| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Audit his character sheet first, there's probably a bunch of mistakes. If you can post his build here, we will help with the audit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Audit everybody, it'll be fun.
Yep, post the build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Post all the builds. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely need to see the build, as well as why the others are so under par.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be prepared to say 'yeah, you're character's too powerful, I made a mistake letting (thing A) and (thing B) on the same character, I didn't realize how they'd interact. We need to fix this.'
If you made a mistake, the correct course of action is to correct it, not let it continue to be disruptive.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would just be honest about it: "You seem way too strong or everyone else seems way too weak, so I want to look things over and figure out why that appears to be the case."
With that in mind, unless his character is illegal, I wouldn't suggest nerfing him so much as buffing the others. People like to be able to do cool things, including people with bad characters, so dragging one guy down will just make him unhappy while leaving the others indifferent, but by raising the others you can make everyone happy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with chaoseffect, it's even in the Gamemastery Guide that a potential solution to a power gamer is to let them help everyone else build their characters. That way nobody outshines the others, and you just have to up the CR of the party's encounters.
"You totally blew up that carrion golem's head in one hit!" is many times better than "I totally blew up that carrion golem's head in one hit!" when similar accomplishments can be hailed by everyone regularly.
In my games, whenever I have a wide berth of optimization level between characters, I first talk to the low-powered characters. I try to ask them what they want out of their characters, what role they want to pay, and if they had any mechanics they wanted to utilize with their character.
Then I try to work with them on making more optimal choices. Fighter 3/Cleric 6 using TWF? Maybe think about a Warpriest? Wizard 1/Ranger 3 with Butterfly Sting? Look at Magus. Etc etc.
If they are either not open to the idea of building an optimal character, or don't take criticism well, then it's time to talk to the optimizers in the group.
Tell them why it's a problem without being antagonistic. Explain you want them at a 7 or 8, not an 11 because the other players don't want to play at 11. If they really love optimization maybe come up with some creative restrictions on their character. Badass martial character? Maybe he's missing an arm. That way they can use their powers of optimization while still being at the same power level as the rest of the group. Only do this if they like the idea of being handicapped. Never force it on them, because that can limit their enjoyment too.
Most of the optimizers I play with love the idea of making wacky builds that are rules intensive and a lot of nuts and bolts to put together, but in actual table play they aren't busted. See: Crossbow specialists, Non Monk/Brawler unarmed fighters, Non trip focused combat maneuver builds, Enchantment focused casters, Whip Magi, etc.
How are his tactics? A character like the one you described could easily advance too far and get himself surrounded by the bad guys, leaving him in serious trouble unless the rest of the party bails him out.
If he can easily survive such a situation without help, then his character does need to be toned down.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is possible to GM effectively without having every PC at the same power level.
Lord of the Rings. Great movie. By the way, there were many different characters at many different power levels and yet all of the characters played meaningful roles in that adventure.
Parity is oversold.
Lord of the Rings was also a story written by one person, not a group effort with different people each playing out one of the parts. The characters all accepted their roles because the writer decided they would.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is the writer.
Then why are the players even there? Just to witness his greatness firsthand?
No, thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Parity is oversold but if there is too much of a difference it does make it harder on the GM to make it fun for everyone...
That is also the reason that Gandolf constantly disappears and the hobbits are split off on their own. The various subgroups are roughly equal in power and thus JRR avoids the "but the wizard or Aragorn would just solve the problems" problem.
Everyone likes to be effective as well as being part of the story. I don't know many players that would be willing to participate in a game with a spread of more than two levels, let alone 20.
Not everyone needs to be a combat god, but each of the characters should be able to hold his or her own in some arena of the campaign, be it socially, with skills, with magic, or with might.
I'm not saying NO group could ever play like that, but it's pretty rare to find players that are willing to subvert their role in the action for the sake of "the story".
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is the writer. The character's accepted their roles because their roles were acceptable. It was not unbelieveable in any way that the characters accepted their roles. It is not like the writer forced the unbelievable down our throats. The reason why it was a great movie is becuase the roles were believeable.
In fact, in everyday life people of various skill levels come together to take advantage of one another's talents. Why is it possible in books and in real life and not possible in Pathfinder?
While you may have players that are okay with ending up in a position where they've effectively become the in-group damsel in distress or permanent occupant of the dunce corner, I can assure you that this is not a universal trend.
