|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D for about 15 years now, through editions 3, 3.5, and 4th. I've always been the DM, and have run content for groups of between 2 and 6 players. Everyone I've played with before has made fun, interesting characters using maybe only one or two sourcebooks, all of which you would probably say weren't exactly "optimized". I never disallowed any books in my games, or banned any races or classes because they didn't "fit". When someone came to me with a character that they wanted to conceptualize, I would usually help them get there, because being able to play what you find attractive is a big part of the game.
I had to take a break for about 4 years, due to moving away from my old players and not being able to find new ones, but I recently came across a group that wants me to GM a Pathfinder game for them. During the character creation questions, I disallowed 3rd party material, cause I've read threads on here talking about some of the stuff that's out there, so I decided to just keep it limited to Paizo books. They told me what classes and races they wanted to be, which sounded fine, so I gave the greenlight on everything. Now, it is getting close to our first session, and I'm discovering the actual characters these guys have made, and it honestly has me terrified.
We're talking about basically a flesh golem of rules, stitched together from maybe 5 or 6 books apiece, in what I can only describe as less of an actual character and more just shiny numbers on paper. From reading threads on these forums, it's what I suppose you would call min/maxing, or optimization, which as I understand is very commonplace in the Pathfinder game system. What makes me feel even worse is that I tacitly allowed it. I figured that since I had never played with these guys before, I wouldn't say no to anything, or disallow any content except for 3rd party stuff, but I had no idea of the extent to which it would be taken.
Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game, where instead of a group of people coming together to tell a story, it has turned into another game that one side feels they have to "win", by getting as much of an edge as possible? That's not my play style at all, so I don't think I'm going to be able to provide the experience these gamers are looking for. I'm not one of those DMs that whines about not getting to "play with their toys", but if all this game is really about now is me setting up bowling pins to be knocked down, then what exactly is the point?
I'm not putting anyone down, cause everyone is certainly entitled to play whichever way is going to allow them to have the most fun, but I will say that my excitement over meeting for our first session has been severely diminished. Are there people out there that still want a good story, with challenges to be overcome, where victory might seem uncertain at first, but eventually the day is won through hard work and a little bit of luck? My personal feeling is that the game has become more of "What can I get away with chaining together for my benefit?" rather than making a believable character that fits into the story.
Maybe I'm overthinking things. I've never played with people like this before, so I really don't know what to expect. I know it is my job to make encounters interesting, but I feel like my only options are to slap the Advanced template on everything, max out the hp, and double the number of monsters per encounter in order to rise to the level that these players need/want, but again, that just isn't my style. I don't know if it is worth doing all that extra work, or seeking a group that is more my speed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try it before you drop it. If you feel out of your element then Id suggest you bring that up at the session end. Personally, I never dive into campaigns with strangers and do some screening for playstyle before engaging. Typically one shots or PFS scenarios combined with meetup.com type evenings. Food for thought for next time. I hope things work out for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm currently in a very similar situation, but im a player. The whole group min-maxes and only wants to do combat, and "win" the game like we're competing or something instead of wanting to play an actual story driven game. I dont have an answer for it, but im trying something tomorrow. I've gotten an opportunity to GM 4-5 sessions based on my back story of my current character. Now im well aware of how my group likes to play, and im going to honor it to a point. Im going to focus on story and interactions. On plot, and decisions having key impact on how everything progresses.
Yeah theres players who play this game as a chess game instead of a story medium. And catering to there desires is a job that the GM feels they need to fill, but dont push it to far. Try and show them a good time in your own way, by accomplishing what your talking about. If they want pins to knock down, then make those pins but tie it in with the grand scheme of things, and evolve the game in response to how they react to social encounters and combat scenarios.
In the end, its going to be hard. But dont diminish your game so that you can make a dungeon crawler. Try and juggle both, and im sure everyone will have a great time while you show them how this game used to be. Best of luck
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game, where instead of a group of people coming together to tell a story, it has turned into another game that one side feels they have to "win", by getting as much of an edge as possible?
Some people do, some do not, there are arguments for and against such a style. Me? I think think it's problematic as all it does is make the DMs job harder. Playing an game of one-upmanship with the DM is a terrible plan - a DM can always "win" that game by doing some of the things you mention. My personal experience with the high end optimizers is that they are disruptive and destructive to the play environment - when there is only one of them. With a whole group, that may not matter.
