I guess it depends on the flexibility and investment in that one strategy. Something that comes up occasionally, but is entertaining when it does, seems like a good trick.
I see more repeated builds and concepts here than I do in actual games. I think my larger concern in real games is people who make a character with no strategies available rather than one.
"can you at least move into a flanking position if you aren't going to do anything?"
one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
At level 18, surely someone in the party can grant the brawler the ability to fly?
An 18th level character can't afford 750gp for a potion of flying? Much less any permanent flight magic item? That's a player problem, not a GM one.one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
Ah but the player doesn't buy such things and instead pouts.
It's the gm that needs to let them pout instead of pulling his punches.
At level 18, surely someone in the party can grant the brawler the ability to fly?one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
Moreover, why isn't the brawler jumping of buildings, riding the creature to the ground with a thunderous storm of punches ;)
At level 18, surely someone in the party can grant the brawler the ability to fly?one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
The first round I summon. The sound round the brawler is pouting a hundred or so feat away from me. And they have no fly skill so one hit and they are back on the ground.
Moreover, why isn't the brawler jumping of buildings, riding the creature to the ground with a thunderous storm of punches ;)At level 18, surely someone in the party can grant the brawler the ability to fly?one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
because the acrobatics DC for up is redonkulous. 30ft up is a DC 120 with a running start.
"jumping of buildings".
You know climb above, jump down onto, or horizontal jump distance.
I don't think the problem with concepts in 3.P is so much false choice as it is forced choice.
By that I mean, I have NEVER seen a character with the Alertness feat. Even when the only book allowed is CRB.
I have also not seen a dwarf in a charisma-heavy class, an elf in a strength-centered build, someone (other than me) take ranks in Profession (without backgrounds) etc.
What I have seen is people taking Power Attack/Deadly Aim, building elven archers/duelists/mages, dwarven priests/barbarians/monks, pumping Perception whenever they can (me too, of course), etc.
And do you know why they do this?
Because, whether a concept is fun or not doesn't fit into the math of 3.P.
Monsters will not suddenly become less of a threat because you thought it would be cool to take every "trap" feat, build a merchant character, or play a pure sword and board fighter.
Mind you, this hasn't stopped some folks from making fun and/or memorable characters. But they certainly built solely to the strengths of the class they played and deviated very little because they are forced, via the math, into certain builds.
I mean, the whole reason for the "sky blue" guides is because those are what works well in defeating the mathematical challenges presented in the system.
Then let them pout. Seriously, this is a player problem. 18th level characters are superheroes and demigods. Even if he doesn't want to be magical, there are ways to get around being tied to the ground. Perseus got a flying horse.
of course it is a player problem. But you'll find plenty of people here who think fighting dragons is only for optimised power gamer groups who can't role play. Or think dragons should rush in and full attack, dividing styles amongst the party. Without mage armor or shield spells active.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
Underrated post. Awesome, pal.
I don't think the problem with concepts in 3.P is so much false choice as it is forced choice.
By that I mean, I have NEVER seen a character with the Alertness feat. Even when the only book allowed is CRB.
I have also not seen a dwarf in a charisma-heavy class, an elf in a strength-centered build, someone (other than me) take ranks in Profession (without backgrounds) etc.What I have seen is people taking Power Attack/Deadly Aim, building elven archers/duelists/mages, dwarven priests/barbarians/monks, pumping Perception whenever they can (me too, of course), etc.
And do you know why they do this?
Because, whether a concept is fun or not doesn't fit into the math of 3.P.
Monsters will not suddenly become less of a threat because you thought it would be cool to take every "trap" feat, build a merchant character, or play a pure sword and board fighter.
Mind you, this hasn't stopped some folks from making fun and/or memorable characters. But they certainly built solely to the strengths of the class they played and deviated very little because they are forced, via the math, into certain builds.
I mean, the whole reason for the "sky blue" guides is because those are what works well in defeating the mathematical challenges presented in the system.
