Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Well if your read this forum for about 5 minutes you will quickly learn that some things are "terrible, and their players are literally worse that, getting up in the middle of the night to go to the toilet and stepping barefoot into a fresh puddle of dog vomit" or something like that.
Since they are apparently behind every corner, I decided to ask my fellow players, what options should you avoid to keep the game fun for players and GMs alike?
To keep this going:
- Goz masks and smog: not a cheap trick, but very effective. Apparently this utterly ruins some adventures, and makes enemies like babaus far less effective and only a very small number of enemies have effective countermeasures.
- Slumber hex: This might as well be a save or die effect, and of an enemy is vulnerable to it, it only takes some party cooperation to finish it with a well timed coup the grace.
These are just two examples, but I have already decided for myself never to touch them, since they have the potential to make the game a worse experience for many players, and result in the arms race that seems to be going on with newer scenarios. I tended to complain about the difficulty in adventure paths (not high enough) but I really worry for new unprepared players in recent scenarios.
I honestly would not run the silver mount collection for my home group, (they have well build characters with 1 and 2 chronicles, but have not invested in the usual staples) and they have had years of experience with pathfinder.
So what do you ladies and gentleman think, what toys shouldn't we bring to show and tell? Do you have any stories of self censorship, to spare your GM or the other players?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Threads like this are the #1 bad form thing, I think.
As a player, the thing to look out for is when you're so damn effective that you stomp all encounters and nobody else at the table feels like there's a point to them being there. Sometimes this is situational. The cleric with "Command Undead", and an ability that let him control 2x his HD in undead, ended up sidestepping a substantial fraction of "Risen from the Sands", for instance. (It was late at night, and the rest of us got punchy as we realized we could send zombies forward to find all traps. I think the GM got tired of us all getting punchy and laughing.) Sometimes it's the Slumber hex. Sometimes it's something else. But, in general, the thing to look out for is not some list of specific player abilities. Rather, it's (a) your attitude (are you *trying* to dominate everything single-handedly? If so, stop), and (b) what's happening in the game.
The problem with threads like this is that people list certain things. It gets out, and it gets to be common lore that "players who do X are bad players and are bad sports". Then, you show up at a table with a character who can do X, and if you have the misfortune of having somebody else at the table who's read the forum, they instantly assume you're a bad sport, without waiting to see how you actually behave during the game.
Threads like this are just "let's find things that players do that allow us to snap-judge that they're playing in bad faith" gripe sessions.
And THAT is the sort of thing that is bad form.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
@Bignorsewolf: Yes there is, however the other one was a little bit to antagonistic for my liking. I don't want "let's gather all the popular tactics that cause us nightmares, and try to poke holes in them" (yeah absolutely unfair characterization, but not entirely without basis).
Rather I want to find a common consensus - let's just call it a gentleman's agreement (only that ladies are obviously welcome to partake) - to not take those options for the health of our collective play environment.
I am not arguing the same cruel and unusual punishment reserved for wizards with 9 Intelligence, people mistreating their animal companions or archers forgetting to buy arrows.
Why don't we just regard those tactics like we would regard someone who lies on the couch all day, hasn't showered for a week, has been watching C-span for hours because he is to lazy to search for the remote and eats Nutela straight from the container ... using just his fingers.
You know kinda like [redacted] shaming, only positive ^^
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Threads like this are the #1 bad form thing, I think.
As a player, the thing to look out for is when you're so damn effective that you stomp all encounters and nobody else at the table feels like there's a point to them being there. Sometimes this is situational. The cleric with "Command Undead", and an ability that let him control 2x his HD in undead, ended up sidestepping a substantial fraction of "Risen from the Sands", for instance. (It was late at night, and the rest of us got punchy as we realized we could send zombies forward to find all traps. I think the GM got tired of us all getting punchy and laughing.) Sometimes it's the Slumber hex. Sometimes it's something else. But, in general, the thing to look out for is not some list of specific player abilities. Rather, it's (a) your attitude (are you *trying* to dominate everything single-handedly? If so, stop), and (b) what's happening in the game.
The problem with threads like this is that people list certain things. It gets out, and it gets to be common lore that "players who do X are bad players and are bad sports". Then, you show up at a table with a character who can do X, and if you have the misfortune of having somebody else at the table who's read the forum, they instantly assume you're a bad sport, without waiting to see how you actually behave during the game.
Threads like this are just "let's find things that players do that allow us to snap-judge that they're playing in bad faith" gripe sessions.
And THAT is the sort of thing that is bad form.
Well, I tend to agree with your argument, if not with your conclusion. Obviously there will always be moments where some builds do shine more than other, and I have fond memories of season 6 scenarios where the ability to do high digit damage helped us.
But I think it is a good idea, to point out that some abilities are very disruptive to published adventures, and should be avoided.
By the same token players, should be warned, how making certain choices can affect the GM and the other players. Ideally you don't want just the slumber hex, but once the character is made, it can often be to late to fix it.
And let's not forget that a number of players feels a tremendous amount of pressure to perform, if they have been in the right/wrong groups (my first scenario was with an very well prepared bonekeep group, and I was quite impressed).
You will find plenty of guides that allow players to make very effective characters, but if you e.g. make a heavens oracle and then never get to use your amazing abilities since it overshadows the entire group, that is hardly a positive experience.
Just assuming that someone is a monster in human shape since he plays a [effective built of your choice] is obviously wrong, but why not tell people to avoid them/control themselves before the manure hits the windmill?
I din't want to create a "this should be banned!!!!!111!!11" thread, it is intended to be a bit of "consumer advice", trying to keep PFS sane.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
What if I told you that being knocked unconscious, killed, crippled or otherwise rendered unable to even perform an action does more to make a player feel useless and unneeded than anything another player can do?
I think I know what your are referring to, and while I have yet to brace that particular meat grinder, I assume, that this might be caused by too many people complaining about previous adventures being way to easy.
