Limit the books and put specific rules on builds.
For my part, I set up the following rules for my current campaign:
*No slumbering hex (witch) or alchemical allocation (alchemist)
*All stats must be no higher than 16 or lower than 10 pre-racial bonuses
(so no starting with a 20 by dumping a stat or two to 7)
*No Gunslingers or Summoners (the former was actually for flavor more than munchkin-ness).That at least offset what I "didn't want to deal with" as a GM. From there, well, they are going to build as they want, as long as they all play from a similar power level everything should be relatively fine. It's somewhat hard to just say "build your character badly"; most players prefer to have a character who does their job well and such, whether you think of that as "Munchkin" or not.
Beyond that, don't feel too attached to NPCs, especially at low levels; the wizard will end a lot of fights (even boss fights) with color spray and sleep. Higher levels this ceases to be as much of an issue; as monsters start getting higher SR and CMDs. So early let them win, challenge them when they are a little less squsihy and ready to take it :).
No higher starting stat of 16 is a good start but don't limit the ability to drop to 7 as you will make it impossible to play MAD class.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you're making a LOT of assumptions. First and foremost is that a non-munchkin PC is a death magnet.
Who's making that assumption? Your post sounds like you're replying to me, except I'm not assuming that a non-munchkin PC is a death magnet. After all, the other PCs are all non-munchkin and (as far as we know) haven't died.
So what did I say that implied I was making this assumption? Please quote me so I know exactly where I miscommunicated. Thanks.
I've survived plenty of deadly encounters with non-optimized characters. It's all about finding a solution to the problem at hand.
Right there with ya, buddy. I like versatile generalists, myself.
How did asking a player not to be a munchkin become a game limitation?
By the OP citing a higher AC as being a violation of that request. If a number being too high means the request is not being honored, then the request literally means "please limit your number(s)". So yes, requesting that PCs stay under a certain threshold is by definition a "limitation". Note: That doesn't mean it's an unreasonable one; any rule or guideline is a limitation of one sort or another, and I for one like to have some boundaries to work within.
If you're of the opinion that DPR and Action Economy are the end all, and that the game has a "win" and a "lose" scenario, then that would be all well and good.
Where in the world are you getting the idea that I think anything even close to this?
But this game is not, let me repeat NOT designed around absolute optimization. The CR is designed around an averagely rolled Warrior, Mage, Thief, and Cleric concept, perhaps with 1 or 2 more added in. The adventure paths say how many characters of what level are intended. The DM's responsiblity is to adjust that up or down depending on the players and their relative strengths.
The game is not designed around a level-dipping combat monkey who takes 2 levels of Ranger, 2 levels of Monk, 2 levels of Sorceror, and 10 levels of Dragon Disciple, has 7 natural/unarmed attacks per round plus quickened empowered spells to ensure that he is the Epitome of All Things.
Aaaaaand now you're not even talking to *me* anymore, you're just re-living an ongoing conflict you've had with others (who I'm guessing didn't listen to you). I guess I must have said something that reminded you of past arguments you've had, and now you're just going on autopilot and saying what you said/would be saying to them, instead of responding to what I'm actually saying in this thread.
You're arguing against things I haven't said (or implied), making points that I agree with, and rapidly getting waaaaay too worked up in the process.
Please don't drag me into your unresolved past conflicts with others. Thanks.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always audit the characters.
There is no right to privacy in PC builds.
The GM has to know what the players are capable of to his job.
Also, I amused that in this thread multiclassing and monks are considered powerful.
Again, you're making a LOT of assumptions. First and foremost is that a non-munchkin PC is a death magnet.Who's making that assumption? Your post sounds like you're replying to me, except I'm not assuming that a non-munchkin PC is a death magnet. After all, the other PCs are all non-munchkin and (as far as we know) haven't died.
So what did I say that implied I was making this assumption? Please quote me so I know exactly where I miscommunicated. Thanks.
I was indeed replying to you. By suggesting that implementing limitations on a PC inherently makes them weaker, you're one step away from suggesting that unless a PC is optimized, they're weak.
By the OP citing a higher AC as being a violation of that request. If a number being too high means the request is not being honored, then the request literally means "please limit your number(s)". So yes, requesting that PCs stay under a certain threshold is by definition a "limitation".
Now, this one is not your fault, you were basing your info on the fact that the OP doesn't seem to comprehend what's normal and legal for a monk, and what's "overpowered, optimized, munchkin, or min/maxxed" in a normal sense. By design, Monks have high AC. It's even been shown that a level 4 Monk can indeed exceed 32 in combat. I agree with your assessment here, and the basic definition. So that's a lesson learned for the DM, I think.
If you're of the opinion that DPR and Action Economy are the end all, and that the game has a "win" and a "lose" scenario, then that would be all well and good.Where in the world are you getting the idea that I think anything even close to this?
