Thinking of moving to D&D 5E, is there too much meta in Pathfinder?

[Taku Ooka Nin]

Hey guys,
so I've been playing Pathfinder for a pretty long time, and while there have been some aspects of the game that have allowed people to make power characters, there is something to be said about the meta.

One of my players in my Kingmaker campaign made a wizard/Sorc (CB: Orc/Draconic) build that averages 27 damage with a save of either 13 (Sorcerer) or 17 (Wizard). This blows game balance completely out of the water since he can effectively 1-shot everything that is under CR 3 or immediately die to it after his turn.

While I was GMing this, I came to a simple realization: these characters are fun for the player but not the GM. Doubly so if the GM is running custom content. This was made painfully clear when I built a werewolf for the party to face, which was supposed to potentially hurt one of them, maybe give someone else lycanthropy, only for this Wizard to casually walk up and 1-shot the monster.

Done. This encounter that was supposed to be really cool was ruined, and not by a crit, but by something that is easily repeatable, perhaps 9 times a day.

After this, particularly egregious result, I've switched the game to CORE ONLY, and told the PCs that they can switch or leave, mostly because I'm not going to rebuilt Kingmaker to make it so things can at least survive 1-round when they are supposed to be decent encounters for the party.

Hades, what PFS having a CORE ONLY mode tells me is that even Paizo realizes how many absurdly broken combinations they have in their game. It is basically 3.5 all over again.

This leads me to a major question:
Does Pathfinder have too much meta? Is there so much meta that overpowered trick-builds are becoming a plague?

I'm a fan of not banning anything, hell Roll With It (Goblin) is the only perma-banned thing in my book, but I'm beginning to see why more and more GMs that I talk to that still run Pathfinder just have ban-lists a mile long or only permit certain books.

This experience is turning me off Pathfinder in a big way, especially when I play 5E and see that everyone is around the same power-levels even with cool stuff added.

I'm very busy these days, and I lack the time required to build custom content en-masse. What is fun for the player is not fun for the GM, and if the game is not fun for the GM, then you don't have a game, simple.

[Headfirst]

What you're referring to is "bloat," or an RPG system's tendency to expand its build options and rules with every new book that's published. Unfortunately, it's kind of an essential part of the RPG business model. Almost every game (except for a few independent ones) does it.

It's like the natural cancer that inevitably kills all RPGs. They start with one brilliant book, then year after year, it grows and grows until the weight of all those extra options render the original concept so cumbersome that the whole system collapses under its own weight. It reaches a point where older players are finding absurd power combinations and new players are so intimidated by all the complexity that they're turned off of the game entirely.

That's about when each of these companies makes some grandiose announcement about a version 2.0, how awesome it's going to be, and how it's going to fix all the problems with rusty old 1.0. They're at least right on one thing: Whether or not the new version is any good, it at least starts the bloat cycle over again.

Note: This isn't necessarily a complaint, just a fact. Paizo wouldn't exist as a company if their system didn't bloat. It turns out you have to sell a lot of books to keep the lights on in an office building full of developers. :)

[Steve Geddes]

In my mind, it's just a difference in gaming style. I don't feel as a pathfinder DM that I'm having any less fun or that I don't have any good options - I just need to make sure I can powergame at the same level as the players have (whether that's 'not at all' or anything higher) and that I understand what their capabilities and limitations are.

DMing 5E, I don't have to worry so much about encounter design since there isn't the ability to tweak PCs so carefully to craft some brilliantly effective tactic - however, my players also don't have the breadth of options available to them and a couple of them like spending hours and hours combing through books for that "just right" build.

I don't think you can ever have a large number of options (unless they're all largely cosmetic) without also having a greater risk of this sort of thing happening (and hence a greater burden resting on the shoulders of the DM). I've certainly never seen a game with lots and lots of options but where encounter design was a doddle.

My point is essentially to beware of 'the grass is always greener' problem. It's easy to find games without PF's problems, but they've got their own problems which are harder to diagnose from afar.

[Chess Pwn]

um... If they are throwing around fireballs they are at least lvl 5, a cr3 creature should be a super easy fight.
A Core only archer probably does just as much. A core only wizard could actually do worse too from what I hear. Damage is one of if not the lowest ways for a wizard to end a fight.

[My Self]

What 5e does best is remove most numbers from play. If that's your sort of playstyle, go for it.

Instead of limiting player options, perhaps you work with the players instead of with their characters? Tell the players that you'd rather not have them destroy the battlefield or do everything with their nuclear feat monstrosities- ask them to tone it down. The APs are built for mid to poorly optimized parties like the Iconic ones, not like your party.

But to your question about "meta": You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I think that Pathfinder has more options than can be accounted for by developers. And I think that it will lead to increasingly broken combinations, until we get Pun-Pun v.PF. And that's OK, because the GM can control how much material the table can use. It gives an increasing amount of player control. It just falls to the GM to responsibly handle it. Limiting your group to Core is a reasonable way to do so.

[The Goat Lord]

A multitude of options is a double-edged sword...if you allow it to be. I'm willing to pay the small price of banning a few things (Slayer, I'm looking at you) in exchange for the options and the support and the freedom to run the kind of game I want to run. 5E does look sexy, and I have faith in its design, but maybe I'm a character spreadsheet and book library kind of goat.

The only advice I can offer is: play the system that you prefer, the system that speaks to your gaming inclinations, and don't fall in love with your NPCs/monsters/etc (they aren't dolls), and finally, expect the players to do things that foil your plans, in fact, encourage it and reward it. Who says the 1-hit werewolf was the primary big bad and not an underling? Now that the true big bad knows what the nuke-mage can do, he will know how to avoid such an offensive when he decides to strike.

Yeah, I am implying your expectations and encounter/story design could use some refinement, as I believe what you want can work in Pathfinder, but I am implying this in the sweetest, most respectful way possible. I am a PFRPG fan goat, admittedly.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Everything Headfirst said above. It's exactly correct.

