|
{. . .}
Yes, some rare feats are brutally ineffective (I'm looking at you Fleet) to buy with such a finite resource. But as a GM I'm more about player empowerment. If you WANT to play a grippli with an Agile Tongue that you use for the Steal maneuver, I want that ability to shine so your feat choices are validated.
{. . .}Now I've got this image stuck in my head of an empowered Jar Jar Binks . . . .
Meesa wants to know if yousa feelsa lucky... punksa... do yousa?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meesa wants to know if yousa feelsa lucky... punksa... do yousa?{. . .}
Yes, some rare feats are brutally ineffective (I'm looking at you Fleet) to buy with such a finite resource. But as a GM I'm more about player empowerment. If you WANT to play a grippli with an Agile Tongue that you use for the Steal maneuver, I want that ability to shine so your feat choices are validated.
{. . .}Now I've got this image stuck in my head of an empowered Jar Jar Binks . . . .
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth... :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol @ guy complaining about needing to make optimal choices choosing to roll up a FIGHTER.The irony wasn't lost on me either. ;)While the irony is rich, it's still a valid concern on multiple levels:
1. Playing a fighter (or any class) should never be ironic or sub-optimal. All classes should be viable.
2. Fighter or not, the point that so much content (previous posts in this thread suggested as much as 95%) is ignorable and likely ignored by nearly all players is a really big concern.Both of those problems should have never been allowed to exist, and should be fixed. But they won't be. So we all just live with it. I don't blame some players for being jaded by this.
It's too bad we couldn't update the old core classes and unchain them to make them non-ironic... Good thing the barbarian was a much better option to 'fix' right?
|
In my campaigns it all boils down to information gathering.Combat seems like the most important element of the game, since if the players lose at combat they could all die. Yet when I run Paizo's Pathfinder Adventure Paths, the key is exploring the setting, finding allies and information, scouting the danger, and hitting that danger at its weak point. Going into battle without advance information means that the party has to be twice as good at combat to survive. It means retreating to lick wounds, and even then, retreating well requires information on safe places to camp. I have played in combat-only parties and they scramble for marginal successes. They never seem on top of the situation.
Therefore, some of my players build characters who mastered social skills or stealth or charm spells to gather information. Others build characters that mastered combat. We have variety. And we have more fun.
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door". I guess the problem was that I never completely teached them not to use it, but then again, putting up a double higher CR encounter constantly seems unfair also so I am not sure how to approach that area.
I'll go through the A's though.
Bad feats
...
Pinpoint Poisoner
Archon Style x3
...
I don't mean to piss on your bonfire, since I basically agree with both you and Jiggy, but I go out of my way to make decent builds out of the things nobody else uses, and I can tell you that I have a kickass Archon Style build and a kickass Pinpoint Poisoner build. Are they "optimal?" Well, relative to what?
The point is, they do great in PFS games, to the point that I'm constantly pushing for more hard modes and more difficulty in general. Measured against the standard of CR, even some of the "bad" feats can do quite well.
The real problems here are that: 1- the CR standard of difficulty is absurdly low when placed against even modestly optimized builds, and 2- the game allows characters of the same level to be wildly, vastly far apart from each other in terms of power and effectiveness.
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door".
Kicking down the door can be more fun than the alternative. Let's say we've used research and know the bad guy is a standard Bestiary vampire. So now before battle we ensure we've got counters for invisibility, mind control, fireball, flight and negative levels. At this point, the actual battle is trivial.
Compare this to kicking down the door, meeting an unknown enemy, and during battle having to improvise to counter whatever it does. Which makes for a more exciting climax?
Similarly, recruiting allies and watching them fight the vampire is less exciting than doing it on your own.
I tend to view Pathfinder as having a competence tax. If you melee, it's generally Power Attack. Ranged is Point Blank + Precise Shot. Spontaneous casters have to pick something like two good spells per spell level. Once you do that, you can actually make your character. It's just annoying for the first couple levels.
Because it would be more fun to take an interesting feat that you've never taken before instead?
Why wouldn't you want to take feats that focus on the thing you want your PC to be good at?
As much as I want my Kineticist to have a cat familiar, she's taking -4 to hit in combat until level 5 or 7 if I do that first. Just as an example.
|
Because it would be more fun to take an interesting feat that you've never taken before instead?
