There are quite a few very solid solutions being offered in this thread :) so hopefully the OP walks away with a few more tools that improve his gaming.
As GMs, we inherit the behaviors of our gamers. They bring us a treasure hoard of past experiences and expectations, and we see what makes them smile and enjoy the game in the way that they build their characters. Table-top gaming is not a Mathematical Function, its an art. The GM is the maestro.
Although limiting the Range of Choice normally granted is an effective method in balancing the Power Dynamic of the group, its also the least fun for your players. I believe that the goal of this thread is for you to enjoy the game more, not bring them down to your current level of discontent.
The Least Obstructive way to keep optimized character's in line with stock encounters is to lower the point buy. Giving Standard Array, or even going deeper and doing a Less Than 15 point buy guarantees that no character will over-optimize his combat numbers without introducing an exploitably weak stat. DPR seems to be the biggest concern mentioned in these various replies. Under a much lower point-buy, even the most ardent optimizer will still only slightly peek above the baseline.
What this achieves is that you don't have to spend all that extra time tweaking encounters up the power-dynamic, and your players are free to enjoy the process of optimization.
Numbers Talk Within Spoiler:
The point of these spreads is to show that if a player wants more than 1 good stat, he must make his character statistically weak in another area. Each spread attempts to produce the most number of High/Good stat values.
18, 11, 10, 10, 10, 7
18, 14, 10, 10, 7, 7
18, 15, 11, 7, 7, 7
18, 17, 7, 7, 7, 7
17, 11, 10, 10, 10, 10
17, 14, 10, 10, 10, 7
17, 15, 12, 10, 7, 7
17, 17, 10, 7, 7, 7
16, 14, 10, 10, 10, 10
16, 15, 11, 10, 10, 7
16, 16, 12, 10, 7, 7
15, 15, 10, 10, 10, 10
15, 15, 13, 11, 10, 7
15, 15, 15, 11, 7, 7
14, 14, 13, 11, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 13, 10, 7
18, 10, 10, 10, 10, 7
18, 13, 11, 10, 7, 7
18, 16, 11, 7, 7, 7
17, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10
17, 13, 11, 10, 10, 7
17, 15, 11, 10, 7, 7
17, 16, 12, 7, 7, 7
16, 13, 10, 10, 10, 10
16, 15, 10, 10, 10, 7
16, 16, 11, 10, 7, 7
16, 16, 14, 7, 7, 7
15, 14, 11, 10, 10, 10
15, 15, 13, 10, 10, 7
15, 15, 15, 10, 7, 7
14, 14, 13, 10, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 12, 10, 7
18, 13, 10, 10, 7, 7
18, 16, 10, 7, 7, 7
17, 13, 10, 10, 10, 7
17, 16, 10, 10, 7, 7
17, 17, 11, 7, 7, 7
16, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10
16, 14, 11, 10, 10, 7
16, 16, 10, 10, 7, 7
15, 14, 10, 10, 10, 10
15, 15, 12, 10, 10, 7
15, 15, 14, 12, 7, 7
14, 14, 12, 10, 10, 10
14, 14, 14, 11, 10, 7
14, 14, 14, 14, 7, 7
One dump-stat is expected in an optimized build, dumping two or more stats guarantees that a character will absolutely suffer a weakness in a stat of relative other importance (such as a Fighter dumping both Cha and Int).
Lower your point buy to 12 and you'll see 18s become too costly to consider. To get a 17, he must take a 7 or a couple of 8s. This only exacerbates his dilemma of introducing weakness at the expense of uber-specialization.
Now each character must either accept that you'll exploit these weak stats, or he'll burn feats on trying to compensate, which dampens specialized optimization.
All that being said, we do a 25 point buy as I personally love tailoring encounters and building up interesting new ways to challenge my players. I always have fun, cause if you're bored then you're boring ;P Just joshing!
with lower stats, if you want to TWF ranger is the way to go.
But it doesn't make it impossible as a fighter (or other character) it is however down right impossible with a 10 point build.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with Atarlost.
People who advocate lower point buy as a reduce optimization method really don't know the system very well. I can make a game breaking (with the standard assumptions in play) with a measely 5 points. That is all I need to break the game as a wizard. Dump cha, wis and str and I can get my 20 int with 10 dex and 10 con. I can not dump wis and end up with a 18 starting int. Now try an build a fighter or rogue or heaven forbid a monk with 5 points and see how well that goes. I would say 15 is the absolute min you should have if you want your game to have even a semblance of balance between the casters and not casters.
The problem with lower point buys is that it hurts the most powerful classes the least and the weakest the most.
