|
Right.
You can certainly play it your way. You can also play Monopoly, as a group, not buying anything, just to see who goes broke last...but that's not the standard.
You know what I really see here? Firstly, you really have no idea what a CR 5 encounter is...and you have a serious issue with anyone who wants to play an actual hero...as opposed to a bit part.
Well, according to the very CR guidelines you quote as setting the standard, a single CR5 monster is a CR 5 encounter. It's easy to make a CR5 monster using the templates that are in the game that will completely ruin any 10th level party and be hard for even a 12th level party and against a well-optimized 1st level party, a group of 6 zombies (CR5) will hardly be a challenge at all. If there are two or three monsters the CR increases by +2 or +3 respectively, meaning two zombies are a CR2 encounter and three gnolls are a CR4 encounter.
And this game isn't monopoly. There are hardly any resemblances between the two.
And again, the standard is that a CR=APL+2 encounter is hard for a party. Does that mean that any first level party that doesn't find three zombies (a CR3 encounter) hard, are "playing it wrong" and are at the wrong power level? What is the solution to that issue?
Do you understand that those CRs are circumstantial?
6 zombies can do significant damage...even kill a lvl 5 PC, in the right circumstances...yet, yes, if you put them in a little clump at a decent distance, the wizard can pop a fireball, and they're all gone.
Of course, that fireball is a significant expenditure. More than usual, for a 5th level wizard.
Now...do you understand the concept of circumstantial? Do you not get that in the right circumstances, those gnolls will quickly eat that party? Do you not understand that any party will do what they can to stack the odds in their favor, and that's the right thing to do?
Now, you can whine 'playing it wrong' all you like, but not once did I make that point...in fact, it doesn't matter how you play it...it's your game...but if you try and tell me there's no standard for power level, you get called on it.
Oh...and yes, the system can be broken. It proves it's not perfect...and that you're a s@*%ty DM if you break in on purpose, and then use that.
He does make a valid point. RPing an intelligent, poetic Paladin may be a valid choice for a person, but they have to be prepared for the fact that an adventurer spread so thin is very likely going to take a dirt nap rather quickly.
Only in a campaign where the opposition is set high enough for that. That paladin would still be able to fight orcs and goblins, and given time and experience even ogres and giants.
Stories are only told about those who are successful; we rarely hear the story of the Paladin who wanted to be good at anything and everything so, in addition to his physical and spiritual training, he learned to cook and write poetry and this and that and the other...
Yet many, many literature characters would be very "suboptimal" if built in D&D. Like, Frodo.
and died in his first major challenge because no amount of poetry or cooking skill will help you when faced with a gaggle of Orcs.
But it's the DM that decides if your first major encounter is two orcs or ten.
If the adventure is made for Aquaman and Jubilee, then Aquaman and Jubilee can manage it and be the heros of that adventure. If someone wants to play superman, the adventure has to be changed.
Do you understand that those CRs are circumstantial?
Of course. And since the circumstances vary from DM to DM, using them to set the "standard power level" is limited at best.
6 zombies can do significant damage...even kill a lvl 5 PC, in the right circumstances...yet, yes, if you put them in a little clump at a decent distance, the wizard can pop a fireball, and they're all gone.
Of course, that fireball is a significant expenditure. More than usual, for a 5th level wizard.
Who wastes a fireball against zombies? :S
At level 5 you can just eat them with your martials, without getting hit by anything but the luckiest rolls and even then taking neglible damage.Now...do you understand the concept of circumstantial? Do you not get that in the right circumstances, those gnolls will quickly eat that party?
Those things are not in the book though, except where specified and in those cases they adjust the CR appropriately (for example unfavorable terrain).
But what you're doing now is basically saying that yes, just looking at CR doesn't say that much and that it's in how the DM pulls it off. So how is it a set power level again? The game doesn't contain the instructions for pulling it off in the correct way to reach the correct level of difficulty - or are you saying that it depends on the party, that difficulty should be made to match party makeup?
From what's actually in the book, three zombies are a hard encounter for a 1st level 4-person party. I agree that they sometimes will be and sometimes not, depending on party composition, party and enemy tactics etc.
Which is why saying "the CR system can be used to determine the set power level of the game" is kinda weak.
I think the closest we can get to finding an "assumed" or "intendend" power level is looking at the iconics.
|
|
Do you understand that those CRs are circumstantial?Of course. And since the circumstances vary from DM to DM, using them to set the "standard power level" is limited at best.
6 zombies can do significant damage...even kill a lvl 5 PC, in the right circumstances...yet, yes, if you put them in a little clump at a decent distance, the wizard can pop a fireball, and they're all gone.
Of course, that fireball is a significant expenditure. More than usual, for a 5th level wizard.
