If the rest of the party feels left out in combat then you may want to think about altering the terrain and environment that you're staging your battles in.
Make it impossible for the rager to be everywhere at once.
A shoddy rope bridge over a chasm can do this wonderfully. Have it long enough that it can not be crossed in a single turn and only wide enough and strong enough for 2-3 creatures at once. Now you have a one on one encounter that can either be used to ensure that the rager is busy defending the bridge or simply watching the rear as more creatures pour in from behind.
Alternatively, keep in mind that your creature/villains/opposing parties are not stupid. They can lay traps where they attack from multiple angles, from high ground, use pits and snares. Any one of these options will demand that the entire party be kept busy.
Nope the extra damage helps you break the skin better (to use your term) if you are in a position to get sneak attack dice and the target isn't immune you get the dice -- period.
The SRD's not real clear on it:
"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease."If the list didn't include a monk's stunning, I'd be right with you, but you could argue that sneak attack is a "special effect" too. Don't get me wrong, I prefer your interpretation, but I'm not totally convinced thats it's RAI.
As I stated in my first response I think the DM is making a mistake by letting the PCs control the number of encounters while they are in the wilderness. 1 to 2 a day as fixed is way too gamey and in this case proves to be gimmicky for the barb player. He gets to redline, the whole party gets to redline their powers in 1 to 2 encounters and then he wonders why they have so many resources per encounter?
The DM complained about too many resources being available yet does little to challenge their ability to regulate their resources (hp, spells, healing).
To be fair, the early part of Kingmaker (which the original poster is running) is written that way.
i.e. when going into negative hit points this guy just takes as another day of work.
Being the entire point of spending two feats to get Die Hard.
To be fair, the early part of Kingmaker (which the original poster is running) is written that way.Really -which part? Where the PCs control the number of random encounters per day? I must have missed that.
Entering a hex calls for a low % check, sleeping calls a slightly higher % check (still under 20%). So you CAN have 2 encounters in a day, but it is highly unlikely. Give them more encounters than that, and they will be one or more levels ahead of the expected curve, and everyone, not just the barbarian, will be having an easy time.
The barbarian will have trouble with some later dungeons, for now, he is in easy mode.
OP: Bump the HP of the encounters, and give them bonuses to AC, attack and damage according to how much ahead of presumed party they are (4 15point buy characters). Is what I did. Worked nicely.
|
Entering a hex calls for a low % check, sleeping calls a slightly higher % check (still under 20%). So you CAN have 2 encounters in a day, but it is highly unlikely. Give them more encounters than that, and they will be one or more levels ahead of the expected curve, and everyone, not just the barbarian, will be having an easy time.
All the fixed encounters divided by 5 (the ops number of players) = 6,380 xp each - barely at 3rd level on the medium advancement track. This is counting xp for exploring each hex. You actually need extra story rewards (not listed) plus wandering/and or extra encounters to get the PCs up to 4th level.
You need a total of 13,100 extra xp by the end of Stolen Land to get everyone (5 player team) to level 4 by the time Rivers Run Red starts.
Entering a hex calls for a low % check, sleeping calls a slightly higher % check (still under 20%). So you CAN have 2 encounters in a day, but it is highly unlikely. Give them more encounters than that, and they will be one or more levels ahead of the expected curve, and everyone, not just the barbarian, will be having an easy time.All the fixed encounters divided by 5 (the ops number of players) = 6,380 xp each - barely at 3rd level on the medium advancement track. This is counting xp for exploring each hex. You actually need extra story rewards (not listed) plus wandering/and or extra encounters to get the PCs up to 4th level.
You need a total of 13,100 extra xp by the end of Stolen Land to get everyone (5 player team) to level 4 by the time Rivers Run Red starts.
I don't have the AP (Don't use them), but, I would be surprised if the only XP is for the fights (and very saddened). You would need to count in RP XP, Puzzle XP, Traps XP, etc into that total. I'm betting there is sufficient with all that to make level 4.
I don't have the AP (Don't use them), but, I would be surprised if the only XP is for the fights (and very saddened). You would need to count in RP XP, Puzzle XP, Traps XP, etc into that total. I'm betting there is sufficient with all that to make level 4.Entering a hex calls for a low % check, sleeping calls a slightly higher % check (still under 20%). So you CAN have 2 encounters in a day, but it is highly unlikely. Give them more encounters than that, and they will be one or more levels ahead of the expected curve, and everyone, not just the barbarian, will be having an easy time.All the fixed encounters divided by 5 (the ops number of players) = 6,380 xp each - barely at 3rd level on the medium advancement track. This is counting xp for exploring each hex. You actually need extra story rewards (not listed) plus wandering/and or extra encounters to get the PCs up to 4th level.
