Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
I'm not even sure if I'm on board with this idea, but I thought I'd post it and see if others think it has merit. One challenge gm's face is that they can't adjust the scenario to compensate for an overly optimized character. Rather than making rules to counter specific builds as they arrive, what about the following rules being added to organized play:
If a character deals more than APL * 10 in one round, further damage is ignored. If a character has a total armor class of more than 25+APL, any further armor class is ignored.
I don't know about the specific numbers on those, but do people think there's any value to the idea or did I just not get enough sleep last night?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.. let's punish people for specializing.
They're already going to have glaring weaknesses somewhere, so exploit those instead of just capping it.
"capping damage at APL*10" Why not just get rid of x3 or x4 weapons, or pounce, or tell wizards they can't fireball groups of creatures.
I really don't see any way to make this work.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what you're looking to do, James, but it doesn't really fix problems. It drives players out. It also doesn't address other crippling factors, such as SoDs with impossibly-high DCs. I've seen a dedicated color spray character shooting off DC 20 or so with a Mesmerist stare on top for the main target as a level 3 character (sorc 1/mes 1/oracle 1). Then there's ye olde black tentacles, etc. Then there's grapple shenanigans (tiny fox grapples large efreeti with +27 CMB at level 9 for one table I ran) since grapple is not size-restricted.
There's no limitations you can put out there that (a) address the problem fully and (b) don't offend players significantly.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that highly optimized characters can be a problem and sometimes suck the fun from the scenario, but no. How campaign leadership would even enforce these rules would be a nightmare.
Like claude said, there has to be a weakness.
Maybe talk to the owner of said character and ask them to not cheese as much, since they are killing the scenario for the other players. If they refuse to do so, then, oh well. Not much you can really do about it. Until it becomes disruptive and starts bothering the other players, then you can ask them to leave the table.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
It also doesn't address other crippling factors, such as SoDs with impossibly-high DCs. I've seen a dedicated color spray character shooting off DC 20 or so with a Mesmerist stare on top for the main target as a level 3 character (sorc 1/mes 1/oracle 1).
Im not sure the build that is completely useless in a large number of scenarios is what I would call crippling.
I don't agree with the proposal either but I would like to see some changes made to deal with players who over optimize and then don't hold back. It frustrates the GM and other players.
The problem is less optimization and more player characters have options that are more powerful than previous content.
EDIT:For example Combat Expertise is kind of a useless feat in non core. It does some stuff but is largely supplanted by a better feat that actually is relevant to a lot of the feats that its a prerequisite for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although it can be annoying to encounter a build that stomps a particular scenario, that build is going to be especially weak in other scenarios through it's career — it balances out. If it's causing out-of-character problems with the other players at the table, then the right way to handle it is with an out-of-game chat around the table, not an in-game change.
or did I just not get enough sleep last night?
Sleep well. :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the proposal of OP were to be put into play, does that mean the NPCs that the party encounters ALSO labor under the same hardship?
Because if Langford can murder folks, but players can't Reverse-Langford, one's not just going to have people stand up and leave, one's going to have pitchforks and torches... or worse...
, thank you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although it can be annoying to encounter a build that stomps a particular scenario, that build is going to be especially weak in other scenarios through it's career — it balances out. If it's causing out-of-character problems with the other players at the table, then the right way to handle it is with an out-of-game chat around the table, not an in-game change.
or did I just not get enough sleep last night?Sleep well. :)
Right. Normally my wild empathy focused druid stands in the back, casts a few buffs, and makes a lot of friends during the social encounters.
But Flutter vs the absolom zoo and Flutter cuddles the mana wastes had me looking to pay the DM's bar tab for inducing headaches...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No thank you. I have never seen such rules work. The people who do this sort of thing would just find the holes in the rules.
It is much more effective for local leadership (VOs) to talk to the players involved. See if they will not voluntarily play their characters less disruptively. The new guide has the Community Standards section that gives VOs something to point to when talking with the disruptive player.
