|
I play a Ranger with a cheetah animal companion. I took Boon Companion. Why, because an APL -3 animal companion is of little use. Boon Companion brings it up to a survivability level.
No s+@$ it adds survivability, not to mention a lot of damage. It adds 9 hit points, +2 BAB, +2 AC, +1 str/dex, +1 trick, not to mention special abilities (like Evasion and Multiattack) a lot sooner.
It's funny, but I was playing with a Ranger this weekend, without this feat, and he didn't seem broken. Why? His wolf kind of sucked. Ranger archers already do almost as much damage as fighters, have a lot more skills, better saves, spells, don't need to sink points into UMD (which is actually critical at times), and had a wimpy animal companion that can now be boosted to the same hit points as a monk. And can tank enemies of the appropriate subtier. It's a little much.
I don't consider Boon Companion obviously broken.
Obviously not, there were many people who didn't consider "Heirloom weapon" broken either, especially when they had it on their PC. Doesn't mean it's not broken.
Hey, I wouldn't want my PC nerfed either, I understand. We're getting a little off topic and there's no way we're going to agree on this, so there's no point in discussing it further.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Dan,
Monte was noting that there are some feats that are good for campaign PCs to take, and there are others that are good for other things. Like low-level NPCs. A designer is looking to build NPCs for different purposes and with different design considerations. It's not that there are feats that are all-around traps for D&D players; but rather that some choices are fro the DM.
For a clearer example, the Warrior NPC-class is weaker all around than the Fighter. Is it a trap for players who don't understand the system, or is it a tool for DMs? Maybe both?
In the Superstar threads, Sean recently made the same comment about a CR 7 creature. A competitor had given the monster a feat in order to give it some advantage or another. Sean noted that the feat is legal, but that it's intended for designers who are building an NPC / monster from an weaker version, rather than inventing monsters out of whole cloth.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO, that one feat in no way breaks the ranger, but as you said, add in all the archery cheese, plus additional feats and such for the companion and sure, the build can easily break. the key in all of this is that, no one feat, trait, etc is broken. Only when it is combined with other similar options does it become a problem. YMMV.
So, you're really expecting that a Ranger archer not to take all of the feats he needs to be excellent at archery? I haven't seen a single archer build (ranger, fighter, monk, and I've seen 15+ of these PCs) who did not take simple, legal feats to make them awesome at archery. Unrealistic. And combined with Boon Companion, it just makes them too good (which is what some people on the board have said in their play tests).
This wouldn't happen if they had a sucky non-factor wolf with limited AC and hp.
Nope. I have never said to restrict player options regardless of source (feat, trait, etc). I love that the game has enough options that allow a player to virtually create whatever type of character they want to play.
Look, I think you're dreaming if you think that players are going to nerf themselves and not use legal options to get the best character they can make. Almost all players do this (if they know how), especially since they know the GMs can't modify scenarios to make them easier or harder, based on their character design. This isn't an AP.
I guess this thread is the polar opposite of the idea that we should "make scenarios harder", this is more or less saying "make your PCs suck more" on purpose. I just don't find that's a realistic request, and honestly, you've seen more players that me, do you think it's realistic?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a clearer example, the Warrior NPC-class is weaker all around than the Fighter. Is it a trap for players who don't understand the system, or is it a tool for DMs? Maybe both?
The article in question was discussing material, and the quality of it for characters. It was Monte's opinion that someone who did not know the system well enough to avoid feats like that were deserving of those feats.
Sean, coming from his statements on "cloistered cleric" did not seem to have the same opinion but had a similar opinion that putting out subpar options was a valid thing for a developer to do. I disagree, and if you'd like to see the argument look up the final product discussions on the subject.
The difference IMO between Sean and Monte: Monte said he was putting traps in on purpose. Sean believes subpar material is good for the game. Both I feel are wrong. A player should not need to sort through what is crap or not. It should all be "Grade A" quality material. If not, it shouldn't be printed.
Further, regarding a feat or material designed for a NPC or monster should be sectioned and contained in areas specifically for said designs. Particularily the bestiary, or the GM section of the CRB. If they're not, then it's a trap for not as experienced PC's or at the least a poor design concept.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess this thread is the polar opposite of the idea that we should "make scenarios harder", this is more or less saying "make your PCs suck more" on purpose. I just don't find that's a realistic request, and honestly, you've seen more players that me, do you think it's realistic?
I'm pretty unapologetically on the side of "GMs can/should 'tweak' PFS scenarios."
