more optimized than his own pc.
everybody optimizes to some degree.
a common example of optimization (also known as power gaming) is choosing stats that synergzize with a specific class and a race that provides those stats or provide other useful features.
everyone has at the very least built some synergistic combination, whether it be the PF elf wizard with high int, or the 3.5. half orc fighter with high strength and a greatsword.
i'm sure that every male who owned a 3.5. monster manual took a peek the nymph image at least once.
|
|
but the DM/GM can also ask the powergamer to help him minmax his monsters in between sessions. or create an opposing team of advenurers more optimized than his own pc.
everybody optimizes to some degree.
a common example of optimization (also known as power gaming) is choosing stats that synergzize with a specific class and a race that provides those stats or provide other useful features.
everyone has at the very least built some synergistic combination, whether it be the PF elf wizard with high int, or the 3.5. half orc fighter with high strength and a greatsword.
i'm sure that every male who owned a 3.5. monster manual took a peek the nymph image at least once.
Optimization isn't the problem, over-optimization can be when you let everything in 3.5 go. When you have to go to greater lengths to defeat a concept than the player went to build it, that player has over-optimized.
A potential counter to that build is to buy large anti-magic zones that cover your army and everything withing 1 potential range incriminate of a composite longbow, and hope the player doesn't have the right kind of precautions available to deal with the anti-magic zone. The game literally turns into a competition of who can out-Batman who.
Most power gamers, at the very least every one I've met, are selfish as the 4e books are many, they don't want to help the GM, they have no intention of doing so even if the GM asks. They would have built a balanced character to begin with if they were intending on helping the GM.
I'm not entirely sure what the nymph has to do with this conversation.
Nothing, but the 3.5 Nymph image is SOOOOOOO Hot! Thank you for commenting on that. If the Nymph image was a thread it would get hit around 2000 times. I would have to disagree with Pathfinder when they made the Nymph look way too Fey like, I like her just the way she was.
Cheers!
P.S. Maybe we are just checking if Kais has a sense of humor.
|
|
Nothing, but the 3.5 Nymph image is SOOOOOOO Hot! Thank you for commenting on that. If the Nymph image was a thread it would get hit around 2000 times. I would have to disagree with Pathfinder when they made the Nymph look way too Fey like, I like her just the way she was.
Cheers!
P.S. Maybe we are just checking if Kais has a sense of humor.
I'm not entirely sure how that checks my sense of humor to be honest. Frankly it has merely left me slightly perplexed, only slightly because I'm not going to put very much thought into it. Frankly speaking if I wanted to look at a drawing of a hot chick, I'd just go and look at real hot chicks instead. My sense of humor is kind of weird and mean-spirited. I enjoy Zero Punctuation, Azumanga Daioh, and most of Lewi Black's work, even if it's b!tchy/preachy. I also dig Order of the Stick, even if it has cut back on the jokes some in favor of serious business story arcs.