On the other side of the issue, if someone isn't causing any problems at the table why should it matter what their maximum DPR or ability to neutralize an encounter is?
If you are a tank with a super high AC, draw out the Attacks of Opportunity so other people can get their characters into position to attack.
If you deal a huge about of damage, save it for cases where that sort of damage is required. Don't use it to deny other players an opportunity to participate. Don't lord it over other players to show how innately superior you are to them.
I think that the Community Standards is a better way to deal with this sort of problem than any restrictions on the character builds.
|
I vote no.
The only limits I'd like to see are no stat below 8 after racial adjustment, and no stat above 20 after racial adjustment. But I am not pushing for them to be adopted either.
In a home game these are easy to enforce, in a living campaign, not so much.
I do agree that allowing excessive stat dumping leads to lots of issues. We have encountered a lot less issues since we implemented a similar rule in our home campaigns.
However, changing the PFS campaign rules at this point would be very problematic and unpopular due to the shear number of rebuilds required. These type of rules need to be set at the start of campaigns.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a GM who personally does not care if the character is min/maxed or not. It is not going to bother me in any way as to how the character is built. As a GM my job is to help facilitate the story line of the scenario and make sure all of the rules are being followed. I run the monsters as the scenario says. Sure occasionally a min/maxed character who does 100 points of damage in one turn will get a home run and just outright kill the big bad and that is great. He is having fun and has done what he wanted to do. On the other side I then watched the same character play a game that involved a chase scene and he was miserable and brought nothing to the table to help the party. That is just how it falls. No player or GM should take it personally and if you are take a step back and realize it is a game and a chance for a group of people to come together and interact with a story.
If you have the same group of players who are player together a lot vary up the scenarios from combat ones, to social ones, to skill based ones. This allows everyone a chance to shine.
Again the most important thing to remember. It's a game don't take it personally.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree that over optimized builds are a huge problem. They cause lots of scenarios to be ROTFLstomp snooze fests. They have also caused Paizo to raise the difficulty of scenarios so that quite a few low tier adventures are far too difficult for new players (while still being easy for experienced players creating over optimized characters).
I have no clue what the solution is. Core IS a partial solution, I play it quite a bit online and it has made things much more challenging even with experienced players.
But, locally at least, new players don't like Core so it has died. New players want to play with all the toys from their new book. And who can blame them?
But this proposal isn't a solution. Far too many things to police, far too impractical to do so.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree that over optimized builds are a huge problem. They cause lots of scenarios to be ROTFLstomp snooze fests. They have also caused Paizo to raise the difficulty of scenarios so that quite a few low tier adventures are far too difficult for new players (while still being easy for experienced players creating over optimized characters).
This. Some scenarios just aren't even fun because they encounters are way too unbalanced.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One idea that conceivably could help would be to have GUIDELINES stating where approximately characters "Should" be at various levels for various kinds of builds.
Something to at least allow players a chance to self police themselves if they were so inclined.
Not enforced. Just rules of thumb.
At least some of the time the problem is that the player doesn't know whether a +10 to hit at level 7 doing 1d8+6 damage while maintaining an AC of 25 is poor, decent, good, or massively overkill.
Creating any such guidelines would be difficult and filled with disagreements but I suspect the Collective could come up with recommendations. Including suggesting some things that should never be used (dazing fireball would be high on my list, for example :-))
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue though is the randomness and unpredictability of a PFS party.
Example, High tier scenario we had 5 people. An oracle, wizard, apg summoner, cavalier, and my multiclassed melee damage guy.
Seems like a good party right? One that shouldn't have much problems?
Well the oracle and the summoner were crossbow users. Like, all the feats to make them not AS bad. So they are doing 1d8+1, cause magic, sometimes. The eidolon wasn't bad (how can they be really?) but really struggled against the DR 5 enemies. (crossbow people were lucky to get anything through). The TWF cavalier didn't challenge anything in the scenario and actually only attacked like once, most of the time he was sitting waiting for an enemy he thought was coming that we ended up having to go to. And the wizard was a pretty good control wizard, though not the best, he enlarged the cavalier who was riding the mount and then didn't want to ride since he was large.
