Anybody feel bad about general cheesy moves and options that kind of become a norm or frequently questioned.
Like the magus using zero level spells for spell combat to effectively get free TWF with a one handed weapon. Or taken Fate's Favored specifically because you expect to use Divine Favor a lot.
Then there's a general attitude of getting around restrictions with outright goofiness, like bungie cording a bunch of guns to your belt to shoot as many bullets as possible, or taping your holy symbol to your forehead to try to avoid somatic components (This comes up too often). Sometimes its cute or logical, like throwing flour to reveal an invisible enemy, but I feel like I keep running into an attitude that if anything is challenging, has even the slightest restriction, or otherwise mildly inconvenient a loophole has to be found so that nothing bad ever happens. Its like the game should be a bunch of check boxes for you to fill out that consists of silver bullets for anything you can come across. I'm even questioning whether or not it effects the rest of the game badly, as it makes for a lot of rules that need to be followed unless magic is involved because if they aren't solid then players will just cheese TF out of it.
Overall I generally play fast and loose with a lot of rules and most of the time it works out but boy will people just cheese the heck out of it. For example: I say to not bother tracking encumbrance for a game. Without fail I'll have at least one 7 str wizard with boulders in their pockets before I have to clarify to be reasonable about it. Now that's my fault for not clarifying 'within reason' but I shouldn't have to. That's not hyperbole either I've literally had wizards with boulders in their pockets and people stuffing bronze doors in their backpacks and junk like that before having to clarify to not be stupid. And it makes me slightly afraid to go fast and loose with rules because I fear making some kind of exploit. By contrast I give one player's animal companion an attack bonus because he use prestidigitation to make an enemy smell like BBQ. It was a fun and funny moment, and it never came up again. I didn't have everyone try to stack BBQ bonuses on every enemy to optimize attack bonuses or pile up the amount of animal companions to take advantage of it. It just existed for that fun moment.
I don't know. I just had that thought and wanted to share and see how others felt about it.
In some cases, I think it's a good idea to build a character up to 20th level before or at game start, just so you know what you need for the build you want. It also helps to define not only what you want, but what you might want - what sort of flexibility you have and when, just so that you can adapt to the campaign points. But at the same time, you do need to have some reasonable points - i.e. 'not tracking encumbrance' does not mean 'you can carry something you can't normally even lift'. That requires smacking the player with a large metropolitan phone book, because apparently they need sense smacked back into their heads.
Remind players that 'reasonable' is a requirement for the game, and that even if you allow a certain thing, it doesn't mean that it's something to be used to try to break the game - and if your players (or a particular player) do(es) it on a frequent basis, you're going to have to get severe on them, if not start ejecting the game-breaking rat bastard from the game. Ask them to make sure they're not forcing you to become the a$$hole GM neither they nor you want you to be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is reasonable to one person might not be for another.
As an example plenty of video games don't bother with realism concerning encumbrance or how many weapons a person can carry.
If a person is used to this type of game-play and is told specifically to not track carry capacity, it could be seen as reasonable to not worry about what is being kept on the person.
Like the magus using zero level spells for spell combat to effectively get free TWF with a one handed weapon. Or taken Fate's Favored specifically because you expect to use Divine Favor a lot.
I also fail to see how giving examples of using abilities as they are written is Cheese.
If taking Fate's Favored to increase Luck stuff is cheese. Then i also assume by your definition that taking Weapon Focus (Longsword) to get better with Longswords is also Cheese.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss those little jars of Feta cubes in olive oil, man those were good to snack on with crackers.
They just don't have them anywhere around here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can, next time you make pizza, get the mozzarella balls, it's worth it!
BiaJ, relativity is what we're talking about. The GM, by definition, defines 'reasonable'. If he's finding it unreasonable, then it is. If you're making your GM say 'oh, come on!!', then you need to dial it back. If by weight rules you can't even pick it up, then you shouldn't be carrying multiples of the item, no matter 'plenty of video games yadda yadda'.
Also, try not to violate Wheaton's Law and/or execute an 'ad absurdum' argument. EVERYONE taking Fate's Favored, or every character of yours taking it, becomes cheesy, and the GM has the right to lean over and smack you for it, then require SOME sort of variation. I personally have two characters in my Homecoming campaign with Fate's Favored, and if I'd been paying attention earlier, I might have limited that to one total - but one of them doesn't get it for that little 'halfling's luck' bonus, because that's a racial, not a luck, bonus. (Not sure if they've realized that yet.)