This is indeed where I started making generalizations not towards you, but as a shotgun blast to people who use the DPR and AE mechanics to optimize, and anything short of that is unacceptable. Again, not directed towards you. The entirety of the post was not meant to apply to you directly. If it was taken that way, that is MY miscommunication, not yours. I actually agree with you in many respects.
As far as the other comments, the min/maxxed Dragon Disciple is one of MY attempts to munchkin, not one that I have a problem with or had "past issues" with. I have no beef with you personally, I wish you just wouldn't overreach with jumping to conclusions and assumptions that you may have to retract later. Your responses are rife with it, if you review your own posts.
No higher starting stat of 16 is a good start but don't limit the ability to drop to 7 as you will make it impossible to play MAD class.
Definitely have to disagree with you here. Assuming a 20 point buy build, a max of 16 and a min of 10 equates to 2 scores of 16, everything else 10. That's a +3 to two ability scores, right from creation, plus your race choice might even bump one or both of them to 18. That's at level 1. If you start higher, you can introduce stat increases and magic items.
I'd say that's plenty to build an effective MAD class. Am I missing something obvious there in my math perhaps?
Play Swords & Wizardry? :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
By suggesting that implementing limitations on a PC inherently makes them weaker, you're one step away from suggesting that unless a PC is optimized, they're weak.
As an aside, let's remember that if I'm one step away from suggesting something, then that means I haven't suggested it.
But more to the point, I never suggested that "implementing limitations on a PC inherently makes them weaker". I didn't even imply it. I identified the OP's implied limitations as being specifically about keeping PCs' power level from going too high. If you took that and then assumed that what I said was the goal of the OP's individual case was instead the natural result of limitations in general, that's on you, not me. Making a statement about the specific does not inherently imply anything about the general; any generalities you thought you saw along those lines were your own assumptions.I wish you just wouldn't overreach with jumping to conclusions and assumptions that you may have to retract later. Your responses are rife with it, if you review your own posts.
I already acknowledged that I was making inferences about the OP's situation, and even asked for people to point any out that they thought were unreasonable. (Thus far, no one has. Feel free to do so; just please be specific.)
And honestly, I'm perfectly okay with retracting statements if/when more information becomes available. I don't understand when people act like having to retract a statement is The Greatest Shame. Being able to make reasonable extrapolations from what facts you have, and being willing to revise or abandon those extrapolations when you learn more, are both equally important parts of being a reasonable adult. The possibility of having to retract a statement is not something I feel the need to preemptively avoid by not making any inferences in the first place just because I might be wrong. Everyone's wrong about lots of things at different times. Might as well accept it, make corrections as you learn and move on, is what I say.
|
Lets go with a Level 4 Monk with 18 DEX/CHA.
- +4 AC (DEX)
- +4 AC (WIS) + 1 (AC Bonus Feature)
So base is 19.
To obtain Crane Style, if not simply entering it at level 1 is Dodge and BAB +2. Let us say that the person messed up and grabbed Dodge before just grabbing Crane Style.
- 19 + 1 AC (Dodge) = 20
When Fighting Defensively, Crane Style activates. If the monk has 3 ranks into Acrobatics, another AC (Dodge).
- 20 + 2 (FightD) + 1 (Crane) + 1 (Acro) = 24
Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor seems nice, and the monk would think that those two are cheap enough to buy.
- 24 + 1 AC (Natural) + 1 AC (Deflection) = 26
Now the monk wants to survive a bit longer and sees that Dexterity and Wisdom helps in that, so the monk buys a belt and headband.
- 26 + 1 (DEX) + 1 (WIS) = 28
And Finally, the mage asks why the monk does not have any armor. The monk shrugs and the wizard casts Mage Armor.
- 28 + 4 AC (Armor) = 32
The monk was considering Combat Expertise, but see that it would hinder the ability to hit, so the monk decided not to
Short Version:
- 10 Base
- 5 DEX (18 Base + 2 Enhancement)
- 6 WIS (18 Base + 2 Enhancement + 1 AC Bonus)
- 1 Deflection (Ring of Protection)
- 1 Natural (Amulet of Natural Armor)
- 3 Dodge (2 Fighting Defensively + 1 Acrobatics)
- 1 Dodge (Crane Style)
- 1 Dodge (Dodge Feat)
- 4 Armor (Mage Armor)
- 32 Armor (Fighting Defensively)
- 28 Armor (Not Fighting Defensively)
Nothing out of the ordinary, no mega Munchkining. And with the exception of Crane Style, just simple ideas and equipment that can be grabbed from the Core Rulebook. If there was no Crane Style, you can swap it with Combat Expertise, and at Level 4, gives a similar bonus.
And if you say that two 18s does it, here is a second calculation with Combat Expertise.