This would be true, except that the encounters faced by the characters are decided by the DM. Not all encounters of the same APL are equal, while the same enounter may be more challanging for group A, and less challenging for group b.
At the right table, with the right encounters, everyone can play a sub-optimal combination of class and race, and the threats can be overcome.
|
Then let them pout. Seriously, this is a player problem. 18th level characters are superheroes and demigods. Even if he doesn't want to be magical, there are ways to get around being tied to the ground. Perseus got a flying horse.of course it is a player problem. But you'll find plenty of people here who think fighting dragons is only for optimised power gamer groups who can't role play. Or think dragons should rush in and full attack, dividing styles amongst the party. Without mage armor or shield spells active.
Then when their character dies, you can explain how things could have gone differently if they had properly roleplayed their class features. Brawlers are supposed to have cunning, even if they don't have a high intelligence. They should know that most of the threats they will face can fly, and should have some kind of tricks up their sleeve to deal with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then let them pout. Seriously, this is a player problem. 18th level characters are superheroes and demigods. Even if he doesn't want to be magical, there are ways to get around being tied to the ground. Perseus got a flying horse.of course it is a player problem. But you'll find plenty of people here who think fighting dragons is only for optimised power gamer groups who can't role play. Or think dragons should rush in and full attack, dividing styles amongst the party. Without mage armor or shield spells active.
Except that is what a dragon should do and what a dragon is designed to do. The reason dragons are given numerous attacks is to be a threat to every single party member at one time, that is the mechanical reason they were created that way. The ability to stack all those numerous attacks on one character, while buffed with spells that it had cast before combat (something players rarely have the opportunity to do) is not a feature of the game system, it is an unintended exploit.
The weird "Always hit players as hard as you can try to kill as many as you can" style of DMing you've proclaimed on multiple occasions, in multiple threads is not only a violation of the very principals of DMing, (you are not a competitor, you are a member of a gaming group there to make sure every player has fun), it's also frankly a little insane.
This is simply not true.
Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they [fighters] are able to do.
-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy.
"Use environmental effects as a weapon". They have precisely zero class abilities to do this. That means when you're pushing that wall down on your enemies, you're either:
*Doing something not very effective, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.*Being allowed to do something effective, out of GM pity, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Pushing a button the GM put in the scene beforehand for any of the PCs to push. It's a good thing you are the one to do it, because it seems like you've got nothing useful to contribute.
A fighting caster can hold the chokepoint almost as well (low levels) or a lot better (medium levels) or "what are chokepoints?" (high level).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the gm that needs to let them pout instead of pulling his punches.
This. Right here.
Don't coddle the bad/weak/limited playstyle, but rather, lead by example and throw the PC into situations he cannot handle while having other PCs or even NPCs be more successful - the player will learn to fix his flaws and have more than one trick.
If he's really the kind of player who will pout until he gets coddled again rather than assessing the problem and looking for a solution, well, the only cure for that is growing up and that's the player's responsibility, not the GM's. But a "sink-or-swim" solution is far more likely to guide him toward growing up than coddling will.
It's the gm that needs to let them pout instead of pulling his punches.This. Right here.
Don't coddle the bad/weak/limited playstyle, but rather, lead by example and throw the PC into situations he cannot handle while having other PCs or even NPCs be more successful - the player will learn to fix his flaws and have more than one trick.
If he's really the kind of player who will pout until he gets coddled again rather than assessing the problem and looking for a solution, well, the only cure for that is growing up and that's the player's responsibility, not the GM's. But a "sink-or-swim" solution is far more likely to guide him toward growing up than coddling will.
Just going to again point out that this is a stupid, wrong-headed and overly aggressive style of DMing that nearly every guide to DMing ever written has warned against.
