|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?
As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?
As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?
Except, I never said that was the stuff that makes it fun for me as a GM. At the end of the day, if the characters are challenged, that's good enough for me. I'm also totally cool if the table is having a good time.
Some of these builds leave only that one player having a good time, while the other players just sit around as "This Week's Special Guest Stars."
I have a pretty good handle on what my job as the GM is.
EDIT: Tried to make my post less inflammatory (wasn't trying to be inflammatory, but it came across to me that way upon rereading it.)
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've told the story many times but one of my favorite tables was chock full of "overpowered" characters. But we all knew how powerful we really were and spent the whole first fight hamming it up and doing roleplaying things. We didn't bust out the big guns until the GM warned us we were going to run out of time.
So the solution is to talk to your players. Ask them to tone it down and let others shine or enjoy the story. Some need to be reminded before every game. And a few will flat-out refuse because all of their enjoyment comes from being overpowering. But it doesn't hurt to ask.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?
As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?
A few reasons
On the monsters turn is a large part of when you get to do stuff. If you're stun locked, dead, or one shotted you can't do anything.
Because to some degree you have to empathize with the monsters you're playing to play them.
Because you're telling a story, and if that story has an anticlimactic ending you feel the story wasn't told well.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
... (punishing success, discriminating against people who put in time and work to excel, etc.)...
This question isn't meant to be combative:
Should a GM who puts in a lot of time and money in preparing a scenario be given the same consideration for his or her time and effort that you feel should be given to a player? There are some GMs who don't spend a lot of time preparing or whatever. Some spend hours or days.
So, if a GM has invested a lot time in prepping, why should his or her enjoyment be minimized or eliminated because one character wrecks the scenario? How do we solve that problem?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't play tennis without a net.
In a home game I can build the net, but that's barely an option in PFS.
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 :-))
The guideline I like to use is going one-on-one with a dragon of your level. How fast does the character die? How fast does the character win? What percentage of resources got used? Those answers can be play-tested/studied by a group of VOs until a scale emerges.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could send the one over-optimized character to 'distract the dragon' while the rest of the party works on the scenario? I would love this option! As a GM hoping for a challenging night & as a player who gets to brag about soloing a dragon. We could get a list of dragons for each scenario similar to the Secondary Success list. We're playing King of old Azlant? I want to bring my elf, he hates acid breathers!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... (punishing success, discriminating against people who put in time and work to excel, etc.)...This question isn't meant to be combative:
Should a GM who puts in a lot of time and money in preparing a scenario be given the same consideration for his or her time and effort that you feel should be given to a player? There are some GMs who don't spend a lot of time preparing or whatever. Some spend hours or days.
So, if a GM has invested a lot time in prepping, why should his or her enjoyment be minimized or eliminated because one character wrecks the scenario? How do we solve that problem?
They're not the same because the scenario doesn't belong to the DM's. Its not HIS baby. A character is. trashing the scenario isn't trashing something that that's a part of the DM, futzing with the character is.
I don't think that you solve that problem. I think you just accept that it is what it is and move on.
One easy tweak does come to mind: Stop giving suboptimal tactics for the monsters to follow. You do not spend a round at high levels buffing in combat. Rocket tag has begun, start removing players or you'll never do anything. Likewise drinking a healing potion to cure 2d8+3 points of damage is a horrible waste of a round when even one party member is thwacking you in the head for 2d6+10
|
Luckily, you have that ability as a GM ^_^No, you don't.
I know you are but what am I?
Seriously. You do.
However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.
I'm a huge fan of "providing a more enjoyable play experience".
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Luckily, you have that ability as a GM ^_^No, you don't.I know you are but what am I?
Seriously. You do.
However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.I'm a huge fan of "providing a more enjoyable play experience".
The ability to do so is conditional.
|
You can't play tennis without a net.
In a home game I can build the net, but that's barely an option in PFS.
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 :-))
The guideline I like to use is going one-on-one with a dragon of your level. How fast does the character die? How fast does the character win? What percentage of resources got used? Those answers can be play-tested/studied by a group of VOs until a scale emerges.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could send the one over-optimized character to 'distract the dragon' while the rest of the party works on the scenario? I would love this option! As a GM hoping for a challenging night & as a player who gets to brag about soloing a dragon. We could get a list of dragons for each scenario similar to the Secondary Success list. We're playing King of old Azlant? I want to bring my elf, he hates acid breathers!
