|
Hello all,
I have read a few posts in the past concerning overly powerful characters, but wished to post again to see is PF organized play has considered any rule updates to this issue…
Characters are walking through scenarios. Let’s face it, people are clever and can and will figure out the best way to make their dude superior in any way possible. Druids with familiars with 5 or 6 attacks, barbarians who need extra hands to hold enough dice to roll for damages, and so on. Most games there is at least a few times where not every player gets a shot at doing something do to the enemies defeat.
It seems currently that to get any sort of level playing field (the threat of death); everyone needs to play up a few levels to be challenged.
Are there any rule changes in the future for some limitation to character powers? Maybe allowing GM’s to work outside the given tactical behavior or something??
No threat of defeat, no fun.
Thanks all.
I don't have time right now to find it, but there is a thread or some posts, or maybe it was in a Monday blog, by the folks in charge of PFS stating that all scenarios starting with Season Four would be written for 6 PCs rather than the standard 4.
|
|
So that would mean even more characters on the board devastating the current scenario wouldn't it? It seems that would do the opposite of making it harder. I am guessing that the idea would be to have less people in the game (less than 6) would mean more challenge for everyone, but I don't think that solves the greater problem.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So that would mean even more characters on the board devastating the current scenario wouldn't it? It seems that would do the opposite of making it harder. I am guessing that the idea would be to have less people in the game (less than 6) would mean more challenge for everyone, but I don't think that solves the greater problem.
The thing is, the most frequent table size is already six. So what we've got is encounters designed for 4 PCs being rocked by groups of 6 PCs. Starting in season 4, encounters are going to be written to accommodate the number of players that are already playing anyway.
So it's not more characters (there are already 6 per table most of the time), it's tougher encounters to match the six PCs that are already there.
|
So that would mean even more characters on the board devastating the current scenario wouldn't it? It seems that would do the opposite of making it harder. I am guessing that the idea would be to have less people in the game (less than 6) would mean more challenge for everyone, but I don't think that solves the greater problem.
As Jiggy has said - designed for 6 means if you play with 4 then you have a greater challenge.
There is always also a responsibility from the players. If they then still band together with 6 then nothing is gained.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most obvious "change" you can make is that you play scenarios in season 3+, and definitely not in season 0. I've played in fairly optimized tables in season 3 and we won, but it wasn't easy and it certainly didn't detract from the experience. Which scenarios are pushovers?
The best way to make a scenario more difficult is that the GM should know his scenario and the monsters in that scenario and play them properly. You'd be surprised at how many GMs don't play their monsters properly and know their abilities. Lots of mistakes are made and it makes a HUGE difference, almost always in the PCs favor. I think people with the reputation as being a "killer GM" are just guys that know the abilities of monsters and play them properly.
I've been in around 8+ scenarios (almost 1/4) where the GM completely screwed a few encounters and it could have been extremely dangerous for us but instead it was dead easy. Had nothing to do with the scenario design, it was a GM who didn't know his monsters, abilities/feats, and spells well enough.
Also, a LOT of players don't understand their PCs abilities correctly, and most GMs never double check them. Especially true of players that assume PF is the same as 3.5. If someone is doing too much damage, it's probably too good to be true, and the GM should probably ask him to justify the numbers.
This is especially true of any pet class PC, most people don't build their pets properly. It's hard to understand the capabilities of a Druid / Summoner pet without making one yourself however, which is part of the problem.
Please give us examples of easy scenarios and overpowered PCs if you want further help.
|
|
That might not be a bad start, yes, 6 players with normal stats would be fine, but 4 with game legal "super powers" would still run over most bad guys. Some players could almost play by themselves and still come out on top. For me, playing up at least 2 levels has been the most successful so far.
I came across some folks at one of the conventions who had done all the possible calculations to make their characters, well in my opinion, ridiculously powerful. In 2 of the tables, not one full go around was ever made before the bad guys fell. These were level 7 games.
