|
This is 1 of the prime reasons y i stay away from modules being that it is to easy for players to overwhelm the DM that follows the rules. I being a DM and player that follows the rules as written finds all the players actions so far reasonable. Though to help u out ur gona actually have to take the time and modify the encounters. There is a simple equation to calculate encounters that ive been using since 2e. Monster AC = the sum of all party member's to hit divided by the number of party members. Using the number u just obtained can then be decreased or increased to make a fight more difficult for the non caster classes. Same equation for determining the monster's to hit except u use the part's AC. Also, be smart and use the terrain to ur advantage like having archers attack then move behind a tree for cover. Climate and terrain make a hue difference in real combat some thing that the APs dont cover in enough detail like how windy an area is and how often does fog occur and 1 of y favorite being how stable the ground is in certain areas. If u know this then its easy to set ambushes and use natural environment to conceal u and ur actions.
|
APs are designed for 15pt-buy, not 25pt-buy. So it's no surprise things have gotten out of whack. They're also (said) to be doable for non-optimized parties, so if the party is optimized, it's going to be very easy for them.
Your players may be right that "they've done nothing wrong", and "we didn't break any rules", but it's obvious there's a problem.
Given these circumstances, I think it's not unreasonable to give the monsters the Advanced template for free (no additional XP/treasure); the PCs are practically Advanced as well. Since we're trying to balance PCs vs. monsters, we have to either take away from the PCs, or add to the monsters.
You can also give this choice to the players: "Guys, this isn't quite working out. You're just more powerful than the adventure was designed to be. Now we can do either of these two things: you rebuild with 15 point buy, or I make everything Advanced. What would you prefer?"
---
Next up, monster tactics. A monster that just attacks everything on sight is like a rabid kitten in a zoo - unlikely to grow to a ripe old age. "Professional" monsters and NPCs spy on enemies for a bit to figure out what they're dealing with, and how to handle it. They look at PC gear, companions, formation, who's leading, who isn't wearing any armor, to figure out what each PC might be capable of, and who might be vulnerable. A clever NPC might turn invisible, summon some random monsters and have those monsters attack the PCs, to diminish some PC resources, and to learn what the PCs can do and what doesn't work against the PCs.
Next up is formulating the battle plan. What does the NPC want? To stop the PCs from getting somewhere? To prevent the PCs from escorting a specific NPC? To steal their stuff? To just eliminate the PCs wholesale?
Figure out tactics that will get you there, rather than just frontal charging.
* Send in decoy summoned monsters from one side so that all the frontliners concentrate there, then attack the spellcasters in the rear.
* Wait until the PCs make camp, then attack when they're asleep.
* Send in illusions or summoned monsters several times per day, to exhaust their buffs; the PCs will become wary about using all buffs every fight, which means that in the real battle they won't use everything immediately, giving you some time to inflict real damage. Faking an attack can be really easy; if you're lying in concealment, just cast a Fog Cloud and a low-level Summon Monster. You've expended only two spells, but the party worries because they don't know what or how many creatures they're facing, so can they really afford not to expend buffs?
* Since you have an idea about who's who in the party, target people with the right attacks. Try to mind-control the stupid strong warrior types, surround the wizard with flankers that block escape and have actions readied to interrupt spellcasting, and send in the Touch Attack monsters to deal with the frontliners.
* Don't fight the eidolon, just distract it with expendable minions, while you try very hard to take out the summoner.
I want to play a witch in your campaign. And I would never, EVER want to play any of those poor non-caster chumps who actually have to roll dice to succeed at anything.
Those non-casters also get critical hits. You can also have something bad happen to the caster if the target rolls a natural 20 on the save.
When I face these kinds of issues I try different things until I find something that works for the group and that feels fair to everyone. The players NEED challenges for the game to be exciting and fun. If they cut down all enemies like a hot knife through warm butter the game will get boring fast...for everyone.
This is a very bad idea. First players really don;t like the items they earned taken away.
