While I admit 15 dpr is low in and around the level 10 area, i think 25-35 would reasonable based on the play styles of the non PG players of the group.What. The. Hell.
NO ONE is going to fit into your group. NO. ONE. That is not a good target for level 10 as a damage per round output. The Rogue sneak attacking should defeat that with no effort. Hell, the Rogue NOT Sneak Attacking should be able to exceed that. No full BAB class is going to gimp themselves enough to join your party of pig farmers doing amazing things. I, personally, would highly suggest you switch to a more role-playing focused system.I just like playing a low dpr, high defense character.Perhaps your group Wizard should roll a Knowledge check and tell you that full-out defense is ALWAYS a losing strategy. Eventually, the monsters will overcome anything but the most absurdly high defenses, and at that point, you won't be hitting them.
I would like to chime in and say that although I dont agree with his tone, I completely agree with Cartigan's opinion here.
I think it's very telling that the extra player in your group is always in flux. It is because you as a group have agreed upon an unrealistic expectation that everyone must meet to play at your table. Sometimes when you have a problem with everyone else you meet, you need to consider yourself as the culprit.
You have stated there are no house rules but that simply is not true. Your house rule is that everyone without exception must play a sub optimal character. It is not really power gaming to ensure your character can reliably perform his chosen role. A Barbarian is a melee damage dealer, pure and simple. Look at his abilities..all offensive, he isnt allowed heavy armor, focus on strength builds with two handed weapons. This guy is using something the way it is inteded and being made a pariah for it. His roleplay can be worked on, but it isnt a function of the numbers.
In you other example, I could argue that making a wizard that can cast a wicked fireball is very sub optimal...in fact its about the worst sort of wizard one can make and the guy did a nice job of highlighting something casters really do fairly poorly. You state your case with great civility, but I think if I was sitting at your table and I made a character who dared to be moderately proficient at something, I would be pig piled on in the name of "superior roleplaying".
I think the answer should be clear at this point if you have really gone through several gammer in persuit of one that suits your tastes. Either adjust your play style to accomadate a broader range of tastes, or lighten up when someone takes a staring role in certain encounters. Because continuing to pound on the square peg for not fitting in your round hole results in alot of broken pegs.
Elven_Blades its been said before but...
- You and the rest of your group, other than the Barbarian, are not better role-players. Just because each of you think that making a PC who is terrible at the main thing he does makes you good, doesn't actually do that.
Example: "Hey guys i just made a Level 5 Rogue."
Best RP Rogue Ever
Human 5th Rogue
LN Medium Humanoid
Init:+1 Senses: Perception+8,
AC:26 Touch:11 Flat-footed:25
HP:21(5 HD)
Fort:+2 Ref:+5 Will:+1
Speed:30ft(20ft with Armor)
Melee: +1 Longsword +6 (1d8+3/19-20x2)
Ranged: Mwk Light Crossbow +5 (1d8/19-20x2) 80ft
Special Attacks: Sneak Attack(+3d6),
STR 15 DEX 13 CON 10 INT 14 WIS 10 CHA 12
Base Attack:+3 CMB:+5 CMD:16
Feats: Medium Armor Proficiency, Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, Tower Shield Proficiency, Stealthy,
Skills: Acrobatics-5, Climb-4, Disable Device-3, Escape Artist-3, Knowledge(Local)+10, Knowledge(Dungeoneering)+10, Linguistics+10, Sleight of Hand-5, Stealth-3, Swim-4, Perception+8, Profession(Scribe)+8,
Languages: Common, Elven, Dwarven, Orc, Goblin, Gnoll, Draconic, Giant,
SQ: Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense(+1), Trap Finding, Evasion, Fast Stealth, Combat Trick,
Gear: +1 Full Plate, +1 Tower Shield, +1 Longsword, Mwk Dagger, Backpack, (10)Parchment, Inkpen, Vial of Ink, Sealing Wax, Signet Ring, (50ft) Silk Rope, Small Steel Mirror, (5)Trail Rations, Heavy Warhorse(Lame in One Leg), Saddlebags, Mwk Lance, Efficient Quiver, Mwk Light Crossbow, (60)Bolts, (2)Potion of Eagle's Splendor(CL 3rd), Leather Pouch, 13 Silver, 23 Copper, Mwk Thieves' Tools,
Can i play with you if i use that PC?
Then when i can't do anything i'll be upset with the Barbarian for making a useful PC.
But at least i'll make the rest of you seem better.
Let me start out today by saying that I don't expect a barb to do 20 damage a turn at level 8-10. No one expects that.
I expect that. Did you forget a "not" for the "to do?"
What i do expect, if for players to not design something that potentially do over 100 dpr at the same level.
My level 7 dual-wielding Ranger with a +1 Kukri and +1 Longsword pulled off 70 damage in one full attack against a Troll, and I'm too bad at math to properly optimize. (Full disclosure: I have a +4 bonus against Giants and I crit once on the Longsword)
A Barbarian going half-out could've done that.Many of you make excellent examples of rangers and paladins in 50-65 range, and being that the are what 4e would call a striker, i feel this is reasonable damage output. Yes, 15-20 is low, but as I said, we want low power. Let me explain why...