- 10 Base
- 4 DEX (16 Base + 2 Enhancement)
- 5 WIS (16 Base + 2 Enhancement + 1 AC Bonus)
- 1 Deflection (Ring of Protection)
- 1 Natural (Amulet of Natural Armor)
- 3 Dodge (2 Fighting Defensively + 1 Acrobatics)
- 1 Dodge (Crane Style)
- 1 Dodge (Dodge Feat)
- 1 Dodge (Combat Expertise)
- 4 Armor (Mage Armor)
- 31 Armor (Fighting Defensively)
- 27 Armor (Not Fighting Defensively)
Similar Results with less Ability Scores.
|
Everyone is going on about punishment or blame. This is a friendly discussion about a game played between friends. The OP is asking for assistance and assistance is what should be provided.
As stated previously check over the character making sure everything is above board. Make sure non-stackable bonuses are not stacking and that stackable ones are. I would also advise the player on other option such as other feats or abilities he could take to maximise his character either offence, defence and social. This way you learn the characters weaknesses and it’s all in your rights as the GM. Once done congratulate him on making a tough nut.
Once you are happy the character is legal then there are no problems; so he has a high AC at 4th level. Let him shine while he may as later levels the bonuses to hit will by far outstrip his ability to boost his AC.
Occasionally (and I do mean occasionally) direct attacks at his weaker abilities. This must be done rarely otherwise the player feels you are victimising them. Don’t boost the encounters except for adding an odd mook here and there or boosting the big bad by +1 or +2 otherwise you are likely to kill off everyone but the one with the high AC.
Play the monsters to their intelligence; yes mindless undead are just that but if intelligent mooks are having problems hitting someone they will either gang up on that one or go for the softer targets first. They could use aid another to provide bonuses to hit. Flanking and terrain to help boost their attacks; I’m not saying you are not doing this but taking a second look into possible bonuses may be rewarding.
As stated previously swarms are very effective against high AC char’s but the party has to have a way of taking them out otherwise its run or death. Spells to hinder are useful. Slow, bane, ray enfeeblement are a few you could use to hinder their effectiveness. Poison can be a killer at this level and attacking from invisible with a poison blade could be a possibility.
Play to the strengths of the enemy, maybe they have heard of the powerful (4th level is like a local hero status) party and its un-hittable monk. Have monks from other monasteries come to fight him or observe his fighting style. Have a party of young monks following the party around and making observations on the combat as its happening. Each with notepads and pens and oohing and ahhing over every miss and every attack. Have a high level monk come down from his mountain trying to find and kill the perpetrator that stole his iron skin technique; it matters not that this monk was not the perpetrator.
In summery, don’t penalize the player if he has indeed made what is in his opinion an effective character. Roll with it and show him through attrition what parts of character development he missed. (If any)
Sorry for the long post I hope it helps.
Sic.
|
|
Also, I amused that in this thread multiclassing and monks are considered powerful.
They are powerful IF you have the system mastery to make them work. Monk archetypes are generally vastly superior to the core only monk (with a few traps), but there have been threads that have shown a core only monk be very competitive. Multiclassing can generally bring a lot to a build in low to middle levels, at the cost of capstones in high levels that most players will never see. For most home games I've played in and all of PFS, only primary casters loose more than they gain by multiclassing, if you plan the build for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, you lost me at, "I don't want to adapt to my player's play styles."
As someone who thoroughly enjoys optimization and building interesting characters, you wouldn't have my respect if you flat-out told me that you were limiting my options because you didn't want to step up to the challenge of designing encounters around my character. Your job as the GM is to make sure your game is suitably difficult for your players, and as a GM myself I've always enjoyed players who optimize because it means I can throw harder challenges at them. And when they fail miserably, I can shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I thought you were optimized!"
You ask them to knock it off or don't run for them. Let one of them run for a while.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
And honestly, I'm perfectly okay with retracting statements if/when more information becomes available. I don't understand when people act like having to retract a statement is The Greatest Shame.
i have never said anything wrong ever
oh man The Happening is going to be a great movie
wait
Facebook will never be bigger than MySpace
what the-
hahaha Boston will never win a World Series
dammit
oh man where are my pants, I am never drinking again
oh jeez
improved critical and keen stack
OKAY OKAY OKAY I GET IT
QUOTES REMOVED FOR IRRELEVANCE AND BREVITY
*hug*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, you lost me at, "I don't want to adapt to my player's play styles."
As someone who thoroughly enjoys optimization and building interesting characters, you wouldn't have my respect if you flat-out told me that you were limiting my options because you didn't want to step up to the challenge of designing encounters around my character. Your job as the GM is to make sure your game is suitably difficult for your players, and as a GM myself I've always enjoyed players who optimize because it means I can throw harder challenges at them. And when they fail miserably, I can shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I thought you were optimized!"
This. All day long. This is the meat and potatoes of the entire thread.
|
|
But the situation of one person being Maximized while others are not, then would you crank up the CR and kill everyone, just to say "Well, I thought you were optimized!" to that single person? Are you going to sacrifice the enjoyment of other players just to even the playing field of PC v. GM?