Paizo has to keep publishing content, every month, every year. And there's a bottomless demand for more options: more classes, more spells, more archetypes, more feats. But as time goes by, the lists of stuff grow ever longer, and the possible combinations become impossible for the poor developer to foresee.

And as Headfirst said, the only real solution to bloat is to punch the reset button and come out with a completely new edition. That solves the problem... for a while, until the new edition develops bloat of its own.

PFRPG is now seven years into its development cycle. That's well into middle age for an edition of D&D. When Third Edition was seven years old, WotC was already planning to replace it with Fourth. Fourth never even reached seven years before being replaced by Fifth. Paizo has a huge investment in PFRPG, and so do the fans; replacing it with "PF 2.0" or whatever would be a huge risk. But at some point, they'll just have to -- the design space will be all used up. I don't think it's going to happen next year or the year after that, but inevitably they're going to hit a point of diminishing returns.

Anyway. 5.0 is a new system. It was cleaner and simpler -- or, if you like, cruder and less flexible -- to begin with, and it hasn't had much time to develop bloat and cruft. So yeah, a 5.0 campaign would be easier to run in that sense. However, it'll cut you off from a lot of excellent Paizo product -- unless you want to adapt that product to 5.0. I'm doing exactly that right now, with Souls for Smugglers Shiv. It works... but of course, it's a little extra work for the DM. Still, you may prefer it to endless wrangling with your players.

Doug M.

[Heretek]

I don't see OPs issue? Learn to build encounters better to suit the party.

Core only is a complete crutch as the CRB is arguably the most broken thing in Pathfinder. All it does is limit creativity and push your players into playing tier 1 classes or playing something utterly under-powered and terrible like a crb rogue.

[Taku Ooka Nin]

Headfirst wrote:

What you're referring to is "bloat," or an RPG system's tendency to expand its build options and rules with every new book that's published. Unfortunately, it's kind of an essential part of the RPG business model. Almost every game (except for a few independent ones) does it.

It's like the natural cancer that inevitably kills all RPGs. They start with one brilliant book, then year after year, it grows and grows until the weight of all those extra options render the original concept so cumbersome that the whole system collapses under its own weight. It reaches a point where older players are finding absurd power combinations and new players are so intimidated by all the complexity that they're turned off of the game entirely.

That's about when each of these companies makes some grandiose announcement about a version 2.0, how awesome it's going to be, and how it's going to fix all the problems with rusty old 1.0. They're at least right on one thing: Whether or not the new version is any good, it at least starts the bloat cycle over again.

Note: This isn't necessarily a complaint, just a fact. Paizo wouldn't exist as a company if their system didn't bloat. It turns out you have to sell a lot of books to keep the lights on in an office building full of developers. :)

Yeah, this seems to strike the nail on the head in terms of summing up what is happening.

Lets hope Pathfinder 2.0 is soon.

[Milo v3]

Play 5e if you want a simpler game with less content and where characters will be kept in a strict field of power so you know exactly what enemies you can put against them. Though I do think there was an innate flaw in your plan of reducing the chance of trick builds by restricting to core, when core is where balance is weakest.

[wraithstrike]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Hey guys,

so I've been playing Pathfinder for a pretty long time, and while there have been some aspects of the game that have allowed people to make power characters, there is something to be said about the meta.

One of my players in my Kingmaker campaign made a wizard/Sorc (CB: Orc/Draconic) build that averages 27 damage with a save of either 13 (Sorcerer) or 17 (Wizard). This blows game balance completely out of the water since he can effectively 1-shot everything that is under CR 3 or immediately die to it after his turn.

While I was GMing this, I came to a simple realization: these characters are fun for the player but not the GM. Doubly so if the GM is running custom content. This was made painfully clear when I built a werewolf for the party to face, which was supposed to potentially hurt one of them, maybe give someone else lycanthropy, only for this Wizard to casually walk up and 1-shot the monster.

Done. This encounter that was supposed to be really cool was ruined, and not by a crit, but by something that is easily repeatable, perhaps 9 times a day.

After this, particularly egregious result, I've switched the game to CORE ONLY, and told the PCs that they can switch or leave, mostly because I'm not going to rebuilt Kingmaker to make it so things can at least survive 1-round when they are supposed to be decent encounters for the party.

Hades, what PFS having a CORE ONLY mode tells me is that even Paizo realizes how many absurdly broken combinations they have in their game. It is basically 3.5 all over again.

This leads me to a major question:
Does Pathfinder have too much meta? Is there so much meta that overpowered trick-builds are becoming a plague?

I'm a fan of not banning anything, hell Roll With It (Goblin) is the only perma-banned thing in my book, but I'm beginning to see why more and more GMs that I talk to that still run Pathfinder just have ban-lists a mile long or only permit certain books.

This experience is turning me off Pathfinder in a...

1. Kingmaker is notoriuosly easy due to one fight per day problems.

2. Rather or not power builds are a problem depends on what you consider a problem.

3. People on these boards tend to be better optimizers than those who do not frequent the boards in my observation.
In before the forum is a BAD place--->No, that does not mean the boards corrupt people, but those who spend significant time here are the ones who care more, and will be willing to learn more about the mechanical aspects of the game generally speaking.

4. Someone will blame bloat, but bloat is a subjective issue. The last major discussion I was in, people could not even agree on what bloat was.

5. With all of that being said the GM should let the players know what level of power he is comfortable with. In addition, he should tone down combats if the players tone their builds down. If the players refuse to cooperate it may be time to find new players.
I have noticed that the same players who like to build powerful things will try it in any system, so changing systems will only last until they figure out a way to make really strong characters in it.
Most likely you will have to deal with this on the "player level", not the "system level", if you keep the same group together.

[Paulicus]

5e seems interesting with its "compacting" of the large number growth over levels, though I haven't played it myself.

