I missed that. If the guy knew what he was doing he would have a better will save, and still be putting out good damage.
|
I agree that min/maxing can be a problem. My current character, Rolack has his Int,Wis,Cha all at 10. I didn't do this to min max, but rather, he's my first society player. I'm pretty much going to spend my renown points whenever i get them. If he surives, great! But if he dies, im not going to rez him..lol. He tends to be the hired muscle, even at level 1, but to be fair, because of his 3 ten stats, he has quite the vulnerability to magics that require a Willpower save. (his save is effectively 0,lol) So far, the GM's don't really need to do anything to restrain him, I know he's socially retarded. He doesn't have much in the way of skills, but is a fairly decent Survivalist skillwise.In the end, im pretty confident that with the Pathfinder modules, he will be very limited as to what he can do. I prefer to look at him as a specialist. If Rolack ever does rise thru the ranks of the Andorian faction, he will likely be looked on as a meatshield or the type of muscle that is necissary in any organization.
The point Ossian is making is that one character being more powerful does not equate to powergaming. It could be that one player just has a weak character. What also has to be considered is what each build was designed to do. If one build is made for DPR, and another build is made to trip or grapple then the DPR build should do a lot more damage than the trip build, because that is its main schtick.
PS:I am not taking sides. I just want to see the character sheet when it is posted. :)
I'd much rather have the designers, come out with a new edition fixing all the problems I mentioned... its possible and it would not harm the game... unless your whole goal is to be able to make characters that make the rest of the players feel stupid and weak, personally its not what I get off on in RPGs.
From what I can tell, as someone who's still not a PF expert, that's what the devs did - they took the 3.5E system, which for all it's wonderfulness, was/got too easy to break (just see the WotC Forum CharOp Boards), and fixed a lot of it.
But no system that's any fun at all to play will be "unbreakable" by people who want to break it.
As for the other, perhaps you and the "power-gamer" need to have a chat about how to synergize both your character's schtick's. IMO, as a DM, a two-player tandem where one trips bad guys and the other thwacks 'em when their down is more uber than either alone. You built the melee-combatant-control-build and the other guy built the bruiser-build. He's Mutt to your Jeff, or vice versa, if you want to look at the "positive" side of things.
Now if it's really frustrating the fun of the game for everyone, in your own campaign, then yeah the DM should have a talk with everyone and point out that the point of the game is fun for everyone. Then there's no need to listen to me, or Ossian, or anyone else on this board. After all, it's your group's campaign - and if one player (or several) in it is seen as disrupting the fun of that group, by that group, then even those of us who think, from our opinion, that you're "wrong" are wrong ourselves. Funs in one campaign is not the same as funs in another.
Now if the rest of the group was having fun and you were/are the only one who doesn't like it, then it might be 1) you who need to rethink things and be more relaxed or 2) you might need to find another campaign (yes, not always easy) more suited to your tastes. But here that doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't think, though, that anyone can give a specific list of 'broken' feats, combos, and builds, because except for a few fairly obvious ones (and still people's opinions differ on some of those), what seems "broken" for one campaign might be "just how we roll and have fun" in another. the best advice is to look at the OP builds - have your DM do the same - and decide which is "going too far for the kind of campaign we enjoy," and then limit those.
For those who will reply "but Porphy, that's taking the funs and options out of the game" - 1) no one is limiting your (or my) campaign, they're only doing it in theirs and 2) there are still tons of options and, probably, the player looking to exploit the game will still find a way. So, yeah, in the end it's best to talk to them about toning it down - not to nerf their fun (unless their fun happens to be defined as "overshadowing everyone else and getting schadenfreude out of annoying the other people at the table").
But, no, the game system cannot simply be "fixed forever to provide nothing but the perfect power level I myself want in my campaign" - DM (and player/group) discretion is going to be necessary. Always.
lol he wasnt doing "more dammage" he was doing like 5x my damage, and I was playing a pretty well built fighter. but that wasnt what was upsetting, those other things... ya know about ending the encounters in two rounds, nearly killing the party when he failed the wil save, having the whole party nearly die because of a lucky crit against him... those were the upsetting parts.
IF you really want me to I'll post the whole character I will but, this was a damn good description of what I could do if I didnt feel like I had to hold back in a game... http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz616v?Spear-wielding-warrior-builds#9 as I mentioned... my character is OP also... I just didnt abuse it.
So you created a build that focused on tripping people at range so they don't threaten you(aka control) and have balanced defense and damage, and he built around just doing damage. And he does more damage than you, and also dies to crits. Working as intended.
This is what Ossian was talking about. You can build for survival or damage or a combination of both, but you can't be great at everthing. This is balance.
as for my secrete and muah ha ha evil motivations, guess you didnt read this post...
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz61u5&page=2?OMG-What-have-I-been-missing#62
"Gorbacz- Your right, I'll start another post on advice about fixing the problems rather than b&$+!ing about it, maybe you can convince me I'm wrong about all of this."
a few minutes later I started this thread... so glad you have such a deep insight into my corrupted soul..