GMs and players are cooperative creators in a story, wherein the player's actions perpetuate the story. A character that regularly cannot constructively act, whether it be by poor mechanics or player immaturity (It's Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Stupid) will drag the campaign down or provide a chore that not all people are going to want to have to deal with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parity is oversold but if there is too much of a difference it does make it harder on the GM to make it fun for everyone...
That is also the reason that Gandolf constantly disappears and the hobbits are split off on their own. The various subgroups are roughly equal in power and thus JRR avoids the "but the wizard or Aragorn would just solve the problems" problem.
There you go. You have begun to discover some of the tricks of running a campaign with PCs of different power levels.
That said, though the power levels in Lord of the Ring created a great divide, it is rarely if ever an equivalent case in Pathfinder. Yet, there is thread after thread on almost a daily basis of people trying to bring parity to thier party.
The undeniable truth is that you will never achieve parity of power, but a good GM can achieve a campaign that is enjoyable to all irregardless of power level.
There should be more threads along this line and less along the line of how do we nerf this, bring this class or build down to size, etc...
Sure the GM could tell the optimizers to come on one day to accomplish one set of tasks, then the rest of the group can come on a different day to accomplish other tasks. Then the game would be neatly broken up like the chapters in a book. However, I suspect most groups don't want to run that way. If everyone shows up on game day, everyone is going to want to contribute on game day not sit around waiting for the one right moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is the writer. The character's accepted their roles because their roles were acceptable. It was not unbelieveable in any way that the characters accepted their roles. It is not like the writer forced the unbelievable down our throats. The reason why it was a great movie is becuase the roles were believeable.
In fact, in everyday life people of various skill levels come together to take advantage of one another's talents. Why is it possible in books and in real life and not possible in Pathfinder?
The game does not work like a movie. Trying to force it to work like a movie causes more problems than it solves, and many players are quick to notice GM Fiat, even when a GM thinks he is being sneaky about it. Many won't appreciate it.
To give you an example if you have one character who can do can only be challenged by what would kill the rest of the party it is much more difficult to have a meaningful encounter. In a movie as the author you control everyone so you can have the characters in different scenes, and make sure they don't get into bad situations. The game does not promote living by splitting the party, and if you try to use that "in movie" method you may have to use GM Fiat, or hope the players "play along".
You can try to do more social scenes to avoid the combat scenes, but it is also possible that "super character" is better at those also. Sometimes this is obvious, but sometimes it is a surprise when the GM tries to give PC ____ a chance to shine only to find out that PC X has ability Y, and steals the scene.
It is just much easier to have everyone close to the same power level than try to manufacture a less useful player feeling useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is the writer. The character's accepted their roles because their roles were acceptable. It was not unbelieveable in any way that the characters accepted their roles. It is not like the writer forced the unbelievable down our throats. The reason why it was a great movie is becuase the roles were believeable.
In fact, in everyday life people of various skill levels come together to take advantage of one another's talents. Why is it possible in books and in real life and not possible in Pathfinder?
Also, most players like to define the character's roles, not have them controlled by the GM. In that sense the players dictate the story to a large extent, the GM just provides a setting, and a plot. How it plays out in most of its details is determined by the player characters. In a book or movie the writer does it all. He is the mind of the villains and the heroes. The two are not synonymous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parity is oversold but if there is too much of a difference it does make it harder on the GM to make it fun for everyone...
That is also the reason that Gandolf constantly disappears and the hobbits are split off on their own. The various subgroups are roughly equal in power and thus JRR avoids the "but the wizard or Aragorn would just solve the problems" problem.
There you go. You have begun to discover some of the tricks of running a campaign with PCs of different power levels.
That said, though the power levels in Lord of the Ring created a great divide, it is rarely if ever an equivalent case in Pathfinder. Yet, there is thread after thread on almost a daily basis of people trying to bring parity to thier party.
The undeniable truth is that you will never achieve parity of power, but a good GM can achieve a campaign that is enjoyable to all irregardless of power level.
There should be more threads along this line and less along the line of how do we nerf this, bring this class or build down to size, etc...
If you honestly believe that you can have a party where one person is 1st level and one person is 20th level and you think that you can make the 1st level player both (a) be engaged, and (b) feel useful then you are delusional.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than respond to each of you one at a time, I will respond generally.
First I will begin with a universal truth. In Pathfinder, every player can choose to play the same character as another player. No character is off limits to one person and allowed by another.
Therefore, even in my extreme example and in every other example in Pathfinder, the players come to the table having chosen to play the characters that they are playing. Further, assuming they are following the rules of the game, they have come to the table with a legal character.