There is a chart in the bestiaries that helps a GM create a CR appropriate monster. Where thier to hits and AC and damage and saves should be to present a good challenge but not be overpowering. This chart could work as a guide for PCs too.
|
|
There is a chart in the bestiaries that helps a GM create a CR appropriate monster. Where thier to hits and AC and damage and saves should be to present a good challenge but not be overpowering. This chart could work as a guide for PCs too.
True, but I would rather throw a dragon in the mix than a chart ;)
|
|
The ability to do so is conditional.Luckily, you have that ability as a GM ^_^No, you don't.I know you are but what am I?
Seriously. You do.
However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.I'm a huge fan of "providing a more enjoyable play experience".
Sure.
That condition is "whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about the times when the GM is playing the charing x4 damage cavalier enemy on the surprise round and rolls a critical and confirms it - and then instantly kills the barbarian front line who invested into CON?
Should the same suggestions here also apply to the GM? Randomness is as much apart of the game as everything else. No build is too weak or too strong when crit hits are involved.
|
Some basic guidelines I tend to follow when thinking of benchmarks for my characters:
AC: 20 + lvl means equal CR(give or take few) opponents hit about half the time with their primary attacks, meaning primary naturals and full bab strikes, and very rarely with their secondaries(iteratives, etc). 25+lvl is manageable but pricy, 30+lvl is overkill.
Accuracy: 2 x lvl -2, after your primary damage feats/class abilities have been accounted for. So my samurai, who's at lvl 11, hits for +18/+13/+8 with Power Attack on which is a bit low in terms of the guideline but very passable.
Saves: Will save = at least your level. For everything else there are options like antitoxins, energy resistances and freedoms of movement. If you have to push your Will anyway the rest should usually follow thanks to all the various "+1 to every save" items.
Damage: I've always drawn a blank here but if you've got a damage bonus in excess of double your level then it's often enough. I tend to overshoot this a lot since my quest for more accuracy finds me spending extensive amounts of gp on weapon enhancement bonuses. Getting a +3 weapon is one of my fave things since I can finally say goodbye to my golfbag to boot.
#ymmv #just_muser_things #ectoplasmatist_looking_for_EXP
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
The ability to do so is conditional.Luckily, you have that ability as a GM ^_^No, you don't.I know you are but what am I?
Seriously. You do.
However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.I'm a huge fan of "providing a more enjoyable play experience".Sure.
That condition is "whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience".
No. The condition is "...if the action of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations..." Only then does the provision you cite above become applicable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flip this around. If we are concerned about players having the right level of challenge then a different solution is to institute minimum benchmarks that must be met for a character.
This way developers will know that characters will be at least at a certain minimum level of capability and can raise the difficulty of scenarios accordingly.
|
|
Flip this around. If we are concerned about players having the right level of challenge then a different solution is to institute minimum benchmarks that must be met for a character.
This way developers will know that characters will be at least at a certain minimum level of capability and can raise the difficulty of scenarios accordingly.
This already exists. Its called Challenge Rating. CR assumes X party members with average rolls doing Y damage using 25% of their resources. In PFS every CR is set for six average characters (four in early seasons).
But the minimum is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The problem arises on the other end. On a scale of 1 to 10, the average (the CR) should be 5. Some builds exceed the 10 by as much as 20 or 30.
As explained the problem is not the character. When one knows one is going into a gun fight, don't bring a knife an MI Abram.
|
No. The condition is "...if the action of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations..." Only then does the provision you cite above become applicable.The ability to do so is conditional.Luckily, you have that ability as a GM ^_^No, you don't.I know you are but what am I?
Seriously. You do.
However, if the actions of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should consider whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience.I'm a huge fan of "providing a more enjoyable play experience".Sure.
That condition is "whether changing these would provide a more enjoyable play experience".
The question of what invalidates an NPC's tactics can is pretty vague, it is a largely subjective question whose answer is going to vary from person to person. As GM's it's up to us to make the call as to what exactly invalidates an Enemy's tactics. I've met GM's that have stuck to the tactics strictly, and those that have a looser idea of what invalidates those tactics. As long as the GM isn't just trying to kill as many PC's as possible, I'm okay with either approach.
PFS responsibly, everyone.
|
I'm going to bring up an actual situation in a PFS scenario, tier 7-11, playing up.