[sarcasm]You could go all snark mode on them and ask if they want 30 point builds for their characters. [/sarcasm]
As it is a new group, you really could simply ask them:
"Based upon what I am seeing on your character sheets, is it what you are looking for an adversarial tactical miniatures game?"
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
To understand: You are a bit afraid the actual roleplaying will be dull and uninteresting, because the players from the new group build their characters by taking material from several different sourcebooks?
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations, you have stepped out of your small circle of play experience and found a different experience. You can either accept this new experience, try to change it to be like what you are used to, or leave in search of an experience more suited to your liking.
The problems(?) of stitched together characters from many different books and optimization in general is a molehill of Pathfinder as opposed to the mountain that was 3.5 DnD. Perhaps that wasn't an issue with your old group, but Pathfinder was engineered to generally reward players staying within a class and seriously nerfed prestige classes. And more importantly the power differences between classes were, at a minimum, made a little tighter (posters debate this, but 3.5 had chasms between one PC and another).
Regardless, I'm with the posters above who recommend trying this system out as an experiment at least. It would give you all a chance to see if your story creating and their role playing could work.
I'd recommend: Try it, as supposed by others already. Them being optimizers doesn't mean they can't enjoy a good story. And probably you will discover some fun in throwing very tough encounters at them (e.g. see .seth for good advice).
And well, talk with them after / between the sessions, what they liked or disliked, what they miss or found too much. Ask them to be honest but constructive. Even with very different expectations about the game, it doesn't hurt to understand the other side.
Final note: I have one optimizer in my group, and occassionally I tell him:
Don't spend too much energy on it, because I can always compensate by upgrading the monsters. And I am doing this because I want the game to be challenging.
It helps somewhat...
|
I know from my experience, in the past, 2e was the same towards the end. With all the books that came out, I was overwhelmed and didn't know really where to start (this was back when I first started looking into gaming;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_rulebooks#Advanc ed_Dungeons_.26_Dragons_2nd_edition
Direct link to the list of 2e books from wikipedia (not the most complete reference ever, but you get the drift.)
It's a matter of perspective; you're coming into a game with a newer community, which has different view points on how they enjoy the game. I'd say give it a try, or if you don't want the crazy combinations they can come up with, restrict books further, just like the core book and APG lol :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds way more like differences between groups than "back in my day, people optimized FUN!" I remember how the old WotC CharOp boards were back ten years or more ago, and...well, it was actually a lot worse than just 5 or 6 books.
You can make weak characters, you can make strong characters, you can make pathetic characters. The key is for everyone to be roughly equalish, and for the GM to adjust the difficulty up or down accordingly. Having strong PCs doesn't make it an "adversarial miniatures game" any more than having weak PCs makes it improvisational theater.
It's important to have characters that fit into the story, naturally, but why is a Fighter who can kill 4 orcs not a good fit for a story, but a Fighter who can kill 2 orcs is? You just need to take a reading of your group, and then decide how many orcs are in the story. Optimized PCs are still able to be overwhelmed or outmatched, they just have a bit of an edge in getting out of dodge when they realize the deck is stacked against them.
As far as GM work, you can do it or not. I don't find it's really that difficult to adjust them. Up to you if it's worth your time.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
What has Pathfinder became?
A miserable pile of secrets! *throws wine glass.* Have at you!
Realistically, however, Pathfinder is in favor of the PCs already. Paizo realized that people like to win, and decided to enable them to do that in all manner of interesting and/or cool ways.
Basically you have three major choices: Embrace their power and use Fast Experience to let them level up quickly while keeping the encounters relatively weak to ensure they feel like badasses, use Medium Experience to give them a vanilla experience, or use Slow Experience and ensure that they never fight anything short of CR+1 or CR+2 to ensure they feel challenged regularly.
If you want a game where either side can lose, go with the Slow and Hard option. Ensure that they fight ample NPCs, but don't let them loot the NPCs gear [make it out of b$$&*#@$onium that falls apart when exposed to whatever it is going to be exposed to if the PCs try to sell it if you have to].
Basically, don't worry about the PCs numbers. One good bit of advice I have always employed is to ensure challenges and puzzles cannot be resolved by dice rolls. Force the players to think. You can have a little or as much combat in your game as you want, and you are allowed to give XP for completing any challenge, be it an encounter or a puzzle.
I look at Grimrock as an example. It has puzzles everywhere, and while combat is a thing it is more important to survive them with good tactics than just being so amazing that no one can hurt you.