Paladins are what you call "Defenders" in 4e.
A couple campaigns ago, we had a warmage / elemental savant. He walked through a portal leading to the big BBEG final boss of the campaign, droped some low level spell heavily modified by metamagic and sudden metamagic, and one-shot the boss and all his minions before the rest of us could even thin, about what we were gonna do the boss. Is final damage with this AoE effect was 343 per target hit ( reflex half, obviously)
At what level? and with what spell
From then on, we intentionally stoped making characters with "nukes" such as that.
From the sounds of it, you should've stopped playing d20 and switched to Savage Worlds or World of Darkness.
To try to get a little back on track, are we the only group that likes this low damage, long combat play style?
Are you the only group who falsely equates suboptimal characters with good role-playing? No.
Are you the only group who has gimped their own character under that false impression? No.Are you the only group playing so far under the curve that an average character is being accused of power gaming? Very, very likely.
Do your GMs costumize pre-written adventures to handle the high damage output everyone seems to like (aside from me), or do you guys home brew everything with your high output play styles in mind?
30 damage a round is WAY BELOW the curve for a half-competent melee class. Good melee focused classes should be easily doubling that per round. And let's not even get into casters.
Optimal fighter with those stats had 8s in mental scores and a 12 dex. Yeah, that makes a character that is gonna spend a lot of time RPing. I realize that PF point buy works differently, but the principle is the same.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Fighter class? The only role-playing he would be doing anyway is hitting inanimate things with a hammer. The only difference between that and combat is it takes several thousand times as long to get a result.
I didn't expect so much response to this thread...
Let me start out today by saying that I don't expect a barb to do 20 damage a turn at level 8-10. No one expects that. What i do expect, if for players to not design something that potentially do over 100 dpr at the same level. Many of you make excellent examples of rangers and paladins in 50-65 range, and being that the are what 4e would call a striker, i feel this is reasonable damage output. Yes, 15-20 is low, but as I said, we want low power. Let me explain why...
A couple campaigns ago, we had a warmage / elemental savant. He walked through a portal leading to the big BBEG final boss of the campaign, droped some low level spell heavily modified by metamagic and sudden metamagic, and one-shot the boss and all his minions before the rest of us could even thin, about what we were gonna do the boss. Is final damage with this AoE effect was 343 per target hit ( reflex half, obviously). It was undead, so it suffered from low Hp, but not super important to the story. In short, to the boss and 10 minious, nearly 4k damage was done with a single spell. Every one looked at each other and basically said, "well, that was quite the epic final battle, wasn't it". From then on, we intentionally stoped making characters with "nukes" such as that.
The BBEG did not have ANY elemental defenses? Wat?
That aside, wizards don't really do that much damage anymore. I recall our Epic-Level game, where my Arcane Trickster used energy admixture meteor swarm sneak attacks for literally a Ben&Jerry ice-bucket full of d6. Silly times. Not happening in PF anymore as far as I have seen
To try to get a little back on track, are we the only group that likes this low damage, long combat play style? Do your groups all build optimized characters? I've seen the gravity bow mentioned many times on this site, i have no clue what it is, but assume it is the best weapon for rangers, seeing as everyone references it in their mid level ranger builds. Do your GMs costumize pre-written adventures to handle the high damage output everyone seems to like (aside from me), or do you guys home brew everything with your high output play styles in mind?
In order:
- Low damage means dead party in the long run. PF is easy until mid level, then everything has DR and SLAs to ruin your day.- Optimized, yes. I consider being able to proceed to be a good thing. Better to have 4 specialists than 4 people who are mediocre at everything. When I make a character I look at what the party needs, and make someone good at that job. My paladin's main job is to murder things that tries to murder the party, and he is damned good at it. Beyond that he is an artist (craft calligraphy) and a poet (perform oratory), as well as a diplomat and the party's leader and spokesman.
- Gravity Bow is a spell for rangers that increase the damage of their bow by one step (1d6 -> 1d8 -> 2d6)
- We play APs, and find ourselves challenged quite often. Big physical damage is easily countered with mirror image, displacement, invisibility etc, and melee is easily dodged. If we are more than 4 players, the GM improves the opposition. The end-boss of the last AP we played took us well over 10 rounds to defeat, since he had minions, spells, a bruiser of a cohort and used the environment to his advantage, making us chase after him and not being able to full-attack. Random encounters mostly gets chain-sawed in short order unless there are lots of them and they have spells.
To try to get a little back on track, are we the only group that likes this low damage, long combat play style? Do your groups all build optimized characters? I've seen the gravity bow mentioned many times on this site, i have no clue what it is, but assume it is the best weapon for rangers, seeing as everyone references it in their mid level ranger builds. Do your GMs costumize pre-written adventures to handle the high damage output everyone...
