I've been running more 5e than anything else lately, which accounts for situational bonuses with advantage/disadvantage, and allows players to grant themselves advantage with an inspiration mechanic, but I don't generally grant bonuses (or penalize, for that matter) for player RP. I mean, I'm happy to see them engage, but it doesn't effect the DC.
Of course, I'm always willing to fudge when I'm behind the screen, and have received no few XP "for role playing" without protest when I was in front of it. As with just about everything in RPGS, it varies table to table.
|
Note my sam and your sam have a small DPR difference due to you quoting weapon damage at 8.5 when I believe it should be 7.5 (3 enhancement + 4.5 Dice.)
Good catch - I think I first made it a +4 katana before rechecking cost vs wealth by level and dropping it down to +3 - but forgot to tweak the damage.
As to the buffing changing the DPR - I totally agree - but said buffs vary so much that I left them out.
Haste boosts DPR more with PA significantly.
Bard song boosts DPR more without PA significantly.
Heroism boosts DPR more with PA slightly.
etc.
Basically any sort of static damage helps more when not using PA (same with weapon enchantments) - accuracy boosts & Haste help more with PA.
Of course - then you get into foe buffs. If the monster has DR which works vs the katana then PA is affected somewhat less. If the monster has anything which boosts AC it affects PA far more. (The last seems the most common which is why I'm iffy of on the AC scores used for DPR calculations. It's not hard for a CR 13 creature to have decent armor and/or access to Shield or Mage armor etc.)
Plus - all other things being equal - it's better to have more weaker attacks as you're less likely to 'overkill' - wasting damage.
But - I didn't want to deal with all that - which is why I avoided buffs entirely. :P
You say DPR boosts damage more when not power attacking.
If I read that correctly it just says the change in DPR is higher, but not which is more effeftive.
Is PA+bardsong DPR higher or Bard song only DPR higher?
Also for a combat with fewer full attacks PA is definitely the winner on damage.
I could swear I made a post responding to Charon about a power attacking cavalier and it seems to be gone now.
What gives? I don't recall there being anything nasty in either of our posts.
|
I could swear I made a post responding to Charon about a power attacking cavalier and it seems to be gone now.
What gives? I don't recall there being anything nasty in either of our posts.
You definitely did, I wondered what post went missing. No idea why it's gone though, I didn't see anything that seemed offensive to me.
My bet is the server ate it whem you hit submit.
Note my sam and your sam have a small DPR difference due to you quoting weapon damage at 8.5 when I believe it should be 7.5 (3 enhancement + 4.5 Dice.)Good catch - I think I first made it a +4 katana before rechecking cost vs wealth by level and dropping it down to +3 - but forgot to tweak the damage.
As to the buffing changing the DPR - I totally agree - but said buffs vary so much that I left them out.
Haste boosts DPR more with PA significantly.
Bard song boosts DPR more without PA significantly.
Heroism boosts DPR more with PA slightly.
etc.
Basically any sort of static damage helps more when not using PA (same with weapon enchantments) - accuracy boosts & Haste help more with PA.
Of course - then you get into foe buffs. If the monster has DR which works vs the katana then PA is affected somewhat less. If the monster has anything which boosts AC it affects PA far more. (The last seems the most common which is why I'm iffy of on the AC scores used for DPR calculations. It's not hard for a CR 13 creature to have decent armor and/or access to Shield or Mage armor etc.)
Plus - all other things being equal - it's better to have more weaker attacks as you're less likely to 'overkill' - wasting damage.
But - I didn't want to deal with all that - which is why I avoided buffs entirely. :P
Yep it is a complex question.
My play experience and math had just suggested that PA was solid almost all the time, but my group usually opens with (Prayer+Haste+Good Hope+Bard Song) as levels allow and Flanks with Outflank+Menacing. That is what gave me the anecdotal experience, not trying to say I am better or anything just different experience so it caught my attention.
I do appreciate that you pointed out for Samurai PA falls off I have just never seen one played so never ran the numbers for one.
