Should I Ban Gimmick Builds? (Switch Hitters / All Dex builds)

[Opuk0]

I've GMed numerous APs, often with either 20 or 25 Point Buy as well as Elephant in the Room feat tax rules.

For some reason, this has caused numerous players to start making either incredibly single-stat focused builds (Dex) or very broad builds (Switch hitters)

Without fail, those same players end up quitting because they don't feel like they're doing any damage or are ineffective overall.

Are these builds actually viable or do I need to make encounters easier to accommodate these off the wall builds?

[Ghostwheel]

Is this about low-level play? Or long-term? Because there is nothing about EITR rules that would decrease effective builds.

[LordKailas]

Opuk0 wrote:

I've GMed numerous APs, often with either 20 or 25 Point Buy as well as Elephant in the Room feat tax rules.

For some reason, this has caused numerous players to start making either incredibly single-stat focused builds (Dex) or very broad builds (Switch hitters)

Without fail, those same players end up quitting because they don't feel like they're doing any damage or are ineffective overall.

Are these builds actually viable or do I need to make encounters easier to accommodate these off the wall builds?

What kind of builds are you wanting players to make?

If there is something you would like to see more of then that's where you'll want to start making changes.

For example,

Spoiler:

if the types of builds you want to see aren't really viable with a 25 point build then maybe you should look at a different way of doing stats. My group for example has each player roll one or two stats to create an array of 7 numbers. The lowest gets dropped and that array becomes the one that everyone uses to make their characters. It allows for the advantages of rolling stats (easier to play MAD style characters) without causing stat disparity in the group because one person rolled really well or really poorly.
My most recent character had the following array to work with prior to racial mods (18,14,14,13,12,11)

I suspect the single stat builds people are making are also one-trick ponies. Being a one trick pony is the real the problem because if your character only does one thing and has no backup plan for when they can't do it they will eventually encounter problems, unless the DM intentionally avoids situations that prevent that character from doing their thing. SAD characters are fine so long as they aren't one note.

Something else to consider, are players acting as a team or a bunch of individuals. You can have a group where each member is highly specialized and the group will be fine because they work as a team to minimize weaknesses and maximize strengths. It sounds like the players who are getting upset aren't trying to work as a team. They either expect to always be the best in every situation (in the case of the SAD characters) or they expect to be just as good as the specialized characters at everything they try to do (in the case of the switch hitters). Neither of these are realistic expectations. Switch hitters are support characters and one trick ponies should expect to be twarted from time to time.

Without knowing the specific builds I can't say for certain that they should be viable. But certainly in general I would consider SAD and switch hitter builds to be viable. But they do have limitations like any other build (If a build has no limitations its probably breaking the game and you should never have to break the game to be considered "viable").

[Derklord]

Quite frankly, I think your players are just very bad at character building. The tax feat rules make building a dex-based character much easier, as they're no longer a feat behind by default just for the attack roll, and there're some dex builds that require PA for something. I think trying to building a switch hitter shows a certain lack of game mastery, but even that is much more doable when using the tax feat rules.

[VoodistMonk]

Switch hitters and Dex builds are both perfectly viable, even for late level play... and banning things is seldom the answer. But if you absolutely feel that you must ban something, ban metamagic or caster levels above one's hit dice. That will get rid of the most gimmick, single stat nonsense.

Start attacking their stats... single stat characters will learn that they can't dump everything else. Play with encumbrance. Throw Spider Swarms at Dex builds. Lol.

[Name Violation]

Sounds like players aren't familiar with the system.
Elephant rules make things too easy IMHO, most players who need all the free feats as a crutch don't tend to have a higher level of system mastery.

Switch hitters are fine, just mostly balance str and dex.
Dex builds are fine, just find any 1 of a million ways to get dex to damage

[gnoams]

If I sat down at a table and the GM started to list off all the types of characters I'm not allowed to play, and all these restrictions on how my ability points are spent, and how I have to play the game the way he wants me to, I'm going to say thanks, but no thanks, and walk away.

[Opuk0]

One recent example of a switch hitter build that left was a dwarven ranger with the hatred feat that lets them apply their hatred trait to both attack and damage, as well as bumping the bonus to +2, along with the precise shot feat from archery style. Their favored enemy was goblins so they could get a grand total of +4 to attack and damage against them.

