| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
May I clear up some misconceptions?
-=- 3.5e did fix shape shifting right at the end before switching to 4e. It involved removing all the spells and abilities that allowed it and replacing them with very weak alternates. It isn't surprising that the power gamers ignored that fix.
-=- Most of the broken builds from that old char op board were built on misinterpretations of the rules. There were a few that truly worked, but like AM barbarian proves, you can break any system given the will and time. The more splat material a system puts out the easier it becomes to break. When PF grows as large or larger than 3.5e it will become easier to break as well.
PS: Why is everyone arguing about broken builds in 3.5e vs PF? Isn't that completely moot to the central topic?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
go ask somebody on the street "have you ever played pathfinder" and I think the common answer will be "whats that?" try the same with D&D and at least they will know what D&D is.
the only reason I play Pf is because its popular, and there are few gamers where I live.
So you are saying that nobody knows what Pathfinder is, and yet it's so popular in your hometown that you can't find any other games?
Hilarious. Trolololololololololo
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, "right at the end" and some people here wanted to concentrate on "core vs. non-core."May I clear up some misconceptions?
-=- 3.5e did fix shape shifting right at the end before switching to 4e. It involved removing all the spells and abilities that allowed it and replacing them with very weak alternates. It isn't surprising that the power gamers ignored that fix.
-=- Most of the broken builds from that old char op board were built on misinterpretations of the rules.But a lot of them did work (I know because the regulars on the CharOp boards do patrol for things that are against RAW), and this is the same argument that people here defending PF are making, but which the critics of PF dismiss or ignore.
PS: Why is everyone arguing about broken builds in 3.5e vs PF? Isn't that completely moot to the central topic?
This, yes - but that's because it turned out baal, who was the OP, ended up not being actually interested in controlling powergaming, and 3.5e Loyalist certainly isn't interested in that topic.
The thread seems to have been sold on a false/deceptive premise, starting out with an apparently innocent request for advice on how to limit powergaming, but then baal - joined by 3.5E Loyalist and some others - turned it into a compare/contrast criticism-of-PF-system thread, which really doesn't belong in "Advice" at all because it's simply a conversation (to put it in the most favorable light) about "what system is best, the one I like most, or one I don't."
This btw is why, for all that I don't like the flaming and abuse baal has received, and for all the initial sympathy I had for him (I refer you to my earlier posts in this thread, on the first 5 or so pages), I now see him as the primary troll in a thread that's "trolls trolling trolls." Whatever useful stuff might be a by-product of all the trolling and flamebaiting.
While the thread is titled "Controlling Powergamers," that topic seems not to have been in good faith. Thus the. . .topic drift and off-topic nature of the discusion, and it's frequent degeneration.
Now, baal (and 3.5E, and others) are free to tell me I'm wrong in this not being in good faith. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - if it is a good-faith topic, return to the original topic.
(And no, like I said above, I don't mind the topic drift. But I do think candor is good. This is not, if it ever truly was, an advice thread/seeking advice thread; at best it belongs in "conversations.")
I'm reluctant to question anyone's sincerity; thus I didn't join the flaming, and abandoned the thread for a long time. But if this really is a sincere interest in ways of controlling power-gaming, then those who want to critique/compare-and-contrast PF with other systems (and, again, I by no means think PF is perfect or above criticism or even unfavorable comparisons - it's just this is the wrong section for thsoe discussions) can take that part of the discussion into a new thread in conversations, and in their posts in this thread return to the original, supposedly intended topic.
Hey, Baal is clearly interested in controlling powergaming. Don't say he ain't. A lot of us just feel he generalizes too much.
Hey, Baal is clearly interested in controlling powergaming. Don't say he ain't. A lot of us just feel he generalizes too much.
Then, IMO, this thread should return to that topic - controlling powergaming in Pathfinder.
All the stuff about which other system this or that person likes better is not Germain, and has the function of trolling, and is off-topic.
