|
There is a lot more than just combat to these scenarios. If that is what makes a scenario exciting/boring for an entire group, I think there's a lot that is being missed. That being said, you really can't fault a player for developing a character that they love playing and utilizing their best abilities at all possible times.
My thought is, why haven't the other individuals addressed this 'in game'? It could make for some interesting banter, and ultimately, a better experience for everyone. Have the other individuals considered coming up with a character type that is suited very well for another aspect of combat that would complement this character (a rogue, for example)?
|
As a GM there isn't much you can do. And you shouldn't try to do anything.
If this person is someone you don't care about maintaining a friendship with, you could consider stop inviting him to the PFS play. However if it is a public place, rather than a private locale, not much you can do with this either.
If this person is a friend, you could consider telling them how boring it is to play with and GM said character, and ask if he'd mind making a new one. This could be problematic if all the local players have character's of higher levels, and then he'd be way behind the curve.
I'd suggest just sucking it up. You could also have intelligent adversaries act intelligently toward this type of tactic.
|
|
There is a lot more than just combat to these scenarios. If that is what makes a scenario exciting/boring for an entire group, I think there's a lot that is being missed. That being said, you really can't fault a player for developing a character that they love playing and utilizing their best abilities at all possible times.
My thought is, why haven't the other individuals addressed this 'in game'? It could make for some interesting banter, and ultimately, a better experience for everyone. Have the other individuals considered coming up with a character type that is suited very well for another aspect of combat that would complement this character (a rogue, for example)?
Perhaps I should clarify...
What to do if party makeup trivializes most of the combat in a scenario?
This is assuming 4-6 tier legal characters that the combination or specific build of character(s) makes it a cake walk.
Shrug your shoulders and move on.
|
|
What to do if party makeup trivializes most of the combat in a scenario?
This is something that will happen from time to time. I've had a couple of isolated incidences where a lot of prep work went into an encounter that barely lasted 1 round. Needless to say, I was frustrated. After the fact, I praised the players who, without knowing, were adequately prepared to handle what I was about to throw at them. Who would have thought that Dazzling Display would serve any purpose...
All that said, it is most important to ensure that the group is having a good time. Enjoy those moments as a group when someone truly surprises you with great strategy/tactics.
|
Joe points out a good thing. Sometimes you just happen to have the right spell/ability/combo that nerfs a whole combat or encounter. That's fine. (I ruined many challenging encounters myself).
When it happens all the time, that's an issue.
I always say that the GM should also have fun. If you're bored, talk to the player about your feeling. A great character without a table is not a character...
Do what you will to make the mod challenging. This is not an official answer, but do what you must. Have fun with it. You're the GM! Be cruel, nasty, evil, but fair. The GM deserves to enjoy the game too.
JP
If this was a home campaign, then I'd advise discussing the situation with the player and trying to find a compromiste. However, since it's PFS, as long as the character is a legal build and the player is following the rules, then there's absolutely nothing the GM can or should do. A legal character is a legal character.
|
Check his cheese!
What I mean by this is often a feat/spell/special ability/combo ect.. does not work exactly as the player has interpreted it to.
This is not cheating in my experience in most cases it is just an overly generous reading of the rules.
While it is not the GM's job to micro manage characters they should make sure they understand the characters especially if they are breaking every encounter.
If a build sounds too good to be true it just might be.
Rich
|
I've been trying to come to terms with this very issue recently.
I've summarized it into this:
Gamers, in general, do not put too much thought into the fun of other gamers.
The fighter probably doesn't care if no one else gets to do anything in most encounters. And the frustrating part of this problem is that most gamers (gamers tending to be introverts) will just sit silently and not speak up about it but will walk away thinking 'that was not fun'.