Most of us don't read every post on these forums. The name of this thread and the original post lead me to believe you were a GM who wanted to bring the powerlevel of his PCs under control (a common help topic.) But your actual motivations behind your post was that you were frustrated someone else was stealing your spotlight (also a valid complaint, but something that requires entirely different advice.)
You did not intend to confuse people, but you did.
how many examples do powergaming do you want? the magus throwing out 10d6+36 melee attacks while having a 15+ vorpal at 11th level? heck go look at any of the opt threads. your kidding me right?uh just a little point about the terrible DM there... if the slider on powerlevel was not soooooo far into the (ahem) min-maxers favor.. all those things the DM did to control the problem would have worked! so the only difference between a "good" and a "great" dm here according to you... is also broken rules.
as to PG changing his play style.. uh no... I would not be happy if he just changed his focus to totally charming the world, or find other equaly as gross game breaking rule exploit...
I would be happy if I could hand my players a list of things I dont allow and have that stop the players from being able to charm the world or two shot kill any enemy... I would be even more happy if that...
I would even be slightly happy if you could give me some kind of spread sheet showing me what "average" powerlevel is for each character class per level... but in a game where an 8th level fighter could be doing an average DPR of 0 to 200 pts of damage a round... I guess thats not possible... maybe there is a balance issue there? ya think?
...
I'd much rather have the designers, come out with a new edition fixing all the problems I mentioned... its possible and it would not harm the game... unless your whole goal is to be able to make characters that make the rest of the players feel stupid and weak, personally its not what I get off on in RPGs.
You are correct, there are some rules in Pathfinder that are either poorly written or have unintended consequences in terms of power-level of a character. But your advice ("Create a whole new edition and take out what I feel is overpowered.") is not constructive.
This really is a player (or GM) problem. If one guy hogs the spotlight, or abuses a combination of rules, either the player needs the maturity to realize that this ruins the fun for everyone else, or the DM needs to step in an fix it.
And if your GM doesn't know how to fix it? Send him here. These forums have great advice for that sort of thing.
|
uh yeah Ossian, my grammar, punctuation, and fragmented thoughts are whats wrong with this debate... you forgot my spilling.
again what evidence is necessary? are you saying there are not characters that are grossly more powerful than other characters in PF?
what evidence is going to prove any point your trying to make?
you want me to start linking the 500 or so character opt threads or guides that are on this website? really?
I have no problem saying there are clearly more powerful options available. We have 3 pages of me trying to tell you this...remember the comments about the 2H Barbarian vs. 1H Phalanx Fighter? Its evident and every single person in this thread will tell you that, but its hardly "powergaming". Choosing to make a Wizard to blast enemies will obviously be better than making a Bard to blast enemies. But, as stated before everyone is created equal. You had just as much capability to make that character as he did...you chose to do less damage and have a different concept. Everyone flocks to the Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist because of its ability to do damage. I on the other hand opted to go Grenadier and make a smoke bomb based controller. Do I get mad when people do more damage than me? Nope. Because my role isn't to do a lot of damage...its to control the flow of battle and prevent damage. Just as your role in combat shouldn't be to do damage so much as it should be to take damage and tie up enemies. I played a Phalanx fighter that was focused on tripping. He had an insane AC and used a Guisarme to trip opponents...I was a force to be reckoned with but not because of my damage but because I put things on their backs and the Magus in the group would then outright liquify them.
You can link me a gazillion optimization threads...and I will tell you the same thing I have been...OPTIMIZATION IS NOT POWERGAMING!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you want me to start linking the 500 or so character opt threads or guides that are on this website? really?
2-3 specific examples of what you consider broken builds really might help and wouldn't put you out much.
Note that in this thread, while also pointing out my own "power-gaming inclinations" (which aren't as high as some, but are high enough), I've largely taken more-or-less your side against those who seem to be saying "there's nothing wrong with the RAW that a campaign might need to tweek."
But I do think that, since you keep invoking "there are tons of examples" and saying "I'll post the character sheet if you really want," well, maybe you should.
I think cranewings might also be right:
To me, it sounds like your survivability isn't a useful trait because the GM isn't killing people. If he was, you would find the DPS character laughable. You basically need to get on board with what the DPS guy is doing or ask him to play at your level if you built survivability for nothing.
So what will probably happen when you post "broken builds" is people will point out all the ways they could, if they were DMing that campaign, break that broken build over their knee and send it to the scrap pile.
Which does miss the point a bit, if your DM doesn't have that style. Or if a build other posters here sees as "just fine" for the campaigns we're in, but isn't the kind of playstyle that contributes to fun at your campaign's table.
|
|
you want me to start linking the 500 or so character opt threads or guides that are on this website? really?2-3 specific examples of what you consider broken builds really might help and wouldn't put you out much.
