Given that there are wealth-by-level guidelines and percentage breakdowns on how to purchase post-1st-level loot before game-start, I don't see it as at all unfair if the GM says "you cannot spend 85% of your point-buy allocation on one attribute".
Given that there are wealth-by-level guidelines and percentage breakdowns on how to purchase post-1st-level loot before game-start, I don't see it as at all unfair if the GM says "you cannot spend 85% of your point-buy allocation on one attribute".
No, but its the same as saying "No you as a fighter cannot take those Psionic feats"-- either way I am looking at my player and saying "no" to his character concept.
Belt of Strength +4 is 16,000 gold. a 7th level character should have enough wealth to get it. Again, the fact that characters always sold everything they had rolled and smushed all their wealth into BoGS +6 is part of why I stopped letting them buy any/every magic item they want with no restrictions.
Also, +4 Strength is from Orc. Its a fairly common, not that out there race from the ARG-- and again I could say "no orcs are a bad guy race" but then again I would be restricting players.
Earlier in the thread I was told that this was GM Fiat to disallow things like that. . . if martials damage output isn't problematic at all, then why should I have to say "don't spend all your point buy on an 18 strength, play orc, and spend all your gold on BoGs"?
Or why is that a more legitimate choice than saying "No, fighters cannot buy Psionic feats for the extra 4d6
Edit: Apologies when I looked up which level of BoGS I misread the price. From my earlier example this would bring our 8th level orc fighter down to 28 str excepting that I forgot to assign his +1 at 4th and 8th level which accounts for the switch to BoGs +4 while maintaining the 48 damage average on the first swing with Psionic feats).
Well, maybe, Shadowcat. If someone presented me with a character with such wildly unbalanced stats, I'd heavily suggest that they choose something more balanced, otherwise they'll just feel picked upon when all their other stats let them down.
Since the game guidelines suggest that no more than 40% of your expected WBL should be in any one item, having any item worth more 10,000 gp at 7th/8th-level is just asking for trouble. Of course, Nathanael's games seem to have other problems if his fighters are super-powerful and every NPC is protected against spell-casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At which point you're going into the whole "Is it the DM's game vs. Is it the player's game" discussion, which is even further off topic than this thread has been so far.It's absolutely fair... as long as he's telling that to ALL of his players.Given that there are wealth-by-level guidelines and percentage breakdowns on how to purchase post-1st-level loot before game-start, I don't see it as at all unfair if the GM says "you cannot spend 85% of your point-buy allocation on one attribute".For the same reason it would be unfair to tell a pc he can't play core class X, Y, or Z. Sure, the GM can do it, but should he?
Can't it be both?
Him banning things doesn't bother me. It's the logic behind them.
Nathanial when we have discussions here we try to go by the rules to avoid table variation. That is why GM Fiat is frowned up. Every group has house rules, but we know they skew things so to have a common ground for discussion they are a "no no" here.
With that said, you post a fighter build using Pathfinder rules and I can present an encounter that stops it from ruining the battle without GM Fiat when I get back home.
edit:Also 3.5 material greatly empowers Pathfinder. Leaping Attack is one example, and the feat that lets you subtract your Power Attack penalty from your AC greatly increases DPR. There is another feat that lets you make knowledge checks to get bonuses to attack and damage IIRC. I think it is in the complete champion book. There are more, and I remember these despite mot playing 3.5 for 5 years now.
You should also try building a fighter using your normal 3.5 allowances and posting it here.
the feat that lets you subtract your Power Attack penalty from your AC greatly increases DPR.
It was actually converted as a rage power called reckless Abandon. Shock Trooper I think is the one your thinking of. Rombilar's gambit was converted into Come and Get Me.
There is another feat that lets you make knowledge checks to get bonuses to attack and damage IIRC. I think it is in the complete champion book.
Knowledge Devotion.
Can't help but remember those feats.
Then let's take it a step further, not only can you not buy an 18, you can't buy a 16. You also can't dump a stat. You can only play these classes. In fact, why don't I just make your character for you? I'll play it for you while I'm at it as well.
That's hardly "a" step further, now is it? Thin ends of the wedge don't cut any mustard, I'm afraid.
Well, you could do that as GM, but your players have every right to vote with their feet, so to speak. Ultimately, in a game of rules interpretation, whose is more valid? The players should be fair to the GM as well.
Nathanial when we have discussions here we try to go by the rules to avoid table variation. That is why GM Fiat is frowned up. Every group has house rules, but we know they skew things so to have a common ground for discussion they are a "no no" here.