People are competitive and will do what they can and it seems Paizo needs to address this issue with greater force...doesn't it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a few tips:
1) Prep. If you know the players/characters that are going to be playing a scenario you're GMing, read through the scenario and imagine what the PCs are likely to do. Come up with clever ways the NPCs can react (see #2).
2) Be a person, not a computer. Tactics for most NPCs last about one round. Beyond that, play the NPC as an intelligent creature (assuming they are one). Use some of the players tactics against them. Learn to be a better tactician. Practice.
3) Ignore individuals. Most often, some of the worst powergamer table-killer annoying people are there only to get attention from the GM and the rest of the table. The best tactic I've found? Ignore them. Focus on everyone else at the table. When it's the annoying person's turn, resolve everything normally, stay as emotionless as possible and quickly move on to the next person. With the normal players, spend more time describing the scene. Have the NPCs prefer to interact with them. Be colorful and entertaining.
4) As Jason said, most players who are "power gamers" are actually "misinterpreting" the rules in their favor. If you're unfamiliar with something, ask them to show it to you. You're there to learn too. If something seems to powerful to be true, 99% of the time it is. Read it for yourself. If it's unclear, make your best ruling.
5) If the entire table is "breezing through" a scenario, but they're having fun, go with it. That's really the point of all of this and even if they're "breaking" a scenario, who really cares as long as everyone is having fun? If it's just one or two jerks, see #3.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
The most obvious "change" you can make is that you play scenarios in season 3+, and definitely not in season 0. I've played in fairly optimized tables in season 3 and we won, but it wasn't easy and it certainly didn't detract from the experience. Which scenarios are pushovers?
In all fairness, not all of the Season 0 scenarios are pushovers. The Hydra's Fang Incident has lead to more TPKs (when properly run!) locally than any other scenario locally except The Dalsine Affair And The Asmodeus Mirage was a killer... leading to it's retirement.
Balancing "challenge" with "party killer" can be a fine line for a writer, and is highly subjective based on party composition and the skill of the GM.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Ha! Now I want to play The Asmodeus Mirage!
You still can... you just don't receive a Chronicle for it anymore.
Of all the Season 0 scenarios, I think it might have been the toughest. There was one multi-part encounter in particular that would have made a great scenario all by itself! If anything, it suffered by being too ambitious for its time... under 3.5 rules it was brutal. With PF rules, it would still present quite the challenge!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That might not be a bad start, yes, 6 players with normal stats would be fine, but 4 with game legal "super powers" would still run over most bad guys. Some players could almost play by themselves and still come out on top. For me, playing up at least 2 levels has been the most successful so far.
I came across some folks at one of the conventions who had done all the possible calculations to make their characters, well in my opinion, ridiculously powerful. In 2 of the tables, not one full go around was ever made before the bad guys fell. These were level 7 games.
People are competitive and will do what they can and it seems Paizo needs to address this issue with greater force...doesn't it?
This post actually embodies some of the worst potential problems with organized play, that of trying to set the organized play requirements to the uber-optimizer, not the normal player base.
I will point you to the final couple of years of Living Greyhawk for what kind of badness this causes, where you wind up either playing down, or dying, unless you are one of the rare super-duper optimizers that they wound up aiming their scenarios at. No fun for those of us who build "good" PCs without building combat monsters.
No matter how the scenarios are written, if you specialize in creating that PC with both insane combat prowess with an insanely combat-effective companion/eidolon/familiar, you are going to wind up walking over combat encounters.
At this point, IMO, it is your responsibility to talk with the people you play with, and explain to them that you find that their builds are reducing or removing your fun at the table. You can always ask them to tone things down, so everyone gets a chance to play.
You can also ask the organizer, if you play at game days where there are multiple tables, if you could play with a different group f people.
Or you can ask the other players if they can deliberately gimp their PCs. I believe that there was a thread around here, somewhere, discussing player options to up the challenge level, basically by going anywhere from not min-maxing to deliberately putting the PC's highest stat in a characteristic that is not the primary stat for the class.