It appears that you kicked the hornets nest by some of your phrasing indicating this is the only RP solid way to play, and seem to be continuing to do so. Any martial artist, military tactician, UFC fighter, etc, will tell you that the shorter the fight is the better your odds of succeeding without injury are. It is not RP accurate for a barbarian, a trained man of war, to have a different opinion.
Our games, personally, are not pure damage output affairs The last one was a swashbuckling/ political affair. In it the combat-optimized unsocial barbarian did the smart thing and tried to keep his mouth shut at social affairs but was invaluable when trying to deal with the assassins who came after some party guests, or to defend the honor of a slutty female spy in our midst.
Cloud without Crunch is better suited to playing pretend in the backyard, something I strongly encourage regardless of age.
Crunch without Cloud is a computer model simulation that requires no human element. A la Ultimate Warrior on Spike
Either extreme while interesting is not RP as, I, want to play/define it. But I know better than to try and tell other people that its not if that's how they "roll."
Perhaps looking at an E6 style of game might suit what you want better.
A CR equal encounter is not a threat to a party.
It never is supposed to be.
A level 10 party should expect their fighter deal about more than 50 damage a round (and honestly much much more).
Let me show you something from the bestiary:
A CR 10 monster should have about 130 hp, an AC of 24 and an attack bonus of +13~+18. If they succeed on a full attack they should deal between 33~45 damage a round.
This should eat up about 20% of the parties resources, and take about 3~5 rounds of combat.
Round 1 is spent getting into position/ getting the vulnerable out of the way/ slight buffing or debuffing.
Round 2 will have the opening swings -- some might hit but for the most part people will still be getting into position and figuring out what they are facing.
Round 3 is the round the damage really comes in.
Round 4 someone hits one more time and the monster drops.
If you figure that most the damage will be on that round 3 (maybe 2 if the party has a good round 1) then you could reasonably expect most the damage to come in that round.
A wizard isn't a damage deal -- as you pointed out he's going to expect about 20~50 damage tops, the wizard is better off doing things to augment the party. A cleric could do better but he's going to need to buff and get into position which means he won't do much until round 3. The rogue needs the fighter in position and then will probably drop in an attack that will deal 6d6+5 damage ~ 26 points.
So if the wizard does around 20 points, the rogue around 26, the cleric on turn 3 gets in a wallop of 35 points that leaves the fighter to deal around 50+ damage, after positioning.
And he should be able to deal that in one round. The "default" weapon specializing fighter will have a base attack bonus of +13 at level 10 (+10 bab+2 greater weapon focus+2 weapon training+2 magical weapon-3 power attack) without strength bonus and should expect about 1d8+2(magic)+2(weapon specialization)+2(weapon training)+6(power attack) damage.
Or Longsword +13/+8 (1d8+12) damage before his strength is factored in.
With strength factored in he should have +15~+16(easily) for 1d8+14~16.
That's with a generic +2 weapon.
He can't help but deal at least 30 points of damage.
If he's a two handed type he'll end up with about five more points of damage putting him at +15~16 for 2d6+18~22 damage.
That's with a strength of 14~16. Not an "insane" score, of 22(which isn't insane either).
Your baseline is much too low.
My level 7 dual-wielding Ranger with a +1 Kukri and +1 Longsword pulled off 70 damage in one full attack against a Troll, and I'm too bad at math to properly optimize. (Full disclosure: I have a +4 bonus against Giants and I crit once on the Longsword)
A Barbarian going half-out could've done that.
See bold. Not optimized. No optimized ranger ever dual-wields.
See bold. Not optimized. No optimized ranger ever dual-wields.My level 7 dual-wielding Ranger with a +1 Kukri and +1 Longsword pulled off 70 damage in one full attack against a Troll, and I'm too bad at math to properly optimize. (Full disclosure: I have a +4 bonus against Giants and I crit once on the Longsword)
A Barbarian going half-out could've done that.
That's not even the half of it.
Though it should get slightly better when I get another level and go into crit-focused Kukris.
I don't think average groups normally draw lines in the sand on how much damage people are allowed to do.
|
I didn't expect so much response to this thread...
Let me start out today by saying that I don't expect a barb to do 20 damage a turn at level 8-10. No one expects that. What i do expect, if for players to not design something that potentially do over 100 dpr at the same level. Many of you make excellent examples of rangers and paladins in 50-65 range, and being that the are what 4e would call a striker, i feel this is reasonable damage output. Yes, 15-20 is low, but as I said, we want low power. Let me explain why...
A couple campaigns ago, we had a warmage / elemental savant. He walked through a portal leading to the big BBEG final boss of the campaign, droped some low level spell heavily modified by metamagic and sudden metamagic, and one-shot the boss and all his minions before the rest of us could even thin, about what we were gonna do the boss. Is final damage with this AoE effect was 343 per target hit ( reflex half, obviously). It was undead, so it suffered from low Hp, but not super important to the story. In short, to the boss and 10 minious, nearly 4k damage was done with a single spell. Every one looked at each other and basically said, "well, that was quite the epic final battle, wasn't it". From then on, we intentionally stoped making characters with "nukes" such as that.