I agree :) however this discussion isn't about Class disparity, its about curbing optimization. The Monk will always be an inferior choice for general combat purposes, this discussion has completely avoided any mention of the Monk probably for this reason :P There is no stopping optimization without editing characters with a red pen. That is one solution, another is to just generally dampen it by reducing stats. Remember, that we're talking relative power here, relative to stock encounters. It doesn't matter if class X can do 500 DPR, if it takes only 100 to kill a monster. If a less "powerful" class does only 100 DPR, then there's no difference in effectiveness. And so the point of this thread, and my suggestion, was to curb the Effect that optimization has on combat (possibly other areas, though they have not been mentioned). The power curves down for all classes with lower stats, which means Stock encounters don't have to be tinkered with at great cost of time and energy.
People who advocate lower point buy as a reduce optimization method really don't know the system very well.
An unnecessary jab, and wrong bud ;) I'd like to point out that your wizard with a low Wisdom is now vulnerable to all of the Will save based SoS spells. As I was explaining in my post, lower point buys allow players to achieve one or two high stats, or an array of good stats, but they must then also introduce an exploitable weakness. I'm sure that this position isn't too tough to grasp. Fighters and Rogues will be no worse off under this system than a Wizard would be. And what you're suggesting is actually that a Wizard can ignore any attempt at bringing him into balance. That doesn't support your position that it hurts Martials more, because by your example, the very existence of said Wizard already devalues them.
Action economy is the one thing that balances the Casters and Martials in the early to mid levels. Martials are ready to go right out of the gate, casters must spend at least one round buffing themselves. If they aren't buffing themselves, then they're not yet the gods we assume they can be. An optimized fighter, as has been argued, already does enough DPR to kill the Stock BBEG in 1 or 2 rounds, this method will make it 3. The same is true with a Wizard under this system, his need to buff himself becomes more of a priority, and so it delays the moment that he can 'unleash' himself in combat.
I'm not suggesting hypotheticals here, I'm basing this on studied practice over several years of experimentation :) I challenge you to make two versions of your Wizard, one with a 15 point buy, and one with a 12. Pit him against a level appropriate stock encounter. You will feel the difference. Do the same for a Fighter or Barbarian. Then you'll understand what I am suggesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's say 50 damage is "average" per round. Then, at what point does someone become dead weight? what about 40 damage? 30 damage?
Instead of 2 handed weapon, maybe the player has a sword and shield concept. He has the strength 18, but dosn't have the dex to do two weapon (say, has a dex of 13). He takes weapon focus, weapon specializaion, power attack, and has the same +2 belt of strength and a +1 weapon. Now at level 7, he's doing 1d8+13, for maybe 35 pts a round.
But his AC is something like 4-5 points higher, so he takes less damage per round.
I'd say he is still effective. Perhaps not quite as effective as the 2 hander, but still able to contribute.
What you are refering here, it's called the sorite paradox Yes, he can be effective without the +2 str belt, doing 46 dmg instead of 50. Or 40 dmg. Or 30. But what about 20, or 10?. What about 5? In some point, from the 50 dmg to the 5 dmg, it stops to be effective. Where? That's the sorite paradox. Which hair lost made you to be a bald man?
I'd say a character doing 30dmg per round with 5 more AC is effective too. But my point is, that there ARE characters who are useless. Somebody said, or implied, that "no character is useless". That's false. Some characters are.Those characters are dead weight, carried by the rest of the party. The only reason they exist, is because the party is doing their job. In a group full of dead weights, the CR becomes an insourmountable mountain.
Let's imagine a party of 4. Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue. 4 non-optimized guys (not a little bit), who play "organic characters", who are perfectly feasible, and in-character with the background. 15 point buy.
1) Fighter, with swashbuckling archetype. He's dexterous, and charismatic (don Juan style). He's intelligent too. So the player takes STR 10, DEX 17 (including +2 racial), CON 13, INT 13, WIS 10 CHA 14 (+1 level). He uses a rapier. By lvl 5 his damage is 1d6+4. His AC is low, as he uses leather (very in-character). He uses his fav class bonus for skills, which he needs. So his HP are low too.
2) cleric, with an specialization in healing. He's a character with high wisdom, hich Charisma (to turn undead), and decent INT (he saws that Religion is based on INT) He has STR 10, Dex 13, CON 11 INT 13 WIS 18, CHA 14. He memorize all kind of delay poison, lesser restoration, and Bless Water spells, that he often use as Cure Light/moderate wounds.
3) a Wizard. He takes universalist, as he doesn't want to lose schools, building his character as a Sage. He has low STR, DEX and CON (which is very in-character with his background), and high mental abilities. So his HP are very low (1d6 base) with a low armor too. His memorized spells are: Alarm, Mount, Comprehend languages, Identify, Feather fall; Knock, locate object, Misdirection; Tiny hut, Water breathing (he's from a coastal town), Daylight;
4) Rogue. He want's to be ranged rogue. He's a dwarf, with a crossbow. He takes "far shot", "shot on the run" and "prone shooter", which sound all of them very nice and in character. He doesn't have "precise shot" because he dislike "cookie cutter builds".