Obviously things like this have a chance to happen in every adventure, sometimes the dice just hate you, but what happens if a group of hyper optimized players, using every dirty trick in the book steamroll that situation and complain again.Do we really want even harder adventures (big fan of hard modes and virtual e-peen to addressee players with those wishes), I am really quite worried for new players.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
-Anything with very unclear Rules, but is needed for the entire Build. If its only an option you can say "Ok, we look this up after the game and i wont use it/it works in this way until clarification" but if it is the whole build than that would be a very big Problem. (Example would be the Hair Hex in our game yesterday: It could be solved fast and easyly because it was not Buildcritical)
-Dont use things that WILL slow down the table massively: Like a Conjurer with many summoned creatures but no Preperation on the Players side. (I use summon cards for this very reason and limit myself to 1 or 2 Sm spells outside at the same time if it is not necessary for the Group to survive)
-I personally dont use the Metamagic the s$~& out of one Spell but cant do anything else useful tactic -> I limit myself from taking metamagic entirely but i do not think this is somting to be limited for all, it is just a personal opinion.
-I think Bulids that can and will hinder your allys should not be used (for example the obscuring mist builds that can see in Fog but do not do anything for the team besides hindering them most of the time)
-Nearly all Sight related Spells should be used with caution for the reason above. YOU might be abe to ignore the Fog/Darkness/Weather you used your team might not.
From a GM Point of view:
-I do not like Encounters (from my side) or player Tactics that depend on one single Save or Suck/Die spell that will either break the encounter or leave a part of it/a member of the group useless for this encounter.
-There should NEVER be an encounter with enemys that can and will use Wish and the use of it isnt hardly limitated by the encounters tactics.
-Generaly i dislike encounters where for various reasons (immumitys against everything/Wierd movement abilitys/Hardnes in a lowtier) only one or two charakters in a group can reasonably do anything and the rest ist useless.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
And adding to the above: I would be sceptical if any Build my players tell me include one of the following:
-Bloodmoney Cheese (I have nthing against the spell but it shouldnt be used for either more than 500 Gm or the Strength drain should have the clause "This damage cant be healed by magical means until you get a full nights Rest"
-Any Buld that includes in its Description "But the rules do not say this is impossible"
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
And adding to the above: I would be sceptical if any Build my players tell me include one of the following:
-Bloodmoney Cheese (I have nthing against the spell but it shouldnt be used for either more than 500 Gm or the Strength drain should have the clause "This damage cant be healed by magical means until you get a full nights Rest"
-Any Buld that includes in its Description "But the rules do not say this is impossible"
I can see a legitimate case for someone willing to play a necromancer just wants some undead meat shield around for the legitimate necromancer feel.. since they don't carry over, it doesn't disrupt character wealth to much. Even with stoneskin the tradeoff seems reasonable (after all it is a 10/min per level spell, and casting blood money from a wand is impossible.
Using it to get a full discount on raise dead and restoration seems so good, that it feels almost like a mandatory tactic, as in, if you have the required source and can somehow manage that combination, not using feels like wasting money. And since your money usually in one way or another does benefit your team members, that means you are putting your fellow pathfinders at risk!
Maybe (well obviously :( ) this says more about me, than the issue, but I just had to get if off my chest.
....................................................................
And obviously playing a build that is on the very edge of legality seems like a bad idea, especially since a GM might shoot you down in the middle of the adventure, thus ruining your concept.... and bringing shame upon your dojo.
I avoid it, it costs to many nerves.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I'd say that as a player, it may be better to stay away from powers that can shut down entire encounters, especially if they're a good option in every encounter.
Like the Slumber hex. It's just a 50% chance of no satisfying end fight. We want to win the end fight, sure. But we do want there to actually be a fight.
Also, I recently did this, and now I'm not entirely sure how to proceed: Persistent Glitterdust. Powered by Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter. I knew it'd be powerful. I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.
|
|
Things with unclear rules are the worst. There are dozens of feats and spells where it's ambiguous on how it works and it is either pretty darn good or pretty darn mediocre. The druid spell Fire Seeds and the Paladin's detect evil come to mind. There have been on these very message boards multiple opinions on how they work, and the different views of how things work always boils down to, "that's pretty decent" vs. "that's a complete waste of a class ability/spell."
I personally don't like running against any build that will stun/daze lock as it will often trivialize an encounter. I also don't like running tables where it was pretty clear the adventure author assumed a party would have spell/ability X to shut down bad guy ability Y (e.g. I ran a table recently where the party had no way to see/stop invisibility and almost had 3 character deaths from that).
|
|
The only really bad thing I can think of is a tiefling/drow based around casting darkness and fighting from within it. It's really cool on paper - but it's likely screwing over too many party members.
(Though frankly - I think that the PFS interpretation of darkness is way too good. It's only supposed to drop the light level 1 step - yet there are scenarios where darkness is used outside in the middle of the day. That should be considered dumb and basically a wasted action as the spell doesn't counteract the sun.)
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I'd say that as a player, it may be better to stay away from powers that can shut down entire encounters, especially if they're a good option in every encounter.
Like the Slumber hex. It's just a 50% chance of no satisfying end fight. We want to win the end fight, sure. But we do want there to actually be a fight.
Also, I recently did this, and now I'm not entirely sure how to proceed: Persistent Glitterdust. Powered by Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter. I knew it'd be powerful. I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.
Without knowing your build, I really don't think that we have a definite wording or FAQ (to the best of my knowledge ) whether or not those two traits actually stack (I would argue no, for the sake of sanity), so talk to your GM/the rules board if that was a legal choice. If you are unlucky you might be stuck with a nonfunctional trait, but yeah maybe just reserve the spell for specially occasions.
I know that self censorship like this sucks, especially if this results in your teammates getting hurt. Glitterdust just happens not to run into any resistances, it is a very good spell ;)
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Things with unclear rules are the worst. There are dozens of feats and spells where it's ambiguous on how it works and it is either pretty darn good or pretty darn mediocre. The druid spell Fire Seeds and the Paladin's detect evil come to mind. There have been on these very message boards multiple opinions on how they work, and the different views of how things work always boils down to, "that's pretty decent" vs. "that's a complete waste of a class ability/spell."
I personally don't like running against any build that will stun/daze lock as it will often trivialize an encounter. I also don't like running tables where it was pretty clear the adventure author assumed a party would have spell/ability X to shut down bad guy ability Y (e.g. I ran a table recently where the party had no way to see/stop invisibility and almost had 3 character deaths from that).