Not only will the notion of restraining oneself not appeal to a sizeable portion of players.. that PFS has the opportunity to play up tiers means there's very real and tangible benefit to making optimized characters as ruthlessly efficient as possible.
In other words.. finding a happy medium in the arms race between optimized characters and written scenarios is not likely to work by putting the onus on players playing reasonable characters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words.. finding a happy medium in the arms race between optimized characters and written scenarios is not likely to work by putting the onus on players playing reasonable characters.
Ayep. Totally.
Just need to be patient for Mike/Mark's solutions to this.
In the meantime, deusvult, I join you in being unapologetic.
-Pain
|
Look, I think you're dreaming...
Jason, we get it. You hate the boon companion feat and nothing anyone says is going to change your opinion. Our opinions differ in this regard.
It is obvious you are very passionate about this topic, but please ease up on the "tone" a bit. While you haven't said anything flagable, it's bordering on confrontational. Thanks.
If *you* are analyzing this topic by reviewing specific game mechanics, you are missing the point. I am not suggesting to nerf your character or intentionally build a sub-optimal character. At the end of any game session, we have to ask ourselves the question, "did everyone have fun?"
If the answer to that is no, and the reason is because one player/character monopolized all the opportunities such that some, or all, of the other players became superfluous, nothing more than pieces of plastic on the table, then something was very wrong. If you choose to live in cheeseland, fine, but remember, the game is not all about you. If you make a character that is useless (we've all seen them and they are often intentionally built that way) then don't be surprised when you are, well, useless. And don't think that just because a character failed to squeeze every last modifier out of their abilities that they are useless.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So, you're really expecting that a Ranger archer not to take all of the feats he needs to be excellent at archery? I haven't seen a single archer build (ranger, fighter, monk, and I've seen 15+ of these PCs) who did not take simple, legal feats to make them awesome at archery. Unrealistic. And combined with Boon Companion, it just makes them too good (which is what some people on the board have said in their play tests).
Just want to step back onto the train tracks here...
I got a friend of mine into the PFS scene recently, a month or two back, and he's taken to it like a fish to water. He made a ranger named Snow John (not the best a naming yet) based off a pretty popular fantasy character that uses a sword and shield, is proficient with a bow, and has a large wolf as his companion. He chose a ranger because I explained to him that he can spend his feats on sword/shield other melee/wolf related feats, like boon companion, and let his "rangerness" level the archery up for him.
He just turned level 6. He has good archery feats from being a ranger (PBS, Manyshot), and his wolf is pretty meaty. But it is no way a DPS machine. I saw you mentioned "50%" of the rangers damage up above. It has a single bite that has a +7 to hit for 1d8+3 (str 15, weapon focus, improved natural attack). That's it. One attack that does less damage than a level 1 melee character. It has health, and some armor. But it's still just a wolf. He uses it to set up flanks for the rogue, to block passages, and for anything else wolf related (fetching). Boon companion just makes it survive fireballs when it fails evasion. Most GMs won't waste their minions time attacking animal companions -- they're a non-threat compared to the controlling PC. And combined, the two of them still do less damage than the standard barbarian or fighter.
I don't want to derail (again with the train things), but what someone said earlier is *dead* on. It's not about how you build, but about how you play. He took a "broken feat", and his character is far from broken. If he had made different choices while playing I might have been agreeing with your case, but he didn't. It's up to the PC to determine how their character acts, which determines their level of OP.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the boon companion discussion.
|
|
I'm sorry but 'too good' and 'too wimpy' are very subjective.
Everything is subjective and it's someone else's playtest that showed a circumstance where it was broken (pet tanked the chokepoint and archer just killed everything solo). I'm not interested in discussing Boon Companion anymore though, I think it's broken, others don't, I guess we'll just leave it at that.
Even then.. do you tell the archer that they can't take their archery feat that they've been waiting for because they would cross your line?
I believe this is what Bob is saying, except that no one is telling them this, they're going to take non-optimal feats and builds of their own free will. I think this is unrealistic.
And if they have an optimal build, they should play "nice" so that everyone has a chance to shine. << I actually agree with this and is a good message.
Look, I think you're dreaming...Jason, we get it. You hate the boon companion feat and nothing anyone says is going to change your opinion. Our opinions differ in this regard.
The paragraph you quoted wasn't even referring to that single feat, I was talking about what you're proposing in general, which is what I thought you wanted to discuss.