Anyway to answer the other question asked generally (Bard song + PA) is greater than PA or Bardsong alone, I do not know if Just PA or Just Bardsong is better, and honestly I do not know anything about Samurai numbers except what I just ran.
|
Although be glad he opted for combat feats and not for a diplomacy build. Because a human starting at 20 Cha with all the diplo boosting feats, as a rogue (or similar) with the diplomacy skill unlock can shut many combats down entirely, or even break campaigns entirely.@Mark Hoover
Let me tell you what a player told me once I asked him why he took so many combat feats: "Because it all boils down to combat". I personally like combat as a GM, but I like it in a golden middle, not too much of it, not too little. Even after I specifically declared to my players that they may build any characters they wish to, they still built them for combat exclusively and took exclusively combat feats. I was and still am slightly disappointed with it, but it was their choice so I complied and moved on. My advice, let him take what he wants, but if he starts to complain about it, explain him politely what your campaign is about.
Shutting down combats via Diplomacy is rubbish. You can talk down hostile creatures, sure, but some creatures aren't gonna be interested into your pretty words if you have 10,000 gp bounty on your head (just an example). Diplomacy isn't mind control.
Well yes to be playing the game, if you are influencing attitude with diplomacy you have to say so. And if you are using diplomacy to make a request you naturally have to specify what that request is. My point is that saying "Verily, I beseech a boon of safe passage." is not inherently better role-play then "I'll use diplomacy to make a request for safe passage for the group."At the very least I require a player to explain what their desired outcome is.
"I want to find some sort of compromise and convince them that this is better than other alternatives"
It's not ideal, but that's good enough to play the game.
Uh.. If you're going with the name is on the tin definition of role-playing you have literally just provided an example of better roleplaying. Just like Daniel Day Lewis is a better actor then Rob Schnider and Steven Hawking is a better physicist than I am. This doesn't make them better pople or even better at D&D but better roleplayers ? Uh kinda yeah.
Shutting down combats via Diplomacy is rubbish. You can talk down hostile creatures, sure, but some creatures aren't gonna be interested into your pretty words if you have 10,000 gp bounty on your head (just an example). Diplomacy isn't mind control.Although be glad he opted for combat feats and not for a diplomacy build. Because a human starting at 20 Cha with all the diplo boosting feats, as a rogue (or similar) with the diplomacy skill unlock can shut many combats down entirely, or even break campaigns entirely.@Mark Hoover
Let me tell you what a player told me once I asked him why he took so many combat feats: "Because it all boils down to combat". I personally like combat as a GM, but I like it in a golden middle, not too much of it, not too little. Even after I specifically declared to my players that they may build any characters they wish to, they still built them for combat exclusively and took exclusively combat feats. I was and still am slightly disappointed with it, but it was their choice so I complied and moved on. My advice, let him take what he wants, but if he starts to complain about it, explain him politely what your campaign is about.
I'm always suspicious about players who build for diplomacy at the cost of all else; they expect to solve all of their problems with it, far more to the extent than I've ever seen from a combat-focused character.
They play a solo game, too. Nobody could possibly compete with the diplo bonus of someone who builds specifically for it so there's zero point in anyone else participating in social situations (I've seen a diplo-focused player shout down someone else for doing something that required a roll from the GM). At least when you make a character that just wants to fight what that character wants to do is something that they require the rest of the party to do.
As I said in another thread, if you want to tell my autistic friend that he's bad at role playimg then go ahead.
I'd do it.. It's not really any different than telling a guy with no arms he's probably never going to be a champion shot putter...
If a person is bad at something it doesn't mean they can't have fun doing it. I'm terrible at lots of video games I still enjoy playing them
So, no and no?Out of curiosity, does anyone give players a bonus to attack if they describe how they're attacking really well? Does anyone give players a penalty to attack for just saying, "I attack"?Players can get combat advantages off of their own tactical abilities. Being smart enough to get flanks gets you the same +2, good maneuvering to set up and force AoOs will get you extra attacks, held action to blast the caster, keeping a few "no sr" spells in your back pocket because for a golem, remembering to buy a useful selection of scrolls before you leave town and having the right one for the situation... the player matters more in combat than just a +2.
Depends on the game.. In pathfinder ? Not usually but I have played a few games where that sort of thing is baked into the system or added it in myself if the setting called for rule of cool type bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing in this and other threads (paraphrasing): there's a better way to do that. Ending a fight via the Disarm, Steal, and Grapple maneuvers is feat intensive and not the most efficient I'll grant you. However if players build their characters that way and WANT to do that why NOT throw a few kobolds at them they can harass?