With that said, you post a fighter build using Pathfinder rules and I can present an encounter that stops it from ruining the battle without GM Fiat when I get back home.
edit:Also 3.5 material greatly empowers Pathfinder. Leaping Attack is one example, and the feat that lets you subtract your Power Attack penalty from your AC greatly increases DPR. There is another feat that lets you make knowledge checks to get bonuses to attack and damage IIRC. I think it is in the complete champion book. There are more, and I remember these despite mot playing 3.5 for 5 years now.
You should also try building a fighter using your normal 3.5 allowances and posting it here.
I pretty much already posted it-- Orc Fighter 8th, 24 strength base, Weapon focus and weapon specialization great sword, Power attack, Wild Talent, Psionic Weapon, Greater Psionic Weapon (since this discussion was originally on the balance of the psionics). Furious Focus.
Weapon Training to include Great Sword for the extra damage point there. Two handed Fighter option from APG to replace Armor Training with Double strength damage.With out 33K we will go with BoGs+4 (16k-- less than half), a +1 Flaming Great Sword throw in a few potions of enlarge person, and voila. . . super 8th level fighter built to do nothing but damage.
His extra 4D6 isn't really that amazing at level 8. He just uses it once and... its gone. Why is that so awful? He does on average 14 damage on one attack in an encounter, which isn't really that much. He also happened to have dumped two feats into it. Can he do anything else other than hit one guy in particular really hard? It looks like he just dumped it all into one thing the way your describing in it, in which case I would certainly hope he can do that one thing well.
Also, not seeing how this makes psionics themselves overpowered.
Also, not seeing how this makes psionics themselves overpowered.
It doesn't and he never said it did.
It doesn't and he never said it did.
Also, not seeing how this makes psionics themselves overpowered.
Correct. By and large Psions just do what wizards do (though in many people's view that makes them overpowered).
And for the record, that guy does--
3d6 (large great sword)+1d6 fire +2 Weapon Spec +1 Weapon Training +20 strength (30 strength+ double strength from the archetype) +1 magic +9 Power Attack so 4d6+33 (average 47) with an extra on average 14 on the first swing.
Actually, with a 24 str and oversized TH sword, his avg dmg is 3-18 +14, before magic, for average dmg a swing of 25+. THEN you build on top of it.
Power Attack for +9, 4-24 for GPW, +2 Spec, and +1 for sword, Enlarge for 4-24 base.
We're up to 8-48 +26 damage, also known as ~54 a swing. At level 8.
==Aelryinth
of course to get that 4d6 requires psionic focus to be expended and to gain (or regain) psionic focus is a full round action that provokes aoo, and the 4d6 is added once, not per swing, (language calls for attack singular, so RAW not per attack). makes for an excellent last blow move though, so long as you are fighting a solo monster encounter or all the mooks are dead it IS a good feat, also worth it anyways for that flat +2 to damage. Of course a flanking rogue with the same stats is actually doing about that damage while flanking at that level...with every attack...
the flanking rogue is doing +4d6 SA, not hitting as much, inferior Power Attack and not as much Str bonus.
This guy is doing 4-24 while Enlarged, +28 dmg ( I forgot the +2 from Enlarge). that's 42 points a swing without GPW.
Not really seeing that with a Rogue.
==Aelryinth
the flanking rogue is doing +4d6 SA, not hitting as much, inferior Power Attack and not as much Str bonus.
This guy is doing 4-24 while Enlarged, +28 dmg ( I forgot the +2 from Enlarge). that's 42 points a swing without GPW.
Not really seeing that with a Rogue.
==Aelryinth
1. I called out a rogue with the same stats, and yes I have actually seen such a rogue (it was even an orc). so no inferior strength or power attack.
2. bonus while flanking means they have the same to hit. the rogue is just doing it every single round.also, and I cannot stress this enough, this damage applies once per attack not attack roll, and it has a provoking full round action to prepare it again. honestly psionic shot is much more dangerous. it allows martials to nova, this is true, but braking the game, nah. this only abusable on one class, and one that's already being abused, the cavalier. Because the cavalier is the only class that that can mitigate that dangerous hit to action economy by having his mount move him to safety while regaining psionic focus.
2. bonus while flanking means they have the same to hit. the rogue is just doing it every single round.
also, and I cannot stress this enough, this damage applies once per attack not attack roll, and it has a provoking full round action to prepare it again. honestly psionic shot is much more dangerous. it allows martials to nova, this is true, but braking the game, nah. this only abusable on one class, and one that's already being abused, the cavalier. Because the cavalier is the only class that that can mitigate that dangerous hit to action economy by having his mount move him to safety while regaining psionic focus.
