Has there always been a sort of "Meta-ist" mindset when it comes to not just pathfinder but TTRPG's in general?

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

For context, this is actually something an acquaintance of mine came up with. Basically, a meta-ist is someone who actively looks down or berates anybody that likes or actively uses a class that's considered lower tier or thinks it could rival/be better then the top tier in certain situations.

In pathfinder's case it would be this idea that the only classes that are thought of as "Good" are prepared 9th level casters with anything else ranging from "Not being worth the time" to "Actively griefing the party"

And in my case, it was between the eldritch scoundrel rogue vs a multiclassed arcane trickster. While I admit I could have come off as less rude, the idea that a class or build is automatically "Better" due to having 9th-level spells and anything else is irrelevant, always got under my skin ever since my 3.5 days. Even more so when you realize most games will never get to the point where you can even get 9th level spells anyway.

So when someone is like "Play an arcane trickster. It's better" I'm like...no I wanna play a rouge. And stuff like that just kind of fuels the idea I've always had that tabletop gamers are very prone to power trips.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

The more a TTRPG is actually a tactical wargame, the more of that happens. Pathfinder, especially PF1, is very much a tactical wargame, where you want to win, and not to be a dead weight to your party.

Literally, the "game" part of PF1 is in character design/advancement, the worse choices you make there (such as playing build X if build Y is much better at the same thing), the less fun you'll have from the game, because past first few levels, PF1 is an idle RPG where you do your thing that always works, you trivialise encounters that are supposed to be appropriate for your level, and it's all about fantasy superheroes that overcome easily every challenge and seldom are at any risk.

If that isn't a power trip, I don't know what is. If you're complaining about powergaming PF1, you're playing the wrong game. There are dozens of fantasy RPGs out there where builds don't matter, powergaming is impossible, and every character can contribute on even footing.

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

The more a TTRPG is actually a tactical wargame, the more of that happens. Pathfinder, especially PF1, is very much a tactical wargame, where you want to win, and not to be a dead weight to your party.

Literally, the "game" part of PF1 is in character design/advancement, the worse choices you make there (such as playing build X if build Y is much better at the same thing), the less fun you'll have from the game, because past first few levels, PF1 is an idle RPG where you do your thing that always works, you trivialise encounters that are supposed to be appropriate for your level, and it's all about fantasy superheroes that overcome easily every challenge and seldom are at any risk.

If that isn't a power trip, I don't know what is. If you're complaining about powergaming PF1, you're playing the wrong game. There are dozens of fantasy RPGs out there where builds don't matter, powergaming is impossible, and every character can contribute on even footing.

Oh, i don't care about power gaming, but let me play what I wanna play. Like you really gonna tell me i would be more of a detriment to a party playing a magus, then I would playing a multiclassed eldritch knight?

Also, I find having there is no risk and they just beat everything to be terrible storytelling. You just come off as a mary sue character. This is the reason why tier 3 classes tend to be my favorite to play, they are strong without making encounters irrelevant.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

No, but if you would come with a Fighter/Wizard whose idea of fighting was to spend 3 turns casting buffs and then on turn four attack using whip, your weapon of choice because whips are cool, I'd tell you to find another table.

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

No, but if you would come with a Fighter/Wizard whose idea of fighting was to spend 3 turns casting buffs and then on turn four attack using whip, your weapon of choice because whips are cool, I'd tell you to find another table.

Fair enough.

[Matthew Downie]

Early editions of D&D didn't give you a free choice of class. Roll 3d6 for all your stats in order. Roll well? You get to be a Paladin. Roll badly? You're stuck being a Fighter. It's hard to blame someone for picking a weak class when they're not allowed to play a stronger one. Your role-playing character building choices were limited more by the rules than by the players. Want to be an Elven Ranger? No, not allowed, forbidden combo.

There was also more of a focus on "we need a Cleric / we need a Thief", since other classes couldn't imitate their unique abilities.

I guess there were some role-play choices that you could be attacked for. Want to play a woman? Your Strength is capped at a lower level.

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Early editions of D&D didn't give you a free choice of class. Roll 3d6 for all your stats in order. Roll well? You get to be a Paladin. Roll badly? You're stuck being a Fighter. It's hard to blame someone for picking a weak class when they're not allowed to play a stronger one. Your role-playing character building choices were limited more by the rules than by the players. Want to be an Elven Ranger? No, not allowed, forbidden combo.

