Sounds like your "encounters" are pitched battles that might be better played in Warhammer Fantasy Battles!
encounters are balanced for a group of 50 PCs, to balance 15 PCs, 15 Cohorts, and 10 Pets. so we face a lot of class leveled humanoids who also use horse riding snipers, the tactic that wounded us countless times, the tactics we adopted and use against our foes.
every PC had 2 or 3 initiative counts
one for PC, one for Cohort, and maybe one for Pet
Are you serious? 18 Int, specialist wizard = 3 sleep spells. Or Color Spray. Or Grease. The list goes on, and on. Done. Well, that was easy.
Not really. Maybe in the Shroedinger's Wizard World, but not in actual gameplay.
Grease: Very powerful, probably the most powerful of them. Still is mostly a single-target spell due to the limited area (except when used defensively to clog up doorways etc), so in encounters with more than one enemy it will be weak. Is at it's strongest in a party with a rogue that can take advantage of enemies being denied dex to ac by having to balance. Pretty weak against enemies who are unarmed and can retreat, but very strong against chargers.Sleep: Full-round casting so extremely risky to use, unless you have a good party to defend you against ranged attacks and charges. Also does nothing against elves, undead, and vermin.
Color Spray: Nearly melee range means that if an enemy or two manage to save you are not unlikely to be killed. Powerful spell, but extremely risky unless you're very well-supported by your party. Again, does nothing against undead and vermin.
Wizards are powerful already at level one no doubt, but they don't trivialize three encounters per day. If they're lucky with preparing the right spells, their party as a whole can more easily trivialize encounters than if they weren't there. But they're not as party independent as for example a gunslinger or THF barbarian.
Are you serious? 18 Int, specialist wizard = 3 sleep spells. Or Color Spray. Or Grease. The list goes on, and on. Done. Well, that was easy.
Not really. Maybe in the Shroedinger's Wizard World, but not in actual gameplay.
Grease: Very powerful, probably the most powerful of them. Still is mostly a single-target spell due to the limited area (except when used defensively to clog up doorways etc), so in encounters with more than one enemy it will be weak. Is at it's strongest in a party with a rogue that can take advantage of enemies being denied dex to ac by having to balance. Pretty weak against enemies who are unarmed and can retreat, but very strong against chargers.
Sleep: Full-round casting so extremely risky to use, unless you have a good party to defend you against ranged attacks and charges. Also does nothing against elves, undead, and vermin.
Color Spray: Nearly melee range means that if an enemy or two manage to save you are not unlikely to be killed. Powerful spell, but extremely risky unless you're very well-supported by your party. Again, does nothing against undead and vermin.Wizards are powerful already at level one no doubt, but they don't trivialize three encounters per day. If they're lucky with preparing the right spells, their party as a whole can more easily trivialize encounters than if they weren't there. But they're not as party independent as for example a gunslinger or THF barbarian.
gunslinger or barbarian isn't independent either
even at 1st level
somebody needs to heal them both
somebody has to play face duty
gunslingers at level 1 waste rounds reloading their guns because they can't afford rapid reload nor paper cartridges, and when their gun runs low on bullets, they are merely a gimped fighter with a much lower strength
barbarians at level 1 have nasty melee damage and can down any level appropriate creature that doesn't have diehard on a normal swing, but their AC sucks due to scale mail and a middling dex, not counting rage or charge, which lowers it further.
in fact, level 1. enough 1st level NPC classed archers can badly wound any 1st level party with both a superior range, and an easier time focusing damage.
the wizard suffers a lot of these issues too
but the wizard has access to infernal healing, and the skill points to afford some diplomacy ranks to reduce the burden on the healer and the face.
Yes, well, this was for an in-combat scenario, they of course won't be able to face very well, nor heal very well. I understood this as the ability to dominate combats, not diplomatic negotiations.
But I'd say two-hander barbarians are generally the most dominating first-level characters around. Their AC isn't that bad, in the 15-17 (depending on light/medium armor and wealth) range which means most CR 1 enemies will have around 50% chance to hit (CR 1/3-1/2 will have noticably less), and even without rage they'll down nearly anyone in the CR1/3-CR1 range with their +4 (2d6+9; 19-20x2). While their AC drops when they rage (6 rounds per day), their hit points will be somewhere around 16 and when raging their damage will be +6 (2d6+12) which means splat goes the bugbear. They can even pick up a sling and make ranged attacks at +3 (1d4+4), which is better than most first level characters unless built for ranged damage.
Note also that if they are human or half-elves, they're likely to get a falcata so they can THF for +4 (1d8+9; 19-20x3) against single targets and wield a large shield with it against loads of low-attack bonus goons (and be limited to a +4 (1d8+6) attack.