An interesting feat that makes you better at the thing you want to be good at?
Feats are metagame knowledge.
No one within the world your PC lives in has any idea what feats anyone has, or that anyone has feats, or that such a thing exist.
Is the feat interesting, because it let's your PC do things you want the PC to do, or just because it sounds neat?
Because it would be more fun to take an interesting feat that you've never taken before instead?
Interesting as in "maybe this feat will be useful in 1/10 of all enounters in and out of combat"?
Skill Focus: Diplomacy is not the most optimal feat for most builds, but it's gomna do a lot more for you than about 90% of feats out there. It's potentially useful in any situation that can be solved without combat.
Feats don't suddenly become useful just because you've never taken them before.
If you wanna role play as a tricky sorceror man why are you investing in feint? You're unlikely to actually be effective at it. You'd do more trickery by grabbing spell focus Illusion or skill focus bluff.
|
|
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door".Kicking down the door can be more fun than the alternative. Let's say we've used research and know the bad guy is a standard Bestiary vampire. So now before battle we ensure we've got counters for invisibility, mind control, fireball, flight and negative levels. At this point, the actual battle is trivial.
Compare this to kicking down the door, meeting an unknown enemy, and during battle having to improvise to counter whatever it does. Which makes for a more exciting climax?
Similarly, recruiting allies and watching them fight the vampire is less exciting than doing it on your own.
Well, that's assuming that PC's do know everything about vampires and do not metagame too much. Honestly, the "buff up and kick the door" is actually fairly effective the higher the level. On level 15, there was literally no NPC that could fight a fully buffed party. I actually even tried to follow the AP's challenge as presented and it was completely pointless to even try, but I am digressing completely from a topic now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it would be more fun to take an interesting feat that you've never taken before instead?An interesting feat that makes you better at the thing you want to be good at?
Yes. I would like there to be a dozen different feats of roughly equal utility for making me good at fighting battles with a greatsword, available at level 1.
Feats are metagame knowledge.
No one within the world your PC lives in has any idea what feats anyone has, or that anyone has feats, or that such a thing exist.
Is the feat interesting, because it let's your PC do things you want the PC to do, or just because it sounds neat?
Feats are a game mechanic for differentiating characters who would otherwise play much the same.
A good game mechanic is one that makes for interesting decisions.
If you want to be an archer, and have to choose between taking Point Blank Shot and being a bad archer, that's not an interesting decision, and it doesn't help differentiate characters (except into archers and non-archers).
An interesting feat adds something new to combat, like allowing you to make combat maneuvers at range.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone can just have a "Background" feat at first level.
An unique free feat, that has some tie to the PC's background.
I've always quite liked the idea of listing out all the 'almost completely useless' feats, and giving one free to all PCs on every even-numbered levels.
|
I've played and run games where "pay twice" feats are free for all characters at level 1.
Power Attack
Piranha Strike
Combat Expertise
Combat Accuracy (-2 damage/+1 to hit)
Are just things any character can do. Just declare at the beginning of your attack you're doing that.
Weapon Finesse and Dex to damage are just weapon properties and always apply to attacks with weapons with the Finesse property.
I also added Blocking to AC (Strength to AC instead of Dex with a shield or two-handed weapon equipped).
Then I added General Feats at every even level.
By giving away the feat taxes, players felt more liberated to take more interesting feats.
I've always quite liked the idea of listing out all the 'almost completely useless' feats, and giving one free to all PCs on every even-numbered levels.
If you do this, please send me a link or post it or something. I'm very interested.
Why the heck do all feats need to be equal?
That can't possibly work.
Nothing is interesting, if everything is the same.
Not a believer in "different but equal" I take it?
You can buy a cat, and then make smarter later.As much as I want my Kineticist to have a cat familiar, she's taking -4 to hit in combat until level 5 or 7 if I do that first. Just as an example.Why wouldn't you want to take feats that focus on the thing you want your PC to be good at?