So the average DPR of them most rounds was like 20 damage, and mainly because of eidolon. If I didn't have a super high DPR we probably couldn't have finished in time and maybe could've had characters die.
So I'm not saying the others were wrong or bad for the builds they have or how they played. But I make strong people because of this, so if I get another melee beat stick in the party that is a little sad cause I kill thing in one round before they can fight, sorry. But since builds can be all over the place, making strong ones are justified to make sure the party at least has that part covered.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has been mentioned countless times before but if someone's build is winning combat:
1. The party isn't dying at least.
2. You have time for more roleplay and storytelling which often is minimal.
Having number caps would be ridiculous. The game is all about context. That 25+APL AC cap would get you mauled by a dragon even if it was normally good enough.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer not to see limits like this imposed. There are so many different options that have the potential to cause encounters to become trivial that you can't have a simple rule that covers them all. Given the wide variety of skill/build levels I've seen at my location, I would hesitate to put the brakes on anyone's build because you never know if everyone else a the table is going to be completely ineffective. I agree with those who say that it would be better handled by the GM and local Venture Critters taking problem players aside and having a chat about allowing others to shine on occasion. I would particularly hate to see an increase in encounter difficulty to address this perceived problem because that can be extremely punishing to less experienced players. I would rather that maxed character be bored than to see a table of new players get wiped.
If campaign leadership considers this to be an issue, I would prefer to see it addressed by adding more "hard mode" options. That way, if a group feels less challenged, they can increase their personal risk without increasing the risk for everyone.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I completely agree that over optimized builds are a huge problem. They cause lots of scenarios to be ROTFLstomp snooze fests. They have also caused Paizo to raise the difficulty of scenarios so that quite a few low tier adventures are far too difficult for new players (while still being easy for experienced players creating over optimized characters).This. Some scenarios just aren't even fun because they encounters are way too unbalanced.
Typically speaking older scenarios are worst because the abrupt change in difficultly I've come across in the older ones don't really compare at all to anything outside of one or two season 7 scenarios.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is being described is a player problem.
Not a character problem.
Period.
Players who don't hold back even if it is detrimental to the fun of the rest of the table will continue to be a problem even if such caps are put into place. They'll just find different ways to optimize.
In all cases the solution is NOT more character rules.
The solution is to TALK to the players in question.
Let them know what they are doing is affecting the others. If they still then continue to run roughshod, perhaps they should seek out a different play venue besides PFS.
-j
One idea that conceivably could help would be to have GUIDELINES stating where approximately characters "Should" be at various levels for various kinds of builds.
Something to at least allow players a chance to self police themselves if they were so inclined.
Not enforced. Just rules of thumb.
At least some of the time the problem is that the player doesn't know whether a +10 to hit at level 7 doing 1d8+6 damage while maintaining an AC of 25 is poor, decent, good, or massively overkill.
Creating any such guidelines would be difficult and filled with disagreements but I suspect the Collective could come up with recommendations. Including suggesting some things that should never be used (dazing fireball would be high on my list, for example :-))
I think this is a really good approach the the issue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
War story from the Emerald Spire (L1)
During the first encounter, our insanely optimized barbarian squished everything with massive overkill.
...and then couldn't hit the broad side of a barn for the remainder of the run.
RNG games are by their very nature VERY SWINGY.
Attempting to regulate the 'swing' with some artificial construct is not going to help matters, and as has been noted above, will coerce people to go further and harder to 'edge' around such a device.
This very much sounds like a GM issue even moreso than a player issue.
Gaming is NOT Player vs. GM in PFS last I heard.
Society play is collaborative storytelling with some randomizing factors thrown in.
|
|
At least some of the time the problem is that the player doesn't know whether a +10 to hit at level 7 doing 1d8+6 damage while maintaining an AC of 25 is poor, decent, good, or massively overkill.