So there you got. A organic, perfectly in character, not rare party. All of them dead weight. Tell me how those are going to finish book 2 of any published AP, without no one carrying their weight.
THOSE are useless characters. Any group could survive with one of them, if the rest of the party do their job. But if they are left alone in the dark, if they have to pull their weight on their own, they can't.
It's not me, or the forums, who "assume a certain level of power" at a given level. It's THE GAME who does. Through something called "Challenge Rating".
So yes, it's possible to survive if you don't do 50 damage. You could make it with 40. Or 30. Or 20. You can make it with 5, if everybody else does his job, and pulls you. But the game ASSUMES a certain level of efficiency, yes. Make that party lvl 10, and throw them vs a CR 10 dragon. And tell me how it goes.
|
|
An unnecessary jab, and wrong bud ;) I'd like to point out that your wizard with a low Wisdom is now vulnerable to all of the Will save based SoS spells. As I was explaining in my post, lower point buys allow players to achieve one or two high stats, or an array of good stats, but they must then also introduce an exploitable weakness. I'm sure that this position isn't too tough to grasp. Fighters and Rogues will be no worse off under this system than a Wizard would be. And what you're suggesting is actually that a Wizard can ignore any attempt at bringing him into balance. That doesn't support your position that it hurts Martials more, because by your example, the very existence of said Wizard already devalues them.
I DID put a version that has 10 wis and 18 int. A 18 int wizard still pretty much wrecks a game. All at 5 points. And you think a 5 point wizard is no worse off then a 5 point rogue or fighter?!? Yeah thanks for proving my point.
And yes I have played 5 point wizard. Yeah I had a tad less HP. A tad less AC and saves...but you know what...it really wasn't all that different from my 15 point wizard or even a 60 point wizard. A 5 point fighter or rogue or monk isn't even feasible. A 15 point fighter or rogue is viable at best and with a monk it's still in not really territory. At 60...yeah you see a HUGE freaking difference between the 15 point monk/fighter/rogue and a 60 point one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At 5 point buy, every optimizer will make a caster. Especially those with Pets. The grizzly bear, tiger or tyranossairus companion of a druid is just as effective at 5 point buy as it is with 25.Except at 25, the party fighter is better, at 5 its worse.
Synthesist would rock too. MAD characters become even worse, while SAD characters aren't even touched.
Low point buys make bad ability placement even less forgivable. Optimized characters shine even more with squandered resources, as optimization is exactly that, the wise use of available resources. When everybody is filthy rich, being good finding bargains doesnt matter.
I think people mistakes optimization with munchkinism or god complex.
@johnlocke reread the wizard spell selection. What offensive capabilities? Sure, a wizard can contribute with his spells, as the fighter does with his feats. But suboptimal choice of spells can render a wizard useless, just like the fighter. It's harder to screw up, becouse it's harder to place abilities wrong as long as you have Int, but I ve been there, seen that, and bought the tshirt.
|
|
The wizard and cleric don't sound like dead weight. Wizard would be great for skill checks and would have strong offensive abilities. Cleric would be okay against undead. But then, clerics and wizards can contribute using spells that don't rely on ability scores.
Being only useful vs undead = dead weight a LOT of the time with some exceptions. But then again, a heal bot is a whole lot less useless then the other examples.
Did you bother to see the wizard's spell? He has exactly two offensive spells and one only works on things sensitive to light for a small freaking penalty. Now I admit that tiny hut is a freaking AWESOME offensive spell...but I would hardly call that strong offensive ability.
edit: ...Damn ninjas...
Chances are that some one as bad at optimizing wouldnt use tinyvhut in combat, but as a shelter to rest after combat.
A 15 point fighter or rogue is viable at best and with a monk it's still in not really territory. At 60...yeah you see a HUGE freaking difference between the 15 point monk/fighter/rogue and a 60 point one.
I didn't assume that this was a thread about how Wizards are immune to nerfing. That is a different conversation than one about optimization. You are correct, Wizards are powerful, but they have a ramp up time. Only in theory is a wizard at Nova strength from the get go, he's never at the level of power you are suggesting in round 1. I'm not disagreeing with you, but consider this: Even if the GM took a red pen to the Wizard, he will still be more powerful than if the GM let the fighter fully optimize. You're arguing about Class disparity. Everyone agrees, you win. Now if you'd like to offer suggestions which address the OP on curbing optimization, that would be useful.
Wizards can afford to have lower defenses than a front line class(which the fighter and rogue are). If the fighter attempted a similar build(high strength, 12 con, 10 dex and 7 in all mental stats), he will get killed extremely quickly on the front line. His saves will be on par with the wizards(okay fort, bad reflex and abysmal will saves).And then the fighter will be useless out of combat, because he has crap skill points and no ability scores to help him out.