Right. I pay my competence tax, and then I get what I'm actually interested in. It is what it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's use this as an example. Why steal an item mid-combat instead of killing the wielder? First, it could be an in-town adventure where the city guard wants the party to stand trial for any killing. Capturing enemies alive would be more convenient. Second, Mark Hoover mentioned it was stealing with a grippli Agile Tongue. That has a 10-foot reach, which can be used while protected by a heavy shield or climbing on the wall. That gives a chance to debuff the opponent before engaging in full-attack melee combat.Let's go over the problems:
1. So the city guards are fine with stealing, but not murder? I mean if that person is going to fight with you, self-defense them to death.
2. I mean you can use steal in both those situations anyway. The only benefit is the reach, which while fine, is kind of a waste of a feat.
3. There are much much better debuffs. Consider your choice of intimidation application and the Hurtful feat for example. Add the Cruel enhancement to your weapon for kicks.
4. Wand wielding Wizard? All that did was take away those Wizards *least* effective attack option.
Due the above issues, I recommend either revising your argument or conceding the point.
Yes, it is easy to imagine the city guards being fine with disarming criminals of their weapons and magic items mid-combat rather than killing them. Imagine the difference between the party presenting the city constable with a group of tied up pickpockets in the so-called New Thieves Guild and the party presenting them with a group of dead pickpockets. I would roleplay the constable as shouting, "You bloodthirsty foreign murderhobos! Pickpocketing does not rate the death penalty in this country!"
As for the waste of a feat, the big weakness of the Steal combat maneuver is that it usually takes two feats, Combat Expertise and Improved Steal, to be able to steal without provoking an attack of opportunity. In this case, it takes one feat, Agile Tongue, for both steal and disarm while being too far away to be reached by a typical human's attack of opportunity.
No, there are few debuffs better than disarming an opponent. As for the "wand-wielding wizards" I gave into the temptation of alliteration rather than pointing out the more obvious debuff of stealing the wizard's spell component pouch. Besides, I usually roleplay wizards as having multiple spell component pouches. Who wants to reach into a pouch of live spiders, kept for Spider Climb, for the bat guano for a Fireball?
Nevertheless, let me revise my argument. John and his best friend join a new Pathfinder urban campaign. John initially planned on playing a human barbarian. But his friend told him that though she would play a cleric, she was going to focus on Augmented Summoning and would have fewer spells for healing. John's barbarians usually take a lot of damage. He considered playing a heavy-armor fighter or paladin instead, but he wanted to roleplay his character as a barbarian type in the big city. He realized that with the summoned monsters on the front line, he could design his barbarian to keep out of melee and use thrown weapons, such as javelins. Then he remembered a grippli alchemist played by someone else in another campaign, who stayed out of melee by climbing up walls. He opened the Advanced Race Guide, read up on grippli, and saw that a grippli bloodrager that could reach out to deliver Shocking Grasp with its Agile Tongue. That would work well with his friend's summoning cleric. The bloodrager would not gain spells before fourth level, but Agile Tongue taken at third level could be used for disarm and steal. As for his first-level feat, Deadly Aim would be more useful than Power Attack.
That is more sensible than John insisting to his friend that she must play a dedicated healer so that he could play a barbarian. And it is close enough to optimized to be viable in combat.
|
|
If you want to be an archer, and have to choose between taking Point Blank Shot and being a bad archer, that's not an interesting decision, and it doesn't help differentiate characters (except into archers and non-archers).
I have no problem with feats doing that. That's pretty much them doing what they're supposed to do.
To be an awesome archer you have to give up character resources. Sounds right to me.
Sounds like stylistic differences to me. That PC does not control your campaign, and the Player controlling that Fighter probably just stuck his opinion where it wasn't welcome.
I am a caster at heart, Arcane & Divine & maybe Psionic someday, and even I have my own opinions on how melee should be built lol. Once upon a time I used to build to twenty even if it would never happen for a campaign until through repeated plays I realized that:
A: This was rarely going to happen.
B: A lot of campaigns/AP run out around 11-15 through a gamut of effects.
C: Just as no concept survives against contact with Players, on the inverse, Players' expectations likewise hit a wall and have to change upon contact with the DM and the setting. House Rules abound, even opinions on RAW and just straight ban even for Core material. That build that just transmuted back to lead.
I've had nice DMs that tried to help everyone shine -it's not as simple as it seems. Some builds just aren't great, no need to push it to be great, because the rest of us on the roster -unless we are jerks- will help the fellow out on the tabletop or out of character. If they'll take sheet advice, we give it, but remember some people want to play their own concept and I respect that. I like keeping teammates alive, and I feel guilty in character when they fall around me, especially if its a consequence of my actions, Evil or Good mentality I still feel that.