People DM like this? Leave the game. It's not worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then let them pout. Seriously, this is a player problem. 18th level characters are superheroes and demigods. Even if he doesn't want to be magical, there are ways to get around being tied to the ground. Perseus got a flying horse.of course it is a player problem. But you'll find plenty of people here who think fighting dragons is only for optimised power gamer groups who can't role play. Or think dragons should rush in and full attack, dividing styles amongst the party. Without mage armor or shield spells active.Except that is what a dragon should do and what a dragon is designed to do. The reason dragons are given numerous attacks is to be a threat to every single party member at one time, that is the mechanical reason they were created that way. The ability to stack all those numerous attacks on one character, while buffed with spells that it had cast before combat (something players rarely have the opportunity to do) is not a feature of the game system, it is an unintended exploit.
The weird "Always hit players as hard as you can try to kill as many as you can" style of DMing you've proclaimed on multiple occasions, in multiple threads is not only a violation of the very principals of DMing, (you are not a competitor, you are a member of a gaming group there to make sure every player has fun), it's also frankly a little insane.
weeeee we're going to win every combat regardless of what we do! I feel soon heroic.
You are supposed to role play the npcs. They shouldn't all be trying to die.
Gunslinger?i'm having trouble thinking of a single class that only has 1-2 workable builds... especially with the glut of options that have come out recently...
Lol- as I was writing that line gunslinger popped into my mind as one of the most challenging ones to present a bevy of options for. They're primarily damage dealers, so lets look at only options with good damage output...
You could build as a pistolero with rapid reload/alchemical cartridges who's damage/shot isn't really high but uses combat reflexes/improved snap shot to make tons of attacks. Give him acrobatics and he'll be mobile and dangerous to move near.
You could do a mysterious stranger with dangerously curious/UMD who mixes magic (from wands/scrolls) with focused aim attacks. With good Cha you could use your other trait to make diplomacy a class skill (and pick up Bluff) to also be a face.
You could spend a trait to pick up stealth as a class skill and make a scout/tracker... go the vital strike route with a double hackbut and use sniping as much as possible.
Pretend you're a ranger. Take the Animal Ally chain and both grab the teamwork feats that benefit 1 ranged and 1 melee teams. Your personal DPR might not be quite as high but once you factor in the pets full attack too you'll be in great shape.
Pick up variant multiclassing with the alchemist. Use Dex mutagen for extra hit/damage, use bombs for AoE damage. Sadly there's not a way I can think of off the top of my head to get the explosive missiles discovery in this build but its still pretty solid, and you're craft[alchemy] will be good so you can make alchemical items for other options (especially at low levels).
I could come up with others if I spent more time, but that's 5 reasonably different builds just with keeping DPR one of the main concerns.
|
one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
Really? I could see that at low-mid levels, but by 18 the brawler should have easy access to Fly or some other method of airborne combat.
Then let them pout. Seriously, this is a player problem. 18th level characters are superheroes and demigods. Even if he doesn't want to be magical, there are ways to get around being tied to the ground. Perseus got a flying horse.of course it is a player problem. But you'll find plenty of people here who think fighting dragons is only for optimised power gamer groups who can't role play. Or think dragons should rush in and full attack, dividing styles amongst the party. Without mage armor or shield spells active.Except that is what a dragon should do and what a dragon is designed to do. The reason dragons are given numerous attacks is to be a threat to every single party member at one time, that is the mechanical reason they were created that way. The ability to stack all those numerous attacks on one character, while buffed with spells that it had cast before combat (something players rarely have the opportunity to do) is not a feature of the game system, it is an unintended exploit.
The weird "Always hit players as hard as you can try to kill as many as you can" style of DMing you've proclaimed on multiple occasions, in multiple threads is not only a violation of the very principals of DMing, (you are not a competitor, you are a member of a gaming group there to make sure every player has fun), it's also frankly a little insane.
weeeee we're going to win every combat regardless of what we do! I feel soon heroic.
You are supposed to role play the npcs. They shouldn't all be trying to die.