Yes, i realize we may have gone from one extreme to the other, but it's what we want. On a side note, the barb in question was there when the nuke happened, he knows what is expected of him (that while high damage output is ok, we don't want the orbital space station bombardment)
To try to get a little back on track, are we the only group that likes this low damage, long combat play style? Do your groups all build optimized characters? I've seen the gravity bow mentioned many times on this site, i have no clue what it is, but assume it is the best weapon for rangers, seeing as everyone references it in their mid level ranger builds. Do your GMs costumize pre-written adventures to handle the high damage output everyone...
Speaking from my own experience, I've tended to play with DMs who've been involved enough to know and understand their players and the characters they play. So, if they had a player who could do 300+ damage with an area effect spell, they'd be aware of that, and plan their encounters accordingly. They wouldn't design a boss encounter that could effectively be taken out with a single spell. Furthermore, they might have intervened sooner in the leveling up process if they saw that one player was bending the rules to create something that was clearly out of everyone's league.
I'm surprised that the DM had allowed a character in his game while having absolutely no clue what he was capable of. In most of the games I've played in, we've used all of the WotC splat books (for 3.5 games), and there were times that the DM needed to make rulings on how certain combinations of feats and abilities would work together, but I've never played with a DM who was clueless as to what his players could do.
As to customizing pre-written adventures to challenge a particular party, I would answer an emphatic yes. If you don't, you may run into a situation where somebody one-shots the boss. If you wanted the boss to be around to fight the rest of the party, it sounds like he might have benefited from energy immunity, for example. I think a good rule of thumb is to buff the main bad guys to about the degree that the party tends to buff itself.
I'm glad you and your players are happy with their play style, but I wouldn't be happy in your group. It's not that I need to powergame, but I don't like artificial constraints on what sorts of characters I can design. Optimized characters tend to only create problems in campaigns run by lazy DMs. At least, that's my experience.
Accusations of power-gaming when you play a class for what it is does not make for a good opening statement.
Limit the access to items, stick to wealthy by level, and much is done. Damage au natural usually creeps slower. And as I have said multiple times; melee full attacks are supposed to kill things. Avoid being full-attacked, and all martial classes drop considerably in damage potential.
I don't even try all that hard to do lots of damage with my character. I just try to make him viable in more combat situations than one. And we also have two non combat-focused characters in the party: A utility/skill focused wizard/rogue, and a healing/buffing cleric. They do not expect to rival the damage of my paladin nor the ranger. Nor should they. But then again, they can do all kinds of things when the "beating things over the head" time is done.
|
|
Rogue opening with 100+ against unaware enemies, great. It was surprise round and that's what the rogue is supposed to do. I would still be upset if he did that to a boss, instead of, say, eliminating one of the boss's caster minions...
You'd be upset? So, not only do insist that players gimp themselves, but you don't want them to excel against anyone important? Sounds like someone doesn't like to have his toys broken...
I don't think average groups normally draw lines in the sand on how much damage people are allowed to do.
No I am sure your right. groups that put a had limit on how much damage a character can do are few and far between.
Ofcause that doesn't change the fact that you turning and playing the kind of sword swinging superheroes that high level optimisation generates, when the premise of the game was set down as a street level punk noir game about spells and daggers traded in back allys, is even more disruptive than me turning up at your game and playing a commoner.
You're not playing the way I want you to, so how can I get you to do that without you leaving?
Just run all the characters yourself. Don't need players, just have a wee liddle tea party game session with some stuffed animals.
That way the game and characters will go and do exactly what you want all the time, every time :P
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Elven Blades, I've read this entire thread and I have to agree with most of the posters that your party is a bit underpowered for their level, and that you are expecting too much to stop a damage-dealing Full BAB class like the Barbarian from doing truckloads of damage.
To try to get a little back on track, are we the only group that likes this low damage, long combat play style?
Probably not, but I think you may be in the minority based on the level of gimping you prefer.
My group tends to play in low magic campaigns, where you can't just buy the magic items you need, and Wizards have to find spells rather than being able to buy them. Our PCs tend to have to work with what they find in adventures (with some DM caveat, based on PC requests).
Many on these boards would consider this low powered, as our PCs typically do not have access to the same magic items (quantity or quality) other PCs would have at higher levels. Your preference, however, is much more drastic than ours.
Do your groups all build optimized characters?
Personally, none of us (in my group, and I'm sure many on these boards) really "optimize" our characters, but we do our best to make sure our PCs are good at performing their primary function, whether it's sneak attacking, disarming traps, healing, buffing, ranged attacks, or even melee fighting (like the Barbarian you describe).
If I posted our PCs' character sheets, I don't think anyone here would accuse any of us of power gaming. However, I would point out that a Barbarian created by anyone in my group (and most groups, for that matter) would probably be meeting the same damage thresholds your fellow gamer is meeting.
It's not unusual for this to happen. In fact, in most cases, it's expected to happen. That's why the mid- to high-level encounters in published adventures have contingency plans and special defenses (SR, DR, spell casting, buffs, multiple enemies, etc.). This kind of output is normal and typically accounted for.