That doesn't mean every has to be DPS/Save-or-Suck Kings to ensure a happy board. Some folks are just happy to be on the team. Let Power Attack Lad have his fun, so long as he doesn't poison the cheer.
Usually from what I glean from my Players, I Meta my campaign to suit them, because it slowly becomes their Magical Realm too. Meaning, if some dude is built around a certain concept, I will pander a portion of the campaign to be optimal for his selections. As in, if there is no Rogue, I will substitute encounters for traps. If someone is a craft freak, I will give them a way to generate a modest income in-between adventures (not every dungeon will have a workshop, but the towns might...) but not enough to keep adventuring and his waiting teammates at bay from going delving for sweet loot. Wait, someone actually took Swim? Boy... obligatory underwater level go-go-go!
On the other hand, if I did establish a theme for the campaign where they neglected that critical field, then whoopsies! "If you enter Ustalav/The Worldwound without a Divine Buddy for a Vampire/Demon Safari, you are going to have a bad time..."
Power Gamer will shine because I refuse to Meta him to the dirt unless he starts running a counter-campaign or out-of-character messing with the Players. Then its game on. Till then, Munchkins are whom I learn a lot of the game from, frankly because I keep having to do more research ^_^ on the fly just to keep up with the crap they pull.
I let things develop versus dropping them boons just to keep their character going. I try to consider their feelings when bad things happen, because eventually someone will fail a crucial test -and that's okay we'll adapt just don't cry on me... please? As in, I avoid coup-de-grace on them when they are helpless and just go after the next juicy target, but some consequences I cannot RetCon if it would just nullify the seriousness I wish to convey. A heroic or stubborn end I will respect and reward, but if they pull some weird shenanigan like heisting the banking guild in Eberron thinking they are slick with planeshifting and no one ever tried that cute stunt before... are they in for a rude surprise ^_^.
Let Falchion Fred have his fun. It IS good to have a champion on the roster after all. If he is so good he nullifies the party's existence save as a glorified entourage then as the campaign goes on eventually Falchion Fred is what the enemy begins planning for unless they are too dumb to succeed. Eventually those 80s villains got supplanted by more competent ones.
"What keeps killing all our people and foiling our plans? Those heroes must be stopped!"
"Well, Dread Lord, there is especially one among them, the chosen one... a master of maneuvers unseen since Azlant."
"Just one? Well that'll free up some assets. Set up the contract."
Gives those other Players the opportunity to shine when FF is getting his kidneys kicked in. Hell, they may even save him during the Headhunting operation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door". I guess the problem was that I never completely teached them not to use it, but then again, putting up a double higher CR encounter constantly seems unfair also so I am not sure how to approach that area.
This is a bit of a derail, but if you want to discourage the practice of always defaulting to "buff up and kick down the door", you're probably better served not by an unreasonably tough fight, but an empty room. When the PCs throw up half a dozen buffs only to spend a good chunk of the durations trying in vain to find (non-existent) secrets in the lavatory, they might think twice about other unknown rooms as well.
When scouting becomes a means of not wasting their buffs, they'll probably start doing it.
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door". I guess the problem was that I never completely teached them not to use it, but then again, putting up a double higher CR encounter constantly seems unfair also so I am not sure how to approach that area.This is a bit of a derail, but if you want to discourage the practice of always defaulting to "buff up and kick down the door", you're probably better served not by an unreasonably tough fight, but an empty room. When the PCs throw up half a dozen buffs only to spend a good chunk of the durations trying in vain to find (non-existent) secrets in the lavatory, they might think twice about other unknown rooms as well.
When scouting becomes a means of not wasting their buffs, they'll probably start doing it.
Well said.
This is one of the reasons that I truly love the level 5 Mind Eye power for the Occultist, which frequently can be used to scout ridiculous areas with no downsides whatsoever. Sure, can't see through a door (lol Gloves of Reconnaissance to the rescue!), but it's a trivial expenditure for incredible information gathering.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Just occurred to me you could do it on a large scale too, if necessary. Maybe they go to an "adventure location" only to discover a trivial or non-existent issue with a bit of cost and little to no payoff. Maybe next time they'll do some networking to get a worthwhile goal.
