Transitioning to High Tier Play (7-11)


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5

TOZ wrote:
I would have gotten the message "don't play at Mike Brock's table".

Strange, I would have gotten a slightly different message: "Don't play a Kyle Baird scenario at Mike Brock's table."

Then again, in the past, I have played at one of Mike's tables, and survived:

NeonCon 2011:
Nov 3, 2011 889 Neoncon 2011 22 Michael Brock Pathfinder Society Scenario #2-24: Shadow's Last Stand—Part II: Web of Corruption 3836 -2 Kinevon PC Liberty's Edge

Sovereign Court 5/5

Sammy T wrote:

1) 'Munchkinism' is quite the pejorative term to be throwing around. Let's avoid that, shall we?

It's the same thing whether it's called "System Mastery" or "Munchkin". They mean the same thing, far as I'm concerned the two terms are completely interchangeable and if one is offensive, then so is the other one.

Quote:


2) I never said you should solo the encounter nor did I state you're horrible if you couldn't. I also did state you would not be alone.

Quote:
Remember, Fred is not fighting this monster alone. He has his fellow PCs at his side. But now, he actually fills the role of damage dealer versus thinking that he is one. While the both Freds would be absolutely fine for low levels, at higher tiers, Fred the Longsword fighter will become less and less effective (and probably less fun to play) while Fred the Greatsword fighter will continue to contribute in combat.

Fair enough, upon re-reading your actual advice appears to boil down to "if you're going to do one thing well, make sure that one thing keeps improving because the difficulties will get higher".

It's a little bit of a disconnect from the rest of your advice which was to focus on doing several things competently. But I think we'd both agree that you want to make sure you keep scaling your Go-To trick while simultaneously developing additional dimensions of capability.

My criticisms certainly outweighed my accolades, and that wasn't a fair communication of what I thought of your article. Aside from a few quibbles, (and any two people will always quibble over something) I think you deserve credit for writing it and making it available to the forum.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deusvult wrote:
Sammy T wrote:

1) 'Munchkinism' is quite the pejorative term to be throwing around. Let's avoid that, shall we?

It's the same thing whether it's called "System Mastery" or "Munchkin". They mean the same thing, far as I'm concerned the two terms are completely interchangeable and if one is offensive, then so is the other one.

What, what?!

System mastery and munchkinism are barely, and only distantly, related.

Munchkinsim, at its heart, is min-maxing past min-maxing. System mastery is working within the system for the best results for what you want to do.

System mastery would be knowing that your Power Attacking, Vital Striking PC would benefit greatly from Furious Focus.

Munchkinism would not be working on a Vital Strike build to begin with, but working toward a Pounce build instead.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And round and round we go on the merry-go-round of "how do you define your term differently than I".

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm local to SammyT and provided feedback when he was first putting these together. It was created because we were seeing players get frustrated when the characters they had put so much work into were struggling through scenarios.

Pathfinder is a role-playing game, but there's a fundamental mathematical underpinning. If you want to roleplay your character as a steely, hyper-competent master martial combatant, you're going to to be stretching your own credulity when you're starting off at level 1 with +1 to hit.

I've seen players get increasingly upset when their self-imagined bad-asses are unable to land a blow while the absent-minded archivist is out-damaging them. I've seen players legitimately not know that hitting at +0 is a fundamental problem they will likely be unable to overcome through leveling and gear (and I don't mean that as an insult--if you're just starting out, you don't have a feel for what the numbers mean).

The whole idea behind this is to lay out the basics for those less interested in exploring the mechanics of the game.

If you're satisfied only hitting an appropriate-CR enemy 30% of the time, that's between you and your party. If you're going to find that level of success dampens your fun, or if you're concerned it will be an issue for your party then here's how you can plan accordingly.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
And round and round we go on the merry-go-round of "how do you define your term differently than I".

When 99% of a group is going to define munchkin as a pejorative that makes it a pejorative. Language is one case where the popular vote counts.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Side note: I find that Con 14 is just as necessary at low level, if not even more. Those few extra negative HP before death can be really important.

Sczarni

Ascalaphus wrote:
Side note: I find that Con 14 is just as necessary at low level, if not even more. Those few extra negative HP before death can be really important.

Especially if you get crited while still lvl 1 or 2 when a decent die roll on a crit has a good chance of getting you close to negative con.

All of my characters have a 14 Con score, regardless of 15 or 20 point buy. The primary Stat may not be as high on a 15 pb but the pc has a better chance at living.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Thanks for sharing this Sammy! Reminds me of Painlord's thread a while back.