They failed to take down a bear in melee and quit at the end of the session.

[Opuk0]

gnoams wrote:

If I sat down at a table and the GM started to list off all the types of characters I'm not allowed to play, and all these restrictions on how my ability points are spent, and how I have to play the game the way he wants me to, I'm going to say thanks, but no thanks, and walk away.

Yeah I get what you mean, if I sat down to run a game with players that threw hissy fits because their overly niche builds didn't work out for them in every single situation, I'd walk away too.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Some further information would be helpful:

• What sort of builds are you actually seeing (classes and general stats)?
• At what levels did your players typically feel 'underwhelming'?
• Did they seem 'underwhelming' to you as the GM?
• If they were being outshone, what sort of builds were eclipsing them? (Pouncing Barbarians? Archers? Casters?)

[Cellion]

Switch hitters and Dex-based combat builds are not gimmick builds. Or at least, there's nothing about those two categories that implies they have to be gimmick builds. Your example of a dwarf over-focused on the hatred trait DOES on the other hand sound very weak and very gimmicky.

HOWEVER: If your players are bringing weak character builds to a game, that's perfectly OK if you adjust to accomodate them. I've GM'd for newbies whose first three feats are endurance, skill focus: bluff, and combat expertise on their fighter. There's no point running an AP encounter as written in that case. "Beating" a newbie group or one with weak builds is pointless - the whole goal of the game is for everyone to have fun.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Umm... the PC built a one-trick pony like folks have been talking about. I'm REALLY GOOD at goblins, but fair to middling with everything else. Oh, I encountered a non-goblin fight and didn't do great? Well, this character is GARBAGE I quit!

Does that sound ok?

Also, why a dwarf switch hitter? Dwarves get a bonus to Con, so the PC is already at a stat distribution disadvantage. If you're going switch-hitter you generally want a high Dex and feats to use Dex in melee and then you either want more feats to add Dex to damage somewhere or a decent Str. Dwarves get neither of those.

Between not facing a goblin and not having optimal stats/feats/race to take advantage of the DPR of the build, I get the frustration. But then... he's a ranger. Is there something else his PC could've done to influence the bear? Like, at level 1 the base ranger gets Wild Empathy. Here again dwarves fall down with a racial penalty to Cha, but could they have at least TRIED to use that ability to end the fight?

Two things to ask players before they rage-quit a PC build:

1. How much damage is "enough" damage to make you happy with the build?

2. What else can your PC do if their primary attack method isn't working?

I built a switch-hitter as a halfling warpriest/hunter for the Reign of Winter AP. He was a lot of fun but if his Wolf mount wasn't hitting his damage was sub par. Also around level 5-7 the accuracy of the PC and his mount dipped from 65% to around 50%-55%. However, the character ALSO had a couple spells, the capability of buffing his mount or the other PCs, and just some other general utility that got me through that challenge.

The point is that if your players are building to do ONE thing really well and either don't achieve that goal with their build OR aren't doing that ONE thing all the time, they'll be frustrated. Instead, encourage your players to explore what else their PCs can do outside the ONE thing.

[TxSam88]

dex builds are my favorite build and they are very viable. quickly doing well with both melee and ranged, and not needing much in armor.

not sure what you consider a gimmick build, but I agree with what some other people have said, it seems your players focus on "single use gimmicks" like the dwarf mentioned above and not on "gimmicks" that work on everything.

[awbattles]

The concept of "viable" builds is pretty tenuous, because it will depend dramatically on who you play with. I can certainly make a dex-based or switch-hitter build that will perform just fine in Paizo APs, and don't need EitR accommodations to do so (assuming most first-party material is available). For the matter, I can build a natural attack Kobold or a Mystic Theurge that will keep relevant. In my circle of players, three others could build the dex/switch hitter just fine, but only one of them could pull off the Kobold/Theurge. The other three players need to stick with fairly traditional builds. Some of those builds are "viable" for a few of us, but not "viable" for the others.

The point is that, with good system mastery, there are very few concepts that can't be made viable, especially if playing in games that aren't particularly optimized. If you're playing in a campaign where everyone min-maxes, and the GM ruthlessly plays every enemy as if they have 20 Int and exploits meta-knowledge about the PCs, then the more exotic builds may be unable to keep pace. What you've described above sounds more like:

1. Players with bad attitudes; most builds will have strengths and weaknesses, and pouting because they did poorly in an encounter is a player problem, not a character problem.

