Ulja I guess we have a difference of an opinion of how a DM can shape the encounter. Even if you can't account for a few unexpected surprises. Or there is a difference of opinions of what is a averageDm and a good DM.
Helpful Answer - If the DM will allow the player to rebuild the PC perhaps he could take levels as a Bard instead. Bards can be decent archers, but since they often spend time buffing or casting it might extend the duration of the fights a little. The Bard might also help the other PCs perform better, resulting in overall party performance staying the same or rising while distributing the power more evenly.
Snarky Answer - It seems kind of sad when there's an Alchemist and a Sorcerer complaining that the Fighter is overpowered. Meanwhile in a few levels (at 11th) the Anti-Paladin will be able to call a shadow demon or an augmented fiendish dire tiger to serve him. By comparison, the Fighter will be able to shoot one more arrow per round.
Just hold your character back a bit.
Start doing goofy things with him like using improvised weaponry to make you artificially miss more.
Then when shit hits the fan "Get dangerous" and kick ass without holding back.
The players will appreciate you saving their bacon (unless they're a%+&!@~s) and you can be snug in the confidence that you COULD whip all of them if you weren't holding back to avoid making them look bad.
Everyone's happy.
Yeah, yeah, as an Archer it's harder to do that but I'm sure you can figure something out. Talk with the GM and see if you can get like a "Warped Bow" or something to use that has the improvised weapon penalties and you don't enchant it or something.
What he wants you to do, I think, is make more RP related choices going forward, or rebuild your guy. I advise against that course of action because having a whole party of non-combat ready PCs means you're gonna have a bad time eventually.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter sounds about right. +21 damage at 8th level is hardly over powered. On the other had +9 damage for an antipaladin at 8th level seems very weak. Assuming a 16 Strength with power attack and only a +1 weapon the antipaladin should be doing +10 before smite good. At 8th level you should have more than just a simple +1 weapon. Is this a low magic item campaign? Pathfinder assumes a certain amount of wealth by level and if your GM is not giving out enough it screws with the balance.
A lot of people seem to think that role playing and optimization are opposing forces and the more of one you have the less of the other you have to have. Optimization takes place before the game, role playing takes place during the game. Some people are better at one than the other and there is no shame with that.
What people should be doing is helping each other. Instead of each person working alone on their characters make it a group effort. Have everyone write up their character and then pass the character around the group. The optimizers will be able to see the weak spots of the character and help out the person with less system mastery. The role players can help the optimizer come up with the background and character concept.
I often see a someone who prides themselves on role playing having a character who can't live up to his conception. If you are supposed to be an expert swordsman you better be able to tell one end of the sword from another. At the same time I have seen optimizers who have no clue who or what their character is. Help each other build the characters and everyone will benefit.
|
The fighter sounds about right. +21 damage at 8th level is hardly over powered. On the other had +9 damage for an antipaladin at 8th level seems very weak. Assuming a 16 Strength with power attack and only a +1 weapon the antipaladin should be doing +10 before smite good. At 8th level you should have more than just a simple +1 weapon. Is this a low magic item campaign? Pathfinder assumes a certain amount of wealth by level and if your GM is not giving out enough it screws with the balance.
A lot of people seem to think that role playing and optimization are opposing forces and the more of one you have the less of the other you have to have. Optimization takes place before the game, role playing takes place during the game. Some people are better at one than the other and there is no shame with that.
What people should be doing is helping each other. Instead of each person working alone on their characters make it a group effort. Have everyone write up their character and then pass the character around the group. The optimizers will be able to see the weak spots of the character and help out the person with less system mastery. The role players can help the optimizer come up with the background and character concept.
I often see a someone who prides themselves on role playing having a character who can't live up to his conception. If you are supposed to be an expert swordsman you better be able to tell one end of the sword from another. At the same time I have seen optimizers who have no clue who or what their character is. Help each other build the characters and everyone will benefit.
VERY well said. My father could be a great optimizer...if he cared to. He isn't. He's just not going to pore over the books to figure out the good builds. One guy in our group is a crazy good optimizer. My father usually tells him what he wants the character to be able to do, and participates in the act of building the character, as he's built by our friend. I'm a good optimizer and roleplayer, but not as good an optimizer, as the story means a lot more to me...I often help with either, but I'm best at helping people with backstory.
There's a bit of a lesson in that...it's a lot more fun if the players can help each other, just like it rocks when the characters all pull together.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It stuns me how many people really want to get all upset about somebody who builds a character to work well in combat, when the game is largely centered around combat.