Something I only bring up because a couple other pepole were saying this or that thing wasn't "on-topic." But if we want to stick to the topic - and if people posting in this thread are, for the purpose of this thread, interested in advice on how to control powergaming in Pathfinder, then they can stick to that.
And start other threads for compare/contrast conversations or "the system I like better is better than the one(s) I don't like better" chest-thumping/flame-baiting.
(and no, I'm still not defending the flames that were targeted at anyone, including ones targeted at baal).
Anyhow, since this is the "advice" sub-forum, I'll offer some advice: the best place for threads on those other things (compare/contrast game systems, general critique of PF discussions, and the like) is here. Then this thread can go back on topic.
Or we can go back to talking about Grog, the Kobolds, goblins, whatever. I'm happy either way, actually. Or not (but this thread doesn't control my happiness quotient). I just don't like to be told "hey, we're getting off topic" by people who are, basically, off-topic the whole time themselves.
It's Grod, not Grog.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
go ask somebody on the street "have you ever played pathfinder" and I think the common answer will be "whats that?" try the same with D&D and at least they will know what D&D is.the only reason I play Pf is because its popular, and there are few gamers where I live.So you are saying that nobody knows what Pathfinder is, and yet it's so popular in your hometown that you can't find any other games?
Hilarious. Trolololololololololo
This isn't nearly as ridiculous as you're making it out to be. Among people who are into roleplaying games, Pathfinder is very popular. Even if they don't actually play Pathfinder, odds are VERY good they will know what it is.
However, people who are into roleplaying games are a very small minority. Pathfinder doesn't have anywhere near the brand recognition that Dungeons & Dragons does. If you pull a random guy off the street and ask him what D&D is, he'll likely have at least some vague idea (although it seems to be fairly common to think that it's some type of computer game). If you pull a random guy off the street and ask him what Pathfinder is, he's likely either going to talk to you about a Nissan SUV or a movie about a Viking adopted by American Indians.
It's Grod, not Grog.
QQ, sorry, in the heat of the moment I butchered his name.
I can only hope he'll forgive me.
He is a forgiving soul, right?
I prefer.
How dreadful! Quick, bronies, murder the creators in the name of Love and Tolerance!
This post brought to you by the Bronymind: NEVER STOP SMILING.
go ask somebody on the street "have you ever played pathfinder" and I think the common answer will be "whats that?" try the same with D&D and at least they will know what D&D is.the only reason I play Pf is because its popular, and there are few gamers where I live.So you are saying that nobody knows what Pathfinder is, and yet it's so popular in your hometown that you can't find any other games?
Hilarious. Trolololololololololo
This isn't nearly as ridiculous as you're making it out to be. Among people who are into roleplaying games, Pathfinder is very popular. Even if they don't actually play Pathfinder, odds are VERY good they will know what it is.
However, people who are into roleplaying games are a very small minority. Pathfinder doesn't have anywhere near the brand recognition that Dungeons & Dragons does. If you pull a random guy off the street and ask him what D&D is, he'll likely have at least some vague idea (although it seems to be fairly common to think that it's some type of computer game). If you pull a random guy off the street and ask him what Pathfinder is, he's likely either going to talk to you about a Nissan SUV or a movie about a Viking adopted by American Indians.
Exactly true, which only underscores how utterly irrelevant his earlier statement was to the topic(s) at hand.
Basically he was saying that D&D was around before Pathfinder, and will be around long after Pathfinder is dead and buried... because the average Joe on the street knows nothing about Pathfinder.
That IS ridiculous. The 'average Joe' on the street has no real influence on our gaming hobby, and never will. Who cares if they know about D&D or not?
Meanwhile, the 'small minority' that DO play tabletop roleplaying games have made Pathfinder so popular that it now outsells 4th Edition D&D. By his own admission, baal said that Pathfinder is SO popular where he lives that he can't even find another game to play.
It's THOSE people that influence the success or failure of tabletop RPGs, not some random on the street.