I believe at some point he said he only limits the rogue to one sneak attack per round anyway.
Which brings me to the point I was failing to making earlier - if he's willing to smack the rogues with a huge nerfbat, why in blazes is he apparently allowing anything and everything the fighter players can think of to use?
Which brings me to the point I was failing to making earlier - if he's willing to smack the rogues with a huge nerfbat, why in blazes is he apparently allowing anything and everything the fighter players can think of to use?
Because its impossible for fighters to be broken, and no amount of damage they could ever do could be problematic.
I believe the actual answer is I'm not-- for instance I don't let martials take Psionic feats anymore. But I was informed that limiting martials in anyway was sacrilege on these boards and that HP damage is arbitrary and unless it lets the fighter cast Wish it can't possibly be OP.
All because I originally said "Overchannel could be a problem and fighters taking psionic feats could be a problem."
I believe at some point he said he only limits the rogue to one sneak attack per round anyway.
2. bonus while flanking means they have the same to hit. the rogue is just doing it every single round.
also, and I cannot stress this enough, this damage applies once per attack not attack roll, and it has a provoking full round action to prepare it again. honestly psionic shot is much more dangerous. it allows martials to nova, this is true, but braking the game, nah. this only abusable on one class, and one that's already being abused, the cavalier. Because the cavalier is the only class that that can mitigate that dangerous hit to action economy by having his mount move him to safety while regaining psionic focus.
the same goes for greater psionic weapon
Also-- quick tangent on Sneak Attack once a round. It was/is obviously broken. There is a reason that in every added class that got put into 3.5 after the core (Scout, Ninja, ect) the iterations of the ability were limited to one attack with it per round. I didn't come up with that rule out of nowhere, I simply applied the logic that went into the game design going forward backwards.
And I didn't make it you only get one attack if you sneak attack (which those abilities essentially do) I made it that only one of your attacks gets the sneak attack bonus damage.
|
Also-- quick tangent on Sneak Attack once a round. It was/is obviously broken. There is a reason that in every added class that got put into 3.5 after the core (Scout, Ninja, ect) the iterations of the ability were limited to one attack with it per round.
They weren't limited to once per round. A Scout with Pounce could get Skirmish damage on every attack. The Ninja got Sudden Strike on every attack against a flat-footed foe.
It's not broken. It's the only thing that lets Rogues do damage.
So... Sneak attack is OP now? Rogues are OP? Ouch. I feel bad for the nerfed rogues.
Also-- quick tangent on Sneak Attack once a round. It was/is obviously broken. There is a reason that in every added class that got put into 3.5 after the core (Scout, Ninja, ect) the iterations of the ability were limited to one attack with it per round. I didn't come up with that rule out of nowhere, I simply applied the logic that went into the game design going forward backwards.
My DM had the same kneejerk negative reaction when we switched over to Pathfinder until he saw it in action. I don't know a lot about the optimization scene for 3.X, but I don't recall Rogue being one those awesome classes that needed a damage limiter. And then there's the fact that a lot of things in Pathfinder seem stupidly awesome, but only if you look at it in a vacuum. The power level of PCs and Monsters jumped (mostly) in Pathfinder; powerful is the new norm for all involved.
His extra 4D6 isn't really that amazing at level 8. He just uses it once and... its gone. Why is that so awful? He does on average 14 damage on one attack in an encounter, which isn't really that much. He also happened to have dumped two feats into it.Slight nitpick -- three feats. You can't gain psionic focus (or psionic feats) if you're not, well, psionic. He also needs Wild Talent.
Same character also has 'Weapon focus and weapon specialization great sword, Power attack, Wild Talent, Psionic Weapon, Greater Psionic Weapon (since this discussion was originally on the balance of the psionics). Furious Focus.' 7/9 feats devoted to one thing, and quiet a few are situational. Coupled with being a fighter and dumping everything into str, I'm not sure what else the character is supposed to do.
Hacking stuff to bits and ruining masterfully arranged encounters? My guess is as good as yours.
Masterfully arranged... Like dominos?
Heck, barely involves the psionic feats if they're arranged with more than one guy.
the feat that lets you subtract your Power Attack penalty from your AC greatly increases DPR.It was actually converted as a rage power called reckless Abandon. Shock Trooper I think is the one your thinking of. Rombilar's gambit was converted into Come and Get Me.