Who wastes a fireball against zombies? :S
At level 5 you can just eat them with your martials, without getting hit by anything but the luckiest rolls and even then taking neglible damage.Now...do you understand the concept of circumstantial? Do you not get that in the right circumstances, those gnolls will quickly eat that party?Those things are not in the book though, except where specified and in those cases they adjust the CR appropriately (for example unfavorable terrain).
But what you're doing now is basically saying that yes, just looking at CR doesn't say that much and that it's in how the DM pulls it off. So how is it a set power level again? The game doesn't contain the instructions for pulling it off in the correct way to reach the correct level of difficulty - or are you saying that it depends on the party, that difficulty should be made to match party makeup?
From what's actually in the book, three zombies are a hard encounter for a 1st level 4-person party. I agree that they sometimes will be and sometimes not, depending on party composition, party and enemy tactics etc.
Which is why saying "the CR system can be used to determine the set power level of the game" is kinda weak.
It's kinda weak if you assume that other things don't want to survive as much as you do. It's kinda weak if you don't understand that tactics matter...for both sides. It's kinda weak if you're the kind of DM that just says look, those gnolls were a CR 4 encounter, even though they were asleep.
It's kinda weak if you assume that other things don't want to survive as much as you do. It's kinda weak if you don't understand that tactics matter...for both sides. It's kinda weak if you're the kind of DM that just says look, those gnolls...
So what's the issue with using Skezzriax? I mean, it's just a CR5 encounter wanting to survive as much as possible, and my eight level party shouldn't have any issues against it, right?
Also, every DM has to assume a lot of things not in the rules. How tactically skilled is a gnoll? How tactically skilled is a spider?
If the party optimizes so should the opposition no doubt, but do you think the iconics (which are PC's actually statted up by Paizo for use in their actual adventure paths and thus are the closest thing we have to look for in terms of intended difficulty) would survive well against optimized opponents?
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.
Theodor said that the other characters are based upon roleplay as the standard, in other words you pick...
The only concepts that prevent optimization are ones that should not be played. The whole point of the game is to play the hero. If your concept is that you are the village idiot who also happens to the a midget with poor social skills and has no stat over 8, get another concept.
Optimization also happens in real life. How many NBA players are short? How many scientists have low IQ's? Just because you have a concept does not mean it is a good one. Does this limit what you can play? Sure but that happens in real life too, so deal with it. Now if you want to be totally incompetent and play the comic relief, and the rest of the party is ok with it fine. If the rest of the party does not want a dead weight character don't play that character. A good game is a group effort that requires all participants to contribute.
Player characters should not have a magic rune on their forehead that marks them as a PC. If you can't contribute to the party in a meaningful way you have no business being in the party. People in real life want the best help they can get and it should be the same in the game. Let's say you are accused of a crime and you have the choice of two lawyers. One graduated the top of his class from Harvard with years of experience, the other just got his diploma in the mail from Larrylaw.com. Who do you want defending you?
|
|
I think the closest we can get to finding an "assumed" or "intendend" power level is looking at the iconics.
Ok, Valeros, usually considered to be one of the weakest of the iconics, gets +9 damage on his longsword (1-handed) twice a round, and a third attack that gives a +5, at level 7.
Yes, the weakest of the iconics does more bonus damage with a 1-handed weapon than the antipaladin does with a 2-hander...and at 1 level lower.
*shrug*
|
|
It's kinda weak if you assume that other things don't want to survive as much as you do. It's kinda weak if you don't understand that tactics matter...for both sides. It's kinda weak if you're the kind of DM that just says look, those gnolls...So what's the issue with using Skezzriax? I mean, it's just a CR5 encounter wanting to survive as much as possible, and my eight level party shouldn't have any issues against it, right?
Also, every DM has to assume a lot of things not in the rules. How tactically skilled is a gnoll? How tactically skilled is a spider?
If the party optimizes so should the opposition no doubt, but do you think the iconics (which are PC's actually statted up by Paizo for use in their actual adventure paths and thus are the closest thing we have to look for in terms of intended difficulty) would survive well against optimized opponents?
It's not a level 5 encounter. If you don't understand that...sorry.
As stated before...the system can be broken. If you use that against a party...you're a s@~%ty DM.
My general point in this conversation is this...
90% of RP comes from backstory, character personality/Ideals, and the occassional skill point. None of that effects your ability to optimize. The other 10% can be stat allocation if you have a drastically low or high stat.
You dont need an 18 int to be smart. You dont need a 18 Cha to be charismatic. A base human has a 10 int. In real life terms most of us in this discussion have between a 10 - 13 int. And thats not a knock on people. I tend to believe most people who post on these forums to be very smart. They just aren't Albert Einstein(18-20 int imo) Most professional atheletes have a 15 or 16 str/dex. A 12 in any stat can be "RP'ed" as being sufficiently good at that stat.