Your Nuke example sounds like you had someone roll exceptionally high using a spell the player spent a lot of feats, equipment, and in-game resources on - he basically built a one-trick pony that was very effective on a BBEG that was susceptible to his one trick. It wasn't a fault of the rules, it was a perfect situation for your friend to shine. It looks like your group reacted poorly to this one event, and skewed your game to such a degree that normal class performance is starting to look like power gaming.
Do your GMs costumize pre-written adventures to handle the high damage output everyone seems to like (aside from me), or do you guys home brew everything with your high output play styles in mind?
I can count on one finger the number of adventures I have played in that WEREN'T adjusted to suit our party in some fashion.
However, the adjustments aren't made because of a high damage output.
It's more of a flavor adjustment based on party background, reason for beginning the quest, ad hoc role playing situations that a published module couldn't account for, tactical adjustments for encounters based on party actions, and personal DM preference.
Published modules typically expect a certain amount of damage to be done, so this expectation is already built in. You will start to see this take place as your party progresses through Shackled City.
As many have pointed out in this thread, your party is going to hit a point where they will be at a TPK risk for every encounter because their abilities are below design expectations for a group of their class level. This will either make the campaign end early, or force you as the DM to make adjustments to the encounters in the other direction (i.e., make the enemies less powerful) to take your PCs into account.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just that you as the DM will have to make changes that wouldn't have had to be made if all of the PCs were at the power level they were expected to be at based on their class level (like your current Barbarian is).
The damage output you describe for your friend's Barbarian isn't "high". In fact, it's pretty close to what is expected based on your party's class level. However, it's higher than what you prefer.
***
Personally, I wouldn't want to play in your game, as it would make character creation/level advancement a chore for me.
I'd have to constantly reconsider every class/feat/skill/ability I choose as I level up, because if I took a normal feat progression, I would be afraid I would be perceived as taking too powerful an option for your game.
For example, based on your posts, it would seem that a Fighter with Power Attack and Cleave could be interpreted as having too much damage output at 1st level.
That's a level of anxiety I would prefer to avoid when playing Pathfinder/3.5. I shouldn't have to worry that taking feats and abilities that feed my class's strengths (and are even recommended for my class) are too powerful for the gaming group I'm in, and I'm sure some of the players who have sat in your revolving seat at your table have experienced this same concern.
Hope this helps explain some of the things you seem to be running into, and good luck working through your issues with your new gamer!
Elven_Blades,
I thought your OP was describing a friend of mine's game until you gave too many details. He took over for me about a decade ago and inherited my group as I moved out of town. I even came back for a few years and ran in the middle there. I keep in touch. And one powergaming player has remained. In short, I know EXACTLY what you are talking about.
They just deal with him. But it always caused me much stress to have to run a game with him in it.
I just formed a new Pathfinder group recently and I had 2 expert 3.x/Pathfinder gamers in it. And three rookies. The other was experienced.
I let the "experts" know up front: If you optomize or min/max to the point that you outshine others at the table and take away their fun, I will deal with it one way or the other. I left it vague. I didn't need to go into more detail. I told them, "I know you can build a kick-ass character. You don't need to prove it to me or anyone else." But to do so, you really only need about 20% of all the character build rules in the book. Consider this your opportunity to use some of the other 80% of the rules created for this game.
Now I was dealing with mature adults. They heeded my warning. Their characters are a wee bit more optomized than others. That worked for me.
Now, what would I have done if they didn't listen -- or they advance to a point that completely outshines everyone else? I'd nerf them. Hand wave them. BUT... and this is a big but...it's because I told them ahead of time that I will take care of any min/max optimization that takes away from everyone else's fun.
Since you didn't give that warning. I'd apologize to the player you're having problems with. "I'm sorry I didn't tell you this up front. It's my bad. But I can't have a character in the campaign that diminishes everyone's fun. You can tone it down. Or I can tone the PC down. But this PC has to be toned down. Or you must build one that isn't so powerful. Again, I'm sorry for not making this clear ahead of time."
If you come back I do want to hear about this 4k damage spell in detail.
A fight has to be at least 2 CR's above the party level to normally be dangerous.
If you have trouble with a player being challenged the best course of action is to post everyone's character and list the issues with challenging "Super PC".
I am sure someone hear could help with the problem.
You're not playing the way I want you to, so how can I get you to do that without you leaving?Just run all the characters yourself. Don't need players, just have a wee liddle tea party game session with some stuffed animals.
That way the game and characters will go and do exactly what you want all the time, every time :P
Joke all you like, but a hyper optimiser, some one who has a personality of a rotten cabbage, or who cheats joins my group and starts spoiling the fun of my group and me(providing I am the host), their butts will not hit the driveway fast enough.
Same goes for racists, sexists, homophobes, people who spend the whole night talking about random shit not connected with the game, some one who decides they are playing a space marine in our fantasy game and some one who decides to play a wizard with Int 8 in our current 20-point buy king maker game(you know, provided they actually understand the rules and the premise that the PCs are adventures capable of carving out a kingdom form the stolen lands).