I disagree with this. I try to avoid player death unless the player is on his hands and knees begging to be killed. Thus, one way I keep things tense is by giving and taking away cool items. Imagine a fighter in the middle of a dungeon when his +3 sword loses all magical enchantment. He has a moment of "Oh Crap!". If it happens to everyone in the game, then the players see it as fair and part of the challenge. So after he has to fight for a while with a non-magical sword the fighter eventually gets a slightly better weapon as a reward.
Players have to lose in order to savor the victories. One great way for them to lose is take away treasure/weapons/magic items. Then later reward them with new ones. It works, try it.
Reworking the enemies so that their strengths mean nothing is not fun. Thats playing calvinball and if thats all your campaigns are then you might as well just put the dice away and let the gm tell you a cool bedtime story about cool way that he snuffed or nearly snuffed out the bright light that was once your character.
Making a game fun is more than just 'making combat challenging'.
I had a guy in our group who consistantly dominated combat scenarios which the gm felt made the game unfun, but what was really happening was the gm couldnt find any other way to make the campaign fun but to beat the tar out of the party, which wasnt fun for any of us. The player knew the gm was a gamist and was demanding a more meaningful experience.
I'd like to blame gamism, but even that isnt the issue. A palladium rifts campaign can be fun as hell and theres some ludicrous power in that setting. The campaign i'm in now has a narrativist gm who is in love with 1st edition warhammer. Every episode is an attempt to guarantee the players feel the world is grim and perilous. You know your characters options are to 'die gloriously' or 'die ungloriously' and usually with an added spice of 'regardless of what the dice say' and 'possibly by complete surprise'... So the only fun you can have in the campaign is making your life interesting until he smites you on a whim. This isnt fun either. The only way narrativist grimdark is fun is if everyone at the table thinks the narrative is awesome. When my warhammer grimdark buddy was shocked to find out I wasnt enjoying the narrativist 'grim and perilous' campaign the only way I could describe it to him was 'if the gm came up to you and said 'i've got an awesome my little pony/sugar rush campaign all written up. It's gonna be great' would you have jumped on board?
I'm not saying nobody likes challenging combat. I'm saying sometimes there's more to gaming than challenging combat, and theres definitely more places in a pathfinder campaign to find fun than 'exclusively' in challenging combat. Otherwise adventure paths would be just a list of page number references in the bestiaries.
If the players have shown you that through armor class optimization they really dont want to have armor class be a weakness, and that makes beating on them no fun, you dont undo what they've done. You find the fun someplace else than pounding on their armor class. You've got a huge advantage here as a gm because if that's all the party focused on, well, there's tons of problems that cant be solved by having a high armor class.
The fumble deck hurts all types of PCs quite well, including spell-casters. It is very hard to lose an item with that deck.
That being said, it would not solve OP's problem.
If a wizard casts a spell without a attack roll, just how does he fumble?
If a wizard casts a spell without a attack roll, just how does he fumble?The fumble deck hurts all types of PCs quite well, including spell-casters. It is very hard to lose an item with that deck.
That being said, it would not solve OP's problem.
It is true that he does not, but he is less capable of soaking the fumble when he does manage to fumble (since melee characters can deal with the hp or physical damage/bleed effects more easily).
so if the eidilon can get to 28 AC, cant they cast shield on it to get him to 32?
The summoner doesn't have to cast all the buffs. They have other party members.
If you can afford the time, create an NPC that would be played like a PC, and make it REALLY AWESOME. That way, if it get's to a point where something like the AC optimized PCs are having it way to easy, introduce you new PC and give them an encounter with something they have no hopes of beating. You are responsible for teaching your players that they are not gods, and that actions have consequences. It's a similar thing that I do, only I use the NPCs I create for inspiration in writing. For example: my 20th lvl Sword Saint Dread Vampire, that thanks to a loophole in the wording, Literally cannot be killed in combat.
From a Players perspective on this tho....
We usually play 10-15 pt builds, or some non optimal dice roll.
With a party of 4, we usually try to collaborate building a party with four characters, rather than building four individuals who eventually meet. Specifically, we come together with the purpose of adventuring, and being role playing before equipment is bought.
As such, we usually pool our money.
