Encountering a lot of power-gaming on these forums of late. Very high stat characters, with magic items that take them even higher, with 150 damage averages a round with all the buffs on.
:(
Sigh, why do people keep piling on the cheese. Power gaming is a problem, not a solution.
You seem to have nothing but contempt for the game as it is written. Might I suggest a diceless game, or just free-form roleplaying?
You guys are following me and mocking me now?
I'll put it this way then, have you guys ever encountered power gaming? How much dming have you all done? Have you run into it, and had to deal with it?
Have you had some players there to enjoy themselves--see what the game has to offer--play cool characters, and some there to just create giant stat blocks without character?
Because I have.
"What you see isn't power-gaming cheese but people playing using the PF rules effectively. "
Wrought is not effectiveness, it tears balance apart. You throw something at them that should be a challenge, some have difficulty, one guy eats it. As a dm you really have to watch those scores, and what they pile on. In the other forum, one guy at level 11 could take a great wyrm in a few rounds at level 11. He isn't just a few ahead in ECL, he's about ten ahead. That is not being effective, that is trying to break the system so it's just so damn easy.
|
Have you had some players there to enjoy themselves--see what the game has to offer--play cool characters, and some there to just create giant stat blocks without character?
These two are NOT mutually exclusive. Also, that might as well be the right moment to stop looking down on people who actually can enjoy cool characters with giant statblocks, and have games that have brilliant dashes of acting and roleplaying interaction AND balls-to-walls high power combat both happen during the same evening.
You guys are following me and mocking me now?
I'll put it this way then, have you guys ever encountered power gaming? How much dming have you all done? Have you run into it, and had to deal with it?
Have you had some players there to enjoy themselves--see what the game has to offer--play cool characters, and some there to just create giant stat blocks without character?
Because I have.
"What you see isn't power-gaming cheese but people playing using the PF rules effectively. "
Wrought is not effectiveness, it tears balance apart. You throw something at them that should be a challenge, some have difficulty, one guy eats it. As a dm you really have to watch those scores, and what they pile on. In the other forum, one guy at level 11 could take a great wyrm in a few rounds at level 11. He isn't just a few ahead in ECL, he's about ten ahead. That is not being effective, that is trying to break the system so it's just so damn easy.
Sounds like a problem with the tactics of the wyrm rather than the rules of the game.
EDIT: and as for my credentials on GMing...33 years or so...all editions of D&D. From my experience people cry "powergamer" because they don't understand the rules. And "cheese" comes from thinking they understand the rules.
I'm not saying the dragon can't beat him, that wasn't the point.
I'm saying he is so damn powerful, he can kill it in hand-to-claw, at level 11.
:|
:?
:(
|
By level 11, I kill you with unusual applications of spells, if at all possible, not damage. Perhaps I usse a Tree-Feather token to pin you to the ground and coup de grace. By that level, straight damage is the least effective way to win a fight. It's all tactics and clever tricks.
If you'd like the benefits of point buy without the minmaxing, I have an alternate statgen method you could try. For the record, I tried 2 of each, and it results in too powerful characters. This is the attribute selection method I use nowadays.
So:
Here's what you do. Come up with a stat array. Decide what sort of array you consider reasonable for your campaign. You can build this with point buy if you like, or even just take the standard array and watch the players cringe. I try to design the array to include an 8. :)
Now. Get two decks of playing cards. take out all the cards in the 4-9 range.
Start getting combinations of cards that give you the stat arrays youre looking for. keep in mind that if you include six 4s, you've just made it possible that a character will be damned to 3 8s. Likewise, you want a limited number of 9s available, I usually only include one if I added in a Joker. Come up with a set of 12 cards, making 6 attributes. Try to keep in mind your average stat, max stat, and minimum stat. If you've got the math skills, feel free to also look into the odds of getting each score to see if you like them, this step isnt absolutely necessary.
If youre okay with a little randomness, pull out one you have a bunch of duplicates of, and replace it with a joker. Joker doubles whatever its drawn with.
Now you have the players shuffle and draw pairs. They can put them where they want, but they don't get to minmax like with pointbuy.