If you come back I do want to hear about this 4k damage spell in detail.
It was 343, and I still want to know at what level and what spell.
I could posit an idea if I had my books, but even without looking I can tell you he would've had to pour every feat into it and most of his magic items. And he may have abused the Warmage Edge rules.
You're not playing the way I want you to, so how can I get you to do that without you leaving?Just run all the characters yourself. Don't need players, just have a wee liddle tea party game session with some stuffed animals.
That way the game and characters will go and do exactly what you want all the time, every time :PJoke all you like, but a hyper optimiser, some one who has a personality of a rotten cabbage, or who cheats joins my group and starts spoiling the fun of my group and me(providing I am the host), their butts will not hit the driveway fast enough.
Spoiling fun is no good, but this guy is only guilty of playing a class. My paladin's "secret" is vanilla power attack, decent strength, and having casters in the party. I really don't see how a 2h combatant can do less than 40-50 dpr on a full-attack at lv8 with only those factors.
I have DM/GM'ed myself since middle school, and I agree that someone trying to break the game is not an asset.
There were a couple of prestige classes in 3.5 that did a lot of damage. I think the spellwarp sniper, and elemental savant were accused of shenanigans. I never seen one in play so I can't be sure.
You're not playing the way I want you to, so how can I get you to do that without you leaving?Just run all the characters yourself. Don't need players, just have a wee liddle tea party game session with some stuffed animals.
That way the game and characters will go and do exactly what you want all the time, every time :PJoke all you like, but a hyper optimiser, some one who has a personality of a rotten cabbage, or who cheats joins my group and starts spoiling the fun of my group and me(providing I am the host), their butts will not hit the driveway fast enough.
Same goes for racists, sexists, homophobes, people who spend the whole night talking about random s#!~ not connected with the game, some one who decides they are playing a space marine in our fantasy game and some one who decides to play a wizard with Int 8 in our current 20-point buy king maker game(you know, provided they actually understand the rules and the premise that the PCs are adventures capable of carving out a kingdom form the stolen lands).
...people who don't raise their hand to ask to go to the bathroom...
Is your game a group of friends playing a game together, or a Catholic middle school math class?
While I admit 15 dpr is low in and around the level 10 area, i think 25-35 would reasonable based on the play styles of the non PG players of the group.What. The. Hell.
NO ONE is going to fit into your group. NO. ONE. That is not a good target for level 10 as a damage per round output.
I normally disagree with everything Cartigan says, but here he is absolutely right. 25-35 DPR at lvl 10 is ridiculously low for every class, besides maybe a full group of bards.
I normally disagree with everything Cartigan says, but here he is absolutely right. 25-35 DPR at lvl 10 is ridiculously low for every class, besides maybe a full group of bards.
You are joking at that part right?
A group of bards will be rocking out +4 to hit and damage +2 to all saves and an extra attack regularly at level 10 for each of them without even trying.
Bardic music +2, good hope, and haste is just going to hurt things no matter what else is in your party. Two attacks per bard (on average) figure one is ranged, two are sword and board types with one using a long spear, BAB +7... meh we are looking at +15/+15/+10 (1d8+13) per hit easily for the sword and board types -- the long spear user is probably +17/+17/+12 (1d8+17) per hit, with the archer going at +14/+14/+14/+9 (1d8+10) per hit easily. Throw some flanking and general tactics and these guys will hurt things.
You're not playing the way I want you to, so how can I get you to do that without you leaving?Just run all the characters yourself. Don't need players, just have a wee liddle tea party game session with some stuffed animals.
That way the game and characters will go and do exactly what you want all the time, every time :PJoke all you like, but a hyper optimiser, some one who has a personality of a rotten cabbage, or who cheats joins my group and starts spoiling the fun of my group and me(providing I am the host), their butts will not hit the driveway fast enough.
Same goes for racists, sexists, homophobes, people who spend the whole night talking about random s#!~ not connected with the game, some one who decides they are playing a space marine in our fantasy game and some one who decides to play a wizard with Int 8 in our current 20-point buy king maker game(you know, provided they actually understand the rules and the premise that the PCs are adventures capable of carving out a kingdom form the stolen lands).
...people who don't raise their hand to ask to go to the bathroom...
Is your game a group of friends playing a game together, or a Catholic middle school math class?
We are a group of four friends who got to know one another through gaming and have become more than just a gaming group. late autumn of last year, for a period of almost two years,our friendship and gaming experience was ruined by a fifth member who had joined us. Said fifth member had unrealistic expectations of the group, caused friction between the members and generally made our gaming experience a very unhappy experience for most of the time he was a member of the group.
Since he left the group to run a game for another group of local gamers, our game has become enjoyable, calm and productive, with little to no b#&&#ing, moaning or back biting, which had come to dominate the group.
The bad blood that had been building between us as friends was gone over night. Even I and one of the remaining group members, who had been at one another throats for most of that two year period, have not argued in the best part of six months.