This gives us heavy armor off the bat. If we don't have a fighter or paladin, we usually have a human cleric that takes heavy armor proficiency.
Half plate, and a heavy shield gives a 20 AC at 1st level.
That's usually an initial tactical goal.
at 1st level, goblins and such aren't going to be able to hit you with a 20 AC unless they roll exceptionally well..... This is a point of heavy armor.
in the same party there is usually some kind of light armored switch hitter (ranger, magus, inquisitor) who might get 'gimped' at first due to lack of gold.
when we played CoT, this was an elf ranger, who could only afford leather studded armor, a wooden shield, a spear and a shortbow. But it worked fine. (this was eventually a TWF devil slayer build)
In these cases the first encounters are "treasure" woo hoo a longsword! Mine!
Then there is usually a full caster and a rogueish type that usually dont need much money.
most of our early tactics depend on this tank.
The players in the OP example aren't doing anything different.
There is one well noted time this really backfired on our usual gaming style.
Souls for smugglers shiv. The dwarven paladin in heavy armor almost always sank in something, followed by the monk always trying to pull him out, save him, dislodge him or whatever, leaving the witch and...I cant recall the other players character, do deal with the bad guys alone....
Terrain, a dumpy dwarf, and heavy armor dont mix.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I totally sympathize and all of the suggestions are good ones. Unfortunately the problem remains that optimized characters can make the game boring for a GM and sometimes the players themselves. One trick ponies are boring. One trick ponies usually have a "one trick weakness". That makes them easy to deal with but also boring to deal with. It is easy for every encounter to go down the same path. I don't think there is any solution to this but it just points out that rounded generalized PC's although "weaker" are more interesting to play and GM for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, psychology makes us build characters that we would want to be. We would want to be Achilles. So we build a character like Achilles. Unfortunatley, who really wants to play a character that can't be harmed. Is there any drama in that? Any suspense? No, not really. But part of the game is becoming more and more powerful and we forget that it is the struggle/danger that is entertaining, not the dominance.
Thanks again, everyone for letting your collective brain power loose on my frustrations.
I’ve just come home from your weekly game and I’m happy to report that the Summoner had rebuild his eidolon to focus less on AC, and the earthy monk/druid seemed to keep his AC boosting down as well.
Talking to my players did help – as did reviewing the Eidolon (as a lot of you guys suggested).
The players got roughed up quite a lot when they camped basically on the bad guys doorstep – one PC dead, one PC paralyzed and a couple of PC’s with single-digit dexterity. In the next combat encounter, the summoner ended up deep in negative hp territory with his Eidolon long gone.
The review of the rebuilded Eidolon turned up quite a few mistakes. Most of which, I’m sure also existed in the high-AC Eidolon.
The Eidolon had been build with at least 3 evolution points too many (+1 due to misreading the table, +2 due to him having the Eidolon take Extra Evolution as it’s feats – something that I know that I had talked to him about earlier, but that he seems to have forgotten or ignored).
The player were also applying Augmented Summoning on the Ritual-called Eidolon as well as having misunderstood the entry for Bite (he applied +1/2 strength bonus on damage) and also had an unsupported opinion on how much damage the Gore attack gives when used charging.
So I won’t be dropping the ban-hammer on the Summoner class. Not now, at least (even though the player feels like I just dropped a hammer on his toy).
I think that we’ve broken the negative Optimization loop for now, and I surely will be reviewing that darn Eidolon at every twist and turn.
And TBH if a GM doesn't have time to prepare anything he shouldn't be GM-ing.
True. Everyone in our group really want to play – but none of us really has the time required to prep to the level that we would like. It’s not an ideal situation, but it probably will get better in about 20-25 years when we start hitting retirement-age.
I'm not saying nobody likes challenging combat. I'm saying sometimes there's more to gaming than challenging combat, and theres definitely more places in a pathfinder campaign to find fun than 'exclusively' in...
Part of the premise of an AP is that the PC’s should be winning. PC’s overcomes encounters and keeps the campaign rolling forward – with the occational setback to keep the illusion of failure as an option.