If you feel that players generally take the more powerful option in lieu of flavorful, or are constantly trying to optimize their potential, then you are correct. Character creation is a game for me. I want to know just how far I can take it, and I'm always looking for ways to improve my character. (traits are something which should be about flavor, but has become the opposite, sadly)
You and your group are ultimately trying to have fun, so if you feel that some players are breaking the balance of power in the group, you might want to change the focus of the adventure. Combat is part of an adventure, yes, but that isn't all, is it? Everyone wants a place to shine, and if some players are hogging the spotlight during combat, try to distribute it by stepping away from the "numbers mean everything" approach.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody feel bad about general cheesy moves and options that kind of become a norm or frequently questioned.
Like the magus using zero level spells for spell combat to effectively get free TWF with a one handed weapon. Or taken Fate's Favored specifically because you expect to use Divine Favor a lot.
Neither of these are cheesy. They're pretty much the expected mode of play. "Free" TWF if you make a concentration check and use a cantrip slot on an otherwise useless spell is hardly cheesy, especially in comparison to a monk who gets to do it without a spell or concentration check. Someone who is favored by the fates is exactly who you'd expect to be a holy warrior casting divine favor often. I will concede that Fate's Favored + Sacred Tattoo (alternate racial trait for half-orcs) is kinda cheesy.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Malwing — It's awesome that you know what you like in a game. :) It's also awesome that other people know what they like in a game. What's less awesome is to make a thread whose entire point is to disparage other people because of what they like in a game.
Remember:
There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play.
Your post is heavily in violation of that. Please, next time you want to talk about gaming preferences , do so without the derogatory labels, and also try to frame things in terms of describing your own preferences rather than implying a standard ideal which some players fail to live up to.
Thanks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If taking Fate's Favored to increase Luck stuff is cheese. Then i also assume by your definition that taking Weapon Focus (Longsword) to get better with Longswords is also Cheese.
Yeah, that's kind of my thought. Sensible people train for what they expect to do and what they expect to encounter, especially when their life is on the line. There's a reason that the Marine Corps provides every recruit with training in how to fire a rifle accurately, but not necessarily with how to land a glider.
If I'm a fighting magus, I want to be able to use spells to help me fight more effectively, and I'm going to make sure the feats, spells, and abilities that do that. Or alternatively, precisely I became a fighting magus precisely because I had talents that would make me good as a fighting magus, but not very good as, for example, a rogue.
As a personal example,.... at age eight, you could already tell that I was fairly smart (I read and did math at several grade levels ahead of my age) but unathletic. All through middle school, I got A's in math and science, but B's or C's in physical education. When I got to university, what do you think I majored in? And today, what kind of job do you think I hold?
If a person with the equivalent of 15 Int and 8 Str opts to become a sociologist instead of a stonemason,... is that "cheese" or just common sense? If a person with perfect pitch but color blindness opts for a career in music over painting, is that "cheese"? So why is it cheese when a person with Fortune's Favored picks a career where that's an advantage?
|
I agree with BJ. Why is using Fate's Favoured cheesy. It's not like everyone is going to take it. At most it's almost a requirement for some classes like the Bard IMO. Then any feat that gets +1 must be cheesy. Especially if it's a popular one. Are some combinations of certain feats etc. Somewhat more powerful then others yes. It's not unique to PF. It happens with many RPGs.
What bothers me is that more often than not those who say something is cheese as a DM are usually the first ones to take it as a player. I remember a player wanting to use a Gunslinger in a campaign. Instead of a simple no. The Dm went off in a long and quite frankly unwanted by the rest of the group rant. On how guns don't belong in fantasy, especially his fantasy. But guess who wanted to play one once his campaign ended and mine began. I refused as I don't like the rules for guns. The player tried to insist and I and the other members of the group kindly reminded him about his anti-gun in fantasy rant. He ended up taking something else.
@Jiggy well said and seconded.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, we don't get much call for it 'round here sir.
I could go for a Hot Ham and Cheese about now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One persons cheese is anothers pizza topping
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss those little jars of Feta cubes in olive oil, man those were good to snack on with crackers.
They just don't have them anywhere around here.
I guess that means you aren't Feta's Favored?
I'll see myself out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like a nice muenster...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My kids call it monster cheese, makes a great grilled cheese, especially with homemade bread. :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Provolone goes great on hamburgers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are cheesy character options the ones that you need to bribe your GM with cheese before s/he will allow it?