So baring some crazy character concept I cant see why you cant be optimized and RP at the same time. It totally depends on how much mastery you have of the PF system. So if you want your Paladin to be the Einstein of Paladins... sure you might have issues. If you just want a "smart and cultured" paladin... your stats wont be an issue.
|
|
My general point in this conversation is this...
90% of RP comes from backstory, character personality/Ideals, and the occassional skill point. None of that effects your ability to optimize. The other 10% can be stat allocation if you have a drastically low or high stat.
You dont need an 18 int to be smart. You dont need a 18 Cha to be charismatic. A base human has a 10 int. In real life terms most of us in this discussion have between a 10 - 13 int. And thats not a nock on people. I tend to believe most people who post on these forums to be very smart. They just aren't Albert Einstein(18-20 int imo) Most professional atheletes have a 15 or 16 str/dex. A 12 in any stat can be "RP'ed" as being sufficiently good at that stat.
So baring some crazy character concept I cant see why you cant be optimized and RP at the same time. It totally depends on how much mastery you have of the PF system. So if you want your Paladin to be the Einstein of Paladins... sure you might have issues. If you just want a "smart and cultured" paladin... your stats wont be an issue.
Yup.
In fact, it's a pretty dull (mentally) paladin that doesn't come off well...they tend to have a high Cha, after all, and that determines impressions better than Int does, anyhow.
A 10 Int paladin might not be smart...but if he's got a 12 Wis, he knows to avoid looking stupid...and if he has a 16 Cha, people tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
A lot of things don't actually need to be statted out. My most recent bard was a displaced noble with a strong penchant for fine wines. In pure RP moments, when the situation called for it, he could describe the vintage, region, year, etc., of the wine he was drinking. He would highlight its qualities and idiosyncrasies, and point out its shortcomings. All made up, with little or no DM involvement. All mechanically irrelevant.
Except the one time it wasn't. When the bottle had been poisoned. My character received a single Percetption check to detect it. Months of faithful roleplaying to the concept earned that. I didn't need Craft (wine) or Profession (sommelier) to do that.
He was just a Bard. Oh, and he liked wine.
|
|
A lot of things don't actually need to be statted out. My most recent bard was a displaced noble with a strong penchant for fine wines. In pure RP moments, when the situation called for it, he could describe the vintage, region, year, etc., of the wine he was drinking. He would highlight its qualities and idiosyncrasies, and point out its shortcomings. All made up, with little or no DM involvement. All mechanically irrelevant.
Except the one time it wasn't. When the bottle had been poisoned. My character received a single Percetption check to detect it. Months of faithful roleplaying to the concept earned that. I didn't need Craft (wine) or Profession (sommelier) to do that.
He was just a Bard. Oh, and he liked wine.
Seems very fair to me. And, might I add...a game I probably would have loved playing in. :)
I think the closest we can get to finding an "assumed" or "intendend" power level is looking at the iconics.Ok, Valeros, usually considered to be one of the weakest of the iconics, gets +9 damage on his longsword (1-handed) twice a round, and a third attack that gives a +5, at level 7.
Yes, the weakest of the iconics does more bonus damage with a 1-handed weapon than the antipaladin does with a 2-hander...and at 1 level lower.
*shrug*
It should be noted that it goes both ways though. The antipaladin is far closer to the intended power level than the archer is.
|
|
It should be noted that it goes both ways though. The antipaladin is far closer to the intended power level than the archer is.I think the closest we can get to finding an "assumed" or "intendend" power level is looking at the iconics.Ok, Valeros, usually considered to be one of the weakest of the iconics, gets +9 damage on his longsword (1-handed) twice a round, and a third attack that gives a +5, at level 7.
Yes, the weakest of the iconics does more bonus damage with a 1-handed weapon than the antipaladin does with a 2-hander...and at 1 level lower.
*shrug*
The archer is on the high end...largely because he was given a way to reach an incredible Str.
Again, Valeros is considered to be one of the weakest of the iconics. Possibly the weakest. In a direct comparison, the antipaladin should likely be doing +13-+14...or more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only concepts that prevent optimization are ones that should not be played. The whole point of the game is to play the hero.
Again, BADWRONGFUN. Telling others how they should be playing their game in their house.
Because being a hero is only in combat stats. Oh, how lucky we are Samwise Gamgi took Power Attack and Cleave rather than Skill Focus (Gardening), otherwise he wouldn't ever be considered a hero!Player characters should not have a magic rune on their forehead that marks them as a PC. If you can't contribute to the party in a meaningful way you have no business being in the party.
In a team of Aquaman, BMX Bandit and Jubilee they all contribute to the party. However, switch Aquaman to Superman and the others won't be able to contribute much. Which is why adventures for Team ABJ are different than adventures for superman.