I have played in gritty games where it felt like we were going nowhere. Every session started with trying to overcome the setback that we had ended the last session with. One step forward, just to experience being pushed back into the same, muddy trenches. That’s not really the kind of game that I want to GM.
Several of you have suggested that I should just let the players optimize and then work around their strengths and hit their weaknesses. Present them with challenges that cannot be solved by their optimizations (AC, in this case).
I guess that my situation is that I feel that the ”high AC” optimizations did take out too many of the (combat) challenges described in the AP.
Yes – the 25 pt point buy is much too generous. It’s our first Pathfinder campaign – and I wanted to give the players options to explore the new rules and classes. So far, I do agree, however, with the poster that stated that the high point-buy helps the other PC’s in keeping up with the Eidolon.
Yeah – we’re a danish gaming group – so playing the Jade Regent thru’ The Land of the Linnorms and later the artic regions is a blast.
Again: Thanks for your support and suggestions – it has been much appreciated and has already had a positive effect on our group.
/ Henning
Aid another, buff potions/spells, flanking, higher ground, trip. These are all great ways to hit high ACs without becoming the arbitrary cheese jerk GM. Don't be lazy. Be smart.
I hit AC 27 today with a level 1 character during convention play. You should be able to hit AC 30 on a 15 or better with a little team work. It's really not that hard.
And TBH if a GM doesn't have time to prepare anything he shouldn't be GM-ing.True. Everyone in our group really want to play – but none of us really has the time required to prep to the level that we would like. It’s not an ideal situation, but it probably will get better in about 20-25 years when we start hitting retirement-age.
No need to get snippy about it. I'm sure you have a free 5-15 minutes every day, you should be able to adjust 1-3 encounters during that time.
I'm assuming you have at LEAST a week between each session, so by the time the next week rolls around you should have the next two session's worth of encounters tweaked and prodded to your liking.
I'm glad that the situation is better.
From what you said I calculate that the eidolon lost roughly the equivilent of 13 evolution points (3 base, 8 for the stat points from aug summoning, 1 for bite damage, and 1 for gore though I don't know what was going on with gore). To put it into perpestive a level 20 summoner's edolion gets 26 points base so it's no surprise that it feels like a hammer was taken to it.
You may well have it in hand but I'd still like to see the eidolon sheet to check for further errors :D.
Congrats on combining a lot of good advice from this thread, and good to hear that you are "having fun" again it sounds!
Much has been repeated over and over, but I don't believe i saw anywhere in the 125 posts, the idea to pit the players against themselves. (perhaps in the "mirror" post)
Find a good roleplaying way to have 1 (or more) of them become the "enemy". Dominate, charm, control, copy... of course I wouldn't condone a constant PvP, but when trying to level the playing field, it doesn't get any more level, than same.
A long time ago, in my early gaming years, a sneaky doppleganger isolated a member of our party (me) and then took my place. The GM then (secretly) had me play my character, but would have me cause "situations" for the rest of the party and even fight them. Once the party was able to "defeat" me, the GM brought me back in as myself. You could pre-meditate this scenario and intentions with your "victim" before the group begins the session. Call them prior to day of session, ask him/her to come early and discuss before others arrive.
Make a copy of the players' character sheets and make a party of
your "anti-characters". Do they each square off against the "bizzaro" them, focus on THEIR perceived biggest threat, wolf pack each one seperately, ect...
I must voice my opinion on some previous suggestions...
I think forcing them to scale down, change, re-roll, and forbid use of legal material (feats, magic items, class features, ect.) is WRONG! To top the list, do not BAN an entire LEGAL class! These players put a lot of time, effort, and thought, into creating AND playing them to 5th level already. If I showed up and was told, "you can't play the legal character you been playing for the last X months/years!" I would react negatively. I emphasize legal, to account for the previous discovery of the mis-interpretation of evolution points.
After 15 years as player and GM, you know you can alter whatever needs to be altered, but always remember your original reason for posting this thread, the players and you are there to have fun together, and whoever is GM'ing, it is their job to try and direct the fun.
