Banned Builds


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

gm forced my fortunate wizard 5\harrower 10 to retire after of a bit of downtime (around 2 months) playing with his crafted cards.
(roll 4 times 1/day, pick best. if all bad return cards and fail the will save to get into prison and planeshift out). he was ahead of the party in wealth,levels and wishes\calamity avoidance\questions answered pending to trigger.


Ban all the bans.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Ban all the bans.

If the player refers to it as a build and not their character, ban it? ;)


Firebug wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Ban all the bans.
If the player refers to it as a build and not their character, ban it? ;)

No bans! Ban all the bans! :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ban all people who demand bans!
Wait…


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
I had forgotten that some people didn’t like gunslingers. That usually seemed to be more about theme than anything else though.

The touch attacks might have something to do with that too.

Grand Lodge

Kimera757 wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I had forgotten that some people didn’t like gunslingers. That usually seemed to be more about theme than anything else though.
The touch attacks might have something to do with that too.

Full BAB plus targeting touch AC 90% of the time is ridiculous, If I run...they target normal AC, or they are not allowed.

Shadow Lodge

So no benefit over longbows at all? Or even crossbows? Harsh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guns should target flat-footed AC instead of Touch AC. Thematically, it makes more sense that it's hard to physically react to guns and thus you need to rely on your magic armor or natural scales to deflect the blow. My guess is that the only reason this isn't the case, is because sneak attack exists.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
So no benefit over longbows at all? Or even crossbows? Harsh.

I feel almost hypocritical pointing out that in real life, early firearms were strictly inferior to longbows and crossbows-- they became prevalent on the battlefield because they reduced the training time for peasant conscripts from generations to weeks.

Also, the word "bulletproof" was coined by 16th century armorers because that's exactly what their products were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
Guns should target flat-footed AC instead of Touch AC. Thematically, it makes more sense that it's hard to physically react to guns and thus you need to rely on your magic armor or natural scales to deflect the blow. My guess is that the only reason this isn't the case, is because sneak attack exists.

This is one of the problems with guns in D&D; attempts to be realistic (which often interfere with attempts to be simple or balanced). In D&D, archery is not realistic, it is simplistic. In D&D, sword-fighting is not realistic, it is simplistic. You don't have to come up with a whole new set of rules for wielding a spear. But guns...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, even hitting touch AC, guns aren't great. Misfire is a much, much bigger detriment than most people realize, and getting to a point where you don't have to worry about it requires a large investment. On top of that, making it so you can reload guns fast enough to make multiple attacks a round requires a heavy investment. It takes a lot of feats (most of the archery feats plus gun feats) and a lot of money to be competent with a gun. And/or a lot of luck. Not to mention that being able to hit touch in the first place requires them to be close enough for enemies to walk up and hit them.

Whereas an archer can stand 100ft away and pepper an enemy with multiple arrows a round for just a couple feats, at a fraction of the cost, and doesn't break their weapon on a nat 1. And a bunch of different classes can be competent archers, while if you want to use a gun competently you're almost locked into gunslinger.

-----

I agree with the people saying they ban evil PCs. Aside from a game specifically intended to all play evil, it just causes problems. There are very few character options that, when used properly within the rules, honestly deserve a ban. The Razmiran Priest sorcerer archetype is the first to come to mind.


I've never banned anything from my tables. If someone had a stupidly powerful build, I've never found a way to not hit one of their weaknesses. Typically high AC builds may not have thought about CMD, or what a feint can do, or touch AC. Is their will save high? Could they end up fighting their own party? There is usually something versus even the most strong build on your table.

I also am not out to absolutely kill my players. I am there to let them have freedom with fun and fairness for all parties involved. If the martial monster my player made is decimating everything in combat, maybe have my other players experience their strengths in other ways, not on the battlefield so they feel like they are succeeding in their own realms. For example, my Kalashtar in Eberron 3.5 was never close to as good as the wizard or barbarian, but that guy had diplomacy of 38 and a cooking skill in the 30s. He ended up cooking for royalty and made more money than anyone. That supplemented his failure in combat for the ability to buy magical items for himself to make him on par in combat.