Brand recognition is a tricky thing, and no matter how powerful your brand... if you screw up enough, and turn your nose up at your original core audience who made you successful... that 'brand' can turn sour quite quickly.
Just look at the current "Bioware" for example. Honestly, 99% of the original developers that made the studio great no longer even work there anymore. "Bioware" isn't even Bioware anymore... the original founders sold out and the brand name was basically used by EA to make as much cash as they could.
But after DA2, SWTOR, ME3 and other missteps and PR dabacles... people aren't nearly as loyal to "Bioware" as a brand name anymore, mainly because they finally realize their much loved studio has actually been dead for years now. Sad, but true.
With Dungeons & Dragons, it's the same thing. It was once a very powerful brand, but it's also one that has changed hands so many times that you shouldn't even call it D&D anymore. New developers, new companies, and with 4.0 a completely new direction in gameplay.
There is a reason that Paizo's Pathfinder is referred to many tabletop gamers as the 'true' successor to the D&D name. Sure, they have no legal rights to the brand... but at least the intention of the Paizo developers was to try and preserve the SPIRIT of the game we all know and loved.
Are they perfect? No, of course not... though I imagine that not many people could do better in their situation. At least they communicate regularly with us through these very message boards and actually value our feedback and opinions.
But time will eventually tell the direction that the industry takes. Either way, whoever dominates the gaming tables will be decided by GAMERS, NOT your average Joe on the street.
|
|
Meanwhile, the 'small minority' that DO play tabletop roleplaying games have made Pathfinder so popular that it now outsells 4th Edition D&D.
With no offense towards Paizo or Pathfinder, I'm not really sure that that has as much to do with Pathfinders increase in popularity as it does with WotC's output slowing to a mere trickle. It's pretty easy for Pathfinder to outsell WotC when they are actually putting out print products every month and WotC...isn't.
If D&D Next returns the emphasis to print products over DDI. I wouldn't be surprised to see D&D kick Pathfinder back to 2nd place almost immediately.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this thread still going? I appreciate the prolific demonstration of trolling.
cheers
That is really quite inventive. Did the dopps tear him apart, and was there much rejoicing?
Actually after I said 'Doppelganger they are you. Have at him.' I walked away for about 10 minutes. When I came back He was still alive and kicking butt, as a matter of fact he had just killed the monk at that time, so....There was still the Cleric Doppeler who cast 'true strike on herself then changed into the monk.
He snatched the magic axe away from him, and that is all it took. Much rejoicing!
He awoke to find himself in green fields all by himself.
There is always the 'Sap of Friendship'.
When someone in the party does something stupid you get a + 20 to sneak up on them and back stab for non-lethal damage. Upon being struck the victim falls unconscious. When they wake up they will always consider the person who struck them as a friend. The downside to this artifact is if you use it on an evil PC/or NPC and you are 'good' they will cut you in on the 'take' of whatever crime they have performed. Attaching your name to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that a GM shouldn't be "controlling" his players, but hopefully that's just a semantics issue.
I side with the people that press value on having mutual respect for the people you are playing with. If one player character stands out above all the rest, you can ask him to tone down a bit and he could acquiesce. You could weave it into plot, maybe the character gets a power limiter that he only removes when the situation really calls for it. Just make sure you discuss it with the player instead of throwing on shackles to control him.
Something to consider:
If a game has feats that appear designed to synergize, and class abilities built to work with each other, and skills that synergize, and feats with multi-feat prereqs...
Could one argue that picking feats that work with each other and synergize, and picking class combos that synergize, and picking skills that synergize isn't even minmaxing/powergaming?
