|
TJBRooks
if you drop the number of combat encounters you vastly increase thepower ofc casters.
I'm not talking about a single skill check = win.
Things like that make everyone useful. If done in similar ways to this, it doesn't dramatically increase spellcasters/skill monkeys beyond making them more useful in what would otherwise be a dungeon slog where most of their skills wouldn't come into play. Will there be situations where casters can break the game with certain spells? Yes. They can also just as easily "break" combat encounters with certain spells. I've seen a simple "Entangle" spell make many encounters trivially easy compared to what they should have been.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't agree or see how it "vastly increases their power" beyond what it already is.
|
as it is most casters need to save their big blasts for the boss fight. With 2 combat encounters they can just paint it red and begin nuking.Wouldn't this also already apply to scenarios where characters have time to rest between encounters?
But that's not most scenarios. most scenarios do a pretty good job of having you with a time limit so you can't do the 15 minute workday.
are you sure it's most? i've noticed in several scenarios that the GM mentions that we rested for a night, but i've always just treated scenarios as a single day for resources (mostly because i don't think about it when days pass). there's also a chance that many of them only do this in low tiers but low tiers are all i know, so...
...On the other hand, if you play on a summer "out there for fun" softball league, and you sent on the bench constantly while the team wins every game, no, it's not a lot of fun.the rules of softball involve competition and keeping score. if you don't do that, technically you're just knocking a ball around with a stick not "playing softball". not that there's anything wrong with that; it's just not the same, and i think it's misleading to refer to it as the same thing as a sport with competition and scorekeeping built in.
You're making things extremely black and white here. Of course we keep score in softball games. But, not all softball games in which you keep score are the same sorts of things. Simply because you're keeping score, it does not mean that "win at all costs" is the goal. That the final score is the one and only thing that matters, or even that it's the most important thing. In some games, sure. You're at the Olympics, you're in a professional league, then, yeah, you do everything legal you can to increase score. But in a summer fun softball league, it's not the same thing. And, players who want to play who get benched simply because somebody else would contribute more to the score are not going to be having fun, and are not going to want to be there.
The score doesn't have to be the absolute most important thing to still be something that matters. Just how important it is depends on the context of the game. You're making a big mistake if you think that the presences of a score that's kept means that the score is the one thing you should be focusing on. In a collaborative game like an RPG, for most people that's not how they want to be playing.
If they play softball on "The Biggest Loser", losing weight is the most important thing.
For me, having my character make a difference, which I cannot do in IRL, is the most important thing. Several times I have played a bard/rogue. You can optimize for something besides being the combat star. When I played the paladin, I used smite based on obvious evilness, cause the final monster of the day might be a golem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
The problem is that some builds can easily hit your cap without even trying. While others either can't hit it, or only infrequently hit it. My core fighter for example deals 2d4+9 damage with his scythe when using power attack at level 2. Which he nearly always uses. What you're bounded damage rule would say is that it's pointless to make a fighter with good strength and power attack at low levels. By level 3 he could only hit your cap if he crits. After all, Collin couldn't even deal his full minimum damage with your bounded rule if he was level 1 or 2. And a critical hit would be completely pointless since again, he couldn't even deal full damage if he rolled the absolute minimum damage.
On the other hand, my core monk would rarely hit the cap at low levels, and couldn't possibly hit it at high levels.
What would be the point of metamagic? Sure the low level wizard or sorcerer could cast Scorching Ray, but if you rolled well you possibly couldn't deal the full damage. Or what about things like Cleave? Or attacks of opportunity? It would mean that if your level 1 character managed to deal 10 damage, they couldn't really do anything except maybe trip if they get an attack of opportunity. If the wizard throws a fireball at a group of six enemies and rolled well while the enemies failed their reflex saves, which of those enemies didn't take damage for some unexplainable reason
Do you see the problem with it?