There was also more of a focus on "we need a Cleric / we need a Thief", since other classes couldn't imitate their unique abilities.

I guess there were some role-play choices that you could be attacked for. Want to play a woman? Your Strength is capped at a lower level.

I've always preferred playing 6th-level casters. Alchemist, Magus, warpriest are all hardly weak. Really it kinda feels less like limited options and more people wanting things to be as easy as possible. Cause as controversial as this may be, 9th-level casters in pathfinder sometimes make the game too easy.

[Senko]

I'm inclined to agree there's been quite a few times I've asked "I want to play X would Y or Z be better for representing it" and gotten a "No they're bad classes you want T instead". I know T is better but I don't want to play T I want to play Y or Z. It also may be a group thing most of the longer lasting ones I was part of winning was having fun not slaughtering everything. It was noticeable when a new person who built for max damage joined the groups both because of their build and how they started killing everything for us. I admit my preference it towards the 9th level casters but that's more because of the fun options it opens e.g. create demi-plane rather than being the best at controlling the battlefield/doing damage/taking others roles.

[Diego Rossi]

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

For context, this is actually something an acquaintance of mine came up with. Basically, a meta-ist is someone who actively looks down or berates anybody that likes or actively uses a class that's considered lower tier or thinks it could rival/be better then the top tier in certain situations.

With D&D/AD&D/Pathfinder it is something that was born, mostly, with the 3 and following editions, plus the Internet, the sharing of builds, and the DPS marathons.

I haven't been much in Internet forums for other games but speaking with other players and GMs I hadn't noticed something like that in other p&p games. I think it is something that comes from MMPRG on one side and 3.x and following characters having the ability to reach the level cap relatively rapidly in a campaign.

Naturally, that means that the meta-ist mentality has been around for about 20 years. For me, it is half of my gamer life, but for most players, it will be the totality of their gamer life and so "forever".

[Mightypion]

I mean, if the "new player comes in and slaughters every foe" happens:

First: It is pretty likely that this happens. If you come in at level 10, and can pick your wealth by level, your kit will be far more synergistic then that of people who went from 1 to 10.

Second: Being overoptimized is less unfun then being under optimized. Its also easier to fix, typically you just change a feat or 2 with GM approval. Being underoptimized is harder to fix.

[SheepishEidolon]

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

So when someone is like "Play an arcane trickster. It's better" I'm like...no I wanna play a rouge. And stuff like that just kind of fuels the idea I've always had that tabletop gamers are very prone to power trips.

Well, a lot of players fear to feel helpless or to be judged negatively by their fellows. So they go for the most power they can get. No matter whether it's actually necessary for the campaign. They sacrifice the fun of a challenge for safety. And they try to convince others of their path, because it works for them.

IMO players should be free to play what they enjoy. The more they fear they can't keep up, the more this freedom implodes to a selected few "builds". I think multiple things can be done:

1) As a player, you can trust your team. Resist the urge to try to cover everything by yourself, instead let someone else handle things. They might surprise you positively.

2) As a player, you can stand to your anti-meta choice. Fellow players probably won't understand, but there is a chance that they notice you are doing well enough.

3) As a GM, you can tell outright tell your players "look, this campaign won't be that difficult". Take care to stay true to it. Players might not believe you first, but with time comes trust, and they will feel less of an urge to powerbuild. Worked wonderfully in my Crimson Throne campaign.

4) As a GM, you are in the position to suppress the behavior of players to make fun of others because their PC is "too weak". Be quick to defend the questioned PC ("they can do other stuff well", "remember how they saved this encounter?" etc.) and the behavior will diminish.

[Mightypion]

As a player, I can echo the issues arising from "look, this campaign wont be that difficult" and then proceed to near TPK the party in the first 2 encounters (one character left standing in both), then you will end up with more player optimization then if you never said "look, this campaign wont be that difficult".

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

So when someone is like "Play an arcane trickster. It's better" I'm like...no I wanna play a rouge. And stuff like that just kind of fuels the idea I've always had that tabletop gamers are very prone to power trips.