A 5 point buy will introduce weaknesses to all characters, but it will introduce much bigger weaknesses to classes who need multiple ability scores.
Yep, which is why I embrace optimization at my table. However, the OP doesn't like it. Any solution that anyone offers to eliminate or discourage optimization will only exacerbate Class disparity. There is no such thing as a good solution in this case. The only reason that one might be frustrated by character optimization is that those characters now over-power Stock challenges. Lowering point buy reduces the effective output of all classes, thus bringing them in line with Stock material :P So long as the Fighter can put out enough DPR to kill something, it doesn't matter that the Wizard can put out twice as much DPR. That something is dead in either case. The GM should lower the point buy using the Fighter's effective output as the metric.
The specific dilemma introduced by lowering the point buy are weaker stats. Anyone claiming that a negative Wisdom bonus is no big deal.. isn't being honest in their assessment. Its always a big deal. This also encompasses your suggestion that the Fighter wont have as many skill points, etc. Well, they must now spend feats and their WBL to plug these holes, or.. suffer for having ignored said weaknesses. Thus, characters with a lower point buy must choose between being Overly Optimized with glaring weaknesses, or being less optimized and thus more balanced Relative to Stock material.
Optimization often leads to weaknesses elsewhere. The thread by one of the biggest optimizers on the boards commenting on the difficulty of Adventure Path illustrates how a little bit of story and non-combat requirement can flummox such builds.
It was a good read :)
A 15 point fighter or rogue is viable at best and with a monk it's still in not really territory. At 60...yeah you see a HUGE freaking difference between the 15 point monk/fighter/rogue and a 60 point one.I didn't assume that this was a thread about how Wizards are immune to nerfing. That is a different conversation than one about optimization. You are correct, Wizards are powerful, but they have a ramp up time. Only in theory is a wizard at Nova strength from the get go, he's never at the level of power you are suggesting in round 1. I'm not disagreeing with you, but consider this: Even if the GM took a red pen to the Wizard, he will still be more powerful than if the GM let the fighter fully optimize. You're arguing about Class disparity. Everyone agrees, you win. Now if you'd like to offer suggestions which address the OP on curbing optimization, that would be useful.
It is not a different conversation. Optimization is the proper use of the available resources for the optimal choices. The lower those resources are, the bigger gap there is between an optimal PC and a suboptimal PC.
With 10 points buy, a wizard is mostly done, from a optimization POV. With 25 points, the gains are marginal. Because the damage he does, the resources he has, his defenses, are set on stone. He gains a little bit here and there, can have a little more initiative or slightly better perception skill or whatever, but his main strength is already maxed. His fireball does the same damage, his mirror image makes him to dodge melee attacks easily, he can buff the party with haste, and he can fly to overcome challenges just as good with 10 points, or 25. The fighter, however, isn't in the same camp. He is dependant on hit points and AC, so his defenses aren't as good with 10 in all stats than with 14 in all stats. This is even bigger with suboptimal fighter choices, like a two weapon fighter. At 10 point buy, it's barely playable. At 25, it can be played. For MAD characters as the monk, the gap is even wider. At 10 point buy, the monk is a walking dead. With 25, he starts to take adventage of having multiple ability bonus (str, dex, wis, con). With 35 or 50 points, the monk gets a big bump, while the wizards barely notices, except for a higher encumbrance value and having 0 instead of -1 in bluff.
The gap is even wider with summoners and druids, which have fixed stat pets. If an Eidolon is arguabily balanced with a 25 point monk (which is not, but lets say it is), then that eidolon CAN'T be balanced with 10 point monk. Because the eidolon has exactly the same stats, while the monk is shafted by half.
So yes, this is the right conversation. The lower point buy you play, the stronger domination an optimized PC show over his fellow party members. If you want to make suboptimal PC feeling more useful, shafting the available resources isn't the right thing to do.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
RE: The 'useless' party example.
So these characters were created out of whole cloth? *poof* you're a 5th level nerf herder?
The cleric being able to change her spell list is a given, and the wizard should have *at least* 4 first, 4 second, and 2 3rd level spells in his spell book. I can build a 'useless' 20th level character too.
Now, a 'useless' first level party (I think we can safely say the game assumes most parties start at first, and the APs clearly do) is different.
The Fighter above (assuming Weapon Finesse, since that's a natural for the swashbuckler type you're proposing) does 1d6 true, but it's at a minimum of +4 to hit (weapon finesse, plus bab) If he didn't take weapon finesse, he's still taking a combat feat. Improved intiative, weapon focus, etc.
The Cleric is going to (we'll assume) load up on CLW. Good, it means she can keep the party going. She'll then be able to be a flanking buddy if nothing else.
The Wizard (assuming bonded item) is always going to have at least one offensive spell 'on hand' as a result. He may be standing in the back with a light crossbow, but he shouldn't be up close anyway.