Maybe, just maybe, it's simply building a character correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, just maybe, it's simply building a character correctly.
whatchutakinbout, Willis? That's crazy talk!
that said, there is a difference - an unquantifiable, not easily defined distinction - between building "properly" and "broken builds" (or attempts at the same). And what qualifies as each can vary by campaign, and the sort of "feel" the group as a whole wants. So if one or two members are sticking out - either by creating "nerfed thespian builds" (which, again, I've never seen in practice) or running builds that end up overshadowing everyone else or changing the atmosphere of the campaign that a group as a whole wants - then that playstyle isn't a fit for that particular group. And the people in question need to either adjust, or find a different group.
but precisely because this is unquantifiable, a not easily defined distinction which varies by group, there is no way to make a "perfect set of rules which are as published completely unbreakable." There are better or worse sets, overall, but no hard-and-fast bright-line, especially since tastes and opinions will vary (as seen here) on just what rules-set accomplishes this goal best.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few questions: why is the title of the thread calling out powergamers, but most of the complaints seem to be about munchkins?
Are some people so bad at building characters that any game knowledge seems "power game-y"?
If someone has a 100% legal (RAI, even) build that happens to be effective, why are some people opposed to this?
They have a form of role playing that doesn't require game mastery or rules knowledge. It's called "community theater". I understand they have open auditions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Houstonderek:
The words don't match because nobody agrees about the words. One man's sandbagging caster is another man's hideous munchkin.
Personally I get uncomfortable when somebody doesn't even try to put a fig leaf on their Paladin/Summoner/Dragon Disciple and the only explanation for such an odd in-universe combo is "for the smashing of faces." At least make an effort, people!
Also, how does the powergamer carry his phat lootz with a 6 STR?Pack mule.
This was how it was done in old school: pack mules and hirelings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
baalbamoth,
You stated early in the thread that combat was easy, only rolling a few dice, and not important - storytelling was much more important.
I think that that is part of the trouble that you and your GM are having - knowing how the system works, how classes, feats, skill, spells, etc. interact is very important.
The examples that you gave in the this thread illustrate that - When others pointed out that you can upgrade the challenge or target the weakness(es) of the PowerGamer (PG), your response was that the GM had tried - the GM made a multi-armed and armored monstrosity to challenge what you call a (PG) or cast confusion on the PG, who then I presumed rolled 76% or higher on the table and that the nearest individual was a team member.
Those are not very effective was of doing it, in my opinion. Some better options would be:
1) to put in terrain - most people forget about difficult terrain and terrain features that restrict movement (half-walls, pits, rivers, squeezing tunnels, unstable floors, weak/collapsing floors, etc). Terrain will help a lot in reducing full round attacks.
2) The use of creatures that can trip - wolves, tripmasters, etc.
3) Ray spells - Ray of Enfeeblement, Exhaustion, Sickening
4) Sight line control tactics - Smokesticks, obscuring mist spell, etc.. to reduce vision to 5', makes it hard to moves fast, or to avoid traps, etc..
5) Incapacitating spells - command, daze, deep slumber, hideous laughter, hold person, etc. (kept at 4th level or below spells to be as powerful as the confusion spell in your example)
6) Inconveniencing tactics - disarm, reposition, steal, sunder, traps, etc.
7) Defensive spells - blur, displacement, fireshield, mirror image, stoneskin, etc.
8) Misdirection - have things not be what they appear to be. Examples: Describe an enlarge full plate NPC with oversized gauntlets coming to attack them, don’t say that it’s an Iron Golem; The tower shield full plate opponent that seems to be resistant to damage, and keeps drinking potions of healing, but what with the potions and the shield, can’t seem to hit anyone - is a hidden mage using major image; the Finger of Death spell attacks in the market - it may be hard to identify them coming from a shrieking monkey, especially if the PCs have seen organgrinder and his shrieking monkey several times already.
The above are a few ways of making something challenging to the PG, and if one technique is not abused, they can ensure that everyone has fun (the GM should make sure that the character that you consider OP has their time to shine as well as everyone else).