Falsely equivocating "Provide a reasonable challenge to your player's capabilities" with "Just have all the NPCs actively seek death" is wrongheaded, fails to address the points I made about the actual mechanical design intent of the game, and provided nothing to the conversation.
Really? I could see that at low-mid levels, but by 18 the brawler should have easy access to Fly or some other method of airborne combat.one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
Presumably there was no hint ahead of time there would be flying enemies, so no one invested in fly abilities that could target the other party members who don't have them innately. This type of oversight does happen.
Really? I could see that at low-mid levels, but by 18 the brawler should have easy access to Fly or some other method of airborne combat.one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
Indeed. I can see a noob building a high-level character and not knowing these things, but outside of that corner case, the only way a level 18 melee character doesn't have his own flight ability is if the player has decided that "being useless" is central to his character concept.
(Or, he might be sabotaging things to passive-aggressively communicate that he wants the game to be low level or "low level, but with bigger numbers").
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably there was no hint ahead of time there would be flying enemies, so no one invested in fly abilities that could target the other party members who don't have them innately. This type of oversight does happen.Really? I could see that at low-mid levels, but by 18 the brawler should have easy access to Fly or some other method of airborne combat.one of my GMs struggles to have flying creatures at level 18 because then the brawler could do nothing.I am bothered by "one-trick" classes because the very idea is crazy for two reasons:
** spoiler omitted **...
By 18 they should have it. If not - they're badly prepared (go practice with a boyscout) and should deal with the consequences. Heck - a brawler just needs a decent longbow and can take the basic archery feats on the fly.
I was in a module where no one had any sort of flying where the module kind of expected it... at level 6! It was a hassle to deal with, but I'm making sure that my bard takes Gaseous Form in case it comes up again.
|
This. Right here.
Don't coddle the bad/weak/limited playstyle, but rather, lead by example and throw the PC into situations he cannot handle ... the player will learn to fix his flaws and have more than one trick.
...a "sink-or-swim" solution is far more likely to guide him toward growing up than coddling will.
Just going to again point out that this is a stupid, wrong-headed and overly aggressive style of DMing that nearly every guide to DMing ever written has warned against.
People DM like this? Leave the game. It's not worth it.
I don't think he's saying 'if he doesn't adapt, kill him'.
It's a matter of 'they aren't thinking outside the box, so let's put him in a guiding box: There's a cliff. There's a potion of fly. What do you do?'
Ever play a video game tutorial where they introduce a concept or two, then just drop you somewhere, and you have to figure out how to use those concepts? Like that.
The alternative, that DM_Blake is referring to, would be 'well, he's not adapting to flying enemies, so I guess I won't include those. Oh, the party tends to fight first and not diplomacize, so I guess I'll remove all the diplomatic encounters I had planned...'
Work with and develop your players, don't just play the game they want to play, since they might not know the other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's the gm that needs to let them pout instead of pulling his punches.This. Right here.
Don't coddle the bad/weak/limited playstyle, but rather, lead by example and throw the PC into situations he cannot handle while having other PCs or even NPCs be more successful - the player will learn to fix his flaws and have more than one trick.
oh how i wish this were true...
I ran a campaign in which I specifically told the players I was going to play encounters the way the enemies would actually act, including making use of terrain and trying to exploit weaknesses that they were capable of observing. I even went to far as to tell them that one of my hopes was that it would get them to start thinking more strategically and become better players. It did not. Almost every session included at least one player having a fit and/or pouting, often accompanied by complaints about unfair advantages (while they pigheadedly insisted on approaching every encounter the exact same way).
Eventually I gave up and let someone else start running a new campaign better suited for this party. Pretty much every game we run now lasts about 6 levels (usually 1-6 or 7), not because we like E6, just because that's how long it takes for the players to get tired of their characters.
This is simply not true.
Without having to give it any serious thought, I can list other things they [fighters] are able to do.
-They can hold choke points fairly well.
-crit fishing for debuffs.