Sorry, I didn't mean to drop a thread grenade and walk away. I had company come by and then got caught up with kid stuff too. Anyway, one of the reasons this debate about feats came up was because this new player and I were discussing what we liked about 3e/PF versus 1 and 2e as well as the new 5e D&D.
The new player's contention was that 1e/5e was awesome because you just pick "Fighter" and you get a set package that includes the best of EVERYTHING that has to do with being a fighter; you don't NEED to customize because you're already the best at what you're supposed to do.
My reason for liking PF was that my fighter can be the best at: grappling, ranged, melee, dueling, tanking or a dozen other niches but still positively contribute to other areas of combat. I can BUILD my character for either as specific or as general a role as I'd like and unless I'm doing a terrible job I can build to be very effective.
Next thing I know my new player is giving me the "only a few feats are worth taking anyway" which inevitably led back to his contention that you only need one fighter, one wizard and so on.
I just want my games to offer more to the players than "you're good at fighting. You're good at wizarding." I mean, what if the guy playing the wizard, with 6 skill ranks/level, takes Disable Device and Stealth as class skills through traits and is playing a half-elf with an owl familiar and Skill Focus: Perception? They can be a spell casting thief that picks locks, finds mundane traps and stealths around while ALSO unleashing decent fire power to make up for no sneak attack.
They CAN build that way, even if there's more effective ways to do it. I'd validate their choices by giving places where a rogue or a spell caster would be useful. I'd like to think I would anyway.
I kind of more expected from my PC's to do such things as exploration, scouting and finding allies, but they still use the old tactic of "buff up and kick the door". I guess the problem was that I never completely teached them not to use it, but then again, putting up a double higher CR encounter constantly seems unfair also so I am not sure how to approach that area.This is a bit of a derail, but if you want to discourage the practice of always defaulting to "buff up and kick down the door", you're probably better served not by an unreasonably tough fight, but an empty room. When the PCs throw up half a dozen buffs only to spend a good chunk of the durations trying in vain to find (non-existent) secrets in the lavatory, they might think twice about other unknown rooms as well.
When scouting becomes a means of not wasting their buffs, they'll probably start doing it.
While you're not wrong, this kind of thing only goes so far. If your PCs are optimized enough then at some point you have to go well outside of CR, as Malag says, in order to challenge them. It's not unfair to do this, because the game is just plain boring if you don't do it. One truly optimized character can solo most PFS scenarios.
The bottom line is that the CR system needs an update. It was designed to provide balance to sub-optimal characters in the first place, and that was before power creep. It just has not kept up.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sorry, I didn't mean to drop a thread grenade and walk away. I had company come by and then got caught up with kid stuff too. Anyway, one of the reasons this debate about feats came up was because this new player and I were discussing what we liked about 3e/PF versus 1 and 2e as well as the new 5e D&D.
The new player's contention was that 1e/5e was awesome because you just pick "Fighter" and you get a set package that includes the best of EVERYTHING that has to do with being a fighter; you don't NEED to customize because you're already the best at what you're supposed to do.
My reason for liking PF was that my fighter can be the best at: grappling, ranged, melee, dueling, tanking or a dozen other niches but still positively contribute to other areas of combat. I can BUILD my character for either as specific or as general a role as I'd like and unless I'm doing a terrible job I can build to be very effective.
Next thing I know my new player is giving me the "only a few feats are worth taking anyway" which inevitably led back to his contention that you only need one fighter, one wizard and so on.
I just want my games to offer more to the players than "you're good at fighting. You're good at wizarding." I mean, what if the guy playing the wizard, with 6 skill ranks/level, takes Disable Device and Stealth as class skills through traits and is playing a half-elf with an owl familiar and Skill Focus: Perception? They can be a spell casting thief that picks locks, finds mundane traps and stealths around while ALSO unleashing decent fire power to make up for no sneak attack.
They CAN build that way, even if there's more effective ways to do it. I'd validate their choices by giving places where a rogue or a spell caster would be useful. I'd like to think I would anyway.
Wait.
So the thing he LIKES about 5E is that there's just one fighter, and the thing he DISLIKES about Pathfinder is that (due to a small list of viable feats) there's just one fighter?