Within the rules of PFS there is nothing you can do about this. If you know these people well you could try talking to them at a personal level - identifying the problem encounters and noting all the times his gimmick has denied the rest of the party an opportunity to participate. This might work. Some people are just oblivious to this sort of thing and once notified of it will make efforts to tone it down. Others will just laugh in your face and do it even more. =/
In my experience, the best solution is to just be pickier about who you game with. You might have friends that are great guys/girls but anti-fun gamers. It sucks, but sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away/opt out of a table. 'Fixing' them in most cases isn't realistic.
|
Nerfing encounters has been much on my mind recently. I finally have a character that is coming up on 11th level and you know what I have discovered about playing tier 10-11 . . . its all about seeing who in the party has the right skills/feats/equipment/or just plain smarts to nerf the fight. Whether it is teleporting half way around Golarion and back just for fun and then moving all of the party behind the BBEG or having a two weapon fighter known as the 'lawnmower'; the modules become more about role playing before, durning & after the encounters than it does about whether you can survive the fight. If a character nerfs your fight try to be ready with more role playing for the party. Make sure that they really are searching for the hidden manuscript or that they can make their saving throw against that evil artifact. Maybe what you need is an NPC that the party shouldn't kill because he has vital information that they will need later. I even occasionally put the players on a timer so that there isn't time to think through every last permutation as a group before she/he reacts.
|
|
The advice is getting on track here, but I don't accept the 'there is nothing you can do' line. As others have pointed out, invest the time to make sure everything is legal and right. Some of the issue could be coming from that kind of misunderstanding. You also have every right to talk to the player, person to person. You just have to remember that if they indeed are playing a legal character your opinion on the matter is no more valid than theirs and they are under no obligation to take what you've said to heart. It doesn't stop you from saying your peace on the matter though. I had a trip-specialized fighter at my table for Rules of the Swift. It is kinda lame and one-trick-pony, but it is also very effective. I don't feel my player was obnoxious about it to any degree and none of the other players said anything by way of feedback about not having fun. Talking to the player though and letting him know that his fun appears to be at the expense of others is your best bet. Hopefully he'll tone it down a little and maybe take up the cavalry roll letting other characters try to do their thing, but when it takes a turn for the worse he sweeps in and saves the day.
|
|
Talking to the player though and letting him know that his fun appears to be at the expense of others is your best bet. Hopefully he'll tone it down a little and maybe take up the cavalry roll letting other characters try to do their thing, but when it takes a turn for the worse he sweeps in and saves the day.
And that is the ideal resolution for this sort of problem.
But if the character is legit and the player refuses to tone it down - there is nothing you can do.
Players saving their super powerful gimmick for when things are looking bad is awesome. Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way.
|
|
There is almost always something that can be done, within the rules and within the tools that you have.An example of this is the high AC tank. After a few swings of trying to hit this PC, ignore him/her. Walk around them to get to the other PCs.
If the PC is optimized for trip, try and keep the combat mobile and away from their threat area. Or attack their tripping weapon (disarm / sunder). Or grapple. Or back off and nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).
If that doesn't work you can always have the enemies flee for their lives (and if the next encounter is an ally right into that encounter).
All; that being said, sometimes the best option for the game and the story is to realize that this time you are the bug. Maybe next time you can be the windshield.
My comment was written from the perspective of one of the other players. As a DM you have a few options. I have had great success CMBing the super tank into oblivion - grapple, disarm, dirty trick to blind, etc. The mooks may need natural 20s to hit with normal attacks but they only need 14s to hit with CMB checks.
As one of the other players what would you suggest?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(laughs)
Let me ask you all a question, my friends. If you were playing at a table with a fighter, and your character died in combat, and the fighter then revealed that he had this terrific attack that would have won the fight without anybody dying, but he didn't want to hog the spotlight, what would your reactions be?
(Likewise, how would you feel if it were only after the party has taken terrible losses against the giant rot grub swarm that the PC wizard were to reveal that he could have fireballed the entire opposing forces, but chose not to, so that other people had a chance to fight? What about that cleric-heavy party fighting undead? Would you feel better if the dudes with channel energy held back and let your ranger go toe-to-ankle against the halfling vampire monks for a couple rounds?)
A great deal of the problem here is the nature of the organized play environment, in particular (a) players don't know one another's characters, (b) players don't know the lethality of the encounters, (c) players do know that certain judgements are outside the boundaries of what the GM normally controls.
In a normal home campaign, if I come up with a very efficient character, my GM will respond by toughening up the opposition, or choosing encounters that my tricks don't work well against. In other words, I've increased the encounter level of the game, but I'm not any more likely to win/survive any adventure. In an OP environment, that kind of alteration is not within the table GM's purview, so I really can increase my chances of survival, and the chances that my allies will survive, if I act efficiently.
