|
Seeking + Imp Precise shot ignores nearly everything but arrow slits...
And meleers have access to Blind-fight and Heart Seeking. Yes, Heart Seeking isn't quite as good as Seeking, but archers don't have a feat that helps with total concealment.
Again, I am not saying archers don't have major advantages over meleers and I could certainly add to the list of those advantages. I am just saying the whole cover/concealment thing isn't really one of them.
|
I like melees. I really do but without a 2 handed weapon or pounce they just aren't good enough at higher levels. Even ignoring the magic differential on average an animal companion will do more damage in a fight than a barbarian without the beast totem simply by virtue of more attacks.
I think some language adjustments may be necessary for this discussion.
Too many people think in "optimal" terms. If a character is capable of 48 damage/round at level 1, it is considered sub par to the character that is capable of 50 damage/round.
The second character simply does "more" damage.
But both still deal a lot of damage.
Perhaps we could shift the discussion to "ranges".
Like, Low/Average/High.
And determine what the baseline is, as well.
Do Monks do Low damage now? Or Average?
Does Pummeling Charge change this? Does it change their status enough to bump up an entire category? Do Monks become High damage dealers because of this?
Or does it simply move them from Low to Average?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the cover/concealment thing is that it was at one point the thing that sort of evened the playing field between melee and range. Sure, melee had to move through obstacles, get into the front lines and get less attacks for it. But at least at the time not being able to AoO, dealing with concealment/cover, DR. Oh, but now they can negate all of that (snapshot, seeking, clustered shot).
And then add on the other goodies such as the completely negligible Adaptive enchant. Being able to pre-blanch 10 attacks worth of special materials versus 1 attack of melee (and if you attack someone else before the one you want, too bad). Being able to have quivers full of "bane x"/etc to rival and destroy any golfbag of tricks that meleers might have. Being able to more cheaply stack enchantments (stack +s on bow and on arrows).
Oh, and my favorite is also launching like 6 arrows in a 360 degree arc at long distance and at different targets in 6 seconds with no penalty. I personally think that there needs to at a minimum be an "arc of fire" that multiple targets can come from. Not 360.
|
What I find interesting is that no one seems claiming you need pounce to succeed in a given PFS scenario. Instead the conversation is about what you need to compete with your fellow players.
Maybe that shouldn't be the goal.
While I believe your statement has merit, overall game balance between PC classes should be very high on any game designer's list of important qualities.
|
|
Interesting concepts.
While I think that is a reasonable way to examine a portion of the situation, part of the difficulty in discovering a consistent answer is that it varies greatly from character build to build, and what enemy you are facing.
Perhaps there is a medium for comparison you care to suggest?
|
|
Not that I completely disagree with you, but where are you getting "ignoring all forms of cover and concealment?" Even Improved Precise Shot doesn't ignore Total Cover and Total Concealment.This boils down to "archers are allowed to have nice things that melee is not allowed to have," essentially. Why does one character, who does his damage at range (and out of harm's way), ignoring all forms of cover and concealment, have the power to full attack every single round, when melee characters, who must invest in tankiness and toughness, mobility and survivability, and must be in harm's way, only able to attack creatures right next to them (which is where most of those creatures' damage comes from too), cannot get their full attacks reliably?
I don't know why Paizo wants Archers to utterly dominate the martial category, but they do, and probably always will.
I was a bit hyperbolic but yeah, Seeking negates total concealment, and Brilliant Energy negates total cover. I've seen three archers with both (though thankfully, no brilliant energy in PFS... yet).
What I find interesting is that no one seems claiming you need pounce to succeed in a given PFS scenario. Instead the conversation is about what you need to compete with your fellow players.
Maybe that shouldn't be the goal.
Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.
|
|
Seeking completely blows away total concealment. You can aim at a square and fire away. That its an enchant rather than a feat is merely quibbling.