And the wizard does not have access to infernal healing since it put all three of its spells per day into Color Spray as mentioned by Christopher Lee. Also, the wizard with 18 int and 14 con/dex will either have a wisdom penalty or a charisma penalty, assuming a 15 pb and 7 str, which means even if it puts that rank into diplomacy it will be at a +0 or +1, not enough to matter to the face (or a +3/+4 if using traits, which isn't bad but not a big deal anyway).
Now, a DIFFERENT (or higher level) wizard might be able to contribute to these things, but then it doesn't meet the other criteria (1st level wizard able to dominate three combats per day).
Yes, well, this was for an in-combat scenario, they of course won't be able to face very well, nor heal very well. I understood this as the ability to dominate combats, not diplomatic negotiations.
But I'd say two-hander barbarians are generally the most dominating first-level characters around. Their AC isn't that bad, in the 14 range which means most CR 1 enemies will have around 50% chance to hit (CR 1/3-1/2 will have noticably less), and even without rage they'll down nearly anyone in the CR1/3-CR1 range with their +4 (2d6+8; 19-20x2). While their AC drops when they rage, their hit points will be somewhere around 16 and when raging their damage will be +6 (2d6+11) which means splat goes the bugbear. They can even pick up a sling and make ranged attacks at +3 (1d4+4), which is better than most first level characters unless built for ranged damage.
And the wizard does not have access to infernal healing since it put all three of its spells per day into Color Spray as mentioned by Christopher Lee. Also, the wizard with 18 int and 14 con/dex will either have a wisdom penalty or a charisma penalty, assuming a 15 pb and 7 str, which means even if it puts that rank into diplomacy it will be at a +0 or +1, not enough to matter to the face (or a +3/+4 if using traits, which isn't bad but not a big deal anyway).
Now, a DIFFERENT (or higher level) wizard might be able to contribute to these things, but then it doesn't have three color sprays per day.
schrodinger's wizard always falls apart
so does schrodinger's barbarian who autohits everyone and drops them in 1 charge round
or schrodinger's gunslinger, who always has a pair of double barrel pistols, an infinite amount of paper cartridges, is always close enough to hit touch AC but always far enough to avoid melee, and the ability to make as many attacks as he needs at any time without worrying about reloading, number of available hands, or the like.
Well in this case it isn't a shroedingers barbarian as I stated mostly everything about the build, and cited the relevant statistics. Neither is the wizard that much of a shroedingers wizard as it has been stated to have 18 int and three color sprays, which means it probably has 14/16 dex/con (not sure which has which though). It also means that if the adventure happens to lead to undead or vermin, the wizard is reduced to cantrips.
I can lay it out in specifics the barbarian if you want it: Human, Str18,Dex14,Con14,Int7,Wis13,Cha7, has Power Attack and let's say Furious Focus (other strong options are toughness, cleave, or EWP(falcata)), and heart of the fields alternate trait (which doesn't really matter here). Perception +5, Acrobatics +6. Scale Mail, Greataxe, Sling, bullets, large wooden shield, longspear, heavy mace, about 20 gp or so in other gear.
AC 17, Speed 30ft, 14 hp.
Attack: Greataxe +5 (1d12+9; 19-20x2) (with power attack) or Sling +3 (1d4+4). If up against many easy enemies, will not power attack or might even switch to heavy mace and shield if she has the time to prepare.
When raging: Greataxe +7 (1d12+12)
Will rarely charge unless the target is a single target who doesn't have that much hit points - charging generally isn't worth it for a character like this since most stuff explodes from a single hit anyway.
And note that while she has to get into melee, so does a wizard using color spray, and while the wizard may have AC12, HP9 the barbarian has AC17, HP14 (without raging) which is a LOT less prone to dying. Especially also since the wizard dies if it takes 18 points of damage total (such as the average damage of an orc critting, which it does on 18+) while the barbarian dies from 28 points of damage (which a single orc crit can't even reach).
The wizard may have a larger chance to drop an enemy, but when that chance fails the wizard (which it DOES when you rely on it as a primary tactic) the wizard has a high risk of actually dying. The barbarian doesn't.
I'm much less experienced with gunslingers since we don't have them in our games so can't say much about that, though. But if any character will trivialize many encounters at low levels it's 1. battlefield control fighters/synthesists with high AC/reach/combat reflexes in enclosed spaces like dungeons, and 2. THF barbarians.
|
Reread the DB pistol's description and compare it to the DB musket's.
At the time of the gunglinger's release/playtest, one of the designers clarified that when you use a DB pistol to double tap during a full-round attack, the double tap attack was ONE of these shots - and let's look back at the rules for confirmation : while the DB musket specifically says you get to double tap both barrels as part of a single ATTACK, the pistol says you can double tap as part of a single ACTION.
An attack is not a kind of action per se by the rules, unless you perform an attack action which is a specific kind of standard action. When performing a full-round attack, you perform several attack rolls as part of this specific full-round action.