But, IMO, it is not Paizo's responsibility, nor is it a good idea, for them to "address this issue with greater force". PFS is, at least in part, a marketing tool for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and all its supplements, of all kinds. That is why the Additional Resources page gets updated every month, to include Paizo's latest releases for Pathfinder, both rulebooks, campaign books, companion books and even AP books.
They do their best to make sure the content is balanced to begin with, but even individually balanced things can sometimes go uber when combined with other balanced things. That is why people look at combos, really, to find powerful combinations.
If you really want to make sure that individual PC power levels are kept carefully in check, maybe your best option is to GM a home game, where you can decide what is legal and illegal for your players to use in building PCs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It means that come season four you're going to be GLAD someone brought the Animal companion of death and the four armed dual greatsword wielding alchemist barbarian if you play with a party of 4... because you'll need them.
When Paizo starts releasing PFS scenarios designed for 6 players, there will be rules on how to lower the difficulty level for only 4 players.
I imagine the complaint made most often to the GM when a party of 4 characters is having a hard time of it will be, "Are you SURE you adjusted this for 4 players?"
|
|
Yes, most of the time the tables have at least 5 to 6 seated. Thanks Kinevon for your input. I believe it is up to me to find a way to make it work for me without getting into anyone else's play. Playing up or much lower to be with new people that haven't figured out all the rules as yet will probably be the answer. Yes, Bignorse Wolf, I will have to find me an Animal companion of death when I'm at 1hp...they sound cuddley.
|
|
In all fairness, not all of the Season 0 scenarios are pushovers. The Hydra's Fang Incident has lead to more TPKs (when properly run!) locally than any other scenario locally ...
Just ran this tonight, and was within a few points of a TPK 3 times. But the GM needs to know the relevant rules... most of the challenge is within the environment or special bits, not just the melee attack line of the monsters.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Just ran this tonight, and was within a few points of a TPK 3 times. But the GM needs to know the relevant rules... most of the challenge is within the environment or special bits, not just the melee attack line of the monsters.In all fairness, not all of the Season 0 scenarios are pushovers. The Hydra's Fang Incident has lead to more TPKs (when properly run!) locally than any other scenario locally ...
Too true.
This was the first PFS scenario I ever ran. First time I ran it, I rolled two 20s for the sea cat's claw attacks AND confirmed the crits! Add Rend, and it was... not pretty.
|
There are many in our play group that optimize characters, so our organizer has been doing his best to have only 4-5players at a table. This seems to be going fairly well. Everyone gets a chance to see their character shine and the scenarios aren't cake walks.
I believe this is also leading to our group to grow very rapidly. About a year ago we would typically have one table in the morning and one in the evening two Saturdays a month. Now, we are needing four tables four morning and four for evening.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concern isn't so much people walking through the adventures, but the Arms Race(tm) aspect, and collateral damage.
When I first played Rey, I told the table, "You know the sorcerer who's player has specialized and ran through every permutation to get the best spell/class/race combo? yeah, that's not me."
Amnesia and Badab (the kids' characters) are likewise not optimized or showing any knowlege of system mastery. They have fun, but reflect the 'organic' nature of their creation. "Ok, now how strong do you want him to be. That's X points, that leaves you Y points for all your other stats. Yes a 14 will be fine when you add the +2 racial to it."
If the writers start writing adventures specifically for the Str 24, Cha 7 half orc totem barbaraians, Amnesia, Badab, and Rey are going to be speed bumps. That's no fun for anyone, and actively discourages new players.
Another case in point. Knowing *when* to pull out all the stops. In Among the Living, we were still trying to get my Nephew to burn the rounds of rage, and take the bite attacks.*
And no, 'playing down' is not the answer every time. If I'm playing Rey at 5th level (assuming he survives) He should have a decent chance of surviving a tier 4-5 scenario, despite not being optimized. Also I shouldn't have to sacrifice the flavor or 'sub-optimal decisions' to survive. (I took Fey Foundling at first level for flavor, and a feat to enhance his UMD at second, as examples)
*
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
There are many in our play group that optimize characters, so our organizer has been doing his best to have only 4-5 players at a table. This seems to be going fairly well. Everyone gets a chance to see their character shine and the scenarios aren't cake walks.