-use environmental elements as weapons, such as using strength to push a wall onto the enemy."Use environmental effects as a weapon". They have precisely zero class abilities to do this. That means when you're pushing that wall down on your enemies, you're either:
*Doing something not very effective, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Being allowed to do something effective, out of GM pity, because you've got nothing useful to contribute.
*Pushing a button the GM put in the scene beforehand for any of the PCs to push. It's a good thing you are the one to do it, because it seems like you've got nothing useful to contribute.A fighting caster can hold the chokepoint almost as well (low levels) or a lot better (medium levels) or "what are chokepoints?" (high level).
Isn't it luck that this is a collaborative game, and that the fighter and the wizard are not in competition.
Isn't it awesome that you can play a fighter, and hold a choke point, and the wizard can say, "dude that it awesome, the way that your totally holding that narrow bridge against the oncoming horde while I use my turn to translate the runes on this magically sealed door, and the rogue counter snipes the hordes boss, and the cleric calls on his god's power to protect you from harm or give you strength."
While I'm here, those are an awful lot of strange names for "a DM rewarding imaginative, improvisation with an effective reward for an attribute test."
Isn't it luck that this is a collaborative game, and that the fighter and the wizard are not in competition.
Isn't it awesome that you can play a fighter, and hold a choke point, and the wizard can say, "dude that it awesome, the way that your totally holding that narrow bridge against the oncoming horde while I use my turn to translate the runes on this magically sealed door, and the rogue counter snipes the hordes boss, and the cleric calls on his god's power to protect you from harm or give you strength."
It would be even more awesome if the Fighter was able to contribute to the next part: Retrieving the tome of forbidden secrets from the house full of haunts and undead (seriously guys, if you go in swords swinging you will die). Or dealing with the dam that's threating to burst and flood the valley.
While I'm here, those are an awful lot of strange names for "a DM rewarding imaginative, improvisation with an effective reward for an attribute test."
These improvisations could have been done by Any. single. Character. the fact that you're allowing them to happen doesn't change the fact that the fighter is literally exactly the same as a Commoner when there's no-one to stab.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weird "Always hit players as hard as you can try to kill as many as you can" style of DMing you've proclaimed on multiple occasions, in multiple threads is not only a violation of the very principals of DMing, (you are not a competitor, you are a member of a gaming group there to make sure every player has fun), it's also frankly a little insane.
I disagree with this, at least partially.
You said "always" and that's the part I agree with. A GM who ALWAYS does this stuff is putting too much pressure on the players and sapping a lot of the fun out of the game, unless his players are all chess grandmasters and like this sort of thing.
But the part where I disagree is that I believe monsters should try just as hard to survive as PCs do. As a GM, I try to create encounters the players will find fun and challenging, and I try to balance those encounters so the PCs can win ALL of them (or have good reasons to avoid the few that I place that they obviously can't win, yet).
But once an encounter wins, I play the monster to win. Every time. If I have set it up right, the monster will try very hard, try its best, to win, but in the end the PCs will prevail. But during that encounter, the monster will maximize its abilities every round because those are its abilities, it knows how to use them, and it uses them to survive.
With regard to the dragon, last I checked dragons are smart. EVERYBODY knows that focusing fire on a single target, especially if there is an obvious target that is a big threat but an easy kill, is a very good strategy and this knowledge is not lost on those smart dragons.
Frankly, if a dragon plops down on the ground amidst a group of dangerous adventurers and divides its attacks to do a little damage to each of them with no real chance to eliminate any of the treats, then that dragon is an idiot and the GM who plays it this way is drastically under-playing the encounter. And as a player I would feel cheated - I would want the knowledge that I took down an awesome dragon in an epic fight, but all I would get is the knowledge that I took down a half-wit dragon who was possibly suicidally depressed and looking for a quick-death-by-adventurer. What a let down.
As far as I'm concerned, a GM who plays his monsters, specifically the smart ones who should know better, like idiots is cheating his players out of the tactical experience and personal satisfaction that they deserve.