Thus : when wielding DB pistols, you may only double tap a single DB pistol once per round. If TWFing, that's 2 double taps per round, unless you invest feats and money to quick draw a wall of blazing lead... which is already potent and awesome enough on its own right.
I can lay it out in specifics the barbarian if you want it: Human, Str18,Dex14,Con14,Int7,Wis13,Cha7, has Power Attack and let's say Furious Focus (other strong options are toughness, cleave, or EWP(falcata)), and heart of the fields alternate trait (which doesn't really matter here). Perception +5, Acrobatics +6. Scale Mail, Greataxe, Sling, bullets, large wooden shield, longspear, heavy mace, about 20 gp or so in other gear.
AC 17, Speed 30ft, 14 hp.
Attack: Greataxe +5 (1d12+9; 19-20x2) (with power attack) or Sling +3 (1d4+4). If up against many easy enemies, will not power attack or might even switch to heavy mace and shield if she has the time to prepare.
When raging: Greataxe +7 (1d12+12)
Who still uses greataxe when there is greatsword or earthbreaker? You are missing out on .5 DPR! Also scale mail? If you are going with only 14 dex you go with 4 mirror armor, its 5 gold cheaper and +1 AC, or go with leather lammalar and avoid the med armor speed reduction. And for ranged weapons javelin, or atlatl (works as javelin or similar to a sling but with more damage).
Who still uses greataxe when there is greatsword or earthbreaker? You are missing out on .5 DPR! Also scale mail? If you are going with only 14 dex you go with 4 mirror armor, its 5 gold cheaper and +1 AC, or go with leather lammalar and avoid the med armor speed reduction. And for ranged weapons javelin, or atlatl (works as javelin or similar to a sling but with more damage).
My point wasn't for superoptimizing but rather a fairly straightforward approach that most people in most campaigns would be able to mimic.
- Greataxe because I wanted to use starting wealth, which is 105 gp, so 50gp greatsword and 50gp scale armor would leave very little margin for alternate weapons and gear. There's no weapon focus so it's easy to switch up as soon as you get that minor cash.- Four-mirror armor is eastern and much less likely to be available.
- I prefer sling to javelin because of range, a sling is pretty effective until 100ft, if the enemy is within javelin distance moving and attacking, or even charging if needed, would probably work better. Did not know about the amentum, that could be used to get a single point more of damage if it's available.
The undead are dealt with via the Disrupt Undead cantrip. It may only be 1d6, but that's the same as most damaging spells at level one. Except that this one has unlimited uses. I've never seen a low level wizard without it.
I've hardly ever seen a low-level wizard with it, because at that point, it's mostly more effective to use a ranged weapon or splash weapon or spend your rounds doing whatever trick you have to buff nearby melee or simply throw a net. I mean at that point you're reduced to about the effectiveness of a non-flanking rogue, but much more fragile. Touch attacks aren't THAT great at level one that they weigh up for the loss of even basic damage modifiers. First level wizards in our games tend to gravitate towards prestidigation, daze, dancing light, light, detect magic, spark and drench. I think I've literally never seen a 1st level wizard prepare disrupt undead since we moved from 3.5.
The point about the wizard is that at level one he is already able to end encounters with a wave of his hand, while the gunslinger at level one is doing 1d8+1 (is he took point blank shot) per round.
And if using a pistol rather than a musket, which at level one there isn't a large reason to do really since you don't have shield proficiency anyway.
If undead show up, the wizard is only a point or two behind in dpr using a free power. The dex-to-damage for a gunslinger doesn't kick in until level 5.
Being two points of damage below means dropping to about 60% of the damage. Also note that that's only true if the gunslinger went for the least damaging option at level one, the pistol, if you went for a musket your damage drops to about 45% of the gunslinger's. Also, of course, the gunslinger will have higher attack bonus (+6 vs the wizard's +2, assuming dex18/14). If you're attacking a zombie, a gunslinger with a musket will do an average of 7.3 DPS dropping it in two attacks (potentially one with a little bit of luck), while a wizard with disrupt undead will do 2.3 DPS, dropping it in 5-6 attacks. The above mentioned barbarian will do an average of 11.935, basically having a 50/50 of instantly killing it. That is when not raging and while having better HP and AC than both the gunslinger and wizard.
Will a wizard be able to end all encounters? Not likely, unless the GM isn't prepared to face one. But the gunslinger doesn't really seem so bad when compared to what other classes can do.
At level one, you don't need to be prepared for one. But I agree that at level one the gunslinger doesn't seem out of whack at all, though I haven't looked at first level optimization for gunslingers at all and have basically no knowledge of the archetypes available.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
hasted and rapid shooting, full atacking for 4 attacks.