A huge statue animated, and at the same time a wall collapsed in a cloud of dust, obscuring what was behind it. The party fighter went to engage the statue, supported by the party monk. The fighter took over half HP in one round. Someone then cast haste (or the cleric equivalent, but the details don't matter greatly for this example.) Significant numbers of undead then came out of the cloud of dust, forcing the party to divide resources against two threats. At this point, the party magus decided things just got real. The first undead creature was struck by a spellstrike intensified shocking grasp through a dwarven waraxe, followed up by the second strike from spell combat, which dropped it. This was followed by the haste attack, which was a crit due to improved critical. Finally, the iterative dropped the second undead creature.
In this situation, one character probably inflicted about 150 points of damage. However, this was probably a major reaason the party survived that encounter without anyone dropping.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?
As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?
A few reasons
On the monsters turn is a large part of when you get to do stuff. If you're stun locked, dead, or one shotted you can't do anything.
Because to some degree you have to empathize with the monsters you're playing to play them.
Because you're telling a story, and if that story has an anticlimactic ending you feel the story wasn't told well.
I agree with all the above.
Take the time where the scenario had an absurdly over complicated end boss using all sorts of rules that I don't know well. I spent well over an hour (likely over 2 hours) preparing that encounter.
And it was a complete cakewalk by the players. Other than knowing Initiative and AC all my preparation was irrelevant.
Maybe you enjoy wasting 2 hours of time but I don't
|
|
There is a chart in the bestiaries that helps a GM create a CR appropriate monster. Where thier to hits and AC and damage and saves should be to present a good challenge but not be overpowering. This chart could work as a guide for PCs too.
[Total Aside and Rant]I REALLY wish that Paizo would consult that chart more often when assigning CR numbers to monsters. There are SO many outliers where the listed CR is just obviously wrong. In a recent scenario the CR 12 monster was in almost all ways weaker than the CR 10 monster. And they were both monsters of the identical type published in the same bestiary.[/Total Aside and Rant]
Flip this around. If we are concerned about players having the right level of challenge then a different solution is to institute minimum benchmarks that must be met for a character.
This way developers will know that characters will be at least at a certain minimum level of capability and can raise the difficulty of scenarios accordingly.
This already exists. Its called Challenge Rating. CR assumes X party members with average rolls doing Y damage using 25% of their resources. In PFS every CR is set for six average characters (four in early seasons).
But the minimum is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The problem arises on the other end. On a scale of 1 to 10, the average (the CR) should be 5. Some builds exceed the 10 by as much as 20 or 30.
As explained the problem is not the character. When one knows one is going into a gun fight, don't bring
a knifean MI Abram.
nothing about CR requires that players meet any benchmarks. the actual problem is that the optimization floor is too low. (or the ceiling is too high, but i promise you'll upset more people lowering the ceiling than raising the floor.) this game has a lot of options and a lot of them are borderline useless most of the time.
consider that the consequence of being at a table with an optimized character when you're not is that you choose to play that character at a different table with different people next scenario. the consequence of holding back so that other people can shine is quite possibly the death of your character. holding back gets people killed. it's why murderhobos don't take prisoners or deal non-lethal. so why would someone expect a murderhobo to risk death so less good murderhobos can pretend they aren't comparatively worse?
consider that (aside from having fun) the goal of a player in a game is to win. then consider that holding back is how you lose.
if paizo didn't think that prone shooter was a fine feat, we wouldn't have this problem because it would be rare to see a character with a useless build. it should take more effort to build a crappy character than an optimized one, but it currently does not. all i need to do is look for feats that seem cool at first glance and i'll find a treasure trove of mechanically useless feats that i don't actually need to add flavor to my character.
idk... it just seems to me that the proper solution is to actually put effort into creating a relatively balanced system instead of clinging desperately to your "this game isn't meant to be balanced" mantra. if the poor options aren't so much worse than the great options, you end up being marginally worse, but not so much that an optimized character ruins your fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are GMs only having fun if the players are getting hit by stuff, failing saving throws, or doing less damage than the enemies?
As a GM you're there to run the scenario and bring it to life. Your fun should be in seeing the players win or in telling the scenario. The players are heroes against X difficulty. If they want that difficulty to be easy mode why would that decrease your fun at all?
A few reasons
On the monsters turn is a large part of when you get to do stuff. If you're stun locked, dead, or one shotted you can't do anything.
Because to some degree you have to empathize with the monsters you're playing to play them.
Because you're telling a story, and if that story has an anticlimactic ending you feel the story wasn't told well.
I agree with all the above.