Though even with that said, there are a bunch of factors that could be applied here. Maybe after that first death, the PC in question was afraid to lose another character and tried something that would not be so easily smacked around. Given the two examples I posted earlier, it can be done with nearly basic stuff, not Min-Maxing as well. Trust me on the Min-Max of AC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are powerful IF you have the system mastery to make them work. Monk archetypes are generally vastly superior to the core only monk (with a few traps), but there have been threads that have shown a core only monk be very competitive. Multiclassing can generally bring a lot to a build in low to middle levels, at the cost of capstones in high levels that most players will never see. For most home games I've played in and all of PFS, only primary casters loose more than they gain by multiclassing, if you plan the build for it.
Also, I amused that in this thread multiclassing and monks are considered powerful.
This has not been my experience, however, I accept that you may have a different, equally valid experience with the game.
OP: I think this all comes down to style of play. What you're describing is a play style that many here consider to be valid.
What you need to do is ditch the punitive attitude and have a constructive talk with this player about your style and his. Be prepared to make some concessions for his fun, and ask him not to derail your game in exchange.
Also, AC isn't the only way to hit. ;)
|
We are on session 26 and about 10 games ago the min/maxer's character died. He did a new character, a monk, and has just gone nuts with munchkining it....1) What is your definition of munchkining?
2) How is his AC going up to 32?
3) he can't possibly be doing any worthwhile damage.
4) 4th level? Drop him with a colour spray or sleep.
* With Combat Expertise, a trait, and Ki, he could be pulling in situational AC+7 (+12 if he has also Dodge/Mobility). ...and I'm guessing he's also the recipient of buffing by his much higher level allies. (He's likely switching-hitting AC and offense on various rounds, depending upon his state of health during combat.)
* Low DC magic doesn't work well on a monk (his race/traits/feats depending, of course).
* Thanks to the new, IMO poorly advised, FAQ Paizo has gone with in conjunction to the 6th printing's text for Flurry, the definition of munchkining now encompasses "I'll burn Ki to two-hand Power Attack three times a round at 4th level with my temple sword!"
If the party tank trips a foe next to the squirt monk, he's going to rip the prone target to shreds with triple the attacks a fighter his level would ordinarily receive.
|
|
So base AC: 21 (Wis + Dex bonuses), +1 (Combat Expertise), +3 (Fighting Defensively) +2 (Standing still, Sacred Mountain) +1 (Ring of Protection) +1 (Monk Level), and, 9 times (plus drunken ki) per day (Ki Pool) can be +4 extra. That's a 33.
And I'm still hitting at +7/+7 for d8+6. Soon I'll also pick up trip and knock people down well too.
Yeah, guess it is possible. Who said monks are weak? :).
According to the FAQ, a 4th level monk is BAB=4 for Combat Expertise and Power Attack while flurrying.
Monks are also greatly empowered in games with rolled stats; i.e., two 18s is normally cost-prohibitive in point-buy, but common in roll 'em for a 17 and a pre-racial 16 for two 18s at 4th. In a fighter, it just means a few more HP (as the player picks CON after STR); but in a monk it can transcend to stellar touch AC: 18 buck-naked, 22 buck-naked w/Ki, before counting a single other trait, feat, tactic, item or class ability,
two 18s is [...] common in roll 'em
I'm sorry, what?
I'll venture that perhaps people who "roll" stats away from the table might end up with this kind of luck, and there are many folks who like to roll away from the table...
But what you are really saying here is that high stats are common in campaigns where the GM allows high stats. Allotting higher point buy or allowing a ton of rolls, makes no difference really.
I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying. I read his post as "higher stats are more commonly seen when the players roll for stats instead of using a standard 20-point buy system at creation" and I agree. The luck of the dice often times produces better scores than I could purchase.
|
|
I'm sorry, you lost me at, "I don't want to adapt to my player's play styles."
As someone who thoroughly enjoys optimization and building interesting characters, you wouldn't have my respect if you flat-out told me that you were limiting my options because you didn't want to step up to the challenge of designing encounters around my character. Your job as the GM is to make sure your game is suitably difficult for your players, and as a GM myself I've always enjoyed players who optimize because it means I can throw harder challenges at them. And when they fail miserably, I can shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I thought you were optimized!"
Sometimes (i.e., frequently) a GM is far more interested in the story of his campaign than in ensuring that every twinked build his players can devise is properly challenged. And, if he's running an LotR-style medieval fantasy campaign, he may not want tengu ninjas, drow synthacists and goblin alchemists wrecking the verisimilitude of the setting.
(Informing all the players in the beginning that characters will utilize the 15/14/12/12/12/12 array is also a great way to make it clear that you'll be running an RP-heavy adventure.)
Let's see if I can min-max this, 20 point buy, and get the 32:
Aasmir Drunken Master Monk of the Sacrd Mountains +Wis/Dex
Str: 7
Int: 10
Wis: 18 (20 with magic item)
Dex: 19 (20 after level up, 22 with magic item)
Con: 14
Chr: 7My trait lets me combat experitse for -1 less to my attack bonus.