You need a total of 13,100 extra xp by the end of Stolen Land to get everyone (5 player team) to level 4 by the time Rivers Run Red starts.
1: Five players still divide the XP by 4.
2: A huge part of Kingmaker parts 1-4 is exploring. You're not even supposed to have an encounter every day. Forcing multiple encounters per day would easily over-power the characters. A quick estimate would land the players almost two levels ahead of the curve if you did so.3: Yes, there are XP rewards for lots of things. But combat is 70-80% of it.
I have GM'ed 4 parts, starting 5 next week or so. I know what I am talking about.
1: Five players still divide the XP by 4.
AP's may be different, but per the core rules, 4-5 PCs get the same XP each for a given CR. It only changes if you have 3 or less, or 6 or more.
2: A huge part of Kingmaker parts 1-4 is exploring. You're not even supposed to have an encounter every day. Forcing multiple encounters per day would easily over-power the characters. A quick estimate would land the players almost two levels ahead of the curve if you did so.
Never argued that, but honestly, it's not that big a deal. I ran a campaign in a similar vein, where the PCs explored about 1000 square miles around their home city (which was very isolationist at the start of the campaign and hadn't had regular contact with the outside world for nearly 200 years). To combat the problem I beefed up the HP to max on all enemies, and that kept things from being too easy.
3: Yes, there are XP rewards for lots of things. But combat is 70-80% of it.I have GM'ed 4 parts, starting 5 next week or so. I know what I am talking about.
Good. It annoys me to no end when GMs only give out XP for hacking and slashing. Blech.
1. The "can't stop him without killing him because he has Die Hard" was a side detail.
2. Actively working to kill a character every encounter because he is exceedingly effective is a dick move.
1. As near as I could tell from the OP's post (maybe he can clarify), that's the entire problem.
2. Good thing you're the only one talking about that -- I very clearly spelled out, repeatedly, that I'm not.
At least 1 too many people suffer from the delusion that the DM's job is to kill PCs.If PCs must never die, no matter what they get themselves into and no matter how stupid they are, then why give PCs hp scores? Just be honest with everyone and declare them unkillable.
Kirth let's just stop this silliness now. You're the one who started this. You put the words into Cartigan's mouth, or at least insinuated that since he thought it isn't the DM's job to kill PCs he must think they deserve to never die. You are at least heavily implying that he must feel this way in the above response. I don't think the two of you actually disagree, but you posted a pointed rebuttal to a strawman above. By disagreeing with the statement "it isn't the gm's job to kill pcs" it appeared that you were of the opinion that it is, then backstepped.
I think we can all agree that PCs die when they get themselves killed, and the rules are there to adjudicate when that is. Nothing more. GMs should remain impartial.
The problem I have with the general tone in this thread is that the question is "this guy is awesome, how can I challenge him without killing everyone else" and most solutions have been "take him out of the equation by customizing encounters not in the AP to make him useless or kill him". This I feel is unfair. He made an effective character and should reap the benefits. I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.
Level 5 is a great level for this character, I'm playing an invulnerable rager with die hard myself right now, but wait a level or two and stuff will catch up.
As for my genuine suggestion as to how to include other players more who feel sidelined, make some gimmick encounters that don't require brute force, swarms of low level creatures against a Barb who doesn't have cleave so that the other players can kill just as many 1hd in a round with their lower DPR. Or push the encounters to 4/day. Start with a couple random low CR encounters to make him waste his rage/HP before a bigger encounter. Or a single wizard who likes invisibility and summoned creatures.
Nope the extra damage helps you break the skin better (to use your term) if you are in a position to get sneak attack dice and the target isn't immune you get the dice -- period.The SRD's not real clear on it:
"Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease."If the list didn't include a monk's stunning, I'd be right with you, but you could argue that sneak attack is a "special effect" too. Don't get me wrong, I prefer your interpretation, but I'm not totally convinced thats it's RAI.
RAW isn't RAI either but it's still RAW. As it stands anytime you qualify to deal sneak attack damage on an opponent that isn't immune you get sneak attack damage. Nothing suggests otherwise in the least.
For the part on DR:
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Please note that the things they suggest wouldn't go through don't deal damage and are special effects -- not damage increasers like sneak attack. In fact things that do damage (like energy damage) specifically get through even if the weapon damage doesn't.
By the same thought pattern that would prevent sneak attack from harming a foe if the "natural damage" (if there is such a thing) doesn't bypass DR weapon specialization damage, power attack damage, and and other form of damage increase (such as a cavalier's challenge ability) should be stymied as well since these are "special effects" at that point.
Basically put extra damage is never a special effect unless specifically stated otherwise.