I believe this is also leading to our group to grow very rapidly. About a year ago we would typically have one table in the morning and one in the evening two Saturdays a month. Now, we are needing four tables four morning and four for evening.
This is 100% true. We stated limiting tables to five players and are now seating three tables just about every time again, even in our small venue. Now if only we had a game store...
:(
|
|
There are many in our play group that optimize characters, so our organizer has been doing his best to have only 4-5 players at a table. This seems to be going fairly well. Everyone gets a chance to see their character shine and the scenarios aren't cake walks.
I believe this is also leading to our group to grow very rapidly. About a year ago we would typically have one table in the morning and one in the evening two Saturdays a month. Now, we are needing four tables four morning and four for evening.
That's nice lookin 2nd star you got there. I guess I'm gonna have to print out a new GM certificate when I get home from work. ;)
This is 100% true. We stated limiting tables to five players and are now seating three tables just about every time again, even in our small venue. Now if only we had a game store...
:(
You could always come visit us, you know...Carbondale isn't that far from Jackson. :)
|
|
This is 100% true. We stated limiting tables to five players and are now seating three tables just about every time again, even in our small venue. Now if only we had a game store...
:(
You could always come visit us, you know...Carbondale isn't that far from Jackson. :)
heck - St. Louis isn't that far from either of you... hint-hint...
Very true. So why havent you come down to play with us then? We had a guy from Nashville TN come up to play earlier this month and much further than StL is. ;)
|
This post actually embodies some of the worst potential problems with organized play, that of trying to set the organized play requirements to the uber-optimizer, not the normal player base.
But, IMO, it is not Paizo's responsibility, nor is it a good idea, for them to "address this issue with greater force".
Actually, they are not really increasing the challenge because of power gamers. After extensive data review, the vast majority of sessions are being played with 6+ players. The original target was 4. So they are not responding to the power-creep, so much as they are balancing the scenarios towards the "normal" game. A table of six uber-optimized power-gamers are likely to have an easy time even after the change in season four.
|
|
Actually, they are not really increasing the challenge because of power gamers. After extensive data review, the vast majority of sessions are being played with 6+ players. The original target was 4. So they are not responding to the power-creep, so much as they are balancing the scenarios towards the "normal" game. A table of six uber-optimized power-gamers are likely to have an easy time even after the change in season four.
I worry about those tables who do not have 6 players. Undoubtedly these scenarios will be more difficult, and personally, I don't care for tables of 6. It just seems like the games drag a lot more. One of the reasons why I GM a lot of Modules over scenarios is because the current player base at my local venue does not prefer the Mods. So when I run them I can expect a table of 4, not a table of 6. I don't guess the new scenarios will have much of an effect on the tables I run (about 1/3 slots I run is a scenario, and I am not up to date on them so being a few seasons behind I'll have catching up to do). But I wonder what the effect will be on the player base once we start seeing these season 4 scenarios. I hope it isn't that we just start seeing a bunch of combat monkeys and bards, though I anticipate it to some degree.
|
|
They are supposed to be designed for 6, with information on how to scale them down for 4 players.
I don't see how this negatively effects you if your tables are 4 players.
Now if you've frequently got 5 players at your table who regularly struggle, the extra difficulty for them may be problematic. (Scenario only scales down if you go to 4)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope it isn't that we just start seeing a bunch of combat monkeys and bards, though I anticipate it to some degree.
To be fair, a table that is a mix of 80% combat monkey, 20% bard is going to be a really good table no matter how a scenario is designed.
I think the biggest change you'll see in season 4 (at least I hope) is that the bad guys will have a slight bump in the economy of actions department.