*snip*This would be true, except that the encounters faced by the characters are decided by the DM. Not all encounters of the same APL are equal, while the same enounter may be more challanging for group A, and less challenging for group b.
At the right table, with the right encounters, everyone can play a sub-optimal combination of class and race, and the threats can be overcome.
No, no. I totally agree.
But I've also not seen such a table, personally.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Also, I actually don't have experience in this field so: do PFS GMs tailor the game to the party, or do my assertions hold true there?
Not trying to be flippant or anything - just never played PFS.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the gm that needs to let them pout instead of pulling his punches.This. Right here.
Don't coddle the bad/weak/limited playstyle, but rather, lead by example and throw the PC into situations he cannot handle while having other PCs or even NPCs be more successful - the player will learn to fix his flaws and have more than one trick.
If he's really the kind of player who will pout until he gets coddled again rather than assessing the problem and looking for a solution, well, the only cure for that is growing up and that's the player's responsibility, not the GM's. But a "sink-or-swim" solution is far more likely to guide him toward growing up than coddling will.
Just going to again point out that this is a stupid, wrong-headed and overly aggressive style of DMing that nearly every guide to DMing ever written has warned against.
People DM like this? Leave the game. It's not worth it.
Ouch. I so hate being stupid and wrong-headed. Aggressive is OK though.
But no, pretty much every guide to DMing ever written warns against competing against and trying to defeat the PCs. I am definitely warning against that too.
I also warn against robbing the players of any sense of danger or accomplishment. I also warn against turning the game into a mindless drudge of mechanical attack rolls to defeat dull encounter after dull encounter - people DM like this? Leave the game. It's not worth it...
What I suggest is placing a balanced encounter that the PCs can defeat and then playing that encounter like the monsters or NPCs want to survive. Like they know their abilities and actually use them for maximum and correct effect. Like they actually have brains and resources and a will to live.
The PCs still win, the players still have fun, but they aren't bored and they definitely DO get a sense of accomplishment by overcoming a danger rather than merely overcoming a time-sink.
Like they know their abilities and actually use them for maximum and correct effect. Like they actually have brains and resources and a will to live.
Creature do not have mechanical awareness of their abilities except in the most vague terms. This is one of the reasons that real people do not always make the optimal choice in a fight, for how they spend their time, etc.
Pretending otherwise is wrong. Furthermore, exploiting the system and not understanding the intent behind it is also wrong. I never said creature shouldn't use their abilities correctly, I merely said they shouldn't behave like power gamers. They should behave like human beings (or dragons, etc).
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that I mean, I have NEVER seen a character with the Alertness feat. Even when the only book allowed is CRB.
I have also not seen a dwarf in a charisma-heavy class, an elf in a strength-centered build, someone (other than me) take ranks in Profession (without backgrounds) etc.
You've never seen a character with a familiar? Free Alertness feat.
I have a PFS dwarf sorcerer. I have an elf cleric. I routinely put ranks in Profession skills if it makes sense for the character to have them - in fact I prioritize it over more traditionally useful skills if it makes sense (sorcerer is a farm kid who just discovered he has magic? Profession (farmer) and Handle Animal sound like where his skill points should go.)
I've never been yelled at in a PFS game for playing the dwarf. These characters can pull their weight. When my group plays APs we routinely have fighters and rogues - in fact one of our group loves rogues and thinks they are fantastic. When presented with the unchained rogue he asked "Why would they make the best class stronger?"
This is all a roundabout way of saying that play styles differ. My groups don't have the problem that DM Blake described. A mediocre party using good teamwork and creative problem solving is far more effective than an optimized group of hypercompetent loners.
Obviously play however you enjoy, but to me "optimized enough" means able to play in an AP or PFS adventure and be successful - and that bar is low enough that there are many, many, viable options for every class, even fighter and rogue.