The problem I have with the general tone in this thread is that the question is "this guy is awesome, how can I challenge him without killing everyone else" and most solutions have been "take him out of the equation by customizing encounters not in the AP to make him useless or kill him". This I feel is unfair. He made an effective character and should reap the benefits. I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.
Level 5 is a great level for this character, I'm playing an invulnerable rager with die hard myself right now, but wait a level or two and stuff will catch up.
As for my genuine suggestion as to how to include other players more who feel sidelined, make some gimmick encounters that don't require brute force, swarms of low level creatures against a Barb who doesn't have cleave so that the other players can kill just as many 1hd in a round with their lower DPR. Or push the encounters to 4/day. Start with a couple random low CR encounters to make him waste his rage/HP before a bigger encounter. Or a single wizard who likes invisibility and summoned creatures.
Kingmaker has plenty of these, if they are played right. I can think of at least 3 such encounters in every part, even excluding the end-dungeons. I suspect newbie GM, who is not using terrain and whatnot to the clever enemies' advantage. The common bandits can be a pain in and of themselves, since they favor shooting from perches in trees, and using cover. And I know the random encounter list houses a bunch of fliers and such.
And yes, while I feel like over-optimizing is kinda selfish, since some classes do it so much better than others, an effective character should not be punished.
And it stands to be repeated: He is great... NOW.
The problem I have with the general tone in this thread is that the question is "this guy is awesome, how can I challenge him without killing everyone else" and most solutions have been "take him out of the equation by customizing encounters not in the AP to make him useless or kill him". This I feel is unfair. He made an effective character and should reap the benefits. I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.
Just want to say I fully agree with this as well.
|
|
1: Five players still divide the XP by 4.
No - only if you use abstract xp, not every DM goes that route. I go by the first one listed in the core book: exact xp.
I have seen no indications on how xp is supposed to be divided in the AP, just the recommended xp track of medium progression to keep the pace of the AP seriesAnd for the record the numbers - even divided 4 ways for a five man team (softball) still comes up short 4k to get to 4th for the next AP. That is all listed encounter xp + exploration xp.
2: A huge part of Kingmaker parts 1-4 is exploring. You're not even supposed to have an encounter every day. Forcing multiple encounters per day would easily over-power the characters. A quick estimate would land the players almost two levels ahead of the curve if you did so.
So is it going to kill/overpower/challenge them or land them two levels ahead of the curve? Which one is it?
And I didn’t advocate forcing multiple encounters per day – what I was suggesting was not to follow a script, namely the 1 to 2 encounters a day.
You can go no encounters a day, a series of encounters back to back, inflated or combined encounters, challenge encounter (unconventional foes – terrain, flying, etc), puzzle encounters, red herrings (to blow off spells), hit & run encounters, swarms, etc.
The point isn't to punish the player, but at the same time the OP did mention that the group was resource rich. Tax that.
The more the party as whole is leaned on the less the barb can go out as the hammer for the party. At this point it sounds like everyone is just playing support (and feeding the power) of one player.
I have GM'ed 4 parts, starting 5 next week or so. I know what I am talking about.
LOLOL...ok?
2: A huge part of Kingmaker parts 1-4 is exploring. You're not even supposed to have an encounter every day. Forcing multiple encounters per day would easily over-power (super saiyan kind) the characters. A quick estimate would land the players almost two levels ahead of the curve if you did so.So is it going to kill/overpower/challenge them or land them two levels ahead of the curve? Which one is it?
See bold
And I didn’t advocate forcing multiple encounters per day – what I was suggesting was not to follow a script, namely the 1 to 2 encounters a day.
You can go no encounters a day, a series of encounters back to back, inflated or combined encounters, challenge encounter (unconventional foes – terrain, flying, etc), puzzle encounters, red herrings (to blow off spells), hit & run encounters, swarms, etc.The point isn't to punish the player, but at the same time the OP did mention that the group was resource rich. Tax that.
The more the party as whole is leaned on the less the barb can go out as the hammer for the party. At this point it sounds like everyone is just playing support (and feeding the power) of one player.
It's level 5 with a nova martial. I can't remember a game that ever has been different. Script in varied encounters to challenge others, and problem solved, but if you run vanilla encounters scripted in the AP, the barbarian is the perfect way to go at this level. Later on, the casters will demolish the encounters before he even gets to act, so it's only fair he gets to have some fun.
I have GM'ed 4 parts, starting 5 next week or so. I know what I am talking about.LOLOL...ok?
I have GM'ed 4 out of 6 parts, and have the remaing two, and as such, I know exactly how this thing is going to progress barring sudden personal GM changes.
The point isn't to punish the player, but at the same time the OP did mention that the group was resource rich. Tax that.
The more the party as whole is leaned on the less the barb can go out as the hammer for the party. At this point it sounds like everyone is just playing support (and feeding the power) of one player.