Well, a lot of players fear to feel helpless or to be judged negatively by their fellows. So they go for the most power they can get. No matter whether it's actually necessary for the campaign. They sacrifice the fun of a challenge for safety. And they try to convince others of their path, because it works for them.

IMO players should be free to play what they enjoy. The more they fear they can't keep up, the more this freedom implodes to a selected few "builds". I think multiple things can be done:

1) As a player, you can trust your team. Resist the urge to try to cover everything by yourself, instead let someone else handle things. They might surprise you positively.

2) As a player, you can stand to your anti-meta choice. Fellow players probably won't understand, but there is a chance that they notice you are doing well enough.

3) As a GM, you can tell outright tell your players "look, this campaign won't be that difficult". Take care to stay true to it. Players might not believe you first, but with time comes trust, and they will feel less of an urge to powerbuild. Worked wonderfully in my Crimson Throne campaign.

4) As a GM, you are in the position to suppress the behavior of players to make fun of others because their PC is "too weak". Be quick to defend the questioned PC ("they can do other stuff well", "remember how they saved this encounter?" etc.) and the behavior will diminish.

Sadly that's part of why I don't have the highest opinion of a lot of tabletop gamers cause to them it's all about "Power" to the point where nothing is a challenge anymore. That's just not good storytelling and frankly makes said person come off as insecure or desperate to have absolute control in the game where they don't anywhere else.

[Mark Hoover 330]

In HS, this is back in 1989 now, I ran a D&D 1e campaign and one of my best friends chose to be a halfling thief. You can't make many choices on character "build" in 1e, but you can pick your gear, choose your actions, decide where to site your "stronghold" and so forth.

My other buddies teased this guy so mercilessly about those choices, how the thief player chose "poorly" and such, that it culminated in the player launching over my ma's dining room table, chasing another player through my house and eventually breaking the back off a chair. Thankfully no one was permanently injured.

My point is just that, regardless of the system, the group or whatever, there will ALWAYS be folks looking to tell you you're doing it wrong and THEY have a better way. All that ever means is that they NEED to feel superior; they have to be right, or the exemplar, or somehow special b/c somewhere else in their life they don't feel this way. Their insecurities are not other players' issues.

Can a Small sized Rogue 10 with a 15 point buy deliver 32.5 damage against a CR 10 foe with an AC of 24? Well, let's see: Flat Footed is likely going to be a point or three lower than 24 AC, this PC has +8 to hit from Size and level, so we maybe need another +6 somewhere in the mix. +4 From Dex and a +2 weapon based on WBL.

Before combat: PC uses Stealth to get to within 20' of the foe
Surprise round: a "partial" charge, the PC moving 20' and making a single attack for 22 damage
Round 1: their standard attack deals only 4.5 damage but if they beat their foe's initiative or can feint as a Move action or have a flanker, they should be able to deliver another 22 damage

In other words, with minimal build choices alongside the right conditions, this rogue can exceed expectations. Are there OTHER choices that could do it better, or will there be times that this rogue can't make 2 SA attacks in a combat? Certainly, but this doesn't INVALIDATE the Rogue's potential success.

The gauge of a good game, at least for me as a GM, is are my players having fun. Part of asking that question is, do they have the freedom to pretend to be the character they WANT to be. 9 levels in and I'm still salty that early in one of my current campaigns, the other players convinced my buddy that he HAD to drop his Magus to play a Wizard. Recently the PCs fought an intelligent undead with Magus levels and it was a surprisingly tough fight, leading my buddy to say to the other players "man, good thing we don't have one of THOSE classes in our party."

This is a game, number one, and number two, its a game of make believe. You're assuming the role of some fantasy character with otherworldly powers and talents. If you see a fellow player at the table struggling to help out in combat, ASK them if they want help, don't TELL them what they're doing wrong.

If they're a more social player with a social based character, find ways to end fights by talking, or ways to avoid fights altogether through investigation. Play to each others' strengths, don't prey on each others' weaknesses.

[Mightypion]

Why is Magus even supposed to be bad?
Like, I would try and talk people out of going chained rouge, mentioning that there are number of character classes that can do all the things a rouge can, better.

If they are set on rouge, I would offer assistance in how to make it at least C-tier, (dipping one in mutagenic mauler or just brawler, and one in spiritualist that never summons his phantom does make the rouge servicable)
and lobby the GM to turn on elephant in the room as rouges benefit from it in particular.