Though even in pathfinder core you can get heavily optimized characters that wreck things, though perhaps with a slightly lower ceiling.

You're best bet is to talk to your characters before the campaign and come to an agreement about the power level you'd like everyone to be at. Ask them to avoid ridiculous power-builds, and that you'll set the adventure difficulty accordingly. Discuss how dangerous/serious you'd like the tone of the campaign to be.

This may give them incentive to try interesting, unoptimized builds they wouldn't normally try, or get heavily into a non-standard roleplay character.

I like to give characters a high point buy with hard limits on starting ability scores to encourage diversity and help MAD classes/concepts.

[Douglas Muir 406]

wraithstrike wrote:

1. Kingmaker is notoriuosly easy due to one fight per day problems.

This is a fair point. 80% of the encounters in KM are either random hex exploration or short encounters that a party can handle without having to worry about expending resources. So, even with merely competent players, a lot of KM encounters get blown over pretty easily. (And in the rare cases where everyone rolls badly, it's usually pretty easy for the PCs to retreat and regroup.)

Quote:

3. People on these boards tend to be better optimizers than those who do not frequent the boards in my observation.

This is very true. (And there are other boards out there, of course.)

Quote:

4. Someone will blame bloat, but bloat is a subjective issue. The last major discussion I was in, people could not even agree on what bloat was.

Gotta disagree. How many classes did PF have in 2008? Eleven. How many does it have now? [checks] 11 core, 8 base, 3 alternate, 10 hybrid, 6 occult = 38. If you don't look at the endlessly proliferating list of classes, archetypes, spells, feats and options and see bloat then, shrug, well then I guess you don't. But most of the rest of us do.

Doug M.

[Milo v3]

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Gotta disagree. How many classes did PF have in 2008? Eleven. How many does it have now? [checks] 11 core, 8 base, 3 alternate, 10 hybrid, 6 occult = 38. If you don't look at the endlessly proliferating list of classes, archetypes, spells, feats and options and see bloat then, shrug, well then I guess you don't. But most of the rest of us do.

It is completely subjective. As a guy who frequently creates and uses homebrew while also using all the 3.5e classes and using several sets of third party classes from both 3.5e and PF, 38 classes is nothing.

TBH, bloat is near useless in internet discussions since it's super subjective, what matters is whether or not the game has too much For You and Your Group not whether it is objectively too full or not. Also, in my mind bloat doesn't truly have anything to do with this discussion really since you can restrict it to Core or Core + APG and still completely break the game to the same degree.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Milo v3 wrote:

TBH, bloat is near useless in internet discussions since it's super subjective, what matters is whether or not the game has too much For You and Your Group not whether it is objectively too full or not.

I'd say there is a difference between "there is no bloat" and "there is bloat, but I and my group don't mind it at all".

Quote:

Also, in my mind bloat doesn't truly have anything to do with this discussion really since you can restrict it to Core or Core + APG and still completely break the game to the same degree.

Sure, it's possible to build high-powered characters with core. But allowing all the options makes the problem much worse. You'll notice that the OP specifically mentioned an orc/dragon crossblooded sorceror. That's a classic munchkin magnet, but it's not core: crossblooded is from UM.

Doug M.

[Qaianna]

I actually never knew that APs were meant for fair-to-middling optimisation tactics. Does explain some guides that seem to point towards devastating campaigns tho.

From what I've seen and experienced, tho, sometimes a player will try to 'patch' obvious 'holes' in whatever they've built, especially if they start getting frustrated when their d20s start impersonating d4s. Failed skill checks, monsters beating the snot out of them, and so on tend to spur the power creep for players, and in a way ends up pushing folks to the idea of high optimisation.

As far as bloat ... whatever you want to call it, stuff keeps getting published. That's how it works. And then ... well, a developer might just want to flush everything down and start all over to try other things. The d20 system came about for this after how long, again?

[Mulgar]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

What you're referring to is "bloat," or an RPG system's tendency to expand its build options and rules with every new book that's published. Unfortunately, it's kind of an essential part of the RPG business model. Almost every game (except for a few independent ones) does it.

It's like the natural cancer that inevitably kills all RPGs. They start with one brilliant book, then year after year, it grows and grows until the weight of all those extra options render the original concept so cumbersome that the whole system collapses under its own weight. It reaches a point where older players are finding absurd power combinations and new players are so intimidated by all the complexity that they're turned off of the game entirely.

That's about when each of these companies makes some grandiose announcement about a version 2.0, how awesome it's going to be, and how it's going to fix all the problems with rusty old 1.0. They're at least right on one thing: Whether or not the new version is any good, it at least starts the bloat cycle over again.

Note: This isn't necessarily a complaint, just a fact. Paizo wouldn't exist as a company if their system didn't bloat. It turns out you have to sell a lot of books to keep the lights on in an office building full of developers. :)

Yeah, this seems to strike the nail on the head in terms of summing up what is happening.

Lets hope Pathfinder 2.0 is soon.

No, let's hope it's nor soon. I for one am in no hurry to drop all my coin again for essentially the same game, with clarifications and a little better balance.

[Milo v3]

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

I'd say there is a difference between "there is no bloat" and "there is bloat, but I and my group don't mind it at all".

I don't believe there is bloat. This is my sincere view. It's not that I don't mind it, it's that there is no bloat in my opinion. At least not yet anyway, ask me again in a few years, maybe that'll change, but so far no bloat.

Quote:

Sure, it's possible to build high-powered characters with core. But allowing all the options makes the problem much worse.

Not really simulacrum, gate, planar ally, wizard, druid, cleric, effectively the most broken things in the game, to the extent they are hard to Not brake (I do allow them in my games as a GM funnily enough though), they are all Core. There are broken things outside of core, blood money is the one I hear most commonly for example, but the Most broken things are basically all in the CRB.