If there are summoner issues with multiple summons, start handing out fireballs. Easy.

I disagree with banning evil builds in a good campaign. I just require that they play evil (selfish) rather than evil (murderous). I also require that they have a need and desire to be part of the party. Usually, this can be done in the backstory.


ZᴇɴN wrote:
Whereas an archer can stand 100ft away and pepper an enemy with multiple arrows a round for just a couple feats, at a fraction of the cost, and doesn't break their weapon on a nat 1. And a bunch of different classes can be competent archers, while if you want to use a gun competently you're almost locked into gunslinger.

Yeah. I'm under no illusions that the Gunslinger or other firearms experts are overpowered-- I ban them because the rules are so wonky, both mechancially and narratively, that they damage my enjoyment of the game.

This isn't intended as a dig at Paizo. If I thought I could have done better myself, I'd have done so already. I'm a Spelljammer guy, so I love me some guns in my D&D.


ZᴇɴN wrote:
I agree with the people saying they ban evil PCs. Aside from a game specifically intended to all play evil, it just causes problems. There are very few character options that, when used properly within the rules, honestly deserve a ban. The Razmiran Priest sorcerer archetype is the first to come to mind.

I don't so much ban evil PCs as PCs with markedly differing alignments. I liked Way of the Wicked, for instance. ALL the PCs had to be neutral evil or lawful evil. No paladins clashing with necromancers, and no chaotic stupid shenanigans.


Its not so much a ban as just something i'll never do again but swashigator, specifically as the skill character. I know skills aren't exactly the powerhouse option but i feel like that build/class really trivializes skill checks, and more or less can be built to outshine anyone at any skill anywhere. It just sort of sets the bar of whatever skill challenge the gm needs to not be an autosuccess for one character way out of reach of every other.


Intimidate builds. PF1Ed has utterly broken intimidate rules. No save, the DC doesn't scale remotely fast enough, and there are easy ways to increase the fear level past shaken. The most frustrating character of this type I ever saw was a PC whose player utterly refused to even roleplay the fact he was scary. He wanted to be able to make the party's enemies run away by hitting them with Cornugon Smash (for generally unimpressive damage), but insisted against the evidence that he was playing a "nice guy" who no one could find at all threatening. If he hit, the only suspense was in finding out how many rounds the enemy was out of commission, not whether they would be (undead and constructs aside, of course).


Zog of Deadwood wrote:
Intimidate builds. PF1Ed has utterly broken intimidate rules. No save, the DC doesn't scale remotely fast enough, and there are easy ways to increase the fear level past shaken. The most frustrating character of this type I ever saw was a PC whose player utterly refused to even roleplay the fact he was scary. He wanted to be able to make the party's enemies run away by hitting them with Cornugon Smash (for generally unimpressive damage), but insisted against the evidence that he was playing a "nice guy" who no one could find at all threatening. If he hit, the only suspense was in finding out how many rounds the enemy was out of commission, not whether they would be (undead and constructs aside, of course).

It gets ridiculous with things like Signature Skill Intimidate, Dastardly Finish, and Violent Display/Killing Flourish/Dreadful Carnage... you make people Cower in fear, you Coup de Grace one, Intimidate everyone who seen it, they Cower in fear...

Grand Lodge

What...no Vigilantes abusing Twisting Fear and Dazzling Display to do 10d4 (can probably do more if you want to fully exploit it) non-lethal damage per round to everything within 30' of themselves, on top of causing them to cower in fear for longer than the combat will last?


I have a general rule: Any ability or combination that offers recursion, or that offers more bonuses/power than others, is not allowed.


CBDunkerson wrote:
doc roc wrote:

There is only one true banned build...

Pact Wizard (Haunted Heroes).... NO. NO AND HEEEEELLLLL NO!!!!

So, I'm gonna guess a dual archetype Pact Exploiter Wizard wouldn't be an option? :]

I got to play this for the Return of the Runelords AP with a dip into Sorcerer along the Bloodline Development Exploit. It meant I got full Bloodline powers on top of everything else. My favorite character to play ever.

51 to 71 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Banned Builds All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.