A nonsense post that doesn't address the point about the design intent being deliberately against the tactic you say you should use.Dragon have a breath weapon and multiple attacks for the sole purpose of hitting multiple party members at once. This was the design intent. Stacking these attacks against a singular character to send them to an early grave for no reason beyond spite is a system exploit and bad DMing.
I expect the gm to role play as much as the players.
You don't and that's fine. Other people's playstyles are not bad just because it isn't your kind of game.
Re: OP
I'd assert these are player creations and not the fault of the class. By extension, I neither see the classes like that nor play them like that. In fact, why people play that way is fundamentally a curiosity and frustrating, indicative of narrow mindedness and a lack of a imagination in play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They should behave like human beings (or dragons, etc).
Human beings are way scummier in self defense or murder.
If you priorities optimisation greatly over other decision making aspects, the game does exhibit this quality.
The situation is a result of a play style, not an innate truth of the system.
only for the bad classes.
Every fullcaster is bursting with valid builds.
Some half casters are very diverse like hunters, bards, investigators, alchemists, etc. The occult classes have plenty of build diversity.
The bad classes lack diversity. Witch is the exception, people tend to play her for her unique mechanics but they really don't have too to contribute to the party meaningfully.
Not sure their is a single class in PF that can honestly be said to lack diversity.
Could you give an example of a class that you believe does?
Fighters have very few builds that actually work. One or two at the most and they still shouldn't be playing with tier one classes.
Barbarians have one true build with two variants. Magi have two builds. Chained monks have 2-3 builds depending on who you ask.
Chained rogues are bad. No build is vaible. Unchained rogues do far better but will still have three builds.
Warpriest is pretty cookie cutter.
All archers have a severe feat tax problem.
Post errata swashbucklers have one build.
Now if you think slight skill point changes or a different feat or two counts as a different build then no classes fit that, but when it comes to general builds many classes are limited.
???
Magus has a few good builds...
There is the typical Dervish Dance, but that actualky tends to fall behind late game (its just that PFS tends to end right before str magus over takes dex).
The Hexcrafter White Haired Witch is horrid monster on the battlefield.
There os the aforementioned str magus.
Kensai is actually a valid build option.
A nonsense post that doesn't address the point about the design intent being deliberately against the tactic you say you should use.Dragon have a breath weapon and multiple attacks for the sole purpose of hitting multiple party members at once. This was the design intent. Stacking these attacks against a singular character to send them to an early grave for no reason beyond spite is a system exploit and bad DMing.
Didn't you say that before?
Repeating it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Your opinion is that EVERY monster with a claw/claw/bite attack routine should use that against three different targets every time? Or is it only genius dragons who are unable to figure out the advantages of focusing attacks on a single threat?
Sure, AOE breath weapons are designed to hit multiple enemies. Use them as such, absolutely. But for melee, focus on individual threats and remove them.
It's not an exploit; it's a simple, elegant, and obvious tactic that even a zombie could figure out. Well, maybe not a zombie, but just about everything else.
A dragon that isn't smart enough to remove threats by focusing its attacks, all its attacks if necessary, against the biggest threat and/or the easiest kill is clearly a an idiot (by dragon standards at the very least) and any GM playing a dragon that way is under-playing the encounter.
(There. I can repeat stuff too.)
A nonsense post that doesn't address the point about the design intent being deliberately against the tactic you say you should use.Dragon have a breath weapon and multiple attacks for the sole purpose of hitting multiple party members at once. This was the design intent. Stacking these attacks against a singular character to send them to an early grave for no reason beyond spite is a system exploit and bad DMing.I expect the gm to role play as much as the players.
You don't and that's fine. Other people's playstyles are not bad just because it isn't your kind of game.
Except you're not talking about roleplaying. You're talking about power gaming.
Basically, you've apparently become so obsessed with it you've mistaken it for roleplaying, which would explain why you're playing a roleplaying game and still insist power gaming is the correct way to play.