Note that in this thread, while also pointing out my own "power-gaming inclinations" (which aren't as high as some, but are high enough), I've largely taken more-or-less your side against those who seem to be saying "there's nothing wrong with the RAW that a campaign might need to tweek."
But I do think that, since you keep invoking "there are tons of examples" and saying "I'll post the character sheet if you really want," well, maybe you should.
I think cranewings might also be right:
To me, it sounds like your survivability isn't a useful trait because the GM isn't killing people. If he was, you would find the DPS character laughable. You basically need to get on board with what the DPS guy is doing or ask him to play at your level if you built survivability for nothing.So what will probably happen when you post "broken builds" is people will point out all the ways they could, if they were DMing that campaign, break that broken build over their knee and send it to the scrap pile.
Which does miss the point a bit, if your DM doesn't have that style. Or if a build other posters here sees as "just fine" for the campaigns we're in, but isn't the kind of playstyle that contributes to fun at your campaign's table.
** spoiler omitted **
Heres the thing though...I've been saying this whole time. Its not 100% the OPs problem, or 100% the GMs problem. I've readily said there are fair ways to make the game fun for every single player at that table, but it is definitely equal parts GM and players responsibility to make it that way...
I also stand by my statements that there is a clear difference between what seems to be readily used interchangably here as "powergaming" and "Min/Maxing". If we get the sheets and the player has managed to find a way through wording of a spell to walk around with a 10 ft. bubble of water around his Lizardfolk to cheese an advantage in fighting due to his race...then I will admit "powergaming", but if he is just a Barbarian that does a lot of damage than there is no way I am going to accuse someone of that...let alone cheating like the OP has.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also... I created my character to be able to be the one guy in the party who could take down his... stop the crit maddness... it was actually plotted a bit with another player and happened the very session after he had killed the other party member.
I do see this character as gross... attempt to trip anyone who comes at you with a CMD of like 30? Get off max AOOs per rnd with combat reflexes and an 18 dex, and dammage anybody who actually succeeds? thats not overpowered? wow I really must be wrong about powerlevels in PF.
My complaint wasnt that "he does more dammage than me!" my complaint was he does more damage than what the AP encounters have been able to handle, and the DM in trying to deal with that, made some decisions which because of the characters over powered nature (*in my opinion) and the players play style, lead to the game not being fun for most of the people in the group.
I guess ultamately you can blame the DM for everything, for letting the player into the group without a background check and blood sample even, but if the system was more balanced not less. the problems would not have existed. I'm not saying the system must be perfect, just less flawed.
and Porphyrogenitus, why should a DM have to create special encounters just to deal with an "greatly optimized" character? why arnt the standard AP encounters enough? ans: because optimization is powergaming.
APs aren't designed for Advanced Races or rolling stats. They are designed for Core books and 15 point buy. If you don't follow the guidelines this is what you get.
|
I do see this character as gross... attempt to trip anyone who comes at you with a CMD of like 30? Get off max AOOs per rnd with combat reflexes and an 18 dex, and dammage anybody who actually succeeds? thats not overpowered? wow I really must be wrong about powerlevels in PF.
Could be worse. He may have been way better if you fought like a team with teamwork feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my complaint was he does more damage than what the AP encounters have been able to handle, and the DM in trying to deal with that
(emphasis added). This is the source of the problem.
APs are great. But they (like, apparently, PFS adventures, though I haven't played those) are built with a "typical average party" in mind. That is, an average gaming group without optimizers. They're built so the kind of characters that the Pregens serve as an example of will be challenged. And one thing everyone notices about Pregens is, they aren't optimized. The average gaming group (which is under-represented at forums; foruming produces a skewed sample) does not consist of optimizers. So the APs aren't written with OPs in mind.
In the Council of Thieves forum last week one GM posted how he modified one major (culminating) encounter in Infernal Syndrome to make it more challenging for his party - because his players have more OP builds and as written the encounter would not be challenging. Note that even after "beefing up" the big bad, the party still "mowed through" it in 2 (or was it 3?) rounds. But still two PCs almost died, and the big reason they won is they came prepared (they had done their legwork/research before going in). (<--- as a player I always want to do this, and as a DM I reward, rather than punish this).
Anyhow the point of my latest long-winded screed is: the APs are great but the DM always needs to adjust/tweek them to challenge (but not overwhelm) the players in their own campaign. Optimized builds will almost always blow through AP encounters (unless they meet one that just happens to exploit all their weaknesses) if those encounters are run as written with no modifications to the beasties.
(Well, that's not quite true. . .but it's default-true). Switching out spell selections and otherwise making sure the mobs and bosses get the most out of their own abilities can help a lot.
But the problem here may not be the optimized build, it's the fact that the "target audience" of published modules/adventure paths is not the optimizer crowd; the writers (I think) assume that in a campaign where people know the rules enough to get the most out of their builds, they will also know the rules enough to rebuild the encounters to make them challenging for the PCs in that campaign.