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Mightypion wrote:

Why is Magus even supposed to be bad?

Like, I would try and talk people out of going chained rouge, mentioning that there are number of character classes that can do all the things a rouge can, better.

If they are set on rouge, I would offer assistance in how to make it at least C-tier, (dipping one in mutagenic mauler or just brawler, and one in spiritualist that never summons his phantom does make the rouge servicable)
and lobby the GM to turn on elephant in the room as rouges benefit from it in particular.

See that's the thing it wasn't even a standard rouge, it was the eldritch scoundrel rogue. The archtype that gives up...lets see.

Half its sneak attack progression
Half its skill points
and half its rouge talents.

And in exchange it gets....uh...Oh yeah
Access to the wizards spell list up to 6th level casting and can use their spell slots to use ninja tricks that require ki.

But apparently, this still isn't enough to make some people not go "Nah its not that good, play a wizard instead."

So yes there are very much people who think any build that can't cast 9th level spells is trash.

[Mightypion]

Basic unchained rouge is imho viable if you go for mutagenic mauler + spiritualist dip.

In combination, this dip gives you:
--Dex Mutagen
--Shield spell twice per day
--+8 to will save
--Cantrips, including mage hand for ranged trap disarms
--Mauler also has improved unarmed strike, which can get you into crane --style tier 1
--There is some interesting stuff in the close weapon fighter group you can brawlers flurry sneak attack with, assuming you take 2 dips in brawler

Eldritch scoundrel is better as a single class then normal rouge, but it pays more opportunity costs if you dip out of it, since you are losing spell progression.

[Temperans]

Yeah I never understood why some people are dead set on "the only way to play is to play a 9th level caster".

Take for example the shifter, which is regarded by some as an "undertuned class". Yet its one of the biggest damage dealer in the party while being one of the toughest to actually hit/kill.

I understand wanting classes to be stronger than they are, some classes do require more work and player involvement to make them work. But the way that some people worship full casters as the "end all be all and playing anything else is bad" is just gross. Fighter is one of the top 5 played classes for a reason despite being the most basic class.

[DeathlessOne]

Mightypion wrote:

--+8 to will save

As a DM, I look at this and it makes me raise an eyebrow. I guess if you want your 'superpower' to be your will saves, that is fine. But, it makes me wonder just what are you trying to get out of making this character. Not to offend anyone too much (though if you do take offense, oh well) but it seems like the mentality of approaching a video game rather than encompassing the overall totality of what the table top experience is supposed to be.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my own theoretical character optimization as much as the next person. I just never bring those kinds of characters to the table. Infinite cosmic power is fun, for a time, but after a while... the lack of actual challenge and danger to the character you've taken the time to create, shape, mold, and manifest into the game ... well, it stagnates and grows bland.

Perhaps this is just an evolution of my own contrarian perspective when it comes to certain things. I'll play a mundane fighter straight from the core rule book, with none of the bells and whistles from additional books ... just to spite someone who says it sucks and other classes do it better. And I'll enjoy every moment of it too. Because the mechanics of the character is not even half of the sum of everything they are. It is merely the measured way in which they interact with the game world when there is potential for serious consequences from failures.

So, I suppose it all boils down to: I get the irritation with Meta-ist mindsets and people who subscribe to them. But I enjoy the hell out of showing them just how wrong they are at the actual table. I am not here for a video game, but an adventure!

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Temperans wrote:

Yeah I never understood why some people are dead set on "the only way to play is to play a 9th level caster".

Take for example the shifter, which is regarded by some as an "undertuned class". Yet its one of the biggest damage dealer in the party while being one of the toughest to actually hit/kill.

I understand wanting classes to be stronger than they are, some classes do require more work and player involvement to make them work. But the way that some people worship full casters as the "end all be all and playing anything else is bad" is just gross. Fighter is one of the top 5 played classes for a reason despite being the most basic class.

Exactly! and this is why admittedly I kinda lost it with some people. Just so aggravating to hear this.

[Mark Hoover 330]

If folks wanted to go chained rouge at one of my tables, I'd politely ask them to apply or reapply the makeup with a distance from the map. Sometimes the powder goes everywhere.