How are you reloading 4 times? Musket Master using Paper Cartridges with Rapid Reload?
gunslingers at level 1 waste rounds reloading their guns because they can't afford rapid reload nor paper cartridges
Alchemical Cartridges says "make loading a firearm easier, reducing the time to load a firearm by one step"
Fast Musket says "any two-handed firearm as if it were a one-handed firearm"
Rapid Reload says "The time required for you to reload ... is reduced ... Normal ... standard action ... one-handed ... full-round ... two-handed"
There are two ways to read these:
Liberal: A Musket Master with Rapid Reload Musket using Paper Cartridges = Free action
Conservative: A Musket Master with Rapid Reload Musket using Paper Cartridges = Move action (Rapid Reload) or Move Action (Paper Cart)
I ran into this when playing a Musket Master, and a lot of tables rejected the "Reloading as a Free Action" interpretation.
i looked it up and the golem that had a touch ac 20, in the book its 8, so i would say he was cheating (frankly i dont see why the GM would cheat that BBEG is super hard without the high touch AC)
And if using a pistol rather than a musket, which at level one there isn't a large reason to do really since you don't have shield proficiency anyway.The reason is reloading if not a musket master, or if playing a pistolero. I have seen a mysterious stranger/paladin and a buccaneer in games and both used pistols due to the reload speed difference.
Oh, goddamn I'm stupid. Yeah, you're right of course. The rest of the points still stands though.
On a 15pb that leaves you with exactly what AC, HP, saves and skills Elosandi? This is exactly the kind of Shroedinger we're talking about; when it was shown that an 18 int wizard would not be able to dominate three battles per day it quickly shifts into a 20 int wizard, without mentioning that now we're probably looking at AC11 HP8 or something like that. Which you're using with color spray. I guess you have Human Wizard B, Human Wizard C etc standing by for whenever an enemy makes the save and splatters you?
the only reason ranged builds are overpowered is because the ability to both move and full attack in the same turn is highly limited in access. the reason pounce and similar abilities are restricted is to
to justify feline animals being a threat
to give the barbarian a cool high level ability
to gimp martials
to penalize mobility
to reward the ivory tower used in magic the gathering
to simplify combat by making speed less important
if everyone could move and full attack, martials may be more balanced. it's not a perfect fix though.
i wouldn't say the gunslinger is overpowered
the real issue with gunslingers is high level pistoleros dual wielding double barrelled pistols without accounting for how they got that third hand or prehensile tail.
a gunslinger needs both hands to reload a gun, unless they have a third arm. or a prehensile tail.
there are 2 advanced races i know of with prehensile tails and the only way i know of the get a third arm, is 2 levels of vivisectionist.
so for him to dual wield double barrel pistols, he requires either tiefling or vanara as a race, or a 2 level alchemist dip.
depending on the group, i doubt vanara is an option, and i doubt he played a tiefling or multiclassed.
no third hand, means you can't dual wield and reload in the same round.
no third hand, means you can't dual wield and reload in the same round.
Unless you abuse free actions and weapon cords. Which I, personally, think is ridiculous.
no third hand, means you can't dual wield and reload in the same round.Unless you abuse free actions and weapon cords. Which I, personally, think is ridiculous.
picking up a weapon corded weapon is a swift action for each weapon after you drop it.
even then, you aren't getting your full round every round.
picking up a weapon corded weapon is a swift action for each weapon after you drop it.no third hand, means you can't dual wield and reload in the same round.Unless you abuse free actions and weapon cords. Which I, personally, think is ridiculous.
Did they change it? I could have sworn I've read that as a viable solution once before.
But it could just be that my caffeine hasn't kicked in tonight.
Edit: It could have been something like:
Use all shots on one gun while other is dangling, then drop and use swift to pick up other and fire all shots on that one. Next round, same deal, but starting with other gun?
Those are only combat things. Stop focusing your entire game on combat, and it becomes much more of an issue.
Yes the Wizard is probably the most effective character class out of combat. No issues with that at all. How many times has a player come to you and said he felt useless because the Wizard's Knowledge History skill is so high? Or to bring it back to combat, how many times has a player come up to you as a GM and said he felt useless because the Wizard keeps casting Haste and Enlarge on him?
Component costs aren't an issue for most spells, as a spell component pouch alone is completely trivial and doesn't have a limitation on its uses. There's very little reason not to keep two or three on you at any one time.
Just like ammo costs aren't an issue.
The gunslinger can spend three rounds disarming spell component pouches in order to force a wizard to spend a move action to pick one up in the next round before they cast. Luckily they have both a standard and move action.
Same thing applies to holy symbols.
Right, except look above, your wizard memorized Sleep, that's a full round cast, guess who's screwed? Holy Symbols? Maybe, hope that cleric isn't in melee range though.
Very few games tend to actually have more encounters than a wizard has spells, and even at low levels, each one is powerful enough to be encounter ending.