Additionally, you can't get all 8s or all 18s, because drawing the two 9s together means you wont draw a 9 anywhere else. If you take all their stats and add them together, youll get the same total. (Excluding the Joker)
That's a very cool little idea.
|
I'm not saying the dragon can't beat him, that wasn't the point.
I'm saying he is so damn powerful, he can kill it in hand-to-claw, at level 11.
:|
:?
:(
Yes, because you are playing the creature like it's a beat stick or something, Dragons have spell lists for a reason, and I can assure you: it's not because they favor melee combat.
We aren't following you, you just happen to have multiple threads that are at the top of the list currently, probably because so many people are trying to illustrate to you the ways you are wrong, how to resolve your issues, and you are basically ignoring them. Now, if you tried accepting the fact that you aren't perfect, and that all these people saying roughly the same thing are right, then you might not have this problem. I'm just saying, it's a possibility.
Never seen this to the extent of being problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Encountering a lot of power-gaming on these forums of late. Very high stat characters, with magic items that take them even higher, with 150 damage averages a round with all the buffs on.
:(
Sigh, why do people keep piling on the cheese. Power gaming is a problem, not a solution.
Power gamers are an asset. Who else is going to spend all that time in your game calculating every number and looking for every advantage. Let your power gamer teach you. I used to play next to a pair of power gamer friends. When I made a wizard for a game one time as an example I ran her sheet past my power gamer friends. They pointed out how largely ineffective she was and offered me advice on strengthening her build to make her much stronger. When I asked they also explained why each change worked so effectively. It made my character funner to play and perhaps more importantly it gave me insight into how a facet of the game worked behind the fluff. Very useful later when it was my turn to game master.
"Point #2 is harsh on builds."
Players can still specialise and tailor their characters. I am not taking away skills or feats. So they don't have three 18s. You don't need three 18s to get into prestige classes.
To respond on the earlier rebuttal.
Three 18's? No you don't need three 18's. But that's a straw man argument at best or lying about what I was saying at worst. No one said you needed three 18's. You DO however need specific feats to enter PrCs. Those feats require certain stats. A character with all 10's on average can't get those feats and by extension can't get those PrCs.
I'm not saying the dragon can't beat him, that wasn't the point.
I'm saying he is so damn powerful, he can kill it in hand-to-claw, at level 11.
:|
:?
:(Yes, because you are playing the creature like it's a beat stick or something, Dragons have spell lists for a reason, and I can assure you: it's not because they favor melee combat.
We aren't following you, you just happen to have multiple threads that are at the top of the list currently, probably because so many people are trying to illustrate to you the ways you are wrong, how to resolve your issues, and you are basically ignoring them. Now, if you tried accepting the fact that you aren't perfect, and that all these people saying roughly the same thing are right, then you might not have this problem. I'm just saying, it's a possibility.
Well in 3.5 so much of what is pathfinder would not be acceptable, too powerful, too bloated (seen the classes lately? Level by level, damn it looks ugly), too much power-gaming, too many ways to break balance and to do just too much damage.
My problem is in being a bridge, 3.5 to PH. Everyone steps on a bridge.
:)
Man angry at bridge: No bridge you are wrong?
Bridge: Well, I go between two places.
The schism, between 3.5 and PH, I feel it now.
|
|
I'm not saying the dragon can't beat him, that wasn't the point.
I'm saying he is so damn powerful, he can kill it in hand-to-claw, at level 11.
:|
:?
:(Yes, because you are playing the creature like it's a beat stick or something, Dragons have spell lists for a reason, and I can assure you: it's not because they favor melee combat.
We aren't following you, you just happen to have multiple threads that are at the top of the list currently, probably because so many people are trying to illustrate to you the ways you are wrong, how to resolve your issues, and you are basically ignoring them. Now, if you tried accepting the fact that you aren't perfect, and that all these people saying roughly the same thing are right, then you might not have this problem. I'm just saying, it's a possibility.
Well in 3.5 so much of what is pathfinder would not be acceptable, too powerful, too bloated (seen the classes lately? Level by level, damn it looks ugly), too much power-gaming, too many ways to break balance and to do just too much damage.
My problem is in being a bridge, 3.5 to PH. Everyone steps on a bridge.
:)Man angry at bridge: No bridge you are wrong?
Bridge: Well, I go between two places.The schism, between 3.5 and PH, I feel it now.