Or let's look at the AC issue. A level 1 character with AC of 25 likely had to make sacrifices to get there. What did they give up? Also consider that there is a sort of limit on how high AC can possibly get. Fighters could wear +5 full plate, true. Then maybe a +5 tower shield (already you're sacrificing attack bonus), +5 ring of protection, and +5 amulet of natural armor. Let's assume 16 dex base and putting all points into dex since you're already wasting time investing in strength and power attack. Right? That's 45 AC max, and you're capping your dex bonus at +6. Even if you have higher dex, you only apply 6 of it to AC at level 12.
Highest I managed to get a theoretical build's AC to is 52 on a kineticist 10/monk 10 (48 normally) before outside buffs. But that's dedicating pretty much all gear towards that goal, and means having to take a good sized chunk of unhealable non-lethal damage before you even enter combat.
But then consider that what's overpowered at tier 1-2 isn't going to be quite so bad at tier 6-7. And what's underpowered at tier 1-2 may feel broken at tier 6-7. I gamed with someone who liked to make level 1 characters who have 25 AC. And at level 1 when enemies maybe have a +1 to-hit that's ridiculous. Almost nothing could hit them. But by the time the campaign got to level 6 their AC was still 25 but enemies were getting a +7 to +10 to-hit bonus. And he got hit a lot more often. If his character had survived longer his AC would have become even less overpowered since there were few ways he could raise it.
Kahel Stormbender for example will have to spend anywhere between 2,000 to 3,000 gold to go from AC 18 to AC 19. This will depend on if I buy an amulet of natural armor +1 (2,000), upgrade my chain shirt to +2 (3,000), or buy a ring of protection +1 (2,000). Or I could save up and spend 4,000 gold to increase armor by +2 via a +1 amulet and ring. Or pay 8,000 gold for a +2 ring of protection. And the costs just go up from there. Those who can't wear light armor have even greater costs if the desire bracers of armor. It's more cost effective to just stock potions or a wand of mage armor and save up to eventually get +5 or better bracers of armor.
My point here is, that EVERYONE has a high cost to improve armor values. In PFS it takes resources you could have spent on other things. Such as feats (if you're allowed to take Improved Natural Armor at all). Or maybe gold and item slots had to be devoted to raising AC. Could you have benefited more from an amulet of mighty fist or something else instead of natural armor? And the gold you spent on those defensive items could have gone towards a better weapon. Or some other magic item which would have improved your capabilities. And at the end of the day, when you get to high levels even people who maximized their AC are going to get hit regularly by things.
|
|
Replying to multiple posts and points here.
losing is the worst. Losing is having your player die or not completing the mission. It's especially bad if you could have won easily, but someone that wasn't skilled attempted a crucial task and failed blowing the entire thing.
I GM'd a Wounded Wisp table where they nearly blew the entire thing right at the beginning. Between nearly having a party wipe in the first combat encounter at the start, and the rogue almost destroying access to the first clue they needed... And the group then proceeded to screw up over and over again. They missed vital clues. They followed red herings to the point of hillarity. They nearly broke their weapons trying to smash through a marble wall because they hadn't found one clue. It was a fun table to GM. We were all laughing nearly the entire time. They just barely completed the adventure.
Sometimes failure is not only an option, but it's a bloody good time.
Regarding roflstomping encounters... It's actually kind of a letdown to me. When I one shotted the BBEG of a scenario with Collin by rolling a max damage crit on round one everyone was pretty much going "Wait, what?" Similarly when in The Lost Colony of Taldor I basically ended the BBEG fight before it could begin my reaction was once again "Wait, what?! That's it?"
Okay, granted I'd nearly gotten killed earlier doing the stuff that allowed us to end the BBEG fight in one action. And overall the adventure had been really fun. Especially when most of the party kept failing Every Single Will Save in one part. And getting through a certain dex check hall was rather hillarious.
Still didn't prevent the anticlimatic BBEG battle from being a let down. It's just that the rest of the adventure had been so bloody awesome.
also, on the subject of team sports/games... the performance of the team is what's important not any individual's "feeling" of contribution. if the team is doing well, everyone on the team should be glad the team is doing well... because it's about the team not you. so the idea that someone would be upset because despite having been successful at whatever the group's goal was (be that winning the soccer game or finding the macguffin and stopping the bbeg) because they felt they didn't get to shine (not because they were disappointed in their own performance but because they didn't get attention) seems wrong to me. that's like the goalie being upset that he didn't get to make (and potentially miss) a bunch of great saves because the rest of the team was doing really well... he should be glad the team was doing so well.