There is another feat that lets you make knowledge checks to get bonuses to attack and damage IIRC. I think it is in the complete champion book.Knowledge Devotion.
Can't help but remember those feats.
I thought there was a PF version that directly negated power attack penalties. With that said reckless abandon is for barbarians only so it is not was easy to get as it was in 3.5. Leaping Attack increased your power attack damage by 50%. IIRC the intend was to limit you to a single attack with it, but there was a way to pounce with it meaning someone with a shield could get the best out of power attack and keep the AC bonus. With a high AC you took the feat that let you drop AC to add to Power Attack and some other things I have forgotten, and by the end of your full attack the enemy was likely dead.
Nathanial when we have discussions here we try to go by the rules to avoid table variation. That is why GM Fiat is frowned up. Every group has house rules, but we know they skew things so to have a common ground for discussion they are a "no no" here.
With that said, you post a fighter build using Pathfinder rules and I can present an encounter that stops it from ruining the battle without GM Fiat when I get back home.
edit:Also 3.5 material greatly empowers Pathfinder. Leaping Attack is one example, and the feat that lets you subtract your Power Attack penalty from your AC greatly increases DPR. There is another feat that lets you make knowledge checks to get bonuses to attack and damage IIRC. I think it is in the complete champion book. There are more, and I remember these despite mot playing 3.5 for 5 years now.
You should also try building a fighter using your normal 3.5 allowances and posting it here.
I pretty much already posted it-- Orc Fighter 8th, 24 strength base, Weapon focus and weapon specialization great sword, Power attack, Wild Talent, Psionic Weapon, Greater Psionic Weapon (since this discussion was originally on the balance of the psionics). Furious Focus.
Weapon Training to include Great Sword for the extra damage point there. Two handed Fighter option from APG to replace Armor Training with Double strength damage.With out 33K we will go with BoGs+4 (16k-- less than half), a +1 Flaming Great Sword throw in a few potions of enlarge person, and voila. . . super 8th level fighter built to do nothing but damage.
That damage is ok, but not really bothersome.
With that aside I did miss your post where you said you like low powered games. With that in mind even a decent(ordinary) character will give you trouble since it wont be made for a low powered game. Something being able to cause problems in a low powered game is not broken(across the board). It is broken at your table. What is broken at table X and what is broken for almost everyone are 2 entirely differently things. What your post should have asked or said was "Is ____ OP/broken for "X" type of game. Then you should have gone on to describe "X". That fighter you mentioned would not be an issue at my table, but I run a higher powered game that you do.
What I am getting at is this----> What is OP or not OP normally boils down to table variation, and making a general claim based on how you play does not hold a lot of weight with other people since you(general statement) may be stepping outside of the norm in several areas.
Also-- quick tangent on Sneak Attack once a round. It was/is obviously broken. There is a reason that in every added class that got put into 3.5 after the core (Scout, Ninja, ect) the iterations of the ability were limited to one attack with it per round. I didn't come up with that rule out of nowhere, I simply applied the logic that went into the game design going forward backwards.
And I didn't make it you only get one attack if you sneak attack (which those abilities essentially do) I made it that only one of your attacks gets the sneak attack bonus damage.
This is not a rule. The scout did not even get sneak attack. He got skirmish, and there is a way to get it more than once a round. You just have to be able to move as a swift action, which is possible.
As for the ninja(3.5 complete adventurer) he is limited to you being flat-footed IIRC, instead of using flanking, but it was possible to get his version to work several times a round.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All because I originally said "Overchannel could be a problem and fighters taking psionic feats could be a problem."
Actually...
I still contend that Overchannel and Talented are overpowered. I think there can also be issues with the Wild Talent feat and martial characters taking Psionic feats.
But that's not what caused the backlash against you. Some of it undeserved and meanspirited. Much of it justified. It had more to do with your responses when questioned on this and...well frankly going through all the invalid assumptions, petulant sarcasm and overall neuroticism of this thread has driven me quite insane already and it's unhelpful to produce more. So let me just cut the crap and get to the root of your problem the really real reason you've built these false prejudices and why they irk me so much. So I deleted some of this to get to that point.
And its pretty obvious that several of the things discussed in this thread (charging fighter, power attack fighter, psionic feats) are considerably more powerful at 6th level than any of the CR 6 enemies that a DM has pre-scripted in bestiaries, ect.