I really would like to see Tels's list of banned feats (first post) as with so many options that players have, I dont see any great reason why a DM could not say "dont use these as I find them OP" heck many DMs dont even allow whole classes (gunslinger, ninja, samuri, summoner, etc)why is saying "no" to half a dozen feats out of 200 so bad?
why does that make me a player hating fun killing communist DM?
Instead of banning certain feats, because you will always miss something, why not make a list of feats that simplify things and go with that?
A feat of skills that adds +2 to two skills
A feat that gives a +1 to AC or BAB etc
A following feat that increases a previous feat
etc
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my complaint was he does more damage than what the AP encounters have been able to handle, and the DM in trying to deal with that(emphasis added). This is the source of the problem.
APs are great. But they (like, apparently, PFS adventures, though I haven't played those) are built with a "typical average party" in mind. That is, an average gaming group without optimizers. They're built so the kind of characters that the Pregens serve as an example of will be challenged. And one thing everyone notices about Pregens is, they aren't optimized.
In the Council of Thieves forum last week one GM posted how he modified one major (culminating) encounter in Infernal Syndrome to make it more challenging for his party - because his players have more OP builds and as written the encounter would not be challenging. Note that even after "beefing up" the big bad, the party still "mowed through" it in 2 (or was it 3?) rounds. But two characters still almost died, and the big reason they won is they came prepared (they had done their legwork/research before going in).
Anyhow the point of my latest long-winded screed is: the APs are great but the DM always needs to adjust/tweek them to challenge (but not overwhelm) the players in their own campaign. Optimized builds will almost always blow through AP encounters (unless they meet one that just happens to exploit all their weaknesses) if those encounters are run as written with no modifications to the beasties.
(Well, that's not quite true. . .but it's default-true). Switching out spell selections and otherwise making sure the mobs and bosses get the most out of their own abilities can help a lot.
But the problem here may not be the optimized build, it's the fact that the "target audience" of published modules/adventure paths is not the optimizer crowd; the writers (I think) assume that in a campaign where people know the rules enough to get the most out of their builds, they will also know the rules enough to...
I am running CoT weekly and I always have to make changes. That is the first AP using Pathfinder rules, and that was just the PHB. There were no Witches or Corrosive Weapons or Archtypes or anything...thats why those adjustments need made. The APs are also designed for a 4 man group using standard stats and wealth...if you deviate from that it will completely ruin the balance.
PFS on the other hand is the optimizers dream...you HAVE TO OPTIMIZE. If you do not optimize then you will more than likely never see level 8. The PFS modules are brutal and unforgiving. Heck the learners modules includes an encounter in an alley with a Sorceror that uses Color Spray...its known for its TPK...
I am running Kingmaker for a 3-person party - an Oracle, a Magus, and a Barbarian. Since I never start at 1st, and because my players are using rolled stats rather than point-buy, I'm using the 6-player conversions and still barely managing to keep them challenged (save when they stumble into a simply overwhelming encounter, like the two trolls I rolled last session). I imagine once they get a level or two under their belts I'm going to have to start adjusting THOSE encounters.
Going by the book as-written, and starting at 1st like recommended (something I loathe doing regardless of which side of the GM screen I'm on), their stats alone would require some alteration of the base encounters or risk steamrolling at all but the toughest encounters.
|
PFS on the other hand is the optimizers dream...you HAVE TO OPTIMIZE. If you do not optimize then you will more than likely never see level 8. The PFS modules are brutal and unforgiving. Heck the learners modules includes an encounter in an alley with a Sorceror that uses Color Spray...its known for its TPK...
Or a lvl 1 adventure where during the final encounter the castle your fighting in may collapse dealing 10d6 damage lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ugg... im fading here, I need sleep and I'll have to scramble to get to the game after I wake up.
I'm just going to leave it as this...
a while ago I read a post, cant find it now, google wont tell me.. but it was about a guy who watched some kids playing hide and go seek, one of the kids was clearly better at it than all the others... he found the perfect hiding spot one where the guy knew none of the other kids would ever find him and he would be sitting in that spot, missing out on all the fun of running and hiding again and would likely ruin the game for the rest of the kids as he would never ever get found... so the guy yells "GET FOUND!" hoping the kid would give himself up
essentially thats the core of powergaming, or min-maxing, or optimization, or monty-haul players or whatever you want to call it.
people who are damn great at it, make the game less fun for most players (unless all the players want to hide and never get found). if hide and seek had a DM, the DM could ban the hiding spot (ban specific feats or archtypes), or he could demand they play on another field without such a perfect hiding spot (go to a different system)but essentially because a DM would have to do these things, the feild with the perfect hiding spot, is essentially broken.
players dont have to take advantage of it, but the fact that it is there, the fact that it is possible, means the game "can be" ruined...
oh yeah... and there'd always be the guy who complained when his favorote perfect hiding spot was denied...
GET FOUND YA'LL
I'll post characters or whatever later...