Very few GM's cater their encounters to a Wizard's spell list, and the second part of your statement is ridiculously false. Sleep and Color Spray are both negated by a Will Save, a CR 1/2 Skeleton. That leaves their Arcane Bond, how they stretch 1 spell over 3 encounters would be a trick I'd really like to see.
Once they reach the mid-levels, they have enough to almost certainly run out, and wizards have a multitude of ways to work around the issue of not having the right spells memorised for niche situations in fast study, a bonded object, and memorising special circumstance spells, and using greater spell specialization, preferred spell, or spellbinder to trade them for a more generally useful one.
Again, you're absolutely right, in theory they look ridiculously powerful with a spell for every occasion. In actual play however, you RARELY get complaints about the Wizard overshadowing everyone. The same cannot be said about Gunslingers.
|
|
Those are only combat things. Stop focusing your entire game on combat, and it becomes much more of an issue.Yes the Wizard is probably the most effective character class out of combat. No issues with that at all. How many times has a player come to you and said he felt useless because the Wizard's Knowledge History skill is so high? Or to bring it back to combat, how many times has a player come up to you as a GM and said he felt useless because the Wizard keeps casting Haste and Enlarge on him?
[...]
Again, you're absolutely right, in theory they look ridiculously powerful with a spell for every occasion. In actual play however, you RARELY get complaints about the Wizard overshadowing everyone. The same cannot be said about Gunslingers.
Well that's fun because I once played a Diviner Wizard who began at 14th level. I played him ONCE, as per "for one session", because he was literally making every other party member feel useless just by existing.
Throw a Pit spell + Sirocco under the BBEG's group ? Win.
Prismatic spray on the incoming army ? Win.
Barbarian or monk catches up to you ? Oh well I'm flying 24 hours a day. Also, Contingency Dimension Door. Also Emergency Force Sphere just in case.
At the end of the day I found myself under heavy attack from a high level monster with high Spell Resistance, the creature didn't hit me once but almost broke through my emergency sphere after two rounds of full-attacks before getting killed by another party member.
During this time, the heavily optimized Musketeer dealt great damage constantly and reliably without making other people feel useless... exactly as he does in every game, and as this player's Inquisitor wielding firearms does in our current game.
This musketeer was usually firing with a Distance Searching musket or Dead Shotting with a +1 Fire, Ice, Electricity DB musket (upgraded later to each burst property).
I dropped the wizard and took the manliest Tetori ever built, so that's a win-win situation... but the point is that NO, a gunslinger is nowhere near as dangerous as a wizard, even when highly optimized.
In all honesty it sounds like you have a GM who isn't mature enough to handle the role.
1: Doesn't understand the idea of glass cannon mono task characters are only good at one thing, dealing damage. Occasionally they do a lot of damage.
2: Actually goes out of his way to counter a single player. All this does it makes life dangerous for other players not targeted, and piss off both the player (nobody likes to feel singled out) and the GM (because he is failing)
3: Didn't understand a class before he allowed it. The fact that he doesn't understand the abilities you are using to the point of requiring an audit to tailor future encounters means he is playing catchup on his rules.
4: He is playing on Tilt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt_%28poker%29 His anger about his lack of control is forcing him into a largely irrational state where he believes that he must go out of his way to humiliate a player to the point of ruining his entire play groups enjoyment.
As for what to do: Write down a list of the things that you have a problem with, more comprehensive than this one. Highlight areas where you feel that you and/or the party are being treated unfairly. Show this list to the GM, with an explanation that your are not enjoying the game as it stands presently because of these issues.
If the GM is unwilling to take this as a learning moment and make adjustments and tighten up his game, seriously consider finding another playgroup. A GM when shown evidence of making the game unfun (he primary job is the make the game fun for everybody) who doesn't do something about it is unlikely to get better (if fact might make things worse if his nose is shoved in it, diplomacy is something you should look into maxing irl). You are already a target, and are all ready not having fun, so you have nothing really to lose for bringing up these points. Its just a game, and if you don't have fun, don't bother being a puppet for some persons power fantasies.
My post about this apparently got deleted, so here's take two. I strongly believe the comments above express a very one sided understanding of the situation, written from the perspective of a super-optimizer.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: character power now easily and vastly outstrips CR, making the game trivially simple with even moderate amounts of optimization. When you super-optimize, things get beyond ridiculous. Furthermore, if one player is optimizing well beyond the level of the other players, that is going to cause a problem, either with the GM or with the other players or both. The optimizer in question needs to take responsibility and, yes, change his character.
The GM mentioned by the OP is not "failing" or being "irrational," as notabot suggests. He is having a completely understandable reaction to a character that can do 120 damage in one round, at range, at 5th level.
There is simply no need to attain this level of optimization unless the GM and all the players agree that the game you're in is going to be about everybody going full tilt and seeing just how extreme a challenge level they can take on.