It depends on the level range, and individual creativity, and group composition. Flour, dirt, mud, paint, water and detect magic are reasonable methods, but depending on the scenario those might not have been an option. Reading a action to grapple the invisible attacker might work, but that is rather risky.
I would have problems with this approach in the lower levels, but frankly for once the players reach level 7 there is really no excuse, at this point, they should have learned that increasing their attack rolls is distinctly secondary to the ability to deal with imperfect situations.
I am unaware what is so controversial about the spells you listed, care to enlighten me ?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The only really bad thing I can think of is a tiefling/drow based around casting darkness and fighting from within it. It's really cool on paper - but it's likely screwing over too many party members.
(Though frankly - I think that the PFS interpretation of darkness is way too good. It's only supposed to drop the light level 1 step - yet there are scenarios where darkness is used outside in the middle of the day. That should be considered dumb and basically a wasted action as the spell doesn't counteract the sun.)
Yeah, darkness isn't all that good an the GM needs to check that use, since he is the final arbiter of the light conditions. Builds based on mist or smoke are more reliable here, and of course darkness builds really start to shine when below ground, since it counters all nonmagical light sources, from the humble candle... to a river of magma .
However blindsiding other party members isn't acceptable, especially since this might cause them to become effectively blind, and thus vulnerable to enemy sneak attacks (after all they might be able to see in those conditions..
|
I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.
I thought retraining had been opened up in PFS, so if you do change your mind, you can alter your build, though at a cost.
You may not get the free rebuild you'd get, after an ability is errataed into lower-functionality, but in practice those are less common than they should be, since the official line seems to be that if you can still get some functionality, it doesn't warrant a free rebuild.
|
|
I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.I thought retraining had been opened up in PFS, so if you do change your mind, you can alter your build, though at a cost.
You may not get the free rebuild you'd get, after an ability is errataed into lower-functionality, but in practice those are less common than they should be, since the official line seems to be that if you can still get some functionality, it doesn't warrant a free rebuild.
You can't retrain traits, which it sounds like are the main part of his investment...
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
players and gms who have no concern whether or not the rest of the people at the table are enjoying the gaming experience and each other's company
I count myself lucky, that I never had that particular back experience in ...decades. I have seen a number of clueless GM, sometimes in the mirror but I have yet to witness a truly terrible GM.
Actually not an item on my bucket list^^
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't retrain traits, which it sounds like are the main part of his investment...I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.I thought retraining had been opened up in PFS, so if you do change your mind, you can alter your build, though at a cost.
You may not get the free rebuild you'd get, after an ability is errataed into lower-functionality, but in practice those are less common than they should be, since the official line seems to be that if you can still get some functionality, it doesn't warrant a free rebuild.
It is a bit silly isn't it? We have perfectly good rules for retraining the additional traits feat, but not for actual traits.
|
|
I am unaware what is so controversial about the spells you listed, care to enlighten me ?
I've seen threads with dozens (hundreds?) of posts about Paladin detect evil - one camp says they need to spend a standard action, and can then on subsequent rounds use a move action to detect a specific individual. The other camp says they can immediately spend a move action to detect evil on a specific individual.
As for druid fire seeds (Holly Berry Bomb variant), some people say it needs a standard action to activate, some say you can freely speak said word. Some say all the Holly Berry Bombs go off as a single damage, others say they go off individually (allowing each one against fire resist)
|
players and gms who have no concern whether or not the rest of the people at the table are enjoying the gaming experience and each other's company
With Society Play involving widely varying tables, and GMs required to play the scenario as written, it seems an inevitability that this will happen.
What if I told you that being knocked unconscious, killed, crippled or otherwise rendered unable to even perform an action does more to make a player feel useless and unneeded than anything another player can do?I think I know what your are referring to, and while I have yet to brace that particular meat grinder, I assume, that this might be caused by too many people complaining about previous adventures being way to easy.
Obviously things like this have a chance to happen in every adventure, sometimes the dice just hate you, but what happens if a group of hyper optimized players, using every dirty trick in the book steamroll that situation and complain again.
Do we really want even harder adventures (big fan of hard modes and virtual e-peen to addressee players with those wishes), I am really quite worried for new players.
When it's 2/3rds of the game, it's not a particular meat grinder. It feels like half the time Paizo's just working to force people through the pain of level 1 over and over again for all eternity.
This in turn lends itself to what I said above with how tables operate, and it's hard to avoid feelings of antagonism to develop. Players end up wanting to beat the stuffing out of what Paizo's put forth so there's a moment to have some sort of arc to their characters besides glorified murderhobo, and the GM is caught as an unlucky middle man.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
It is a bit silly isn't it? We have perfectly good rules for retraining the additional traits feat, but not for actual traits.You can't retrain traits, which it sounds like are the main part of his investment...I hadn't really counted on it being quite this powerful and ruining the adventure quite this much. So now I've got a character that I generally like, that's got non-retrainable investments in something that's just too powerful to be fun.I thought retraining had been opened up in PFS, so if you do change your mind, you can alter your build, though at a cost.
You may not get the free rebuild you'd get, after an ability is errataed into lower-functionality, but in practice those are less common than they should be, since the official line seems to be that if you can still get some functionality, it doesn't warrant a free rebuild.
Yeah, that's the problem. I guess I'm just gonna reserve the glitterdust for the unusually tough scenarios, or for when I'm playing up. When playing a "normal" adventure I'll just prepare a different spell (Arcanist).
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I am unaware what is so controversial about the spells you listed, care to enlighten me ?I've seen threads with dozens (hundreds?) of posts about Paladin detect evil - one camp says they need to spend a standard action, and can then on subsequent rounds use a move action to detect a specific individual. The other camp says they can immediately spend a move action to detect evil on a specific individual.
As for druid fire seeds (Holly Berry Bomb variant), some people say it needs a standard action to activate, some say you can freely speak said word. Some say all the Holly Berry Bombs go off as a single damage, others say they go off individually (allowing each one against fire resist)
Well I have heard interpretations on that issue, some think the pala can only detect evil in single targets, I just didn't know it was a controversy.
My own interpretation is, that a pala can use detect evil as a standart action to use is as described in the spell (cone shape, great for finding invisible evil enemies).
The move action bit could be clearer, but I am inclined to allow paladins to use it without starting the standard action version, since so many of their class abilities are dependent on it.