And Heart Seeking completely blows away total concealment for all creatures with a heart beat. When you combine that with the fact meleers can get a feat at 1st level that helps with concealment and archers can't, I do not see a major advantage for the archer when it comes to concealment. Especially not when there are so many other advantages archers have over meleers you could list that are clear advantages.
|
|
While I believe your statement has merit, overall game balance between PC classes should be very high on any game designer's list of important qualities.What I find interesting is that no one seems claiming you need pounce to succeed in a given PFS scenario. Instead the conversation is about what you need to compete with your fellow players.
Maybe that shouldn't be the goal.
Important, yes. I might question very important. 4E was a prime example of a system where game designer's decided to make balance between PC classes very high in the list of important qualities. The net result was a system where all PC classes were functionally the same. Unfortunately, it appears a large number of players don't actually want their PC classes to be functionally identical.
|
|
Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.
Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.
The real loser in the DPR arms race is not 2nd place, it's the players who don't even want to compete.
Maybe if I get bored enough this weekend I'll try to throw together some baseline metrics of what kind of damage a PC should be capable of dealing to succeed in an average PFS encounter. I'd love to see how that compares to DPR olympics numbers.
|
|
And Heart Seeking completely blows away total concealment for all creatures with a heart beat.
Which is only half of them if you're lucky.
When you combine that with the fact meleers can get a feat at 1st level that helps with concealment and archers can't
This is a complete total and utter non argument. getting to mitigate an effect that someone else gets to eliminate completely is NOT a win for the mitigator.
I do not see a major advantage for the archer when it comes to concealment.
Reroll your miss chance.
The archer
Has seeking, which blows away heart seeker
Doesn't need to be next to the square to test it
can test multiple squares anywhere on the board
Can cheaply get illuminating arrows so they only need to hit once
Has more shots to try with
Especially not when there are so many other advantages archers have over meleers you could list that are clear advantages.
When your list of advantages for the meleers includes something thats pretty clearly a win for the archers I think you're highlighting the problem that you deny.
Monks have needed this fix forever.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.
It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.
In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
But a perfectly legal one.
|
It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.
I encourage you to look on the forums for posts where people complain about players abusing save or sucks and shutting down combat single handedly in a couple of rounds. All of those posters disagree with your statement.
If the player is going to solo the scenario, what is the point of playing a cooperative, social game?
EDIT: ninja'd twice
|
|
But a perfectly legal one.It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
Sure, until everyone else walks away and you're two players and one GM short of a table.
|
|
Sure, until everyone else walks away and you're two players and one GM short of a table.But a perfectly legal one.It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
For all the blustering on these boards, I have NEVER seen this happen. I think its because no one realizes what's up until halfway through. I personally have been a basically useless sidekick many times.
|
|
And Heart Seeking completely blows away total concealment for all creatures with a heart beat.
Which is only half of them if you're lucky.
Half? Really? Invisible undead might be as common as invisible creatures with a heartbeat, but how many invisible constructs, elementals and oozes do you run into?
When you combine that with the fact meleers can get a feat at 1st level that helps with concealment and archers can'tThis is a complete total and utter non argument. getting to mitigate an effect that someone else gets to eliminate completely is NOT a win for the mitigator.
Another exaggeration. Getting to mitigate an effect at 1st level does matter when you compare it to completely bypassing the effect only when you can get access to, at minimum, a +2 weapon.
Your need to over exaggerate to prove your point pretty much proves mine. The difference are not that great that this is a major advantage. It is, in fact, a very minor one.
I do not see a major advantage for the archer when it comes to concealment.
Reroll your miss chance.
The archer
Has seeking, which blows away heart seeker
Better, yes. Blows away, another over exaggeration.
Doesn't need to be next to the square to test it
can test multiple squares anywhere on the board
Not having to be next to the target to attack it is an advantage archers have over meleers that is completely unconnected to concealment as they get this advantage whether there is concealment or not.
Can cheaply get illuminating arrows so they only need to hit once
I can find no listing for an Illuminating Arrow/Weapon in the PFSRD so I am not sure what you are referring to.