The GM in question does not need to "take this as a learning moment" any more than the OP himself does. Mega-optimizers really need to take a step back and gain some perspective. Again, if you really want to follow the same formulas over and over for maximum efficiency in your builds, then knock yourselves out. But only if everyone at the table understands and agrees that that's the kind of game they want to be in.
Many of us do not want to be in such a game. It is much like in Dark Souls, when you're fighting PVP in the forest and 75% of the people there are walking around in giant armor with mask of the mother. Many people complained about this before the recent patch. "What's wrong with that?", the optimizers will ask. "That combination of armor gives maximal performance." Well, sure. It's also extremely boring, and shows no creativity. People (like the GM mentioned, I'm guessing) are bound to get frustrated with build-approaches that by their sheer relentless efficiency render huge swathes of printed material irrelevant. Which is exactly what happens. Observe other posts in this thread to the effect of: "No one should ever use a greataxe since you're losing 0.5 DPR relative to a greatsword."
|
Ok, so this is written from the perspective of someone who is actually GMing Carrion Crown at the moment, so I feel that I've got a pretty good idea of what is going on in the OP (which we are getting back to six pages later?)
Firstly Pathfinder is built with optimization in mind. Try this experiment: take the usual 4-5 Characters, 15, maybe 20 point buy, though an AP. Make them whatever Races, Classes, Archetypes you want, but without forming a deadly teamwork engine of doom, to replicate a usual group. Depending upon player skill and other factors, you will do between pretty well and very well.
Now try that with the 15 point by unoptimized Iconics they used to put in the back of the APs. Suddenly, game feels like Tomb of Horrors all over again where Valeros hasn't hit something in an hour and Ezren can't make any of the Fort Saves required except on a natural 20.
Character power vastly outstrips CR- If you do it right. If you make terrible characters, you artificially gimp yourself. My argument is that characters who are just about as good as possible at their intended strengths aren't outliers, they are baseline.
You wouldn't argue that a team of really tall basketball players is unfairly optimized, would you?
The OPs GM is being irrational, and Notabot's logic is sound. The 5th level Character did 120 points of Damage, with a Full Attack, that contained a Critical, with a x4 weapon! What the heck did the GM think would happen?
The GM made a bunch of silly mistakes. First, your players really shouldn't surprise you via Class Features. Creative tactics? Sure! Awesome Spell combo you've never seen before? Could happen. But being surprised at the Damage capacity of a Musket Master implies the GM never even read the Class, which is foolish of him/her, given that PFSRD exists.
The GM should be a step ahead on this kind of thing. When you get a Barbarian in your group, ask them if they are Pouncing, if they are Rage Cycling, etc. See if your Maguses are Dervish Dancers. If a player has 4 classes at 5th level, swing by the Paizo forums and make sure they aren't making Pun-Pun.
The GMs real problem, though, was the way he countered the OP. Look at the OPs first post, and look at the things he suddenly went up against! The GM gave the Beast of Lepidstadt +12 Touch AC from nowhere? Super Werewolves that have regeneration 70? The GM could have used any of the tons of obvious foils myself and others posted in this thread. Instead, he freaked out and started making crud up.
TLDR: The OP made an optimized Gunslinger, using all legal rules to make a pretty good character.
The OPs GM didn't understand his own job well enough to adjust tactics and ignored all the rules to make challenges that were completely impossible for 80% of his players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM should be a step ahead on this kind of thing. When you get a Barbarian in your group, ask them if they are Pouncing, if they are Rage Cycling, etc. See if your Maguses are Dervish Dancers. If a player has 4 classes at 5th level, swing by the Paizo forums and make sure they aren't making Pun-Pun.
To be fair, I believe it is also and first hand the player's job to inform his DM about whatever he's able to do, what he will be able to do, and what kinds of builds or situation will challenge or counter his character.
The DM will never have a better ally than the player himself to build challenging but rewarding encounters ; and this helps the player avoiding frustration of tricks built to brutally counter him every time.
There should also always be some kind of self-control when building a character so you don't trivialize any encounter you meet (see my wizard in the previous thread). Just because you could build an archer who deals 50% more damage than the 2-handed fighter doesn't mean you *should*, as this is frustrating to the other players, to the DM, and to yourself when you are countered by cheap tactics just so others can shine a bit.
Firstly Pathfinder is built with optimization in mind.
Not true. Or anyway, it's built with a fairly minimal amount of optimization in mind.
Try this experiment: take the usual 4-5 Characters, 15, maybe 20 point buy, though an AP. Make them whatever Races, Classes, Archetypes you want, but without forming a deadly teamwork engine of doom, to replicate a usual group. Depending upon player skill and other factors, you will do between pretty well and very well.
Now try that with the 15 point by unoptimized Iconics they used to put in the back of the APs. Suddenly, game feels like Tomb of Horrors all over again where Valeros hasn't hit something in an hour and Ezren can't make any of the Fort Saves required except on a natural 20.