The players got roughed up quite a lot when they camped basically on the bad guys doorstep – one PC dead, one PC paralyzed and a couple of PC’s with single-digit dexterity. In the next combat encounter, the summoner ended up deep in negative hp territory with his Eidolon long gone.
I GM more than I play, but I'd feel more than a little upset if I was *strongly* encouraged to nerf to my character, only to have him killed in the very next encounter. If your player isn't upset, he might still feel a little betrayed. And if neither are the case, nothing lost then. However, I'd suggest giving your players a few sessions to adjust to their new vulnerabilities, or at the very least giving them one or two redo's as they learn to play their character's differently.
Well I dunno if he was encouraged to nerd, so much as he was audited. The Eidlion was built wrong.
I think the DM just trusted the PC had made the Eidlion right. The new one being wrong means the first one was wrong too.
Well I dunno if he was encouraged to nerd, so much as he was audited. The Eidlion was built wrong.
I think the DM just trusted the PC had made the Eidlion right. The new one being wrong means the first one was wrong too.
:) I don't think that the Summoner died, and I agree that his Eidolon was probably off to begin with.
I'm not sure who the other character was that was asked to drop his AC, but as a group, they were built around a tactical dynamic, which the OP has tossed out the window by pretty much saying: Nerf AC or I quit. He may not have put it in those terms, but it reads that way. As a player, I would feel horrible knowing that my GM wasn't enjoying himself, and would also not want to lose the time and energy I've put into this particular campaign.
And so Forced doesn't have to mean badgered, it can mean pressured. I don't fault the OP, he did what was right for himself and probably the group as a whole--it will be easier to challenge them now. However, if a TPK is thought to be a success on his part, I'm saying he may not realize that he's upsetting his players. Forced to Nerf, and then killed. That's awful too. And so I'm suggesting that he give them time to adjust.
i think the other player was an Oread Druid/Monk.
It was just super unique combinations im sure, which i typically refer to as power gaming.
Nerf means LOWER than STANDARD power.
I dont think anyone was asked to nerf, they were asked to de-exploit.
personally I wouldnt allow races like oread. but I dunno if that has anything to do with the Ac thing.
but if you are accustomed to being bullet proof, and you take off your vest, chances are the next gun fight you are going to get nailed. They will change tactics im sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
too late for the start BUT:
Our general house-rule for APs has been:
1) Tier 1, 10 Point Build
2) Tier 2, 15 Point Build
3) Tier 3, 20 Point Build
4) Tier 4&5, 25 point Build
============================================================
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard, Master Summoner, Half Elf Casters w/ access to Paragon Surge.
Tier 2: Oracle, Psion, Sorceror, Summoner.
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Ninja, Magus, Psychic Warrior, Rogue, Wilder.
Tier 4: Barbarian, Cavalier, Monk (Hungry Ghost) , Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Soulknife.
Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk.
============================================================
Helps resolve some of the issues you mentioned.
|
too late for the start BUT:
Our general house-rule for APs has been:
1) Tier 1, 10 Point Build
2) Tier 2, 15 Point Build
3) Tier 3, 20 Point Build
4) Tier 4&5, 25 point Build
============================================================
Tier 1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard, Master Summoner, Half Elf Casters w/ access to Paragon Surge.Tier 2: Oracle, Psion, Sorceror, Summoner.
Tier 3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Ninja, Magus, Psychic Warrior, Rogue, Wilder.
Tier 4: Barbarian, Cavalier, Monk (Hungry Ghost) , Paladin, Ranger, Samurai, Soulknife.
Tier 5: Fighter, Gunslinger, Monk.
============================================================
Helps resolve some of the issues you mentioned.
What I find funny is that you have rogue, who is generally seen right there with the monk at bottom of the barrel above barbarian (Top general DPS really) and paladin (Top tank...and top DPS against anything they can smite).
What's more...So...one level of paladin and 19 levels of wizard then? And if you say no to that, how would you go about somebody who wants to make an EK? The standard EK build might be tier 1 or 2 at high levels...but give it 10 point buy and it wont survive level 1.