After years on these boards I've come to appreciate that there's more than one way to skin a cat, or a monster, or a PC concept. Most recently I was a player in a game where the party was missing a classic "thief" type; a skills monkey that could stealth, scout and disable devices.
I decided on a wizard.
The other players were upset. We already had a switch-hitter oracle and a sorcerer, so why another squishy spellcaster. But then I unveiled Argentica, the half-elf with high Dex, Int and Wis (we were able to roll stats and I rolled well). With her familiar at hand, in Dim Light conditions she started at level 1 with like a +11 on Perception, she got Stealth and Disable Device from traits and wasn't too bad at them. Plus with a flying familiar of Tiny size and the right spells the two of us could scout pretty well.
Sure, I could've gone rogue, then spell caster, and finally arcane trickster and been doing more damage or been a better "thief" type, but this fit better with what I wanted: a bookish female half-elf escaping a misspent youth.
My point is that I don't want my players thinking in terms of what Feat choices are going to "win" mechanically but rather what concept they want to achieve. I know there's nothing wrong with mechanics first/concept later, I just don't want it to be ALL mechanics y'know?
|
|
My take on the whole issue is that a player can build what he wants. He or she also has to understand that sometimes that means being less effective at the table. I had both a Sorcerer and Bard in one of my games that I ran. The Sorcerer had the usual high Cha build with feats built around being the best Sorcerer he could be. The Bard in terms of attributes was all over the place with a low cha.
Both the player and the myself who was the DM advised that he should boost his Cha to at least 14 to make his DCs of his spells a little higher. Game begins and after a certain player who had the Bard was unhappy because the npcs kept shrugging of the majority of his spells. When one character has a Cha of 20 the other a 12. Their going to me a difference in the effectiveness of DC. A first level spell DC for one is going to be 16 vs the other vs the 12 of the other it's not hard to see why the Bard spells are easy to overcome.
Same thing with a player who wants to optimize a skilled Fighter vs one optmized for melee. The first one is going to be more skilled at social encounters. The other at combat. Both can roleplay just that the first Fighter imo is not going to be as effective in combat as the second. Which is okay. More often than not a player builds a non-standard or at least takes options that are not geared to being more effective for a class. Then expect it to be as effective as one that does. Maybe if it was in Gurps or Hero System. Not D&D imo.
Mark Wizard with the high perception at low levels will be effective. At higher levels when the DC to find traps gets higher its' going to be a disadvatange. One also has to take the traits to disable magic traps. I'm also not going to lower the DCs as a DM either. A player builds the character the way he wants also assumes the responsabilites of such choices. Build a skill monkey in a combat oriented game and your bored well it's on you. Build a combat oriented charcter in a skill based game the same.
Another issue is that their are not to many good feats in Pathfinder as well imo. Either some options are really good. Most are not. There rarely is a proper middle ground, a balance between fluff and crunch. Extra Performance gives you six rounds a day extra. Yet Extra Channel gives you two. The first is worth a feat slot. The second not so much. Don't even get me started on CRaft Ooze. Paizo allows you to craft oozes yet penalizes you for doing so.
|
|
I'd do it.. It's not really any different than telling a guy with no arms he's probably never going to be a champion shot putter...
If a person is bad at something it doesn't mean they can't have fun doing it. I'm terrible at lots of video games I still enjoy playing them
As would I. Having a disability does not make one immune to negative feedback. A person may show up to one pf my games in a wheelchair. I'm still throwing him out if he mouths off and behaves badly. Everyone is treated as equal. No one should, will or assume they will get special treatment for whatever the reason.
After years on these boards I've come to appreciate that there's more than one way to skin a cat, or a monster, or a PC concept. Most recently I was a player in a game where the party was missing a classic "thief" type; a skills monkey that could stealth, scout and disable devices.
I decided on a wizard.
The other players were upset. We already had a switch-hitter oracle and a sorcerer, so why another squishy spellcaster. But then I unveiled Argentica, the half-elf with high Dex, Int and Wis (we were able to roll stats and I rolled well). With her familiar at hand, in Dim Light conditions she started at level 1 with like a +11 on Perception, she got Stealth and Disable Device from traits and wasn't too bad at them. Plus with a flying familiar of Tiny size and the right spells the two of us could scout pretty well.