I tried a gruyère the last time we had friends over. It was a little underwhelming. Might have to go back to the muenster for the VC: I have a new PFS character I want to play.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
d100 Encounter
01-10: 3d4 Gala
11-20: 2d4 Forrini
21-30: 2d4 Vacherin Mont d'Or
31-38: 1d6 Appenzeller
39-46: 1d6 Bündner Bergkäse
47-54: 1d6 Mutschli
55-62: 1d6 Raclette
63-67: 1d4 Scharfe Maxx
68-72: 1d4 Tête de Moine
73-77: 1d4 Tilsiter
78-81: 1d3 Vacherin Fribourgeois
82-85: 1d2 Berner Alpkäse
86-89: 1d2 Emmentaler
90-93: 1d2 Gruyère
94-97: 1d2 L'Etivaz
98-99: 1d2 Schabziger
100: 1 Sbrinz
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BiaJ, relativity is what we're talking about. The GM, by definition, defines 'reasonable'. If he's finding it unreasonable, then it is. If you're making your GM say 'oh, come on!!', then you need to dial it back. If by weight rules you can't even pick it up, then you shouldn't be carrying multiples of the item, no matter 'plenty of video games yadda yadda'.
It was simply an example. I was just expressing that it is possible for such a thing to be reasonable from the viewpoint of another persons perspective.
Also, try not to violate Wheaton's Law and/or execute an 'ad absurdum' argument. EVERYONE taking Fate's Favored, or every character of yours taking it, becomes cheesy, and the GM has the right to lean over and smack you for it, then require SOME sort of variation.
First off i didn't make an "ad absurdum" argument.
If taking Fate's Favored to increase sources of Luck is Cheese, then taking Weapon Focus (Longsword) is just as much Cheese. They are equivalent. In both cases the player is taking the trait/feat in order to make something they do more effective.
Why one is Cheese and the other isn't is based on preference. Which is fine to do.
What's not okay is labeling the taking of such options as Cheese.
Instead of just saying i don't like X, some people label it Cheese, as if it somehow justifies it better.
Cheese is just a derogatory way to both declare you don't like something and make others who do like it feel bad.
Sounds like someone could use a cheese platter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like someone could use a cheese platter.
Sounds lovely. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do I have this urge to move to Chester, Montana right now?
To clarify things; The Fate's Favored and Magus thing are kind of the points where its so common it's a norm and I don't try to block them when they're played, but I do feel cheesy when I use them and as a result I've stopped for myself on that basis. With Fate's Favored its like, I didn't need a backstory reason to take this, I just have a bard or use Divine Favor a lot so I'll take the boost in power so I just stopped using it. Same went for a lot of things magus does, as in general I feel like I had been driving Magi into the same build and felt weird and cheesy.
But the point is that rules as written options like that become a norm are things that make me personally feel bad and not make me want to take them.
Things like pocket boulders or anything that happens as a result of applying rule of cool thus making an adversarial relationship between the player and the game make me annoyed when other people do it.
|
|
My next characters name will be Snaps Provolone.
If it's allowed by Raw though I still don't think it cheese. I find the pit spells to be encounter enders. I can also use them against the PCs. It's kind of hard to justify no taking something like fate favoured IMO. If your a bard it's tailor made for the class. So is weapon focus. A player in one of the groups I'm in refused to take magic missle. Instead decided to lug around a heavy crossbow and spam true strike. Cast True strike, fire, waste a third time reloading. When for the cost of one bolt he could have fired three magic middle and not worry about them missing.
The Cheesemakers was my high school's sports ball team.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify things; The Fate's Favored and Magus thing are kind of the points where its so common it's a norm and I don't try to block them when they're played, but I do feel cheesy when I use them and as a result I've stopped for myself on that basis. With Fate's Favored its like, I didn't need a backstory reason to take this, I just have a bard or use Divine Favor a lot so I'll take the boost in power so I just stopped using it. Same went for a lot of things magus does, as in general I feel like I had been driving Magi into the same build and felt weird and cheesy.
But the point is that rules as written options like that become a norm are things that make me personally feel bad and not make me want to take them.
Things like pocket boulders or anything that happens as a result of applying rule of cool thus making an adversarial relationship between the player and the game make me annoyed when other people do it.