Some of us played hide and seek at night, wearing all black clothing.
We found normal hide and seek a little boring.
Your method of enjoying an activity is one method among a nearly infinite amount of equally valid methods.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
essentially thats the core of powergaming, or min-maxing, or optimization, or monty-haul players or whatever you want to call it.
people who are great at it, make the game less fun for most players (unless all the players want to hide and never get found).
It's really sad but this conversation isn't going anywhere. You have no concept of how to play a roleplaying game.
1: Each table is different and there is no bad way to play. If your table doesn't accept well built PCs then simply talk to the player and say "Hey, your character is too well built to play in our under-optimized party could you please tone it down?". Case solved.
2: Optimization can and often does produce characters with great backstory it just depends on the player.
3: Some people prefer their characters operate mechanically great just like they do in their backstory. I'm sorry but you can't be good at everything. Optimizers understand this and hone in on a few niche abilities rather than branching into different fields.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
ugg... im fading here, I need sleep and I'll have to scramble to get to the game after I wake up.
I'm just going to leave it as this...
a while ago I read a post, cant find it now, google wont tell me.. but it was about a guy who watched some kids playing hide and go seek, one of the kids was clearly better at it than all the others... he found the perfect hiding spot one where the guy knew none of the other kids would ever find him and he would be sitting in that spot, missing out on all the fun of running and hiding again and would likely ruin the game for the rest of the kids as he would never ever get found... so the guy yells "GET FOUND!" hoping the kid would give himself up
essentially thats the core of powergaming, or min-maxing, or optimization, or monty-haul players or whatever you want to call it.
people who are damn great at it, make the game less fun for most players (unless all the players want to hide and never get found). if hide and seek had a DM, the DM could ban the hiding spot (ban specific feats or archtypes), or he could demand they play on another field without such a perfect hiding spot (go to a different system)but essentially because a DM would have to do these things, the feild with the perfect hiding spot, is essentially broken.
players dont have to take advantage of it, but the fact that it is there, the fact that it is possible, means the game "can be" ruined...
oh yeah... and there'd always be the guy who complained when his favorote perfect hiding spot was denied...
GET FOUND YA'LL
I'll post characters or whatever later...
You are right your GM can in fact do that. BUT, your GM instead opted to do just the opposite. He put in little pockets of space where only the smart kids could figure out how to climb into and no one would ever find them. That in turn made the other kids upset and made the GM mad...rather than just having everyone come out and start the game over fresh, WITHOUT those pockets of space, the GM then gave the other kids molitov cocktails and told them to go toss them into those pockets of space to murder the smart kid out of spite.
I think that pretty much sums up what is going on in the terms of hide and seek (which to me is a funny analogy).
BTW just so you know...its typically bad form to show up and tell someone that they are having fun wrong...so if you show up to a Pathfinder Society event I' strongly recommend you check that at the door.
Or a lvl 1 adventure where during the final encounter the castle your fighting in may collapse dealing 10d6 damage lol.
LMAO! Oh gawd...our GM was like...REALLY?! How completely and utterly ridiculous...
Yeah, we played, "Assassin" which was hide and seek where you could hide anywhere in the whole neighborhood, but if someone pointed a toy...ugg... im fading here, I need sleep and I'll have to scramble to get to the game after I wake up.
I'm just going to leave it as this...
a while ago I read a post, cant find it now, google wont tell me.. but it was about a guy who watched some kids playing hide and go seek, one of the kids was clearly better at it than all the others... he found the perfect hiding spot one where the guy knew none of the other kids would ever find him and he would be sitting in that spot, missing out on all the fun of running and hiding again and would likely ruin the game for the rest of the kids as he would never ever get found... so the guy yells "GET FOUND!" hoping the kid would give himself up
essentially thats the core of powergaming, or min-maxing, or optimization, or monty-haul players or whatever you want to call it.
people who are damn great at it, make the game less fun for most players (unless all the players want to hide and never get found). if hide and seek had a DM, the DM could ban the hiding spot (ban specific feats or archtypes), or he could demand they play on another field without such a perfect hiding spot (go to a different system)but essentially because a DM would have to do these things, the feild with the perfect hiding spot, is essentially broken.
players dont have to take advantage of it, but the fact that it is there, the fact that it is possible, means the game "can be" ruined...
oh yeah... and there'd always be the guy who complained when his favorote perfect hiding spot was denied...
GET FOUND YA'LL
I'll post characters or whatever later...
Some of us played hide and seek at night, wearing all black clothing.
We found normal hide and seek a little boring.
Your method of enjoying an activity is one method among a nearly infinite amount of equally valid methods.
Yeah, that was the basic idea. No one was really "it", everyone was hiding and everyone was seeking. It was about being the finder and not the found.
We played in a cemetery close to my parent's place so there weren't even street lights.
Every once in a while I think about getting the guys together and playing, but then I remember that a bunch of 30 year old guys in black wearing skimasks running around in the dark is probably going to lead to a police conversation.