Now that is all the parity you will ever need.
So my example assumes that four people came to the table with 1st level, 5th level, a 10th level and 20th level characters. I did not force that on them. I am simply GMing according to their wishes. And I would not need to divide that game up into different gaming sessions to do it. And I would not have to make one the damsel in distress (unless that is what the player was going for) to do it.
Now in the typical pity party GM thread it goes like this, "GUY B is more powerful than GUY C, D, and E.
SO WHAT. GUY C, D, and E could play that same character as GUY B, but chose not to. So why in the world should GUY B be punished for the choices made by C,D, and E.
Is this what I sound like when I theory craft mechanics? If so, I would like to apologize to the community for polluting it with the garbage falling from my mouth.
Is this what is sound like when a guy cannot counter an argument? You should apologize for that.Is this what I sound like when I theory craft mechanics? If so, I would like to apologize to the community for polluting it with the garbage falling from my mouth.Rather than respond to each of you one at a time, I will respond generally.
First I will begin with a universal truth. In Pathfinder, every player can choose to play the same character as another player. No character is off limits to one person and allowed by another.
Therefore, even in my extreme example and in every other example in Pathfinder, the players come to the table having chosen to play the characters that they are playing. Further, assuming they are following the rules of the game, they have come to the table with a legal character.
Now that is all the parity you will ever need.
So my example assumes that four people came to the table with 1st level, 5th level, a 10th level and 20th level characters. I did not force that on them. I am simply GMing according to their wishes. And I would not need to divide that game up into different gaming sessions to do it. And I would not have to make one the damsel in distress (unless that is what the player was going for) to do it.
Now in the typical pity party GM thread it goes like this, "GUY B is more powerful than GUY C, D, and E.
SO WHAT. GUY C, D, and E could play that same character as GUY B, but chose not to. So why in the world should GUY B be punished for the choices made by C,D, and E.
It is what it sounds like when a person has given up on the possibility of having a reasonable, engaging conversation with someone who has a pale clue of the subject at hand. You are certainly welcome to do what works for you, but you should be aware that your experience is hyperbolically opposed to every single other person ever. As such, your advice is not helpful to the entire rest of the population.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure no one has ever gone
L1Player: hey cool your 20th level!
L20Player: Yea wana join?
L1Player: YEA!!! I wana play a level 1 character and shine your shoes!!!
L20Player: ...errr...ok I guess...
It is possible to GM effectively without having every PC at the same power level.
Lord of the Rings. Great movie. By the way, there were many different characters at many different power levels and yet all of the characters played meaningful roles in that adventure.
Parity is oversold.
B-b-but... eagles!!! Gaaah!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am actually curious, lets say you have your hypothetical level 1 character and level 20 character in the party. Can you describe an encounter you would give them that would challenge them both without just murdering the level 1 character?
That's actually very easy to do, if you're playing Story Hour but have some PF stats on a piece of paper just for fun. If you're trying to also use the tactical mechanical aspects of PF it won't fly, of course, but everyone knows that would make you a "roll-player" instead of a "role-player," right?
So back to Bioboygamer and his power gamer
So back to Bioboygamer and his power gamer
"Power gamer" is a bit of an early label at this point because we don't know the actual build. I say wait to see what the player actually did because I've seen people come here and talk about their "power gaming" player... who was just some level 1 fighter who took a great sword and power attack.
Big DTBONE wrote: It is what it sounds like when a person has given up on the possibility of having a reasonable, engaging conversation with someone who has a pale clue of the subject at hand. You are certainly welcome to do what works for you, but you should be aware that your experience is hyperbolically opposed to every single other person ever. As such, your advice is not helpful to the entire rest of the population.It is helpful and something that needed to be said.
To answer the original question specifically, you don't need to take a PC down a notch. You need to allow the players to play the characters that they have chosen to play. If other players complain about the power of other characters you should remind the complaining player that they had and still have the ability to play whatever kind of player they would like. Offer them to remake their character if they feel their character is not powerful enough. Tell them that their are forums and websites that will give them advice on character builds.
Bottom line, the blame needs not to be thrown at the guy who is happy with his character build. The responsibility to make a character that they would like to play should be placed on the complaining PCs.
Its about lifting up and not about being a bunch of crabs in a barrel. Everyday it is the same old tired threads. Nerf this, eratta that, GM fiat this, blah blah blah
Try something different - or not! Heck, if complaining about other people's characters is your thing then do you. Have a nice day!