One other option is to just take XP out, and let them level up after completing X amount of content. You might only award XP for completing Riddles and Puzzles, or make it so the combat encounters are so punishingly deadly that fighting is often times the worst option.
If you take the "combat is stupidly dangerous" option, then you want easy ways for people to revive. So, increase all of the enemies chance to hit by +5 or so until they reliably hit the hardest to hit PC, double or triple their damage but 1/2 or 1/4 their HP. This basically makes it a requirement for the PCs to try and kill enemies before the enemies attack them, but it also makes other aspects, such as social or stealth, far more viable.
Another tip is to design content to be purposefully tight and cramped. Nothing breeds fear like isolation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're talking about basically a flesh golem of rules, stitched together from maybe 5 or 6 books apiece
Why would this possibly be a bad thing? Each book increases the potential roleplaying opportunities that players can have (and 5 to 6 books isn't many considering there are more books than that, which are considered "Core"). Having decent stats means you can play the character for longer and not worry about weakening your group or putting them into danger.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do what you were going to do before and just see how it plays out. Talk to them about their characters and see what their plans are. Building a character from five different books doesn't mean they can't roleplay. It might mean that in Pathfinder, it required five books for them to create the particular character with the flavor and background they wanted.
Also, keep in mind that the characters are who they are while playing. Not just a pile of numbers on paper.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like a potential style clash to me and nothing more. If their style doesn't work for you, let them know. I'd strongly suggest giving it a few sessions before making that decision.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game,
I can't speak to the motivations of your new players, but D&D has always been a tactical game. I have seen the story telling aspect flourish since 2E, and--at least with my current table--the more rules that are released, the more interesting the characters.
My table doesn't see it as:
where instead of a group of people coming together to tell a story
But rather, we've always done both. Create tactically sound characters and tell good stories with our GM and each other's characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ensure that they fight ample NPCs, but don't let them loot the NPCs gear [make it out of b~*$*&$#onium that falls apart when exposed to whatever it is going to be exposed to if the PCs try to sell it if you have to].
The old school Drow approach.
Dm: "By the way, their awesome gear disintegrates in sunlight"
P1: "Ah-ha, I'll just keep it in a sealed container and use it at night"
DM: "Um, also it loses it's power completely when outside the Underdark for a couple days"
I hated the failsafes they used to let Drow have great gear but prevent players from using it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am a story driven role playing GM who has had a group of combat focused optimizes for many years. You know what is great about them? I can tell whatever story I want. Generally, I don't have to worry about killing their characters. They will go where I want them to go, sometimes. And sometimes they completely rewrite things to fit the story they want to be in. But I love the freedom. A few weeks ago I threw them up against a Hezrou when they were 6th level. They didn't kill it, but they handled it well enough to make it leave to pick on someone else. And everyone had a blast. That is what matters.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, it is getting close to our first session, and I'm discovering the actual characters these guys have made, and it honestly has me terrified.
We're talking about basically a flesh golem of rules, stitched together from maybe 5 or 6 books apiece, in what I can only describe as less of an actual character and more just shiny numbers on paper.
So you haven't actually seen the players in action yet you are afraid that you will end up DMing a game of Diablo 2... just because of the bolded? As others have said, "Well Built PC" and "Good Roleplayer" are not separate ends of a continuum, but instead two completely different scales. I think you should try playing with the people before you get unduly concerned. It is possible you will have poor roleplayers (or poor players in general), but trying to correlate optimized characters with either of those categories is of rather dubious usefulness.
Back to the bolded portion there, I also think your criteria (number of used sources) to define "minmaxed" is off. As someone who uses online resources only and has zero interest in having a psychical copy of most rule books, I find the idea of counting source books to be a bit quaint. Perhaps at one time you could use that as a correlating factor for a player's level of interest in optimization, but now? Sites like Archive of Nethys and d20pfsrd as well as a variety of smartphone apps offer ALL Paizo rules material in a homogeneous and well organized manner; if you use one of those free and convenient sites, it's easier to view all Paizo options than it is to try to view "Core Rulebook only."
I think of pathfinder and D&D as a storytelling experience within my group. That being said I strongly encourage my players to fully optimize. I want them to feel strong and heroic, to the point I will go out of the way to give them extra umph if they feel they are falling behind.