Wait! Which did you intend this to be? To hit seems about average for a full-BAB melee. 7 BAB, +3 STR. Or slightly high for Power Attack. Damage seems to match for two-handed, no Power Attack. But the AC seems slightly above average. I aim for level+15 on front-liners. Higher is nice, but cost-prohibitive.
So, fairly average for non-Power Attack which is usually sub-optimal.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Northwestern Indiana
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would oppose such a rule. It would likely lead to problems with players feeling that their builds are being punished. Also, I have seen powerfully built characters suffer from what Wei Ji the Learner just described -- being unable to hit. Last session, my wizard enlarged a fighter who could not hit for a major combat.
As a frequent GM, I have seen my dice run from hot to cold. Luck is part of the rules for players and GMs alike. As a GM, I presume that the NPCs are going to challenge most parties. However, sometimes the dice rolls favor one side of the table or another.
If there is a problem with a player, talk to a player. Using rules to deal with what can be a player issue can create more problems than they would likely solve.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My dwarven monk shakes his head.
What else should be considered excessive?
Maybe my wayang oracle/rogue shouldn't be allowed to have a +20 stealth or +18 Disable Device at level 3.
Maybe my ifrit gunslinger/investigator with his +11 initiative at level 2 is overpowered and he doesn't even have improved initiative yet. I mean after all, why should he aspire to be the fastest gun in Alkenstar?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
I want to clarify, I am not having problems with any specific player here. Just looking at general trends. I'm guilty of passing those caps myself on occasion, and knowing when to hold back is important. I've had talks with others about it when needed, and it generally works out.
Ok, sounds like the idea was not a good one. But the guidelines proposed by Paul Jackson might need looking at.
|
|
There are way too many variables to plug at the end like this and too many unforseen consequences on the game.
Why under this would you ever use an x 3 weapon? you'd be forced into the lower crit weapons just so you didn't go over.
there's also a vast difference between doing 70 damage if you crit and 70 damage because you land all of your attacks that only need a 3 to land.
|
|
"A proposal for limiting excessive builds. "
wait... don't we have this already?
It's call the Core Campaign
The core campaign limits excessive builds to a very narrow set of cookie cutter options (save or die casters, killer pets, archers, two handed weapon users, killer pet classes with save or die casters). The regular campaign doesn't lift the power bar nearly as much as it expands the number of ways to get there.
|
|
The core campaign limits excessive builds to a very narrow set of cookie cutter options (save or die casters, killer pets, archers, two handed weapon users, killer pet classes with save or die casters). The regular campaign doesn't lift the power bar nearly as much as it expands the number of ways to get there."A proposal for limiting excessive builds. "
wait... don't we have this already?
It's call the Core Campaign
I figure you'd get it...even when most everyone else missed it.
"A proposal for limiting excessive builds. "
so... if we have to many builds (i.e. "excessive builds") then to limit them would be to restrict the number of builds we can have.
"The core campaign limits ... builds to a ...set of ...options" - yeah! The Core Campaign limits Excessive Builds. That's (partly) what it is designed to do. Set a more restricted limit on what a player can build. Thus limiting excessive builds.
Get it?
;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone at the table is supposed to have fun, and that includes the GM. Now, I'd argue (as one who does far more GMing than playing) that the GM's level of fun isn't as important as that of the players, but it's not dismissible, either.
Some of these builds are not only unfun for the GM, they are unfun for other players at the table. I have run scenarios for a character and played along side that character in others, and that character can do EVERYTHING. There isn't any point for me, as a player, to even roll initiative because Character X will do everything.
So, maybe you say, "well, Mark, you can solve that by optimizing your character more." Well, that's not my style of play - that is NOT fun for me. I like my characters to be challenged.
The proposal presented in this thread doesn't at all solve the problem of ultra powerful or uber optimized characters, and even if it did, I'm not sure it's the right solution.
But it IS a problem. When GMs and players tell me they won't run or play at a table with certain characters, then it's a problem.
|
|
But it IS a problem. When GMs and players tell me they won't run or play at a table with certain characters, then it's a problem.