Huh?
Sorry, I didn't mean to drop a thread grenade and walk away. I had company come by and then got caught up with kid stuff too. Anyway, one of the reasons this debate about feats came up was because this new player and I were discussing what we liked about 3e/PF versus 1 and 2e as well as the new 5e D&D.
The new player's contention was that 1e/5e was awesome because you just pick "Fighter" and you get a set package that includes the best of EVERYTHING that has to do with being a fighter; you don't NEED to customize because you're already the best at what you're supposed to do.
My reason for liking PF was that my fighter can be the best at: grappling, ranged, melee, dueling, tanking or a dozen other niches but still positively contribute to other areas of combat. I can BUILD my character for either as specific or as general a role as I'd like and unless I'm doing a terrible job I can build to be very effective.
You're both right, it's just a matter of how much it bothers you that inter-party balance can be drastically skewed the way it can in PF. You can have one 8th level character in the party that is like 15% as effective as the other 8th level character, by any metric. That's a design problem, and it simply doesn't exist in 5E. Thus the prep time is lower, the potential for arguments is lower, etc, etc, and it still gives you a decent amount of customization.
5E gives you the best balance I've seen thus far between character customization and game balance. It's really very masterfully designed in that regard. But that tension between those two elements is always going to be there; you always have to sacrifice one for the other. I understand wanting more customization in your game, but it comes with the territory that you're going to have to deal with players and arguments like the one at issue here. There's no way around it, so you may as well go in with your eyes open, take the fleas with the dog, and just don't let it become personal.
|
|
The bottom line is that the CR system needs an update. It was designed to provide balance to sub-optimal characters in the first place, and that was before power creep. It just has not kept up.
I disagree.
CR should be balanced around sub-optimal characters. Otherwise people new to the system will become frustrated when their (obviously to veterans sub-optimal) character can't take things on. The new GM doesn't know that since they're all new, he needs to make encounters easier.
On the other hand - if the whole group are veterans who enjoy making more potent characters - then the GM can, rather easily, ramp up encounters with tougher and/or more numerous foes without much trouble.
Wait.So the thing he LIKES about 5E is that there's just one fighter, and the thing he DISLIKES about Pathfinder is that (due to a small list of viable feats) there's just one fighter?
Huh?
Sure, this thinking is entirely sound. His contention is that in both games there is only one fighter, but one of those games lies to you, gives the illusion of having more than one fighter, and makes you waste your time. And he doesn't like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The bottom line is that the CR system needs an update. It was designed to provide balance to sub-optimal characters in the first place, and that was before power creep. It just has not kept up.I disagree.
CR should be balanced around sub-optimal characters. Otherwise people new to the system will become frustrated when their (obviously to veterans sub-optimal) character can't take things on. The new GM doesn't know that since they're all new, he needs to make encounters easier.
On the other hand - if the whole group are veterans who enjoy making more potent characters - then the GM can, rather easily, ramp up encounters with tougher and/or more numerous foes without much trouble.
Yes, as long as they're willing to do that. But many GMs and players, like Malag, feel it's "unfair" to go outside of CR, and then you have a problem.
I didn't say CR should be set at the level of veteran, optimized characters, and I don't think that. I think CR needs to be more flexible in some way. Currently it's tied to level, and this in some ways makes no sense, since level in PF is actually not a very good indication of character power, since as I said you can have one X level character that is like 5 times better than another character of the same level.
They tried with CR, and I respect that there is a baseline. But everyone falls on the scale somewhere and measures up. Higher level threats? It's PF... guaranteed XP yay! Yum-yum.
Either let the argument go or keep fanning the flames by posting hard references, especially math/rules-verified builds that debunk or contend his claims. Sounds like a fun war brewing regarding wank/skub because both sides "...are both equally lovely in their outfits but can we just play the game now," says the rest of the group. I love being a bystander sometimes... "Yay! Two Christmases-err-Campaigns!"
Poor Valeros... I guiltily checked NPC Codex and *gasp* who wants to break the news to him that apparently he's not qualified to be Pathfinder's Iconic Fighter as much as Amiri is? First round will be on me -maybe after the drinking binge he'll abandon his Fighter throne and test out on the Starstone blacked out.