LOL that's like saying 'I hate that I keep taking races for my wizards that get a bonus in INT since there isn't any "backstory reason" for it so I stopped doing it and now I only take races with stats that don't match so it'll be more flavorful. Maybe I'll take an Orc Wizard for some REAL roleplaying'...
Is it really hard to work being lucky into your background? Or, gods forbid, using cantrips the magus class gives you? Sounds less 'cheesy' and more you not wanting to put some effort incorporating your picks into your background. Mechanically useful options are just as easy to work in to your character as any others.
If you just don't like cookie-cutter builds, then that's cool. Just don't blame it on 'cheese'.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am dairy, dairy ashamed of you, Captain Yesterday. Curd you at least TRY to be somewhat civil and allow everyone to have a reasonable discussion? Whey, oh whey do you always derail discussions? I try and try to mold you into a better person, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I swear, derailing threads is a cottage industry with you!
Just trying to keep things deep fried, cheese curds that is.
By the way, you want your cheese curds to squeak when you buy them at the store, otherwise they aren't fresh.
My next characters name will be Snaps Provolone.
Love it! Stealing!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, there's a Stinking Bishop cheese.
To clarify things; The Fate's Favored and Magus thing are kind of the points where its so common it's a norm and I don't try to block them when they're played, but I do feel cheesy when I use them and as a result I've stopped for myself on that basis. With Fate's Favored its like, I didn't need a backstory reason to take this, I just have a bard or use Divine Favor a lot so I'll take the boost in power so I just stopped using it. Same went for a lot of things magus does, as in general I feel like I had been driving Magi into the same build and felt weird and cheesy.
But the point is that rules as written options like that become a norm are things that make me personally feel bad and not make me want to take them.
Things like pocket boulders or anything that happens as a result of applying rule of cool thus making an adversarial relationship between the player and the game make me annoyed when other people do it.
LOL that's like saying 'I hate that I keep taking races for my wizards that get a bonus in INT since there isn't any "backstory reason" for it so I stopped doing it and now I only take races with stats that don't match so it'll be more flavorful. Maybe I'll take an Orc Wizard for some REAL roleplaying'...
Is it really hard to work being lucky into your background? Or, gods forbid, using cantrips the magus class gives you? Sounds less 'cheesy' and more you not wanting to put some effort incorporating your picks into your background. Mechanically useful options are just as easy to work in to your character as any others.
If you just don't like cookie-cutter builds, then that's cool. Just don't blame it on 'cheese'.
I kinda agree with graystone here. It's kind of like saying. All my ranged characters are taking the same feats. the feats rapid shot, PBS, precise shot, deadly aim are kind of the points where its so common it's a norm. Same with TWF and ITWF and Double slice for all my 2WFs. Or how invulnerable barbs are probably the basic option instead of vanilla. All my barbs are taking power attack.
And your gripe about Magi being the same, that's on the boards all the time. The Magi is "clearly the best" being a dex based nova crit monster. So all the magi are dex based nova crit monsters.
This is what happens when good mechanics are linked with "fluff" people want them cause they are good mechanically, and other "fluff" options just can't compete.
I kinda agree with graystone here. It's kind of like saying. All my ranged characters are taking the same feats. the feats rapid shot, PBS, precise shot, deadly aim are kind of the points where its so common it's a norm. Same with TWF and ITWF and Double slice for all my 2WFs. Or how invulnerable barbs are probably the...To clarify things; The Fate's Favored and Magus thing are kind of the points where its so common it's a norm and I don't try to block them when they're played, but I do feel cheesy when I use them and as a result I've stopped for myself on that basis. With Fate's Favored its like, I didn't need a backstory reason to take this, I just have a bard or use Divine Favor a lot so I'll take the boost in power so I just stopped using it. Same went for a lot of things magus does, as in general I feel like I had been driving Magi into the same build and felt weird and cheesy.
But the point is that rules as written options like that become a norm are things that make me personally feel bad and not make me want to take them.
Things like pocket boulders or anything that happens as a result of applying rule of cool thus making an adversarial relationship between the player and the game make me annoyed when other people do it.
LOL that's like saying 'I hate that I keep taking races for my wizards that get a bonus in INT since there isn't any "backstory reason" for it so I stopped doing it and now I only take races with stats that don't match so it'll be more flavorful. Maybe I'll take an Orc Wizard for some REAL roleplaying'...
Is it really hard to work being lucky into your background? Or, gods forbid, using cantrips the magus class gives you? Sounds less 'cheesy' and more you not wanting to put some effort incorporating your picks into your background. Mechanically useful options are just as easy to work in to your character as any others.