The problem with this idea goes back to the sports comparison. If one player is always preventing the ball from getting near the goal, then the goalie can't participate in the game and likely isn't having as much fun. This is true. What is also true is that the goalie isn't getting any experience in how to defend the goal. So what happens when they don't have that safety net of one player who can always stop the ball for them?
Also, why would you expect someone to keep showing up for the game if it's been made perfectly clear they aren't needed? In roleplaying, part of developing your character is learning their strengths and weaknesses. If one person is dominating every combat encounter and someone else is dominating every social encounter, how are the rest of the party contributing? And how do they learn what they need to improve?
Oh, and sometimes it can be down right hillarious for the worst person for the social interaction to try being the party's "face". And sometimes those hillariously bad attempts at being diplomatic and cunning... turn out to be exactly what you needed. After all, nobody expects the bluntly blurted out truth to be an effective tactic in an encounter requiring subterfuge.
Well honestly, the gulf between representing actual melee combat accurately and the Pathfinder rules is so vast that trying to pick out any one thing is equally bizarre.GURPS does a better job of modeling combat. It's also notorious for having a mook kill an experienced character with a single lucky shot. Most people don't want to play that. I don't blame them.
It is actually easier to make a quick series of attacks from a standing position though. I know that from experience. At the very least, you're more accurate.
That said, GURPS does what it was designed to do (take a character from any genre and seamlessly drop them into any other one) very well. And everything else rather poorly. I GMed a gurps game where one guy nearly killed himself when he stabbed his own hand with a pen because. Why did he do that? Because one of his flaws was that he "stabs stupid mother !@#$%^". And he realized he'd just done something that qualified himself for that category. Namely he handed a lit torch to a pyromaniac who had demonstrated less then zero survival instincts, while in an unstable underground tunnel.
As the GM I described the person he was threatening getting progressively wider eyed, then screaming while pointing behind him. When he turned around I described the pyromaniac player's character about to light the support timbers on fire. Funnily enough, that pyro's player said he didn't mind me running his character in that instance since he was planning on doing that anyway. Something I'd guessed from the unholy grin upon being handed the torch.
Oh, and finally one final anecdote from me. Don't get me wrong. I can min/max with the best of them. I just chose not to do so. And that's because of an early min/max character I made. It was for a Heroes Unlimited Revised Edition game. I sat down to see just how broken I could make a character without breaking the rules. And the character was very broken. At level 1 I had a +8 (I think) to strike in melee combat (most had between +0 to +2). For defenses I had +15 parry and dodge. For comparison, generally speaking a +9 to dodge at level 15 (the cap) was really good. My character would hit most of the time, and was nearly impossible to hit in return.
Offensively, I was no slouch either. I was regularly able to deal 4d6+20 damage, at minimum. My maximum damage attacks were rated with things like 3d6x10. And while most people were lucky if they could make four attacks in a melee round, I could make eight. Which was what you normally could get by level 15. By level 15 I'd have even more attacks per round.
I stopped playing that character after one session. Why? Because it was too powerful. There was no challenge. And without the challenge, there was no fun. It's why I'll never make a character who's completely invulnerable. And also why I don't read Flash or Superman comics. I love the characters, but they are so powerful the writers usually just can't truly challenge them. Which isn't to say I make weak characters. I just try not to make ones who are so overwhelmingly powerful that they can't be challenged.
Collin is probably my most overpowered character. But then again, he's also rather one dimensional. He's good with one weapon, and focuses on that weapon so heavily that he's less effective if he can't use it. Or if he's in a social setting. With his scythe he can be devastating. Maybe not "raging barbarian with oversized great sword" devastating. But still a power house. Ironically enough, in most scenarios I've used him in, he gets negated by badguys who out maneuver him. Or because the fight is in narrow areas which he can't navigate well.