+1
It really irks me how certain people crawl out of the wood work and spew out bile and cry about how "You just don't want the melee guy to have nice things!" or "You are just a wrong doo-doo head who thinks the GM is supposed to keeeeellll the melee guy because he's doing good!".
Most (certainly mine, and those I read) posts on here advocating different combat setups to use on the Barb is not designed to kill the Barb. Saying they are is stupid and asinine. If I wanted to post on how to kill the Barb, it would be really simple.
Method A) Send a 15th level fighter in to kill the Barb.
Method B) Put a scorpion in his skivvies when he puts them on after a bath.
Method C) Have <insert god> appear and strike him down for being more awesome than them.
The point of the different combat setups is not to kill the Barb. It's to put PRESSURE on the Barb so he has to fall back to work with his teammates, so that they have to work as a team to overcome the new threat he can't handle on his own.
Sheesh.
Something I did in my own campaign to keep cross-country travel (with random encounters) more interesting was to add a looming menace. The back story is that the characters pissed off some dragons - really pissed them off. So, from the depths of the abyss, a half-dragon biblith was sent forth to destroy them. Problem was, how to give them enough info to be afraid, but not just be able to track the thing themselves? I had them encounter a squad of elven paladin/rangers who fined the party for bringing an unlicensed fiend into their forest. (lawful good loves fines!) The party then had to always stay prepared for a APL+2 encounter that would happen when they were most vulnerable. All of a sudden every encounter was a big deal, and every little noise would get the party circling the wagons.
PS If the party is doing 1 or 2 encounters per day, they must be APL+2 or +3, or they will be super easy. This is especially true for a 5 person party.
Having one martial character be vastly "harder" than the rest of the party can be problematic if you are designing encounters meant specifically to challenge that character (because stuff that can challenge him can possibly slaughter a weaker melee PC).
However he's a melee martial character that probably has a finite shelf-life given the layout of the APs.
He's not going to be a strong social character for domain management and his ability to challenge the mobile caster types is going to be severely curtailed.
Allow him to shine now but don't pull punches. It's entirely possibly he needs to be switched out later on.
|
Breaking news: People do NOT die when they are killed.
Thanks, man, this is great news. I was really starting to worry there.
Imma go have my barbarian PC inform Cayden Caillean he's taking the whole operation off his hands now, starting with going to b#@#&slap Asmodeus for screwing up his beloved Taldor with all this Cheliax nonsense. Woo!
So I’m running my friends through the Kingmaker campaign and we’ve advanced into the second book. The characters have all reached 5th level and things are going reasonably well. We have a Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer, Cleric/Monk and a Barbarian. Recently however, the Dwarf Barbarian is starting to cause problems.
This character is so tough and puts out so much damage that it’s difficult to stage meaningful combat encounters. He’s swiping at enemies with over a +15 to hit and inflicting 10-30 damage with each hit (or more if he's got Bull Strength on him). In addition he gets an Animal Fury bite attack that can deal out significant damage also. Thanks to his damage reduction and pool of 70+ hit points he can absorb damage all day. Worst of all is that he has the Diehard feat so that he stays in the fight until he dies. Before he could be knocked out of the fight and revived later so it wasn’t so bad. But now in order to stop him I have to kill him.
The nature of the Kingmaker campaign is that the PC’s may experience only one or two encounters on any given day. This means that the characters are less concerned with carefully managing their resources (such as rounds of rage per day) and are mostly “all in” with their best spells and abilities in every encounter.
Some of the things I’ve tried in the past to curtail this characters effectiveness: swarm attackers, attacking with mostly ranged enemies, grappling monsters and of course magic. I’m running out of tricks though.
Does anyone have any advice for dealing with this character?
I always buff up the stats for the monsters and NPC's as the ones created for the AP are on point buy. A couple extra of bonus points to hit and damage with are good.
More importantly, Rivers Run Red have trolls galore in it. And owlbears. Owlbears don't have the reach unless you increase their size. But trolls have reach. Give the trolls a level of your favorite class. A troll ranger with favored enemy dwarf would be comedy gold. Even worse is if you have the trolls using dwarf bane weapons after the first few war parties are eliminated.
A NPC druid or cleric (Gorum anyone?), or mobs of undead to slow down the flanky nature of the barbarian works well until a summon spell goes off. It isn't hard to fix this. Just open the Core Rulebook and start adding a few class levels to some monster types. That would be my option of choice.
So I’m running my friends through the Kingmaker campaign and we’ve advanced into the second book. The characters have all reached 5th level and things are going reasonably well. We have a Ranger, Druid, Sorcerer, Cleric/Monk and a Barbarian. Recently however, the Dwarf Barbarian is starting to cause problems.