The archer is on the high end...largely because he was given a way to reach an incredible Str.
Again, Valeros is considered to be one of the weakest of the iconics. Possibly the weakest.
On the high end? One has a DPS maybe 20% lower (though it is a different class that has options Valeros doesn't) and the other has a DPS of maybe three times as high, when factoring chance to hit.
In other words, one is pretty close to the iconic and one is in a whole different league. Comparable would be if the paladin dealt like 1d8+3. That's the difference we're talking about here.
|
|
The only concepts that prevent optimization are ones that should not be played. The whole point of the game is to play the hero.Because being a hero is only in combat stats. Oh, how lucky we are Samwise Gamgi took Power Attack and Cleave rather than Skill Focus (Gardening), otherwise he wouldn't ever be considered a hero!
Player characters should not have a magic rune on their forehead that marks them as a PC. If you can't contribute to the party in a meaningful way you have no business being in the party.In a team of Aquaman, BMX Bandit and Jubilee they all contribute to the party. However, switch Aquaman to Superman and the others won't be able to contribute much. Which is why adventures for Team ABJ are different than adventures for superman.
You live in a house made of straw, don't you?
I don't get that reference at all. English isn't my main though, could you put that another way?
|
|
What people are saying is optimization does not make a hero a hero. If as a fellow player your character kills the verisimilitude of the game by being nonsensical, I care less about the setting and the game. My suspension of disbelief drops as your effort to create something believable drops.
You need both.
Further, it is a team game. You can create a more powerful group than you can a conglomeration of solo characters.
Which is why I giggle when the "power gamers" post asking if the APs are too hard...
|
|
I don't get that reference at all. English isn't my main though, could you put that another way?
It's a strawman argument. You've made an argument that's taking an extreme that isn't being discussed in the first place.
21 minimum damage, when buffed, is hardly out of the norm for a level 8 fighter. It's high, but I can beat it easily. Especially buffed.
|
|
What people are saying is optimization does not make a hero a hero. If as a fellow player your character kills the verisimilitude of the game by being nonsensical, I care less about the setting and the game. My suspension of disbelief drops as your effort to create something believable drops.
You need both.
Further, it is a team game. You can create a more powerful group than you can a conglomeration of solo characters.
Which is why I giggle when the "power gamers" post asking if the APs are too hard...
Oh, I agree...but some degree of optimization is required. The most optimized character around can be played so poorly...or in a non-heroic way...and the lesser optimized character can be played with cunning, and do remarkably heroic things...but if he can't make the DCs he needs to...or hit the AC...or do enough damage...*shrug*...he won't survive long enough to complete the scenario...mission...AP? EEK!
Again, it's a game that belongs to the GM and the players...but if it's just a matter that one is on the high end of the scale, while others...frankly...suck...why blame the one that's pulling for the party?
I don't get that reference at all. English isn't my main though, could you put that another way?It's a strawman argument. You've made an argument that's taking an extreme that isn't being discussed in the first place.
21 minimum damage, when buffed, is hardly out of the norm for a level 8 fighter. It's high, but I can beat it easily. Especially buffed.
How do you define "the norm"?
It's extremely high compared to PC's created by Paizo themselves - as you said yourself, valeros at level 7 has a minimum damage of 9 (or 7 for the secondary attack). The rogue has 4 (8 on sneak attack), the ranger has 4, the barbarian (which is admittedly a lot higher) has 14. Couldn't find stats for the paladin but I don't think they're that much higher.
It's extremely high compared to the PC's in that home game.
Or are you saying "the norm" is what is recommended at charop boards, or simply in your play group? Why would that be more relevant when discussing another game group than that groups norms or the characters made by Paizo themselves?
Some character concepts don't lend themselves to optimizing very well.
This is the most important thing to learn if you are mixing optimized and non-optimized characters in the same party. Sometimes, your great idea is just not going to be well represented within the game system, or just not at your level of play.
Story time:
We were just starting a new campaign (based on Kingmaker). All of us have a moderate level of experience with other systems and not that much with Pathfinder. One of the party members decides he wants to play a Sorcerer, which is no surprise because he loves being the party face. He has always played high charisma guys. His concept was a uber charismatic guy who has his hired minions and summoned creatures fight for him. He wants to be the guy who doesn't get his hands dirty, using Unseen Servant to clean our campsite and such. I try talking him into something with a little more combat usefulness, and he replies that he has summoning spells for that. His one targeted combat spell is Daze, which he thinks is awesome. He declines the extra HP for preferred class, because he wants an extra skill trained at level 1. Rather than checking to make sure his concept is viable for play, he spent time writing up a seven page back story.