The converse is just as true. If I hold back my most effective techniques or spells in a home campaign, a good GM will compensate. In OP, the GM will go ahead with the enemy tactics as written, and that might get some other PC killed.
Todd Morgan will recall this past weekend, when another PC had a standing request that my 9th-level spellcaster spend the first round of combat enlarging him. My PC could have done so, and that would have let his character shine more in combat, but my character had far more powerful choices. In the end, I kept declining the offer, not because I wanted to hog the combat, but because I didn't want to be the guy whose choices got the party killed. And who knows? Maybe he kicked all sorts of butt enlarged, but I had never played with that PC.
|
|
Well if that situation ever comes up I'll let you know how I feel.
I don't think the OP or myself is talking about situations where the outcome is nebulous or the party is in serious danger right off the bat. In many encounters (I would say most encounters) it becomes pretty clear early on what the threat level is like and if it's necessary to pull out all the stops.
Also, I never suggested that players spend their time going out of their way to enable others. All I would ever ask is that you not deny other players a chance to participate at all.
So while I would never ask you to spend your first full turn enlarging a character I would ask that you not use your first full turn sleeping the entire encounter away.
|
|
(a) players don't know one another's characters
I couldn't agree with this more. Granted, we've all been new to a table at one point or another, but I think I see this most in character 'introductions'. This is the opportunity to give the rest of the table, especially those who you haven't played with before, an idea of what you're going to be like while adventuring (or why you would be considered useful).
Lately, it feels like pulling teeth to get people to talk about their characters in anything less than a '18, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10' way. I realize that some back-stories wont necessarily manifest themselves in OP, but it helps justify some of the feat or skill choices you have made, or why your character isn't fond of certain types of enemies. Character development is what makes us unique. Why not take advantage of that?
|
|
Since it was stated that it is a PFS Game, home game rules do not apply.
This is a game and while it usually seems that 'having fun' is directed towards the GM making it fun for the players, the players must make it fun for the other players and the GM as well. Even in PFS play.
GM's spend a lot of time in module prep, cost of flip-mats, books, minis, item cards and other things. I just spent two hours writing the background on Hideous Moby the Abortive Midwife (you can even read it in my profile), yet that pales in comparison to the time I spend reading, referencing and putting together Item Cards for modules. Time, effort and energy related to providing a good game should at least have some reward. Therefore, a GM must also have fun. If a GM is not having fun, they would no longer GM.
The concept should not be just related to harming the PC's. However, this is a combat orientated game - no one can deny this is the primary focus of the games mechanics. Thus potential harm, not always death, should be expected.
If this is at a convention, whereas the PC is encountered once or twice, the issue might arise but it shouldn't be dominant because of the various makeup of characters seated each time. But if it is, any potential answer here might want to help validate a GM's concerns.
If this is a Game Day PFS game or one that is a Home Game PFS event - either open or closed - boredom on the part of the GM and others players can certainly arise. Especially if they play together often. Playing together often - friend or not - is something that seems beneficial.
The answers provided thus far, broken down, is that if a legal character is indeed legal, the GM has to 'suck it up.' Absurd. Again, while the GM is intended to make the game fun for the players - the players in-turn need to make it fun for the other players and the GM. If the GM is bored because of the utilization of game mechanics for a character, I'm sure other players are just as bored. SRM makes a post on his blog about the deadly nature of the game - and sometimes there needs to be just enough deadliness to make the game fun and challenging. While I certainly do not want Moby or Goldfrapp to die, neither do I want them to skate through an adventure because another player made it so easy that none of my own abilities were used. That makes the game as another player un-fun. If your character is so awesome and I'm not needed go play Tunnels and Trolls solo-style.
If the GM is not having fun/being bored - which is the OP's original concept - because a character makes it so that they are not having fun - what should the GM do? If you are telling me as a GM that I have to 'suck it up' because you've made such an awesome character - in which there is never a threat of harm (meaning you never, in 5 acts, go to less than half your health) and because of your awesome character, neither do the other players - I'll quit. Otherwise I'm doing you as the GM a disservice. As the Las Vegas Venture-Captain I'd quit. The rewards of being the VC don't outweigh the rewards of having fun.