This character is so tough and puts out so much damage that it’s difficult to stage meaningful combat encounters. He’s swiping at enemies with over a +15 to hit and inflicting 10-30 damage with each hit (or more if he's got Bull Strength on him). In addition he gets an Animal Fury bite attack that can deal out significant damage also. Thanks to his damage reduction and pool of 70+ hit points he can absorb damage all day. Worst of all is that he has the Diehard feat so that he stays in the fight until he dies. Before he could be knocked out of the fight and revived later so it wasn’t so bad. But now in order to stop him I have to kill him.
The nature of the Kingmaker campaign is that the PC’s may experience only one or two encounters on any given day. This means that the characters are less concerned with carefully managing their resources (such as rounds of rage per day) and are mostly “all in” with their best spells and abilities in every encounter.
Some of the things I’ve tried in the past to curtail this characters effectiveness: swarm attackers, attacking with mostly ranged enemies, grappling monsters and of course magic. I’m running out of tricks though.
Does anyone have any advice for dealing with this character?
I always buff up the stats for the monsters and NPC's as the ones created for the AP are on point buy. A couple extra of bonus points to hit and damage with are good.
More importantly, Rivers Run Red have trolls galore in it. And owlbears. Owlbears don't have the reach unless you increase their size. But trolls have reach. Give the trolls a level of your favorite class. A troll ranger with favored enemy dwarf would be comedy gold. Even...
doh, forgot the entire Mirror of Opposition trap from AP5. Eek! Two invulnerable barbarian ragers beating up the party frontman! Time for the party to step up after round one...
yeah, evil.
or craft a quickie dungeon and add a hall that descends before going up a steep incline. In the closed room beyond, you could have an eversmoking bottle that had been unstoppered for years on end. CON damage and no way to see anything...hmmm, is there anything in this dungeon?
Gah, I can't breathe!
I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.
So everyone else should change their play style to match the barbarian's player? If they are not optimizing, they are doing it wrong?
I'm considering making a template for this post:
A nova-martial (a martial character with limited high boosts to his effectiveness) facing 1/day encounters will rock. He is meant to.
Characters designed for running the course of several encounters (anything non-nova) will NOT be able to keep up with the nova-martial when the 1/day formula holds true. They are not meant to.
This character has swapped staying power for explosive power. He is a bottle-rocket with a nuclear payload.
There is nothing wrong with how this game is going, as the barbarian will not be as powerful in any of the AP's many dungeons or chained encounters.
I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.So everyone else should change their play style to match the barbarian's player? If they are not optimizing, they are doing it wrong?
I love the way people come as wolves in sheep's clothing to put words in people's mouths or to take an antagonistic tone and implication into what others have said.
First off -- the barbarian isn't optimized. He isn't bad but he isn't optimum either. Also no one said the party had to be optimizing, or that they are wrong if they aren't -- just that they should try to be more effective if they want to shine more instead of asking the barbarian to hold back.
It's kind of like how much of the school system is backwards right now -- instead of telling the slower ones to work harder and catch up we are currently telling the faster ones to slow down and wait up -- which is a losing strategy.
Nobody is saying you must be optimized, but even with a "fun role-playing character which means I can't possibly optimized cause that's bad/wrong fun" can do things effectively or choose their niche instead of apparently trying to challenge the barbarian in his or complain that they aren't getting the limelight.
In fact several people (myself included) have pointed out ways to spread the love without:
1. Punishing the barbarian
2. Allowing the barbarian to steamroller over every encounter
3. Kill the rest of the party because "they weren't good enough."
As such the continuing suggestions to the contrary are rather unneeded, insulting, and quite frankly getting boring.
Why not find other inventive ways to help the OP and others instead of finding fault with what those trying to help have said?
I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.So everyone else should change their play style to match the barbarian's player? If they are not optimizing, they are doing it wrong?
Obviously instead of creating a Str/Con focused Barbarian. He should be a Gnome Barbarian with weapon finesse and kept Con and Str mediocre and pumped Charisma.
Am I the ONLY PERSON EVER who wonders "Why would a dedicated adventuring party not be optimized?" I mean, you entire income is solely derived from being the best you you can be. Sure, I suppose you could be a face Dwarven Barbarian, but why not be a face Half-Elf Bard and be 30x better at it?
|
Am I the ONLY PERSON EVER who wonders "Why would a dedicated adventuring party not be optimized?" I mean, you entire income is solely derived from being the best you you can be. Sure, I suppose you could be a face Dwarven Barbarian, but why not be a face Half-Elf Bard and be 30x better at it?
Sometimes it's just the challenge that draws people to a character concept. Sure, being a Half-Elf Bard and the face of the party can be fun, but being a Dwarven Bard and the face of the party can be a fun challenge. Especially if your sober.