I bought an Agile Amulet of Mighty fist, a wand of mage armor for the party's mage, a +1 ring of protection, a headband of Wisdom, and a Belt of dex +2
Feats: 1) Combat Expertise, Weapon Finessee
2) Dodge
3) Crane Style 1I always fight defensivly with combat expertise; and when in dangerous area ask for mage armor.
So base AC: 21 (Wis + Dex bonuses), +1 (Combat Expertise), +3 (Fighting Defensively) +2 (Standing still, Sacred Mountain) +1 (Ring of Protection) +1 (Monk Level), and, 9 times (plus drunken ki) per day (Ki Pool) can be +4 extra. That's a 33.
And I'm still hitting at +7/+7 for d8+6. Soon I'll also pick up trip and knock people down well too.
Yeah, guess it is possible. Who said monks are weak? :).
4th level character who can bump his AC to 32
I did not do the math yet, but that looks like a lot of stuff for level 4.
Great now I have to do math..
Level 4 WBL 6,000 gp
Agile Amulet of Mighty fist 4000
wand of mage armor 750
a +1 ring of protection 2000
------------------------------------------------
We are already beyond WBL, and if I add in the stat boosters we also pass WBL for 5th level characters which is 10000 gp
First, let me thanks everyone for all of the advice. I was away from the computer during most of the discussion so couldn't sound off on anything, but here is my take-away so far.
Maybe I am overreacting. I have DM'ed and played for almost 25 years now and am not sure what was bugging me about this situation the most, maybe I am getting old and grumpy.
This current group consists of players that have played under me for a long time as well as a few new ones. The player I was having the issue with was one of my older players (he was in my Worlds Largest Dungeon campaign as well as another campaign at the defunct Game Store).
Perhaps I was trying to adjust the encounters for his character and that was causing issues with the other players and I was taking that as his character was causing the problem.
I am doing audits on the characters, I have the paladin character in front of me at the moment and am going through it, not gotten the monk yet (LOL).
I do appreciate all the advice, I will take everything into consideration, and talk with my group before our next game to get everything out in the open.
Thanks,
David C Smith
I wanted to see how hard it was to get 32 AC with a level 4 Monk. Other people have posted builds since I started, but I did my build without much gear. This how I got there:
+8 combined Wis and Dex to AC (not hard)
+1 Dodge [L1 bonus feat]
+1 Monk AC [L4]
+2 Fighting Defensively (-4 attack)
+1 Crane style [L1 feat] (+2 back to attack)*
+1 3 ranks in Acrobatics*
+2 Barkskin [Qinggong, L4]
+1 Bracers of Armor (1000g)
+1 Blocking weapon
+4 Monk ki point used each round
+22 AC total (* activates off of fighting defensively)
Getting to this AC requires casting Barkskin (1 ki) before combat or as a first action. You would then need a swift action to pump AC each round (1 ki). This could be maintained for only 5 rounds per day at level 4 with an 18 Wisdom (6 ki pool). You would also need to become proficient in the blocking weapon wielded, perhaps via Hierloom Weapon trait. Monk of the Four Winds could be used to gain Elemental Fist, so that it would scale.
I don't really see this as being extremely munchkin. You do need to start with one 18, and one 17 that goes to 18 at 4. It only needs a single 1000 gold item (1/6th of WBL, so you can get that Agile AoMF). It even has one unused feat and one unused bonus feat.
Not used but considered:
Ring of Protection +1 (2000g)
Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (2000g, does not stack with Barkskin)
Tiefling +2 Natural Armor via feat
Size +1 to AC (obviously, not usable with Tiefling)
Combat Expertise +1 to AC with trait to remove -1 to hit.
other feats
Damage for the build above would depend on the other feats and gear, but would have 1d8+str base, with +1d6 Elemental Fist on a few attacks. Attack bonus would be somewhat weak, but maybe your guy picked up Weapon Finesse?
|
(Informing all the players in the beginning that characters will utilize the 15/14/12/12/12/12 array is also a great way to make it clear that you'll be running an RP-heavy adventure.)
It's hard to role-play a charming swordsman with a lack of common sense when his str, dex, and cha can't all be higher than 12, and he can't possibly have a wis below 12. Stats are supposed to represent the character. If you limit the stats that much the characters become pretty one-dimensional. Unless you just role-play them how you want regardless of their stats, but that sounds an awful lot like a munchkin's attitude.
Sometimes (i.e., frequently) a GM is far more interested in the story of his campaign than in ensuring that every twinked build his players can devise is properly challenged. And, if he's running an LotR-style medieval fantasy campaign, he may not want tengu ninjas, drow synthacists and goblin alchemists wrecking the verisimilitude of the setting.
(Informing all the players in the beginning that characters will utilize the 15/14/12/12/12/12 array is also a great way to make it clear that you'll be running an RP-heavy adventure.)
Sometimes (i.e. ALWAYS) a GM should be taking the power level of his players into consideration while designing the story of his campaign. I am baffled by your implication that a properly challenged party cannot roleplay, or that a game focused on roleplaying is never properly challenged. Challenging your players is quite literally the basic foundations of the game; a story whose heroes aren't properly challenged is a boring story.