Answers that have been provided are to up the hit points of the encounters, up the overall tier - which I agree are valid options, however, just as likely there will be a post about how GM's in PFS play are not to modify the module.
While some roleplaying aspects might alleviate an act or two and be resolved without combat - the majority of the games modules and encounters are not centered around this. Pulling the player aside and saying 'hey your character is making it the game not fun for me and the other players' is certainly a possibility - especially if it's a local group that gets together. Is that the only answer, even in a convention setting? If so, is the player then intended to sit back and let his fellow companions get hurt needlessly? There should be a middle ground. Either ends of the spectrum entail at least someone not having fun.
|
|
The answers provided thus far, broken down, is that if a legal character is indeed legal, the GM has to 'suck it up.' Absurd. Again, while the GM is intended to make the game fun for the players - the players in-turn need to make it fun for the other players and the GM. If the GM is bored because of the utilization of game mechanics for a character, I'm sure other players are just as bored. SRM makes a post on his blog about the deadly nature of the game - and sometimes there needs to be just enough deadliness to make the game fun and challenging. While I certainly do not want Moby or Goldfrapp to die, neither do I want them to skate through an adventure because another player made it so easy that none of my own abilities were used. That makes the game as another player un-fun. If your character is so awesome and I'm not needed go play Tunnels and Trolls solo-style.
If the GM is not having fun/being bored - which is the OP's original concept - because a character makes it so that they are not having fun - what should the GM do? If you are telling me as a GM that I have to 'suck it up' because you've made such an awesome character - in which there is never a threat of harm (meaning you never, in 5 acts, go to less than half your health) and because of your awesome character, neither do the other players - I'll quit. Otherwise I'm doing you as the GM a disservice. As the Las Vegas Venture-Captain I'd quit. The rewards of being the VC don't outweigh the rewards of having fun.
QFT
You're strange Isaak but you're alright.
|
|
Unfortunately, there are a few issues with this situation, partly because it is OP rather than a home game.
1) Encounters are set up against a "normal" party composition, which is something not always (seldom?) seen in OP play.
2) Other than in very specific circumstances, rebuilding a PC is not an option.
3) As a corollary, some players are min/maxers, and some are not. The PC that is the example in this thread was built by a min/maxer.
4) For a numbers person, building the most effective legal PC of a specific type IS part of their fun.
I am not quite that level of min/maxer, but I prefer to build fairly effective combatants.
On the original tripping build, as far as I can tell, everything used in the build is PFSOP & PFRPG legal, both individually and in combination. One of the feat combos is a bit cheesy, but was verified as legal.
Key points on the PC:
Human
4th level Fighter (vanilla)
Str 12
Dex 21 (18 from point buy, +2 racial, +1 4th level)
Int 13
Agile Maneuvers
Combat Reflexes
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Fury's Fall (this is the cheese, but still absurd at this level without it, from the Cheliax book)
Exotic Weapon Proficieny: Fauchard (from the Classic Horrors book)
|
|
if is situation existed between me and another player I would attempt to resolve it in character.
If that didn't work or if I believe that the player would not respond to in character business then I would take it out of character.
Well this is generally a meta-game issue so it doesn't really make sense to talk about this in character. If one character can deal with all combat threats single handedly within 6-12 seconds with minimal danger it makes total sense for that character to do everything and for the rest of the party to stay out of his way.
But does that sound like fun for the players?
In most of these types of situations out of character discussion is the only realistic option and some of these types of players just don't care.
Imagine if this type of player was hogging the spotlight for roleplaying/interaction encounters? He/she is playing a bard or something similar and has all the social skills and spells to deal with these sorts of things. In every roleplaying encounter he/she always speaks up and dominates all the roleplaying. The other players rarely can even get a word in edgewise.
Does it make sense for this character to do all the roleplaying? Sure, he's a charming and skilled diplomat. Is it fun for everyone else? No.
Of course when it comes down to the one diplomacy check that will make the mission a success you want this character to do his thing but in most situations everyone deserves some time to participate.
|
|
Stuff
+1
If a build sounds too good to be true it just might be.
+1
I'm not a power gamer, but I've had times when a DM has metagamed and used counters to my character's abilities when the opponent would have no way of knowing, or of using a tactic, to do so. Or fudging in the NPCs favor. I really dislike that. If it would make sense, it's no problem, o/w it's cheese.