Oh man, have I done plenty of experiments. I recently ran my friend's 11th level bard/paladin solo through a season 4 PFS mod (Words of the Ancients). She almost soloed it successfully. In the last encounter she killed one protean and nearly killed the other one before dying. And her character is quite good, but still far from the most optimized one I've ever seen. And she very nearly completed one of the supposedly super deadly season four mods BY HERSELF. Similarly I'm currently running Rise of the Runelords. The characters (a rogue, a cleric/monk, a magus and a sorcerer) are only moderately optimized and I still can't challenge them at all with the adventures as written. So, no. Pathfinder is not written with any significant degree of optimization in mind, or if it is then it is written incompetently (and I do not think the latter is the case).
Character power vastly outstrips CR- If you do it right. If you make terrible characters, you artificially gimp yourself.
If you do it even slightly well this is the case. If you do it extremely well you outstrip CR to the point of absurdity.
My argument is that characters who are just about as good as possible at their intended strengths aren't outliers, they are baseline.
I can only assume you do not have a very good idea of what being "as good as possible at their intended strengths" really entails. If you did, you simply could not make this argument with a straight face.
You wouldn't argue that a team of really tall basketball players is unfairly optimized, would you?
Nope, I wouldn't, because it's an entirely different sort of game and the parallel would not be sound in any way. Though now that you mention it, there actually are plenty of people who want the hoop height raised because player height currently gives kind of a ridiculous level of advantage. At 10' hoop height, guys like Shaq (at 7'1") or Yao Ming (at 7'6") dunk practically just by going on tiptoes. "The game" according to Earl Monroe in his New York Times op ed piece, "was not conceived to be a dunking contest." So now that I think of it, maybe the parallel isn't so bad after all ;)
The OPs GM is being irrational, and Notabot's logic is sound. The 5th level Character did 120 points of Damage, with a Full Attack, that contained a Critical, with a x4 weapon! What the heck did the GM think would happen?
Let's break this down, shall we? His BAB can't be +6 yet, so even with Rapid Shot and haste he's making three attacks that round. One of them was a x4 critical. Okay, so basically that's like hitting 6 times. 120/6= 20 damage per hit. Average damage for a d12 is 7. So this character has around a +13 damage bonus with a musket? That's extremely high and demonstrates an unnecessary level of optimization. Even without the crit, he's doing 60 damage, at range, in one round, with touch attacks. That's 5 points above the total suggested hit points of a CR 5 monster, according to the Bestiary. If you have four such monsters, its a CR 9 encounter. At fifth level that shuld qualify as a difficult boss fight. But if everyone in the party is as optimized as this gunslinger, the fight will likely last one to two rounds. And you're telling me that's what the game was designed for? I think not.
|
|
That's more an issue with Haste and ranged combat itself, to be fair.
Even then, there is no way to deal that much damage at 5th level without making a mistake in bonuses or rolling incredibly high.
Let's assume -heavy- optimization and thus 20 Dex : that's 1d12+5 ; 1d12+6 with Point Blank Shot ; 1d12+7 with a +1 musket ; 1d12+9 with PBS and 5th-level Inspire Courage.
1d12+9 x 3 including 1 critical (6 hits), that's an average of 6x6.5+54 = 87 damage.
You would need to deal 11 damage on each six consecutive d12 rolls to deal exactly 120 damage.
That's incredibly lucky, especially considering the musket would break 10% of the time...
|
|
I understand that the GM will no doubt have to change preprinted material to challenge most groups and the idea that a Pathfinder Module can be run 'as is' is a fallacy.
I also understand that a character who is "as good as possible" at their role means different things to different people- I was sort of referring to, say, an 'optimized' Barbarian, but not somebody with three 7s in their mental Ability Scores and Ragelancepounce. I apologize for not making the distinction.
I'm still going to stand by the assertion that 3 round encounters in which both parties completely go for broke and nuke each other from orbit are 'normal'. If Pathfinder wasn't designed as rocket tag, that is still what we're seeing, and I'd rather embrace that than try to find ways for everything to be nerfed into even longer slogs.
To put things in perspective, I'm figuring its normal for a damage-focused character to down an enemy of their hit dice each round of combat in which they can full-attack. So, any 4 balanced PCs of 10th level vs. one 11th Level Antipaladin- the bad guy should last about 6 seconds. Does this resonate with what people are seeing? I would think of the PCs in this situation to be optimized to the extent I cited previously.
My other point, which I think is the salient one and the one I'd rather focus on, is that all the Damage in the world isn't enough to win a well-designed encounter; not when a long list of spells and similar effects shuts down a damage dealing character. What I'm getting at is that the OPs GM had a huge toolbox of things which could provide counter-play for the Gunslinger, and instead of employing an in-game, rules-legal solution for one of the other party members to maybe assist with, he instead gave all the enemies Damage Reduction 20/non-bullets, Or some other asinine rules-ignoring backdoor.