A kineticist has the potential to be really nasty. Yet they are limited by the fact they deal so much non-lethal damage to them self to use their abilities. Spellcasters can be broken at high levels. Then again, I tend to favor prestige classes which neuter much of that power in favor of greater melee capabilities. That, and those sorcerers tend to have a sub-optimal play style due to the personality I give the character.
What is also true is that the goalie isn't getting any experience in how to defend the goal. So what happens when they don't have that safety net of one player who can always stop the ball for them?
it's called practice. getting experience to help you win later is not a valid reason to throw the game now. also, maybe it's one player, maybe it's half the team (2-3 players in a PF game). doesn't really matter... the team is still better off if you don't have to make the save (take any damage, etc.).
In roleplaying, part of developing your character is learning their strengths and weaknesses. If one person is dominating every combat encounter and someone else is dominating every social encounter, how are the rest of the party contributing? And how do they learn what they need to improve?
that's a good question. how did the rest of the party build their characters to contribute?
|
|
What is also true is that the goalie isn't getting any experience in how to defend the goal. So what happens when they don't have that safety net of one player who can always stop the ball for them?it's called practice. getting experience to help you win later is not a valid reason to throw the game now. also, maybe it's one player, maybe it's half the team (2-3 players in a PF game). doesn't really matter... the team is still better off if you don't have to make the save (take any damage, etc.).
Practice only gets you so far. You memorize what the people you're practicing against do, and prepare for that. So anything else then catches you off balance. If your team's main kicker always trying to kick into the left side of the net, that's what practice teaches you to how to protect. And let's be honest here. If one player is dominating the defense so much that the ball never gets close to the goalie can solely be attributed to them, that same player is probably not a team player, so makes the majority of the offensive plays on their own too. I've seen it before, and I'll probably see it a gain.
In roleplaying, part of developing your character is learning their strengths and weaknesses. If one person is dominating every combat encounter and someone else is dominating every social encounter, how are the rest of the party contributing? And how do they learn what they need to improve?that's a good question. how did the rest of the party build their characters to contribute?
I've been in groups (non-PFS) where one person makes so overwhelmingly powerful of a character that the only time anyone else gets to do anything in combat or social situations is if the min/maxer critically fails. And you know what? After a few sessions with such a character, most of the group would stop showing up. They felt there was no point in showing up just to watch one person do everything.
I've also been in groups where nobody is making overpowered characters. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. And sometimes said strengths don't cover for the weaknesses of others. The group would struggle to complete adventurers initially, but had a lot of fun. And over time people figure out where their character needs a bit of improvement from mistakes and how/why things went bad. These campaigns are the ones that I've noticed last the longest. Not the campaigns where one person or everyone curbstomps everything they encounter.
Take that as you will. But I find that encouraging people to NOT make the absolutely most powerful character they possibly can make... is better for the campaign in the long run. The OP's suggestion wasn't a particularly good way to go about things. But that doesn't mean the idea of encouraging players to be creative instead of going for mathmatic superiority is a bad thing.
Some of my most memorable times playing D&D were when we'd use what we had in creative ways because by the numbers, we were hosed. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it blew up in our faces. But always it made for a session you talked about for years to come.
With the sports comparison keep in mind that we are professionals here not an amateur club. We get paid to do these things and doing them efficiently cuts down on cost that eat into our profit. I doubt any professional goalies would consider quitting their teams and contracts simply because the aren't getting enough time to shine. Now if they weren't seeing an equal share of the profits maybe but that's not an issue with PFS.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the sports metaphor both interesting and strange. When I played rec sports, the goal was to play a clean game, followed by playing as hard and as well as you could. I would have been deeply insulted if someone on my team started sandbagging any remotely competitive game to try and give me more action.
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In recreational sports, what the coach will sometimes do is switch in people who are second or third string in order to give them time playing. Depending on the coach and the league, they may do that anyways. Some coaches feel it is more important that everyone gets a chance to play than what the score is.
Sitting on a bench in the cold is a lot less fun than sitting indoors on a chair.