Actually, I don't really feel strongly about this topic, we're just conversing and debating, but if it's annoying you that much I won't participate.
If *you* are analyzing this topic by reviewing specific game mechanics, you are missing the point. I am not suggesting to nerf your character or intentionally build a sub-optimal character.
So like I said before, you're saying "play nice". And I can agree with that.
Just keep in mind that some people have a problem doing that (and they don't read these boards or care).
And then there are PCs where they are either on or off. If the scenario can't handle a 2H fighter being in the mix, the scenario wasn't tuned correctly.
If the answer to that is no, and the reason is because one player/character monopolized all the opportunities such that some, or all, of the other players became superfluous, nothing more than pieces of plastic on the table, then something was very wrong. If you choose to live in cheeseland, fine, but remember, the game is not all about you. If you make a character that is useless (we've all seen them and they are often intentionally built that way) then don't be surprised when you are, well, useless. And don't think that just because a character failed to squeeze every last modifier out of their abilities that they are useless.
I actually agree with you in spirit, so I'll leave it at that and get some work done.
The more I read this thread, the more I realize it is the Player not the PC this thread is directed at.
Folks, don't be a HOG. let everyone else have some fun too. If your doing it all, why does anyone want to play with you?
So let's say you had a character who fell under the category of "wow, with that AC, it'll take a nat 20 to hit me all day", as noted in the original post as being offensive.
How do you not "be a HOG" in that case? Do you leave your armor and/or shield at home? Do you fight blindfolded?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rpgs and society play in particular are a reciprocal feedback loop.
It's adaptation in action. Ecology 101.
Ergo if society mods are all about combats, you will see a rise in combat focused characters. When the focus shifts, roles may shift as well. Please don't go on about how you're bucking the system and playing a halfling bard or somesuch, anomalies are present in any system. They will be weeded out over a large sample size.
Here's a case in point, while not directly society related is relevant. I played the Serpent's skull AP a year ago. I played a bard, our party was neither combat nor roleplaying focused. As things went on there was very little to talk to and we kept getting the snot kicked out of us over and over again. We're all very experienced veterans. We where not making suboptimal nor foolish choices. We where merely maladapted to our environment. How long do you think it took before we became combat focused? (Bard/Dragon Disciple btw)
Actually I realized by book 5 I was sick of endless repetitive combats and I hated the style the AP was forcing me to play.
Now home games have the option to adjust the environment to less favor specialized niches(combat). GMs can adjust their own scenarios on the fly. I.e. seem like too much combat in the mod, make the next three encounters roleplay heavy or avoid them all together. Society GMs don't have this flexiblity. Run As Written baby. Got a table of Halfling bards? Well break out the black as we're gonna have a funeral soon.
Which leads into the peer factor of Society play. If you keep playing with death dealing killing machines how long until you adapt and either make one when your halfling bard bites it, or slowly become one yourself, usually at a friends advancement suggestions.
I myself noticed that my society character was becoming more and more militaristic and combat focused as time passed. I played with Barbarians,Fighters, and Paladins over and over. The DPS olympics in action. And why wouldn't they play those builds? Society favors them. For all the talk of wizards being gods, I can count the number of wizards I've gamed with at a table on both hands. I've been playing society since the very first week btw.
Being around so many "meatheads" I had to make a delibrate effort to throttle back and take the focus off of combat. I prefer generalists btw.
Now I could drive 120mph to my local supermarket, but do I really need to? Veteran players usually know when they're crossing the line into "broken" or absurdity and can ease back. Unless of course thats their goal in the first place. That's issues with the player not the game. No rule will eliminate the attempt to satisfy some sort of esteem deficit.
So Bob took the words out of my mouth when he said "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should." I say that myself often. But I offer the corrollary, if the scenarios and your friends keep telling you to do something, you probably will."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The more I read this thread, the more I realize it is the Player not the PC this thread is directed at.
Folks, don't be a HOG. let everyone else have some fun too. If your doing it all, why does anyone want to play with you?
So let's say you had a character who fell under the category of "wow, with that AC, it'll take a nat 20 to hit me all day", as noted in the original post as being offensive.
How do you not "be a HOG" in that case? Do you leave your armor and/or shield at home? Do you fight blindfolded?
What you do is you put that AC to work protecting your allies while they bring down the enemies. My high-AC fighter isn't very big on damage (doesn't even have Power Attack!) but instead specializes in (besides AC) trips and disarms. So I go and get between the bad guys and my caster/archer buddies so the latter can have someplace safe to cast/shoot from. Or I trip the target so that the other melee guy can wail on him against a lower AC. Or I disarm the guy that I'm helping the rogue flank so she doesn't have to worry about him hitting back.