Fire seeds is a pretty nice spell, and it uses the wording command word, so yeah I can understand both points of view here. Shows how many things from the damn CRB have sometimes very unclear wording.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
players and gms who have no concern whether or not the rest of the people at the table are enjoying the gaming experience and each other's company
With Society Play involving widely varying tables, and GMs required to play the scenario as written, it seems an inevitability that this will happen.
What if I told you that being knocked unconscious, killed, crippled or otherwise rendered unable to even perform an action does more to make a player feel useless and unneeded than anything another player can do?I think I know what your are referring to, and while I have yet to brace that particular meat grinder, I assume, that this might be caused by too many people complaining about previous adventures being way to easy.
Obviously things like this have a chance to happen in every adventure, sometimes the dice just hate you, but what happens if a group of hyper optimized players, using every dirty trick in the book steamroll that situation and complain again.
Do we really want even harder adventures (big fan of hard modes and virtual e-peen to addressee players with those wishes), I am really quite worried for new players.When it's 2/3rds of the game, it's not a particular meat grinder. It feels like half the time Paizo's just working to force people through the pain of level 1 over and over again for all eternity.
This in turn lends itself to what I said above with how tables operate, and it's hard to avoid feelings of antagonism to develop. Players end up wanting to beat the stuffing out of what Paizo's put forth so there's a moment to have some sort of arc to their characters besides glorified murderhobo, and the GM is caught as an unlucky middle man.
I tend to enjoy using a rather high level of system mastery, but in my experience while the enemies they use are "fair" if sometimes a little bit under CRed right out of the box, the encounter setup is quite often pretty harsh. This makes buffing pre- and in combat rather hard, and let's not get started with incorporeal enemies in cramped places. My character did die from charging into melee range against a longspear user with a natural 20, that was stupid an I can live with that. However losing an animal companion to a [redacted] high hd ghost cleric in a maze, was rather a bit cheesy (although the GM rolled quite well that day).
I assume, that since the first seasons were much easier, that this was caused by to many complaining players.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
I think especially our group has found some options to Prebuff Sebastian (Gloves of reconnisaince) and I am partly guilty of your dead companion because my oracle put the table in high tier. But yes that encounter was very nasty.
For the old seasons they themselve had lesser options becuase some of the newer books werent out. More options for the players = mor options in the scenarios (unless you count GM/Greator fiat but i think it is good that this is not overused) And even some fairly old scenarios have things like Shaddows in a Lowtier etc. So yes the scenarios might have gotten a bit harder but i do not think this was caused by complaining players but rather because of the increasing options on both sides of the table. Note that in some cases it is very nasty and a bit too hard in some newer scenarios (silver mount collection which caused a very inafamous playtable at one of our conventions) or are downright evil (like the wight in an 1-2!!)
@Ascalaphus: This is something i do on all my prepared casters and even on some spontanous casters i reserve the nastiest/cheesiest tricks for the ugly games. At one ocasion my Gm told me not to powergame (he knew i would play a Slumberwitch and was at an higher level than the rest of the table) and i prepared buff/heal spells and used only evil eye and misfortune so that the rest of the table could have way more fun because they could fight and not only CDG. I thought about retraining that hex but came to the conclusion that i will keep it for the hard scenarios and will use it only in dire situations.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think especially our group has found some options to Prebuff Sebastian (Gloves of reconnisaince) and I am partly guilty of your dead companion because my oracle put the table in high tier. But yes that encounter was very nasty.
For the old seasons they themselve had lesser options becuase some of the newer books werent out. More options for the players = mor options in the scenarios (unless you count GM/Greator fiat but i think it is good that this is not overused) And even some fairly old scenarios have things like Shaddows in a Lowtier etc. So yes the scenarios might have gotten a bit harder but i do not think this was caused by complaining players but rather because of the increasing options on both sides of the table. Note that in some cases it is very nasty and a bit too hard in some newer scenarios (silver mount collection which caused a very inafamous playtable at one of our conventions) or are downright evil (like the wight in an 1-2!!)
@Ascalaphus: This is something i do on all my prepared casters and even on some spontanous casters i reserve the nastiest/cheesiest tricks for the ugly games. At one ocasion my Gm told me not to powergame (he knew i would play a Slumberwitch and was at an higher level than the rest of the table) and i prepared buff/heal spells and used only evil eye and misfortune so that the rest of the table could have way more fun because they could fight and not only CDG. I thought about retraining that hex but came to the conclusion that i will keep it for the hard scenarios and will use it only in dire situations.
Oh don't worry I recognized who you are after your second post, regarding the animal companion, I have learned to keep that maintaining shield companion is a nice idea^^
The gloves are certainly a great investment, and I think we can recommend it for every at least semi regular group to get at least one.
Silver mount collection, yeah, your game was worse than mine, but it is a demanding adventure, and if your group composition is unfortunate it can be very tough (that first encounter sounds like a nightmare for a group of pregens lacking Amiri (Kyra (played that one in my game), Valeros, Merisiel and Sajan would have serious troube with that first encounter, and it does not get better from there)
Including a wight in a 1-2 is just asking for a TPK, and frankly even in a 1-5 this can prevent a raise dead.
|
|
There are some combos that I feel are in bad form because they are selfish tactics that hurt your team as much as the enemy. Example: Goz masks + Obscuring mist, or Deeper Darkness/Moonlight Stalker.
Then there are combos that are in bad form because they monopolize combat time via summons, pets, and acting themselves: Summoners, Druids, some Hunters, some high level warpriests.
Then there are combos that are in bad form because they completely wreck level appropriate foes: A Tetori with Final Embrace, a Rogue Horizon Walker using extra rogue talent.
|
|
There are some combos that I feel are in bad form because they are selfish tactics that hurt your team as much as the enemy. Example: Goz masks + Obscuring mist, or Deeper Darkness/Moonlight Stalker.
Completely agree on this one, unless you're part of a team who all benefit from it (highly unlikely).
Then there are combos that are in bad form because they monopolize combat time via summons, pets, and acting themselves: Summoners, Druids, some Hunters, some high level warpriests.