I agree that the sports metaphor really doesn't work for a lot of reasons.
What sort of character to create for a game like Pathfinder varies a lot depending on the group you are playing with. There is a big difference between a serious game where everyone is heavily invested in the plot versus a light-hearted beer & pretzels game where most of the people are there to hang out. One that focuses on investigation isn't generally going to need as combat focused of characters as a gladiator style arena game. Some games have traps every session, while others have almost none.
There are a lot of different play styles, so what is over powered for one might be almost useless for another.
Pathfinders aren't a rec team though, they are pro's the Society isn't worried if bob the bard feels left out because the Crypt of Chikenstein was full of undead and no chance to show off his social abilities any more than they are worried that Franky the fighter was bored standing around the Duke Earlington's ball last night as long as both groups brought back the MacGuffin. This isn't the local YMCA's flag football league it's the majors and your livelihood including your actual life are on the line.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinders aren't a rec team though, they are pro's the Society isn't worried if bob the bard feels left out because the Crypt of Chikenstein was full of undead and no chance to show off his social abilities any more than they are worried that Franky the fighter was bored standing around the Duke Earlington's ball last night as long as both groups brought back the MacGuffin. This isn't the local YMCA's flag football league it's the majors and your livelihood including your actual life are on the line.
Pathfinder the roleplaying game is though. As has been pointed out, why would you keep coming back to a game if you never get to do anything?
Pathfinders aren't a rec team though, they are pro's the Society isn't worried if bob the bard feels left out because the Crypt of Chikenstein was full of undead and no chance to show off his social abilities any more than they are worried that Franky the fighter was bored standing around the Duke Earlington's ball last night as long as both groups brought back the MacGuffin. This isn't the local YMCA's flag football league it's the majors and your livelihood including your actual life are on the line.Pathfinder the roleplaying game is though. As has been pointed out, why would you keep coming back to a game if you never get to do anything?
Which is a player problem not a character one so that is how it needs to be addressed. And by that same token if I keep getting to do stuff but keep wasting consumables and gold on conditions that could be avoided if everyone had a min. level of competence whats the fun?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't the local YMCA's flag football league it's the majors and your livelihood including your actual life are on the line.
As Nohwear said, Pathfinder Society IS a community event, and as such it is worth having a discussion about how to make sure everyone is involved and enjoying themselves. The OP's proposal isn't a good method for achieving that goal, but the discussion is useful.
|
|
Really though, there are many ways to approach a player if you feel that their character is under performing. You can just complain. You can try to leave them in the dust. You can basically try to build their character for them. You can offer them help while also listening to their ideas and trying to work with them. The last one being the actually helpful option. If they flat out refuse to listen to you, then that is a different issue. Such players may be the problem one in that case.
And that's how you deal with the other guy as well not by putting a ceiling on the game but by talking to and working with them.
|
|
And that's how you deal with the other guy as well not by putting a ceiling on the game but by talking to and working with them.
This is true.
EDIT: Perhaps it would be best if started talking about ways to deal with players who refuse to alter their characters, either up or down. While shunning is an options, I hope that we can find ways to avoid such an option.
|
I don't think there's a problem with characters that are built to be extremely strong. I will say the issue can stem from players that don't know when to back off slightly to let everyone else shine.
My Kineticist just happens to be one of the characters and I didn't try to break it at all. I've told players at my table that if I'm taking too much spotlight to let me know so that I will reduce what I do.
If players have paid for their books/materials, let them build the stupid strong characters.
It's the players that are the issue. If you don't want them at your table and they refuse to cooperate, don't play with them and/or talk with them later.
|
|
| 1 person 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.
I disagree with the proposal as well.
However, I somewhat disagree with your points:
- If someone's build is winning the combat (regularly) then that player is "winning" but it may not be much fun for everyone else.
Imagine:
Player 1 "Miss"
Player 2 "Miss"
Player 3, "Hit -- 5 damage"
Player 4, "I've got 3 attacks, all hit because I've got +15, 59 damage"
- While quick combats should theoretically leave more time for roleplay and storytelling, in my experience those dedicated to a hyper-optimized "munchkin" build are rarely focused on such. They tend to be focused on rule-lawyering and how they can further strengthen their characters.