A high AC is one of the easier "schticks" to not be a hog with.
A high AC is one of the easier "schticks" to not be a hog with.
For the record, I agree with you, and I disagree with the post that claims having a too-high AC is a problem in itself.
|
|
Some people (at the start of the thread) have complained that a high, unhittable AC is a problem in their games. Bob even used it as an example and said "wow, with that AC, it'll take a nat 20 to hit me all day,", "then perhaps you need to reconsider the build".
So although you agree with Bob, you still made PCs that fit his example of "PCs you should reconsider", and that some GMs wouldn't like. :) You say you play them in a way that doesn't dominate the game, but this type of PC just dominates the in a different way.
Consider the following. An ability like AC is not something you can really turn off or "play differently". You either have it or you don't. Let's face it, using your PC example, your PC can sit there all day with his nat 20 AC, using a cure light wounds wand on party members, basically making the party virtually invincible. I don't see this as being any different than a high DPS PC except it's defensive in nature. To a GM that's trying to threaten the party, I'm sure it's just as annoying, because he knows there is no real threat.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Consider the following. An ability like AC is not something you can really turn off or "play differently". You either have it or you don't. Let's face it, using your PC example, your PC can sit there all day with his nat 20 AC, using a cure light wounds wand on party members, basically making the party virtually invincible. I don't see this as being any different than a high DPS PC except it's defensive in nature. To a GM that's trying to threaten the party, I'm sure it's just as annoying, because he knows there is no real threat.
1. Cledwyn (the fighter in question) can't use wands of CLW (or of anything else, for that matter).
2. This means that the only time Cledwyn's AC causes there to be "no real threat" to the party is if every enemy in the encounter is played mindlessly and keeps attacking the tin can over and over without attempting any combat maneuvers (plenty of ways to lower my AC) or targeting other PCs.
3. If the monsters aren't a threat to me because of a high AC, I'm going to be playing support due to my low DPR and my maneuver focus, thereby actively encouraging the involvement of other PCs. If the monsters aren't a threat because of my epic DPR, I kill them so fast that no one else really matters in the fight. One encourages and supports the involvement of other players, while the other prevents their participation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
AC so high as to be nigh unhittable is just begging for the baddies to sunder your shield/armor. So, it's definately not an over-the-top situation.
Can't hit your AC? Well, I sure as heck CAN hit your CMD...
Well, except you have to deal a lot of damage to get through the hardness of +2 full plate* and eventually grant the broken condition. Instead, you could use Dirty Trick to blind the PC (-2 AC and no DEX to AC, both of which will also apply to CMD) and then trip them (another -4 to AC/CMD, at least versus melee attacks) and then start with the normal attacks. After getting blinded and tripped, my fighter goes from 28 AC to 20 AC. At level 7, AC20 isn't that hard to hit!
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
Pardon me if I digress from the thread's main tiopic...
Monte Cook was referring to 3.5 toughness +3HP... That's it. The article was also written in the 3.5 era. He considered it a dumb player trap intentionally put there to trip players up. He alluded to other defective material put there for that reason throughout the 3.5 books too.
That's a common misinterpretation of Monte Cook's comments on the subject. They can be found on-line in his essay
Ivory Tower Game Design. In his essay, he does not say that some sub-par feats and abilities were deliberately left in D&D as "traps". He says that "it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others."Monte's essay later clarifies that some "unbalanced" options were left in as a legacy of previous editions (e.g.: the longsword's superiority as a weapon) while others are only useful under certain conditions. He specifically calls out Toughness as a suboptimal feat, but clarifies that the feat's problem was the designers' choice not to clarify when such feats might actually be most optimal.
Justin Alexander discussed this essay further in a piece called Thought of the Day: Ivory Tower Design.
|
|
AC so high as to be nigh unhittable is just begging for the baddies to sunder your shield/armor.
Just to be absolutely clear I, Jason, do not have a problem with high AC. I know how monsters would react to it and I already knew of ways to beat PCs with high AC. However, several GMs do have a problem with it and it was listed as an example in Bob's original post as something that should be reconsidered.
Things have changed a little bit since the original post. It's gone from "don't make over-the-top PCs" to "be considerate of other players enjoyment and don't hog the spotlight".