Take the time where the scenario had an absurdly over complicated end boss using all sorts of rules that I don't know well. I spent well over an hour (likely over 2 hours) preparing that encounter.
And it was a complete cakewalk by the players. Other than knowing Initiative and AC all my preparation was irrelevant.
Maybe you enjoy wasting 2 hours of time but I don't
S%%$ happens. You're allowed to be frustrated, but I wouldn't put the blame at the players doorstep. What does it matter if you have one frustrating anti-climatic encounter if the rest of the scenario was filled with laughs and fun. Sure, it sucks that this week it didn't go as planned, but you have so many chances to go again. I've been a bit disappointed at how things went, but never once have I thought that I regretted prepping a scenario, or trying my hardest to make it great for the players.
Now if the scenario is never fun for you as a GM unless the players are being challenged then maybe you need to take a small break, or find a way to have more fun with it. Not all scenarios are even particularly meant to be challenging in my experience, sometimes it will be a cakewalk. If it happens all the time and you're frustrated with it it's likely something needs to change, but I don't think that limiting the players will increase the level of fun to be honest. Maybe if they were already in place it would be, but taking things away leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth.
My opinion on the topic is that it's a player issue. Sometimes I'll admit I can be one of the problematic players, and I wouldn't be surprised if I was in some way partially responsible for the creation of this thread. But allowing the players the responsibility to do what is right in their games, for their tables tends to end up fine in my experience. And in the occasions it doesn't, when players are being disruptive, they get selected out anyway for the most part.
I also believe that powerful characters can be a boon, allowing parties a safety net, particularly for more inexperienced players. I enjoy the feeling of being able to help make up for my parties missteps and protect them, and although I think I could adjudicate what is necessary better at times the balancing act is one of the most enjoyable in PFS for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flip this around. If we are concerned about players having the right level of challenge then a different solution is to institute minimum benchmarks that must be met for a character.
This way developers will know that characters will be at least at a certain minimum level of capability and can raise the difficulty of scenarios accordingly.
This already exists. Its called Challenge Rating. CR assumes X party members with average rolls doing Y damage using 25% of their resources. In PFS every CR is set for six average characters (four in early seasons).
But the minimum is bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The problem arises on the other end. On a scale of 1 to 10, the average (the CR) should be 5. Some builds exceed the 10 by as much as 20 or 30.
As explained the problem is not the character. When one knows one is going into a gun fight, don't bring
a knifean MI Abram.nothing about CR requires that players meet any benchmarks. the actual problem is that the optimization floor is too low. (or the ceiling is too high, but i promise you'll upset more people lowering the ceiling than raising the floor.) this game has a lot of options and a lot of them are borderline useless most of the time.
consider that the consequence of being at a table with an optimized character when you're not is that you choose to play that character at a different table with different people next scenario. the consequence of holding back so that other people can shine is quite possibly the death of your character. holding back gets people killed. it's why murderhobos don't take prisoners or deal non-lethal. so why would someone expect a murderhobo to risk death so less good murderhobos can pretend they aren't comparatively worse?
consider that (aside from having fun) the goal of a player in a game is to win. then consider that holding back is how you lose.
if paizo didn't think that prone shooter was a fine feat, we wouldn't have this problem because it...
Assuming that this is not sarcasm, this is a horrible attitude. Everyone should be having fun at the table. That is the only way to win.
|
|
I played in a campaign for over fifteen years that was based on the idea of 'keeping it challenging' for the players.
I became disillusioned with it when 'keeping it challenging' turned into 'pulling every punch that could kill'.
So much so, that I had to off-screen death my characters to move certain story elements along, and then the campaign leadership STILL kept trying to bring them back in a setting where 'Resurrection/Raise Dead' wasn't a thing.
I am not a bloodthirsty GM. I strive to be a fair (and far more important) fun-loving GM.
It would be very difficult to do this with an additional pile of rules that I'd have to figure out before each fight to verify that my NPCs didn't go out of their 'damage range' and the players didn't go out of theirs, etc, etc, etc.
There's already far too much work to do at the table to 'keep the trains running on time'. Adding extra work for negative gain is not the solution.
Assuming that this is not sarcasm, this is a horrible attitude. Everyone should be having fun at the table. That is the only way to win.
at what point did i say that only one person should be having fun? i only pointed out how many of you are disregarding the fun of the player with the optimized build... which you're clearly still doing. also, dying and not being able to play your character anymore isn't fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, and what about when the optimizer is hogging all of the glory and hurting the fun of the rest of the table?