Btw, Fighters are pretty powerful no matter what they do. A 2H Fighter does a boatload of damage, I'm not so sure that a 2H fighter couldn't just outright kill the opponent faster than they could trip/kill it anyway.
Key points on the PC:
Human
4th level Fighter (vanilla)
Str 12
Dex 21 (18 from point buy, +2 racial, +1 4th level)
Int 13
Agile Maneuvers
Combat Reflexes
Combat Expertise
Improved Trip
Fury's Fall (this is the cheese, but still absurd at this level without it, from the Cheliax book)
Exotic Weapon Proficieny: Fauchard (from the Classic Horrors book)
The main problem is Furies Fall, which is broken. Imo, it also shouldn't stack with Agile Maneuvers. Fauchard is minor cheese as well.
Even in this cheese case, this Fighter doesn't do much damage compared to a Fighter with 21 Str. He can't hit as often either, no power attack, etc. So it's more annoying than OP, unless I'm missing something.
I guess the title of this thread should have been "What do you do about power gamers?" and people who find broken rules and exploit it?
|
|
The build of a character should not matter. The fun of the game should matter first and foremost.
All players should be able to create a character that utilizing the game mechanics to their furthest potential. No matter if some player, GM or designer believes that a particular aspect of the mechanics is broken or especially so when combined with a series of other game mechanics. Until the game designers themselves state that something is broken, or disallowed in organized play, the players should be able to create the characters that they want to play.
I am in no way advocating that someone should not be allowed to play any particular characters.
The aspect of the title of this thread is how to make sure the GM and other players have fun when a 'character' (not player, as that is a different thing) dominates game play to where challenges are not challenging. Power gamers usually don't see themselves as such, unless they are extreme and proud of 'breaking the rules.' I am not saying that the build Callarek presents is built to break the rules. But, if that or other characters present no challenge to the game system because of the build what do we tell a GM that finds the game to be tiresome?
So far, it seems that the thread keeps going away from this and goes back to the character build. A build is a build and if it is legal and it should be assumed that it is, how do we maintain GM fondness for continuing a game?
So far answers to the question are to up the HP, up the tier, be evil or use metagaming aspects or for the GM and players to suck it. None seem to help the overall aspect that a GM or other players have a lack of fun at the expense of one character. In the GMG there are areas for dealing with difficult players - but seldom where a character build makes the game so much of a non-challenge that the game loses appeal.
|
|
Sometimes you just happen to have the right spell/ability/combo that nerfs a whole combat or encounter.
This should be celebrated.
If all of the players are having fun, you are doing it right, even if tey aren't being challenged.
If it's a single player who's trying to dominate the mod, I generally ignore the players contributions and focus on those who aren't trying to steal the scene.
|
|
If all of the players are having fun, you are doing it right, even if tey aren't being challenged.
The point is that the GM is *not* having fun.
It is always expected that the GM make the game fun for the players. But should it not be the same expectation that the players should at least make the game fun for the GM? If the GM is not having fun, they are doing the rest of the table a disservice by continuing to run that table. If the GM is not having fun at the table because of a particular character build legal by game mechanics and not one that is simply annoying in any case because of a roleplaying aspect - then how do we propose to help the GM have fun?This is relating to organized play, therefore we cannot impinge upon the desire of the player to make a character that is legally and mechanically sound. This is not a roleplaying aspect, but part of the aspect of the game in which revolves around challenges and the game that is based upon combat challenges. If there are no challenges to combat an no threat of harm it would be better to sit at my computer and post negative remarks about Jay and Silent Bob on the forum posts with more threat of reprisal.
|
|
Stuff
I guess as a GM, it shouldn't only be about challenging the players with encounters. There are other ways to challenge players besides rolling dice. (Yeah I know, that's coming from *me* of all people, the guy who TKO's the party in Throaty Mermaid!)
Every character has to be weak at something. Find out what it is and exploit it. If they suck at Diplomacy, play up the diplomatic parts of the scenario (don't let it come down to dice rolls). Emphasize how their 5 charisma is having an effect in game.