An odd thing to say really. As any cr6 enemy apparently includes all that can fly, all that are naturally invisible, all that can crush him with a failed save. Does that make casters immune too? No, no it doesn't but they have more tools to solve these problems. The fighter who hits hard is just that; a fighter who hits hard. He's not MacGyver he won't solve the conundrum of the Belker all by his lonesome with power attack and a dream. Encounters aren't all about that big ole damage roll. They just help the encounter move along faster. Taking three more feats to solve this problem doesn't help either.
Which was followed by....
So then the DM is left making choices-- either about disallowing or house rule nerfing abilities, or to use more challenging encounters (which tend to give more exp and loot and inflate power more), or about using proper CR monsters and having them be super easy encounters for the PCs, or spending a greater amount of time to swap the more broken feats onto the creatures to make them more challenging. . .
The thing pointed out multiple times after this is that if you have trouble with martials just out damaging your encounter to the point where fights never last past the first round; improve your encounter design. Monsters using tactics isn't strange. One giant enemy isn't a threat to any group unless they're just so high above the actual APL of the group to matter. Pointing this out, however, has proven useless.
As to level appropriate CR monsters-- I think a fighter doing 6d6+13 which on average will do 25 damage which is nearly half of a CR 6 monster's hit points is somewhat of a problem-- you may not see one hit reducing say, and Ettin to half hit points as a problem, but to have combat interesting enough to last more than 2 rounds it is.
You know let's look at this really.
Average 19 on round 2 Ettin HP 21
Average 19 on round 2 Ettin HP 2
Average 19 on Round 2 Ettin HP -17
Now, I know we're not including iteratives. If we did then.
Average 25 followed by average 32 each full attack after that. IF he gets a full attack with focus that's an average of 44 damage.
So, if I can manage to get a full attack on rounds 1 and 2 then the ettin will eat about 76 damage assuming all attack hit, over two rounds. At level 6.
Now unless im wrong, the Ettin will respond with it's full attacks for about 48 damage a round for a total of 96 over two rounds. So winner goes to whoever got the full attack off first. Why? BEcause if you went that far into damage than chances are you're not that far into HP and AC. 65 hp is feasible 78 is a nigh impossibility. But none of them beat out 96 damage.
Now if damage is all that matters I'd say despite all that effort into it the Ettin just beasted the fighter. Almost half the ettins hp? How about more than half of the fighters in response?
But in case you're not interested encounters with a CR equal to the parties APL aren't meant to last long. They're bumps in the road mean tot take off maybe 25% of the parties resources if that. If he say took half the hp off the Tarrasque at level 6 than by all means I agree that is quite extreme. But if you're upset that someone took a class about dealing damage, and then spent a bunch of feats on dealing damage shaved off half the hp on a single monster in one hit I have to wonder just what game you are playing. It's not pathfinder. I mean seriously I can do enough damage to slaughter a giant bee just by being a burly guy with no feats and a greatsword at level 1. That kind of instant killing power takes a ton of investment to keep up with after like, level 3.
But we've been over this.
And yes, the Rogue who has the possibility to do 66d6 per round every round IS one of the most damaging classes in the game. If you've never played with a high level rogue and allowing every attack to be a sneak attack then you might be underestimating its damage output.
No. No not really. I won't tell you about others that deal more. But I will say that many thigns have to come together just right for this most wonderful of occurrences. For others all they have to do is pounce. Or crit. A rogue in my games that manages this is looking on in woderment as they unwrap their christmas present.
Their present is coal. As black as my unforgiving heart.
Later we go on to find some context for these outlier philosophies. Trying to find out what makes a gm paranoid about a character that deals a lot of damage over a character who straight up triavilizes an encounter without a single die roll. I mean we've seen some really nasty stuff flying around here, synthesist gunslingers, ragelancepounce, etc. Stuff that was really nasty that make 4d6 extra damage pretty harmless by comparison.
And yes, rogues have lousy to hit. Most classes gain good ways to gather to hit, clerics get buffs, maguses get arcane accuracy, smite evil, favored enemy, rage and so on and so on rogues get jack. But you know that doesn't matter because....
Very few have ACs that approach 30. High dex required for all the extra attacks+ weapon finesse. At that level they are still at a +14 attack bonus which is pretty respectable.
Lolwut? Given that BAB for rogues at 20 is closer to +15 base I'm forced to ask what on earth are you going on about here. Not a level 20 rogue. So, yeah, nevermind the above. I think you've got some splainin to do.
But we're digressing let's seek some context to your notions...