But what's the solution that isn't worse than the problem? All the time i see some DM's flabbergasted at perfectly normal builds. "What do you mean a two weapon fighting rogue gets sneak attack on every hit.. NERF THAT!" "This tength level dwarven paladin did 87 points of damage on a smite crit with his axe... wth?!?!?" How could you possibly empower dm's to put a kybosh on some character builds without empowering them arbitrarily smack down character or just players that they don't like?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a huge number of character options out there, some effective, some almost useless, and a large part of the skill inherent in building characters is undrstanding which abilities work well, which have a synergy with others, and which are, for whatever reason, poor options.
If you set limits on the end result, rather than saying 'specific ability XYZ does not work as intended, so is banned', then you are penalising players for learing and undertanding the system, which seems counterproductive.
Yes, there are going to be some characters which are copied from the web, but what happens when a new player comes up with a character idea of their own, and then gets told: 'your character isn't allowed, because you put too much thought into building them'?
Harrison Bergeron leaps to mind (read it if you haven't yet).
|
|
But it IS a problem. When GMs and players tell me they won't run or play at a table with certain characters, then it's a problem.
But what's the solution that isn't worse than the problem? All the time i see some DM's flabbergasted at perfectly normal builds. "What do you mean a two weapon fighting rogue gets sneak attack on every hit.. NERF THAT!" "This tength level dwarven paladin did 87 points of damage on a smite crit with his axe... wth?!?!?" How could you possibly empower dm's to put a kybosh on some character builds without empowering them arbitrarily smack down character or just players that they don't like?
I advocated none of this, which should be obvious. I don't know what the solution is, but I didn't offer any of what you put as my possible solutions, thanks.
|
|
I advocated none of this, which should be obvious. I don't know what the solution is, but I didn't offer any of what you put as my possible solutions, thanks.
I didn't say you offered any solutions. I'm saying that "let them build and let the chips fall where they may" is the worst solution...except for all of the other ones.
But it IS a problem. When GMs and players tell me they won't run or play at a table with certain characters, then it's a problem.
What I said was you can't use that standard to mean anything because it's incredibly arbitrary and subjective.
|
|
I advocated none of this, which should be obvious. I don't know what the solution is, but I didn't offer any of what you put as my possible solutions, thanks.
I didn't say you offered any solutions. I'm saying that "let them build and let the chips fall where they may" is the worst solution...except for all of the other ones.
But it IS a problem. When GMs and players tell me they won't run or play at a table with certain characters, then it's a problem.What I said was you can't use that standard to mean anything because it's incredibly arbitrary and subjective.
And it's a real situation that I face, so whether you find it arbitrary and subjective, it is a problem that I have to deal with. If I had said, "it's a problem for my region" and qualified it as such, would that make it better for you? Sheesh.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it's a real situation that I face, so whether you find it arbitrary and subjective, it is a problem that I have to deal with. If I had said, "it's a problem for my region" and qualified it as such, would that make it better for you? Sheesh.I advocated none of this, which should be obvious. I don't know what the solution is, but I didn't offer any of what you put as my possible solutions, thanks.
I didn't say you offered any solutions. I'm saying that "let them build and let the chips fall where they may" is the worst solution...except for all of the other ones.
But it IS a problem. When GMs and players tell me they won't run or play at a table with certain characters, then it's a problem.What I said was you can't use that standard to mean anything because it's incredibly arbitrary and subjective.
I agree with Mark here. I don't know what the right solution is. Maybe there isn't a solution within the confines of PFS that does not allow a GM to modify anything (both up or down) based on the characters at the table.
But I know that almost everytime I GM, I get increasingly frustrated by the fact that I need natural 20's to hit characters or 17 or better on saves or when I do damage, its often a smaller amount than what the characters are dishing out and that is if I even get to do anything as a GM.
In a home game, I get to create situations that will be both fun and challenging for everyone involved. In PFS, I have to just suck it up when a level 2 Tower Shield Fighter with Full plate can't be hit in a Tier 1-2 adventure.