Never liked tier bases stats generation system. Even assuming you can even REMOTELY get a group to agree that the tier you came up with is fair, it has issues with MCing.
What I find funny is that you have rogue, who is generally seen right there with the monk at bottom of the barrel above barbarian (Top general DPS really) and paladin (Top tank...and top DPS against anything they can smite).
Contrary to popular opinion, the Tier system has nothing to do with DPS. It is not about outright power. It is based on your ability to fill a specific role, and whether or not you can fill other roles as well. It is a versatility test, of capability both IN combat and OUT of combat. It is NOT not a DPS test.
Short Version:
Tier 1: Huge potential for game breaking. Can fill any role.
Tier 2: Very good at many things, but without the breaking potential of Tier 1 classes.
Tier 3: Very good at one thing, but also capable of meaningfully contributing to other areas.
Tier 4: One Trick pony, but very, very good at that one trick (Such as Damage)
Tier 5: One trick pony, but others are better at your trick.
When you pick your character, you pick your class(es) your buy is based on the highest tier.
What's more...So...one level of paladin and 19 levels of wizard then? And if you say no to that, how would you go about somebody who wants to make an EK? The standard EK build might be tier 1 or 2 at high levels...but give it 10 point buy and it wont survive level 1.
Yes, 10 points. Lots of wizards survive well past level 1 on ten points, I promise. And yes, the point buy limits, drastically, the potential for cheese. That is why we use it. So no, you cannot build the super warrior who also has uber mage spells.
Never liked tier bases stats generation system. Even assuming you can even REMOTELY get a group to agree that the tier you came up with is fair, it has issues with MCing.
It took us (we rotate which of the group GM's at each new AP) about 5 minutes to agree once the tier system was shown and explained. Although we occasionally swap between tier 4 and 5, nothing much changes in tiers 1-3.
Yes, 10 points. Lots of wizards survive well past level 1 on ten points, I promise. And yes, the point buy limits, drastically, the potential for cheese. That is why we use it. So no, you cannot build the super warrior who also has uber mage spells.
*Bops forehead*
Ah, silly me!
I forgot that the only possible reason for multiclassing is for cheese, not because the combination would be fun to play or fit your character concept.
I also forgot that multiclassing gives you the best of both worlds, especially for casters. As we all know, a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is much more effective than a straight Wizard.
Thank you for opening my eyes to this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope no one wants to do a mystic theurge on a 10 point buy :D
Yes, 10 points. Lots of wizards survive well past level 1 on ten points, I promise. And yes, the point buy limits, drastically, the potential for cheese. That is why we use it. So no, you cannot build the super warrior who also has uber mage spells.*Bops forehead*
Ah, silly me!
I forgot that the only possible reason for multiclassing is for cheese, not because the combination would be fun to play or fit your character concept.
I also forgot that multiclassing gives you the best of both worlds, especially for casters. As we all know, a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is much more effective than a straight Wizard.
Thank you for opening my eyes to this.
Would you use a scaling Point-buy that suits your own sense of power-differential? Is that not a valid way of making the less powerful and versatile classes at least be competitive at what they do when stacked against the T1s? I agree that 10's a little low for our table, but what about the idea itself?
One thing to keep in mind here is something my friends and I came to the receiving end of.
Are the monsters/baddies smart enough to realize that the creature is a summoner's pet? why not go for the summoner then.
Do they see someone buffing the monk? why not take out the buffer then.
It might seem like sniping to some, but it makes sense to me. If you can't hit the tank, then you go for the healer.
In the case of the tanks, they don't always put out lots of damage, and if they don't then the mobs will just run right by them. I was on the bad end of that stick on my monk, where the mobs just ran by me.
Anyways, I really do hope that things work out for you. I haven't been a DM for a LONG time (D&D 3.0) but I know it is never fun to have your players steam roll the challenges you put in front of them.
Would you use a scaling Point-buy that suits your own sense of power-differential? Is that not a valid way of making the less powerful and versatile classes at least be competitive at what they do when stacked against the T1s? I agree that 10's a little low for our table, but what about the idea itself?