I made a Half-Orc wizard in 3.5 because I refused to believe the couldn't be successful wizards because of a simple -2 to Intelligence. Never played him, sadly.
I'm no stranger to absurd or silly concept approaches, but that doesn't arrest my curiosity for hardcore role-players or random people from going "Optimized party?! That's ridiculous." I mean, what the hell is ridiculous about being a good Barbarian? Isn't your job to beat the hell out of stuff? You are an adventuring party. You have survived trials and tribulations, you aren't some second-rate bum getting drunk in a tavern. It's even more confusing from the RP direction because, RP-wise, it is only logical that the most optimized and competent characters would be the ones in adventuring parties. You know who takes Diplomacy focused crossbow Barbarians weapon-finessing daggers to fight a dragon? Metagaming dead people.
Obviously instead of creating a Str/Con focused Barbarian. He should be a Gnome Barbarian with weapon finesse and kept Con and Str mediocre and pumped Charisma.I think the better solution is to get the other players to step up to the plate and play more effectively.So everyone else should change their play style to match the barbarian's player? If they are not optimizing, they are doing it wrong?
Gnome? Gnomes get bonus to Con, you munchkin! He should obviously be a halfling!
Am I the ONLY PERSON EVER who wonders "Why would a dedicated adventuring party not be optimized?" I mean, you entire income is solely derived from being the best you you can be. Sure, I suppose you could be a face Dwarven Barbarian, but why not be a face Half-Elf Bard and be 30x better at it?
- Because I just saw this movie, and I made Guy 4 into a character, and he was obviously really handsome and smart, knew martial arts and could play the vuvuzela, but still the main fighter, so I put my highest stats into int and cha, took levels as a bard and made him a frontliner in light armor. And you shouldn't punish me for that!
- Because I just saw this anime, and I made Guy 3 into a character, and since he could make lightning and fly, I made a sorcerer/monk/rogue/fighter/barbarian. And you shouldn't punish me for that!
- Because I just played this videogame, and...
Well, you know the rest.
I make my characters with a concept in mind, but I work within the limitations of the system. My current character is a paladin of Irori that dipped 1 level of monk for fluff and saves. He still kicks ass and does his job. He is a Tian ronin-type, a philosophical outcast that believed the good of the people should come before the good of the lords.
Also no one said the party had to be optimizing, or that they are wrong if they aren't -- just that they should try to be more effective if they want to shine more instead of asking the barbarian to hold back.
How do you define optimizing if not by trying to be more effective? To be more effective in combat sacrifices will have to be made elsewhere. If your concept is combat oriented, it is not an issue. If it is not, then to be more effective in combat you have to give up more and more of your concept depending on how divergent that concept is from combat.
Telling people to 'step up to the plate' seems plenty antagonistic to me. It certainly implies someone else is not 'carrying their weight'. Honestly, I do not remember the OP mentioning the feelings of the other players. They all may be perfectly fine with the situation. Telling the OP to make changes to all the other player's characters seems likely to alienate the players. Maybe not.
I can't possibly optimized cause that's bad/wrong fun
Now who is reading their own bias into what I posted? I never said it was bad/wrong. In fact, if someone said everyone needs to be more story focused because the lone drama queen is not enjoying himself I would be just as quick to point out that maybe the many do not need to change for the one.
The whole group needs to find common ground.
In fact several people (myself included) have pointed out ways to spread the love without:
1. Punishing the barbarian
2. Allowing the barbarian to steamroller over every encounter
3. Kill the rest of the party because "they weren't good enough."
I apologize if my post implied any of that.
As such the continuing suggestions to the contrary are rather unneeded, insulting, and quite frankly getting boring.
I am sorry that you felt insulted. That certainly was not my intent. I merely question that the problem is with everyone else.
Some have even pointed out that there will not be a problem further down the AP. At which point, what harm or insult would my suggestion of talking with the player present? Am I asking that the barbarian's player 'hold back'? Yes, but only so much so that everyone can enjoy the game. And I would suggest the same to the overly talkative drama queen who wants to drag the party all over town talking to NPCs. Would it be equally 'wrong' to hold him back just because he is good at improv?
Why not find other inventive ways to help the OP and others instead of finding fault with what those trying to help have said?
Well, I did, but in this particular instance, I strongly disagree with what was implied and suspect it will cause more harm than good. I do not think shifting blame solves this problem.
Am I the ONLY PERSON EVER who wonders "Why would a dedicated adventuring party not be optimized?"
Sure, if you purposely formed a group to be troubleshooters. I think military special ops would be a real world example. However, in my limited experience, adventuring parties usually just kind of fall in together.
Sure, if you purposely formed a group to be troubleshooters. I think military special ops would be a real world example. However, in my limited experience, adventuring parties usually just kind of fall in together.