Sure, I could've gone rogue, then spell caster, and finally arcane trickster and been doing more damage or been a better "thief" type, but this fit better with what I wanted: a bookish female half-elf escaping a misspent youth.
My point is that I don't want my players thinking in terms of what Feat choices are going to "win" mechanically but rather what concept they want to achieve. I know there's nothing wrong with mechanics first/concept later, I just don't want it to be ALL mechanics y'know?
Playing a Wizard in place of a classic "thief" is the mechanical "win" choice in Pathfinder.
|
|
I'm always suspicious about players who build for diplomacy at the cost of all else; they expect to solve all of their problems with it, far more to the extent than I've ever seen from a combat-focused character.They play a solo game, too. Nobody could possibly compete with the diplo bonus of someone who builds specifically for it so there's zero point in anyone else participating in social situations (I've seen a diplo-focused player shout down someone else for doing something that required a roll from the GM). At least when you make a character that just wants to fight what that character wants to do is something that they require the rest of the party to do.
It shouldn't really matter what optimized route the player choose really. I know that some people like to build their characters as effective adventurers and that's okay completely with me as a GM. The only problem is when he is 95% or more effective at what he does (which starts to break immersion for me) or tends to not work with the team. Those are separate problems for me.
Playing a Wizard in place of a classic "thief" is the mechanical "win" choice in Pathfinder.After years on these boards I've come to appreciate that there's more than one way to skin a cat, or a monster, or a PC concept. Most recently I was a player in a game where the party was missing a classic "thief" type; a skills monkey that could stealth, scout and disable devices.
I decided on a wizard.
The other players were upset. We already had a switch-hitter oracle and a sorcerer, so why another squishy spellcaster. But then I unveiled Argentica, the half-elf with high Dex, Int and Wis (we were able to roll stats and I rolled well). With her familiar at hand, in Dim Light conditions she started at level 1 with like a +11 on Perception, she got Stealth and Disable Device from traits and wasn't too bad at them. Plus with a flying familiar of Tiny size and the right spells the two of us could scout pretty well.
Sure, I could've gone rogue, then spell caster, and finally arcane trickster and been doing more damage or been a better "thief" type, but this fit better with what I wanted: a bookish female half-elf escaping a misspent youth.
My point is that I don't want my players thinking in terms of what Feat choices are going to "win" mechanically but rather what concept they want to achieve. I know there's nothing wrong with mechanics first/concept later, I just don't want it to be ALL mechanics y'know?
Indeed, one of the major problems with the Core Rogue is that the Skillmonkey schtick can be done just as well by other classes, who also have better class features.
It shouldn't really matter what optimized route the player choose really. I know that some people like to build their characters as effective adventurers and that's okay completely with me as a GM. The only problem is when he is 95% or more effective at what he does (which starts to break immersion for me) or tends to not work with the team. Those are separate problems for me.
I'm always suspicious about players who build for diplomacy at the cost of all else; they expect to solve all of their problems with it, far more to the extent than I've ever seen from a combat-focused character.They play a solo game, too. Nobody could possibly compete with the diplo bonus of someone who builds specifically for it so there's zero point in anyone else participating in social situations (I've seen a diplo-focused player shout down someone else for doing something that required a roll from the GM). At least when you make a character that just wants to fight what that character wants to do is something that they require the rest of the party to do.
I tend to agree, it's just that the diplo-focused route is always anti-team, even if the player has the best of intentions.
IMO that's due to a fundamental problem in Pathfinder's skill system that I hope is addressed in Ultimate Intrigue: skill monkeys are by and large solo acts, and when they start rolling skill checks there's very little reason for the rest of the team to even bother paying attention. Hell, I'm currently playing a character like this: though my Ratfolk Rogue is very successful in combat (I went a pure debuffer route and thanks to Scurrying Swarmer I can get off my sneak attacks 100% of the time; I don't do a ton of damage but I do set up the Brawler to go to town on whatever poor sap just got sapped) but she is also the dedicated skill monkey and scout.
As the only character with high ranks in all the most important narrative skill checks I'm the only one who ever gets an opportunity to roll dice outside of combat; it's actively hazardous to the team for anyone else to try to help, so its gotten to the point where people just tab out of roll20 and wait for me to be done doing my thing. The most I can do to bring my friends into these scenarios is using my Message SLA to report back to the Wizard during scouting situations.