If folks wanted to chained ROGUE on the other hand, I wouldn't stop them. I'd ask them 1. how much system mastery do you have, 2. what do you see the PC doing during the game, and 3. how important is combat to you. Finally, after all that data, if I foresee this class being a challenge to the harmony and success of the party as a whole, I'd mention my concern to the player and ask them if they want some help, respecting whatever decision they make.

Want to be a chained rogue? Fine; what are ALL the ways you'll be getting SA? If you know how to pull those off, how to build for them, you'll be fine. For example, did you know that with a couple weeks of Downtime and 1 rank in Handle Animal, a L1 rogue that spends some GP can train a dog to attack? Slap some leather barding on it (no penalty for non-proficiency, +2 AC) and you've got an armored flanker. You spent 2 weeks training it in the Attack trick twice so the dog will attack any foe you indicate.

Now you've got a flanker built in. You might've also built around the Dirty Trick maneuver. Eventually using a Rogue Talent you might get yourself a mauler familiar, then an Improved Familiar for an even better flanker.

My point is, the CRB and the bestiaries were written such that there has to be a path to success for a chained rogue to advance to 20th level. It CAN be done, and if that's what the player has fun with then THAT'S what they're playing. Our jobs, as other players in the game or as GMs, is to enjoy our own piece of the game and, if we see a fellow gamer struggling to achieve their own fun ask "how can I help?"

[Temperans]

By the way regarding the question of in the thread title, the answer is simple: It has been a thing since the beginning of life itself.

Now hear me out. Life tends to be highly adaptable, but one of the things it loves to do is fill up niches. Meta characters are the equivalent of apex predators and other highly prolific animals (like ants). Meanwhile, off-meta characters fill out all the spaces that meta characters cannot fulfill due to specialization. The meta-ist just like an apex predator will consume and warp the environment (other characters/players) around it, and either learn to coexist or drive themselves into extinction from lack of food (games).

Its also important to distinguish between someone that is just trying to be helpful be being akward, and someone that is truly bad. Unless its self evident its best to first make sure if the person is just bad at talking before assuming they have ill will.

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Temperans wrote:

By the way regarding the question of in the thread title, the answer is simple: It has been a thing since the beginning of life itself.

Now hear me out. Life tends to be highly adaptable, but one of the things it loves to do is fill up niches. Meta characters are the equivalent of apex predators and other highly prolific animals (like ants). Meanwhile, off-meta characters fill out all the spaces that meta characters cannot fulfill due to specialization. The meta-ist just like an apex predator will consume and warp the environment (other characters/players) around it, and either learn to coexist or drive themselves into extinction from lack of food (games).

Its also important to distinguish between someone that is just trying to be helpful be being akward, and someone that is truly bad. Unless its self evident its best to first make sure if the person is just bad at talking before assuming they have ill will.

That is a rather unusual analogy, but one i admit isn't inaccurate

[Mark Hoover 330]

DeathlessOne wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my own theoretical character optimization as much as the next person. I just never bring those kinds of characters to the table. Infinite cosmic power is fun, for a time, but after a while... the lack of actual challenge and danger to the character you've taken the time to create, shape, mold, and manifest into the game ... well, it stagnates and grows bland.

This. The players in my megadungeon game are my anecdotal evidence.

Currently they're 9th level. They rolled stats to start with and they all started with ridiculously high ones. I let it slide and watched them grow.

They all optimized in the early levels, but I watched two of the players get real bored, real fast, so they've changed things up, broadened their characters and given themselves self-imposed limitations. They scrutinize and strategize now for everything and genuinely enjoy their wins.

The other two, one an unchained monk the other an unchained rogue, have spent every dime, every feat, every effort and NPC boon to be the biggest combat monsters they can be. Now in recent sessions, if we're not in combat they're bored; if we're in combat but against minions, they're bored; if they win a fight they immediately loot the bodies like clockwork, not caring if reinforcements are coming. Their strategies are complacent and self-serving, and it's gotten both characters killed twice each.

The game is fun when it's still a game, when there are authentic stakes and losses are possible. Once you are one-shotting every foe and death is a fleeting memory, fun can evaporate quickly.