To give an example, I'm a GM for a set of players who are, all by accounts, optimized or optimizers. They're all 7th level, but because I know that they're A) optimized and B) experienced players, I know that I can get away with throwing tougher challenges at them. Two of my players are worshiping Athena in my campaign world, so I have them on a quest to retrieve an ancient artifact; the shield Perseus used to slay the Mother of Medusas. I built a construct-laden dungeon for them to traverse, but sadly most of the cool constructs I wanted to use are CR 10; a typical party of 7th level adventurers would be crushed. But because I know my players are both experienced and optimized, I built the CR 10 dungeon for them to enter anyway, knowing that it would provide a sufficient challenge for them. In short, the entire dungeon is 100% based around the roleplaying needs of my players AND designed to be sufficiently challenging for them (if not moreso).
Now all that said, worrying about specific race / class combinations has absolutely nothing to do with optimization. That's the story of your world, and if you don't want players being drow or goblins or whatever for story reasons, I think that's an acceptable limitation. You just need to make sure that the players know why the limitation is in place. For example, in the game I mentioned above I specifically said, "No Evil Characters" for that campaign; I had GMed a few Evil campaigns prior to that and needed a heroic break. The players understood my concerns and made Good or Neutral characters. (Most of the times they'll do what you want because a willing GM is a diamond in the rough).
I also hear you on the Summoner issue; that's the only class that I monitor. I don't forbid Summoners, but I either require strict adherence to one of the Ultimate Magic build-an-eidolons or GM approval for the eidolon's build. But its well-accepted that the eidolon is incredibly easy to break even by someone who isn't actively trying to break it.
This. All day long. This is the meat and potatoes of the entire thread.I'm sorry, you lost me at, "I don't want to adapt to my player's play styles."
As someone who thoroughly enjoys optimization and building interesting characters, you wouldn't have my respect if you flat-out told me that you were limiting my options because you didn't want to step up to the challenge of designing encounters around my character. Your job as the GM is to make sure your game is suitably difficult for your players, and as a GM myself I've always enjoyed players who optimize because it means I can throw harder challenges at them. And when they fail miserably, I can shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I thought you were optimized!"
Funny. As a GM, that reads to me as "I am a special snowflake, and you better cater to me." [As a player, it doesn't read a whole lot better, mind.]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want min-maxing in characters, don't do point buy. Do 3D6 in order, like God and Gary Gygax intended.
More practically, your friend is simply showing the results of system mastery- which was one of the major design goals of 3.X. You can either run a Red Queen's race trying to minimize min-maxing and optimization in a system designed for such, or you can play a different version of D&D. You can probably get some used copies of AD&D, and there's recently been published quite a few old-school games derived from basic D&D.
Funny. As a GM, that reads to me as "I am a special snowflake, and you better cater to me." [As a player, it doesn't read a whole lot better, mind.]
Would you challenge a core wizard the same way you would try to challenge a core sorcerer? You'll be very sorry if you tried to. I once had a GM who nearly threw a tantrum when, after an entire day's worth of encounters, only managed to deplete my 2nd level Sorcerer spell slots. I was a 14th level sorcerer who played smart.
The rules are built with considerable assumptions. As monsters scale up in toughness, the rules assume that you have access to spells like fly and haste, magical healing, a character with a decent AC. So on and so forth. When you fail to meet those assumptions, or you overcompensate for them in ways that the rules do not expect, you either have face rolls or unexpected TPKs. I don't mean to imply that I don't think faceroll encounters or TPK should never happen, but when you play with the rules straight out of the box, that is what will happen to you.
Take another consideration; the Five-Man band. The rules are designed for a party of four, so if you don't compensate for that fifth player, you are effectively making every encounter 20% easier at the very least; that could be an even larger number if you're doubling up on powerful characters, like arcane spellcasters or divine spellcasters.
Finally, I'm not sure how my post reads as, "I'm a special snowflake" to you when I spend over 2/3rds of the post speaking from the role of GM myself. And interestingly enough, your comment reads to me as, "I don't agree with you, but I can't come up with an intelligent retort so I'm just going to try and insult you." I don't mind if you don't agree with me (that is how discussion is formed), but please try and act civil about it. Not everyone on the internet is out for your blood.
If you don't want min-maxing in characters, don't do point buy. Do 3D6 in order, like God and Gary Gygax intended.
More practically, your friend is simply showing the results of system mastery- which was one of the major design goals of 3.X. You can either run a Red Queen's race trying to minimize min-maxing and optimization in a system designed for such, or you can play a different version of D&D. You can probably get some used copies of AD&D, and there's recently been published quite a few old-school games derived from basic D&D.