I really dont know PF
I find this ironic. You started this thread with a goal of nerfing several parts of the game, but you also say that you don’t really know it yet. I highly recommend that you spend more time learning the game before taking a nerf hammer to it.
gunsummoner... so though the build is totally friggin OP for anything without DR and its totally OP against most villian NPCs, and it out performs most other ranged non-spell using characters in the amt of damage it can do to a creature with DR
And the fact that it will take them at least 6 rounds to reload, isn’t a problem? A projected Image spell would help negate this kind of nova attack (if you are using a 20th level PC, then likely the enemies will know of the PC’s tendency to nova). A villain NPC at that level will likely have access to the spell Stoneskin (giving them DR 10/admantine) or other spells/magic items/class abilities that will help provide some defenses (like barbarian DR XX/–). Even a Mirror Image will cause the above build trouble. Minor Image or Major Image will definitely mess with the nova attack.
Like others in this thread, I don’t think that the game itself is the problem that you are having in your current game - it is a rules mis-interpretation and communication problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're talking about powergaming, I don't think there's any rule that says loot donkeys can't carry other donkeys as part of the loot, or that those loot donkeys can't carry still more loot and donkeys.
Paizo doesn't seem to have published stats for donkeys, so let's just handwave it for simplicity's sake and assume it's donkeys all the way down.
This was how it was done in old school: pack mules and hirelings.Also, how does the powergamer carry his phat lootz with a 6 STR?Pack mule.
"Porters" too. Even "torchbearers." Mercs and the like.
Dungeon expeditions really could be expeditions. Especially if you include the skellie/zombie trap-fodder.
Not that it was always wise to use skellie/zombie trap-fodder, mind. . .
A few questions: why is the title of the thread calling out powergamers, but most of the complaints seem to be about munchkins?
Are some people so bad at building characters that any game knowledge seems "power game-y"?
If someone has a 100% legal (RAI, even) build that happens to be effective, why are some people opposed to this?
They have a form of role playing that doesn't require game mastery or rules knowledge. It's called "community theater". I understand they have open auditions.
I agree with EVERYTHING in this post!
Even the "community theatre" bit, though I know it was intended as a joke.... because I do that too!!
So much fun, and I encourage others to find great local community theatre groups!
I understand they have open auditions.I agree with EVERYTHING in this post!
Bah; I tried out for community theater once.
They said I was "too OP" and would "break the play."
pfft.
I understand they have open auditions.I agree with EVERYTHING in this post!Bah; I tried out for community theater once.
They said I was "too OP" and would "break the play."
pfft.
Oh no!! I'm so sorry you had that experience!
Just know that every community theatre group is different, with it's own quirks, cliques, and rules on "acting".
From everything you posted thus far in this thread, I would be HAPPY to welcome you to MY theatre troupe! You would fit in just great! :D
(Though you might have to move to the Great White North)
|
|
This was how it was done in old school: pack mules and hirelings.Also, how does the powergamer carry his phat lootz with a 6 STR?Pack mule."Porters" too. Even "torchbearers." Mercs and the like.
Dungeon expeditions really could be expeditions. Especially if you include the skellie/zombie trap-fodder.
Not that it was always wise to use skellie/zombie trap-fodder, mind. . .
Yeah, you got some nasty hits to your reaction score for going all "Robilar" on a dungeon.
|
|
A few questions: why is the title of the thread calling out powergamers, but most of the complaints seem to be about munchkins?
Are some people so bad at building characters that any game knowledge seems "power game-y"?
If someone has a 100% legal (RAI, even) build that happens to be effective, why are some people opposed to this?
They have a form of role playing that doesn't require game mastery or rules knowledge. It's called "community theater". I understand they have open auditions.
I agree with EVERYTHING in this post!
Even the "community theatre" bit, though I know it was intended as a joke.... because I do that too!!
So much fun, and I encourage others to find great local community theatre groups!
I've done some, it was fun. Chaotic and crazy, but fun.
From everything you posted thus far in this thread, I would be HAPPY to welcome you to MY theatre troupe! You would fit in just great! :D
(Though you might have to move to the Great White North)
Thanks for the invite! That'll be awesome 'cause I'll finally get to live in the same place as my friend, Courtney (you all live in the same longhouse-style igloo, amirite?)