The Rogue still have at least a dagger most likely. He takes his shots, but can also melee.
What's the difference? The characters 'adapt or die'. By 5th level, either they've learned to mix their specialties, or they've been Darwined into new characters. The cleric (and her player) learns that putting the bad guy down now means less need for healing later. The wizard learns that sometimes you need offense to survive to learn. The rogue learns that you're not always going to be at range, etc.
The game is a learning experience for the players just as life is a learning experience. Heck, to use a RL example, I've learned to drive stick, since I might buy a car with a standard transmission. I've learned Windows 7 because we use it at work, etc. I never planned to be working a 9-5 job in front of a computer when I was young (first level) but I do.
To say "Here, you've never played the game, so make 5th level characters with no input from me on what kind of game you're running, and no experience with the system," is akin to saying "Never driven before? Ok, take the wheel, you're going to drive through downtown NEw York at 5:00 PM."
Neither will end well.
RE: The 'useless' party example.
So these characters were created out of whole cloth? *poof* you're a 5th level nerf herder?
The cleric being able to change her spell list is a given, and the wizard should have *at least* 4 first, 4 second, and 2 3rd level spells in his spell book. I can build a 'useless' 20th level character too.
I have seen a suboptimal player doing useless chars for 10 years straight. None of them was able to pull his weight, except when it was built by the DM.
So yes, it's perfectly possible for players without system mastery to build bad players from lvl 1 to lvl 5, especially if they adhere to some game concept and they don't optimize for it. The four characters show above are, actually, common traps for those classes. It's not like I made up an unrealistic example such as a wizard that tries to melee with his staff and STR 7 or a fighter who only throw shurikens and take skill focus Crafting (basketweaving) as feat. They are trope characters with common backgrounds (the swashbuckler fighter, the healerbot cleric, the sage wizard and the ranged rogue), which underoptimizers often try to build.
You are right in one thing. This group wouldn't survive to level 5, they'll be Darwinized. That's the entire point of the post. Those builds ARE built. I've seen all of them, or variants of them. I've seen the healbot that does nothing in combat, but wasting actions to cast cure light wounds. I've seen wizards with no useful spell ever memorized. I've seen swashbuckling underoptimized fighters with incredibly lackluster damage, which can't hold their own in an equivalent challenge rating fight. And ranged rogues without a proper way to set up is a classic of underoptimization. All of them are common traps and underaverage characters. (EDIT: this doesn't mean you cannot build those concepts and make them work. Of course you can build a ranged rogue, or a swashbuckling fighter, or a sage wizard or healing cleric and properly contribute to the party. That's exactly what optimizing is for. To be able to build whatever character concept you want, without being a useless character for building that concept)
The thing is, ussually, those useless characters are in a group which characters that aren't useless. So they survive to lvl 5, because somebody else is doing his job. That's my point. When everybody builds a Waste of Space character, it's when you notice they are deadweight. If there's a 5th level fighter with two handed sword dishing 50 dmg per round, the party can take down the encounter even with the ranged rogue shooting his pew pew bolts from proned position (thanks to taking a suboptimal feat thad did nothing until errataed, and does almost nothing after errata)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The thing is, ussually, those useless characters are in a group which characters that aren't useless. So they survive to lvl 5, because somebody else is doing his job. That's my point. When everybody builds a Waste of Space character, it's when you notice they are deadweight. If there's a 5th level fighter with two handed sword dishing 50 dmg per round, the party can take down the encounter even with the ranged rogue shooting his pew pew bolts from proned position (thanks to taking a suboptimal feat thad did nothing until errataed, and does almost nothing after errata)
MAybe that's where we disagree. Did 'pew pew' boy have fun? Did Max Damage? If they both are having fun, then I don't see an issue with 'pew pew'. If 'pew pew' isn't having fun and isn't learning from his mistakes then maybe the game isn't for them. I stay away from FPS online because my lack of reflexes makes me 'the load' to the younger hipper games, and I don't have fun being constantly shot, nor do my teammates have fun waiting for me to respawn.
|
It's not optimization in general I'm worried about (that's a natural consequence of the game, players adapt if something's not working and mine don't build completely useless characters), it's finding a diplomatic way to work with players to tone it down. If one player makes the invincible combat machine that only misses and fails saves on a 1, others follow suit to avoid falling behind or become resentful. There's dozens of threads dedicated to creating invincible characters (not concepts, but mechanical combinations scoured from all sourcebooks).
As I discussed, in a prior campaign one player built that invincible combat machine, but no one else did. The solo artist carried the party (they would have gotten by, challenged, without being carried. The other players weren't making stupid characters). My observation is that no one wants to be "in the shadow" to a perfectly optimized character who has all the synergistic feats and so forth, so they react in kind. I don't want to address this in-game by upping the challenges (which is what I did last campaign, a mistake), or taking options away.