2. Players with very low system mastery, and who may need help building their first PCs if they're newer to the game.

3. People having other, personal issues with the group, and using a bad build as an excuse to avoid addressing the actual frustrations.

I would personally consider Switch-hitters and Dex builds to be fairly vanilla and the opposite of gimmicky, so banning them seems pretty restrictive, especially when that isn't really the root of the problem.

[KahnyaGnorc]

Having a session 0 (or other pre-campaign session) where you help the players build the characters they want to play but also fits the campaign (a giant-slaying build is good for a giant-heavy campaign, but not an undead-heavy one, for example) and is effective. Newer players and those without enough system mastery might not know of classes, feats, and other options that might fit what they want to play better, especially if you have 3PP available.

[Mark Hoover 330]

There's certain "gimmick" builds, which I'm using here to mean builds with specialty niches, that might not work well depending on the AP or modules involved. For example, building a Small sized disarming build in that one AP that involves a lot of giants may not be worthwhile, as the PC would need outside help (through magic or Teamwork feats) to be sized up enough to use their niche against the majority of foes.

Got an all vermin and flying monster adventure? Might not want to encourage a trip build. How about one with lots of demons? A PC relying on Poison will be frustrated. There's lots of these niche builds that would fall down against the wrong type of enemies.

Ironically building your ranger solely around destroying goblins and then not encountering goblins is kind of an example of what I'm talking about.

This is why, again, it's good to have a SECOND thing that your character does that helps out the team. In one of my campaigns I have a player running an Unchained Monk. He's RIDICULOUSLY good in melee b/c we rolled stats and the Unchained Monk solves a lot of combat challenges for the class. However, the minute we're not in melee combat...

The player has run the character for 5 levels and is still sub-par with any ranged attacks; he also has no movement enhancing items, nor does he take advantage of his Acrobatics skill, so opponents beyond 40' at ground level are a lost cause.

The PC is not built for any maneuvers; he has very little out-of-combat utility; the player took ranks in Stealth and Perception but the team incluses an unchained Rogue that outshines him in all scouting attempts.

Ironically, when we're not in some kind of combat, this player is typically loafing on the couch, not paying attention, and seems to be having very little fun. One time I even caught him sleeping. If the PC isn't punching someone in the face, the player is disengaged.

On the other hand, in the same game I have a player running a paladin; his first ever in over 25 years of TTRPGs! This PC is weirdly highly-skilled, with a high Int (another gift of rolling stats) and taking skill ranks instead of HP for FCBs.

Because of these skills, this character is the party face outside of combat and routinely uses Handle Animal, Diplomacy and Intimidate in combat, when appropriate. He also uses his Sacred Mount as more than a combat vehicle, involving it in out-of-combat skill checks for Aid Another, directing it through combat to provide the same boosts to the rogue's attacks, and even once feeding it a potion of Jump so that the thing could cross a dungeon chasm and act as an anchor for a rope on the other side.

This player is highly engaged and motivated to get the most out of his character. Not ironically he also has the most successful business and organization during Downtime sessions, has earned 2 NPC boons, and hand-crafted all of the armor worn in the party, saving the PCs a small fortune in the early game.

Part of what makes a character fun to play is being a bada$$ in combat, certainly, but another part of it is using the character for MORE than just DPR in situations when that isn't useful.

So if you've got a switch-hitter ranger who's built for Hatred against goblins but you're not facing any of those at the moment...

Perception or Survival to check for tracks; if you're already engaging the bear, try to use Wild Empathy no matter how much you might stink at it; use Acrobatics to get 15' away without an AoO and then ready an action to use Handle Animal to try and scare it off; back up and use a Ranged weapon; start carrying animal repellents, anti-vermin devices like swarm suits, have a sickle handy as a Tripping weapon and try for that. There's LOTS of ways, many of which might be sub-par but still, to end a fight with a bear as a ranger.

If you're grinding with a melee weapon and hating every second of it, of course it'll be a slog.