[Taku Ooka Nin]

wraithstrike wrote:

1. Kingmaker is notoriuosly easy due to one fight per day problems.

I actually rebuilt this werewolf to make it more of a challenge, not absurd but slightly better.

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

TBH, bloat is near useless in internet discussions since it's super subjective, what matters is whether or not the game has too much For You and Your Group not whether it is objectively too full or not.

I'd say there is a difference between "there is no bloat" and "there is bloat, but I and my group don't mind it at all".

Quote:

Sure, it's possible to build high-powered characters with core. But allowing all the options makes the problem much worse. You'll notice that the OP specifically mentioned an orc/dragon crossblooded sorceror. That's a classic munchkin magnet, but it's not core: crossblooded is from UM.

Doug M.

Milo v3 wrote:

Douglas Muir 406 wrote:

Gotta disagree [About PF not having bloat. PF had 11 classes in PF, and now it has 38, not including archetypes, feats and so forth.]

It is completely subjective. [I use all of 3.5, PF and more!]

Thats nice Milo. You probably custom build everything, which makes it really easy to include stuff that picks on the weak points of your PCs, while also being vulnerable to them. I'm a professor now, I don't have that kind of time.

The thing I find kind of funny about all of this is that the guy with the build, since I've instituted CORE ONLY, isn't complaining. He's just like, "Yeah, that build was B.S., building something else now."
I guess he kind of knew this was coming.

[Helaman]

I love both systems and while TT gaming is a thing of my past (my gaming group doesn't have the appetite for it) I do play a lot of PbP - and about half of them is 5E. 5th is refreshingly simple but with some customisation to aid it along.

The thing about 5E is that they are starting the bloat process as well - SCAG (with its archetypes and spells) just came out and they are working on Unearthed Arcana with new archetypes - and for the moment? This is a GOOD thing - more choice is good.

But its only a matter of time, be it 5 or 7 or 10 years before it becomes bloated as well.

As for dealing with bloat in my online games? I limited it to Core and APG only, and its gone fine. Its when you open the doors to everything that it MAY be problematic for you as a GM to factor in all the exploits.

I recently help make an Orc barbarian/brawler for a friends campaign game where he opened the door to everything and the resulting character is positively a force of nature that will challenge him as a GM... simply because this one character is so awesome that if he ups the challenge level to deal with it, he runs a very real risk of killing non optimised characters, ie the rest of the party.

Its about how you build your encounters. CR is not the only measure of an encounter - action economy and additional creatures), terrain, conditions etc all need to be factored in when planning to challenge your group.

[Milo v3]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Thats nice Milo. You probably custom build everything, which makes it really easy to include stuff that picks on the weak points of your PCs, while also being vulnerable to them. I'm a professor now, I don't have that kind of time.

Nah, I just see something in a bestiary or 3.5e book, go "ooh this thing looks/sounds cool." and I use it. I could theoretically custom build enemies and stuff, but that'd take ages. Enemies is one of the few things I don't really ever attempt to homebrew or customize unless it's a BBEG type situation, simply because I know I'm outta my depth in that area (the other thing is PrC's).

I simply don't see the current levels of content present in pathfinder as anywhere near bloat. But, as I said, it doesn't matter what I think of bloat (or anyone else's on this board) since it's so subjective, what matters is if it is too much for Your game specifically. It was, so you attempted to fix it by going Core Only.

Quote:

The thing I find kind of funny about all of this is that the guy with the build, since I've instituted CORE ONLY, isn't complaining. He's just like, "Yeah, that build was B.S., building something else now."

I guess he kind of knew this was coming.

It is good to hear such an outcome.

[N. Jolly]

For me, I like PF due to how complex it is.

5th is a nice game for beginners and people who aren't looking for as complex a game mechanically. It's not a bad system, and I've had fun playing it, so if that's what you're looking for, more power to you!

If you want a more complex game with different interactions, stick with PF.

[Taku Ooka Nin]

Milo v3 wrote:

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

The thing I find kind of funny about all of this is that the guy with the build, since I've instituted CORE ONLY, isn't complaining. He's just like, "Yeah, that build was B.S., building something else now."

I guess he kind of knew this was coming.

It is good to hear such an outcome.

I know, that is extremely rare. The guy who made me ban Roll With It (Goblin) practically flipped the table and stormed out.

My main problem here is that some of these trick builds allow for people to be as deadly as a 5th lvl character (primarily casters) while having no drawback for it. Add in that retraining exists, and this these builds could just switch what is going to be overpowered to whatever is their new optimal spell.

It would be fine if it was in something that wasn't offensive, but it has screwed to pooch for me here. I had that moment where I just stopped, shook my head and thought, "whatever." I think every GM has had that moment, the one where even though you've dumped days if not weeks into a project, you seriously consider just throwing it in the trash to do something else.

/shrug.

I like PF for its complexity, but I'm more seeing the places where it is exploitable, and that is making me want to go elsewhere. I'm hoping CORE ONLY helps with that.

[Tacticslion]

... I see what you did there... very punny...

[Tacticslion]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

I like PF for its complexity, but I'm more seeing the places where it is exploitable, and that is making me want to go elsewhere. I'm hoping CORE ONLY helps with that.

Given the nature of Core, I find this unlikely, though it depends on your players. That said, something like APG-only (for PC class selection) would, in fact, help immensely. You'd still have to deal with summoner, of course, but otherwise, you'd be fairly solid.

[LordBiBo]

What level is the wizard/sorcerer? a 1/1 character who consistently one shots CR 3 monsters 9 times a day is different than a 5/5 one doing it. In the first case, something is probably being done wrong while in the second case it is reasonable to expect that character to not be bothered by a cr 3 encounter. That said, wizards are meant to have big booms and there are many ways to work with it rather than dreading it.

For one, the big zappy spells tend to be AoE spells so a mixed battlefield where allies are in the way prevents them from throwing down fireballs on everything.