I'll be mentioning it locally as well :)

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Paz wrote:

I've played in exactly one tier 7-11 scenario, and the party didn't make it past the first encounter. My PC died, and the group as a whole only narrowly avoided a TPK. I got the message that perhaps I should stick to 5-9 or lower...

For information, the scenario was 'The Sealed Gate' and the GM was Mike Brock.

I played that two weeks ago. The first encounter was damn near a wipe and the last encounter my character spent enchanted (rolled a one on a Will save). That is...a highly vicious scenario if you are not 100% prepared. But it's fun to flounder through!

I've seen a lot of instances where people haven't been prepared, or don't know how to prepare their characters for high-tier play. I shall definitely print this off and show it around.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere

Sammy T wrote:
@rei absolutely!

The document (I can provide a link if you want, but you probably won't understand about 90% of it because Finnish is a weird language) was well received and incited a few comments right off the bat.

One player commented thus: "As one more point, I would add that the higher the tier gets, the more complicated and longer the combats get. I would therefore recommend following the game closely and thinking about what you're going to do on your turn beforehand, giving yourself several options. Sometimes, combat can take hours, so if everyone thinks ahead about what they're going to do, everyone saves time.

"You can't always prepare for every surprise, but if you come up with a few options, you save some time. For example, the player of a rogue can follow events unfolding on the flipmat and think about where to head in order to get flanking. A caster can think about whether to drop a fireball somewhere or attempt to assist their teammates instead. Even Flora the Fighter can consider these same things: "If this enemy falls to my first attack, which direction do I continue in? Is there another enemy in a five-foot step's range that I can continue my full attack to, or do I take a move action instead?"

Another player backed this up, adding that as a GM this is even more important than when playing, but that GMing is good practice for this sort of predictive play.

Hope the commentary is appreciated. :)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Pink Dragon wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:

I'm glad to see that some GMs will skip combat for role play, though that is few and far between in my experience.

Some Tier 7-11 scenarios do give wiggle room for the unoptimized, and others don't. Even then, the ones that leave room often end in some character deaths even if there isn't a TPK.

I can recall quite a number of low level scenarios without any siginificant RP part, and a number of high level scenarios with quite a bit.

Not being properly prepare can be deadly in both.

It sounds bad, bad undead shadows don't really care why a player character eschews certain magic items, they will just kill him and converse with their future shadow brother about it.
Ghouls will just paralize and eat you.

One of those examples came from a 7-11 and one from a 1-5 scenario.

Players can always RP among themselves if they have time even if the scenario doesn't specifically have PC/NPC role play parts. At high Tier, even inter-PC RPing is often limited by time constraints to finish the scenario.

Ghouls can be struck and killed by anybody with anything. That is just a save or suck problem, which is a problem at all Tiers. But any character can actually do something about a ghoul.

Shadows and other incorporeal undead are definitely an issue at low Tier that reflects many of the problems with high Tier play. I have an issue with that too at low Tier.

Off topic discussion :

Players can RP between themselves before, after and outside of scenarios. The fact, that high level play in pathfinder tends to involve longer combat is one ot the "features" of the D20 system.

The system tends to become moer unforgiving as players level up and gain new abilities, that is only natural. However as the guide mentioned, this can be a scaling issue. Most characters will be able to survive a low level challenge with a chainshirt and a mace, but once you level up a couple of times, the system expects a bit more system mastery.

Since players can access some pretty powerful stuff, it is only natural that enemies get new toys too.

It is ok not to like higher level challenges, but some of the complaints/requirements are part of the system

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Pink Dragon wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I highly recommend the 14. Its only 5 points. Its not just dying that you need to worry abou, you also need to worry about having your hit points drop so low tha you're a liability to the party rather than an asset.

This is statement is my whole issue. Characters are "required" to have certain features to be an "asset" to the party, irrespective of how the player wants to envision the charcter.

Players aren't required to do so, the high CON thing, is just one of those things that the community has come to believe.

QUOTE="Pink Dragon"]

Jayson MF Kip wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:


A 14 CON requires 5 points of your 20. If you are playing a SAD class that may be doable but playing a MAD class makes that a bit untenable.

I'm pretty sure a living character with a 14 STR does more damage than a dead one with an 18.
Precisely why PFS is more of a video game.

As someone who play quite a lot of video games, how exactly is this a real complaint? Quite a number of video games took a lot of inspiration from D&D and sometimes ideas from video games were integrated into Pen and Paper games.

I fail to see why you use this description, it is hardly very useful since video games aren't a very all encompassing term.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Pink Dragon wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:


A 14 CON requires 5 points of your 20. If you are playing a SAD class that may be doable but playing a MAD class makes that a bit untenable.

I'm pretty sure a living character with a 14 STR does more damage than a dead one with an 18.
Precisely why PFS is more of a video game.
Because you can lose?