I have no intention of going through such a painful and destructive period again. So please, compare the game to catholic middle school math class all you like, but said player will not be rejoining the game while I run it, and i am fairly certain our hosts will not be inviting him to re-join the group...
...and no, people may go to the toilet when they please.
If you come back I do want to hear about this 4k damage spell in detail.
A fight has to be at least 2 CR's above the party level to normally be dangerous.
If you have trouble with a player being challenged the best course of action is to post everyone's character and list the issues with challenging "Super PC".
I am sure someone hear could help with the problem.
4K is probably adding up damage to each target. I don't think he means to a single.
So example would be 10d6 fireball to 7 foes deals on average a total of: 35 x7 = 265 damage.
Likely sudden Maximize was used in the mentioned encounter. He says , "Is final damage with this AoE effect was 343 per target hit ( reflex half, obviously".
So assuming Maximize= 60 damage (if fireball as he said low level spell), add in Twin Metamagic = 120. What am I missing?
A blistering spell deals an extra 2 points of fire damage per level of the spell.
So 6 damage (3rd level) so we get 132 total.
Empower adds: 132 +10d6 so average total 167.
We are 1/2 way there.
Energize adds +50% more to undead so we get 250 damage.
Energy Admixture: Increase value to double so we end up with 500 damage.
But we are shooting for below 400 so we will remove Blistering and Energize spell:
Sudden Max, Sudden Empower, Energy Admixture, and Twin gives us
95 Fire + 95 Acid + Twin means again= 380.
So +4 Slot and + 4 slot: meaning he has to lower slot adjustment by a few points.
Easy Metamagic?: lowers it by 1 slot.
Arcane Thesist: lowers it by 2 (one for Twin and 1 for Admixture)
Total Slot + 5. 3 +5 = 8.
Meaning so far he cast a fireball as 8th level spell slot.
I don't play with jerks.Very wise of you. However, the answer to my facetious question is 'Talk to me, not an internet forum'.
An excellent starting point. But large mechanically opperated steel toe caps, and spiky gravel on the drive are a very reliable end point if you want gaming happiness. ;) My comments where mostly aimed at Kryzbyn. You just got caught in the splash damage.
We are a group of four friends who got to know one another through gaming and have become more than just a gaming group. late autumn of last year, for a period of almost two years,our friendship and gaming experience was ruined by a fifth member who had joined us. Said fifth member had unrealistic expectations of the group, caused friction between the members and generally made our gaming experience a very unhappy experience for most of the time he was a member of the group.
Since he left the group to run a game for another group of local gamers, our game has become enjoyable, calm and productive, with little to no b*&!*ing, moaning or back biting, which had come to dominate the group.
The bad blood that had been building between us as friends was gone over night. Even I and one of the remaining group members, who had been at one another throats for most of that two year period, have not argued in the best part of six months.
Been there. Had a player that was essentially a self-absorbed manipulative man-child, who got upset when other people playing their characters conflicted with his preconceived idea for the game. Everyone fought over stupid crap (like him being an assassin wannabe that held vital plot information secret from the otherwise goodly party), and he eventually left the game, and things have looked up since.
|
An excellent starting point. But large mechanically opperated steel toe caps, and spiky gravel on the drive are a very reliable end point if you want gaming happiness. ;) My comments where mostly aimed at Kryzbyn. You just got caught in the splash damage.
No doubt. If someone is clearly nothing but a problem even after attempts to talk it out, that person will not be welcome in my house. But this is not a gaming table thing, this is a companionship thing. If you are bad for my life, and are not willing to turn that around, you won't be a part of my life.
I normally disagree with everything Cartigan says, but here he is absolutely right. 25-35 DPR at lvl 10 is ridiculously low for every class, besides maybe a full group of bards.You are joking at that part right?
A group of bards will be rocking out +4 to hit and damage +2 to all saves and an extra attack regularly at level 10 for each of them without even trying.
Bardic music +2, good hope, and haste is just going to hurt things no matter what else is in your party. Two attacks per bard (on average) figure one is ranged, two are sword and board types with one using a long spear, BAB +7... meh we are looking at +15/+15/+10 (1d8+13) per hit easily for the sword and board types -- the long spear user is probably +17/+17/+12 (1d8+17) per hit, with the archer going at +14/+14/+14/+9 (1d8+10) per hit easily. Throw some flanking and general tactics and these guys will hurt things.
Well, I said "maybe". :p
An excellent starting point. But large mechanically opperated steel toe caps, and spiky gravel on the drive are a very reliable end point if you want gaming happiness. ;) My comments where mostly aimed at Kryzbyn. You just got caught in the splash damage.No doubt. If someone is clearly nothing but a problem even after attempts to talk it out, that person will not be welcome in my house. But this is not a gaming table thing, this is a companionship thing. If you are bad for my life, and are not willing to turn that around, you won't be a part of my life.
...Or let it ruin friendships over a difference of playstyle, I'd imagine.