@Covent - your post blew my mind early in the morning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find some of this conversation very enlightening. Not so much about the game, as it is about people's attitudes, expectations and biases.
Right now I have two active Pathfinder characters. Neither one of them are "optimized" for combat. Both are "optimized" for role playing. However, I've done what I can to make them also combat capable, but that was very much a secondary consideration.
I've commented multiple times about my archer druid and how in spite of her odd build and lack of obvious druid optimization, she's still quite effective in combat. The party she is in mostly has been adventuring in commercial modules, so I think that's a fairly good test of her abilities. For the most part those modules have not seriously tested her (although a couple of rogues and a ranger managed to meet their grisly ends). So from that experience it would seem that my druid, as unoptimized as she is, still performs more than well enough to meet the needs of an average party.
I haven't commented so much about my witch. Perhaps I focused too much on role playing optimization for my witch. His build is primarily focused on social skills and potion making (he's only level 3). Of course he has hexes, but I have deliberately avoided taking the more commonly acknowledged overpowered hexes (no slumber). He has virtually zero combat oriented optimizations. He has average strength and con, so his hit points are not that great. I've put his favored class bonus into skills because there are so many social skills (and UMD) that he needs.
Now, is he "dead weight?" By some definitions I see on this thread, he absolutely would qualify as "dead weight". He does piddly damage with either a dagger or crossbow. In fact his "prehensile hair" is his most powerful melee attack, and that's d3 based I believe. In combat he typically sort of cowers in the back and uses "ill omen" and "misfortune" on the enemy. It's hard to tell sometimes how effective those are since the GM rolls behind a screen. On rare occasions he might fire his crossbow, but he has no ranged feats and has only marginally decent dexterity, so he doesn't hit very much. In most of our combats so far we have had to fight very hard to survive, and his contributions have mostly been invisible due to the GM die rolling technique.
So what a horrible character right?
So why is he not only my most favorite character in the campaign, but the rest of the party constantly tells me how much fun he is and how great it is to watch him in action? Most of his obvious contributions to the party occur in social settings or in town where he is running a complex conspiracy to unseat the current Mayor. He's addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling and sex.
Somehow we are doing it wrong and loving it.
Oh well.
|
|
Interesting thought from some of the discussion here - could class balance be improved by limiting the point build of certain classes? Say when you are doing a 20 pt. stat buy for most classes, but limit wizards to a 15 point buy?
Another thought - what about limiting book choices by class? Say a monk build can pull from any book, but wizards are limited to core only?
Thoughts?
It's not optimization in general I'm worried about (that's a natural consequence of the game, players adapt if something's not working and mine don't build completely useless characters), it's finding a diplomatic way to work with players to tone it down.
By "tone it down" I assume you mean the following:
Take the focus of the game away from mechanics crunching and focus on the entire game.
Mechanics crunching is part of any game. You typically don't try to purposely lose games. You try to succeed at them -- whatever the definition of success is. For some people, the definition of success is having a good time. For others, the definition of success is killing a powerful bad guy in 1 round. The problem is that these purposes might not align. The guy wanting to play for a good time might be annoying the combat dude -- and vice versa.
Think of it as a balance issue. In the case you mention, you want to move some of the game balance away from mechanics crunch. That's possibly a good idea. . . but is it what your players want to do? If your players are divided, it's all about balance. Put some game elements in that use a wide range of mechanics. Allow lots of alternate ways to defeat a given challenge. Let a "good" idea work (with a bonus!) and punish "bad" ideas -- even if they don't work exactly as written with game mechanics. A single judgement call should follow the rules, but over time there's enough gray area to slant a game one way or another. You can steer your players in the direction you want by shaping your judgements to favor non-optimized or non-mechanically crunched ideas.
Kazejin, perhaps I misread, but I saw repeated references to party members who contribute "meaningless" amounts of damage in combat as being "dead weight." It didn't appear to me that was restricted to fighters.
My witch is not the party healer. (Except insofar as he provides healing potions to the group.) He's not the party buffer. He does measly damage.
In combat his only meaningful contribution is a hex and a spell that have no visible impact whatsoever. While we can metagame and calculate his odds of having caused an opponent to miss, fail a save or otherwise become less effective, in terms of actual combat, he is virtually invisible.
And yet he's one of the most fun characters I've ever played. And in spite of his near invisibility in actual combat, the rest of the group loves him too. And the main reason they do is because of all his non-combat stuff.
I think sometimes some people forget there is a non-combat part of the game, and that part can be as important as the combat. My witch has, for example, created a conspiracy among the local merchants, church and thieves guild to overthrow the mayor. He has convinced most of the town that a rival criminal overlord is plotting to overthrow the mayor when he is really the one who intends to take the mayor's place. He has arranged full town celebrations that appear to be innocent but end up being rallies in opposition to the mayor. He's forged official documents which incriminate the mayor in evil-doing. Etc. etc. etc...