Never seen a 3.5 Frenzied Berserker, Ur-Priest, Abjurant Cheescake or a moderately optimized Tome of Battle class, haven't we?
Or heck, a regular 3.5 Core Druid that makes every martial class out there cry a little every moment he wildshapes and makes them irrelevant.
Pathfinder has nothing on what levels of powergaming are achievable using official WotC 3.5 products. To say that Pathfinder is a cheese paradise (due to Alchemist, Magi and Rogues sneak attacking on every hit) as opposed to 3.5 is wrong on oh so many levels.
Yep. Frenzied berserker is solid, but not as robust as you might think. A party member took one, but died after a while. So dangerous to the party, they left him to fight a battle, he got coup de graced.
Abjurers are a favourite of mine, good ol' readied dispel.
Druids can wild-shape, but they can still be killed.
No, pathfinder is very much higher, check the builds people are putting across, check how much more is given, and expected as the norm. The numbers, you don't get them so high. As for all 3.5 products, yeah, you do have to watch the wrought, it creeps in.
Additionally, ur-priests are a class I quite like, they have the weirdest progression in power, you are weak when others are into their prestige classes and powering upwards, and then you slowly climb to really scary spells. Seems a worthwhile trade, 4 levels of weakness or so. If cleric, lose spells, start a new spell progression, they also have a damn cool concept and back-story.
From the very power of the gods! Teeny-tiny morsels.
|
|
Well in 3.5 so much of what is pathfinder would not be acceptable, too powerful, too bloated (seen the classes lately? Level by level, damn it looks ugly), too much power-gaming, too many ways to break balance and to do just too much damage.
My problem is in being a bridge, 3.5 to PH. Everyone steps on a bridge.
:)Man angry at bridge: No bridge you are wrong?
Bridge: Well, I go between two places.The schism, between 3.5 and PH, I feel it now.
You seriously think Pathfinder is the more powerful system? That's a laugh. 3.5 had characters who could destroy entire towns, with a single move, at around 11th level or so, using the wealth-by-level provided by the Magic item compendium. Some of them didn't even need that, most notoriously: the ridiculously overpowered 3.5 spellcasters, something that Pathfinder has taken the nerf bat to, but only somewhat.
You've never heard of the CoDzilla have you? Go, look it up, and you will see that you are wrong. Plus, not much, except clerics or druids, can compete with the Tome of Battle the Book of Nine Swords.
Pathfinder expects you to hit that hard, remember this, it's important:THE PCS ARE THE HEROES, THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD WIN, IT'S YOUR JOB AS A GM TO MAKE THAT WIN DIFFICULT, NOT IMPOSSIBLE, AND NOT INCREDIBLY EASY. You can throw big encounters at them, and while they might gain a ton of xp, that won't matter on the slow xp chart.
Seriously, you need to read and memorize most of the rules before you actually go complaining about some little thing you saw. Pathfinder gives something at every level to keep the classes from being boring, also to reward you for staying in the classes.
Here's a challenge: You and I will build two 10th-level characters, taking as much "cheese/power-gaming/whatever" as possible. I will use 3.5 and you will use Pathfinder. We will compare the averages of these two characters and the loser will shut up. If you fail to accept the challenge, I will accept that as you surrendering the point:3.5 is far more powerful.
"Pathfinder gives something at every level to keep the classes from being boring, also to reward you for staying in the classes."
Ah but if new abilities are given every level to all classes, how to ensure there is balance? To add, you must then add some more elsewhere.
See before, if it was large and weighty, or important, you had to wait a bit. Less things, some wait, spaces between classes, single things in levels at times. Classes that got slow amounts of steady or small bonuses, more on their class lines, like the monk and scout, were considered quite weak, because the cost was paid in things like hit die and bab. Ah when cost was paid, good times.
I think pathfinder is very skilled at responding to many complaints, and giving players what they want. Do not think that is the way to balance though. I've had a lot of players ask for wrought and think to have it was right. E.g. wizards are too fragile, okay, here is d6 now. The PF dm in my game tried to make the case for us to leave 3.5 hit dies. It didn't hold water. More hit points is actually not always a good thing. Those powerful wizards, those mighty characters should have a clear weakness.