In the first combat, 5 mounted bandits, he rolls a low initiative but he starts casting a summon in the first round. By the start of his turn the second round, the other 4 of us have each put down a single bandit. He tells the DM he wants to resolve his summon *above* the remaining bandit; he wants to crush him with a falling summoned horse. I bite my rules lawyer tongue to see if the DM will allow it ... he does. He rules that the falling horse deals 1d6 per 10 feet that it falls, plus an extra 1d6 because it is heavy: 3d6 damage, reflex save for half. The bandit fails his save, and Horsechucker is born. He relies on this "tactic" for the next few combats. Eventually we encounter an enemy that makes his save and on a low roll 3d6, and the player is incredibly pissed off because "dropping a horse on someone should do more than three damage!" That same combat, the character took one hit from a BBEG (samurai skeleton in the gold mine), and it dropped him from full HP to one shy of negative his Con, and he died before anyone could save him.
The player very reluctantly decided that since a resurrection would cost more than the wealth of the entire party, he would need a new character. He came to me for a little help. I gently challenged him to break out of his shell, and go with someone who is not a high charisma party face, but some other idea. His first response was "How about a dude in armor with a huge axe." I suggest he check out fighter or barbarian, and read the archetypes to see which was the best fit. A few sessions later, he is now a level 4 Orc using the Two Handed Fighter archetype to attack for +9 and deal 1d12+18 (2x Strength, Power Attack, Weapon Spec). He loves his new dude, kills things like crazy, and he gets plenty of RP time where he acts like a Klingon. So there's the silver lining.
After the summoning sorcerer character's demise, I confessed to the table that I knew that his summon "tactic" was a violation of the rules for summoning. I asked if they wanted me to keep quiet about such things or speak up when we hit a clear rules(lawyer) violations, and the group said to just speak up.
The moral of my story is that you can make strong characters within the rules quite easily, or you can pay no attention to the rules and just blindly stumble towards a character concept. I opt for the former, since it seems more fun.
|
|
I don't get that reference at all. English isn't my main though, could you put that another way?It's a strawman argument. You've made an argument that's taking an extreme that isn't being discussed in the first place.
21 minimum damage, when buffed, is hardly out of the norm for a level 8 fighter. It's high, but I can beat it easily. Especially buffed.
How do you define "the norm"?
It's extremely high compared to PC's created by Paizo themselves - as you said yourself, valeros at level 7 has a minimum damage of 9 (or 7 for the secondary attack). The rogue has 4 (8 on sneak attack), the ranger has 4, the barbarian (which is admittedly a lot higher) has 14. Couldn't find stats for the paladin but I don't think they're that much higher.
It's extremely high compared to the PC's in that home game.
Or are you saying "the norm" is what is recommended at charop boards, or simply in your play group? Why would that be more relevant when discussing another game group than that groups norms or the characters made by Paizo themselves?
What is Valeros buffed?
He's one level lower, and should be able to destroy the antipaladin, from what I've heard.
Oh...and his minimum damage is 10.
|
|
Some character concepts don't lend themselves to optimizing very well.This is the most important thing to learn if you are mixing optimized and non-optimized characters in the same party. Sometimes, your great idea is just not going to be well represented within the game system, or just not at your level of play.
Story time:
We were just starting a new campaign (based on Kingmaker). All of us have a moderate level of experience with other systems and not that much with Pathfinder. One of the party members decides he wants to play a Sorcerer, which is no surprise because he loves being the party face. He has always played high charisma guys. His concept was a uber charismatic guy who has his hired minions and summoned creatures fight for him. He wants to be the guy who doesn't get his hands dirty, using Unseen Servant to clean our campsite and such. I try talking him into something with a little more combat usefulness, and he replies that he has summoning spells for that. His one targeted combat spell is Daze, which he thinks is awesome. He declines the extra HP for preferred class, because he wants an extra skill trained at level 1. Rather than checking to make sure his concept is viable for play, he spent time writing up a seven page back story.In the first combat, 5 mounted bandits, he rolls a low initiative but he starts casting a summon in the first round. By the start of his turn the second round, the other 4 of us have each put down a single bandit. He tells the DM he wants to resolve his summon *above* the remaining bandit; he wants to crush him with a falling summoned horse. I bite my rules lawyer tongue to see if the DM will allow it ... he does. He rules that the falling horse deals 1d6 per 10 feet that it falls, plus an extra 1d6 because it is heavy: 3d6 damage, reflex save for half. The bandit fails his save, and Horsechucker is born. He relies on this "tactic" for the next few combats. Eventually we encounter an enemy that makes his save and on a low roll 3d6,...
As a caveat, a well designed and well played sorcerer summoner is a force to be reckoned with. ;)
I've completely lost the thread of this argument, at this point. So, I'll just say this and be done:
It is not my fault or responsibility if you decide to add Craft (pottery) to your character. It is not my fault or responsibility if you pump you fighters dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma because your concept is a genteel, sage-like, noble ex-patriot shieldmaiden who moonlights as an exotic dancer after her day job as executive chef/lounge singer of the visual-arts museum cafe.