Do they also rank on the person that buys up the properties in Monopoly?
I still have yet to see anything about him roleplaying badly. In my experience, a lot of optimizers are actually excellent roleplayers.
I love how people are willing to first sacrifice the rights of the few for betterment of the many, without the many willing to make sacrifices.
We all voted that you should change who you are. But we still need you.
|
|
I love how people are willing to first sacrifice the rights of the few for betterment of the many, without the many willing to make sacrifices.
We all voted that you should change who you are. But we still need you.
Poetic justice occurs when he gets nerfed and there's an actual encounter with teeth...
|
The rest of the party are more rp-standard based chrs and therefor is not built up to the same lvl of effect as him.
That right there is your problem. There is zero, zilch, nada reason that you can not make an effective character for RP reason unless the RP reason is I am a gimp who is being protected by the party and can do nothing else.
So easy fix...blame the power gamer for you inability to make effective characters (really a fighter type that only does +9 damage at level 8...REALLY?!?).
Less easy fix...learn to build better characters.
Optimal fix...ask the power gamer to tone things down a bit while he helps you all learn the rules better to make better characters.
I don't like nerfing a player for the sake of everyone. Leaves a bad aftertaste.
I don't like nerfing a player for the sake of everyone. Leaves a bad aftertaste.
Yeah.. It does.
|
|
...Cold Napalm, EldonG and Rogar Stonebow. I never ment, and to my knowledge said that i wanted him to change his chr. We all knew how he plays when we started playing with him, and we all accept it. All i asked was for good ways for the dm to handle the situation.
I disagree to an extreme extent that just becouse a chr does not deal out a zillion damage each round it is a less optimal chr. It all depends on the situation and the player. I build my chr around story and personality and therfor i dont focus as much on dps as the archer does.
That does not make my chr or his chr less optimal.When first asked the question on what to do there were many suggestions, and some i dont think is as usable. Fx to use spells and such. It is a bit "in your face" way to do it, and even though it in some situations is fair, it would mostly be a bit mean.
The suggestion regarding weather (wind, rain etc) are much better as this is logical and based on things that are common experiences for a person.
With answers such as "Poetic justice occurs when he gets nerfed and there's an actual encounter with teeth..." it makes me thing some of you havent understood what i wanted with the post.
And as a comment about the suggestions regarding making he rest of the party stronger and therfor make the gap smaller i think it is a bit wrong. I already feel as a player we are to powerfull, and that makes us cocky. That can ofc be a result in me loving the earlier lvls and disliking to play high-lvl chrs, but i dont belive it to be so.
My response wasn't really to you...there have been a few people on the thread suggesting nerfing him...which I find pretty ridiculous, seeing as he's barely above the curve. I get where you're coming from.
There have been some good suggestions on how to allow for the rest of you to shine...you may notice I agreed with those. For that matter...if everybody is into that kind of game, combat can even take a back seat...but I wouldn't make it all but non-existent. He needs time to shine, too.
If you feel a Fighter who can do 21 damage (at level 8, I believe you said?) is way too powerful, and everyone below him is STILL too powerful, you're playing the wrong game.
Unless you severely nerf encounters just so your players can squeeze by, anything on their CR is going to EAT THEM ALIVE if you think his Fighter is OP.
No, you can focus on story and personality just fine without it affecting your mechanics. Your character doesn't need to take Feats like "Skill Focus: Basket Weaving" to have a good story and a distinct personality.
It DOES make your char less optimal, by definition, to do so. Optimal is taking your character concept and making it the best it can be at what he wants to do. If your character wants to be an adventurer (which these guys are) they need to bring something to the table in combat, be it buffs, control, or actual damage dealing. If they do not, they are not optimal. Not in a combat sense, and not in a story sense. Because it strains my suspension of disbelief JUST a bit that a group would go out and raid tombs and fight undead and monsters and all kinds of things to do so if none of them could fight their way out of a wet paper sack.
As I'm fond of saying, your character's story ends quite abruptly if his body ends up in some monster's stomach.
...Cold Napalm, EldonG and Rogar Stonebow. I never ment, and to my knowledge said that i wanted him to change his chr. We all knew how he plays when we started playing with him, and we all accept it. All i asked was for good ways for the dm to handle the situation.
I disagree to an extreme extent that just becouse a chr does not deal out a zillion damage each round it is a less optimal chr. It all depends on the situation and the player. I build my chr around story and personality and therfor i dont focus as much on dps as the archer does.