I "lose" when I don't have fun. I have fun playing characters with peccadillos that other characters can role playing against. Sustained fun assumes that your character will be around for a while. If the game requires your character to be built in a certain way to survive, then all the fun that you can have with a character not built in that certain way is lost quickly.

Video games require set responses to challenges. If your character cannot respond with the set response then the character dies. When the character dies then the fun of playing that character dies too.

We don't play random character, we play pathfinders and we go on an adventure. These adventures tend to reward us pretty well, so we can survive the next one.

Oh and the term "with peccadillos that other characters can role playing against. " is pretty disgusting.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Pink Dragon wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


oh knock it off with the video game dross. Its random, insulting, nonsensical blatherskite.

Everyone is role playing an adventurer. You go off to the middle of nowhere, hike through miles of wilderness, get attacked by weird monsters, infected with diseases and stabbed with poisonous appendages. If something about that screamed that it was a perfect time to play a sickly dilettante then what you're complaining about is the fruition of the narrative you chose to playing reaching its likely conclusion.

Your first paragraph makes no sense.

As to your second paragraph, role playing to me is about acting out a personality, irrespective of being an adventurer. The fun is in interaction with other characters, and how they respond to your quirks, shortcomings and strengths. If all there was to role playing was being an adventurer and overcoming physical obstacles, then any suitable set of stats, abilities and classes will do. That is ho-hum for me without the interaction part. I've seen that and done that for a long, long time.

Other players might be spending their time and resources to come to PFS games for other reasons, their fun is equally important.

Pink Dragon wrote:
Jayson MF Kip wrote:

There's a logical disconnect here.

As in, your statements seem to be made with a "home-game mentality;" you claim to want agency, while you expect a GM or some other player to play off of. You can't rely on someone else to sacrifice their enjoyment to satisfy yours.

Yes. I have played PFS for about a year now. Some PFS games I have played have provided this "agency" for me, but very few. It is apparent to me that PFS cannot generally provide what I seek because the majority of PFS players do not seek the same thing I do. I will be restricting myself much more to home games as a result.

Home games can and should cater to their players, considering the "run as written" doctrine, PFS GMs aren't allowed to make substantial changes.

Shadow Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Side note: I find that Con 14 is just as necessary at low level, if not even more. Those few extra negative HP before death can be really important.

I'm quite a fan of 13 CON at character creation, and bumping it up to 14 at Lvl 4.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I like dwarves. They are so survivable. Gnomes too.

1/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Oh and the term "with peccadillos that other characters can role playing against. " is pretty disgusting.

Merriam-Webster:

peccadillo - a small mistake or fault that is not regarded as very bad or serious

I do not see why you find this disgusting, unless you believe that the term "peccadillo" automatically means some form of sexual deviance, which is does not.

My reference to video games is probably a bit dated since I primarily played those during the early 1980's. The video games I played all permitted only a limited number of choices to be "successful" at the game. I view the requirement for mechanical optimization in PFS in the same vein.


I don't get the video game comparison. Not because they don't apply, but because the relevant issues being discussed aren't even remotely unique or exclusive to video games.

Tabletop RPGs feature challenges that must be overcome.

Some can be overcome with social interaction, namely roleplay.

Others require interaction with game mechanics. This most often means combat, but not always. These sorts of challenges require numbers and stats in the right places if you wish to be effective at them.

One can even justify optimized numbers from a roleplay standing. Adventuring is a dangerous job. Constitution is a measure of how hardy and durable a person is. Put those two together and it is not unreasonable to expect that most folks that survive significant amounts of adventuring will tend to have at least above average constitutions.

The need to have the right resources to overcome a challenge has existed long, long before videogames even existed. Really, it has been a central component of nearly every game since mankind started playing games to begin with.

Kinda mirrors real life. If a challenge there requires a minimum amount of a resource to overcome, often no amount of complaining or protesting will make a difference if you don't have it.

-j

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:

Your first paragraph makes no sense.

It is perfectly clear, perfectly sensible, and all together true. Trying to claim "it makes no sense" is random flailing at an idea you find disagreeable without basis to express your disagreement.

Quote:
As to your second paragraph, role playing to me is about acting out a personality, irrespective of being an adventurer. The fun is in interaction with other characters, and how they respond to your quirks, shortcomings and strengths. If all there was to role playing was being an adventurer and overcoming physical obstacles, then any suitable set of stats, abilities and classes will do. That is ho-hum for me without the interaction part. I've seen that and done that for a long, long time.