Has more shots to try with
Again, an advantage that is unconnected to concealment specifically.
Especially not when there are so many other advantages archers have over meleers you could list that are clear advantages.When your list of advantages for the meleers includes something thats pretty clearly a win for the archers I think you're highlighting the problem that you deny.
Monks have needed this fix forever.
What problem, exactly, do you think it is I am denying? My arguments regarding concealment are just that and nothing more.
Want to argue archers have a major advantage because they don't have to move to get a full attack like meleers do? Go ahead.
Want to argue archers have a major advantage because they don't have to put themselves in harm's way like meleers? Go ahead.
Want to argue archers have a major advantage because they don't have to schill out near as much gold to be able to overcome the various DRs? Again, go ahead.
Want to argue archers have a major advantage because they get a slightly better ability to deal with concealment? Well, then I just think you are over-exaggerating.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, until everyone else walks away and you're two players and one GM short of a table.For all the blustering on these boards, I have NEVER seen this happen. I think its because no one realizes what's up until halfway through. I personally have been a basically useless sidekick many times.
I haven't either, but I have seen a lot of sighing and eye-rolling. That's why I've decided to start advocating for the silent majority when I GM. Nothing draconian, just a warning up front:
"If your character is dominating any particular aspect of the game, I may ask you to dial it back. Please consider your fellow players and do everything you can do to help them shine. "We have a fair number of optimizers at our FLGS. Most are at the very least otherwise pleasant which makes their combat dominance slightly more tolerable. One has committed (to me) the cardinal sin of making shut-down characters and simultaneously whining about and questioning any other character that challenges his dominance. I don't play with him anymore because it's not a fun experience. If all you get out of PFS is beating your teammates, you may be playing the wrong campaign.
As an aside, the reason I think this is relevant is that some are asserting that the PFS monk needs Pummeling Charge to compete. I am asserting that they only need to be able to compete against the written encounters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Important, yes. I might question very important. 4E was a prime example of a system where game designer's decided to make balance between PC classes very high in the list of important qualities. The net result was a system where all PC classes were functionally the same. Unfortunately, it appears a large number of players don't actually want their PC classes to be functionally identical.
I will be the first to say that broad-scope game balance between every single class is a very tricky prospect at best. It's also a bit out of the scope of this particular issue. Let's narrow this conversation down to the categorical balance I am referring too though, which is martial melee vs. themselves.
Some of them having pounce and some not, with no other means to compensate for that move plus full attack issue, is a pretty big imbalance. At least in my personal opinion.
|
|
It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.
And who's responsibility is it, exactly? To argue that you have no responsibility to the other players at the table for their fun is to argue that Pathfinder is not a social game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of them having pounce and some not, with no other means to compensate for that move plus full attack issue, is a pretty big imbalance. At least in my personal opinion.
Well I have already stated that I don't think Pummeling Charge (especially after the errata/FAQ) is broken and why.
But a perfectly legal one.It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
Not in PFS.
That whole "don't be a jerk" thing.
-j
Massive powergamer who nearly always dials it back in play to make sure everyone gets to participate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on the scenario, it can be trivially easy to solo the final boss. I did it accidentally once because it turned out that the boss in tier 3-4 was a second level caster multiclass, and she stood in charge range. No pounce shenanigans involved; it was literally one shot one kill, basic greatsword power attack plus smite evil. So I suppose, since Pummeling Charge would let the monk roughly equal that damage, it could let the monk solo some final encounters in similar manner, but that's the scenario's fault. The bottom line is that there's nothing broken about the ability, and the only reason for the ban that I can see is some vague, unsubstantiated sense of "That's not a thing he should be able to do."
Just like Precise Strike and two weapon fighting, even though that's totally a thing. :p
Did Paizo actually come out any say it was banned because they didn't want monkpounce?
Or are people just inferring?
Because the only time I think it would be all that unbalance is with MOMS early entry. And that's more of a problem with the archetype bypassing the normal level restrictions.