All I can be responsible for is my character. After I'm finished saving the world, though... Well, it is some rather nice pottery.
As a caveat, a well designed and well played sorcerer summoner is a force to be reckoned with. ;)
I would hope that a Sorc could be viable in the role, though I have not seen it. Still, I doubt that it could be done well at level 1. At level 1, I think taking the Summoner class would be preferred. I'm thinking the summoning sorc could get good at about level 7, when Leadership feat would grant you a few meat shields of your own.
It does not take that much more effort. To add an increased CR to an encounter.If you think that this is all that goes into GMing, I pity the players...
Of course not. But knowing how your players will react to certain situations and plan accordingly. Bumping up the CR can be done without much effort to challenge an optimized PC while leaving appropriate challenges for the others.
|
|
As a caveat, a well designed and well played sorcerer summoner is a force to be reckoned with. ;)I would hope that a Sorc could be viable in the role, though I have not seen it. Still, I doubt that it could be done well at level 1. At level 1, I think taking the Summoner class would be preferred. I'm thinking the summoning sorc could get good at about level 7, when Leadership feat would grant you a few meat shields of your own.
Make note...I'm not saying summoner isn't better at it. Low level full casters, as a rule, have a tough time...that's a basic truism...one that summoners almost ignore. :p
you dont nerf him, you play his weaknesses more.
ranged characters are very very weak. obscuring mist is a first level spell that will take him out of the fight for a few rounds. ray of enfeeblement will also hurt his dps by making his composite bow less effective. create pit will hurt him due to fighters having a low reflex and force him to climb out and keep fighting wasting a round or 2 of his dps. they have MANY ways to stop a ranged character from owning everything with arrows, and doing so wont ruin his fun. it will force him to start countering the things that he never knew were a bane to his archer.
in conclusion just play smart as a gm and you can , when you find it appropriate, stop his dps and force him to spend time countering your counter measures. so dont think "hes to powerful for my npcs", think about how your npcs would fight a group like this.
Actually it's really hard to stop an archer. Especially a fighter or Ranger that archery focused or the Zen Archer.
Reflex save are easily made as ranged uses dex and usually they have a high dex. Granted a figher has poor reflex save but a high dex this usually isn't a problem. There are feats to get around most other situations as well as magic items to cover the rest. I've created bad guy archers in my games, usualy means a player two is going to die. I actually avoid doing that now.
|
|
you dont nerf him, you play his weaknesses more.
ranged characters are very very weak. obscuring mist is a first level spell that will take him out of the fight for a few rounds. ray of enfeeblement will also hurt his dps by making his composite bow less effective. create pit will hurt him due to fighters having a low reflex and force him to climb out and keep fighting wasting a round or 2 of his dps. they have MANY ways to stop a ranged character from owning everything with arrows, and doing so wont ruin his fun. it will force him to start countering the things that he never knew were a bane to his archer.
in conclusion just play smart as a gm and you can , when you find it appropriate, stop his dps and force him to spend time countering your counter measures. so dont think "hes to powerful for my npcs", think about how your npcs would fight a group like this.
Actually it's really hard to stop an archer. Especially a fighter or Ranger that archery focused or the Zen Archer.
Reflex save are easily made as ranged uses dex and usually they have a high dex. Granted a figher has poor reflex save but a high dex this usually isn't a problem. There are feats to get around most other situations as well as magic items to cover the rest. I've created bad guy archers in my games, usualy means a player two is going to die. I actually avoid doing that now.
Ray of Enfeeblement isn't a reflex save...and it hoses him pretty hard.
How do you define "the norm"?It's extremely high compared to PC's created by Paizo themselves - as you said yourself, valeros at level 7 has a minimum damage of 9 (or 7 for the secondary attack). The rogue has 4 (8 on sneak attack), the ranger has 4, the barbarian (which is admittedly a lot higher) has 14. Couldn't find stats for the paladin but I don't think they're that much higher.
It's extremely high compared to the PC's in that home game.
Or are you saying "the norm" is what is recommended at charop boards, or simply in your play group? Why would that be more relevant when discussing another game group than that groups norms or the characters made by Paizo themselves?
It took him like two Feats and a pair of items (plus his stats) to reach that damage.
As a level 9 Human Fighter he has a grand total of ~11 Feats.
This is nothing "twinked out" (besides the stupid stat allocation), this is nothing overly geared towards combat. This is a character with a bare minimum focus on combat. He has 5-ish Feats he could put into Profession: Thumb Twiddler or some s@@# instead of combat and he'd still wipe the floor with the collective assortment of the other 3 characters.