[Mightypion]

You dip into spiritualist or fractured mind (depending if you prefer a wisdom or a cha score), you pick a dedication phantom, you get +2 to will save because spiritualist has a strong will save, +4 vs mind effecting (which is most willsaves) as long as your phantom is inside you, and also iron will as a bonus feat as long it is inside, resulting in an effective +8.

It is actually for the parties enjoyment as well.
"Hej, our main DPR has a reasonable will save and will not be feared/charmed/dommed most of the time!".

Enjoyment comes from contributing. If you fail will saves, you will not contribute, or your contribution will be to setup a TPK.

I mean, seriously, failing will saves sucks really hard. Especially against intelligent enemies that fight smartly and make use of their abilities and do proper positioning.
If you play just being feared properly, you are out of the fight. Heck, you could cause a TPK just from a common fear effect by running away from the party into the next encounter. Which intelligent enemies would seek to pull off, and frequently can pull off if you are the frontline.
I like playing martials, I strongly dislike being forced to murder my teammates, or leave them to die, because I rolled not even badly but just average.

In a way, being a fairly optimized martial with no particular protection against getting mind controlled is like playing a wizard that gives no expletives about hitting his party with his fireballs.

[Malik Gyan Daumantas]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

DeathlessOne wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my own theoretical character optimization as much as the next person. I just never bring those kinds of characters to the table. Infinite cosmic power is fun, for a time, but after a while... the lack of actual challenge and danger to the character you've taken the time to create, shape, mold, and manifest into the game ... well, it stagnates and grows bland.

This. The players in my megadungeon game are my anecdotal evidence.

Currently they're 9th level. They rolled stats to start with and they all started with ridiculously high ones. I let it slide and watched them grow.

They all optimized in the early levels, but I watched two of the players get real bored, real fast, so they've changed things up, broadened their characters and given themselves self-imposed limitations. They scrutinize and strategize now for everything and genuinely enjoy their wins.

The other two, one an unchained monk the other an unchained rogue, have spent every dime, every feat, every effort and NPC boon to be the biggest combat monsters they can be. Now in recent sessions, if we're not in combat they're bored; if we're in combat but against minions, they're bored; if they win a fight they immediately loot the bodies like clockwork, not caring if reinforcements are coming. Their strategies are complacent and self-serving, and it's gotten both characters killed twice each.

The game is fun when it's still a game, when there are authentic stakes and losses are possible. Once you are one-shotting every foe and death is a fleeting memory, fun can evaporate quickly.

And this is why i gravitate towards 6th level casters as you can push them to their absolute limit and still feel like things will be a challenge or at least entertaining to watch. Where as with 9th level casters I had to actively NERF some of them by running Nature fang druid and getting a single level dip in mammoth rider, getting rid of wild shape and lowering my spell progression to one similar to arcanists, sorcerers, etc in exchange for being able to turn my animal companion into an actual collassal kaiju, which is infinitely more entertaining.

To me it's not enough just to "Win" You gotta look good doing it. Something that makes people go "Holy shit, that's badass!"

[DeathlessOne]

Mightypion wrote:

You dip into spiritualist or fractured mind (depending if you prefer a wisdom or a cha score), you pick a dedication phantom, you get +2 to will save because spiritualist has a strong will save, +4 vs mind effecting (which is most willsaves) as long as your phantom is inside you, and also iron will as a bonus feat as long it is inside, resulting in an effective +8.

Oh, I certainly know how to do such things, and the why of the mechanical choice to do so. It is certainly effective. I simply have a personal distaste for the ... hmm, inelegance? Yeah, close enough... of doing so. If I wanted to absolutely max out my will save, just add a hedgehog familiar in to that mix and never make use of it in gameplay. That'll give you another +2.

But, the thing with having a will save that high when you are playing a class designed to incorporate such a thing as a potential weakness? You trivialize certain encounters that make use of that particular mechanic in order to challenge the party, even if it is just a way to instill a bit of fear or hesitation into the players, and indirectly, their characters. No fear of consequences, no real chance for failure, no realistic challenge to overcome? Yaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn. I can't feel like a hero when all the odds are in my favor. And, believe it or not, Pathfinder 1E is structured in such a way as to LEAN towards favoring the players.