I partly agree with this one. As owner of a pet or being a summoner I kind of except you to have everything prepared in advance of what you are going to do in your round. Yes rolling 12 dice for attacks followed 12 dice or less for damage (all with the same modifiers) is going to take some time (6 lantern archons all using a full attack with two rays), but there are also people who need to analyze every change in the tactical situation and need minutes to figure out the most optimal tactic decision when their turn in the initiative comes up, instead of trying to think a bit ahead (Enemy takes 5 ft step and except for some extra damage on the person that was being targetted nothing changes. Player next in initiative goes: "I could go there and then do that, but I could also go there and do that, or I could do this first, then go there and..."). Ofcourse, if you combine a pet user/summon user with someone who only plans in his own turn it's a very bad form combination.
Then there are combos that are in bad form because they completely wreck level appropriate foes: A Tetori with Final Embrace, a Rogue Horizon Walker using extra rogue talent.
How do you get Final Embrace in regular PFS play? The Tetori doesn't get constrict until level 15, which is a prereq for Final Embrace.
Also, rogue horizon walker use extra rogue talent is wrecking level appropriate foes? What combination of rogue talents with horizon walker are you referring to?
|
|
Then there are combos that are in bad form because they completely wreck level appropriate foes: A Tetori with Final Embrace, a Rogue Horizon Walker using extra rogue talent.How do you get Final Embrace in regular PFS play? The Tetori doesn't get constrict until level 15, which is a prereq for Final Embrace.
Also, rogue horizon walker use extra rogue talent is wrecking level appropriate foes? What combination of rogue talents with horizon walker are you referring to?
Constrict and Final embrace can be obtained via either a belt of anaconda's coils, or a two level dip in white-haired witch.
As for the Horizon walker build, it is a rogue that takes Terrain Mastery for every rogue talent and feat, and then uses terrain dominance to treat their massive +12 or higher favored terrain bonus as a Favored Enemy bonus against everything that is native to that terrain.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to state that I do not think that any legal build in PFS should be considered bad form, only certain forms of behavior. If one looks at why most of the listed builds above are considered bad form, it is because they can easily slow down combat, totally dominate encounters, or otherwise suck up much of the fun from everyone else. But in they end, it's not the build that is doing this. It is how the player uses the build that does this. All some builds do is make it easier. But if you have someone who plays in a style that sucks up much of the fun from everyone else, then discouraging the build won't solve the problem. You need to discourage the player's behavior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... I don't know that I can answer what your are asking and yet still give you what you are looking for. That probably doesn't make any sense. But I think it is more of a broad attitude of "Try to work as part of a team, be considerate of the other players, don't make it 4 hours of look at me."
.
Are builds that summon bad? No.
Is a player that floods the field with creatures, doesn't have the stats written down, and doesn't have his turn ready bad? Hella Yeah!
.
Is a mounted charger build bad? No.
Is a player that won't do anything until the rest of the group sets him up for a mondo charge bad? Quite possibly.
.
Is a battlefield control caster bad? Of course not.
I s a player that fills the area with volcanic storm, wall of thorns, stone spikes, etc... so that even his own allies can't function bad? Maybe.
-------------------------------------
Having said all that, there are some types of builds to be careful with. I still wouldn't say don't do it, just be carful with it.
.
1) Slumber Hex witch: Perfectly viable and reasonable. But have something else to do. If the only action you ever take is 'Slumber Hex' you will get bored and the others will get annoyed. I saw one a few months ago that when the encounter was a bunch of undead, he literally did absolutely nothing for the entire combat. He was practically pouting because there was an opponent against which he couldn't use slumber hex.
.
2) Summoning builds: Summoner, dino druid, summoning sorc, etc... They can be played quite reasonably.
3) Paladins: This is kind of an area and how you play thing. There are a lot of PFS scenarios that if you get real rigid about the code, it is almost impossible to succeed. So some people will hear that Jimmy-Joe-Bob has a paladin and assume he is just going to make things more difficult for them.
But if you have another character to use when the scenario makes it difficult (or others aren't thrilled) and demonstrate that you will contribute toward rather than detract from the odds of success, I think it can be fine.
.
4) Ultimately Specialized Anything: If you can only do one thing, it can cause problems. You will tend to force that solution onto any situation even if it is a poor choice. You will tend to get bored (and possibly disruptive) when your one thing isn't applicable. If your one thing doesn't come up, you may not contribute for the entire scenario. And you will often make the others work harder picking up the slack.
He charged no matter the threat level or whether he had a chance. He nearly always got hit. He failed nearly every saving throw. Had no skill ranks in any thing except perception. Tried to push every encounter into a fight even if not necessary because then he could do something.
In one scenario my PC used up on him a Breath of Life scroll, 2 potions of lesser restoration, a scroll of restoration, oil of daylight, Remove Blindness scroll, and almost a full wand of CLW. Just to try and keep him functional and contributing in the fights. I added it up and iirc, my PC profited <100 gps on that scenario. Almost all spent on the fighter.
Did he do more damage in a fight? Yes, but really not all that much more. Certainly not enough to justify 2 other PC's spending almost all their actions keeping him alive and functioning. And he had nothing to contribute in the social encounter or against the flying opponent (since he didn't buy a normal bow or even get a free sling).
5) Not Good at Anything: Not sure why, but lately I've been seeing a lot of characters that try to do a little bit of everything so they really end up not contributing much of anything. Have a bow, but rarely hit or do much damage. Have a melee weapon, but can't really do much in melee combat. Have a few attack spells, but the DC's are so low they usually fail. Have a single die of sneak attack damage, but not enough to really bother working to set them up for it. Have a single channel or low level heal spell, but not enough to make a difference. Not as problematic as 4), but it still really doesn't help much.
.
It is very easy to build a character somewhere between the extremes of 4) and 5) that is helpful and contributes in a wide variety of situations. If you have trouble with that, ask for some help.
.
A) What is the primary thing you are going to be built to do in combat? Disarm opponents
B) What is the secondary thing you are going to be able to do in combat when A) doesn't work or isn't a good choice? Hit things with a great club.
Maybe even, C) What is the tertiary thing you are going to be able to do in combat when both A) nor B) don't work or aren't good choices? Shoot things with a strength bow.
D) What is the primary thing you are going to be able to do in NON-combat situations? Use sense motive to tell if someone is lying to the face PC.