One question, though; will I get issued my own toque, or will I have to knit one myself?
Texas is too friggin' hot for me.
.
(such as controling magic items more carefully.. btw the PF crafting rules are completely screwed up, wanna make a totally OP character, give any 4th lev character crafting+money+skill+time maybe one extra feat, and they can make a CL20 device for under 3k gold.. they only have to beat a dc25 or 30)
Earlier you said you did not know the system well. This is more proof. the power of an item is not tied to caster levels. In theory that would make more sense, but that is not how it works.
no actually... my point has been proven time and time again on these issues, OP does exist in PF, my problem is that no matter how disgusting a build I put up, there is no build that you will ADMIT is OP. you will always be able to say "oh well just call down a minor god who can read the minds of the players anywhere, teleport, and give them a set of +40 weapons and armor only they can use and problem solved, noting OP about that character at all"
You believing it does not count as proof. Proof requires facts that can be demonstrated. All you have demonstrated is that certain things don't work at "your table". By your logic the things I could not handle 6 years ago are broken just because I was a lesser GM. I have been proven wrong on these board before. Me admitting I am wrong is not an issue. I just need proof. You have told me how you feel for about 16 pages. How you feel is not proof.
Where is your proof? You have yet to even present one OP build. That gun-summoner is not even that good, unless you could him being useless on round 2 as a bonus. If you read the other thread several people mentioned ways to stop the summon from killing things with only 3 or lower level spells.
That 400 damage is a "best case" scenario which requries a lot of luck, and nice GM. In short it is a corner cases. Corner cases don't count as proof. Just to be clear if you can only do 400 damage in very contrived scenarios it does not count. In theory I can roll nat 20's 400 times in a row with a melee based character, does that mean that any class that does damage with a melee weapon is broken?
edit:I am still waiting on Black blood troll(BBT) to send me a message about that build you mentioned for the magus. I will answer it, and most likely handle it without needing houserules.
edit2:fixed quote tags.
Just to toss this out there: There are fighter builds that at level 20 with just the PF rules and WBL equipment hit the 348DPR mark. A single potion of enlarge and they hit 390DPR. Add in ANY other attack bonuses and they break 400DPR.
This is using the standard calculations for DPR and Bestiary's table 1-1. Now, I dont know if the 400damage of the nova gun build is DPR or just best case scenario. I have never run the numbers of that particular build (or even looked at it, Im not interested in PF's firearms rules) but I will say this, if it is DPR it still cannot hold a candle to the sustained damage of many fighter builds.
- Gauss
The creator ran the numbers which assumed no misfire and no nat'1s. That is why I said it was a best case scenario. Once I included DR the numbers dropped by a lot. Had I used a caster he would have have to deal with miss chance, and that causes more DPR lost than DR.
Hmmm, have to factor in the misfire and natural 1s. Cannot do a proper DPR otherwise. Although I will admit that I am unsure of how to do a proper DPR on a ranged touch build since Table 1-1 does not give touch ACs. Would have to do an average touch AC of all the bestiary monsters at a given CR.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this thread still going? I appreciate the prolific demonstration of trolling.
cheers
Yup, have to hand it to a certain someone... they are one of the most successful trolls I've seen on these boards in a while.
Unfortunately I think it was complete luck that they stumbled on a topic that happened to hit a lot of nerves.... as the actual intellectual debate has been rather lacking from their end.
Have I actually been using the internet so long that I'm actually tempted to say something along the lines of.... "Back in my day, the trolls..."?
Thanks for the laughs.
ok but wraith right there, 400dpr, you know as well as I do that there are regular well versed PF players that can show you completely OP builds, the fact that I cannot does not mean they do not exist.