I'm probably not a good person to give advice on this subject. I feel like there's never been a "build" I couldn't challenge. Maybe with a little less booze in me I can figure out why that is. ;-)
|
|
Kyle
I value your suggestions - but I don't think that is what Theocrat Issak is asking for. There is an issue if a player regards fun in breaking a scenario via a crazy build. Trying to overcome it might only reinforce the whole situation. The player will try even harder next time, add more cheese, etc.
Or he might feel targeted if you apply weaknesses against him/ her but might not do the same against others. And this might end up in a frustrated player and didn't solve anything.
In some ways it feels like parenting. How to tell your kid that his behaviour does effect the happiness of others.
In my view a stick isn't working. Apply rules clarifications to avoid this behaviour? Design rules to ban this behaviour? A look at the Animal Companion discussion shows this leaves bad blood.
In the end I think good examples and education will go further. People need to understand just because it's rules legal doesn't make it fine if it hampers the fun of others - the GM and the fellow player.
A rules legal build that is been done to annoy GMs by showing that the player has outfoxed the scenario builders should be avoided. Not via rules but via communication, education, peer pressure.
The last you want is a player who optimised that build under a GM 'who can handle it' as he finds ways around it and then this build is let lose on an unprepared and maybe less
sure GM.
This is an issue we have to deal with as a group and by showing that such behaviour if it is against the fun of others is not welcome.
It reminds me of drinking here in the UK and back in Germany. Rules are much stricter here. Still - more people here drink until they collapse. In Germany it is more frowned upon to be drunk. So less people do it. Here some people only regard a night out a success if they can't remember how they got home. To me this is alien to understand.
But it is the other people around who can applaud such behaviour and reinforce it - or they can let the person know that was wrong.
Thod
|
I would be the poster child for the bored GM in combat. Without even really going out of my way, I've created an AC 26, lvl 3 paladin. As a GM I've seen the attack bonuses of most monsters in my tier and know retroactively there isn't a lot of hope to hit me. His BAB is only 16, so yes a weakness, but not a big one.
I tend to min/max organically, I don't shore up a hole in defenses until it's exploited. Like someone really would. I fight lycanthrope, I pick up silver, I get grabbled by an ant, I pick up slick(If anyone can think of something better for CMB boosting let me know), I have light issues, I grab a wayfinder and an ioun torch. So mechanically speaking, my character is difficult.
Where I hope people find my character fun is in the roleplay. For example, the ant battle. Azerial has a blind oracle sister who he is extremely overprotective of. She jumps into the fray of melee, instead of finishing off the 3hp ant, he switches targets to start beating down the ants in striking range of her. Banter flying back and forth as he yells for her to get back, and she yelling that she can handle herself and that she's an adult now, etc.
Thea, while annoyed at my defensive capabilities, mentioned that our character banter and roleplaying made our characters a blast to play with. Something that I take a bit of pride in.
|
|
I would be the poster child for the bored GM in combat. Without even really going out of my way, I've created an AC 26, lvl 3 paladin. As a GM I've seen the attack bonuses of most monsters in my tier and know retroactively there isn't a lot of hope to hit me. His BAB is only 16, so yes a weakness, but not a big one.
BAB of 16? Or do you mean CMD?
Even not-so-intelligent creatures can figure out that you're hard to hit and there are other options at their disposal.
Grabbing you, teaming up, etc are great low-level tactics. AC isn't everything and after the mid-levels means virtually nothing.
|
|
I would be the poster child for the bored GM in combat. Without even really going out of my way, I've created an AC 26, lvl 3 paladin. As a GM I've seen the attack bonuses of most monsters in my tier and know retroactively there isn't a lot of hope to hit me. His BAB is only 16, so yes a weakness, but not a big one.BAB of 16? Or do you mean CMD?
Even not-so-intelligent creatures can figure out that you're hard to hit and there are other options at their disposal.
Grabbing you, teaming up, etc are great low-level tactics. AC isn't everything and after the mid-levels means virtually nothing.
Yea, CMD. Trying to figure out how to up that one cost effectively. Getting pinned by an ant is no fun, and not heroic in the least. So, any ideas? Only thing I can think of is the slick armor enhancement. That's a +5 escape artist for 3750gp. I don't think that's honestly going to help. So, Azerial is trying to figure out how to up his CMD.
|
|
[As someone who has had the pleasure of dying at Kyle's table three times (it was still fun) I recommend not challenging this statement ;-)
I feel like there's never been a "build" I couldn't challenge
To be fair, by challenge I didn't just mean in combat. There are many ways to challenge a character both inside and outside of combat. Sometimes you even need to challenge the player.