[DeathlessOne]

It is a personal belief of mine that focusing too much on one trick and/or damage is going to have negative consequences for MOST people who want to have fun with the game and their character. I suggest less single character focused character builds and more team-oriented character builds. What's that mean?

Stop focusing on getting every ounce of power you can muster as a single character. Start looking for how your other teammates can help everyone else. Find characters that excel as force multipliers (bards, skalds, buffing spellcasters, etc) and incorporate them into the game. Get someone who can debuff the enemy, as that makes damage output drop on the enemy's side or your damage output to increase. Combine force multipliers and debuffers. This can make a medicore fighter who chose to focus on multiple fighting styles incredibly dangerous in all of them.

[Mark Hoover 330]

I agree with 1D here, to a degree; have some way to help the team while ALSO focusing on what you do to end the fight. So, if you're a debuffing spellcaster, you're covered on both fronts. If you're a ranger though...

low level, carry a net to debuff foes or work out Flanking strategies with your mates. As you level, shore up that flagging Cha and use Wild Empathy to your advantage against animals or even magical beasts. Carry ranger spell buffs on wands or scrolls; if your build replaced these spells with Traps, have the gear ready to make them.

Even if your ranger is just a generic build that eventually gets an animal companion and you aren't going to use Boon Companion or other feats to increase the AC's advancement you can still use this feature as an extension to set up Flanks, deliver Aid Another, act as a teammate in Teamwork feats, etc.

I can easily see where most classes can deliver builds that excel at contributing to the end of a fight while ALSO providing options that help the party.

I'd even take this mentality one step further: at low to mid levels in the campaign, figure out what your character can do OUT of combat to help the party.

Generic human fighter 1 with Int and Cha has 1 skill rank, plus one for being Human. You took a 12 Wis, so one obvious skill is Perception. But... what about a Profession skill as the other one?

Generic human fighter 1, out of combat in town, has Profession: Woodcutter. There are AP's and modules out there that suggest Profession: Woodcutter can be used to actually manufacture wooden items. Y'know what your PC could make, if they spent 50 GP on a Masterwork tool? Well, they'd routinely be hitting a DC 17 on their Take 10, so what if your PC worked on cheap wood shields for everyone that could use them?

Kick it up a notch: the fighter's making skis or snowshoes for cold weather travel; maybe they make a simple wheelbarrow or cart for overland travel; they score out canoes or kayaks for water travel; the fighter might even have a few sections of ladder handy for climbing up/down/across obstacles in dungeons.

Yes, the PCs could easily purchase all of these things, but at lower levels if you have the Downtime to craft them, this one fighter making these simple items just saved everyone in the party a few more GP. Maybe it's enough that the arcane or divine caster of the party can craft an extra scroll, or maybe the alchemist was able to make a few extra Acid Flasks. Later, when you're all facing that centipede swarm and the alchemist has provided all of you with said Acid, this generic human fighter is to thank for the party's success.

My point is: PF is a team game. If your PC does ZERO damage routinely in combat and they've been built specifically for delivering damage, then yes you should probably start over. However if you're doing ENOUGH to support your team, while finding other ways to help the party flourish, then congratulations: you've got a decent character.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Opuk0 wrote:

I've GMed numerous APs, often with either 20 or 25 Point Buy as well as Elephant in the Room feat tax rules.

For some reason, this has caused numerous players to start making either incredibly single-stat focused builds (Dex) or very broad builds (Switch hitters)

Without fail, those same players end up quitting because they don't feel like they're doing any damage or are ineffective overall.

Are these builds actually viable or do I need to make encounters easier to accommodate these off the wall builds?

I think you should let the players build the characters they want to build and let the chips fall where they may.

Most characters with aggressive strengths have aggressive weaknesses, and their aggressive build ideas are likely to punish them later. But of course if the whole party is doing that, then you have a party of specialists that hopefully compliment each other.

Meanwhile, remember that character building is an artform unto itself, and lots of players derive great joy from mastering the vast complexity of interacting Feats, Abilities, and Spells to produce cool effects.

I think you should let the good times roll, and wait for your characters to actually create problems before you restrict them.

[Derklord]

Opuk0 wrote:

One recent example of a switch hitter build that left was a dwarven ranger with the hatred feat that lets them apply their hatred trait to both attack and damage, as well as bumping the bonus to +2, along with the precise shot feat from archery style. Their favored enemy was goblins so they could get a grand total of +4 to attack and damage against them.