If you just don't like cookie-cutter builds, then that's cool. Just don't blame it on 'cheese'.
I guess you're right. I probably have been playing with third party too long for this conversation. Living life with sword and board magi, reach magi, and str-unarmed magi makes the base game options look weirdly narrow. Although other than that I'm probably reacting to how I see traits treated at the table. I like them in concept but most of them might as well be meaningless given which ones are taken. If it's not reactionary its something that adds numbers to as much as your build as possible so they're fluff options that wind up not really being fluff options at all.
I guess you're right. I probably have been playing with third party too long for this conversation. Living life with sword and board magi, reach magi, and str-unarmed magi makes the base game options look weirdly narrow. Although other than that I'm probably reacting to how I see traits treated at the table. I like them in concept but most of them might as well be meaningless given which ones are taken. If it's not reactionary its something that adds numbers to as much as your build as possible so they're fluff options that wind up not really being fluff options at all.
That's what I said the problem was with having good mechanics tied to a certain fluff. Everyone wants the good stuff, so they are all the same fluff. Because only Minata produces blaster mages, if they aren't from there they probably aren't a dedicated blaster. ;)
And when you think about it, it makes sense that most people that have similar jobs have the same traits. If I'm blessed by the gods with good fortune then I'm going to rely on my luck more than others. If I'm out adventuring being able to react faster is a plus, if I'm not, I probably don't live long enough to be made. And since the majority of Magi are Dex based, it makes sense that if I learn to be a Magi I probably fit the mold of the Magi, it's hard to find a str based teacher.
From personal experience, having a lot of experienced players with strong character builds in a game is fun. As a GM in a situation like that, I feel that can really go all out and have monster encounter with interesting and unique strategies.
On the other hand if players bring to the table barely functional characters I feel I have to put my little white silk glove and be super gentle with them. It's boring; I would rather have the insanely OP optimized divination wizard with exquisite feat selection at my table than a player bringing a out of the box character what has a hard time taking on 2 goblins.
People call it cheese, I call it being dedicated to the game.
If as a player you take the time to learn about the system and make yourself a walking demi-god, you gained that right because you took the time and effort.
That said, I do hate when a player just brings a build they find on a forum and don't understand why it's strong and how the rules interact together.
From personal experience, having a lot of experienced players with strong character builds in a game is fun. As a GM in a situation like that, I feel that can really go all out and have monster encounter with interesting and unique strategies.
On the other hand if players bring to the table barely functional characters I feel I have to put my little white silk glove and be super gentle with them. It's boring; I would rather have the insanely OP optimized divination wizard with exquisite feat selection at my table than a player bringing a out of the box character what has a hard time taking on 2 goblins.
People call it cheese, I call it being dedicated to the game.
If as a player you take the time to learn about the system and make yourself a walking demi-god, you gained that right because you took the time and effort.That said, I do hate when a player just brings a build they find on a forum and don't understand why it's strong and how the rules interact together.
I've felt both sides of it though. I've had players that can barely stay alive and I've had players where I feel like I need a masters degree in Pathfinder just to deal a little hp damage. Both are pretty annoying, especially since my goal as a GM is ultimately to make a situation where the players are pretty much guaranteed to win but feel like its some kind of risk.
|
|
@ Malwing, the problem with that mindset on the the master's degree side is that depending on what they are they cannot assume you will adjust to what they do specifically or may not be able to afford to NOT be somewhat closer to that level.
The amount of effort it takes to make a good Barbarian is infinitely different from a good monk for example.
@ Malwing, the problem with that mindset on the the master's degree side is that depending on what they are they cannot assume you will adjust to what they do specifically or may not be able to afford to NOT be somewhat closer to that level.
The amount of effort it takes to make a good Barbarian is infinitely different from a good monk for example.
True. This mostly comes up with spellcasting shenanigans than anything they can physically do. One annoying bit for me is overestimation where I will build more competent martial enemies because they're really good casters, they can handle it, but then they start dying so i have to lower their HP or make them way dumber on the spot just to keep them alive. I built a called shot big bad and asked for advice. Most of it was to make it mythic and that the fighter was definitely going to die. Turns out called shots are pretty scary on an NPC. Had to nerf him in the middle of play even though a enemy witch and an alchemist were in the same fight.