It's not like the other players haven't put forth the effort to be decent at these skill checks; everyone has ranks in stealth and diplomacy, but as a dex-based rogue with clever wordplay to cover for my low charisma I am just so much better than them at these skills that they don't feel it's worth the risk of trying. I don't blame them for that, I'd feel the same way in their position.
As the only character with high ranks in all the most important narrative skill checks I'm the only one who ever gets an opportunity to roll dice outside of combat; it's actively hazardous to the team for anyone else to try to help,
This is a very good point. If I'm playing a low-level wizard and run out of helpful spells, it's not actively hurting the rest of the party for my PC to plunk away with a crossbow at a +1 or +2 bonus to have something to do in combat. I might get lucky and hit, but even if I miss, I can't make things worse for the party members who are actually good at fighting.
In a Diplomacy/Bluff situation, anyone wanting to participate without a high bonus can completely torpedo the face-character's attempt. Which leads to people wandering away from the table to watch TV or get something to eat while negotiations are going on. It's like if only the PC with the highest hit and damage bonuses were responsible for fighting every combat encounter on behalf of the party. It takes at least half the players out of the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love using Aid Another on diplomacy checks. It usually goes like this:
NPC: Halt! Who goes there?
Faceman: It is I, Ergo the Magnificent! Short in stature, tall in power, narrow of purpose, and wide of vision! Now let me pass for I am on an urgent mission!"
Hannibal Smith: Yeah, what he said.
Murdock: It's all true. Totes, man, totes.
B.A.: Mmmm hmmm. I pity da fool that don't believe him!
NPC: Well, then you can pass. Move along.
(I know, I know, that was a mixed-movie-metaphor, but I couldn't help it).
It shouldn't really matter what optimized route the player choose really. I know that some people like to build their characters as effective adventurers and that's okay completely with me as a GM. The only problem is when he is 95% or more effective at what he does (which starts to break immersion for me) or tends to not work with the team. Those are separate problems for me.
I'm always suspicious about players who build for diplomacy at the cost of all else; they expect to solve all of their problems with it, far more to the extent than I've ever seen from a combat-focused character.They play a solo game, too. Nobody could possibly compete with the diplo bonus of someone who builds specifically for it so there's zero point in anyone else participating in social situations (I've seen a diplo-focused player shout down someone else for doing something that required a roll from the GM). At least when you make a character that just wants to fight what that character wants to do is something that they require the rest of the party to do.
I tend to agree, it's just that the diplo-focused route is always anti-team, even if the player has the best of intentions.
IMO that's due to a fundamental problem in Pathfinder's skill system that I hope is addressed in Ultimate Intrigue: skill monkeys are by and large solo acts, and when they start rolling skill checks there's very little reason for the rest of the team to even bother paying attention. Hell, I'm currently playing a character like this: though my Ratfolk Rogue is very successful in combat (I went a pure debuffer route and thanks to Scurrying Swarmer I can get off my sneak attacks 100% of the time; I don't do a ton of damage but I do set up the Brawler to go to town on whatever poor sap just got sapped) but she is also the dedicated skill monkey and scout.
As the only character with high ranks in all the most important narrative skill checks I'm the only one who ever gets an opportunity to roll dice outside of combat; it's actively hazardous to the team for anyone else to try to help, so its gotten to the point where people just tab out of roll20 and wait for me to be done doing my thing. The most I can do to bring my friends into these scenarios is using my Message SLA to report back to the Wizard during scouting situations.
It's not like the other players haven't put forth the effort to be decent at these skill checks; everyone has ranks in stealth and diplomacy, but as a dex-based rogue with clever wordplay to cover for my low charisma I am just so much better than them at these skills that they don't feel it's worth the risk of trying. I don't blame them for that, I'd feel the same way in their position.
Always anti-team? As thejeff pointed out, Aid Another gives a way to contribute in some skill checks. Stealth is a difficult one to contribute to, since the best way for the non-stealthy to help out is to keep far away from the scout. But often the wizard casts Invisibility or Spider Climb on the scout. In my Rise of the Runelords game, the bard/wizard/loremaster had a permanent telepathy with the rogue/duelist so that the rogue could silently report back to the rest of the party.