They failed to take down a bear in melee and quit at the end of the session.

And here we have the real issue. Your problem doesn't lie with dex-builds or switch-hitter builds, but with binary characters - a character that alternates between being very weak, and overshadowing others. Gimmick builds, i.e. builds strongly focussing one one specific rule option that isn't part of the majority of characters, very often produce such binary characters (because said gimmick usually doesn't work all the time, otherwise it would be a common thing), but dex-based builds are not gimmick builds because they focus on something everyone uses to some amount, and switch hitter builds are pretty much the opposite, as their defining aspect is that they don't focus on just one combat style.

Essentially, I do believe you should intervene more in the character building process, but not by disallowing something a basic as dex-based. A Ranger's Favored Enemy is by default of only situational use (which is why I prefer archetypes like Freebooter or Wild Stalker), but what the Ranger player did is called a "win more", that is, investing into something that only grants benefits in situations that are already favourable. That is something that should be prevented by the GM (or other players), mo matter the appearance. It doesn't matter if it's a dex-based Rogue taking stuff that only works when they can make a full attack with sneak attack instead of stuff enabling SA in non-flanking situations, a strength-based Fighter running around with abyssal will save because Weapon Specialization was a more important feat, a 'skill monkey' Investigator who takes skill stuff at every opportunity, or a healer who invests everything into cranking up HP healing.

Spellcasters can usually be fixed within the game, but martials build in such a problematic way often require at least retraining - such is the nature of the game. Don't ask my why all spontaneous spellcaster have the ability to switch out previously selected spells know, but Barbarian's can't to the same with Rage Powers.

In short, only step in if players actually build disfunctional characters that only work in prime conditions or select situations, but they if do that, do step in, during character creation. At the least, explicitly warn them that most of the time, their character won't be the aweseomesauce they envisioned it to be.

[VoodistMonk]

Martials requiring retraining is only as big of deal as you make it. Fighters can just switch feats, the same way spontaneous casters can just switch spells... you can make it exactly that easy for everyone else if you want.

I, personally, believe that you should let players play whatever they want. I think banning things is BS. I think telling a player what they are allowed to be in a fantasy game is clownshoes.

Want to know what you can be in a fantasy game? Anything you freaking want, that's the point of fantasy.

If it proves to be a pain in my @$$ as the GM, GOOD! Keeps me on my toes... keeps me thinking... keeps me honest.

If your character dies, good! You will learn how to build a decent character... or you won't, I actually don't care. See, my world is capable of existing without your character. Your character is not the focus of my campaign.

I literally do not care if your character struggles or excels, lives or dies... the story must go on, regardless.

So play a Trip-focused Halfling in a campaign about giants... see what happens. I am not going to hold your hand through character creation.

I told you what the campaign is about and what to expect, and you showed up with the character you want to play. So, let's play.

[Scott Wilhelm]

VoodistMonk wrote:

So play a Trip-focused Halfling in a campaign about giants... see what happens. I am not going to hold your hand through character creation.

I recently played a Trip-focused Halfling in a 3.5 campaign. His name was Carl Wolfgang von Grignrsbane. He was awesome. There were like 4 different times he got Swallowed Whole and he cut his way out again. People at the table used to call him the Bad Shrimp!

[VoodistMonk]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

VoodistMonk wrote:

So play a Trip-focused Halfling in a campaign about giants... see what happens. I am not going to hold your hand through character creation.

I recently played a Trip-focused Halfling in a 3.5 campaign. His name was Carl Wolfgang von Grignrsbane. He was awesome. There were like 4 different times he got Swallowed Whole and he cut his way out again. People at the table used to call him the Bad Shrimp!

Oh man, that's awesome.

One of the characters at my table was swallowed whole and successfully cut their way out, but requested to stay inside and keep cutting... eventually the Jotund Troll just kind of fell in half, with the Rogue standing where its torso used to be.

[amethal]

Opuk0 wrote:

I've GMed numerous APs, often with either 20 or 25 Point Buy as well as Elephant in the Room feat tax rules.