I agree with this. Too often system mastery gets inappropriately flagged as "munchkin." I don't remember who made the argument, but I enjoyed the Paizo poster who reminded everyone that the heroes of a Pathfinder world are effectively its best soldiers and athletes. And you can bet that at every point throughout history, the best soldiers and athletes have always been "optimized," whether that's through the supply of better equipment and training (most knights, for example, were noblemen and had more money and education than common infantrymen) up to the modern day where athletes practice constant dieting and exercise plans.
|
|
Let's see if I can min-max this, 20 point buy, and get the 32:
Aasmir Drunken Master Monk of the Sacrd Mountains +Wis/Dex
Str: 7
Int: 10
Wis: 18 (20 with magic item)
Dex: 19 (20 after level up, 22 with magic item)
Con: 14
Chr: 7My trait lets me combat experitse for -1 less to my attack bonus.
I bought an Agile Amulet of Mighty fist, a wand of mage armor for the party's mage, a +1 ring of protection, a headband of Wisdom, and a Belt of dex +2
Feats: 1) Combat Expertise, Weapon Finessee
2) Dodge
3) Crane Style 1I always fight defensivly with combat expertise; and when in dangerous area ask for mage armor.
So base AC: 21 (Wis + Dex bonuses), +1 (Combat Expertise), +3 (Fighting Defensively) +2 (Standing still, Sacred Mountain) +1 (Ring of Protection) +1 (Monk Level), and, 9 times (plus drunken ki) per day (Ki Pool) can be +4 extra. That's a 33.
And I'm still hitting at +7/+7 for d8+6. Soon I'll also pick up trip and knock people down well too.
Yeah, guess it is possible. Who said monks are weak? :).
You don't get the Sacred Mountain shield bonus to AC until 5th level but you forgot to add the bonus for Dodge, so you have a 32 AC. Though you magic items far exceeded the WBL. Someone should audit your character. :)
Funny. As a GM, that reads to me as "I am a special snowflake, and you better cater to me." [As a player, it doesn't read a whole lot better, mind.]This. All day long. This is the meat and potatoes of the entire thread.I'm sorry, you lost me at, "I don't want to adapt to my player's play styles."
As someone who thoroughly enjoys optimization and building interesting characters, you wouldn't have my respect if you flat-out told me that you were limiting my options because you didn't want to step up to the challenge of designing encounters around my character. Your job as the GM is to make sure your game is suitably difficult for your players, and as a GM myself I've always enjoyed players who optimize because it means I can throw harder challenges at them. And when they fail miserably, I can shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I thought you were optimized!"
Nobody is advocating making exceptions for one player, but if the OP said that it reads as he won't change anything for the group, most adventures don't fit a group as written, even homebrews. Things happen, and most GM's need to adjust. How much adjusting will vary depending on the situation.
|
|
No; it's *easy* to roleplay -- you're just also lucky (i.e., your will save is +3 higher than the nitwit who inflicts a WIS:07 fighter on the party because his idea of chaotic-evil fun is killing his friends' characters while dominated).(Informing all the players in the beginning that characters will utilize the 15/14/12/12/12/12 array is also a great way to make it clear that you'll be running an RP-heavy adventure.)It's hard to role-play a charming swordsman with a lack of common sense when his str, dex, and cha can't all be higher than 12, and he can't possibly have a wis below 12.
Stats are supposed to represent the character. If you limit the stats that much the characters become pretty one-dimensional. Unless you just role-play them how you want regardless of their stats, but that sounds an awful lot like a munchkin's attitude.
15/14/12/12/12/12 array in....
Dwarf fighter/cleric: STR:15, DEX:12, CON+16, INT:12, WIS+14, CHA-10
Halfling n'er-do-well: STR-10, DEX+17, CON:12, INT:12, WIS:12, CHA+16
Human barbarian: STR+17 (21 raging) ....etc.
-- I'm not seeing any one-dimensionality here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, step back for a second. They're at 4th level. The "munchkin" character is a monk. Which means in another few levels (more or less, depending on yes/no railroading and encounter design), he'll be soundly and routinely overshadowed at everything he can do by everyone else in the party (assuming they're not playing NPC classes or PF rogues).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My advice to the OP? Stop expecting people to make bad (or worse than they are capable of making) characters just because you don't like people being good at things.
* Thanks to the new, IMO poorly advised, FAQ Paizo has gone with in conjunction to the 6th printing's text for Flurry, the definition of munchkining now encompasses "I'll burn Ki to two-hand Power Attack three times a round at 4th level with my temple sword!"If the party tank trips a foe next to the squirt monk, he's going to rip the prone target to shreds with triple the attacks a fighter his level would ordinarily receive.
3 times a round at 4th, only gaining the regular Power Attack bonus (because last I checked all attacks in Flurry got 1x Str regardless of how you wield the weapon, which should honestly be changed too) at an effective +2 BaB, after blowing a resource you likely only have 3-4 of unless you're a Wis/Dex Monk (in which case you probably don't have the 13 Str required for Power Attack, nor any real Str bonus to damage...). So in reality if you have the Str to deal decent damage, you also have an extremely poor AC.