Similarly, to the point that a specialized character will have big weaknesses elsewhere ... That's true, but those areas of weakness are rarely focused on. That's largely the GM's fault but such players/characters don't tend to say, "Oh, I can't do X" because my god/patron/principles forbid it.
|
|
Then again, those stupid strong characters always have a weakness. Such as the combat monster who suddenly goes from decemating the enemies to either decimating their allies or just sitting in the corner after being Dominated/Suggestioned/Charmed. Or the skill monkey who focused so heavily on having Every Single Knowledge Skill that they can't fight very well, and an unheightened Grease causes them to faceplant regularly.
Meanwhile the person who is more balanced may not be outrageously good at any given task, but they also aren't pants on head stupid at any task either. You don't have to be Batman to be balanced. (but it helps) Just taking a moment to think "Okay, how can I help out beyond my usual role in the party" can be a good thing. And not tanking Int is a good way to do this. I like to have 12 to 14 Int on most of my characters. Especially ones that are 2+int skill classes.
|
|
This is an argument as old as Organized Play (at least - it's probably as old as cooperative gaming).
It's related, of course, to arguments about play style (role vs. roll), but much of what we have here can be illustrated by an analogy.
We decide to host a basketball game. We secure a court, and we invite anyone to attend, up to the random completion of a team roster (however many that it - I'm not a basketball fan - but let's call it 8). This invited team will be playing against Team GM, themselves a group of fairly randomly, just-happen-to-be-available folks.
Now, on both sides, we get a mix of everyone from NBA professionals to folks playing basketball for the first time, all on the same court; the probability of one player being eclipsed by another is fairly high. What can we do to mitigate this?
Well, we can try to narrow the player types within a given game (all beginners, all NBA professionals, etc), but if we're already often struggling to fill courts, that may present an unrealistic mustering management problem.
I can tell you what I do (well, have done, as I seldom play or run lately) to mitigate the table-variation problem: I simply don't leave tables to chance. I have certain people I play with, and certain people I GM, and as a group we're kind of mutually curated based on preferences in play style, power level (high, in our case), and so on. And that's a very valid approach, placing emphasis on the "Organized" in Organized Play. I won't even play at conventions unless it's a pre-arranged table, right down to selecting the GM - I just don't waste time on pick-up groups. Problem solved (for me).
As for solving table variation at a system level, I can only think of one pretty surefire mechanism: add competition to the game. If you asymmetrically reward a certain mode of play, you'll herd the playerbase into that play style. There are certainly examples within PFS of punishing players who do "too much damage" or are "too effective" (the retirement arc comes to mind). Add a need for delicacy to scenarios to tone down damage, or have social-only solutions to certain problems, etc - and most importantly, never give a heads-up about it or hint at it in scenario titles - and you can cultivate a timidity in players.
Or, swing this 180 degrees and reward power - if everyone is comfortably high-toned, scenario difficulty can simply be elevated to match it without worrying about steamrolling laggers.
On the whole, though, it's simply a feature of d20's linear mechanics that power can vary sharply within a level (you can probably model this as "slope"), compared with more "statistical" games.
The simplest solution is simply to pick and choose your tablemates, though.
DH
|
|
This is an argument as old as Organized Play (at least - it's probably as old as cooperative gaming).
Well, we can try to narrow the player types within a given game (all beginners, all NBA professionals, etc), but if we're already often struggling to fill courts, that may present an unrealistic mustering management problem.
I can tell you what I do (well, have done, as I seldom play or run lately) to mitigate the table-variation problem: I simply don't leave tables to chance. I have certain people I play with, and certain people I GM, and as a group we're kind of mutually curated based on preferences in play style, power level (high, in our case), and so on. And that's a very valid approach, placing emphasis on the "Organized" in Organized Play. I won't even play at conventions unless it's a pre-arranged table, right down to selecting the GM - I just don't waste time on pick-up groups. Problem solved (for me).