E) What is the secondary thing you are going to be able to do in NON-combat situations when D) doesn't work or isn't a good choice? Perception to keep an eye out for danger or unusual situations.
Possibly even, F) What is the tertiary thing you are going to be able to do in NON-combat situations when both D) and E) don't work or aren't good choices? Use survival to track down and find the target.
.
It is not at all hard to come up with a build that can do more than one thing.
|
|
I'm less concerned with abusive options existing than abusive options being played in what I feel are a BadWrong way.
Are you playing a divine caster? If you can't explain anything about your character's patron deity beyond "I found the name in Inner Sea Gods" you're playing it BadWrong because you can't roleplay your character satisfactorily.. religion is a hugely important dimension to a character and especially so to divine casters.
Are you playing a character with a optimized/munchkin capabilities, AND hogging all the glory at the table? You're not just BadWrong, you're a jerk. Let other people at the table have their fun too. It won't kill you to not dominate every fight. PFS scenarios are literally written from the assumption that you're going to win all the encounters to begin with; it may not matter to you who carries the fights but it certainly might matter to the people you're leaving with nothing to do but ride your coattails and twiddle their thumbs for 4 hours.
|
I'm less concerned with abusive options existing than abusive options being played in what I feel are a BadWrong way.
Are you playing a divine caster? If you can't explain anything about your character's patron deity beyond "I found the name in Inner Sea Gods" you're playing it BadWrong because you can't roleplay your character satisfactorily.. religion is a hugely important dimension to a character and especially so to divine casters.
Are you playing a character with a optimized/munchkin capabilities, AND hogging all the glory at the table? You're not just BadWrong, you're a jerk. Let other people at the table have their fun too. It won't kill you to not dominate every fight. PFS scenarios are literally written from the assumption that you're going to win all the encounters to begin with; it may not matter to you who carries the fights but it certainly might matter to the people you're leaving with nothing to do but ride your coattails and twiddle their thumbs for 4 hours.
I haven't really run into players like that before. I have played with the tiefling darkness builds, and slumber hex, and numerous high damage killing things in one round builds of all different sorts. And they've all been jovial friendly players, not trying to hog the table or prevent others from getting to play, but unintentionally doing so due to the strength of their builds. Yes, there are people with attitude problems, occasionally you even have to ban someone from play because they're so disruptive, but that I find is a rare issue. Dominating character builds are a very common one. The thing is, the game is so customizable that its easy to make two characters at the same level and wealth with vastly different levels of ability. So one player comes to the table with a dwarf fighter has a 20 AC and does 1D10+5 damage, and I sit down next to him with an undine ranger/monk/gunslinger/horizonwalker with 6 higher AC, 7 higher damage, twice the saves, evasion, three times the skill points, etc. But weird builds aren't necessarily the issue. I could have sat down with my own dwarf fighter, who just because of the choices I made, does everything the first guys character does but better. Not really sure if there is a solution.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I would like to state that I do not think that any legal build in PFS should be considered bad form, only certain forms of behavior. If one looks at why most of the listed builds above are considered bad form, it is because they can easily slow down combat, totally dominate encounters, or otherwise suck up much of the fun from everyone else. But in they end, it's not the build that is doing this. It is how the player uses the build that does this. All some builds do is make it easier. But if you have someone who plays in a style that sucks up much of the fun from everyone else, then discouraging the build won't solve the problem. You need to discourage the player's behavior.
Yes, but I would like to warn people away from some builds, since they might end up only being able to use their dominating option.
|
|
I haven't really run into players like that before. I have played with the tiefling darkness builds, and slumber hex, and numerous high damage killing things in one round builds of all different sorts. And they've all been jovial friendly players, not trying to hog the table or prevent others from getting to play, but unintentionally doing so due to the strength of their builds. Yes, there are people with attitude problems, occasionally you even have to ban someone from play because they're so disruptive, but that I find is a rare issue. Dominating character builds are a very common one. The thing is, the game is so customizable that its easy to make two characters at the same level and wealth with vastly different levels of ability. So one player comes to the table with a dwarf fighter has a 20 AC and does 1D10+5 damage, and I sit down next to him with an undine ranger/monk/gunslinger/horizonwalker with 6 higher AC, 7 higher damage, twice the saves, evasion, three times the skill points, etc. But...
My halfling shining knight paladin can 1-shot just about any evil outsider/undead/dragon that I'm aware of in PFS at his tier if he smites them and then charges, but I am not aware of anyone having an issue with him because I play him as such a jovial, polite, sweet, clueless, happy little guy. I also tend to observe the combat and only do the charging smite thing if the other players look to be struggling, otherwise I'm happy to have him just pick off minions or support others with channeling and lay-on-hands.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Hmm... I don't know that I can answer what your are asking and yet still give you what you are looking for. That probably doesn't make any sense. But I think it is more of a broad attitude of "Try to work as part of a team, be considerate of the other players, don't make it 4 hours of look at me."
.
Are builds that summon bad? No.
Is a player that floods the field with creatures, doesn't have the stats written down, and doesn't have his turn ready bad? Hella Yeah!
.
Is a mounted charger build bad? No.
Is a player that won't do anything until the rest of the group sets him up for a mondo charge bad? Quite possibly.
.
Is a battlefield control caster bad? Of course not.
I s a player that fills the area with volcanic storm, wall of thorns, stone spikes, etc... so that even his own allies can't function bad? Maybe.-------------------------------------
Having said all that, there are some types of builds to be careful with. I still wouldn't say don't do it, just be carful with it.
.
1) Slumber Hex witch: Perfectly viable and reasonable. But have something else to do. If the only action you ever take is 'Slumber Hex' you will get bored and the others will get annoyed. I saw one a few months ago that when the encounter was a bunch of undead, he literally did absolutely nothing for the entire combat. He was practically pouting because there was an opponent against which he couldn't use slumber hex.
.
2) Summoning builds: Summoner, dino druid, summoning sorc, etc... They can be played quite reasonably.
** spoiler omitted **...
Thank you for that awesome post, it is very informative and link worthy.
The only thing I would add is:
I will be amazing one I reach level X
I haven't seen this as much in PFS yet, but it is a common mistake when optimizing characters. Sometimes the temptation of making a very effective character is just too strong.