Yar, that's some seriously munchkiny s&&~, yo.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
only gaining the regular Power Attack bonus (because last I checked all attacks in Flurry got 1x Str regardless of how you wield the weapon, which should honestly be changed too)
Power Attack's bonus damage and your STR bonus to damage are two separate things; Power Attack does not increase your effective STR bonus.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's simple.
You must be this tall to get on this ride.
only gaining the regular Power Attack bonus (because last I checked all attacks in Flurry got 1x Str regardless of how you wield the weapon, which should honestly be changed too)Power Attack's bonus damage and your STR bonus to damage are two separate things; Power Attack does not increase your effective STR bonus.
I thought the key word in PA was "Weapons that add 1.5x Str bonus" not just "Wielded in 2 hands"? And so 2H flurrying only added 1x PA because it only did 1x Str. I coulda sworn I'd seen that somewhere, but you'd know better than I.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, step back for a second. They're at 4th level. The "munchkin" character is a monk. Which means in another few levels (more or less, depending on yes/no railroading and encounter design), he'll be soundly and routinely overshadowed at everything he can do by everyone else in the party (assuming they're not playing NPC classes or PF rogues).*ahem*
Thanks to the new, IMO poorly advised, FAQ Paizo has gone with in conjunction to the 6th printing's text for Flurry, the definition of munchkining now encompasses "I'll burn Ki to two-hand Power Attack three times a round at 4th level with my temple sword!"
...I've seen low-level monks completely slaughter modules with this stupid, broken mechanic. Remember, a monk flurrying is only -1 relative to fighter BAB; this means a monk's flurry attacks versus raw BAB are -1/-1/-1(Ki) versus a TWF fighter's -2/-2.
Thanks to Paizo's odd-ass rulings, monks can now 2hPA better than fighters. (Balance is restored higher up when the fighter's feats and class features gel, but it's very annoying for a GM to have to deal with these hog-the-show monstrosities in low-level adventures.)
Sometimes (i.e., frequently) a GM is far more interested in the story of his campaign than in ensuring that every twinked build his players can devise is properly challenged. And, if he's running an LotR-style medieval fantasy campaign, he may not want tengu ninjas, drow synthacists and goblin alchemists wrecking the verisimilitude of the setting....I would invite such a GM to let me know when his fantasy novel is published. I game to make the story, not act it out.
"But I wanna play Star Wars in the Knights of the Old Republic era, not crummy old fantasy D&D! Waaaa...."
-- And when the "It's all about me!" mentality clashes with a GM's "I'm tired of that crap." attitude, who wins the argument?
If I'm running a Game of Thrones setting, your lost Martian isn't stepping out of a crashed flying-saucer no matter how cool it is in next year's Paizo splat.
Seriously though, if a Monk is a "hog-the-show monstrosity" in your game, you're doing something wrong.
Look at what spells can do in a couple of levels -- or at 1st level, for that matter, with color spray. And this is apples-to-apples, since ki is more limited than spell slots.
Seriously though, if a Monk is a "hog-the-show monstrosity" in your game, you're doing something wrong.
I wouldn't call it "wrong," but it exhibits a very low level of system mastery. Within a couple of sessions, some halfway bright person playing a wizard or sorcerer will figure out what (s)he can actually do -- and more times a day than the monk's one trick! -- and that will be that.
|
|
Seriously though, if a Monk is a "hog-the-show monstrosity" in your game, you're doing something wrong.
When Paizo lets a 4th level monk 2hPA with temple sword three times a round for WIS rounds while the fighter, a class designed to fight stuff, gets only one attack at that level -- Paizo is doing something wrong. (And when the monk runs out of Ki, the poor thing crashes all the way down to only twice as good as the fighter.)
-- The context of the discussion is a 4th-level Pathfinder monk. We're not talking 14th level monks vs 14th level sorcs, or whatever horrible memories you have of your miserable unarmed strikes flailing impotently against DR in 3rd edition.
Seriously though, if a Monk is a "hog-the-show monstrosity" in your game, you're doing something wrong.When Paizo lets a 4th level monk 2hPA with temple sword three times a round for WIS rounds while the fighter, a class designed to fight stuff, gets only one attack at that level -- Paizo is doing something wrong. (And when the monk runs out of Ki, the poor thing crashes all the way down to only twice as good as the fighter.)
-- The context of the discussion is a 4th-level Pathfinder monk. We're not talking 14th level monks vs 14th level sorcs, or whatever horrible memories you have of your miserable unarmed strikes flailing impotently against DR in 3rd edition.
A fighter will not be less effective than a monk in combat at low levels.
Maybe when he uses his ki, but that is a limited resource. If the monk is focusing in hitting things his AC will be a lower. If he focuses on AC his damage wont be on the same level.
That fighter can put out damage, and keep a high AC.
At level 4 the monk is taking a -4 to attack rolls when using flurry and power attack.
The average CR 4 monster has an AC of 17 so now the monk has to effectively hit an AC of 21 twice.