Do they really warrant a d6 given their background? Well it has been given anyway in pathfinder, whether it is deserved or not. And power gaming is a lot like that, there are always supporters for more power, higher numbers.
I miss commoners battling with clubs. Or melee with unenchanted items. No! When archers used bows and it didn't have to be bows doing damage like a machine gun. Mmmmmmhrhhmmgmmmmm *dozes off and dreams of times of old, when over-whelming might was not considered right*.
|
|
That's a very cool little idea.
Those are the statgen rules I've been using for like 2 years now. I got the basic Idea from someone on ENWorld, but I found their method produced characters with stats that were too high (average of 14.5 IIRC) so I took the idea and looked at how to make it work for me.
A few players complain that they want to roll, or that they want point buy. I tell them tough S**t, suck it up, I introduced this rule for a reason. lol.
|
|
*dozes off and dreams of times of old, when over-whelming might was not considered right*.*whispers about holy avengers and dart specializations in his ear while he sleeps*
I certainly hope that dream includes the "this monster can only be hit by +2 weapons and better, now please apply your +1 sword to your eye - it's gonna be faster that way" part. Always my fave, when older edition nostalgia is involved.
|
|
Balance? You are playing the wrong game for balance. D20 has never been a balanced system. I like how you complain about melee classes hitting too hard, then claim that the game was more balanced when wizards had a smaller hit-die. You know monsters hit harder now right?
Also: you conceded the point- 3.5 is the more powerful game, now drop that point.
Here's a thought: don't play a game where the players are supposed to be heroes, play Warhammer Fantasy RPG, it has all the commoners in the world smacking each-other with sticks, enjoy being boring. You can have your cake and eat it, but you are outright refusing to do what it takes to accomplish that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are following me and mocking me now?
I'll put it this way then, have you guys ever encountered power gaming? How much dming have you all done? Have you run into it, and had to deal with it?
Have you had some players there to enjoy themselves--see what the game has to offer--play cool characters, and some there to just create giant stat blocks without character?
Because I have.
"What you see isn't power-gaming cheese but people playing using the PF rules effectively. "
Wrought is not effectiveness, it tears balance apart. You throw something at them that should be a challenge, some have difficulty, one guy eats it. As a dm you really have to watch those scores, and what they pile on. In the other forum, one guy at level 11 could take a great wyrm in a few rounds at level 11. He isn't just a few ahead in ECL, he's about ten ahead. That is not being effective, that is trying to break the system so it's just so damn easy.
Powergaming, broken, etc is subjective. What is cool for one group is too much for another group. While I don't agree with the mocking, I also don't agree with "my level of power play(optimization) or my style of play is the right way" attitude either which is what you seem to be pushing.
PS:Not everyone plays the game for the same reasons. Some like the RP, some like to master the system, some even like both. Some players eventually change the reason why they play. I don't think they were ever doing it wrong, they just had their own preference on what they wanted.
...True, but I think Broken should only be applied to something that genuinely doesn't work, like the Tetori Monk. Seriously: what are those feats supposed to be?!
That is a different type of broken that is different from the overpowered, or underpowered broken normally spoken of. :)
|
|
...True, but I think Broken should only be applied to something that genuinely doesn't work, like the Tetori Monk. Seriously: what are those feats supposed to be?!
Somebody forgot to check the Ultimate Combat FAQ page recently.
|
|
...True, but I think Broken should only be applied to something that genuinely doesn't work, like the Tetori Monk. Seriously: what are those feats supposed to be?!Somebody forgot to check the Ultimate Combat FAQ page recently.
More like "Somebody didn't even know that was up."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... I haven't read through the whole thread but just want to hop in and make a confession:
For the first 20 years of playing this game, we just picked our ability scores based on the kind of character we were going to roleplay.
This is the big secret of the game-you don't need the rules.
In my older years, I enjoy the high sophistication of Pathfinder RPG RAW. One day I'll sit down and categorize all the different playstyles out there. And, over the years of playing, I find our preferences and interests about the game change.
We start out using a few of the rules, and use a lot of imagination.
We play for many years without most of the rules.
We continue to learn some rules and use them.
We soon mistake the rules for our own imagination.
We fight with other gamers about the value of the rules.