That does not make my chr or his chr less optimal.When first asked the question on what to do there were many suggestions, and some i dont think is as usable. Fx to use spells and such. It is a bit "in your face" way to do it, and even though it in some situations is fair, it would mostly be a bit mean.
The suggestion regarding weather (wind, rain etc) are much better as this is logical and based on things that are common experiences for a person.
With answers such as "Poetic justice occurs when he gets nerfed and there's an actual encounter with teeth..." it makes me thing some of you havent understood what i wanted with the post.
And as a comment about the suggestions regarding making he rest of the party stronger and therfor make the gap smaller i think it is a bit wrong. I already feel as a player we are to powerfull, and that makes us cocky. That can ofc be a result in me loving the earlier lvls and disliking to play high-lvl chrs, but i dont belive it to be so.
What EldonG said.
I love how people are willing to first sacrifice the rights of the few
Yeah, no, roleplaying isn't a right. No-one has a "right" to be at the table, possibly barring the person who owns the house you play in.
That right there is your problem. There is zero, zilch, nada reason that you can not make an effective character for RP reason unless the RP reason is I am a gimp who is being protected by the party and can do nothing else.
There is no reason you cannot make a well-optimized character also well-roleplayed. However, not all character concepts are able to be optimized.
Basically, optimization doesn't prevent roleplay but it drastically reduces the amount of different types of characters you can play.It's like complaining that every time we play Monopoly, this guy buys houses...and *gasp* hotels.
Monopoly is a competitive game, built solely around the rules, with the goal of _winning_ the game.
Pathfinder is a cooperative game, built only partly through rules and partly through DM (and player) created content, which can have many different goals, where some type of "winning the game" may be part of it, but not necessarily the primary goal.
So yeah, can't really compare those in that way.
there have been a few people on the thread suggesting nerfing him...which I find pretty ridiculous, seeing as he's barely above the curve.
There is a big difference between asking a player to play something different and right out nerfing them, and to a large degree depend on if you force the player or just ask them to.
And also, "barely above the curve" may be true compared to competitive play, but their game is their game and in that game the fighter is apparently ahead of the rest of the party combined. Comparing the fighter to things that aren't in their game is completely irrelevant.
I am sorry but asking a fighter to be less fighty.. Is like asking a Paladin to be less Lawful Good, Or asking a Face of the party to be less social, or a bard to be less knowledgeable, or asking Dr. Evil to be less evil.
Seriously, why not stop the playing of gimped players. Or expect the players to properly build their characters for both combat and social aspects at the very least from the next level and up. I'm sorry, but even when I am not playing a optimized character, I still contribute. In fact my least optimized character would do just as well as the fighter this post is about. Why not swallow some pride and ask for some assistance on how to be better, do some research on how to build effective builds that still have a creative non combat flair. Don't *#$#(& someone else over because your ego can't handle the fact that you might of made a mistake.
I am sorry but asking a fighter to be less fighty.. Is like asking a Paladin to be less Lawful Good, Or asking a Face of the party to be less social, or a bard to be less knowledgeable, or asking Dr. Evil to be less evil.
No one's suggested asking the fighter anything. The dialouge has to be with the player. :)
Seriously, why not stop the playing of gimped players. Or expect the players to properly build their characters for both combat and social aspects at the very least from the next level and up.
Because what you define as "properly" may not be what the group wants to do. That's the simple reason. Consider the cooking group comparison I made above. Your suggestion now is the equivalent of "why not stop cooking yucky food, or expect them to start making real (french) food from next meeting up?" What you're doing is establishing what is "proper" playing, and that what they are doing isn't. In essense it's calling badwrongfun on their game.
Of course non-optimized party members can contribute, if given the chance. But if one character murders everything the first round they'll have a hard time contributing.
Again, no-one's saying that the optimizing player is a bad player or anything. Just that there is a clash in playstyle between one player and the rest of the group that might require out of game handling, if the DM doesn't have the time or skill or interest of adjusting the game to that player's benefit without disrupting the gameplay for everyone else.
Is this powerful character actively making the game less fun for the other players? Or is it just an affront to the GM's ego/sensibilities?
If the other players are having fun, then the GM needs to leave the character alone.
I am sorry but asking a fighter to be less fighty.. Is like asking a Paladin to be less Lawful Good, Or asking a Face of the party to be less social, or a bard to be less knowledgeable, or asking Dr. Evil to be less evil.No one's suggested asking the fighter anything. The dialouge has to be with the player. :)
Seriously, why not stop the playing of gimped players. Or expect the players to properly build their characters for both combat and social aspects at the very least from the next level and up.Because what you define as "properly" may not be what the group wants to do. That's the simple reason.