Well, since we are in the third party section of the forum, and since technically all material published for 3.5 is considered third party compatible with pathfinder. . .
My players have hundreds of dollars worth of d20 products. I'm not going to start out a game and say "these four books we own that say pathfinder are the only thing you can use." point blank, just make judgment calls on what stuff from other books I let in.
I looked for an example of what you meant by damage stacking since, really all the other stuff you banned sounded reasonable. Naturally large characters bork the system, I wondered what you meant by the damage stacking since that could mean any number of things. I got an example not feasible in pathfinder.
That's when it turned out that you run lower power games and allow practically anything from 3.5 on a case by case basis. Add to this your clear bias agaisnt things that do a lot of damage and it forms a picture in my mind of a game very very different from that which is considered the norm practically everywhere. (For the record I have hundreds of dollars of d20 products too but seeing as I don't want to be bothered with trying to convert material when I'm not being paid to do so I just don't allow them or even seek them out if allowed).
With this information in hand a clearer picture came to mind I suggested simply disallowing the old stuff altogether, and start fresh with only those few book and an open mind. Which you rejected outright because...
The changes between 3.5 and pathfinder are exceptionally minimal though. Honestly, its a few feats, a few spells, and they gave a name to the modifiers for combat moves.
Its not as though they changed the core of the game in any way-- attacks work the same, damage works the same, the classes had nothing taken away but mostly had everything they had in 3.5+ more abilities added.
The fundamental balance of the game didn't change at all.
Which has been pointed out to be flat out wrong. But, again, benefit of a doubt is given here since most people fresh out of 3.5 land is going to think the same way. It takes a bit of time before you start to udnerstand how a lot of little changes ultimately changes the mansion into a fortress.
But moving on...
5. I'm sure I can make a martial character that can do as much HP damage on average as any spell caster. You don't think that's useful/relevant to balance-- but since amount of damage dealt is a pretty important part of the game being able to build martial characters who do on average more damage on average is a big part of balance.
This came after a bit of back and forth about ridiculous caster builds in 3.5.
Average damage is in fact part of balance. But, speaking as an actual bloody game designer I can tell you that it's only half the story here. The fighters you fear so much because they deal lots of damage? They can't deal their damage if you disable that part from where it comes. Nearly every build that's tossed up here to do high melee damage suddenly finds themselves screwed over if you knock out that comfort zone. Or to put it in a way thats amusing to my late night insomnia blood sugar way too damn high mind.
The enemy cannot deal damage if he's foot slogging and you're flying.
The enemy cannot deal damage if you disarm him.
The enemy cannot damage you if he cannot charge through hindering terrain.
The enemy cannot damage you if he is dominated/asleep/charmed/prone/in a deep dark pit/in a loving centipede embrace.
Ultimately it sounds like when you design encounters you're trying to make them long attrition wars where, yes, you do nothing but use attack rolls 9/10 times because you honestly don't want to allow them to only need to do it 3/4 times.
Honestly it sounds like you've already tried some things to make longer lasting combats. Using terrain, using tactics, take it further, free your mind.
But it's getting late so let's go further down the rabbit hole as to why you suddenly find yourself under a baleful glare.
I think by this point I offered some fair advice on how to expand your horizons a bit and simply see the position we come from rather than dismiss it with more petulant sarcasm. I don't know whether or not you read it or cared. Given a later statement about being insulted probably not. Who knows.
I think after a while I stopped caring and called you out. You got insulted but never bothered to prove me wrong. Instead...you eventually posted something meaningful to me.
I've used point buy before and my players hate it. End up back at die rolling more often than not. If I make them use point buy, they will still cap out to start with the 18 so the overall game suffers from characters with super low Int and Cha left out there.
I almost NEVER use a single monster of an equivalent CR. I tend to use mixed groups, and often NPCs. If its a single monster its going to have to be at least 3-5 CR higher.
The most typical encounter is going to be against another balanced or fairly balanced NCP party-- with equal number of characters of 1-2 levels higher, and a leader who may be 3-4 levels higher.
I've recently had more success putting in much lower CR minions and spreading them out to force more movement allowing fights to last longer, or using strange tactics (four sets of Giants throwing rocks from four separate locations up on the cliffs where although they had access to flight they had to still take them on one at a time barring ranged attacks).
The biggest problem is that eventually, over the course of a game it gets to a point where I over-tune an encounter. Dealing with characters capable of putting out a ton of damage very quickly leading to slowly increasing the CR until I go a step too far and end up with a TPK-- which isn't fun for anyone at the table.