I know that no matter how powerful they get my bad guys will always fall a little bit short of matching them and we will be able to tell a story.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe ask your players to start the campaign as "core" (core rulebook only, which is a new flavor of Pathfinder Society organized play now, too) until you catch up with all the new Pathfinder bloat and splat. Hey, if they're asking you to DM, you can set the rules.
Beware, though: Some players will ragequit or, worse, participate but spend the entire time whining about how gimped they feel. It can't be helped. Some players are just aren't happy unless they get to play absurdly powerful/optimized characters. Hell, just take a look at the PbP recruitment board on this site - the second someone opens up a high level "gestalt" game (characters are dual-classed), it has like 400+ replies overnight.
As I said in another thread, though: Neither roll-playing nor role-playing are incorrect ways to play the game, they're just different styles that work best when everyone (including the DM) is on board. Talk to your players and let them know you're not comfortable running the game with so many rules with which you're not familiar.
|
|
Some of us are using the same words but with different meanings.
I like my players to optimize and be better than "Joe/Jane Blow" but at the same time, I know that some 3rd party materials ARE BROKEN
Here's the easiest way to make players think about their character:
An elaborate backstory. The more fantastic, the more of a backstory
|
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, content from multiple books isn't always about raw power.
Some of my favorite options for adding a certain aspect to a character are from wildly disparate books. For example, if you're a ninja who wants to finesse a katana, you need a specific magic item from a seemingly random book. If you want to add a class skill (such as Perform for my sorcerer), you need to go outside the CRB. Multiple sources can be about making your vision for a character more complete.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What has this game become?
Uh.
Way more wacky than 2nd AD&D, I guess.
My human Thief 20/Wizard 15/Fighter 30 would disagree, as would my Nethrenese Arcanist with up to lv 12 spells. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beware, though: Some players will ragequit or, worse, participate but spend the entire time whining about how gimped they feel. It can't be helped. Some players are just aren't happy unless they get to play absurdly powerful/optimized characters. Hell, just take a look at the PbP recruitment board on this site - the second someone opens up a high level "gestalt" game (characters are dual-classed), it has like 400+ replies overnight.
You do realize that's because those games don't come up very often (and survive to actually begin play, or run for more than a week), right?
Regardless, pretty much everything "broken" or "absurdly powerful" is in the CRB. All the books after that are largely just a widening of options, not an increase in power.
Perhaps "better the devil you know", but restricting players to Core only will do little to nothing if they feel like breaking the game.
I'd suggest just letting them play the characters they want to play and not worry about it, as long as they're rules-legal. When (or more accurately if) it becomes a problem, then have a talk with them if it's not something that can be simply solved (throwing +1 CR challenges at them, for example).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More Complex....that's what it's become.
Why are you afraid? You realize as GM you have infinite strength right?
Let them be bad-asses...challenge them.
I love playing with optimized PCs ,You'd be surprised what they can survive.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a few things I can say about this.
1)6 source books...isn't unreasonable. All classes need the CRB for rules and the bulk of spells, so that's 1. Want an archetype? That's 2, because archetypes aren't CRB. Want a non-core race, or an alternate racial trait, or maybe an alternate FCB? Cool, you probably need the ARG or a Bestiary. That's 3. Traits? 4 Books. Where could another book come from...oh wait, we didn't say what the archetype is actually for. A lot of archetypes are in different books to the classes they modify. Make that 5.
So this is (according to you) a "flesh golem of rules"...
A Tengu(ARG) Sacred Huntmaster(ACG) Inquisitor(APG) with the spells Protection From Evil (CRB) and Ear Piercing Scream(UM) and a couple of traits(probably UCamp). That's 6 books right there. If this is horrific to you,then I think you really need to rethink your expectations, because this is a first level character we are talking about. If you can't tolerate a PC simultaneously having a non-core race, a non-core class and an archetype from a different book in a game with traits (5 books including the CRB *minimum*) then you need to have a serious discussion with your players about your expectations, and understand that if you are going to continue to get upset over such trivial things it might very well cost you the group, because the players might rightfully not want to play under a GM who can't handle the idea that PF has options spread out across a lot of books and plenty of classes/concepts can't function well without dipping into well over half a dozen books.