If that is the simple reason, then the simple response is that combat does not need to feature in their game. At all. Ever. Period.
Otherwise, you are telling this player, "Here is a major facet of our game. But, you can't be good at it. Or even, you know, decent. Not if you want to play with us."
[/ridiculous]
Lead on Crusader!
There is no reason you cannot make a well-optimized character also well-roleplayed. However, not all character concepts are able to be optimized.
Basically, optimization doesn't prevent roleplay but it drastically reduces the amount of different types of characters you can play.
I don't think I could disagree with you more. There is no reason that any character concept cant be optimized to be effective for combat. It might not be a dps powerhouse but it will buff/cc/heal/tank/ect. Something.
As others have pointed out. I have seen "I RP instead of optimize" as just another way of saying "I'm not very good at coming up with decent builds".
|
|
What is wrong with wanting to RP a great archer, who is great in combat?
Hell, we have tons of fantasy archers we know and love, from Robin Hood to Legolas.
The player is doing exactly what he wants, with no rules finagling, with good feat choices and a martial class to work with them.
What are the other players focusing on?
Everyone wants a PC who is good at something.
What did the other PCs choose to be good at?
There isn't any issue to handle. Typical archer is typical.
It's not his fault that he looks too good by contrast. Not everything can be optimal but everything can be optimized. In other words, one guy shouldn't be singled out because others don't know how to execute their concepts effectively.
This kind of thing irks me because I've played fighters that would get ripped apart for being useless on a char-op board, but made the rest of the party look terrible because they were just that bad.
Generally speaking, decades of GMing has taught me that eventually a group composed of two or three players who do not power game/uber build/rules lawyer, and whatever else you want to throw in there, and a GM of like mind, will eventually grow tired of the one player in the group who does. It is just human nature. Even if he is the nicest guy on earth, eventually the perception that he is a glory hog, or just having to put up with him arguing rules and decisions to his own benefit, will wear the others out. Likewise, a player like this will usually come to realize he is playing with people who do not operate at his speed, and if he is grown up about it, he will move on. (If he doesn't, that's when I would worry - he might be enjoying having others under his thumb.)
In the meantime, let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt. The best, most productive way to approach the situation is not to nerf the player or his character, nor to over-compensate to challenge him in combat (that might get everybody else killed). It is instead to create as many scenarios/situations as possible to highlight the skill sets and abilities of the others. You throw him his bones, let him kill things like he likes to, and you make sure the others also have a stake in things by playing to their strengths, not just to his.
Understand that, as a powergamer, he likely knows what the other classes should be good at, and will not be surprised when you spend time challenging those skill sets.
|
|
This doesn't even sound like a "powergamer" at all.
Just a well built archery focused Fighter, doing what they do.
Nothing even suggests that somehow his RP is failing.
Now what are the other players focused on doing well?
Crafting? Sneaking? Social Skills?
Is anyone pitching a fit that the are good at something?
No offense Ichi but this place is pretty much the highest standard in terms of capability for any ability :P If you pass in here, you can be pretty much assured your character will do moderately well in a regular pathfinder game (moderate amounts of social and combat).
None taken, but what I'm saying is that I deliberately played a nerfed character that wouldn't pass here (No Power attack?!? Burn the witch!) and still got the occasional dirty look. If I had played a Wizard I would have gotten dice hurled at me.
With an archer it's hard to go wrong. Just take the archery feats and you're laughing, which is why I feel sympathetic.
Why would a wizard take power attack? :PNone taken, but what I'm saying is that I deliberately played a nerfed character that wouldn't pass here (No Power attack?!? Burn the witch!) and still got the occasional dirty look. If I had played a Wizard I would have gotten dice hurled at me.
With an archer it's hard to go wrong. Just take the archery feats and you're laughing, which is why I feel sympathetic.
Because he dipped for Foresight prescience and the rest of his levels are fighter. ;p
|
|
And as a comment about the suggestions regarding making he rest of the party stronger and therfor make the gap smaller i think it is a bit wrong. I already feel as a player we are to powerfull, and that makes us cocky. That can ofc be a result in me loving the earlier lvls and disliking to play high-lvl chrs, but i dont belive it to be so.
You feel that a martial type that does +9 damage at level 8 is too powerful?!? Holy Jeebus. I just don't know what to say to that.
|
|
I still want to know what the other PC's were built to be good at.Lets see, as stated before i am not the dm so i dont have 100% overview of feats and such.
Alchemist - Bombs (:P) aoe fire vs touch-ac.