From my perspective I guess it's a combination of making reasonable PCs (that can't do it all), not having your PC hog the spotlight, but I still feel the most important aspect is that the scenario (and maybe each encounter) must have something for everyone to do in it, where a single powerful PC can't "do it all".
|
|
High Ac is not as "All Powerful" as a lot of players believe it is. Usually having an extremely high Ac means you are lacking in other departments. I agree that combat maneuvers are the melee answer to high AC - Blind, Prone, Grapple, Sunder all help. People also forget the overpowering effect of AID Another.
|
|
My paladin is designed with a high AC, the wizard has a wand of grease, paladins have a immediate get out of grapple spell, our oracle has some grapple break. My weapons are on weapon cords. The two other characters are archers with imp precise shot. One of the archers is a trap finder. A well organized group can be a giant **** block to a GM. Though, it's usually to our group and the revolving GMs. GM's who run into us at Cons have mentioned we're a tough group in combat.
Though we've gotten extremely positive marks on our roleplay. Nothing like seeing the paladin give up the flank to run to his kid sisters aid when she took 1 hp of damage, and refuse to leave her side after that. The entire time she's yelling at him that she's ok.
|
|
The more I read this thread, the more I realize it is the Player not the PC this thread is directed at.
Folks, don't be a HOG. let everyone else have some fun too. If your doing it all, why does anyone want to play with you?
Pay attention to the other people at the table. Who are they? What can they do? How can your PC help them do what they do?
This , exactly this.
If you find your self out shining the rest of the table switch gears, look at what you can do to help others.If you are a damage dealer give up your full attack to provide a flank, or take out mooks and leave the big bad to the other players.
If you usually heavily buff your self maybe cast some on other players.
If you are a social skill monkey let the other players do more talking.
You can always step up if it all turn pear shaped.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
High AC is not as "All Powerful" as a lot of players believe it is. Usually having an extremely high AC means you are lacking in other departments. I agree that combat maneuvers are the melee answer to high AC: Blind, Prone, Grapple, Sunder all help.
Unfortunately, such approaches are seldom included in foes' written tactics, causing arguments to develop. "How did the thing know to target my character's one weakness? They only have intelligence 8!" may be a fair question. You could let the creature "fumble around in futility" until it could reasonably learn from experience, but that may give the party such an advantage that the fight is already lost.
|
|
The Dalsine Affair
While I agree that this scenario has a brutal encounter, one that is highly "successful" at killing at least one PC, I think it is a bad example for justifying uber, opto builds. The nature of the encounter and the skills/powers/buffs/magic that is incorporated make it nearly impossible for the PC's to prevent it unless they are really lucky or accidentally do something to foil it. It is extremely difficult to avoid an encounter you don't see coming.
|
|
I think that this is really offensive.
WOW, if you took that to mean that I was attacking the poster or anyone else for that matter, then I cannot help you. My specific post had nothing to do with the goodness/badness of opto-builds. It was merely saying that if you (read: the poster) are suggesting that the power curve, or "arms race" as he calls it, is increasing, and that Dalsine is an example of why players need to better optimize, IMO, it is a poor example. I'm not the one who was doing the justifying, that was the poster volunteering that aspect.
Personally, I could care less what your build is. The general theme of this thread is that the community at large, particularly GM's, is having a hard time with opto-builds and it was on their behalf that the original plea was made.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for arriving late to the discussion, since this is a subject reared its head in my region only recently. I'll re-post here what I posted on our local PFS community Facebook page.
"I have come to the conclusion that "uber-optimized" characters hurt organized play. By being great all the time at anything, you take the shine away from other players, potentially even new players, leaving them feeling inadequate in the situation. Pathfinder (and really, any RPG) isn't like any other type of game; it is less a "win" situation for a player as it is a social interaction. Those players with "20/7" characters take away from the fun of a more balanced character, and, ultimately, make that player fell like they have "failed" at making a character, since yours is always going to seem better... even if it is only in one area (i.e combat, skill checks, etc.) A PC that can always hit, but can't be hit back takes away some of the "challenge" of an encounter, taking the fun away even from the GM! Please, please, take this into consideration when crafting your character... the game should be fun for all!"
I had noticed that the new players felt frustrated with their first character build after playing at a table with a "uber-optimized" PC, often abandoning the character they wanted to play for one that seems "more effective"... in essence, a "uber-powered" character of their own. Thus my post. I'll be honest; it's not as friendly as Bob's, but it was necessary.