Unless, of course, one person desires to play a character who has the mechanical advantage over the rest if the party and everyone else doesn't care so long as they can be part of a team.
I am actually curious, lets say you have your hypothetical level 1 character and level 20 character in the party. Can you describe an encounter you would give them that would challenge them both without just murdering the level 1 character?
The typically shonen scene where the main character and enemy have an epic battle while the sidekick and minions provide comedic relief?
I'll echo what others have said, try to bring the other players up a notch instead of the other way around. Something to keep in mind, especially with less experience or mechanically minded players, is don't try to have them come up with the mechanics. Instead, have them come up with what they want to be or do. Once you have that down, do the math and then present said math to them with appropriate fluff.
Plenty of players want to play a Rogue and don't want to play a Bard. They have a lot of preconceptions that are hard to overcome. Don't build a Bard and call it a Bard. Build a Bard and call it a Rogue. Typically this will let you bump up their power level and let them continue to imagine the character the way they want.
Rather than respond to each of you one at a time, I will respond generally.
First I will begin with a universal truth. In Pathfinder, every player can choose to play the same character as another player. No character is off limits to one person and allowed by another.
Therefore, even in my extreme example and in every other example in Pathfinder, the players come to the table having chosen to play the characters that they are playing. Further, assuming they are following the rules of the game, they have come to the table with a legal character.
Now that is all the parity you will ever need.
So my example assumes that four people came to the table with 1st level, 5th level, a 10th level and 20th level characters. I did not force that on them. I am simply GMing according to their wishes. And I would not need to divide that game up into different gaming sessions to do it. And I would not have to make one the damsel in distress (unless that is what the player was going for) to do it.
Now in the typical pity party GM thread it goes like this, "GUY B is more powerful than GUY C, D, and E.
SO WHAT. GUY C, D, and E could play that same character as GUY B, but chose not to. So why in the world should GUY B be punished for the choices made by C, D, and E?
I don't know what punishing has to do with any of this. The point is that without a LOT of GM fiat and railroading this will not work, and it is more trouble than it is worth.
Give us examples of how it could work, without the players metagaming to let the level 1 character feel useful, or the GM metagaming and not killing the lower level characters if they get lucky in a combat and draw attention from an enemy.
3rd level? Good.
A trap takes them out. Demonstrating to the rest that they have to be careful ahead. You red-shirt him (if you get the reference).
Then, be very very careful with the next character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again and for the final time, every Pathfinder player can choose to play whatever player they would like to play.Within the limits set down by the GM. So no, you can't play a 20th level character in my 1st level game.
I'm going to roleplay my level 1 character as someone who thinks he is level 20/used to be level 20 before becoming an out of shape drunk in need of a montage, and there is nothing you can do to stop me!
Once again and for the final time, every Pathfinder player can choose to play whatever player they would like to play. In other words, tell the complaining player that, if they would like, they can play an...Unless, of course, one person desires to play a character who has the mechanical advantage over the rest if the party and everyone else doesn't care so long as they can be part of a team.Big DTBONE wrote: It is what it sounds like when a person has given up on the possibility of having a reasonable, engaging conversation with someone who has a pale clue of the subject at hand. You are certainly welcome to do what works for you, but you should be aware that your experience is hyperbolically opposed to every single other person ever. As such, your advice is not helpful to the entire rest of the population.It is helpful and something that needed to be said.
To answer the original question specifically, you don't need to take a PC down a notch. You need to allow the players to play the characters that they have chosen to play. If other players complain about the power of other characters you should remind the complaining player that they had and still have the ability to play whatever kind of player they would like. Offer them to remake their character if they feel their character is not powerful enough. Tell them that their are forums and websites that will give them advice on character builds.
Bottom line, the blame needs not to be thrown at the guy who is happy with his character build. The responsibility to make a character that they would like to play should be placed on the complaining PCs.
Its about lifting up and not about being a bunch of crabs in a barrel. Everyday it is the same old tired threads. Nerf this, eratta that, GM fiat this, blah blah blah
Try something different - or not! Heck, if complaining about other people's characters is your thing then do you. Have a nice day!
4 players want to be an equal part of a team and 1 person wants to be more than equal. You cannot please this table, and there is but one outlier.
Even if the four "complainers" (LOL!) that want to be team players in a collaborative story power up to match the outlier, then the outlier isn't happy because he wants to have MOAR power! The group doesn't work. Pretending like you can run that game and appease everyone is identical to pretending you can wiggle you fingers and cast magic missile, ie it only happens in fantasy role-playing games.