I was supporting Notabot in calling out the OPs DM because even if he somehow came to the table with a Fighter who never missed with a single attack and had a vorpal sword that worked on a 1-20, there are solutions right in the CRB for handling that type of thing. There is no excuse to invent a bunch of nonsense to screw with one of your players.
My post about this apparently got deleted, so here's take two. I strongly believe the comments above express a very one sided understanding of the situation, written from the perspective of a super-optimizer.
Of course it got deleted,Don't really know why you felt it necessary to post again and say the same thing. Generally when a mod deletes a back and forth series of posts, its not good form to go ahead and repeat the same stuff in a slightly less derogatory manner.
I'm primarily a GM so I have some sympathy for a GM dealing with an more optimized character, but that ended with his reaction to it. His reaction was neither mature nor rational and did nothing to increase the enjoyment of his players. It only served to frustrate even further when his efforts failed. His efforts failed because he didn't understand the class or the mechanics of the game. Its one thing to be upset at a player for breaking your expectations, its another to single that player out in game and go after him. One of the responsibilities of a GM is to be fair, and ignoring the rules and targeting individual players for meta/out of game issues is NOT fair.
On the optimization issue. The base rule set was designed with system mastery giving an advantage. This a problem/feature of the system dating back to 3.0. People who put more effort into the game and who understand the system get more out of it than people who try to swim against the rules or don't bother to do their homework. As a GM I run encounters/APs/Modules by the book with no modifications to the stat blocks or the base tactics. Yet somehow I manage to challenge optimizers that make this gunslinger look silly. Its actually surprising how much you can get out of even weak monsters if you really maximize the use of their resources (terrain, abilities, timing of encounters, tactics...) If the player manages to trivialize an encounter, I applaud the player and use it as a learning experience and move on.
|
|
That's more an issue with Haste and ranged combat itself, to be fair.
Even then, there is no way to deal that much damage at 5th level without making a mistake in bonuses or rolling incredibly high.Let's assume -heavy- optimization and thus 20 Dex : that's 1d12+5 ; 1d12+6 with Point Blank Shot ; 1d12+7 with a +1 musket ; 1d12+9 with PBS and 5th-level Inspire Courage.
1d12+9 x 3 including 1 critical (6 hits), that's an average of 6x6.5+54 = 87 damage.
You would need to deal 11 damage on each six consecutive d12 rolls to deal exactly 120 damage.That's incredibly lucky, especially considering the musket would break 10% of the time...
Just a couple of quick points. You are forgetting Deadly Aim.
So, for a -4 AB, he gets 5(DEX) + 4(deadly aim) + 1(point blank) + 1(enhance) for +11, assuming a much more easily achieved 18 DEX. At a 27.1% chance of a misfire. So even without the bard, he can do it averaging 9 on the dice, which is high, but less implausible.
Ti've been playing a gunslinger all summer in PFS, and the misfire chance is a real issue.
Also, as a GM you need to enforce cover rules (soft cover of your friends is still cover), and firing into melee penalty if the slinger does not have precise shot. Taking an effective -8 to -12 will mark even touch AC hard to hit.
As for the pistoleros they are never far from melee range... And usually a 5' step away from a large creature's reach attack! That is a real vulnerability, if you choose to exploit it.
Of course it got deleted,Don't really know why you felt it necessary to post again and say the same thing. Generally when a mod deletes a back and forth series of posts, its not good form to go ahead and repeat the same stuff in a slightly less derogatory manner.
The dismissive and condescending nature of your initial characterization of the GM the OP mentioned was what made me feel compelled to post in the first place. So you wanted to tell me what, again, about "good form?" What baffles me is the fact that they saw fit to leave your post, which belittled someone, while deleting mine, which defended him.
As far as optimization goes, that you keep calling the GM's reaction immature does not make it so. I can easily turn that around and call the optimizer immature for making his character powerful well beyond the point that is necessary to defeat the encounters. Naturally it would be great for every GM to know every possible permutation of every build in every class. But that just is not going to happen, and it's completely unreasonable to not only hope for but actually expect/demand it to the point that you scorn someone who does not live up to it. Especially since a GM can, as I've been trying to say, be seen as reasonably within his rights to simply not spend his time considering what, honestly, really are abuses of the system. If a given GM is making the choice to leave such considerations aside and focus on other aspects of the game while trusting in his players' reasonableness and restraint to avoid such problems, I cannot blame him at all.
You say you consistently challenge optimized characters with as-written material. Well, what can I say? I am far from the first person to express frustration on these threads with their inability to do just that. I've been playing a long time, with all kinds of people. I know the tricks. I know the tactics. I know what can and can't be done. And I know for certain that seriously optimized groups simply cannot be challenged in any meaningful way by a large portion of the encounters as written.
Endeavor to persevere.