In your case Bob, I just let you kill yourself. Stupid self sacrificing paladins. You can't say I killed you three times when you literally made a choice to die.
|
|
Getting pinned by an ant is no fun, and not heroic in the least. So, any ideas?What about when that ant grapples you and then burrows underground with you in tow via another successful grapple check? How would your 26 AC hold up being under 20-ft of solid earth? ;-)
Yea, you're only allowed to give constructive help for my paladin. Quit helping the ants.
EDIT: Oh, and ants by default don't get burrow. So, no burrow for you!
|
|
Yea, CMD. Trying to figure out how to up that one cost effectively. Getting pinned by an ant is no fun, and not heroic in the least. So, any ideas? Only thing I can think of is the slick armor enhancement. That's a +5 escape artist for 3750gp. I don't think that's honestly going to help. So, Azerial is trying to figure out how to up his CMD.
Maybe an ioun stone for +1 AC in your wayfinder? It adds +2 to CMB/CMD. Other than than all that I can think of is to either add to your strength or size.
|
|
Yea, CMD. Trying to figure out how to up that one cost effectively. Getting pinned by an ant is no fun, and not heroic in the least. So, any ideas? Only thing I can think of is the slick armor enhancement. That's a +5 escape artist for 3750gp. I don't think that's honestly going to help. So, Azerial is trying to figure out how to up his CMD.Maybe an ioun stone for +1 AC in your wayfinder? It adds +2 to CMB/CMD. Other than than all that I can think of is to either add to your strength or size.
Hmm...is enlarge on the cleric list?
|
|
Probably strength domainAnd Growth Subdomain.
I wasn't referring to Ants specifically Dan. Maybe it was Ant Lions? Or grappling you underwater with a waterbreathing creature. Or my personal favorite, grappling you with a Moonflower and then pooping you out in an acid filled cocoon.
Oh my love of Moonflowers knows no bounds
|
|
I would be the poster child for the bored GM in combat. Without even really going out of my way, I've created an AC 26, lvl 3 paladin. As a GM I've seen the attack bonuses of most monsters in my tier and know retroactively there isn't a lot of hope to hit me. His BAB is only 16, so yes a weakness, but not a big one.
With a build like that you walk a narrow line in regard to fun for the GM. I once had a similar build at my table who added mobility in the mix. He was surrounded by four undead. He didn't hit much.
First action each combat round - I move back and force to trigger 4 AoO. I don't care as it is unlikely you roll a NAT20 anyhow.
Purely from RAW and mechanical he is right. But role-play vice having the plate mail person dancing back and force - adding defensive fighting into the mix to hit even less despite being the main fighter in the group.
Its no fun rolling 15 AoO during a fight including flanking (the group wasn't very good on the offense) and doing 0 damage. I didn't have touch attacks and grappling with a stupid skeleton or zombie ??
Maybe I should do so next time? But it didn't occur to me as a possibility. And the danger always is backlash when you read complaints you played a monster too clever ...
Yes - I got him later. His AC didn't protect him then. But it soured my view of this specific character and my own enjoyment for that battle.
They went in the room with the Vargouiles. They did a detect evil and pinpointed the 'masks' that where evil. He went straight to one of them and put it in a sack. When he heard a cracking noise in the bag he looked into it.
A scream later and he was the only one to fail his save. Next came the kiss.
So I don't think we should applaud such builds and even try to help to optimize them further but to pinpoint issues.
One character with high AC possible can help a GM to direct attacks that could kill a party. But rolling 4-5 18 and 19 in a fight and doing 0 damage ...
Thod
|
|
Ever see a movie where a zombie grabs a guy and bites his face? That's the Pathfinder equivalent of a grapple. Not exactly an advanced tactic for a zombie.
Also, even a non-intelligent creature is going to be able to identify that another creature isn't a threat, even if they're the closest one to them. They would eventually ignore the dancing fighter and move on to what's actually hurting them.
|
|
Ever see a movie where a zombie grabs a guy and bites his face? That's the Pathfinder equivalent of a grapple. Not exactly an advanced tactic for a zombie.