Also, their spells are limited compared to physical classes that can basically fight all day so starting with a handful of easy battles to deplete the wizard's spells before getting to a more important battle is another simple tactic and basically the purpose behind random encounters.

In the case of a single opponent vs a party, that single opponent is going to get slaughtered unless it is significantly stronger than the party. Either it needs to have some friends as backup or it needs to have some sort of tactical advantage. In the case of the werewolf, give it couple of ranks of sneak and have it stalk the party in a dark forest or alley. If they have an okay light source, that is a -2 penalty. If not, -5 or more. Maybe some circumstance happens that forces the party to split up (for example, the werewolf uses some wolves and/or dire wolves to help him out using his lycanthropic empathy and gets them to cause trouble that the PCs need to respond to in various directions at once). Oops... party member x is alone and failed his perception check to notice the werewolf sneaking up behind him...

Another tactic might be that the werewolf happens to be a NPC the characters dont necessarily want to kill. Perhaps it is a close friend of one of the PCs or a well connected character like the captain of the guard or a noble. So the PCs have to stop it, and possibly cure it without killing it. Oops, that werewolf that the wizard just one-shotted turns back to a human and guess what, she was the local princess and now they have to figure out what to do with the nude corpse of a member of the royal family. Hey... is that the city guard showing up to check on the noise?

That said, a standard werewolf is not terribly strong, and horror tactics are best for low level parties where roll failure is more the norm. If you are expecting them to be a real threat, you need PCs of no higher than about 3rd level, or you need to up the number of werewolves attacking.

In any case, this sort of thing happening is only really a problem when you have a single player dominating the game play. One munchkin with a party of casual players will likely turn off the other players if they feel they can't ever contribute to the game. If that is the case, then you might want to sit the person aside and explain that while his build is a valid one, you would prefer that he either tone down his actions in the game so other players have a chance to contribute, or suggest taking some more rounded abilities.

Don't simply tell them they can't be a wizard because wizards have strong spells though, he should be rewarded for good behavior that contributes to party harmony and an overall fun game for all. Nothing motivates a munchkin like maximizing rewards. A munchkin will find the most efficient way to victory and exploit it. If the only thing they have to worry about is combat, you better bet they are going to be the best they can be at combat. When they see that combat is not always the best option and other skills are going to be needed, you will see them start rounding out their characters a bit.

We have to chase after people a lot and not kill them? Hm... maybe I should take the fleet feat or keep expeditious retreat/haste/hold person/web prepared.

Wait, we get the same xp without risking our lives by talking? Hm... maybe I should throw some points into diplomatic skills/feats and maybe pick up charm person or eagle's splendor spells.

We have to spend a lot of time climbing mountains and cliffs? Crap, looks like I need spider climb/feather fall/levitate/fly.

My somewhat rambling point is, if you make the game nothing but fight after fight, players are going to prepare themselves for such a world and you can't blame them for it. If you give them other challenges, they will prepare for those. Making those utility spells more necessary to the campaign will force wizards to take them and water down their repertoire of cannony spells.

[Finlanderboy]

Lower the stat buy.

This effectively makes it so much harder to build the crazier things. To maintain those awesome attacks they dump so many other skills. Now there wisdom and perception is negative.

So moments where things go his way, he will do awesome damage. When he is mind controlled with his 0 will save he is now a threat to his team.

I generally go with PFS rules for legality in my PF home games. The rules are already set and well made. I will allow anything outside of pfs with a quick reason as to why.

[Snotlord]

I have the same experience as the OP, but this is not about the bloat. My group of oldtimers mostly uses Core only, and they repeatedly break the game.
The problem is that high-level 3.x was slow and broken from day one, and Paizo has never adressed that properly.

My group want to keep Pathfinder, at the present, to keep all the options, so my current plan is to strip away spell buffs and use 5e-style magic items. As long as I make sure they have access to magic weapons to deal with DR, I'm hoping the CR system now actually will be balanced.

We'll see how that turns out. If its fails, I'm probably switching to Fantasy Age.

[Third Mind]

I will admit that there are quite a few options in Pathfinder, and so there should be with how long its been out. 5e has less options (and thus less chance of "trick builds") because it's not been out all that long. Maybe it's been designed to limit trick builds, maybe not. Time will tell. While I personally enjoy the bevy of options available in pathfinder and would be notably disappointing in switching to a far simpler game such as 5e (I'd probably still do it if that's where the games are), I can totally understand it being a bit much for some.

I've noticed though, that our DM hasn't had much of a problem. He is running a custom game and our characters are all pretty darn potent / powerful in their own rights / ways, but as far as I've seen, all of the enemies we've faced have been from paizo (kyton, nypmhs, springheel jacks, vrykolakas, etc...) or NPCs with classes that he's built. So, I know it's not impossible, but it's likely easier for him since he's not forced to adhere to an AP and has time to create, unlike a professor I'd wager.

That said, I've read a number of threads where the AP was simply just easy for the players for the most part. Having played some of it, Kingmaker was like that more or less. There were times when we got surprised by a shambling mound or two and had to run (surprisingly sneaky buggers), but otherwise it wasn't all that difficult. We killed giant boars and turtles before they even had a chance to attack due to initiatives, heck, our sorcerer took on a werewolf himself and won without much harm.

So, what I think might be another possible solution, is to check out which of the AP are more notoriously rough for the PCs. Not too rough of course, players should occasionally be able to feel powerful from time to time and not just "Run for your lives.....again!" If you intend to stick with kingmaker, then figure out what CR your party is (assuming 4 players at 5th level they'd be CR 20) and then hike up the challenge numbers a bit. CR10 is an average encounter from what I understand, so toss them a CR 12 and see how they fair.

Also, don't rely on a single big guy to take everyone down, unless that big guy has some serious defenses. My party in kingmaker was almost taken down by a fair amount of surprise archers. Sometimes you just need numbers.