For some reason, this has caused numerous players to start making either incredibly single-stat focused builds (Dex) or very broad builds (Switch hitters)

Without fail, those same players end up quitting because they don't feel like they're doing any damage or are ineffective overall.

Are these builds actually viable or do I need to make encounters easier to accommodate these off the wall builds?

"Viable" can mean different things to different people.

I don't think there's any need to ban things for being underpowered. Just discuss the character with the player, point out any potential drawbacks and leave the ultimate decision up to the player.

Players in my games are always free to "retire" characters if they are not enjoying playing them (for any reason, or no reason) and bring in a new character of the same level.

I will always try to tweak my adventures to make them more appropriate for the characters people are playing, but I won't engage in massive rewrites to accommodate them. The exception would be if most of the party were unsuitable for the adventure I planned to run - I don't expect a party of mesmerists to venture into the Tomb of the Mindless Undead even if the players were willing to go along with it for the sake of the game.

[Ryan Freire]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

VoodistMonk wrote:

So play a Trip-focused Halfling in a campaign about giants... see what happens. I am not going to hold your hand through character creation.

I recently played a Trip-focused Halfling in a 3.5 campaign. His name was Carl Wolfgang von Grignrsbane. He was awesome. There were like 4 different times he got Swallowed Whole and he cut his way out again. People at the table used to call him the Bad Shrimp!

I mean...

[Mark Hoover 330]

Session 0, even if over email, is vital. I had a player make a character for my megadungeon campaign; initially she was a rogue with her highest stat in Cha, decent Dex and a Con of 10, who wanted to max out Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate. She asked "how much intrigue will you have in the game?" and described her PC as someone who wanted to talk her way out of most fights. I had a very strong feeling that her PC would... not do well as written.

We communicated over email I and said flat out to reimagine her PC. This particular campaign didn't have ANY intrigue planned and a rogue counting on ranged attacks with low HP/Fort save was a poor choice for even level 1 of the dungeon planned.

Together we found a compromise and I reminded this player that Bluff can be used as another method for obtaining SA (she'd forgotten since she hasn't played such a PC for decades). She ended up with an Unchained Rogue with a split focus on Dex/Cha, a 12 Con and a lower Int. She still has very good social skills and tries to use them as often as she can, having the NPC Cleric hireling with them make scrolls of Comprehend Languages and (more recently) Share Language so she can gather info from many different races.

See I agree that, if I tell you up front that a campaign will involve a certain type of conflict or monster or whatever, and you make a character with obvious flaws in dealing with that thing then that's on the player. However I had this player remake her PC because I also considered the player.

She's older than I am, works crazy hours as an IT professional, and has multiple sources of stress in her life. She faces health challenges, her mom's round-the-clock care, work issues and so on. Also we only get the chance to play once a month. That means, since we all live on the other side of the state from this player, she really only has 1 day to decompress with friends. Being online after being at her job all day is not fun and her brother lives out of state.

So... I'm not going to take her one day out of the month, let the rolls fall where they may and (based on how the dice DID fall for the first session) tell her at room 4 "TOUGH TOENAILS! You missed your Fort save and you're losing precious Con points while also taking damage! Shoulda made a better character" with another 3 hours of watching us game.

I try not to be completely impartial as a GM. I can adjust my story a bit; I can and will make places for some niche builds to shine in my game if people insist on creating them. But I also reserve the right to straight up tell players in my game that some choices may get their PC killed for little to no return. If I can help them achieve a similar build with less threat of character death, I will.

[SheepishEidolon]

There are arguments for both ways to GM. The liberal approach ("it's their job to make their characters, I impose few limits") can result in higher player satisfaction - after all, when they succeed, it's entirely their success. Highly motivated players with a lot of time and energy at their hands will likely prefer this way.

On the other hand, the social approach ("I will help the struggling and limit the overly strong, when necessary") is more attractive to casual players - or veterans with limited time and energy. They will be pretty much guaranteed to contribute to the story.

If you have a mix of both player types, it seems to be ideal to treat each one differently. Offer freedom to the first group and assistance to the second. Some compromises will be necessary: The first group can't get all the freedom they want, and the second will have to live with their characters still being weaker and less flexible.

[VoodistMonk]

If a player ASKS for help, by all means, help them. Otherwise, it's their character, it's their choices.