Then your stats shouldn't be required for you to role play. If you the player are not capable of bringing heart soul and depth to a character just because they have a modicum of optimization then you have no place faulting anyone elses role play. The game works best when the role and roll play elements work in harmony with each other. The stormwind fallacy you are trying to push as the height of superiority so you can deride others as being video gamey is what makes no sense, not people calling you on it.

The Stormwind Fallacy: Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

I will add my own:
Just because one can optimize his characters mechanically does not mean he should have to, and just because one cannot optimize his characters mechanically does not mean that others should expect him to learn how to.

Some players do not want to have to play mechanically optimized characters. In short, why should it be badwrongfun in PFS, particularly at high Tier, to play a mechanically unoptimized character?

Or, in a different vein, why should PFS scenarios, including high Tier scenarios, be written with mechanically optimized characters in mind, and then require GMs to "run as written" even if the table is full of unoptimized characters.

5/5 *****

Pink Dragon wrote:
Or, in a different vein, why should PFS scenarios, including high Tier scenarios, be written with mechanically...

PFS scenarios, even most 7-11 ones, don't expect PC's to be highly optimised in order to succeed. If they did the organised play campaign would probably collapse. There are a few exceptions which will challenge groups to a greater degree but largely most should be completable with pretty straight forward characters.

5/5 5/55/55/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Side note: I find that Con 14 is just as necessary at low level, if not even more. Those few extra negative HP before death can be really important.
I'm quite a fan of 13 CON at character creation, and bumping it up to 14 at Lvl 4.

Thats highly inefficient. Hopefully you have a stat higher than 13 already. Dropping that one down one will save you 3 or more character points as opposed to the 2 to get from a 13 to a 14 or the 4 points from a 17 to an 18.

5/5

Sammy, interesting read...I have one comment about the Status Effects paragraph. Packing a scroll of Make Whole is fairly pointless for a front line fighter by 3rd or 4th. By that point in time, most have at least a main +1 armor and weapon, and the scroll would not fix such a destroyed item...

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:


I will add my own:
Just because one can optimize his characters mechanically does not mean he should have to, and just because one cannot optimize his characters mechanically does not mean that others should expect him to learn how to.

Yes. Yes they can. As it pertains to the player if you've been playing for 7 levels you should have some idea of what works and what doesn't. Ideally you've figured out how to play the game and at some point asked for someone's advice on what to do.

As far as characters go, why on earth would the other characters take your character into a dangerous situation if they don't do anything?

Quote:
Some players do not want to have to play mechanically optimized characters. In short, why should it be badwrongfun in PFS, particularly at high Tier, to play a mechanically unoptimized character?

Because you're going to get the other player characters killed.

Because it strains credibility that they'd take your character with them.

Optimization is a spectrum. PFS does not require going to plaid in order to be effective. If you're so far away from optimized to not be good enough for pfs I have to ask why you're trying to play a deliberately unoptimized character.

Quote:
Or, in a different vein, why should PFS scenarios, including high Tier scenarios, be written with mechanically optimized characters in mind, and then require GMs to "run as written" even if the table is full of unoptimized characters..

Because its not as fun if its too easy, and if you hand DMs the dial they tend to crank it too high, people die, and then complaint letters come in.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:


I will add my own:
Just because one can optimize his characters mechanically does not mean he should have to, and just because one cannot optimize his characters mechanically does not mean that others should expect him to learn how to.

Yes. Yes they can. As it pertains to the player if you've been playing for 7 levels you should have some idea of what works and what doesn't. Ideally you've figured out how to play the game and at some point asked for someone's advice on what to do.

As far as characters go, why on earth would the other characters take your character into a dangerous situation if they don't do anything?

Quote:
Some players do not want to have to play mechanically optimized characters. In short, why should it be badwrongfun in PFS, particularly at high Tier, to play a mechanically unoptimized character?

Because you're going to get the other player characters killed.

Because it strains credibility that they'd take your character with them.

Optimization is a spectrum. PFS does not require going to plaid in order to be effective. If you're so far away from optimized to not be good enough for pfs I have to ask why you're trying to play a deliberately unoptimized character.

Quote:
Or, in a different vein, why should PFS scenarios, including high Tier scenarios, be written with mechanically optimized characters in mind, and then require GMs to "run as written" even if the table is full of unoptimized characters..

Because its not as fun if its too easy, and if you hand DMs the dial they tend to crank it too high, people die, and then complaint letters come in.

I am not talking about deliberately useless characters, and as you say, optimization is on a spectrum so it is difficult to know what you consider useless, unoptimized, optimized and overly-optimized.

If people don't find scenarios fun if they are too easy, why is it that a very large number of tables I've sat at have had at least one character that could virtually solo the scenario, and I have been on both sides of that issue.