Instead of assuming a table that's tier 3-4 will be APL 4, it'll be assumed APL 5, which means that you'll see most encounters be CR 5 through CR 7 with a few exceptions. That means before, if there were two bad guys who were 4th level (CR 3 each, but CR 5 as an encounter), it'll be three bad guys who are 4th level for a total CR of 6. Instructions for a 4-person table would likely be to remove one of the NPCs, lowering the CR back down one to where the scenario would have been originally designed. Make sense?
|
|
I think so, but what would you do with a combat involving a single high CR creature, say a dragon for example. The same dragon would not be appropriate for both parties of 4 and 6. Are you suggesting that most scenarios would have a lower CR dragon with a removable disciple of some kind? Who should be non-essential to the plot.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I think so, but what would you do with a combat involving a single high CR creature, say a dragon for example. The same dragon would not be appropriate for both parties of 4 and 6. Are you suggesting that most scenarios would have a lower CR dragon with a removable disciple of some kind? Who should be non-essential to the plot.
That sort of design decision is something each scenario author needs to make as part of the writing process. And something I'm going to be keeping an especially close eye on in development. I can't say how long it will take for us for find the right balance and techniques to make the 6/4 player options work in all instances, and ultimately there likely won't be one way we handle every encounter. Feedback on what works and what doesn't once we get to Season 4 in August will be invaluable, however, so I encourage you to participate in the discussion at that time.
|
|
I think so, but what would you do with a combat involving a single high CR creature, say a dragon for example. The same dragon would not be appropriate for both parties of 4 and 6. Are you suggesting that most scenarios would have a lower CR dragon with a removable disciple of some kind? Who should be non-essential to the plot.
I dont see something like a dragon (or other single bad guy fights) being that big of a problem. All scenarios (unless this gets changed) are now written for 2 subtiers.
So for example, a tier 1-5 scenario has subtiers 1-2 and 4-5.
Subtier 4-5 w 6 players have a CR 7 dragon.
Subtier 4-5 w 4 players AND subtier 1-2 w 6 players have a CR 4 dragon.
Subtier 1-2 w 4 players have a CR 3 dragon.
Really, you'd only be adding in one additional stat block from what it done now for something like this, which should be easy enough to do, I think.
|
|
In fact in the instance of a Dragon, you need not add any new stat-block, just a different page of the beastiary. This may be more problematic with a single high level character, in which case it should make perfect sense to add grunts. I really like where this is going. I'm trying to punch a hole in it, but it seems pretty solid. Good work Paizo.
|
|
Actually, they are not really increasing the challenge because of power gamers. After extensive data review, the vast majority of sessions are being played with 6+ players. The original target was 4. So they are not responding to the power-creep, so much as they are balancing the scenarios towards the "normal" game. A table of six uber-optimized power-gamers are likely to have an easy time even after the change in season four.This post actually embodies some of the worst potential problems with organized play, that of trying to set the organized play requirements to the uber-optimizer, not the normal player base.
But, IMO, it is not Paizo's responsibility, nor is it a good idea, for them to "address this issue with greater force".
Bob, Paizo's change you refer to here isn't what I was objecting to.
What I was objecting to was a "real" arms race that someone on this thread was proposing, where the scenarios wouldn't be written for APL 4-5 getting CR 5-7 encounters, but CR 9 encounters with 27 non-CR adjusting templates, which was what seemed (well, not quite that bad, but still) to be what was happening in late LG.
In other words, a difficult encounter to begin with, with additional difficulties added that didn't adjust the CR even though they should, especially when multiple are added.
IIRC, adding a single PC class level doesn't adjust a cmonsters CR, yet adding the right class to a monster can make it significantly tougher. If teh class level stacks with the racial abilities, it can get ugly, especially if it doesn't adjust the CR...
Would a Troll with one level of Barbarian be much uglier than a simple Troll? I would say probably, since there is a definite synergy there.