I tell the table what the campaign is about, what it MAY entail, and what is allowed as far as source materials. I give them the build rules as far as minimum required stats, point buy, gestalt rules, blah blah blah.

Then we play. I run my campaign. And the players play their characters... good, bad, or ugly. We deal with issues as they arise, and the game goes on.

There will be casualties. Characters will come and go. I have absolutely no problem letting players retire characters and bring in new ones of the same level.

I don't ban anything except dump stats. You WILL start with at least an 8 in every stat, or you will play at a different table.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Bringing it back to niche builds, switch hitters and such, while I do think that some rare builds are just right out for some games and warn my players off of those, for the most part I agree with V to the M: if your niche build isn't necessarily a death sentence in my game AND I've properly warned you what the game will entail, go ahead and make your guy.

I have a poison-focused, ranged attacking ratfolk investigator 7/Wizard 3 in one of my campaigns. For a couple levels the PCs have been facing more and more villains who either have ridiculously high Fort saves or immunity to poison. The reason he multiclassed into Wizard was to shore up his shortbow attacks with direct energy damage options.

He chose no specialty/focus in his build, though for whatever reason he only picked Acid and Fire damage spells and wands. For several sessions I telegraphed that the current adventure would involve demons and even revealed in the party's research of the threat that one type of demon was a babau.

After the last 2 sessions he complained: I'm not DOING anything, why do you keep picking stuff immune to my attacks? Why are you gearing this adventure against me?

Really guy? I warned you months ago to move away from Poison altogether. I also reminded you that your alchemy allows for bottled lightning, tanglefoot bags; your direct damage options under Wizard spells involved Sonic and Force options. I've been telling you for months also that your Swift actions are completely going to waste.

Did you maybe take a class that gives you Swift actions? Diversity in your damage types? a build to optimize your damage? Did you replace your wimpy base shortbow +1? No?

Your displeasure is not my problem.

Sorry if that sounds heartless but your build isn't broken, it's not worthless, so I'm not sending you back to the drawing board, but there are some obvious blind spots I warned you about up front. I also told you what to expect in the future. If you fail to use that info to adapt, maybe try to shore up some of the weaknesses, that's on you.

To the OP, Voodist the Dudist, or anyone else here; how often, when a player hits a wall with their build, do they ACTUALLY ask you as the GM for any kind of help or guidance? Mostly I just get player grumbles and the occasional straight up accusation of building my game against them.

[VoodistMonk]

I have had players ask for advice. Mainly when it comes to gestalt combinations, though.

Honestly, I am new to GM'ing Pathfinder, and so I really only have my current table to go off of. I have been blessed with players that don't dump stats, aren't murderhobo lunatics, and generally cooperate with one another.

I haven't had to tell anyone no, to anything... yet. They are level 18, going on 19, it's probably too late to start saying no, anyways.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Ryan Freire wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

VoodistMonk wrote:

So play a Trip-focused Halfling in a campaign about giants... see what happens. I am not going to hold your hand through character creation.

I recently played a Trip-focused Halfling in a 3.5 campaign. His name was Carl Wolfgang von Grignrsbane. He was awesome. There were like 4 different times he got Swallowed Whole and he cut his way out again. People at the table used to call him the Bad Shrimp!

I mean...

In 3.5, the build revolved around a Feat called Confound the Big Folk which specifically worked on opponents 2 sizes bigger then the character: denying them their Dex Mod to AC and allowing you to Trip them, and when you do, they don't get their Size Mod on the Combat Maneuver Check.

To get around the Size restriction in Pathfinder, I favor the Harder they Fall Feat taken via 3 levels in Inquisitor or Paladin or 1 level in Cavalier.

This seems totally an example of a gimmick build.

I forgot about the Underfoot Adept, though. I'll keep that in mind.

[Sysryke]

VoodistMonk wrote:

I don't ban anything except dump stats. You WILL start with at least an 8 in every stat, or you will play at a different table.

Just curious. Is that objection mechanical or roleplay? My groups tend to be a little more flavor driven, but we're also very generous on stat generation. However, if someone has a concept that lends itself to a low stat, we don't disallow it. If the "dump" is just to facilitate min/maxing then I can understand the objection. We also don't do point buy, so I get for my group that it's a non-issue. No right or wrong here, just curious about your thought process/play style.