I would think that most GMs would tend to crank the dial lower when a character death is imminent rather than the other way around.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Side note: I find that Con 14 is just as necessary at low level, if not even more. Those few extra negative HP before death can be really important.
I'm quite a fan of 13 CON at character creation, and bumping it up to 14 at Lvl 4.
Thats highly inefficient. Hopefully you have a stat higher than 13 already. Dropping that one down one will save you 3 or more character points as opposed to the 2 to get from a 13 to a 14 or the 4 points from a 17 to an 18.

Eh, not so much.

My most common pre-racial stat arrays are (in order of use)

14 14 14 13 12 10
16 13 13 12 12 10
15 15 12 12 10 10
14 14 13 13 12 12

I preferentially put the 13s in CON and INT (unless I'm an INT caster)

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Kevin Ingle wrote:
Sammy, interesting read...I have one comment about the Status Effects paragraph. Packing a scroll of Make Whole is fairly pointless for a front line fighter by 3rd or 4th. By that point in time, most have at least a main +1 armor and weapon, and the scroll would not fix such a destroyed item...

It's more to remove the "broken" condition.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Optimized" is a pretty subjective term. If we're going to have a productive conversation, we need to start talking numbers (yes, I'm optimizing this thread).

  • You can play a 14 Int wizard (just barely squeaked by at the Academae), but you as a player should be aware that enemies will make their saves against him more often than they fail.
  • If you want a (relatively) frail 10 Con Fighter, that's fine, but your PFS GM is not going to be able to pull the enemies' punches to account for your relatively few hit points.
  • If you're working on a high Dex warrior, you should know that you're not going to hit the broadside of a barn until you pick up Weapon Finesse and you won't be doing appreciable damage until you can afford your Agile enchant.

And for the above, you as a player need to be aware of these things, and it's in the spirit of good teamwork to inform your party.

  • Maybe that 14 Int Wizard should be focused on buffing and utility and eschew blasting and crowd control?
  • Maybe that frail Fighter should be investing in armor, blur/displacement and fortification if he wants to make it to retirement.
  • Maybe the high Dex fighter should just use a crossbow until his Dex build comes online around level 4 (he can even retrain his bonus Fighter feats, starting with ranged feats and swapping to melee).

If, on the other hand, you're looking to play a 12 Str/12 Dex/18 Int Fighter who pours all his skill points into a variety of Professions, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that either you're trolling your party or you may need to stick to home games where the GM can adjust for a character that doesn't meet a bare minimum level of competence in their chosen field.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pink Dragon wrote:

I "lose" when I don't have fun. I have fun playing characters with peccadillos that other characters can role playing against. Sustained fun assumes that your character will be around for a while. If the game requires your character to be built in a certain way to survive, then all the fun that you can have with a character not built in that certain way is lost quickly.

Video games require set responses to challenges. If your character cannot respond with the set response then the character dies. When the character dies then the fun of playing that character dies too.

Reality requires a set response (or at least one from a list of acceptable responses to challenges) too. Take the corner at too high a speed and your car will roll. The solution: Be skilled enough to know how fast you can take the corner and do it. If you don't twig onto that solution, you lose the race. It works for fighting too. If you are going into a mixed martial arts tournament and you can't figure out the counter to common moves, you will lose. If you are hoping to play in the NFL, you will work out regularly, work out hard, study the game, eat a diet appropriate for your position/intended physique, or you will get cut. Occasionally, there are players like Randy Moss who have enough physical talent that they can sometimes slack off a bit and still make the cut but even those players won't reach their potential if they do that. For that matter, Pete Carrol might have something to say about what you do on 2nd and goal with half a yard to go and Marshawn Lynch as a running back. He thought that he could get away with throwing a quick slant pass, but as it turns out, the right answer was probably, "give it to Marshawn Lynch."

Higher level characters are characters who are good at their jobs. A certain degree of checking the right boxes goes along with that. That's true in reality. It's true in video games. It would be rather bizarre if it weren't true in Pathfinder as well.

That said, I'm someone who enjoys finding out of the box solutions to problems, so I understand not necessarily wanting to check the same boxes as everyone else. However, the thing that makes those new solutions fun is being able to make them work. If they don't work, they're a run of the mill failure (or maybe an amusing one), not a creative new solution. That's why we're not all toasting Pete Carrol for his creative and out of the box thinking in the Super Bowl.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm... How to respond to some of this in a non-inflammatory manner?

I will rarely tell someone that they have to have X. (Except a wand of CLW or IF. It is just plain rude to expect everyone else to take care of you all the time.)

However, it is very accurate to say that everyone needs to be able to deal with a variety of situations like Y. And the easiest (or most common) way is to have X. If you have some other way to deal with it, perfectly fine.
NOTE: Complaining that the scenario is 'unfair / lame / bogus / stupid / hopeless / impossible' does not count as a way of dealing with Y.