And yet you're arguing that he's "The norm as recommended by the charop boards"? No, given his stats I think anyone here could make a character 5x better than this guy. He's WELL below "twinked out" or "min/maxed".
He has the capability to take on CR appropriate enemies. That is the norm.
And before the "Hurr durr but look at dese do" there is so much wrong and so many assumptions made in the ruleset to even make those possible that they're entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Applying the Young Template 4 times being chief among them. Look in the bestiary provided and you'll see actual CR appropriate creatures, with a few "Wolf in sheep's clothing" exceptions (lookin' at you, Ghasts!).
I'd like to add "Wind Wall" if there is an equivalent in Pathfinder should also stop ranged attacks from a bow. :D
|
|
Yes, that works. The risk is large though that it will feel completely irrelevant in combat compared to the St14/De14/Co13/In12/Wi12/Ch20 synthesist with three attacks and pounce and next to the St22/De14/Co18/In7/Wi13/Ch7 barbarian that attacks with +6 (2d6+9).
This encapsulates everything that I think the anti "power-gamer" crowd get wrong.
First, do people not see the inherent contradiction in building a character who focuses on (not combat), and then complaining that the character is merely "passable" in the combat portion of the game? If you make a character that has a background you care about, and is rewarding as a character to play (which is what many in this crowd say they value), then why does it matter that the barbarian is better at killing orcs than your sensitive, reluctant paladin-cook (which should totes be a new archetype)? Killing things was never the POINT of that character, so the fact that someone else does it better shouldn't matter. Maybe if your character was supposed to be some stone cold killer, and sucked at combat, that would be a problem, but that just means you're bad at building a killer, not that other player is hurting the game by being "better" than you.
Second, there is the implied undercurrent that it is somehow bad or unsavory for characters to be powerful in the first place. I mean, I get that there are some things that can break a game, and things that need to be dealt with to keep the game from becoming a farce, but I have a really, really hard time with the idea that "doing damage" is one of those things. If encounters are too easy, that is a failure of the GM to adapt to the party, and often is easily overcome - sometimes it really is as simple as "add more enemies", especially if the players are typically one-shotting your mooks. Worried that they will then get too much xp? Change the way you award XP. Non-combat characters feeling left out? Give them something to do, either by adding non-combat encounters, or by adding a...
So...what class was he?
I've built a dwarf theologian with the domain knowledge, who has breadth of experience. He's a sage, by trade. :)
If encounters are too easy, that is a failure of the GM to adapt to the party, and often is easily overcome - sometimes it really is as simple as "add more enemies", especially if the players are typically one-shotting your mooks. Worried that they will then get too much xp? Change the way you award XP.
This is exactly why i have dropped xp all together. There is no point to it. Its not used in crafting or spell casting like 3.5 anymore. Modules tell you when a group is supposed to level. And I don't have dumb rules like characters coming in at different levels or earning xp separate from the group.
I simply award a new level to the party when its appropriate in the campaign. This eliminates me tracking xp and I don't have to worry about throwing extra encounters or mobs in a fight.
|
|
He was a rogue, built as a skill monkey, with a focus on knowledge skills (obviously). I Rped the flavor of his abilities a bit, like trapfinding and such had more to do with book learning: "Oh, I see, this pressure plate mechanism is basically just a variation on the famed 'water trap' common in early blah blah tombs" etc. Certainly he could've been made much, much more efficiently and combat-effective (like, archeologist bard would've been a much better choice), but that just wasn't the point of the character.
In a weird way, the fact that other players were more powerful gave me the freedom to basically do whatever I wanted, so I certainly never begrudged them doing the heavy lifting in combat. Then again, I never felt useless, either, especially after the first time I had another player delay his character's action until after mine had made his knowledge check and could tell him what they were dealing with. That was gratifying. I may, or may not have said something to the other players (out of character) to the effect of "Dance, puppets, dance!"
Lovely.
Yeah, this cleric is very similar...he BLOWS in combat, to be honest...but he's got a 16 Int, and is so knowledgeable it hurts...at 3rd level, his preferred 4 or 5 knowledge skills are at +9...ALL the others are at +6...
...a friggin' dwarf cleric.
Wait. Hmmm...they should all be +11 and +8. PCGen missed the +2 bonus...
|
|
Lovely.
Yeah, this cleric is very similar...he BLOWS in combat, to be honest...but he's got a 16 Int, and is so knowledgeable it hurts...at 3rd level, his preferred 4 or 5 knowledge skills are at +9...ALL the others are at +6...
...a friggin' dwarf cleric.
Wait. Hmmm...they should all be +11 and +8. PCGen missed the +2 bonus...
Awesome:) That +2 really matters, too, because knowledge checks generally can't be retried (certainly not in combat), so they are one and done. Plus the DC to know abilities and weaknesses is tied to the creature's CR, so you basically have to keep pumping points into them to stay "competitive" with the increasing DCs.