We become disillusioned and stop playing.
We pick the game back up and realize its not about the rules.
We realize there are so many more rules than before.
We really try to learn all the rules because we know its not about the rules. We test the rules in a way to see if they are "balanced" and execute as we imagined they would back when we didn't know them.
We fight with other gamers about how its not about the rules. lol
We continue to obsessively learn all the rules so we can break them elegantly, and in places most believable.
We deeply intuit that the better we are at the rules, the better we can disguise the fact that we don't need the rules.
We become hipocritical because we're using all the rules we say we don't need.
We finally reach a point of dichotomy and understanding: roleplaying games without rules is just theater, and rules without roleplay is just a video game.
We are more gentle when speaking with others who squabble about what is "balanced" and what seems "broken".
We return to our GMing thrones wiser, better, faster, stronger, and receive multitudinous compliments week after week... because we've made this journey - and we get it.
So, what matters is you're playing the home game you and your players really enjoy! What matters most is that you have friends to share these stories with, and get to use the world's most refined version of Dungeons & Dragons ever: Pathfinder RPG.
What can possibly be better than that?
wrought
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
|
|
*dozes off and dreams of times of old, when over-whelming might was not considered right*.*whispers about holy avengers and dart specializations in his ear while he sleeps*
Heh. yep. nostalgia makes people view the past through rose colored lenses.
TOZ: You inspired me to look into this whole "additional aliases" thing, Since when I sign messages I sign them as ~DH anyways, and you shortened your name, I figured, why not do the same!
|
|
We start out using a few of the rules, and use a lot of imagination.
We play for many years without most of the rules.
We continue to learn some rules and use them.
We soon mistake the rules for our own imagination.
We fight with other gamers about the value of the rules.
We become disillusioned and stop playing.
We pick the game back up and realize its not about the rules.
We realize there are so many more rules than before.
We really try to learn all the rules because we know its not about the rules. We test the rules in a way to see if they are "balanced" and execute as we imagined they would back when we didn't know them.
We fight with other gamers about how its not about the rules. lol
We continue to obsessively learn all the rules so we can break them elegantly, and in places most believable.
We deeply intuit that the better we are at the rules, the better we can disguise the fact that we don't need the rules.
We become hipocritical because we're using all the rules we say we don't need.
We finally reach a point of dichotomy and understanding: roleplaying games without rules is just theater, and rules without roleplay is just a video game.
We are more gentle when speaking with others who squabble about what is "balanced" and what seems "broken".
We return to our GMing thrones wiser, better, faster, stronger, and receive multitudinous compliments week after week... because we've made this journey - and we get it.
I must be lucky. I've only been playing tabletop RPGs since 2000, and I've come to the same conclusions. Good Post!
Playing it with people you like, while eating cake.
And Having it, too!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, naturally you always need a backup cake, just in case you have a game suddenly happen.
|
TOZ: You inspired me to look into this whole "additional aliases" thing, Since when I sign messages I sign them as ~DH anyways, and you shortened your name, I figured, why not do the same!
Get enough posts on that alias and it will be added to your main as an 'a.k.a.'
I'm only posting with this one to get that up, so my main says 'TriOmegaZero a.k.a. TOZ'.
This is the big secret of the game-you don't need the rules.
Without the rules it isn't a game -- it's make believe or amateur theater.
You can't say you are playing pathfinder if you aren't following the rules.
I have to agree with Abraham because the question has to be asked how much can something change, and still stay the same?
|
|
Get enough posts on that alias and it will be added to your main as an 'a.k.a.'
I'm only posting with this one to get that up, so my main says 'TriOmegaZero a.k.a. TOZ'.
OOH! Even more incentive to keep Posting as DH for a while. :)
Does it work in reverse too? Like:
DH a.k.a. Darkholme
Darkholme a.k.a DH?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diablo-like fixation with gear can swallow whole game sessions. Crafters will often play the most selfish of characters, characters will be highly similar with the same intentions, and their wealth is not really spent on the world, to donations, or other projects except crafting. Crafting is a cruel but rewarding mistress, and their wealth flows in thick streams to get the "bonuses". Helping and interacting with npcs, rebuilding something damaged, starting a guild? Crafting comes first.