Sure they do, a group of people competent and optimized at what they do meet up in a tavern and are recruited - as competent optimized people may be - to go ruin some cultists/orc/goblin/zombie incursion.
In the "real world," yes, military spec ops are "optimized." You know who doesn't try to do military spec ops jobs (eg, the real world equivalent of cultists' day ruining)? Bob the Farmer, Billy Gas Pump Operator, and Sally Sue the Stay-at-home mom.
The problem is Optimized has become a dirty word (even to me). I think everyone has a different take on it though.
It's when the Optimization leads to a character that's broken in any other aspect of the game that it's bad.
For example, if you had a point buy and you had a fighter with the stats :
STR : 16, DEX : 14, CON : 16, INT : 10, WIS : 12, CHA : 8
That would be an optimized fighter, in that he's put his two highest stats into STR & CON, boosted his DEX and WIS, not penalized his skills, and he's just not a great conversationalist because he spent all his time training instead of chugging bears at the bar.
On the other hand, if you had a point buy and you had a fighter with the stats :
STR : 18, DEX : 16, CON : 18, INT : 6, WIS : 10, CHA : 4
That would also be an optimized fighter, and he's arguably better in a fight than the first fighter. However, he's a borked and broken character. He's dumber than a post, and he his personal higiene is so bad that even goblins wrinkle their noses at him and run away. No one would ever want this idiot in their party, and yet he's found 3-4 other people who are just as borked and messed up as he is. And none of them would be able to function normally in society. The sorcerer with the 4 str, 18 dex, 14 con, 6 int, 8 wis and 20 cha wouldn't survive his training, yet he's optimized as well.
The reason the argument over optimization never ends is the people that are rooting for optimization usually have Fighter A in mind, whereas the people that are denegrating optimization have had too much experience with Fighter B being made in their games.
Wow, plenty of stormwind fallacy and ant-stormwind fallacy in this thread.
The truth of the matter is that not everyone plays ultra-optimized games and not everyone plays "real roleplayer" stormwind characters. I figure the bulk of the population probably resides in the "I sorta know the rules but for the most part gaming is a fun thing to do with friends" camp, i.e. Beer and Pretzel gaming.
As long as the whole group operates within the same basic paradigm things work, the DM cranks up the difficulty for a group of optimizers and cranks it down for "real roleplayers" or casual gamers. The problem arises when you get groups with several different character and gameplay paradigms going on. If the optimized character is a scene stealer (intentionally or unintentionally) this can reduce the enjoyment of the rest of the group, just like when a "real roleplayer" focuses on stuff that doesn't interest the rest of the group or when he creates a character that is intentionally suboptimal "to improve the challenge".
IME, some groups adjust to the expectations of the rest of the players and self-limit so that characters that kick ass in combat might move aside during social encounter and vice-versa. Other groups tend to have one or two players dominate all aspects of play and the rest of the group tends to be functionally henchmen to those PCs. Some groups even like this because player engagement can be a widely variable thing.
What I haven't got a reading on is whether the kick ass nature of this Barbarian is reducing the enjoyment of the whole group or it's just being a problem for the DM? If it's a problem for the whole group then it probably needs to be addressed but if everyone is still having fun then let him dominate combat encounters now and spend more time emphasizing the elements of the game that other people enjoy (like social or puzzle, etc).
Separating your ego as a GM and your expectations of "fun" play from the actual play environment is a hard skill to learn and one I personally struggled with for a long time. Sometimes you simply aren't going to have a coherent group with everyone working in concert, more often than not you have N+4 different motivations going on where N is the number of players and DMs ;)
However, he's a borked and broken character. He's dumber than a post, and he his personal higiene is so bad that even goblins wrinkle their noses at him and run away. No one would ever want this idiot in their party, and yet he's found 3-4 other people who are just as borked and messed up as he is. And none of them would be able to function normally in society.
Sounds like many of the gamers I've met :)
However, he's a borked and broken character. He's dumber than a post, and he his personal higiene is so bad that even goblins wrinkle their noses at him and run away. No one would ever want this idiot in their party, and yet he's found 3-4 other people who are just as borked and messed up as he is. And none of them would be able to function normally in society.Sounds like many of the gamers I've met :)
LOL,
Yeah, but the gamers you've met are not trying to survive in a midieval or early renasance world that has death around every corner and dragons that think adventurer's are crunchy and taste good with ketchup either. :)
|
I don't think the Barbarian should be played down. It's like asking LeBrown James to tone it down so that his teammates can have a shot of being in the headlines.
On the other hand, I don't think the other players need to sacrifice their character concepts by optimizing. Telling them to step up is coming from the same angle as telling the barb to step down.