2)What is wrong with having mechanically effective characters? I am assuming the characters are mechanically effective, but I might be wrong and they might just be a bunch of 1 trick ponies. Lets say for the moment they aren't and they are a team of highly skilled, capable and versatile characters who can each handle themselves. Where is there a problem? You can still challenge them, and being competent doesn't prohibit role playing. You can challenge them far more than a mechanically weak party, and you don't have to worry about inter-party balance (since every player comes to the table with an understanding that they have to be effective), and you don't have to worry about the party stalling due to a lack of options to bypass an obstacle or defeat an encounter. Plus with the way having piles of options work in Pathfinder, intelligent and creative use of their abilities will let them hit well above their weight class. Don't just throw more numbers at the PCs. Throw complex scenarios at them, where a direct approach is borderline suicide, but there is plenty of room to even the odds with creativity. That makes a good story. Which one sounds like a better game: "The fighter, rogue, monk and brawler kill a dozen goblins and bugbears before being forced to flee when warlord BigBadEvilGuy shows up with his entourage of raiders", or "through a gambit roulette involving Charms, a very high bluff score, several uses of Disguise/Alter Self/Adjustable Disguise along with some careful manipulation of officers in BBEG's forward raiding party, the Bard, Arcanist, Inquisitor and Druid use their knowledge gleaned from a magically interrogated scout to cause a fight between two officers in the raiding party. At the height of the conflict, party members disguised as soldiers deliberately become violent to members of the "other" race in order to make the pre-existing tensions between the goblins and bugbears erupt into a full on war between the two groups. While the two groups slaughter each other the party members carefully eliminate the most dangerous members of the raiding party(while disguised, of course). Once the fight is over, the surviving members are attacked and killed by the party, who all changed their appearance into the race on the winning side. The PCs kill everyone who might have witnessed the party reveal their existence, and leave the dying survivors to be found by BBEG's main force, safe in the knowledge that with the news that some elements of it are slaughtering each other, BBEG's army might very well solve itself". That's the difference between a party with very few options besides "hit it", and a party that is mechanically powerful. When the PCs can do more things, more interesting things can happen, and that is more likely to be a better story than just hoping that a good story will magically flop out of one of the PCs being a fighter with a very high Int.
3)If you don't know if you can provide the experience the players are looking for...ask them what they enjoy. Bear in mind, of course, that people in general are terrible at giving info like that, but you could get a vague idea. You might find that they like mechanical challenge but they also enjoy roleplay and would like a mix of both. Perhaps they enjoy intrigue and play characters who can thrive in an environment where you have no idea what is going to happen and every person could have it in for you. Or they could be a bunch of Diablo Hack'N'Slashers(which is totally OK). Unless you are an amazing mind reader you probably won't know until they tell you, which in all likelyhood won't happen until you ask. Find out what your players actually want, and either give them that or say that you don't think it will work out, apologize, and drop out.
4)I am guessing that you think that PCs should have some sub optimal choices right? For RP purposes? Well, most players are playing classes who are either trained or self taught themselves as combatants, right? So you would reasonably expect that most of the things the PCs know are very useful in combat, right? I mean, sure a PC might have spent some of their time learning how their father's business goes, but are you really going to hate on a PC for *not* doing that and learning something which is relevant to their chosen career and might very well save their life. If you, personally, were in a position where you were planning on going into life or death struggles for a living, would you choose to learn how to shoot your grandpa's bow in close quarters rapidly (Point Blank and Rapid Shot), or learn how to run your father's business and pick up painting as a hobby (Skill focus(Craft(Painting) and Profession(Basketweaving))). If you chose the first one, then congratulations. You were an optimizer just then. Because being otherwise would be stupid(which could be a thing, but a lot of players don't want to RP morons with a lack of a preservation instinct). Don't get upset when the PCs do exactly the same.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose this is an opportunity to expand my skills as a game master. I do realize that I have unlimited license to make the game as easy or as challenging as needed. After my initial post and reading the responses, I guess I am overthinking it. I can't really make any decisions if we haven't played any of the campaign yet.
Basically, what I wanted advice on from the community, is do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive? I guess it could be both, or something else entirely. Either way, thanks to the folks that actually contributed something meaningful to the thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I build characters because there's something satisfying about creating something effective. Extremely effective, even. Some people copy characters off the forums because they're lazy and want to be strong without needing to spend time working on their characters, or they want to push the power envelope to one-up their friends. It could be any or all of the above, in varying combinations.
Nothing to do but feel it out, I'm afraid.
If you are going to limit to core only you are probably playing the wrong game.