I don't really like the idea in itself either. It doesn't particularly limit the Tier 1 classes (Wizard especially only needing Int to bust the game wide open if he wants to), besides making it less likely for them to multiclass, which many wouldn't be likely to do anyway.
Then again, I've never had that big of a problem with casters overtaking martials to such a huge extent that they need to be arbitrarily nerfed for no other reason than that they exist, so maybe that has something to do with it.
Ill go off on a tangent here that I hope prooves my frame of mind:
There is another thing that annoys me in the same way. I am an avid snowmobiler. Not a trail rider, but a deep powder boondocking free rider. It's kinda the difference between motorcross and a honda goldwing...but not really.
The power gamer of snowmobiling is the guy who says I have to have an 800cc 163" or else. Or else what. Well everything else just sucks. huh really?
So if I ride a 155 600 I suck? Yes. It's not the best, anything but the best sucks.
The reason things got this way in deep powder riding (for those of you who have no idea what Im talking about) is because the need/want to go where no rider has gotten to before. Less weight more track more power.
but now, with the change in track technology and engine power (600 is the old 800) and the fact that sled prices have gotten astronomically out of control (12k plus). the truth is everything you did in 2006, with an 800 163, can be done now with a 600 154, if not a 600 144. for almost half the price of the sled.
But If you DARE say something like that, your are denounced as a pariah and stupid and know nothing and aren't a true rider.
the extremism has caused an elitism.
The Result is people who don't know much about the sport , but might want to get into it, are assailed by these know it alls and the mantra 800 163 or go home. So these poor souls are stuck with trying to find the most sought for, highest price sled they can get their hands on.
Also in truth MOST riders will never need a 163. OR an 800, because they will never grow the pair the puts them out where they NEED it.
The other result is people who are generally trail and field riders get these 800 163s because they are told "must have"
But this guy belongs on a trail sled or a crossover for way less money, but he is steered in the direction by the 'expert advice'
then the experts complain that "all the low landers buy up the mountain sleds driving up the cost, and forcing the manufacturers to not build a true purpose built mountain sled, because low landers are buying more sleds than mountain riders" (this is because there are far more low landers in number than there are mountain riders)
So then they create their own thing to complain about.
The same thing happens on gaming boards like this, people who don't know anything, come on here for advice and the 'experts' get a hold of them ad another POWERgamer is born.
Without ever realizing, dude you dont even need that to have fun.
An they totally limit their scope of playing to more death, more carnage, more treasure collecting. Because, early on in their experience they were told they were doing it wrong, what they had wasnt good enough and "this" is the right way to do it.
If I were to go to a friends house tomorrow and he/she said there was an extra sled for me to ride, but it was a 600 and only a 144, I would be like WOO HOO lets GO (even thou my sled I prefer is an 800 154)
The worst thing bout the power gamer and the part that I find annoying, isnt that he HAS an 800 163 (for gods forbid one with a turbo) but that he MUST have an 800 163 or he wont go riding at all, and anyone who thinks riding a 600 155 is remotely fun is just wrong and stupid.
This is the guy who if you tell him CRB only, he threatens not to play.
He's also the type of guy I love to gloat at, at the end of the day, when he has to go back to the parking lot because he's out of fuel but my 700 (yes I do have one) still has 1/3 a tank of fuel and I have been doing everything he's been doing and going everywhere he's been going (largely because the sled does things his rider skill can utilize)
So, out on the mountain, when I see the 800 163 (level dip) a pause and wait to see what kind of guy this really is. I ask him about his cool sled, why he rides that model, brand and combination and blah blah make conversation, if his answer is 800 163 is the best and everything else sucks I have my answer (power gamer)
Both guys, at the table and on the mountain, are overbearing serious kill joys.
Most people I ride with who ride 163's do so (honestly) because 1) they were talked into it by an 'expert' or 2) they don't want to get stuck in deep snow because they aren't a very good rider (legitimate PoV)
Edit: Note I longer even frequent or have an account on social media involving snowmobiling any more because the above mentioned issues i have with certain practitioners of the sport (ro rather the ones that are on those sites)