The OP need to have a frank convo with his non-barb players, telling them that their current builds will seldom allow them grab the spotlight in combat. If they're ok with it, then ok. If not, then the OP can help them mod certain parts of their chars so that they fulfill both combat and social needs.
I really think most people in this thread is saying the same thing. There is no need to create an argument out of nothing.
Sure, if you purposely formed a group to be troubleshooters. I think military special ops would be a real world example. However, in my limited experience, adventuring parties usually just kind of fall in together.Sure they do, a group of people competent and optimized at what they do meet up in a tavern and are recruited - as competent optimized people may be - to go ruin some cultists/orc/goblin/zombie incursion.
In the "real world," yes, military spec ops are "optimized." You know who doesn't try to do military spec ops jobs (eg, the real world equivalent of cultists' day ruining)? Bob the Farmer, Billy Gas Pump Operator, and Sally Sue the Stay-at-home mom.
Some people like playing the A-team and some people like to play regular joes being thrust into adventures like every heroes journey story ever.
Different strokes for different folks ya know.
Sure, if you purposely formed a group to be troubleshooters. I think military special ops would be a real world example. However, in my limited experience, adventuring parties usually just kind of fall in together.Sure they do, a group of people competent and optimized at what they do meet up in a tavern and are recruited - as competent optimized people may be - to go ruin some cultists/orc/goblin/zombie incursion.
In the "real world," yes, military spec ops are "optimized." You know who doesn't try to do military spec ops jobs (eg, the real world equivalent of cultists' day ruining)? Bob the Farmer, Billy Gas Pump Operator, and Sally Sue the Stay-at-home mom.
Some people like playing the A-team and some people like to play regular joes being thrust into adventures like every heroes journey story ever.
Do they stay regular shmoes the entire time or do they improve themselves to hero level so as not to be eaten by orcs and zombies and dragons?
Do they stay regular shmoes the entire time or do they improve themselves to hero level so as not to be eaten by orcs and zombies and dragons?
Probably they get saved by GM fiat, just like regular joe story characters get saved writer fiat.
I mean, the Ringwraiths can't smoke a couple commoner hobbits? Come on. :P
Honestly they get upgraded and have new skills and awesome gear but they are always going to be a step behind the ultra-optimized niche specialist.
Some people/groups like characters that are talented generalists even though the game clearly rewards specializing to the nth degree. As long as they aren't completely mechanically gimped, such as a low int wizard or a low strength fighter they can generally succeed in many games without a hideous attrition rate.
Think of it as a continuum, you have the ulta-optimized players on one end and the unfortunate victims of the stormwind fallacy on the other end. As long as the characters are towards the middle of the bell-curve then the game tends to work pretty well. The game is arguably balanced there (Elite array, 4 characters, some suboptimal play and character choice are likely) and the game requires significant DM intervention to work towards either margin.
Fortunately the bulk of the population really doesn't take optimization to the nth degree (internet forums really don't seem to represent the average gamer IMHO), and most people avoid most of the totally obvious traps. As a result the game tends to work for them.
People at the margins, including Char Op specialists, tend to break the game into all sorts of mangled bits because the game really isn't designed for them and difference in character options show up in weird places.
In some cases you can mix casual gamers and optimizers at the same gaming table but in many cases it doesn't work well because the end goals for the people involved are wildly different. Some people see every combat encounter as a potential puzzle to solve and other see it as narrative device to be used to explain advancing character competency. Neither approach is bad or good, and in some cases they aren't mutual exclusive but in some cases they can be.
The trick to effective being an effective GM is determining what sort of stories the group wants to tell and empowering them in order to do that. In some cases that means intervening to erase power level discrepancies (because they are a big source of player angst) and in some cases that means adopting ye olde alternating character spotlight so that no one character shines all the time and everyone gets a chance at being the big damn hero part of the time even though their combat statistics suck.
In a AP like kingmaker where so much of the AP can be spent on domain management and social challenges, I really don't see a problem with having some character more dominant than others in combat because I can always focus on the less dominant characters at other points in the adventure.
Some people like playing the A-team and some people like to play regular joes being thrust into adventures like every heroes journey story ever.Different strokes for different folks ya know.
And despite your family ties, that's just a fact of life. Sometimes you are the fall guy, sometimes you are the airwolf, and sometimes you are just... Alf.
Seriously though, your post above is 100%. I would also add that many folks have fun in different ways, and it is sometimes possible to have a player who just wants to make the most of what they are given, but not disrupt the game. Basically that optimizing a character, and optimizing control (or influence) on the game don't always go hand-and-hand.
Fairly spoke and soothing words
I'm better I had my breakfast. Thanks for the chance to rant though, occasionally you just got to get it out.
he spent all his time training instead of chugging bears at the bar.
I just have to say that any good optimized fighter takes time to chug bears, no matter what his Charisma score.