And during all of this he's frequently stoned out on weed, winning and losing fortunes in the mayor's gambling dens and bringing as many ladies as he can back to his hotel room.
Yeah, combat isn't his real area of expertise, but there's a lot more than combat to this game.
I find some of this conversation very enlightening. Not so much about the game, as it is about people's attitudes, expectations and biases.
Right now I have two active Pathfinder characters. Neither one of them are "optimized" for combat. Both are "optimized" for role playing. However, I've done what I can to make them also combat capable, but that was very much a secondary consideration....
Both characters are spell casters... tell me, what is their main casting stat like? does your Druid summon animals? your Witch cast control spells of any kind?
the good thing about casters is that their spells always get better, without the use of feats.. a fireball will always do an additional d6 damage per level till the cap, a summoned animal will always be capable in combat, a hold person spell will (on a failed save) always have an impact in a combat.
Melee characters MUST use feats to boost damage output.
Now, is he "dead weight?" By some definitions I see on this thread, he absolutely would qualify as "dead weight".
She isn't. I already addressed this. His job isn't combat, and she is good at his job. That's not dead weight. Plus she is contributing in combat, through evil eye and ill omen. Not doing damage is not the same that not contributing in combat. Some of the best classes and builds don't do damage in combat.
But you can change that pretty quickly. That wizard spell list isn't believable at all, even for someone with terrible optimization skills.
If we weren't living in different continents, I'd like to present you a few players.
Nunspa, my druid started with a 16 wisdom at level 1. Her wisdom at level 9 is now 20, but that includes magic items. She rarely summons. In most combat she uses her bow. She reserves her spellcasting for major battles. With the archery feat tree and riding her animal companion she gets three attacks and four arrows per round, and she's a pretty good shot. In major fights she tends to use battlefield control spells with an occasional big blast to finish off a BBEG if possible.
My witch had awesome stats, some of the best I've ever rolled. So at level 3 he already has an int of 20. However he has focused most of his spell acquisition on enchantment, charm, disguise or other "soft" schools. He's devious. I concur that evil eye and misfortune are solid choices, but it is nonetheless true that if the GM does not roll in the open, it's impossible to know if they are having ANY effect at all in combat. So we go entire combats with my witch standing in the back wiggling his fingers and cackling, without any overt, obvious impact on the fight.
I do think my witch will get much more powerful as we level up. At level 3 though, at least with this build, he is the closest thing to an AD&D wizard I've played in a long time.
Interesting thought from some of the discussion here - could class balance be improved by limiting the point build of certain classes? Say when you are doing a 20 pt. stat buy for most classes, but limit wizards to a 15 point buy?
Another thought - what about limiting book choices by class? Say a monk build can pull from any book, but wizards are limited to core only?
Thoughts?
There was an entire thread on Brilliantgameologists.com in which the guy who penned the Tier System wrote up a mini-manifesto on doing this very thing. He offers a variety of ways by which to reduce Class disparity :) Giving the T4s and 5s an extra level or two, a higher point buy, or now we have the option of more Racial Points. Unfortunately, they were hacked a not too long ago, and their site still isn't back up, so I don't have a link ready.
So we go entire combats with my witch standing in the back wiggling his fingers and cackling, without any overt, obvious impact on the fight.
Some of the most powerful forms of optimization aren't overt or obvious. The most effective way to play a wizard is battlefield control, even if it doesn't feel as effective as rolling tons of D6s. Inspire courage and Haste are much more powerful than they feel. So is Misfortune.
You are doubling the chance an enemy misses or fails his save. Thats nothing to sneeze at.
... If the GM is rolling honestly... :) Let's just say that so far my experience has been that the enemy seems to be pretty successful at hitting our characters in spite of my witch's finger-wiggling...
As an example of the concept of this witch, when he last had a chance to gain a spell, he picked "beguiling gift" because that gives him a very good chance to poison the mayor's bodyguard, so that taking down the mayor will be easier. Beguiling gift is a great spell, but it's not really a great COMBAT spell.
I freely admit that even I get a little frustrated by his seeming lack of combat contribution. And we've had some pretty nasty combat experiences, including having to run away from a bunch of goblins and hobgoblins. Comparing him to my druid, those combats would have been trivial.
But I do sort of view my witch as a build in progress. He has plans, very specific plans, and those plans depend in his surviving combat, but they are mostly plans that rely on subterfuge, conspiracy, disguise and skullduggery.
And that's why he's so much fun.
Now, is he "dead weight?" By some definitions I see on this thread, he absolutely would qualify as "dead weight". He does piddly damage with either a dagger or crossbow. In fact his "prehensile hair" is his most powerful melee attack, and that's d3 based I believe. In combat he typically sort of cowers in the back and uses "ill omen" and "misfortune" on the enemy . It's hard to tell sometimes how effective those are since the GM rolls behind a screen.