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But a perfectly legal one.It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
Not in PFS.
That whole "don't be a jerk" thing.
-j
Massive powergamer who nearly always dials it back in play to make sure everyone gets to participate.
I still debate the enforcability of that "rule".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did Paizo actually come out any say it was banned because they didn't want monkpounce?
Or are people just inferring?
Because the only time I think it would be all that unbalance is with MOMS early entry. And that's more of a problem with the archetype bypassing the normal level restrictions.
-j
It was banned prior to the errata/FAQ that made it clear it was only usable with unarmed strikes. I think most people, prior to that, were worried far more about its potential abuses (and table variance) with non-unarmed strikes than they were with unarmed strike.
|
On Pummeling Charge and MoMS dips: IMO, it isn't broken, even if it is pounce. See the bottom for ways to block a charge. Also, at most, before level 8 you will get 3 attacks as opposed to one. This is good, yes, but that is assuming someone has cast haste and you TWF. That is literally all that this feat is doing. And its not even doing that, its giving you the chance to get the damage to apply to one target 2 more times, its not like real pounce that lets you stop once you've killed the first thing and target his buddy standing next to him. It allow Monks, Brawlers, and other Unarmed Strikers to be mobile. Now, whether or not Pummeling Style is broken is a completely different matter as the feats, while related, do completely different things.
On Pummeling Style and Brokenness: Again, IMO it isn't broken. It is in a bit of a grey area as far as the rules go, (How does it interact with Sneak Attack? Chill Touch? True Strike? etc) but in the early-mid level PFS games, its going to give you a critical hit profile that, at best, with a haste effect up, will compare to a keen falchion(30% crit chance). Its still unarmed strikes, that cost a lot to enchant, can't be made of different materials, and aren't "two-handable" for more damage. The DR interaction is sweet, but IMO it just balances that even for Monks and Brawlers, unless you are specific archetypes it takes forever to get past basic DRs like Cold Iron, let alone things like Good.
- Difficult Terrain
- Walls
- Pits
- Wall Spells(for environments w/out walls)
- Pit Spells(for environments w/out pits)
- Obscuring Mist
- Fog Cloud
- Entangle
- Black Tentacles
- Ray of Exhaustion
- Stinking Cloud
- Cloud Kill
- Invisibility
- Smokesticks
- Having mooks in the way of the boss
- Elevated Terrain(such as a platform 5ft above the rest)
- Creative use of Spider Climb
|
|
Can cheaply get illuminating arrows so they only need to hit onceI can find no listing for an Illuminating Arrow/Weapon in the PFSRD so I am not sure what you are referring to.
I think he's talking about Limning, which is basically fairie fire. It's pretty good, but it only lasts one round, so you basically don't have to worry about concealment for any hits after the first... which is almost like Seeking as far as targeting goes - there's still guesswork involved in figuring out which square the target is in (most of the time).
Seeking is still better because it also handles concealment from fog effects.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For all the blustering on these boards, I have NEVER seen this happen. I think its because no one realizes what's up until halfway through. I personally have been a basically useless sidekick many times.Sure, until everyone else walks away and you're two players and one GM short of a table.But a perfectly legal one.It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.In the context of PFS I will have to disagree.
Creating a character that can trivialize a PFS scenario is not particularly difficult. If everyone at the table wants to play "who can one-shot the bad guy first" then that's fine. Otherwise, some consideration needs to be given to the other players.
Declaring yourself the hero of the story and relegating everyone else to sidekick if they're not willing to compete is an incredibly selfish approach to what is supposed to be a cooperative experience.
No, but I've seen people refuse to come back afterwards.
|
|
I think he's talking about Limning, which is basically fairie fire. It's pretty good, but it only lasts one round, so you basically don't have to worry about concealment for any hits after the first... which is almost like Seeking as far as targeting goes - there's still guesswork involved in figuring out which square the target is in (most of the time).Can cheaply get illuminating arrows so they only need to hit onceI can find no listing for an Illuminating Arrow/Weapon in the PFSRD so I am not sure what you are referring to.