So... What are some of the Y situations that you will need to have a way to deal with?

Things are going to try to hurt you.
Most characters will try to have a decent AC, hit points, and constitution score. There are other options. I have seen a wizard/cleric/MT with a con of 8 played by a very capable and experienced player. He tries to spend most of every scenario invisible/hidden and mostly succeeds. He has come close to dying a couple of times, but not quite. He contributes a lot and does not rely on everyone else to make up for his low con score. It is NOT easy and should not be tried by a beginner. Yet it is possible.

Sometimes a place will not be well lit.
Personally, I like having darkvision. But there are many ways of dealing with this. Wand of light, sunrods, everburning torch, lantern, lowlight vision, oil of daylight, blindfight feat, etc...

Some opponents will not stand right next to you to be hit repeatedly (inconsiderate of them I know, but it happens).
The most common approach is to have a ranged weapon. Bow, crossbow, javelin, heck a sling is free. Second most common is ranged offensive spells. But there are still more options. Have an option ready.

Occasionally your legs will not carry you where you need/want to go.
Swim fins, potion of flying, wand of touch of the sea, horse, wings, polymorph spells, scroll of dimension door, spider climb, etc...

I know it is hard to believe, but sometimes your mondo blade of supreme destruction may not be the best tool for the job.
Have another tool handy.

An unpleasant person may cast a spell to make you hurt your allies.
Have a way to stop/hinder that from happening.
Don't dump wisdom, take iron will, have a re-roll, carry the ion stone, buy a wand of prot from evil, spells to shield your mind, cloak of resistance, etc... My personal opinion is that you worst save should be at LEAST equal to half you level. And your will save should be better than that.

I think Sammy T's guide seems to be a fairly good compilation of possible X ways to deal with many of those Y situations.

Not too long ago I was at a table with a PC that did not have any ranged capability, the only back up weapon other than his mondo blade was his fist (no improved unarmed strike), no way to catch or get close to an enemy that did not cooperate, his will save was less than 1/3 of his level.
In one scenario he was taken over and almost killed an ally, paralyzed by another failed will save, absorbed almost all of someone else's wand of CLW, and made exactly 1 sword strike against a fairly minor enemy (granted he hit for a lot of damage). Most of the opposition was flying, climbing, or very fast. None of us were at all impressed with his super soldier.

Dark Archive 3/5

I love this guide, and thank the guy who did it.
but the real problem with ppl stuck in low level play is that they refuse to learn.
people who are bad, stays bad, Newtons Law of Physic. And the biggest thing that separates them is the fact that they don't read guide.

I just wish there as a better way to execute this. maybe 1980 Brainwash them. lol

1/5

Sammy T:
Great read, and I know you have a by-tier item elsewhere, but a bit of a breakdown in the range of levels or at least an acknowledgement of it may benefit this guide.

A lot of the points in your guide really begin to matter in the level 6 to level 8 range, where quite a few players (myself included) get their first metaphorical smack in the face as a wake-up call. A bit of information and advice on how to approach such setbacks may be good to include, as well.

Levels 9, 10 and 11...you better know that stuff by then. And you will, assuming one of those hard lessons didn't already kill your character in the 6 to 8 range.

5/5 5/55/55/5

pH unbalanced wrote:


My most common pre-racial stat arrays are (in order of use)

14 14 14 13 12 10
16 13 13 12 12 10
15 15 12 12 10 10
14 14 13 13 12 12

I preferentially put the 13s in CON and INT (unless I'm an INT caster)

Sheesh get a dump stat. Damn bowling balls.. :)

5/5 5/55/55/5

Pink Dragon wrote:
I am not talking about deliberately useless characters, and as you say, optimization is on a spectrum so it is difficult to know what you consider useless, unoptimized, optimized and overly-optimized.

Useless: Harsk (trying to use a crossbow)

unoptimized: Valeros (two weapon fighting, not two weapon fighting with the same weapon, bowling ball spread on stats). This is where things start to get problematic at levels 7 +

Midling: Amiri

Optimized: Archers, two handed weapon users, Dual blooded blasty casters

Over optimized: Slumber hex happy witches, dazing spell,

Quote:
If people don't find scenarios fun if they are too easy, why is it that a very large number of tables I've sat at have had at least one character that could virtually solo the scenario, and I have been on both sides of that issue.

Because appeals to ones own personal mad gaming skilz aside, most of the power of a character (especially a non spellcaster) is in the build. `You can get small to hot bonuses with flanking and combat manuevers, but if you can't get more than 3 points through somethings dr you're kinda stuck

Quote:
I would think that most GMs would tend to crank the dial lower when a character death is imminent rather than the other way around.