My group just tested their builds on each other in fun (as in did not go for kills) arena mode during lulls in the story. Went to a new town... fighting tournament say wha-at?! Have to rescue an NPC on a boat floating off Karcau = infiltrate as a traveling fighting tournament pitting the girls vs the boys of our group (Beauties versus Beasts) at each other in a blatant exploitation-style tournament say wha-at? The best potential use ever of Rock-to-Mud and Warp Wood the group shot me down on...
Sorry, I didn't mean to drop a thread grenade and walk away. I had company come by and then got caught up with kid stuff too. Anyway, one of the reasons this debate about feats came up was because this new player and I were discussing what we liked about 3e/PF versus 1 and 2e as well as the new 5e D&D.
The new player's contention was that 1e/5e was awesome because you just pick "Fighter" and you get a set package that includes the best of EVERYTHING that has to do with being a fighter; you don't NEED to customize because you're already the best at what you're supposed to do.
My reason for liking PF was that my fighter can be the best at: grappling, ranged, melee, dueling, tanking or a dozen other niches but still positively contribute to other areas of combat. I can BUILD my character for either as specific or as general a role as I'd like and unless I'm doing a terrible job I can build to be very effective.
Next thing I know my new player is giving me the "only a few feats are worth taking anyway" which inevitably led back to his contention that you only need one fighter, one wizard and so on.
I just want my games to offer more to the players than "you're good at fighting. You're good at wizarding." I mean, what if the guy playing the wizard, with 6 skill ranks/level, takes Disable Device and Stealth as class skills through traits and is playing a half-elf with an owl familiar and Skill Focus: Perception? They can be a spell casting thief that picks locks, finds mundane traps and stealths around while ALSO unleashing decent fire power to make up for no sneak attack.
They CAN build that way, even if there's more effective ways to do it. I'd validate their choices by giving places where a rogue or a spell caster would be useful. I'd like to think I would anyway.
Wait.
So the thing he LIKES about 5E is that there's just one fighter, and the thing he DISLIKES about Pathfinder is that (due to a small list of viable feats) there's just one fighter?
Huh?
Yes. Frustrating, right? Said new player is just upset you gotta go through all the work of "building" a character in PF just to end up with the same fighter every time. My contention though is that you can be JUST as effective if you take Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple and Weapon Focus: Grapple at level 1 as if you took Power Attack, Furious Focus and Weapon Focus: Greatsword. Sure, you'd do less damage by grappling but you'd still be melee focused, have a great attack bonus and you can still take an opponent out of the mix. What's more, your extreme grappler might look, feel and play differently from the 2h fighter.
If someone "gimped" their PC by extreme focus on grappling (or whatever) I'd try to include:
- combats with single, multi-limbed foes
- Non combat challenges like grappling or arm-wrestling challenges
- (for a challenge to the PC) occasional fights against oozes or natural grappler villains
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So does that make me a wuss GM?
No, that makes you a good GM who realizes that RPGs are cooperative, not competitive, among everybody at the table, GM included. The GM is not the enemy/opponent, he's a fellow player there to help everybody have fun in the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played and run games where "pay twice" feats are free for all characters at level 1.
Power Attack
Piranha Strike
Combat Expertise
Combat Accuracy (-2 damage/+1 to hit)Are just things any character can do. Just declare at the beginning of your attack you're doing that.
Weapon Finesse and Dex to damage are just weapon properties and always apply to attacks with weapons with the Finesse property.
Back during Pathfinder Beta, I was rabble-rousing for Fighters to get those feats as a class ability at first level (-Atk for +Dam, -Dam for +Atk, -AC for +Atk, -Atk for +AC, etc.), along with the option to make a single attack adding extra damage for each iterative attack sacrificed (what PF introduced as the Vital Strike feat).
A lot of that stuff feels like it should be just basic options available to a Fighter, and then gated off as feats available to other characters (who would otherwise have to settle for more restrictive or less generous options like Charge or Fighting Defensively, to move numbers around between AC and Atk).
While I didn't think of the Finesse option at the time, I definitely agree that it should be a weapon property, and not a feat (or, if retained as a feat, allowing the user to use a weapon that *doesn't* have the Finesse property as if it were a finesse weapon).