Anti-Paladin - Straight farward one-on-one attacker.
Sorcerer - High saves and "take out ppl from combat spells".The group itself, as i see them, is not broken in any way. On the contrary, we have a desent enough dm to give us both the occational hard battles and the "let the player shine".
The problem is just that with one player dealing a minimum of +21 dmg on 3 attacks makes encounter we have feel more and more easy. And the reason as i see it (as stated in first post) is either that the rest of the party does not keep up with the archer, or that the archer is to powerfull for the party. Depends on what point of view you have.
Either way we end up in the situation where the dm either puts in some logical and good reasons to flatten out the dps, or a way for him to boost the rest of the party without the archer feeling left out.
Some great suggestions earlier on that is both logical and builds further on the experience of gaming (such as weather with wind and rain etc).
Just so that you understand one aspect of what's going on here...the antipaladin, by what you've posted, is definitely not good as a 'straight forward one-on-one attacker'...he's dramatically behind the curve, and according to another comment you've made, apparently doesn't really understand how to fight effectively.
Yes, a good DM can run the game so that it's still fun when your characters can barely fight their way out of a wet paper bag...but if that standard is put up against standard CR fights for the level and the monsters are played effectively...the party proves themselves really exceptional at dirt napping.
So is that +21 PER ATTACK or +21 minimum total from all three attacks?
If the former, yeah that is kinda odd for an archer, I'd like to see that build. If the latter I'm seein' something like 1d8+6 or something per arrow? That's...+2 Str, +2 Weapon Specialization, +1 Bow, +1 Weapon Training? That's perfectly reasonable and actually almost impossible to NOT achieve by level 8.
So if that's the case...it's DEFINITELY something your group needs to work on. That's not even optimizing, that's basic competence in building a character. You shouldn't punish or guilt one guy into dumbing his build down purposefully just because everyone else can't make damage dealers at all.
Hell your Alchemist does at minimum 4d6+3 (assuming 16 Int so he can cast all his spells later), have Fast Bombs and Rapid Shot and be taking 3 shots at minimum 7 damage apiece for 21 damage a round as well, with a single Feat and one Discovery. And that's not optimized either, that's just basic speccing into combat.
|
|
So is that +21 PER ATTACK or +21 minimum total from all three attacks?Per attack. Even more if he uses his wand of gravity-bow i think.
Yeah the Alchemist dishes out quite a desent amount of dmg in aoe. But based on his low range, limited bombs (unless we rest all the time) and aoe focus (target bombing and such) he more or less "prevents" himself from the same encounter controll as the archer.
What sort of weapon does the antipaladin use?
Hm, lessee if I can figure this one out. From the Gravity Bow comment he tends to buff, and that skews matters. Keep in mind...everyone can buff. And your Anti-Paladin should be doing so for important combats as well.
So with Gravity Bow he's got 2d6+19 normally?
So that's...16 Str (+3), Weapon Specialization (+2), Expert Archer (I think you said he had the Archer archetype anyway, +1), Deadly Aim (-3 to-hit, +6 damage)
So we've got just from that, +12. +2 Bow for another +2? Now we're at +14. This here is with a minimum amount of combat focus I can come up with for damage. He's pushed it just a tiny step further, of course, but you see what I mean anyway. Three Feats (Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization, and Deadly Aim) of his total 8 into damage, with what I assume is Rapid Shot giving him 3 shots a round. He'd be dealing an extra 21 if he had Manyshot too, so maybe he is holding it back a little for y'all.
Hm. If he had Gloves of Dueling (assuming they work for that archetype) that'd bump him up to +15.
But in any case, you see what I'm talking about. He's got about half of his Feats not allocated and he's already near the damage you said he can put out regularly. And I SUCK at building archers. Easily my worst type of character (besides Two Weapon Fighters, I can't get one of those that works at ALL).
I really think you just need to ask him or someone else if they can help y'all bump your characters up just a smidge rather than asking HIM to tone it down. In my opinion that would have the greatest chance of making everyone in the group happy. You guys'd be more effective, no longer upstaged in combat, he wouldn't have to artificially nerf his guy, and your GM can use more difficult and varied encounters with the knowledge that they're fair game for you guys.
I truly do think that this would lead to a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved. There's a lot of people on these boards that can help you get up to a minimum level of optimization.
Probably even bump the Anti-Paladin up so he wins the damage per swing game by a landslide (though probably not damage per round). The Alchemist too.
Your Sorcerer a save or suck based guy, and I dunno how he's doing as of yet so i can't really speak to whether he needs work.