It depends on your GM preference. When I homebrew I prefer to set up enemies and options and let the players decide. If they want to go against the dragon at lv4 then they better run fast or die. If a fight goes against them better than expected they need to run or die, or win I guess. I tell my players this and they've loved it so far. Lets them use info gathering skills if they want to know specifics about the fight. And lets them know that I'm not going to make a fight harder or easier, if they have something that stomps then so be it.
This is opposed to the idea of tailoring encounters for the current party and it's makeup. Designing hard fights for the specialized group and easy for the not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind cheesy options from my players; monsters can use them too. As far as weaseling out of tough situations by using "cheese" that's been going on forever. Its just that when I was a kid playing 1e D&D we called it "roleplaying."
- pouring water down a hallway to figure slope
- throwing chalk dust everywhere for invisible creatures
- using torches and tracking the smoke to detect secret doors (from the draft)
Yeah, gamers have been gaming their systems since there were games. Rather than fight it these days when my players do these things I use just as many low blows. Monsters taking advantage of every Size difference, terrain bonus, and situational modifier I can think of. Speaking of Prestidigitation one time I had some mites working with carrion beetles. I made the mites prestidigitate all the heroes to smell like rotten meat. At first they were like "eww, but whatevs" until the beetles began swarming.
Good times.
Also, Swiss.
If I found something cheesy and annoying as GM, I'd houserule it out. OK, your 'Fey Foundling' Paladin was effective, but we've all seen it now, so that trait is no longer available. Feel free to choose any of the 450 traits that I do allow.
I don't like being restrictive, but it's better than getting annoyed at a player for choosing the best option available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question about the cheesiness of a tactic, and this seems a good place to ask.
But first, let's discuss what "cheesy" means.
This is what happens when good mechanics are linked with "fluff" people want them cause they are good mechanically, and other "fluff" options just can't compete.
I like the story that the game weaves, and shun details that jar that story. Misplaced fluff is such a detail.
Dervish Dance has fluff that represents Qadira but it is also one of the few ways to get Dex to damage. Thus, if a magus shows up with a scimitar in a land where straight-bladed swords are the norm, and his only explanation is that he needs a scimitar for Dervish Dance, then I sigh and tell him that I have houseruled that he may choose any light or one-handed blade with an 18-20 crit range for Dervish Dance. The fluff should be a choice for characterization, not a necessity for optimization.
Likewise, if the same magus uses Arcane Mark for spellstrike, I will check if he wants a Zorro-like signature or if he just wants to combine spellstrike with cantrips for more sword attacks. If his goal is the latter, we can invent a new touch attack cantrip that suits his character better.
Another source of annoying details would be deliberately exploiting the flaws in Pathfinder. The game is a overly simplified simulation of reality with emphasis on playability. Mostly I bite my tongue and think, "No, I don't understand how a bite attack on a huge spider has a 15-foot reach, but changing the rules would mess with the game." My players aren't exploitive this way, but I see signs in the rules and FAQs: no, you cannot summon a bison where it would fall 50 feet to crush your enemy; no, you cannot melt down your Wall of Iron for the metal; no, you cannot combine armor spikes and a greatsword in Two-Weapon Fighting; yes, you can chop down that tree with your sword and it won't dull.
Now, on to my tactical question.
My gnome barbarian often deliberately provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures with reach so that her fellow party members can close in on it without taking attacks of opportunity. She has Mobility and lots of hit points, so she can handle the attacks much better than her fragile friends. In a forum discussion in August, "Are combat maneouvers common enough?", I realized that she should also make combat maneuvers more freely, too, either to provoke or to take advantage of having provoked.
Last game session, we defeated three opponents possessed by Intellect Devourers, resulting in the infuriating situation of having to essentially defeat the same foe twice. And those Devourers turn invisible, too. Our rogue, aided by flanks from the bard, was attacking them for bleed damage while they were dazed, but one Devourer host had been killed 30 feet away by the archer, so my barbarian rushed over to grab the emerged Devourer before it could escape. She deliberately circled it to let it make an attack of opportunity against her movement and then made a grapple attempt free of attacks of opportunity. It worked.
Was this a cheesy maneuver? Provoking an attack of opportunity that she could readily handle in order to avoid provoking an attack of opportunity that could have given her a penalty to success?
Seems a perfectly valid tactic to me. It has an element of danger - you're giving the enemy a free attack - and is not guaranteed to work. (The enemy might have Combat Reflexes; the enemy might choose not to take the initial AoO, instead holding it in reserve for a better opportunity.)