I said that someone probably can make an OP build. My point is that OP builds are very rare, if they exist at all, therefore the system is ok. If OP builds were easy to make or common then I would agree with you. I liked 3.5 as much as I liked PF, but I never pretended that some of that stuff never should have been made.
you've now got me wanteing to go out and spend 4 hrs building that damn witch/hexcrafter I would never want to build just to show you how sick it can get. Why should I have to do that? why do I need to prove to you something you already know to be true? that optimized characters are much much much more powerful than non optimized characters. a well optimized character built to do one thing, will always inhabit the far end of that bell curve, and the bell curve is real. saying it does not exist does not change the facts.
All I know is that you are making claims without any backing. A character built to only do one thing is normally weaksauce since it normally had big weaknesses somewhere else. They are actually easier to deal with than a characters that are designed to do less in one area because a character that can do several things is more likely to have an answer. Not knowing that is why I think you should play more before making the statements you make. Characters that only do one thing well are tier one characters in PF, and are at the bottom of the barrel.
ok now go ahead and tell me a 4th level character, who finds a 20th level caster to cast one spell, and builds a 20d6 SG staff for less than 3,000 gp is not OP. oh yeah and any character class can do this.
You need to be more specific than that. How is a 4th level character affording a staff? They can barely afford wands. If a GM gives a 4th level character a staff that is a GM issue. The game has WBL for a reason.
Staves are some of the most overpriced items in the game.
or to be more specific, If I am a dm and an encounter is rated as being perfect for levels 3-5 why do I have to throw a 10-14th level encounter just because a player or two have good system mastery?
That will never happen in a real game if the GM knows what he is doing. You can't show me a 3rd to 5th level party that requires me to go APL+10.
but the very fact that your telling me although I have 6 years of DMing D&D, I need 6 years of DM expirence just in PF to be able to handle an OP PF character tells me the system is broken.
I never said it took me 6 years to do it. I was just saying I am better now than I was 6 or 7 years ago.
Even when I was brand new I would never have needed a CR 13 encounter to handle a 3rd or 5th level party.
Just to be clear I am saying that as a new GM a really good player would have given me a run in 3.5. In PF I don't see that as happening since the only time it happened in 3.5 was more due to me being to nice. Once I realized the player was taking advantage of me being too nice I changed the way I built encounters, and is spot-light stealing, came to an end.
The player was really good against any one creature, but not so good against multiple opponents. His defense also sucked because he put everything into offense. That is why I said builds that only focus on one thing don't fair well.
PS:I also used to make builds that were only good at one thing, but after I got caught twiddling my thumbs a few times I learned to branch out.
My favourite band is Anaal Nathrakh, and I'd be amazed if a single other person on this forum was a fan.
Saw them at Leeds Uni last year and they were awesome. Got a couple of albums and definitely a fan.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
baalbamoth,
I think that some of your ideas for controlling PowerGamers (PG) will not have the effect that you are looking for.
1) 20% rule - the PGs and/or optimizers will still make more powerful characters than those that do not learn the rules as deeply as them. You may actually encourage them to find ways to defeat your purpose, as some may be annoyed enough to actively seek to sabotage your intentions.
2) Regardless of which books you restrict the players to, PGs and/or optimizers will make more powerful characters.
3) stat limitations, PGs and/or optimizers will make more powerful characters.
4) feat limitations, PGs and/or optimizers will make more powerful characters.
I think that everyone can see where I am going with this. It doesn’t really matter what houserules you put in place, PGs and/or optimizers will make more powerful characters.
That’s why I agree with a lot of the other posters and say that GMs need to talk to PGs and/or optimizers. The GM needs to set expectations for the game/campaign for everyone.
If some are feeling left on the sidelines, then the GM needs to look at why that is happening and find solutions for that. I am not saying that every character has to only have optimized choices on them, but they need to understand the consequences of their choices -only taking skill focus as a feat will not lead to a character that will do as well in combat as one that made even a few more combat oriented choices.
My youngest daughter has a fighter that has three feats put into singing and dancing because she wanted her character to be able to do that. She is less optimized for combat than other fighters, but she is the only fighter in the group, so the effect does not leave her feeling left in the sidelines in fights.