All that said, and probably too much said, 5e might be simpler and if that's really what you want... go for it. Just, talk to the players first and get an understanding of both what you are looking for and what they are looking for.

[Casual Viking]

If you want to play a simpler, more down to earth, less rules-intensive fantasy RPG, I suggest not using 5E. There are plenty of other games out there, almost all of them better.

[Stereofm]

Finlanderboy wrote:

Lower the stat buy.

This effectively makes it so much harder to build the crazier things. To maintain those awesome attacks they dump so many other skills. Now there wisdom and perception is negative.

So moments where things go his way, he will do awesome damage. When he is mind controlled with his 0 will save he is now a threat to his team.

I generally go with PFS rules for legality in my PF home games. The rules are already set and well made. I will allow anything outside of pfs with a quick reason as to why.

Yeah,

That is actually my way of thought too : this is a pretty efficient way to curb down the power, without limiting creative options in the choice of classes.

And ban all stat boosting items, too.

[My Self]

Casual Viking wrote:

If you want to play a simpler, more down to earth, less rules-intensive fantasy RPG, I suggest not using 5E. There are plenty of other games out there, almost all of them better.

Would you mind me asking what games they are?

[Nutcase Entertainment]

Heretek wrote:

I don't see OPs issue? Learn to build encounters better to suit the party.

Core only is a complete crutch as the CRB is arguably the most broken thing in Pathfinder. All it does is limit creativity and push your players into playing tier 1 classes or playing something utterly under-powered and terrible like a crb rogue.

True and false; suit the party and the players, also frown upon blatant metagaming.

Limiting Options can help, but CRB only limits everyone save the wizard.

Now making that Wizard/Sorcerer being CRB only, without imposing that on other classes/players...

[Nutcase Entertainment]

Stereofm wrote:

Finlanderboy wrote:

Lower the stat buy.

This effectively makes it so much harder to build the crazier things. To maintain those awesome attacks they dump so many other skills. Now there wisdom and perception is negative.

So moments where things go his way, he will do awesome damage. When he is mind controlled with his 0 will save he is now a threat to his team.

I generally go with PFS rules for legality in my PF home games. The rules are already set and well made. I will allow anything outside of pfs with a quick reason as to why.

Yeah,

That is actually my way of thought too : this is a pretty efficient way to curb down the power, without limiting creative options in the choice of classes.

And ban all stat boosting items, too.

It help limit Single or Dual Ability score Dependent classes, but MAD classes suffer from it, and short of forcing players to do so, almost no one would want to play non casters.

[Milo v3]

Nutcase Entertainment wrote:

True and false; suit the party and the players, also frown upon blatant metagaming.

Wait, when was metagaming mentioned?

[Qaianna]

Milo v3 wrote:

Nutcase Entertainment wrote:

True and false; suit the party and the players, also frown upon blatant metagaming.

Wait, when was metagaming mentioned?

The discussion topic. Which brings up another question ... how often are options given 'organically', and how often are they just dumped on people? I remember wanting to yell at some of my fellow players to stock up on CLW wands but ICly I held back since that wasn't the sort of thing the average barbarian, even a smart one, would think of off the top of her head.

Still, with any game, eventually there's a metagame. It can be at a local level ('All the GMs here love intrigue so we always spec lots of social skills.') or all the way up to the publisher ('They published yet another adventure path that has us fighting undead. Spec for it!'). And people will adapt in both ways ... eventually.

Right now the campaign I'm playing in is limited in books. We started CRB only, and grew some as our GM bought new books for himself (I'd lend him Ultimate Combat but he's half a continent away from me). We've been adding them as we go, though; the only real rework we did was when he got Unchained, as we have a barbarian and a rogue.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

I actually rebuilt this werewolf to make it more of a challenge, not absurd but slightly better.

After a session or two, you'll probably notice that your PCs favor certain tactics. You can then adapt your creatures to those tactics. One guy always opens with Burning Hands? Throw something with fire resistance. The barbarian always rages and charges? Difficult terrain, flying opponents, and such.

At low levels, if you want to make an encounter more challenging, it's usually more effective to change terrain and/or add more creatures. Giving a single monster more hit points or DR sometimes works, but is usually less effective -- you're still facing the action economy problem.

Quote:

He's just like, "Yeah, that build was B.S., building something else now."

I guess he kind of knew this was coming.

Awesome.

Half the battle is figuring out what your players want. Even powergamers can often be seduced by a character that's less optimized if that character is really cool in some other way.

Doug M.

[Milo v3]

Qaianna wrote:

The discussion topic.

Nothing in the OP mentions or describes metagaming. It uses the word meta, but doesn't actually associate that word with anything that could be taken to mean metagaming.

Quote:

Which brings up another question ... how often are options given 'organically', and how often are they just dumped on people? I remember wanting to yell at some of my fellow players to stock up on CLW wands but ICly I held back since that wasn't the sort of thing the average barbarian, even a smart one, would think of off the top of her head.

Wait, you expect skilled warriors to forget that healing exists?

[Dryder]

I really think that "bloat" doesn't have to be a problem.
Not talking to your players is.
Admittetly I DM for a group of old friends only, not for people I don't know, like it mostly is the case when DMing Society or via the internet.
Anyway - talking to players makes bloat no problem at all.
I told my players:"Look guys, I don't want to keep that stuff away from you. Try what you want to try and play what you want to. But with all the rules out there, it is impossible for me to know every single clitch in the game or rules! If something is too overpowered or makes the game too easy for your, or, most of all, does make other players feel like their pcs doesn't matter, we have that change things!"

This is understood, and I, as the DM am at ease, knowing if stuff like what the OP was talking about happens mit can be changed readily.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Qaianna wrote:

wands but ICly I held back since that wasn't the sort of thing the average barbarian, even a smart one, would think of off the top of her head.