Since you can get it on a melee weapon as well as ammunition and you still have to buy magic ammunition in lots of 50 I don't see how this would even be a point.
|
|
Ah how interesting, you can only put Limning on ammunition! I never noticed that. Don't know why you would ever buy those instead of seeking then, honestly.
No, as far as I can tell you can put it on a bow too. My point was whether you put it on a sword, a bow or 50 pieces of ammunition, the cost is the same. The only way an archer would be able to get it more cheaply than a meleer is if they could buy magical arrows in lots of less than 50. I think there might be a few boons out there that let you do that, but it's not an always available for the right Fame kind of thing.
|
Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.
The real loser in the DPR arms race is not 2nd place, it's the players who don't even want to compete.
Maybe if I get bored enough this weekend I'll try to throw together some baseline metrics of what kind of damage a PC should be capable of dealing to succeed in an average PFS encounter. I'd love to see how that compares to DPR olympics numbers.
A good place to look would be the Chart in the Bestiary that defines what metrics a particular CR creature should have.
|
|
And who's responsibility is it, exactly? To argue that you have no responsibility to the other players at the table for their fun is to argue that Pathfinder is not a social game.It is not, and never should be, the responsibility of the player to intentioanlly handicap himself in order to make the game fun for his friends.Part of the fun is contributing meaningfully. Like it or not, it's impossible to enjoy combat if on my turn, I move and deal eleven damage, eating an AoO from the monster's 20 ft. reach, and the archer hits three targets for eighty-nine damage each.Sure but at some point the player of that archer has to take some responsibility for the enjoyment of his fellow players and dial it back if necessary.
In PFS? the scenario writers. If a hyper competent combatant is all it takes to solo a scenario, then the scenario wasn't deep or challenging enough.
|
|
In PFS? the scenario writers. If a hyper competent combatant is all it takes to solo a scenario, then the scenario wasn't deep or challenging enough.Do you know how difficult it is to write a scenario that can hold off power gamers and yet be possible for non-optimizers to complete?
Not particularly. You simply include a variety of threats and a non-optional skill challenge. It's extremely difficult to build a character that can comprehensively defeat everything while defending against every save type at the same time and then picking locks and gathering information with Diplomacy.
One of the players in my home game is a ridiculous power gamer. His current character in our last remaining 3.5 campaign is a multiclass monstrosity built around swashbuckler, Carmendine Monk, and warblade. He has his INT to everything, sometimes multiple times through different named abilities and bonus types. Melee monsters can't hit him (though when they do it hurts; he has jack for hit points) and he can kill anything he can get to, and he's mobile enough to get to a lot. Know what he can't deal with? Will saves. Find the hole; there always is one.
|
|
In PFS? the scenario writers. If a hyper competent combatant is all it takes to solo a scenario, then the scenario wasn't deep or challenging enough.Do you know how difficult it is to write a scenario that can hold off power gamers and yet be possible for non-optimizers to complete?
when you have no idea what is at the table? very. however there are plenty of basic tools that are just not used. Where is the heavy fog, the rain, healthy usage of difficult terrain? I'm not saying we should be facing lots of underwater combat, but I can't tell the difference between a wide open field and random dungeon half the time.
|
|
One of the players in my home game is a ridiculous power gamer. His current character in our last remaining 3.5 campaign is a multiclass monstrosity built around swashbuckler, Carmendine Monk, and warblade. He has his INT to everything, sometimes multiple times through different named abilities and bonus types. Melee monsters can't hit him (though when they do it hurts; he has jack for hit points) and he can kill anything he can get to, and he's mobile enough to get to a lot. Know what he can't deal with? Will saves. Find the hole; there always is one.
Which works just fine when you have a small group of players and know each of the PCs and what they can and cannot do. It doesn't translate diddly when you are talking about a 6 digit player base each with multiple characters.