As for solving table variation at a system level, I can only think of one pretty surefire mechanism: add competition to the game. If you asymmetrically reward a certain mode of play, you'll herd the playerbase into that play style. There are certainly examples within PFS of punishing players who do "too much damage" or are "too effective" (the retirement arc comes to mind). Add a need for delicacy to scenarios to tone down damage, or have social-only solutions to certain problems, etc - and most importantly, never give a heads-up about it or hint at it in scenario titles - and you can cultivate a timidity in players.
Or, swing this 180 degrees and reward power - if everyone is comfortably high-toned, scenario difficulty can simply be elevated to match it without worrying about steamrolling laggers.
On the whole, though, it's simply a feature of d20's linear mechanics that power can vary sharply within a level (you can probably model this as "slope"), compared with more "statistical" games.
The simplest solution is simply to pick and choose your tablemates, though.
Not everyone has that luxury of being able to 'pick and choose' what tables they play at, what GMs they play under.
In fact, some folks even show up at a convention in the vain and forlorn hope that they might actually *get to play* (rather than GM something, or in a home campaign, etc).
It doesn't work to have a subjective 'power bump' to the opponents in a given scenario due to the fact that every GM is different.
I've seen four near-wipes in L1 *evergreens* because of either bad luck or over-eager GMs that didn't have a good 'feel' for how a scenario was supposed to run, and felt that 'oppressing the players until they nearly broke' was 'good clean fun'.
Learned my lesson from that one, slowly, but it's not a very good entry into Society play, and with no one at Seeker level I'm still feeling like I'm in the 'entry' phase of Society play.
I may be an odd sort, but if someone has built a combat monster, I respect that.
Just as much as I hope they respect my bard which is very much built around a 'support' paradigm.
If damage is excessive, is it my fault because my character *buffed* the character doing the 'excessive' damage?
Where does it end?
Flanking could cause more hits, so it's excessive.
Conditions could cause NPCs to either be hit easier or take them out of a fight, so those are excessive, too, right?
|
|
Any set of rules you can write down will be worked around. A static defense of words against a hoard of creative attacking rules lawyers with the entire pathfinder product line to pull from is like trying to shield yourself in honey from a bear attack.
...after taking a bath in a tub full of salmon...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been in a PFS game for a while (not since I moved from Alaska), but I still haunt the boards a bit...
My two coppers; I'm much more concerned with survival than spotlight, so my response to folks whose build lets them crush the opposition was "awesome, THAT'S dead, and I didn't use any ammo." Obviously, not everyone shares my laid-back approach...
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dead horse dead horse dead horse dead horse
He's dead
He rides accross the forums, the thoroughbred of sin
Bringing up the issue that you just can't win
Whether paladins, alignments, cons or minmaxin'
We've brought it up there's no recourse
We've done this before
There's deadhorse.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinders aren't a rec team though, they are pro's
...ah, I see where you are coming from.
You're confusing the characters and the players. The players aren't pros... but we're also the real people, the ones who will have fun or not, the ones who will get annoyed or not, the ones who will stop playing or not. Thus, when deciding what's appropriate in a game, thinking about what will make the players have fun is more important than thinking about what would be primary to the characters.
|
|
I am definitely a min-maxer.... but not towards disrupting the game or making things unfun for people. Just for optimization, I've always been that way.
When it's more a player problem, talk to them outside of the game.
The other problem is... what are the guidelines going to be? Where is the line between O.P. and just plain optimized? You have to put guidelines in for basically everything and that'd be a pain in the a$$.
I think this would be a bad idea to implement this sort of things. As we usually do, just ban or restrict things/combos that are too O.P.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a good point zook1shoe. Where is the line? And how do you delineate it with so many varied options? Is a fighter with 18+ strength, power attack, 25 AC and a +5 two-handed weapon overpowered? What about a sorcerer with 18+ strength, power attack, 25 AC, and a +5 two-handed weapon (staff)? And how does this compare to a kineticist with 18+ dex, 18+ con, 25 AC, and using kinetic blade/whip to deal 1d6+1 per every 2 levels+con+elemental overflow bonus+whatever substance infusion effect they used? Or maybe they're dealing 2d6+2 per every 2 levels+con+elemental overflow bonus+whatever substance infusion effect they used. Is How does this stack up against the rest?