As a GM, I find that managing the lone expert is about pacing. If the scouting, or diplomacy, or disarming traps delegates the rest of the party to the sidelines, then let the 95% expert rush ahead with 100% success through narration rather than rolls. I handwave, "This isn't a challenge for you. What story did you give to the guard to let you in to the private gathering?" We quickly return to the part where the everyone is involved, and I throw in small bonus accomplishments for good narration. Or I interrupt the expert's narration when he or she encounters a serious challenge with, "You had better roll this one, and maybe you need some help," to allow Aid Another or inventive solutions through teamwork. I am amused by my players' inventive solutions, because they are good at them.
And back to the original topic, a character designed the way Mark Hoover likes is often more rounded than a mechanically optimized character. Those rounded characters are second best at what the expert has mastered, and that is far from useless. Player absence can cause the scout or diplomat to vanish into a plot hole for a game session and the party needs a backup. Other times the main expert and the secondary expert can work together. For example, in the Serpent's Skull game where I play a gnome barbarian, the barbarian often sneaks 100 feet behind the slayer to provide emergency assistance if the slayer fails in a stealthy assassinate attempt.
Attempting to Aid Another shouldn't actually hurt.I love using Aid Another on diplomacy checks. It usually goes like this:
NPC: Halt! Who goes there?
Faceman: It is I, Ergo the Magnificent! Short in stature, tall in power, narrow of purpose, and wide of vision! Now let me pass for I am on an urgent mission!"
Hannibal Smith: Yeah, what he said.
Murdock: It's all true. Totes, man, totes.
B.A.: Mmmm hmmm. I pity da fool that don't believe him!
NPC: Well, then you can pass. Move along.(I know, I know, that was a mixed-movie-metaphor, but I couldn't help it).
I have had... varying experiences on Aid Another. People who want to participate in the scenario more than "yeah, what she said" are often times made to roll the actual Diplomacy check, and it still means that the one person with the highest skill rank always has to be taking the reigns on a conversation, even if it doesn't make sense. I wish the rules for circumstance bonuses were more extensive; a barbarian with charisma 5 and no ranks in diplomacy should still have an easier time communicating with the people of her own tribe than the spoony bard who maxed the skill out.
I have had... varying experiences on Aid Another. People who want to participate in the scenario more than "yeah, what she said" are often times made to roll the actual Diplomacy check, and it still means that the one person with the highest skill rank always has to be taking the reigns on a conversation, even if it doesn't make sense. I wish the rules for circumstance bonuses were more extensive; a barbarian with charisma 5 and no ranks in diplomacy should still have an easier time communicating with the people of her own tribe than the spoony bard who maxed the skill out.
That's what GMs are for.
Heck, I probably wouldn't even ask that barbarian to make any roll at all, unless his background and/or past actions with that tribe made them dislike him.
Ultimately, this is all pretty subjective. I've been called a power/munchkin whatever while playing a character who used the first feat on skill focus. Sometimes people just have cognitive biases that they can't see.
I feel like the best comparison to this discussion is what Vanilla Rogues had to deal with, and what makes Unchained Rogue better. Originally Rogues had some pretty hefty mandatory talents they had to take, the first of which was a Combat Talent to get Weapon Finesse. However, Unchained gave this immediately, and this opened up the door for the other talents to be picked up without necessarily worrying about what picking a talent over Weapon Finesse would do in the long run for your character.
I think in a way this explains the problem your player had, in the sense that yes, for a Fighter Power attack on almost all builds is mandatory for quite a lot of feats and builds, and isn't given to the Fighter immediately, which creates that issue of feeling like your stuck in a rut feat wise.
Now you can take this advice or not, but perhaps you should just have your Fighter (and any other Fighter in the game, including enemies) start with either Power Attack or Point-Blank Shot right off the bat. Make it similar to Unchained Rogue, so that this way your player doesn't have to worry about it.
It is a problem of Pathfinder with the Feat chains. And I do agree that not all Feats are good, and some are very bad. But in this case, maybe that house-rule would help alleviate the issue.
Ultimately, this is all pretty subjective. I've been called a power/munchkin whatever while playing a character who used the first feat on skill focus. Sometimes people just have cognitive biases that they can't see.
Yeah, far too often the definition of powergamer/munchkin is really just "someone who makes better characters than me."