I tend to view Pathfinder as having a competence tax. If you melee, it's generally Power Attack. Ranged is Point Blank + Precise Shot. Spontaneous casters have to pick something like two good spells per spell level. Once you do that, you can actually make your character. It's just annoying for the first couple levels.
Agreed with this, but I would add that in some campaigns this goes beyond being a competence tax and becomes a tax to keep from dying (or possibly to keep the rest of your party from dying). Also, for some characters, this goes beyond the first couple of levels, especially if your class is not one that awards frequent bonus feats and is not a spellcaster starting at level 1 (spellcasters can have this problem into later levels also, but at least spells somewhat ameliorate this problem for the feats, but then you may get an analogous problem with spell selection, and if your spells start late AND you don't get bonus feats, then you've still got trouble).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the illusion of choice is the problem.
As much as I want my Kineticist to have a cat familiar, she's taking -4 to hit in combat until level 5 or 7 if I do that first. Just as an example.Why wouldn't you want to take feats that focus on the thing you want your PC to be good at?
Some people like making the same types of characters over and over or being highly optimized. Others enjoy a new journey with each new character, neither is wrong and BOTH are valid. I myself am probably 60% optimize 40% character/story driven.
I've played and run games where "pay twice" feats are free for all characters at level 1.
Power Attack
Piranha Strike
Combat Expertise
Combat Accuracy (-2 damage/+1 to hit)Are just things any character can do. Just declare at the beginning of your attack you're doing that.
Weapon Finesse and Dex to damage are just weapon properties and always apply to attacks with weapons with the Finesse property.
By giving away the feat taxes, players felt more liberated to take more interesting feats.
I was going to write out my suggestion for feats, but this guy pretty much summed it up. Take the highly-optimal virtually-required feats and give them to everyone for free. I've always thought feats don't do enough, considering how few you get and how many there are in chains sometimes.
Related, I also combine many of the 'feat chains' into scaling feats that improve as you level up. Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus, etc. I prefer to group the 'Improved' Maneuver feats into 2-3 feats, and leave the 'Greater' feats as their own standalones.
-
I don't think you're a bad GM, Mark. In fact, you sound like the type of GM I would most like to play under: one who helps PCs shine and have fun even if they want to do atypical things. Kudos!
Others have mentioned the disparity of PC ability at the same level, which is real and problematic - especially in a setting like PFS. That's one thing that's intrigued me about 5e, though we'll see if that remains the same as the game expands. Sadly, I haven't had a chance to play it yet.
Someone upthread talked about information gathering/scouting as opposed to (or maybe precursors of) kicking in the door and fighting. There was a section of one evil game
Way of the Wicked (awesome AP)
where we had to take down a fortress to allow an invading army into the country. Game time was only a few weeks once we arrived, but out-of-game we spent a month or two learning about the town, sneaking in and scouting the fort, finding weaknesses, learning officer schedules, sabotaging defenses, etc. We killed a few of them when they were isolated (hunting), tried poisoning food, etc. In the end we decided to just sneak in and start slaughtering. It was difficult, but we managed to pull it off. If we had done that from the start, though, we would've been soundly beaten. It's an example of information gathering as a useful tactic, and we had fun doing it. It made the fighting at the end all the sweeter, too, since it was the culmination of so much work.
Personally, I find games that are just "kick in the door and go" to be much less interesting. Different folk, though.
|
|
1st, 2nd, and 5E all have a sort of set package for you, but there is very little customization.
A lot of concepts are just not possible.
So, you end up getting all there is, right away, but that's it. Nothing new, or interesting as you level. Just the same limited stuff, but you are a little better at it. You need to be a caster to have anything like that, and that is still just a bit more of the same.
Sometimes the choices are hard in Pathfinder, but the player complaining they dosn't have all the things for his master scholar archer, who rides a griffon and can turn into a tiger right away, is sort of being a baby.
This system doesn't hand you all the stuff, right away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people like making the same types of characters over and over or being highly optimized. Others enjoy a new journey with each new character, neither is wrong and BOTH are valid. I myself am probably 60% optimize 40% character/story driven.As much as I want my Kineticist to have a cat familiar, she's taking -4 to hit in combat until level 5 or 7 if I do that first. Just as an example.Why wouldn't you want to take feats that focus on the thing you want your PC to be good at?
you're doing something wrong if these only add up to 100, because one does not diminish the other.