Examples would be high DEX low STR based characters, once of my players recently wanted to play a gnome swashbuckler, and since he was missing a feat at level 1 DEX to damage wasn't an option.
After the first scenario of only being able to deal 1d4 damage with his small rapier (and no STR bonus), he retrained his character to take an achetype and fencing grace.
Without that however the character would be stuck with terrible damage until level 3.
Before the ACG came out, dervish dance was the only way to get DEX to damage.. it wasn't pretty.
And of course some prestige classes involve a certain amount of pain, I recently played with a rogue/sorcerer/arcane trickster at level 7 and that build is hardly broken on the lower levels.
My suggestion would be to always consider what your character can contribute to the party, not unlike your fighter example, if your character simply can't deal with a number of challenges (social or otherwise) and must depend on the first 3-4 other pathfinders the venture captain could find, for protection and healing... well that is hardly considerate.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I haven't really run into players like that before. I have played with the tiefling darkness builds, and slumber hex, and numerous high damage killing things in one round builds of all different sorts. And they've all been jovial friendly players, not trying to hog the table or prevent others from getting to play, but unintentionally doing so due to the strength of their builds. Yes, there are people with attitude problems, occasionally you even have to ban someone from play because they're so disruptive, but that I find is a rare issue. Dominating character builds are a very common one. The thing is, the game is so customizable that its easy to make two characters at the same level and wealth with vastly different levels of ability. So one player comes to the table with a dwarf fighter has a 20 AC and does 1D10+5 damage, and I sit down next to him with an undine ranger/monk/gunslinger/horizonwalker with 6 higher AC, 7 higher damage, twice the saves, evasion, three times the skill points, etc. But...I'm less concerned with abusive options existing than abusive options being played in what I feel are a BadWrong way.
Are you playing a divine caster? If you can't explain anything about your character's patron deity beyond "I found the name in Inner Sea Gods" you're playing it BadWrong because you can't roleplay your character satisfactorily.. religion is a hugely important dimension to a character and especially so to divine casters.
Are you playing a character with a optimized/munchkin capabilities, AND hogging all the glory at the table? You're not just BadWrong, you're a jerk. Let other people at the table have their fun too. It won't kill you to not dominate every fight. PFS scenarios are literally written from the assumption that you're going to win all the encounters to begin with; it may not matter to you who carries the fights but it certainly might matter to the people you're leaving with nothing to do but ride your coattails and twiddle their thumbs for 4 hours.
I agree, but your example is a bit confusing to me, obviously there is a baseline for competence, and frankly if the dwarven fighter doesn't have a better AC and damage (than the numbers you mentioned) by the point, that the other char can get levels in horizon walker, something is wrong.
Even with CORE, or alternatively just avoiding the cheesy builds, a a player with sufficient system mastery can get quite impressive results. Combining a paladin with wand of shield allows them to have a high AC and deal plenty of damage with a two handed weapon, simple "hacks" like that help a lot. You don't actually have to use the horizon hunter cheese.|
|
The only thing I would add is:
I will be amazing one I reach level X
I haven't seen this as much in PFS yet, but it is a common mistake when optimizing characters.
I think that's a common mistake because people carry it over from MMOs - where the first few levels are easy and go much faster even with medicore builds, so you spend most of your time playing once the character has come into his own.
If you are doing a PFS build which will be weak for the first level only - you can play something easy for the first level, and then rebuild him entirely for level 2.
Or if the character will take longer - that sounds like a prime use of AP/GM credit. I'm going through an AP right now - and that's my plan with the credit. I'm going to build a PFS drunken master I've been playing around with who has a dumped strength (needing an 18 Con for Swift Drinker makes him too MAD for strength) and with the AP credit I'll be able to start play with an Agile AoMF. I would NOT want to play the first couple levels doing 1d6-2 damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a common mistake because people carry it over from MMOs
Really? I thought it came from people seeing the concept-defining fighting styles that are locked behind feat chains/level prereqs/prestige classes and wanting to actually use them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I would like to state that I do not think that any legal build in PFS should be considered bad form, only certain forms of behavior. If one looks at why most of the listed builds above are considered bad form, it is because they can easily slow down combat, totally dominate encounters, or otherwise suck up much of the fun from everyone else. But in they end, it's not the build that is doing this. It is how the player uses the build that does this. All some builds do is make it easier. But if you have someone who plays in a style that sucks up much of the fun from everyone else, then discouraging the build won't solve the problem. You need to discourage the player's behavior.Yes, but I would like to warn people away from some builds, since they might end up only being able to use their dominating option.
What build can only use their dominating option?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
The only thing I would add is:
I will be amazing one I reach level X
I haven't seen this as much in PFS yet, but it is a common mistake when optimizing characters.
I think that's a common mistake because people carry it over from MMOs - where the first few levels are easy and go much faster even with medicore builds, so you spend most of your time playing once the character has come into his own.
If you are doing a PFS build which will be weak for the first level only - you can play something easy for the first level, and then rebuild him entirely for level 2.
Or if the character will take longer - that sounds like a prime use of AP/GM credit. I'm going through an AP right now - and that's my plan with the credit. I'm going to build a PFS drunken master I've been playing around with who has a dumped strength (needing an 18 Con for Swift Drinker makes him too MAD for strength) and with the AP credit I'll be able to start play with an Agile AoMF. I would NOT want to play the first couple levels doing 1d6-2 damage.
I think GM credit allows for some pretty wild builds, but I don't really like it as a justification. Of course AP credit is fair game.
From my point of view, I like to use obscure combinations to avoid taking other easier choices (e.g taking the following combination, just because I want to use opportune parry without using a rapier. Kata Monk 1 / Paladin 2 / Brawler 2). Other players might do the same, like using multiclassing to make a white haired witch useful - just taking straight witch levels doesn't work.
I think that's a common mistake because people carry it over from MMOsReally? I thought it came from people seeing the concept-defining fighting styles that are locked behind feat chains/level prereqs/prestige classes and wanting to actually use them.
I have this silly idea, that players usually have a mental image of their character, and how he "work", how he would react to different RP situations ..etc. That is partly why I argue with, the "players should not plan their characters to level 20, they should organicly built it, based on their experiences and out that skill point into profession sailor....." crowd.