I've never heard anyone argue that debuffing enemies makes a character worthless. It's not like you're standing in back cowering while casting Mage Armor and Shield on yourself ;p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... If the GM is rolling honestly... :)
So we go entire combats with my witch standing in the back wiggling his fingers and cackling, without any overt, obvious impact on the fight.
Some of the most powerful forms of optimization aren't overt or obvious. The most effective way to play a wizard is battlefield control, even if it doesn't feel as effective as rolling tons of D6s. Inspire courage and Haste are much more powerful than they feel. So is Misfortune.
You are doubling the chance an enemy misses or fails his save. Thats nothing to sneeze at.
If the DM is not being honest, there's no difference with a damage dealer. You could be doing twice the damage, only to see how the monsters suddenly have twice the HP too.
True Gustavo, that's a good point. If the GM is just adjusting to make the combat meet their expectations, then that would affect any character. But the difference would still be that the damage-dealer would get the satisfaction of seeing their 35 points of damage getting recorded.
I do actually enjoy the challenge of getting this witch through combats alive. And so far I've been successful at it, sometimes through pretty creative sneakiness. We just leveled up to level three at the end of our last session, so I am hoping the adjustments I made at level 3 will help (believe it or not, I'm counting on prehensile hair to help in combat by using trip on anyone who gets in close).
But I've also been able to use social skills and manipulative magic to entirely avoid encounters as well as to gain allies for the party.
Which is my real point. His lack of combat abilities is deceptive, he has been responsible for most of the party's significant accomplishments and is the party leader, even in combat.
He is a blast to play. Seriously.
Nunspa, my druid started with a 16 wisdom at level 1. Her wisdom at level 9 is now 20, but that includes magic items. She rarely summons. In most combat she uses her bow. She reserves her spellcasting for major battles. With the archery feat tree and riding her animal companion she gets three attacks and four arrows per round, and she's a pretty good shot. In major fights she tends to use battlefield control spells with an occasional big blast to finish off a BBEG if possible.
I fail to see how 3 attacks and 4 bow shots per round as a secondary threat vs mooks while saving battlefield control spells for the BBEG, equates to being a dead weight.
Can't really concur with the idea of a GM who fudges dice is "cheating". That's clearly within the gaming rules and I've been known to fudge a die or two myself. My feeling is that the GM is doing his best to make the combat challenging and I am mostly fine with that. I would prefer if he would occasionally say "that would have hit, except for misfortune!" but oh well. No biggie.
I am enjoying the non-combat aspects of this campaign much more than I am worried about the combat. My whole point in bringing this up was just to point out that combat is only one part of the game. It seems, to me, that sometimes people overlook how much fun the non-combat parts can be.
I fail to see how 3 attacks and 4 bow shots per round as a secondary threat vs mooks while saving battlefield control spells for the BBEG, equates to being a dead weight.Nunspa, my druid started with a 16 wisdom at level 1. Her wisdom at level 9 is now 20, but that includes magic items. She rarely summons. In most combat she uses her bow. She reserves her spellcasting for major battles. With the archery feat tree and riding her animal companion she gets three attacks and four arrows per round, and she's a pretty good shot. In major fights she tends to use battlefield control spells with an occasional big blast to finish off a BBEG if possible.
I must not have been clear. My druid is very definitely NOT dead weight by any measure.
My point on the druid was that she is extremely effective in combat in spite of being "poorly" optimized.
I doubt you are going to see many optimized druid builds with the archery feat tree....
Just one more comment on my druid. I actually believe that she is one of the single most effective characters I've ever played, both in combat and out. I sort of stumbled on the "druid archer" build purely because of role playing and backstory considerations, but the more I play her, the more I like her. The ability to save up spells while still contributing effectively to combat with bow and animal companion means that when we do get to the major battles, she can just cut loose with a spell almost every round, and that is friggin' awesome.
I frankly would put her up against just about any build for pure overall effectiveness in combat and out.
And that was accomplished without any actual attempt to "optimize" her.
|
|
Did you try talking to that person about their character?
Three of us, including him, chatted about what should or shouldn't get into future campaigns. I drew from the invincible creator that it wasn't as much fun in the end as it started to be and he didn't want to be the "center of attention" with his character. (The other was testing out the summoner, but we'll avoid that discussion, and he's since had to move on due to work.)
In the next campaign he went with a "verdant" sorcerer's bloodline to fit our campaign's setting, concept and story first. I noticed he took steps back from having to dominate encounters. He's got 3 other allies to help him do that. When no one is rushing ahead in the "arms race" there isn't a need for everyone else to do so.
One lesson: I can hope things right themselves naturally.
But, I'm still inclined to talk to my players rather than wait.