Then again, a kobold Barbarian 1 is probably not that much tougher, overall, than your average kobold, since the class and race don't offer much synergy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact in the instance of a Dragon, you need not add any new stat-block, just a different page of the beastiary. This may be more problematic with a single high level character, in which case it should make perfect sense to add grunts. I really like where this is going. I'm trying to punch a hole in it, but it seems pretty solid. Good work Paizo.
Actually with the case of a dragon, we'd likely not change anything for a table of 4.
There's always a mix of different APL+X encounters. For a solo fight like this, I'd make sure that the CR is at least one lower than the highest allowable.
One option would be to include a small trap with the solo monster. Then for tables of 4 you could either eliminate the trap or reduce the DCs and/or damage or whatever.
Another option would be to change tactics or spells used or items the monster/npc has.
|
|
I was in a heated discussion with someone once concerning the available options for a GM concerning what the Scenario and the foes were allowed to do. Tactics and the like were officially set and what the paper said was what the paper said. In the beginning of the game the GM could add or subtract bad guys do to table size, but when it comes to game play, does the GM have the authority to do as they please...within reason?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was in a heated discussion with someone once concerning the available options for a GM concerning what the Scenario and the foes were allowed to do. Tactics and the like were officially set and what the paper said was what the paper said. In the beginning of the game the GM could add or subtract bad guys do to table size, but when it comes to game play, does the GM have the authority to do as they please...within reason?
First, the GM absolutely can NOT add or subtract bad guys in an encounter for any reason. If your GM does so, politely inform him that such alterations are forbidden. If he refuses to stop, take it to your local VC. If that doesn't work (or you don't have one), inform Mike.
As for gameplay, tactics are usually not so all-encompassing as to dictate all actions for the entire combat. Usually, it's a matter of setup plus a guideline (along the lines of "they try to set up flanks" or "they try to defend NPC X" or "they target the squishiest-looking PC") and there's plenty of room for GM discretion without "breaking rules" on the tactics.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Ha! Now I want to play The Asmodeus Mirage!You still can... you just don't receive a Chronicle for it anymore.
Of all the Season 0 scenarios, I think it might have been the toughest. There was one multi-part encounter in particular that would have made a great scenario all by itself! If anything, it suffered by being too ambitious for its time... under 3.5 rules it was brutal. With PF rules, it would still present quite the challenge!
What about Blood at Dralkard Manor?
It had theThe Mirage is just like pssh, devils -- whatever bro.
|
|
snip
, but when it comes to game play, does the GM have the authority to do as they please...within reason?
One dirty little secret is - the players sometimes just don't do what the author intended from them.
This leaves you with two options:
a) railroad the party - so they do as intended
b) allow the players to use ingenuity, solve a problem in a completely unexpected way and go with the flow - this involves to adjucate what you think should be written in the scenario if the author would have thought of
This is why you have a GM and why table top RPG is different to a computer game.
You have to balance the freedom of players to act out their characters as they like with the need to lead them along a predefined path.
There is no right or wrong - just a trying hard as GM to be true to the scenario as well as allowing to give the players as much fun as possible.
So no - a GM can't do as he pleases - but he also can't always slavishly follow the script either
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Good point, Thod; I did forget to mention to keep the "Reward Creative Solutions" clause in mind.
Can you add or remove or change enemies in the encounters? No.
But if your players overcome their challenges in creative ways, you are allowed to make sure they still get the rewards they'd have gotten if they'd done things the expected way.
|
|
When I say add or subtract foes, I was referring to tier management (per rules/scenario).
If tactics say, "fights to the death" then taking out as many PCs as they can with them would be acceptable, but say focusing on one PC who the GM knows can't defend against a specific type of attack would be a no no because that would be information outside of the scope of bad guy's ability...yes? Then what about destroying a magic item, book, etc that is the focus of a scenario that would keep the "good guys" from having it? Pathfinders get sent somewhere to retrieve an item. They fight bad guy who is willing to fight to his death. Bad guy is doing poorly and destroys item to keep it from the Pathfinders. Would this be within the tactics and rules of the game?