9/10 the characters cannot ABSORB the same amount of damage that they put out-- and its very difficult to have fun, engaging combats with glass cannons.
This to me is why I think you can be saved. Because you are learning.
You say your players can't take the damage that they put out? Good. Punish them. MAke them consider their defenses, their mobility, make them fight a war not of attrition but of guerilla kobolds in the rocks chucking alchemists fires from cover. The first time great sword orc gets murdered by a bunch of kobolds hurling alchemists fire after killing a mere one kobold you will have put the fear of god in them. That orc's screams will haunt their nightmares.
You can fight smarter and force them to adapt, to change. And suddenly without bannign a single thing, without fearing any amount of d6's that a player can throw you will find what you are looking for.
As far as the math on the issue-- start with 18 str, +4 racial, +6 belt of giant strength (or +4 earlier on), +2 Enlarge Person (if someone did play a wizard) and that is +10 Str, +15 for two hand weapons. Add in +9 for power attack at 8th level (+6 at 6th level) and you are dealing 3d6+24 per swing having spent only three of the fighter's feats-- and I guarantee that the other four are looking for someway to increase that (whether charge combat, or the afore mentioned +4d6 from three psionic feats). . . and then you are there looking at 48 damage on average per swing with one 16K magic item and an 8th level fighter. Behir which is CR 8 has 105HP. Two hits from fighter + a magic missile and that guy is toast.
All I can say is. Great?
Doesn't look so tough doesn't it?
But this fight can't be ended in two swings. At best it can be ended oh, in about 13 or fourteen swings. And they'll deal damage to your fighter, or better yet, his support crew.
By the way that fighter against the behir? What's his cmd, like, 26? So after I hit with my bite attack I can grab him and on the subsequent turn eat the two handed fighter alive because I think his tears are tasty. Oh I'm sorry I ruined your power up sequence with a simple stupid grapple check. What's that? Can't cut out of its belly because you're using a two handed weapon? Damn shame. Guess next time we'll use our intelligence scores over our strength scores on this one.
Don't complain. Or I'll break out the kobolds again. It's 3am and I'm in a silly mood.
By and large whether or not they are always getting a one up on you my advice to you is now as it always has been this; up your game. No not make high cr encoutners. Up your game. You are fighting with raw numbers what you should be doing with better tactics.
So yes. That is a way too long post about how a little post and a few responses have led me to believe that through all your sarcasm and bizarre preconceptions all you need is a good hard lesson on small unit tactics.
And my god it's 3am. I have sent wayyyyy too much time here.
I'm just...I'm just going to delete soem of the above. It's nothing too nasty mind. But I fear I may have gotten a little insane going through it.
It has some good stuff in there. Someone else may need it, even if the OP ignores it. I would let it stay.
Let it stay TarkXT - it is an interesting piece by itself! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let it stay TarkXT - it is an interesting piece by itself! :)
your overlord commands it
Now I'm not suggesting "allow everything". That's silly. But I am thinking when faced by a new rules set it's better to simply ignore the old stuff until you have a firm grasp of the new.
After that simply allow what you are comfortable with. OR jsut keep people limited to a few books period maybe allowing one book or another after you've had a thorough comb over with it and decided on the tools within that you will use for yourself.
Absolutely anything is overpowered if you ignore WBL guidelines, allow wildly imbalanced stats, play to people's strengths, ignore their weaknesses, hand out sweeping nerfs to various things and so on. If your players insist on serving up glass cannons, yes, you have a duty to avoid killing them at every chance (and a TPK serves no one), but since you don't like these overpowered builds getting in the way of your low-powered campaigns and your players won't take the hint, you either have to step up your campaigns or persuade your players (via player diplomacy or character intimidation) to make more balanced characters.
Yes, players can't deal damage if the enemy is flying and they aren't-- but this either becomes an impossible challenge or segregates the group to where the one character who can fly is the only one having FUN.
Sure I can go to the fighter and hit him with a Will Save DC 28 and take him out of the fight on the first action-- but that's not any FUN.
I won't go back over the ettin math-- when I looked at it closer I do have to get to level 8 with the fighter for it to be the truly ludicrous 47 average damage +14 for GPW that I showed. . .
@Rogues level 20 +15 BaB, +lets say 6 dex, +2 magic, +1 weapon focus that's +24 so to hit AC 30 (fairly high for most things) they have to roll a 6 then an 11-- sure it gets harder on the third swing, but its still possible.