Where do you draw the line and say "this is overpowered, and that's just optimization"?
A synergist summoner can be down right broken as a melee combatant. And that's with a pretty average synergist summoner build. At high levels a wizard can also be rather overpowered, depending on the imagination of the player and how they do their spell selection. I remember a few people going spastic over how kineticists have unlimited blasting and use of their abilities during the Occult Adventures playtest as well. Claims were bandied about over how this made them overpowered.
It's not the character that is broken more often then not. It's the player and their mindset. Two people can play the exact same build, right down to weapon. Yet one might be considered a good team player, and the other is considered an overpowered min/maxer. Why? Because of how the two play. While one hogs as much of the glory as they can, maybe the other person plays the character more tactically and helps others instead of just steamrolling the encounters on his own.
|
|
It's not the character that is broken more often then not. It's the player and their mindset. Two people can play the exact same build, right down to weapon. Yet one might be considered a good team player, and the other is considered an overpowered min/maxer. Why? Because of how the two play. While one hogs as much of the glory as they can, maybe the other person plays the character more tactically and helps others instead of just steamrolling the encounters on his own.
Exactly this!
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I try to preface the tables I GM (the higher tiers, especially) with something like this:
Many of you have built your characters to do something really well. Absurdly well, even. My role as GM is not to prevent you from doing that; my role is simply to present the scenario, adjudicate the rules and try to entertain you while doing so. I'm sure each of you are proud of your character's build and want to show the table what they can do. All I ask is should you find your character is bringing every encounter to an early end before others get to act, you consider restraint. Please let everyone have a chance to shine and show you that special thing for which their character is built. Now I'm not asking you to choose inaction if it puts your fellow Pathfinders in jeopardy; if your special thing will save lives, please do it. Just don't do it in every situation when there are five other players who'd all like a turn, too.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dead horse dead horse dead horse dead horse
He's dead
He rides accross the forums, the thoroughbred of sin
Bringing up the issue that you just can't win
Whether paladins, alignments, cons or minmaxin'
We've brought it up there's no recourse
We've done this before
There's deadhorse.
Thanks for making me laugh so hard people outside my office stopped to look in.
|
|
I try to preface the tables I GM (the higher tiers, especially) with something like this:
Many of you have built your characters to do something really well. Absurdly well, even. My role as GM is not to prevent you from doing that; my role is simply to present the scenario, adjudicate the rules and try to entertain you while doing so. I'm sure each of you are proud of your character's build and want to show the table what they can do. All I ask is should you find your character is bringing every encounter to an early end before others get to act, you consider restraint. Please let everyone have a chance to shine and show you that special thing for which their character is built. Now I'm not asking you to choose inaction if it puts your fellow Pathfinders in jeopardy; if your special thing will save lives, please do it. Just don't do it in every situation when there are five other players who'd all like a turn, too.
Here's a case from recent memory where I did pretty much just this.
Final fight of Abducted in Aether, the party consisted of my level 10 unchained monk, a level 10 wizard, a level 10 sorcerer and a level 7 summoner. Since we were 4 players in between subtiers we played subtier 7-8. We had the BBEG in the back of the room and his minions up front.
My AC was so high that everything in the fight needed a natural 20 to hit me with their best physical attack. I was getting 5-6 attacks per round and dealt an average of 22 damage with each hit.
If I was trying to be a glory hound, I could have rushed the BBEG and left the casters to deal with the minions.
Instead, realizing I was really the only front-liner besides the summoner's eidolon, I stepped up to engage the minions while the casters delayed the BBEG for a few rounds until the eidolon and I could take the minions out, then I went after the BBEG as the casters were in a much safer position at that point.
I had been worried that my PC was too effective in the combats, but no one seemed to mind. Probably also helped that I was fairly ineffective at the social stuff in the first half, so the other players got to shine there too.