Its usually too late by that point, unless they just want to have enemies die of a sudden heart attack.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Pink Dragon wrote:
I would think that most GMs would tend to crank the dial lower when a character death is imminent rather than the other way around.

And then they have players who are unhappy with them for 'soft balling' the encounter. Trust me, most players know when the GM saves their asses. Monsters not using power attack anymore, attacks getting spread around instead of focus firing, these are useful tools but tend to be rather transparent. And even then, unless the players have that system mastery to pull something out of reserve, the downward spiral is often too tight to correct before someone or everyone ends up dead.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:

Quote:
If people don't find scenarios fun if they are too easy, why is it that a very large number of tables I've sat at have had at least one character that could virtually solo the scenario, and I have been on both sides of that issue.

Because appeals to ones own personal mad gaming skilz aside, most of the power of a character (especially a non spellcaster) is in the build. `You can get small to hot bonuses with flanking and combat manuevers, but if you can't get more than 3 points through somethings dr you're kinda stuck

So are you saying it is not fine to suck the fun out of someone's game by bringing a non-optimized character that puts the others at risk of death, but it is fine to suck the fun out of someone's game by bringing a character that can virtually solo a scenario thereby leaving the others with little to do?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Pink Dragon wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:

Quote:
If people don't find scenarios fun if they are too easy, why is it that a very large number of tables I've sat at have had at least one character that could virtually solo the scenario, and I have been on both sides of that issue.

Because appeals to ones own personal mad gaming skilz aside, most of the power of a character (especially a non spellcaster) is in the build. `You can get small to hot bonuses with flanking and combat manuevers, but if you can't get more than 3 points through somethings dr you're kinda stuck

So are you saying it is not fine to suck the fun out of someone's game by bringing a non-optimized character that puts the others at risk of death, but it is fine to suck the fun out of someone's game by bringing a character that can virtually solo a scenario thereby leaving the others with little to do?

Not what I said, not implied by anything i said, not remotely related to anything i said. Who are you talking to? My words are in quotes but nothing you said relates to them, at all.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pink Dragon wrote:

Quote:
If people don't find scenarios fun if they are too easy, why is it that a very large number of tables I've sat at have had at least one character that could virtually solo the scenario, and I have been on both sides of that issue.

Because appeals to ones own personal mad gaming skilz aside, most of the power of a character (especially a non spellcaster) is in the build. `You can get small to hot bonuses with flanking and combat manuevers, but if you can't get more than 3 points through somethings dr you're kinda stuck

So are you saying it is not fine to suck the fun out of someone's game by bringing a non-optimized character that puts the others at risk of death, but it is fine to suck the fun out of someone's game by bringing a character that can virtually solo a scenario thereby leaving the others with little to do?
Not what I said, not implied by anything i said, not remotely related to anything i said. Who are you talking to? My words are in quotes but nothing you said relates to them, at all.

Well I am talking to you and I am curious as to your position on that question.

1/5

What people are trying to tell you is that no one wants their character to die due to your character not pulling his/her weight during a scenario!

If you go back and read Sammy's article again you will find that he makes the point that high tier tables are often 4 players instead of 6 so there will simply be fewer characters to rely upon to fill roles. Couple that characters failing to scale up appropriately, which is the problem the article aimed to solve, and you have high tier parties with major issues and players getting frustrated and not playing at higher levels.

Now you can play an unoptimized character but you will not pull your own weight in the party and you put the other characters at risk. This risk may be much smaller at lower tiers when scaling issues are smaller and tables tend to be full but it will still be there. You may insist that it somehow damages your fun to play an effective character but it also makes it less fun for the everyone else at the table who has to deal with it.

The Exchange 4/5

to add to Jessex I also believe that the guide is not really telling you to heartlessly optimize your character more along the lines of what to expect and to be prepared for the changes of 7-11 play.

I really like the guide and I hope people read it the only thing I would like is maybe a list of helpful/ recommended items added in also thanks for posting it.

1/5

Jessex wrote:

What people are trying to tell you is that no one wants their character to die due to your character not pulling his/her weight during a scenario!

If you go back and read Sammy's article again you will find that he makes the point that high tier tables are often 4 players instead of 6 so there will simply be fewer characters to rely upon to fill roles. Couple that characters failing to scale up appropriately, which is the problem the article aimed to solve, and you have high tier parties with major issues and players getting frustrated and not playing at higher levels.

Now you can play an unoptimized character but you will not pull your own weight in the party and you put the other characters at risk. This risk may be much smaller at lower tiers when scaling issues are smaller and tables tend to be full but it will still be there. You may insist that it somehow damages your fun to play an effective character but it also makes it less fun for the everyone else at the table who has to deal with it.