PFS on the other hand is the optimizers dream...you HAVE TO OPTIMIZE. If you do not optimize then you will more than likely never see level 8. The PFS modules are brutal and unforgiving. Heck the learners modules includes an encounter in an alley with a Sorceror that uses Color Spray...its known for its TPK...Or a lvl 1 adventure where during the final encounter the castle your fighting in may collapse dealing 10d6 damage lol.
Well I may have to consider organized play for the first time ever, then* (though I always hate the nerfs organized play demands - i.e. no 'scribe scroll' - but, to those who are saying 'RAW is fine' - well, organized play's restrictions on RAW, restrictions that are always introduced so people won't exploit things, sort of disproves that - even though the problem is with those who exploit, rather than necessarily the rules as such).
*I was in the RPGA for awhile but just to get Polyhedron, not to play in RPGA.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly having difficulty determining what you're meaning by "Get found". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and blame it on your obviously-exhausted state, but it really sounds to me like you're saying "If you don't deliberately make your character less-than-optimal and therefore less capable of doing their job, you're playing the game wrong". Which is inching irritatingly close to Ye Olde Stormwind Fallacy.
|
|
PFS on the other hand is the optimizers dream...you HAVE TO OPTIMIZE. If you do not optimize then you will more than likely never see level 8. The PFS modules are brutal and unforgiving. Heck the learners modules includes an encounter in an alley with a Sorceror that uses Color Spray...its known for its TPK...Or a lvl 1 adventure where during the final encounter the castle your fighting in may collapse dealing 10d6 damage lol.Well I may have to consider organized play for the first time ever, then* (though I always hate the nerfs organized play demands - i.e. no 'scribe scroll' - but, to those who are saying 'RAW is fine' - well, organized play's restrictions on RAW, restrictions that are always introduced so people won't exploit things, sort of disproves that - even though the problem is with those who exploit, rather than necessarily the rules as such).
*I was in the RPGA for awhile but just to get Polyhedron, not to play in RPGA.
All the creation type stuff is not allowed because of the Time Vacuum that exists between play and it gives some classes unfair monitary advantage due to the way magic items and purchasing things is handled in PFS play. Technically there is an infinite amount of time between modules even if it doesn't seem that way...so it would make creation feats almost manditory and that isn't a good thing since PFS is only to level 12...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly having difficulty determining what you're meaning by "Get found". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and blame it on your obviously-exhausted state, but it really sounds to me like you're saying "If you don't deliberately make your character less-than-optimal and therefore less capable of doing their job, you're playing the game wrong". Which is inching irritatingly close to Ye Olde Stormwind Fallacy.
I like the way you phrased it so I am voting you for King of Stormwind.
I'm honestly having difficulty determining what you're meaning by "Get found". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and blame it on your obviously-exhausted state, but it really sounds to me like you're saying "If you don't deliberately make your character less-than-optimal and therefore less capable of doing their job, you're playing the game wrong". Which is inching irritatingly close to Ye Olde Stormwind Fallacy.I like the way you phrased it so I am voting you for King of Stormwind.
Amusingly, my homebrew setting has a continent called Stormwind, and one of the three countries on it is indeed a monarchy. (The second is also but their monarch is a Rajah/Rajahni rather than a King/Queen, and the third is a loose confederacy for the civilized parts and barbarian tribes for the rest.)
|
|
Amusingly, my homebrew setting has a continent called Stormwind, and one of the three countries on it is indeed a monarchy. (The second is also but their monarch is a Rajah/Rajahni rather than a King/Queen, and the third is a loose confederacy for the civilized parts and barbarian tribes for the rest.)I'm honestly having difficulty determining what you're meaning by "Get found". I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and blame it on your obviously-exhausted state, but it really sounds to me like you're saying "If you don't deliberately make your character less-than-optimal and therefore less capable of doing their job, you're playing the game wrong". Which is inching irritatingly close to Ye Olde Stormwind Fallacy.I like the way you phrased it so I am voting you for King of Stormwind.
Quick change your display name here to Varian Wrynn!
The challenge level in PFS varies so much depending on GM tactics. Properly run it can get lethal but sometimes the bad guys just charge into a wall of polearms and then try to drink a potion.
All the creation type stuff is not allowed because of the Time Vacuum that exists between play and it gives some classes unfair monitary advantage due to the way magic items and purchasing things is handled in PFS play.
Well, right, but that's the point - those abilities & feats could be and thus would be (by at least some; and as soon as I saw others doing it and getting away with it, I'd join in because I'm not going to be left behind) exploited to death in organized play, so they have to be removed.
IJS that kind of thing may apply to specific campaigns, too, and will be different depending on the campaign, the tone desired in the campaign, and how something helps or hinders the fun in that campaign.
For example, I tend to like my PCs, the heroes of the campaign, to be, well, heroic. So my default style isn't suited to a "grim and gritty"/"low fantasy" campaign. But if I were to join one (because, for example, I thought it would be fun for other reasons), I wouldn't bring the same kind of character/build to that campaign as I would to another (one that followed my preferred style).