An excellent starting point. But large mechanically opperated steel toe caps, and spiky gravel on the drive are a very reliable end point if you want gaming happiness. ;) My comments where mostly aimed at Kryzbyn. You just got caught in the splash damage.No doubt. If someone is clearly nothing but a problem even after attempts to talk it out, that person will not be welcome in my house. But this is not a gaming table thing, this is a companionship thing. If you are bad for my life, and are not willing to turn that around, you won't be a part of my life.
The guy in question is not really 'bad for my life' and i would happily, happily play in any game he decided to run, so long as it was with another group. The man is shockingly good GM, Keeper and ST. But in that group...a nightmare...and a nightmare to run a game for.
...Or let it ruin friendships over a difference of playstyle, I'd imagine.
Not knowing the full details, perhaps making comment like that isn't really appropriate.
Not knowing the full details, perhaps making comment like that isn't really appropriate.
...Or let it ruin friendships over a difference of playstyle, I'd imagine.
Or perhaps using the example of guy with personality problems as a justification to bash optimizers, when one has nothing to do with the other, was inappropriate. Hmmmm.
Or perhaps using the example of guy with personality problems as a justification to bash optimizers, when one has nothing to do with the other, was inappropriate. Hmmmm.Not knowing the full details, perhaps making comment like that isn't really appropriate.
...Or let it ruin friendships over a difference of playstyle, I'd imagine.
Insisting on playing Ohara the destroyer of worlds, super optimised wizard and power gamers wet dream, in a game that every one is aware and signed up to being a game about jack of all trades members of the underworld, with base line combat abilities, is a personality problem.
Not getting that 'winning the game' by making the best character possible can be both disruptive and dull for your other players is a personality problem.
Optimisation is not innately wrong. It is a useful tool in a roleplayers tool box(one I wish I was better with for when it is appropriate), but at least some people who label themselves optimisers seem to believe that they have not only a right, but a responsibly to make every character as powerful as it can be, when really as powerful as it should be to meet the concept would be a much more healthy position, especially when they also get that not every character needs to have the most powerful concept available to it.
In addition to my suggestion to change systems entirely, I feel Elven Blades would like 4e immensely more than 3.5/Pathfinder.
Suggesting that all optimizers have personality problems? It may be an accident of phrasing, but it does read that way. You latest post also has the vibe of 'optimizers are horrible people'.
Joke all you like, but a hyper optimiser, some one who has a personality of a rotten cabbage,
Not at all. There are some people here on the board who fairly talented optimisers who seems to get the difference between 'as powerful as it can be', and 'as powerful as it can be within the confines of what fits the character concept, campaign and group'. But there are also people who in my opinion do not seem to get that difference.
The first group would be welcome at my table. Hell, it would be an honour to have them there, and learn from them.
The second group are not welcome at my table under normal conditions.
Suggesting that all optimizers have personality problems? It may be an accident of phrasing, but it does read that way. You latest post also has the vibe of 'optimizers are horrible people'.
Joke all you like, but a hyper optimiser, some one who has a personality of a rotten cabbage,
This is what I've been responding to. I think I've made my point, so I'll stop. Not trying to make enemies, just point out how ridiculous it sounds.
Ollo.
What you're complaining about is that the "Powergamer" isn't following your railroad. He shines on his own and not because you gimp the encounters (as you surely must if you're not killing your players regularly) and it apparently bothers your players as well, though I can't see why they should hate on a guy who gets to shine at his chosen stick.
I run a group of five player in a regular game (once per week). Three of them are rather new to the game and thus are somewhat clueless about optimization. Yet they manage to meet each encounter head on and do their thing acceptably well without me having to fudge rolls to save them. They are on par with Pathfinder, here meaning that they all do their thing quite well. The damage dealers deal damage (sometimes amazing amounts of it) and the support supports. And we all have a blast mixing combat and intrigue to a nifty whole.
I've seen some great Roleplaying that had nothing to do with stats. I've been around a rather entertaining dumb orc who actually had int 10 and wis 16, he had just decided that his character wasn't very smart. And I've hunted goblins with a rather smart rogue, who merely had a 9 intelligence. Roleplaying IS NOT about what stats you have on your sheet, but about playing the part you have chosen for yourself. Stats doesn't matter, they're framework, not the proverbial yellowbrick road.
Your remarks about snide comments seems downright rude. It sounds like you're really trying to drive off the player, not working out the problem. You make it look like you'd rather just be you and your closed circle of friends, since everyone who comes into your safety zone is a powergamer and a problemplayer. The problem can't be everyone else, that's statistically impossible, so the conclusion must be that the problem is your group.
Now I'm not saying that you should change your entire group to adapt to everyone else's standards, but you should consider not taking your frustrations out on the poor outsider since it isn't his fault that you have a somewhat different playstyle.
I'd recomend that you politely ask the player to leave the group and stop inviting new players in. You have a tight group and a playstyle that suits these specific individuals well.
Remember: Each to his own. This is a hobby, not holy writ, so treat it as a hobby and stop harrassing the player or ask him to leave.