Sorry about that tangent, but the point I am trying to make, is that a lot of those awesome builds, really don't scale well... pretty much the opposite of barbarians, they start very strong...
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
What build can only use their dominating option?I would like to state that I do not think that any legal build in PFS should be considered bad form, only certain forms of behavior. If one looks at why most of the listed builds above are considered bad form, it is because they can easily slow down combat, totally dominate encounters, or otherwise suck up much of the fun from everyone else. But in they end, it's not the build that is doing this. It is how the player uses the build that does this. All some builds do is make it easier. But if you have someone who plays in a style that sucks up much of the fun from everyone else, then discouraging the build won't solve the problem. You need to discourage the player's behavior.Yes, but I would like to warn people away from some builds, since they might end up only being able to use their dominating option.
I am tempted to just say archers, but I have some examples:
White haired witch / other class , grappling focused, obviously not useless without the core gimmick, but it tends to limit their choices in combat.
Summoners: You either send your monster in the battle or you don't. You could refrain from casting haste, but your party members might not appreciate that. Better to build your eidolon differently from the start. Just look at the hunter pregen, that wolf is a team player (trip+archery just isn't a great combination, but you can be clever and plan around it).
It really is not an issue of not being able to use your power option, rather that not using then sometimes feels like you are shortchanging your team. Sorry but this area is dominated by feelings, expectations and endorphin.
|
|
5) Not Good at Anything: Not sure why, but lately I've been seeing a lot of characters that try to do a little bit of everything so they really end up not contributing much of anything. Have a bow, but rarely hit or do much damage. Have a melee weapon, but can't really do much in melee combat. Have a few attack spells, but the DC's are so low they usually fail. Have a single die of sneak attack damage, but not enough to really bother working to set them up for it. Have a single channel or low level heal spell, but not enough to make a difference. Not as problematic as 4), but it still really doesn't help much.
---
Sorry, I couldn't get the above to quote properly.
I just wanted to comment on this: it's bad form, yes, but it can also mean that the person who made the character is a newer player / a player with low rules mastery. Maybe it could be helpful to players of these kind of characters if you were to give them advice? They're not actively trying to ruin your PFS experience and are playing as best they can.
I personally built a terrible first character, but with the helpful advice of local players, I now have two reasonably effective ones (the first has since been retired from play on account of being unviable).
It's bad form to have a useless character, but may I politely suggest helping those kind of people rather than complaining about them online?
Sorry.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
5) Not Good at Anything: Not sure why, but lately I've been seeing a lot of characters that try to do a little bit of everything so they really end up not contributing much of anything. Have a bow, but rarely hit or do much damage. Have a melee weapon, but can't really do much in melee combat. Have a few attack spells, but the DC's are so low they usually fail. Have a single die of sneak attack damage, but not enough to really bother working to set them up for it. Have a single channel or low level heal spell, but not enough to make a difference. Not as problematic as 4), but it still really doesn't help much.
---
Sorry, I couldn't get the above to quote properly.
I just wanted to comment on this: it's bad form, yes, but it can also mean that the person who made the character is a newer player / a player with low rules mastery. Maybe it could be helpful to players of these kind of characters if you were to give them advice? They're not actively trying to ruin your PFS experience and are playing as best they can.
I personally built a terrible first character, but with the helpful advice of local players, I now have two reasonably effective ones (the first has since been retired from play on account of being unviable).
It's bad form to have a useless character, but may I politely suggest helping those kind of people rather than complaining about them online?
Sorry.
I think we can all benefit from another set of eyes, either through the advice forum or by asking other players to take a look at our character.
Sometimes the fix is as easy as using your wand of mage armor on the level 7 monk with only +1 bracers or armor, or hand your reserve boy to another character, or explaining the existence of thrown weapons to fighters...When playing with a fresh character, I usually try to give them some toys like alchemists fire, wands, scrolls, a reach weapon... pretty much anything that allows the level 1 char to participate in suptier 4-5.
Complaining about someone who does not know any better, is a waste of time, and frankly really not productive. I have come to extort the virtues of holy weapon balms to some of the other characters in my regular group, and it seemed to have worked in at least one case.
And frankly in PFS your actively have to train people to buy expendables.
Of course if a player doesn't want to learn or should know better and decides to play a 9 INT wizard, that is grounds for at least a moderate amount of public flogging ^^
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
Summoners: You either send your monster in the battle or you don't. You could refrain from casting haste, but your party members might not appreciate that. Better to build your eidolon differently from the start. Just look at the hunter pregen, that wolf is a team player (trip+archery just isn't a great combination, but you can be clever and plan around it).
I think you can make a pretty usefull summoner if you use a noncombat eidolon (Skillmonkey/utility) and use your SLA (not stronger than the conjurer wizard) and use your spells to buff the party. It will not be as strong as the Pouncing Eidolon but you have some extra body on the table (for Flanks/control) and you help your party without overdominating them. And even with the poncing eidolon you can leave it at home without beeing useless. (Augment and superior Summoning are very usefull and i think more worth than extra evolutions because they give you an useful backup option.
I just wanted to comment on this: it's bad form, yes, but it can also mean that the person who made the character is a newer player / a player with low rules mastery. Maybe it could be helpful to players of these kind of characters if you were to give them advice? They're not actively trying to ruin your PFS experience and are playing as best they can.
Here I know only one example of a player that was resistant to afterplay advice about options that would help the charakter. And there I got the explicit advice "I do not like to powergame". Nearly all new or unexperienced players appreciate if you tell them what usefull options they have if you do not force them to take them.
|
|
Maybe I'm just very unlucky, but I've seen a lot of this recently as well:
"Not Good at Anything: Not sure why, but lately I've been seeing a lot of characters that try to do a little bit of everything so they really end up not contributing much of anything. Have a bow, but rarely hit or do much damage. Have a melee weapon, but can't really do much in melee combat. Have a few attack spells, but the DC's are so low they usually fail. Have a single die of sneak attack damage, but not enough to really bother working to set them up for it. Have a single channel or low level heal spell, but not enough to make a difference. Not as problematic as 4), but it still really doesn't help much. "
Sadly, my lorewarden/rogue falls into this category. Shoulda mind a mindchemist.