I'm on record as hating on the Wand of CLW, so be strong -- you're not alone.

5e has "solved" the problem by basically saying "Yup, you heal up easily between encounters -- take a day off and you'll heal completely!" I don't love this solution, but at least it's better than endless messing around with healing wands and healing potions and healbomb channels and what have you.

Doug M.

[Qaianna]

Milo v3 wrote:

Qaianna wrote:

The discussion topic.

Nothing in the OP mentions or describes metagaming. It uses the word meta, but doesn't actually associate that word with anything that could be taken to mean metagaming.

Quote:

Which brings up another question ... how often are options given 'organically', and how often are they just dumped on people? I remember wanting to yell at some of my fellow players to stock up on CLW wands but ICly I held back since that wasn't the sort of thing the average barbarian, even a smart one, would think of off the top of her head.

Wait, you expect skilled warriors to forget that healing exists?

Not at level 1, and our GM has asked for some checks for knowing certain things. Once we got farther along it was brought up as an option.

Add in that while I've fiddled with the rules and lurked in the guides sections, for just about everyone else this is their first foray into things, especially for our cleric. I'm also trying to find the line between guiding the player and railroading the player, and leaving it to our GM to help nudge things if he thinks we're overlooking stuff we shouldn't.

[Arachnofiend]

A level 1 PC is still stronger than most people. Characters who have no business adventuring have NPC levels, a level 1 Barbarian has the experience to know that healers tend to stash cure wands to patch people up.

[Douglas Muir 406]

Note that the Heal skill will allow almost all low and mid-level parties to heal completely -- even from a near-TPK -- within a day or two. (People always forget this. Always.) So it's not IMO unreasonable to say that 1st level characters might not be aware that CLW wands exist and are easily available.

Doug M.

[Milo v3]

If standard people don't don't know those wands exist you're playing in a very non-standard setting given the settlement rules making magic items commonly available.

[Raynulf]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

What you're referring to is "bloat," or an RPG system's tendency to expand its build options and rules with every new book that's published. <snip>

Yeah, this seems to strike the nail on the head in terms of summing up what is happening.

Lets hope Pathfinder 2.0 is soon.

As others have mentioned, additional content (which some call 'bloat') is a natural part of any game with active development and support, such as Pathfinder. If the GM lets it, it can become problematic for game balance if you're using published material, or not everyone at the table is optimizing their characters... But it also offers greater flexibility in character design - greater scope to build interesting characters that the players enjoy immersing themselves in and will remember for years to come. It helps keep things fresh and fun, which is important.

I've ran (several) Pathfinder games from 1st to 18th (ish) level, with some being mythic games, and there's three ways I handle this:

• The GM Veto: Put simply, I get to vet the characters before play begins - and usually during the character design progress. If it's not something I will enjoy GMing for (whether overpowered, underpowered or simply unsuitable), then it doesn't come to the table.
  
• House Rules: Early on in campaign prep (usually before inviting people to make characters), I write a Campaign Guide document wherein I spell out what is out and what is in. Point gen used (usually 25), permitted content, excluded content, homebrew feats/classes/spells and so on. It's a fair bit of work, but having it written down (and usually printed out and on the table) helps keep it clear.
  
• Fudge It: I've ran campaigns where I don't put any restrictions at all - I even invited players to do their best to munchkin it up. Because I as the GM have a secret weapon: My job is to create fun events and challenges for the party. The rules are for the players. So sometimes ogres have 200 hitpoints. Or that dragon over there has 5000hp because the 16th level party can dish out 1000 damage a round to a single target (okay, that was technically 3.5).

Given your game is already in play, I'd suggest using the latter. In the example of your werewolf: Give it more hitpoints. Double them. Triple them. Whatever it takes to have it stick around do what you needed it to do.

If this feels like "cheating", keep in mind: The table in the Bestiary is predicated on an assumption of how much damage a party can deal, and how much they can take. If your group doesn't conform to the norms of a party for their level... then the target numbers have to be adjusted to suit. It doesn't change the CR or XP, because the XP is based on challenge the creature presents at the table. Or in short: The published stats are a guide for an 'average' party; an above average party needs above-average monsters.

Regarding Point Gen: I've ran games at 15pt, 20pt and 25pt, and settled on 25pt as my preferred system. In my experience the lower stat points cause people to min-max their stats more: The fighter still starts with Strength 18 either way, but in 25pt gen they tend not to be the most ignorant and uncharismatic bozo on the planet, which seemed to be the norm at 15pt. That said, this depends mostly on the players and the game style - but in my experience dropping to 15pt gen won't actually make a PC less powerful in combat... just less versatile outside of it.

Regarding 5th Edition: I've also ran 5th edition games from 1st to 20th level, with and without converted mythic rules (Tip: Don't). It might look a vibrant and luscious shade of green on the other side of the fence, but like all systems it has its own problems.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to sling mud either way, but rather just offer some commentary based on my table's experience with the two systems.

The bounded accuracy is something I really like, along with the elegance of multiclassing and versatility inherent even in the PHB. This is only added to by the overhaul of the classes bringing them a lot closer together balance-wise. (Aside: Contrary to what the internet seems desperate to tell you... no, the 5E Ranger isn't weak. It's actually one of the strongest damage dealers, if you remember to cast Hunter's Mark.).

Under the shiny chassis of the player mechanics there are some issues under the hood, though. Monster design is odd, encounter design is very odd and XP (XP to level vs monster XP) is such that I would strongly recommend ignoring XP altogether and assigning levels by plot milestone. Which I found a bit of a let down after running campaigns in Pathfinder, where these things are actually handled really elegantly.

In summary: Both systems have their strengths, but neither is perfect and both will demand some amount of work from the GM. It's just a matter of picking which you want to work on most.

[GreyWolfLord]

Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

Hey guys,

so I've been playing Pathfinder for a pretty long time, and while there have been some aspects of the game that have allowed people to make power characters, there is something to be said about the meta.