BTW, to those thinking "this is off topic", apologies - but I do think this shows what people mean when they say that optimizing doesn't have to mean optimizing for combat, and that the line between rp and power-gaming is nebulous at best. I think the question much earlier in the thread about "what are these characters supposed to be good at" was on point - if the answer to that is "paladin-cookery", then the onus is on the player and the GM to find ways of making that matter - and is probably easier to do if the rest of the party can pick up a bit of the combat duty.
Agreed...but...in all fairness, I should point out - this particular character is an NPC...not that he wouldn't be a blast to roleplay. ;)
sickly noble girl who couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. Int/Cha based support bard. had as her performances, Oratory, Dancing, Acting, and Puppetry.
Puppetry was an unusual perform choice, but it covered sleight of hand and disable device due to the finesse required to play with strings. plus, performing puppet shows with cute plush dolls was a very Moe way of earning tips.
she dumped STR and CON to 7
25 point fetchling bard
Str 7
Con 7
Dex 16
Int 17 (increase at 4th, 8th and 12th level)
Wis 12
Cha 18
Items included a series of magic petticoats that doubled as a handy haversack minus the weight, for storing her gadgets and her plushies, a gothloli dress enhanced to further push her intellect and charisma, taking the body slot, a pair of stockings enhanced to augment her dexterity and constitution, taking up the pants slot, an ascot that provided a resistance bonus to saving throws and a deflection bonus to AC akin to a sihidron ring in the neck slot, and special plushies that doubled as combat constructs and reskinned golems
her cohort, was her younger twin sister, an oblivious combat oriented angelkin oracle. her followers were mostly exotic servants at her manor.
|
|
sickly noble girl who couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. Int/Cha based support bard. had as her performances, Oratory, Dancing, Acting, and Puppetry.
Puppetry was an unusual perform choice, but it covered sleight of hand and disable device due to the finesse required to play with strings. plus, performing puppet shows with cute plush dolls was a very Moe way of earning tips.
she dumped STR and CON to 7
25 point fetchling bard
Str 7
Con 7
Dex 16
Int 17 (increase at 4th, 8th and 12th level)
Wis 12
Cha 18Items included a series of magic petticoats that doubled as a handy haversack minus the weight, for storing her gadgets and her plushies, a gothloli dress enhanced to further push her intellect and charisma, taking the body slot, a pair of stockings enhanced to augment her dexterity and constitution, taking up the pants slot, an ascot that provided a resistance bonus to saving throws and a deflection bonus to AC akin to a sihidron ring in the neck slot, and special plushies that doubled as combat constructs and reskinned golems
her cohort, was her younger twin sister, an oblivious combat oriented angelkin oracle. her followers were mostly exotic servants at her manor.
That's just weird. :p
This came up once as a GM for me, but specifically it was because the player had rolled his stats super well (I have since stopped having players roll for stats), and that was the only time I thought it was a problem worth addressing (I focused on giving the OP barb items that gave him more options/cool things to do in combat versus making him more powerful iutright, while the rest of the loot was tailored to making the other party members stronger).
If it's just a matter of choices in feats and build and such, its the player's choices that made their characters sub-par or optimal. I will tailor the game to challenge them all equally as best I can.
That's just weird. :psickly noble girl who couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag. Int/Cha based support bard. had as her performances, Oratory, Dancing, Acting, and Puppetry.
Puppetry was an unusual perform choice, but it covered sleight of hand and disable device due to the finesse required to play with strings. plus, performing puppet shows with cute plush dolls was a very Moe way of earning tips.
she dumped STR and CON to 7
25 point fetchling bard
Str 7
Con 7
Dex 16
Int 17 (increase at 4th, 8th and 12th level)
Wis 12
Cha 18Items included a series of magic petticoats that doubled as a handy haversack minus the weight, for storing her gadgets and her plushies, a gothloli dress enhanced to further push her intellect and charisma, taking the body slot, a pair of stockings enhanced to augment her dexterity and constitution, taking up the pants slot, an ascot that provided a resistance bonus to saving throws and a deflection bonus to AC akin to a sihidron ring in the neck slot, and special plushies that doubled as combat constructs and reskinned golems
her cohort, was her younger twin sister, an oblivious combat oriented angelkin oracle. her followers were mostly exotic servants at her manor.
my loli pair were a little akward, but that is because their uncle was an eccentric count, conjurer, and enabler of the insane. it was like watching a socially akward Moe anime such as K-On, the meloncholy of Haruhi Suzumaya, Rozen Maiden, or most Clamp Anime.
If you're that attached to being a complete non-combatant, maybe you should try another game that is more friendly to that style of play?