As before, it's not a problem than can be fixed by adding more rules limiting the character.
Because it's not the character that's the problem.
It's the player.
There is where you need to focus the attention on.
And that can only be done by talking to that player.
-j
What I find funny is that simply using a great sword at level 1 without any strength bonus could be 'excessive' to the OP since it could exceed his threshold.
Heck have a 14 strength and power attack using a long sword two handed would likely exceed his threshold on a normal attack at level 1 (3+3+1d8 averages 10.5 damage).
Simply put it's a bad starting point even if something like this were to be considered.
I fear that we are reaching a point where we, likely myself included, are talking past each other. I had more to say, but I suddenly lost my train of thought.
I realize your focus was different, but the answer is still the same.
Talk it out if there is a problem.
-j
Alright, and what about when the optimizer is hogging all of the glory and hurting the fun of the rest of the table?As before, it's not a problem than can be fixed by adding more rules limiting the character.
Because it's not the character that's the problem.
It's the player.
There is where you need to focus the attention on.
And that can only be done by talking to that player.
-j
i disagree. the problem is that such disparity is possible. if that player holds back so everyone else can feel cooler, he risks losing his character permanently. if, instead, the disparity were removed, everyone's contributions would be more comparable and they wouldn't be bothered by that player who, in turn, would not have to hold back and would (likely) be less upset if he died (ymmv). i'd be pretty pissed if i held back because other people picked a bunch of useless options when building and my character died. i'd be less annoyed if everyone tried their best and it just didn't work out. and to be clear, i wouldn't be pissed at the other players for choosing trap options. i'd be pissed that those trap options were there at all and/or that everyone else pressured me into holding back and i died.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
In my area there is ony one player who people refuse to play with and that is because his character is too weak and has gotte some of them killed. My players are often quite happy to survive an hard scenario because of one good char at the table.
And in my experience most of the DMG optimiser builds are very simpla shut down by their own lack of defense. In the last 2 Season 7 7-11 we had 3 kills on chars who were optimised for offens but died in one critical hit or fullattack.
As a GM there are some chars that are unfun to GM for, especially the lv 5 Wizard with CL 9 and saves that i can only hope to roll a 18+. But I also learned, that doing an audit solves many problems (The local druid lost 5 Points of AC etc...) And in my experience these are the cases where softballing from the GM amplifies the problem -> when noone attacks the caster because you do not want to kill them than tey can invest all and every action and resource in destroying your encounters, if they have to do that while flanked or grappled most of them are quite weak or go into panicmode.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no good way to "force equality" that doesn't cause far more harm than it would fix.
There's also no "right way" to play the game.
So we're left with talking it out. Which is sadly far too often the last thing people try to do instead of the first.
-j
you don't have to "force equality" to make the options in the game more comparable...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What else is "making the options in the game more comparable" other than a form of forcing equal power levels?
Pretty much every way of doing this involves telling players they HAVE to build their character this way or that way.
That is simply unacceptable.
And it's all to stop what amounts to a handful of problem players, whether they use "too powerful" or "too weak" builds. You'd be affecting, restricting, far more people than just this handful.
I admit I have some personal hangups about this kinda thing. To me it's a sort of passive-aggressive form of problem-solving. It's throwing up new rules to avoid having to directly confront the issue. If it's a rule, after all, it's not ME saying these mean things, it's the rules!
Instead of sitting down and talking, maybe helping these problem players either to get better at build mastery, or learn to read the other players at the table so they can tell when they're overshadowing. And potentially running the risk of hurting someone's feelings or causing a ruckus.
It's trying to solve what amounts to a social contract issue, with legislation. That never really works.
-j
Inverse Proposal: Raise the floor.
All PCs have a minimum AC equal to their base Reflex save + their BAB + 8.
All PCs have a minimum damage track as well: Poor BAB is 5 damage per level (10 with spells), Medium BAB is 8 damage per level and Good BAB is 12 damage per level.
|
|
Inverse Proposal: Raise the floor.
All PCs have a minimum AC equal to their base Reflex save + their BAB + 8.
All PCs have a minimum damage track as well: Poor BAB is 5 damage per level (10 with spells), Medium BAB is 8 damage per level and Good BAB is 12 damage per level.
This is probably going to sound snarky, but at that point why not just play 13th Age? Do not get me wrong, I enjoy both systems. It just seems like at that point we are playing a different system.