I agree with the dislike of the diablo like fixation on gear. It is something I am working against in my game. Though I dont have a problem with high ability scores I have since made changes to my game where if you are getting a high score, it isnt coming from gear, but instead from your own progress as a character.
So those are a few of my problems related to ability scores in game. I got round them by shaking things up a bit, and making some changes. Here are the changes:
Ability scores are fluid.
You roll your stats yes, but what you do in game can change them for good or ill. Ability scores become more dependent on role-playing, not roll-playing. So if you are physically weak but really fight hard, those physical stats will go up. If you are a high charisma spellcaster who treats people like s%@$, your charisma will go down. How easy it is to improve an ability point is determined by the focus of the player in game, and how high the stat is. A truly high strength can be very hard to improve, but it can happen with enough fighting, lifting, labour and a non-deficient diet. This isn't temporary, they change for real; but they can also change back and go down. Long periods of inactivity or imprisonment can really lower many of them.
The one problem I see here is that for mental ability scores at least it forces players to play characters much like themselves. If I as a player am not overly intelligent I may make errors and have my character do foolish things that would under such a system lower my scores. If I am socially akward as a player I may say the wrong thing often and thus lower my sorceror's charisma. Obviously the physical stats can be roleplayed by describing what you do, but roleplaying mental stats requires being able to at least come close to matching the mental stat yourself, which is in many ways unfair to ask of your players. My 18 int wizard is a genious, I am not, I cant be expected to roleplay up to par with what the character is capable of.
3d6 ability score generation. 1s do count.
Yes, I went back to the old means of generating the core abilities. Players start with strengths and weaknesses. It is my belief that it is essential for characters to have some weaknesses, nothing is more boring than a 16 stat average character with three 18+s. They are hollow stat blocks. Now as the first point stated, stats are fluid. So as the players strive they rise in abilities quicker. Those that make really high rolls, rise slower.
There is nothing wrong with this kind of game as long as you understand the players are substantially behind the power curve and you make allowances for players that roll particularly badly. I once saw a player roll 6 scores of 7 or less with a straight 3d6. Obviously no one is going to have fun with a character not good at anything.
1 extra ability point every 4 levels.
Yeah I stuck with that, keep customisability options in the hand of the player. If they are at a rut, where it is difficult to beef a stat in game, get the levels and they proceed.
Do you mean you give 2 +1s to ability scoores at level 4? If so that is an interesting counter to the lower stat generation, but I am not sure how much of an actual difference it would make to someone who rolled poorly.
No magic item shops.
They make games boring, they waste my time with more accounting, I'm not a fan. Completely avoids the situation of players asking me, "are there boots of speed and a circlet of intellect +4 available?". Go out and find them "hero", earn it.
Personally I agree with this. There haven't been magic item shops in my game for the last 2 campaigns. I have removed the 'christmas tree effect' by giving internalized bonuses to replace the 'big six' magic items. Essentially you arent better at fighting because your sword is awesome, you are better at fighting because you yourself are awesome. Again there is nothing wrong with your approach so long as you consider that without those items the players are behind their expected power (the assumptions the designers make when creating monsters and setting CRs). I took the route of giving essentially additional powers to the PCs. For you I would keep a close eye on the difficulty of encounters of a given CR when you start getting the party around level 8 and make adjustments accordingly.
|
|
wroughtI don't think that word means what you think it means.
He should go here if he wants to see real powergaming.
|
|
He should go here if he wants to see real powergaming.wroughtI don't think that word means what you think it means.
Oh snap.
These two are NOT mutually exclusive. Also, that might as well be the right moment to stop looking down on people who actually can enjoy cool characters with giant statblocks, and have games that have brilliant dashes of acting and roleplaying interaction AND balls-to-walls high power combat both happen during the same evening.
Have you had some players there to enjoy themselves--see what the game has to offer--play cool characters, and some there to just create giant stat blocks without character?
I would add the caveat that the two are not theoretically mutually exclusive. Though I'd have to say that it appears to me that the number of players able to make cool characters with balls-to-walls combat power are greatly outnumbered by players who can only manage one or the other. So I'm sympathetic to the idea that mixing players who do one or the other can be problematic.
And if it is problematic, I believe the problem lies more with incompatible players than with the game system.