I understand the arguments. And the article does bring up a lot of good points about increasing a character's effectiveness, many of which I use on some of my characters since it's not true that I don't have fun playing effective characters. Most of my characters are reasonably well optimized (at least I think they are).

But I also have fun playing less effective characters too. It seems to me that many posters in this thread are overly worried about losing characters instead of embracing the fun to be had when a less effective character shows up at the table. It is just a game.

Lantern Lodge 1/5

Yeah, nothing in there is really pushing min-maxing. No ones saying to dump Cha, no one is saying to pick up magical lineage or other metamagic boosters, no one is even saying to avoid playing a rogue.

Rather, it is a set of tips to help people deal with specific problems that come up. Condition clearing, ability drain/damage, flight, supernatural darkness, DR, resistance/immunity, etc. all shut characters down, and all can be dealt with when the character invests a smidgen of thought and equipment. Sure, a potion of fly is pricey, but you don't have to use it on every encounter and it allow you to contribute in the pinch.

And any basketweaver can buy a potion of fly.

1/5

guys my group has fun characters and good roleplay while also being pretty good at pfs

which side should we argue on

Liberty's Edge 4/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

I actually haven't killed anyone in a 7-11 as far as I recall. High level characters are hard to kill.

Low level characters with 10 Con scores, on the other hand...

Don't get to be high level characters with low con scores.

This warning brought to you by Constitution. Everyone's second favorite date to the prom.

Hey, my 10 Con melee ranger made high level...not without some close calls...but he made it.

4/5

Lamontius wrote:

guys my group has fun characters and good roleplay while also being pretty good at pfs

which side should we argue on

Both!

Or complain about optimized roleplayers.

1/5

Pink Dragon wrote:
But I also have fun playing less effective characters too. It seems to me that many posters in this thread are overly worried about losing characters instead of embracing the fun to be had when a less effective character shows up at the table. It is just a game.

?

At the minimum raising a dead character due to another player's bad play or ineffective design is a loss of resources that significantly sets that character back for no good reason. At the worst the character could be completely lost, which for a high level character is a lot of time invested. I fail to see how that is fun.

Shadow Lodge *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Pink Dragon wrote:

I understand the arguments. And the article does bring up a lot of good points about increasing a character's effectiveness, many of which I use on some of my characters since it's not true that I don't have fun playing effective characters. Most of my characters are reasonably well optimized (at least I think they are).

But I also have fun playing less effective characters too. It seems to me that many posters in this thread are overly worried about losing characters instead of embracing the fun to be had when a less effective character shows up at the table. It is just a game.

Fair enough. I think the best post in this thread on that subject was this:

Elder Basilisk wrote:

Higher level characters are characters who are good at their jobs. A certain degree of checking the right boxes goes along with that. That's true in reality. It's true in video games. It would be rather bizarre if it weren't true in Pathfinder as well.

That said, I'm someone who enjoys finding out of the box solutions to problems, so I understand not necessarily wanting to check the same boxes as everyone else. However, the thing that makes those new solutions fun is being able to make them work. If they don't work, they're a run of the mill failure (or maybe an amusing one), not a creative new solution. That's why we're not all toasting Pete Carrol for his creative and out of the box thinking in the Super Bowl.

The way I think about it was that Picasso was an unconventional artist who did amazing things people were never expecting -- but before he did that he spent years practicing conventional figures. He had that stuff *down* and it was there in his toolbox unobtrusively backing up the flashy stuff.

Or in other words, it really helps to understand the box inside and out before you decide to leave it.

Trust me, my fun comes from taking "unplayable" classes and making them functional -- and every once in a while making them shine. But if that's what you want to do, it's incumbent upon you to make sure that you don't drag down eveyone else at the table and ruin *their* fun.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

saying that you are so fun to play with that other players will not mind your PC being a detriment to their PCs is a pretty bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for 'em

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would hope that my tablemates enjoyed having me around while I was moving up the levels with my unoptimized socially-focused PC.

Just when did this idea of "playing suboptimal PCs is a troll behavior" start propagating, anyways?

Also, I would suggest adding "embrace teamwork" and "think outside the box" as tips for 8-9 and 10-11 play.

-Matt

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:

I would hope that my tablemates enjoyed having me around while I was moving up the levels with my unoptimized socially-focused PC.

Just when did this idea of "playing suboptimal PCs is a troll behavior" start propagating, anyways?

-Matt

Sub-optimal is fine. Sub-competent means you're taking more than you're giving.

51 to 100 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Transitioning to High Tier Play (7-11) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.