One of my players in my Kingmaker campaign made a wizard/Sorc (CB: Orc/Draconic) build that averages 27 damage with a save of either 13 (Sorcerer) or 17 (Wizard). This blows game balance completely out of the water since he can effectively 1-shot everything that is under CR 3 or immediately die to it after his turn.

While I was GMing this, I came to a simple realization: these characters are fun for the player but not the GM. Doubly so if the GM is running custom content. This was made painfully clear when I built a werewolf for the party to face, which was supposed to potentially hurt one of them, maybe give someone else lycanthropy, only for this Wizard to casually walk up and 1-shot the monster.

Done. This encounter that was supposed to be really cool was ruined, and not by a crit, but by something that is easily repeatable, perhaps 9 times a day.

After this, particularly egregious result, I've switched the game to CORE ONLY, and told the PCs that they can switch or leave, mostly because I'm not going to rebuilt Kingmaker to make it so things can at least survive 1-round when they are supposed to be decent encounters for the party.

Hades, what PFS having a CORE ONLY mode tells me is that even Paizo realizes how many absurdly broken combinations they have in their game. It is basically 3.5 all over again.

This leads me to a major question:
Does Pathfinder have too much meta? Is there so much meta that overpowered trick-builds are becoming a plague?

I'm a fan of not banning anything, hell Roll With It (Goblin) is the only perma-banned thing in my book, but I'm beginning to see why more and more GMs that I talk to that still run Pathfinder just have ban-lists a mile long or only permit certain books.

This experience is turning me off Pathfinder in a...

Only 27 damage? AT what level? You ain't seen nothing yet. I had a Rogue do over 30x that amount at one point on lucky shots...and that was a ROGUE. Unless that's a 1st level Caster...I don't think they are actually optimizing all that wonderfully. At 6th level...a decent Fighter should be able to probably should be able to do in the 25-30 points of damage range...and that's with minimal optimization and they aren't even close to the same tier. I'm not sure if it's an optimization problem there.

A spellcaster's most powerful things aren't even with blasting spells at times...they are with other spells that can one shot creatures otherways...more sinister ways....

However, there are many ways to spring it back (not allow races outside of core for example...letting players know that they aren't to go all out min/max or optimizing...etc).

With 5e, at or around 5th level...most characters should be able to do the same amount if not more damage than that mage in PF...without any optimization whatsoever (due to multiple attacks many gain in 5e or their spells)...soooo...just saying...

[GreyWolfLord]

Casual Viking wrote:

If you want to play a simpler, more down to earth, less rules-intensive fantasy RPG, I suggest not using 5E. There are plenty of other games out there, almost all of them better.

I just started going through Dragon Age. While it has some similarities to 5e...while I really dislike 5e, I'm really thinking I like Dragon Age a LOT.

For starters 5e has an unnatural limitation (bounded accuracy) that Dragon Age Does not. 5e has fake rules limitations on certain areas, where Dragon Age makes it harder to get better, but not fake limitations on things like 5e.

Dragon Age in many ways is very much like 5e in other ways though, with backgrounds and classes (though much simplified from 5e even in classes, where there are only 3 classes to choose from). It also has a very simple resolution dynamic (instead of D20 it has 3d6, which gives a better curve and crazy outcomes occur less often in rolls).

[SheepishEidolon]

I suggest the following:

1) Throw stronger encounters at them, but switch to slow XP track. Make sure they are ok with it. For them the benefit of slow track is that they can still try out the new level's content sufficiently, before next level is due.

2) Occasionally get them at their weaknesses. This wizard / sorc specializes on fire damage? Throw in some enemies with fire resistance or immunity. Don't overdo it, because it leads to frustration fast.

3) Talk with them and tell them their playstyle can result in boredom. Winning every encounter in round 1 with the same strategy is exciting first, but becomes dull fast. They might not believe you at the beginning, but later they will realize you saw it coming.

That said, an increasing number of options ('rules bloat') has some benefits. It allows new concepts (also for NPCs!) and gives optimizers more to tinker with.

Choice paralysis is a problem, but as a group, you can always restrict yourself to Core and slowly add to it (if you want at all). Nowadays there are several pages dedicated to show all these rules in a well-arranged manner.

[GreyWolfLord]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

I suggest the following:

3) Talk with them and tell them their playstyle can result in boredom. Winning every encounter in round 1 with the same strategy is exciting first, but becomes dull fast. They might not believe you at the beginning, but later they will realize you saw it coming.

One addendum...I never get bored of it! One shotting is always awesome...the more powerful the one shot, the better!

Of course, maybe I'm not your usual player in that way?

PS: If people think you can't do this in 5e...they haven't played with min/max players in 5e yet. Of course, that also has the DM allowing the PF idea of Magic Mart...but other than that...you can have characters that can't miss except for rolling a 1, characters that have AC that can't be hit except by monsters rolling 20s...5e can be an EASIER system to break than PF...ironically...depending on the players.

I think it's more the TYPE of player that leaves PF and starts playing 5e that makes it so most DON'T go out of their way to break the system. I find many 5e players want a more 3e experience without the min/max experience, and so don't play with players that ARE massive min/max players or who ask for requests of character maximization to be fulfilled.

You can do the same thing in PF...but most GM's let their players get away with things or grant their players wishes for items and other things instead of playing it how they play their 5e games.

[Kurald Galain]

The main argument for AND against 5E is whether or not you like bounded accuracy.

If you want every PC to have an even chance at every task, use 5E. If you want trained characters to be markedly better than untrained, or high-level characters than low-level, use PF instead.

Splatbook bloat is easily countered by running a core-only campaign, or otherwise limiting the books used. In terms of learning curve for beginning players, I see no substantial difference between the two (sure, PF has more rules, but a beginning player doesn't need to know them).