See how they do!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My human Thief 20/Wizard 15/Fighter 30 would disagree, as would my Nethrenese Arcanist with up to lv 12 spells. :PWhat has this game become?
Uh.
Way more wacky than 2nd AD&D, I guess.Who the hell even plays beyond level 20? We would hardly willingly go beyond 12. You're talking about a corner case with advanced content, with which I can easily counter with all kinds of stuff in Pathfinder to outshine your example. Yours just looks more impressive because of the high levels everywhere. The only impressive part is Wizard 15 combined with the other two, but, you know, wizards.
So I still stand by my statement. Just look at some of the classes available and tell me with a straight face that you don't think Pathfinder is as a whole more wacky than 2nd AD&D.
I can't look at you with a straight face, this isn't a video chat. :P
Maybe when you played AD&D it was less wacky. If so, I'm sorry. Somebody let you down. Wackiness can easily be an aspect of playstyle just as much as rules.
Ensure that they fight ample NPCs, but don't let them loot the NPCs gear [make it out of b~*$*&$#onium that falls apart when exposed to whatever it is going to be exposed to if the PCs try to sell it if you have to].The old school Drow approach.
Dm: "By the way, their awesome gear disintegrates in sunlight"
P1: "Ah-ha, I'll just keep it in a sealed container and use it at night"
DM: "Um, also it loses it's power completely when outside the Underdark for a couple days"
I hated the failsafes they used to let Drow have great gear but prevent players from using it.
This isn't really a problem. Just allow crafting feats. Just deus ex machina a means by which the PCs can sell the treasures they've found. Realistically any group with crafting feats is going to hork everything and craft whatever they specifically want.
Maybe they have a bag of devouring that poops gold, but if you write what you want on a note and drop a money bag into the bag of devouring that has the value equal to what you want to buy it poops out the item and an empty money bag.Ideally it makes a panting sound like it has terrible constipation and diarrhea at the same time. Though, the items might have a small bit of mucus on them, nothing prestidigitation can't fix. Though, I'd bring your own trail rations.
Later on, add a plot point where a wizard wanted to live forever. He evidently got his wish, butt....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ensure that they fight ample NPCs, but don't let them loot the NPCs gear [make it out of b~*$*&$#onium that falls apart when exposed to whatever it is going to be exposed to if the PCs try to sell it if you have to].The old school Drow approach.
Dm: "By the way, their awesome gear disintegrates in sunlight"
P1: "Ah-ha, I'll just keep it in a sealed container and use it at night"
DM: "Um, also it loses it's power completely when outside the Underdark for a couple days"
I hated the failsafes they used to let Drow have great gear but prevent players from using it.
I happily switched to kirthfinder's mojo sysem, because now I don't have to give a f!&& about how much money i throw at people.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say this: It can get exhausting as a GM to check someone's numbers when those numbers come from five different, interlaced sourcebooks. Make sure the players clearly source each element. If you can get a virtual form, having them link to the PRD/PFSRD can help massively.
|
I will say this: It can get exhausting as a GM to check someone's numbers when those numbers come from five different, interlaced sourcebooks. Make sure the players clearly source each element. If you can get a virtual form, having them link to the PRD/PFSRD can help massively.
Using multiple books doesn't necessarily make PCs more powerful, but it can seem that way, when players are taking forever to find the rule, and everyone gets tired of waiting, so accepts some garbled version of it, that a player quoted from memory. A memory that always happens to work in the player's favour....
I gave up using traditional character sheets, a long time ago, because most had sooooo much wasted space, and invariably gave too little room for one aspect, and left whole half-pages unused for others.
(A Fighter needs lots of space for feats, but none for spells, a full caster vice versa, how do you design a universal sheet that satisfies both?)
I now print all my characters in statblock format, which means I can show my working, and copy the exact text of any abilities, so there's no book-flipping.
I list abilities in the statblock, according to what they are (feats, class abilities, traits, talents, domain, bloodline etc), but in the explanatory notes, I put them all in alphabetical order, because it doesn't matter what the source is, you want to find it quickly.
If your players are wanting to use multiple sources, I would recommend telling them to have all the supporting text quickly available, either by cut and pasting it into their sheet, or printing the relevant page.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimisation isn't what kills games, IMHO. You can always crank up the difficulty. Mismatched optimisation is what kills games. If one PC is a cutting-edge DPS monster and the other is not optimised at all, then it is going to be very hard to balance a game to appeal to both.