Again, I've run a high level campaign and watched a Rogue make the other four players feel useless. There wasn't a primary caster in the group, but the rest of the group paled in comparison.
@the Goblins encounter-- sure it will take 13 or 14 swings total as one fighter runs to one goblin, the archers shoots at the other. The main fighter will kill the owlbear in 1 or 2 swings at most, and the way that is spread out since they are killing each goblin in one swing before they have a chance to raise the alarm its entirely possible that the fighter could recharge his GSP in between and have it ready for that 49 HP Adept he just happens to want to end in a single swing. . .
Look, I'm not saying I can't make encounters that challenge these types of characters. I'm saying that it makes planning for the game too involved at times and leaves it too open for me to mess up one way (fight over way too fast, fighter didn't get a challenge killing stuff disappointment) or the other (whoops, I was using 10th level clerics and if I were a 10th level cleric I'd be casting flame strike round one, and whoops you guys didn't spread out-- now the entire game is over and my players hold a grudge at me for the encounter literally 7 years later).
Absolutely anything is overpowered if you ignore WBL guidelines, allow wildly imbalanced stats, play to people's strengths, ignore their weaknesses, hand out sweeping nerfs to various things and so on. If your players insist on serving up glass cannons, yes, you have a duty to avoid killing them at every chance (and a TPK serves no one), but since you don't like these overpowered builds getting in the way of your low-powered campaigns and your players won't take the hint, you either have to step up your campaigns or persuade your players (via player diplomacy or character intimidation) to make more balanced characters.
I forgot to mention this in my post also. If the GM wants a low powered game, and the players are building characters stronger than what he wants then there needs to be a discussion so a gentlemen's agreement or compromise can be reached. The OP can talk to us all day here, but if the players and the GM are not on the same page it won't matter. The GM and the players could be friends in real life, but friends dont always make good table-mates.
Yes, players can't deal damage if the enemy is flying and they aren't-- but this either becomes an impossible challenge or segregates the group to where the one character who can fly is the only one having FUN.
Sure I can go to the fighter and hit him with a Will Save DC 28 and take him out of the fight on the first action-- but that's not any FUN.
Nobody is saying do these all the time. The point was that playing to the fighter's strength will allow him to be every effective, so every once make sure to not go toe to toe with him in combat. PC's will normally kill(one sidedly) monsters if in melee if that is what the PC is designed to do.
@Rogues level 20 +15 BaB, +lets say 6 dex, +2 magic, +1 weapon focus that's +24 so to hit AC 30 (fairly high for most things) they have to roll a 6 then an 11-- sure it gets harder on the third swing, but its still possible.
AC 30 is not high at level 20. It is actually pretty low. A CR 15 White dragon has a 37 before it buffs. If it uses shield and mage armor the A goes up to 45. Now your rogue need a nat 20 to hit a CR 15 monster which is 5 below party APL at that point.
Again, I've run a high level campaign and watched a Rogue make the other four players feel useless. There wasn't a primary caster in the group, but the rest of the group paled in comparison.
More info is needed. What happens at one table could be the result of table variation. What classes was everyone else playing? How was the rogue making them feel useless? How was everyone's class built? etc. I have seen rogues out damage fighters, but then I found out the fighter dumped strength, and did not take power attack, and did not use better armor because the player only cared about the concept not how it did in combat.
Look, I'm not saying I can't make encounters that challenge these types of characters. I'm saying that it makes planning for the game too involved at times and leaves it too open for me to mess up one way (fight over way too fast, fighter didn't get a challenge killing stuff disappointment) or the other (whoops, I was using 10th level clerics and if I were a 10th level cleric I'd be casting flame strike round one, and whoops you guys didn't spread out-- now the entire game is over and my players hold a grudge at me for the encounter literally 7 years later).
If your players dont want to die or have the risk of death, that is another issue in itself, and yes the game does require a lot of planning from the GM, which is why a lot of people dont like to GM. Yes you will overlook things. You will forget an NPC ability or something a player has that will negate all of your work. With that aside Flame Strike from a 10th level cleric will not normally take out an 8th level party. He can only cast it about 3 times and the small area wont catch everyone. Even then things like resist energy are spells that many parties have on hand. Well that is most group I have seen online or in real life, but your group may not do that.
It seems you have a combination of you wanting a low powered game, the players trying to build things that force you into a higher powered game, but they dont want the actual risk of death.
That is a group issue, not an issue with the game.
edit: Everyone should carry a ranged weapon. That means the fighter can do something even if it is not what he normally does.