Another example of this, IMO, are the occasional/frequent "sweet-spot" threads where everyone gives their opinion of the level range at which they find the game most fun, after which they think it loses its luster and they want to retire. Me, I always like at least the idea of getting to high levels (naturally, some chars don't survive, or the campaign doesn't go on long enough) - otherwise, you're missing out on half to two thirds of the "cool stuff" published for the game. "No matter what happens, you'll never see L.13", by default, makes me a sad panda (still, I'm sure I could find the funs in campaigns where they didn't go higher. Back in the day, we rarely played past "name level" just 'cause in our campaigns it tended to be hard to level much after that. Eventually we had one go long enough to get really high level, but it was the exception).
Point is: while in general I probably share your (ossian, and the other peeps with similar views) outlook more than I do baalbamouth's, I'm not jumping on him as hard, and I understand his point (I think), because a lot of this is a matter of taste and what is fun for some isn't what others are looking for in a game.
that said, it is true he won't find an objective system for which feats/powers/spells/combos to suggest to his DM to take out of or limit/houserule for their campaign; that will be a matter of judgement calls and making sure every participant in that campaign plays well with others - with the example above being a standard: I wouldn't bring my normal "high fantasy OP build" to a "grim and gritty, low-powered" campaign, even though my personal tastes run to the former. (It's not a perfect analogy).
You actually can get to 13 in PFS if you do the retirement arc (which is awesome) and go past that by doing modules, but sweet spots aside, there just aren't a lot of people who get up there so they don't spend limited resources on making much content for them. Plus, the game gets harder to run around that level, especially with a 4-hour time limit.
Certainly, it kind of sucks if you like high-level play, but you kind of have to bow to the exigencies of the format. But hey, modules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
also... I created my character to be able to be the one guy in the party who could take down his... stop the crit maddness... it was actually plotted a bit with another player and happened the very session after he had killed the other party member.
I do see this character as gross... attempt to trip anyone who comes at you with a CMD of like 30? Get off max AOOs per rnd with combat reflexes and an 18 dex, and dammage anybody who actually succeeds? thats not overpowered? wow I really must be wrong about powerlevels in PF.
That is not overpowered. You are wrong about power-levels in PF.
The character you created is very good at 1 thing. He is not close to overpowered. Unless your GM only sends humanoids with non-reach melee weapons at you, you have set yourself up to be worthless in a number of situations.
The things your character will have trouble with include, but are not limited to: ranged physical damage, flying creatures, magic users, swarms, oozes, spiders, large creatures, and other humanoids with reach weapons.
GET FOUND YA'LL
And how much fun is it if 4 players hide well except the 1 person that stands in plain sight? As has been previously posted, most game-balance issues are the result of the group not being on the same level.
1 person being worthless in an optimized group is a problem just as much as 1 person being over-optimized in normal group. Again, this is a player problem, not a rules problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are reasons that people turn to powergaming.
One of the most common reasons in my experience is actually "self defense". If a GM runs a high pressure campaign, where people are constantly pushed to the edge, the opposition is tough, and weaker characters die easily, then the natural response would be to meet hard with hard.
This is very common with GMs that have control issues. They envision how stuff is going to go, and when it does not, he gets upset. He needs to control everything, including how fast a PC can defeat an enemy. Disregarding the fact that in order to do high damage, you will be lacking in other regards.
Unless your GM only sends humanoids with non-reach melee weapons at you, you have set yourself up to be worthless in a number of situations.
And if that IS all you're facing, you're either dealing with a GM who is deliberately catering to this one player's combat style by hurling opponents that s/he can easily beat at him in droves, or one who's stuck in a rut as far as enemies go and doesn't want to step outside his/her comfort zone.
In either case the problem is not the rules in this case. It's the GM not using all of the tools at his/her disposal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are reasons that people turn to powergaming.
One of the most common reasons in my experience is actually "self defense". If a GM runs a high pressure campaign, where people are constantly pushed to the edge, the opposition is tough, and weaker characters die easily, then the natural response would be to meet hard with hard.
This is very common with GMs that have control issues. They envision how stuff is going to go, and when it does not, he gets upset. He needs to control everything, including how fast a PC can defeat an enemy. Disregarding the fact that in order to do high damage, you will be lacking in other regards.
Thats a real problem with GMs that feel Pathfinder/D&D is a game between the GM and the players where one side has to win. If the GM looks at the game as a competition then problems like this will arise. The GM's goal should never be to "win D&D".
The problem for this GM is it appears he is running an AP (which I'd also like to know what AP he is running) and very stringent when it comes to following the AP. If he doesn't start being smart about it he is really going to have issues when the players start to meet the apex of the AP (around level 8-12). He allowed Advanced Races and rolled stats which already blow that out of the water, but just buffing the AP monsters in HP and Damage isn't the correct fix. Heck I started a thread about almost this exact same thing just last week! My players are all DPR players and the monsters are designed to be similar...it was a race to the death every week and this past week one of my players lost!