Also, even a non-intelligent creature is going to be able to identify that another creature isn't a threat, even if they're the closest one to them. They would eventually ignore the dancing fighter and move on to what's actually hurting them.
Yea, except Azerial has a nasty sting. +1 Bastard Sword with a +7 attack, 3-12 damage. I personally love my paladin. I've been wanting to play the tank build for ages. No one but me likes paladin's in my group, so I can't even live vicariously as DM. *Sad gnome face*
@Kyle
Even with grapple, doesn't the zombie have to still hit me? I know I have a -4 to dex, but 2 AC loss is not a huge drop, and if his sister is near, she'll be dropping shield of faith on him.
@OP
Ok, so my favorite paladin build has been deemed "No fun" for the GM. Why does my fun, my buddies fun, and the large number of people who scream "YES A TANK!!!"'s fun have to side line because GM's can't deal with a not even attempted to be optimized build, just happened to be a favorite build and I'm a pathfinder veteran? There are HUGE gaping holes in Azerial's defense line starting with the biggest, his oracle sister Anna. Threaten her, and except when innocents are threatened he'll go out of his way to protect her like an angry walrus bull protecting his women.
@Thea & Doug Miles
Being that you two are the two GM's who've run Azerial. Two part question. Did you find him mechanically frustrating to play against, and overall did you find Azerial and Anna entertaining to play with at your table?
|
|
@Kyle
Even with grapple, doesn't the zombie have to still hit me? I know I have a -4 to dex, but 2 AC loss is not a huge drop, and if his sister is near, she'll be dropping shield of faith on him.
Nope.
First round, CMB to grapple (you get an AoO). Your turn, you try to break it or reverse it, or whatever. Doesn't matter cuz you fail (it's my example, deal with it).
Second round, he makes another grapple check vs your CMD. If it succeeds, he deals damage with his slam or whatever. Oh, and at that point, the other zombies can try to grab you too (effectively joining the grapple via aid another), making it harder for you to escape or easier for it to eat your face.
An intelligent creature could use that second round to improve your condition to pinned instead, which throws another -4 to your AC for all the other zombies to eat your face.
|
|
@Thea & Doug Miles
Being that you two are the two GM's who've run Azerial. Two part question. Did you find him mechanically frustrating to play against, and overall did you find Azerial and Anna entertaining to play with at your table?
Not really .. when I had tastier prey for my ants I went for them
|
|
@Kyle
Even with grapple, doesn't the zombie have to still hit me? I know I have a -4 to dex, but 2 AC loss is not a huge drop, and if his sister is near, she'll be dropping shield of faith on him.
Nope.
First round, CMB to grapple (you get an AoO). Your turn, you try to break it or reverse it, or whatever. Doesn't matter cuz you fail (it's my example, deal with it).
Second round, he makes another grapple check vs your CMD. If it succeeds, he deals damage with his slam or whatever. Oh, and at that point, the other zombies can try to grab you too (effectively joining the grapple via aid another), making it harder for you to escape or easier for it to eat your face.
An intelligent creature could use that second round to improve your condition to pinned instead, which throws another -4 to your AC for all the other zombies to eat your face.
I have a problem with what you've just said.
Zombies, under no circumstances, would try to eat someone's face.
They only like...
|
|
@Kyle
Even with grapple, doesn't the zombie have to still hit me? I know I have a -4 to dex, but 2 AC loss is not a huge drop, and if his sister is near, she'll be dropping shield of faith on him.
Nope.
First round, CMB to grapple (you get an AoO). Your turn, you try to break it or reverse it, or whatever. Doesn't matter cuz you fail (it's my example, deal with it).
Second round, he makes another grapple check vs your CMD. If it succeeds, he deals damage with his slam or whatever. Oh, and at that point, the other zombies can try to grab you too (effectively joining the grapple via aid another), making it harder for you to escape or easier for it to eat your face.
An intelligent creature could use that second round to improve your condition to pinned instead, which throws another -4 to your AC for all the other zombies to eat your face.
Really not liking grapple rules atm. Azerial has a gaping hole with grapple attacks. Though zombies as a threat not that big, it'd be vs. anything not undead where grapple would cause Azerial an issue.