And if that IS all you're facing, you're either dealing with a GM who is deliberately catering to this one player's combat style by hurling opponents that s/he can easily beat at him in droves, or one who's stuck in a rut as far as enemies go and doesn't want to step outside his/her comfort zone.
In either case the problem is not the rules in this case. It's the GM not using all of the tools at his/her disposal.
Yea I kind of tried to point that out earlier, but was immediately jumped on like I was telling the guy his GM was a complete failure. Thats why I told him to have his GM post here...there is a good group of us that are good at what we do and can probably help him fix things in a way that is both fun and fair.
But remember like I said above...he is playing an AP so it sounds (now this is according to the OP) like he is just reading from the book and rolling what he sees on the pages.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Baalbamoth:
Min/maxing or powergaming is just a style of play, and not the root cause of the evils at your gaming table, at least from what you describe. The root cause sounds like someone at your table is breaking the social contract with the group, and your GM isn't capable of or isn't choosing to do anything about it. See my earlier post.
From what you are describing, the player is hogging the spotlight, dominating the game, and making it un-fun for other players. It also sounds like the problem is compunded by the fact that the GM is either limited by time, desire, or capability in being able to adjust the AP to compensate for the player's strengths. While these are both frustrating, neither of these issues is caused by powergaming, rather it is happening because of shortfalls in how the situation is managed.
I totally empathize with your frustration, I have been their myself before as a player, which is why I am usually a GM. When you are the GM, you have a lot more tools available to remedy this type of situation and change it around to being fun again.
I think something that would very much help this discussion is if at least one of you defined the terms you are using clearly.
I can clearly see terms like power game, optimize, min/max, munchkin, etc... used for what are actually fairly different concepts. Most (but not all) the posters on these boards see these as different things not interchangeable nicknames for the same thing.
To Baalbamoth,
I think your real problem is a jerk player not a game design problem. If someone decides to be a jerk and ruin everyone elses' fun, the game system does not matter. He will find a way. That leads back to what a lot of us said at the beginning. It requires a conversation with the individual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Why is it that Baal is the good guy and his friend is the jerk player.Two guys make characters.
One guy makes a no defense / all attack character and wins.
One guy makes a half attack character and can't contribute.
Both players say, "make your character more like mine."
One guy says, "I'm winning. You change to be like me. I'm having fun and don't want to change."
The other guy says, "my character would be fun if you made a weaker one. you change."
You can probably tell which one I think it being more correct. The person with the problem has a responsibility to fix the problem on his own if he can.
Well... technically... I didn't say which one was being the jerk. =)
But seriously, I and all the rest of us are admittedly only hearing from one side of the debate.
Saying absolutely nothing about the builds, because I don’t think that is the real problem. From the descriptions of what happens during game time. One player is not cooperating he is competing with the other players. He enjoys taking the spotlight away from the other players. He doesn’t care if anyone else has fun or not. He liked the fact that he was made to kill the other players. He doesn’t care if all the other players fail when he has a problem. And finally, all the other players and the GM are upset with the individual not just the poster.
Having said that, I also don’t think it is all a one sided problem. One person is trying to play a different game than everyone else at the table. If it was all one sided I don’t think it could be resolved and they just shouldn’t game together. I believe there are problems all around. No one wants to deal with it and are trying so hard to avoid a confrontation that they are blaming social interaction problems on the game system. I don’t like confrontations either, but avoiding them like this just makes pressure build up until there is an explosion of feelings and everyone ends up feeling bad.
|
|
I think something that would very much help this discussion is if at least one of you defined the terms you are using clearly.
I can clearly see terms like power game, optimize, min/max, munchkin, etc... used for what are actually fairly different concepts. Most (but not all) the posters on these boards see these as different things not interchangeable nicknames for the same thing.
To Baalbamoth,
I think your real problem is a jerk player not a game design problem. If someone decides to be a jerk and ruin everyone elses' fun, the game system does not matter. He will find a way. That leads back to what a lot of us said at the beginning. It requires a conversation with the individual.
Yea...I don't think the other guy is a jerk or a "powergamer". Can't fault a guy for making a character within the guidelines he was presented.
As far as definition of 'powergaming" and "min/maxing", I think I did a decent job of differentiating. As well as a few other people's inputs in the past few pages.
Min/maxing is just taking penalties to make yourself really good at another thing. So like dropping Charisma to 7 on your fighter so you can bump his Strength to 18.
"Powergaming" is using the wording or vague definitions in the book to "exploit" or "cheese" the system. My example for this would be like using the weapon cords to be a dual wielding pistol Gunslinger, or taking 4 levels of Alchemist for 2 Vestigial arms so you can dual wield two 2H weapons. Both were not intended by the designers, but due to "clever use of game mechanics" can be used.