To each his own, but for me... I want to struggle sometimes. I want to slump back in my seat after narrowly pulling off a win that seemed nearly impossible. But I don't want to do that every time, at every game session. Nor do I want to utterly waltz over every encounter. If it is too easy (and inversely too hard), it is time to retire a character so that I can readjust to the level of challenge I want.

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

To me it's not enough just to "Win" You gotta look good doing it. Something that makes people go "Holy s!&@, that's badass!"

Those are the moments I enjoy the most, as well.

[Derklord]

There are multiple things to unravel here.

First, there are differences in the power and versatility of classes. The tier list is not a shoehorn or a straightjacket, it's but an observation.
Many people react with strong rejection to any mention of tiers, not because they actually have arguments that prove it wrong, but because they don't like it being right. Virtually any time someone has a strong negative reaction to the tier list, it's either ignorance (not understanding what the tier list really is), or an attempt to deny reality.

Second, there is literally no relation between the statements "these classes are the best" and "you should only play these classes". Saying the former does not mean or imply the later. It also doesn't say or imply that one can't have fun with the "weaker" classes.

Third, when people ask for help on a build, it's usually assumed they're looking to make the character stronger. After all, one one can say what is more fun for another player, but saying what is more powerful is possible.

Fourth, I strongly believe that it's every player's duty to create a character that works with the group. That includes no garbage like PVP, stealing from party members, or "no talk, Hulk smash" - but also includes characters that the other characters would not be willing to adventure with if it wasn't for the player sitting at the same table. Adventuring is a life-threatening occupation, there is no place on a team for people not able to pull their own weight. A campaign's difficulty and power level can be adjusted in both directions, but it's hard to compensate for big differences within the party. One character shouldn't steal every spotlight and make others obsolete, but a character should also not be a millstone around the party's neck. The other players are likely to not have fun if they feel they have to 'carry' a character.

Fifth, most forum posts are made with limited information. People asking for suggestions virtually never tell you the difficulty/power level level of their campaing, so people take a "better save than sorry" approach and recommend things that work in difficult/high powered campaigns, as turning down such characters to easier/lower powered campaigns is way easier than the opposite. People also don't know the level of experience of other posters, so they don't know whether someone wants a to play a Rogue ebcause they've played a hundred characters and now want a build with this one specific Rogue ability, or whether they're an inexperienced player who thinks that Rogue makes a good "lone wolf" "backstab"-style character. We also only very rarely get proper information on the party (you usually only get class names, which tell you almost nothign in PF), and thus can't possibly know how many different things the character in question needs to cover. So, once again, people err on the side of caution and suggest characters that can do many different things, which is, naturally, often full casters.

Now, I'm usually the first guy to say "there is no universal best, it always depends on what you want, was well as the group and campaign", or "you shouldn't strive for a perfect party where every challenged is met with a quick and easy solution". Difficulty can be adjusted by any reasonably competent GM (although it can eb adjusted in both directions!). But if I have to recommend a class based on limited information, it will always be e.g. Investigator rather than Rogue, because the chance that the recipient will have a miserable experience playing it will be much lower.

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

In pathfinder's case it would be this idea that the only classes that are thought of as "Good" are prepared 9th level casters with anything else ranging from "Not being worth the time" to "Actively griefing the party"

Who the hell calls 6/9 casters "not worth the time"? I mean, there's plenty of flaws to find with the Eldritch Scoundrel, but it's a tier 3 class, and if someone can't make it work in an ordinary group and campaign, they're just a terrible player and shouldn't advice people on a forum to begin with.

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:

Even more so when you realize most games will never get to the point where you can even get 9th level spells anyway.

There certainly are people overly focussed on the highest levels, but in general, when people talk about full casting being powerful, it's not about 9th level spells, but rather about earlier spell access and higher DCs.

Temperans wrote:

Take for example the shifter, which is regarded by some as an "undertuned class". Yet its one of the biggest damage dealer in the party while being one of the toughest to actually hit/kill.

Not sure what "undertuned" is supposed to mean, but everyone who calls Shifter the likes of "one of the worst classes in the game" or "a tier 6 class" (both which I have actually seen) displays a severe lack of understanding of the game. The class is objectively terribly designed, but it's still one of the strongest martial classes in the game, and has more means of contributing out-of-combat than many other martial classes.

For anyone interested in a topic, here is a in-depth evaluation of its strength, weaknesses, and design flaws.

[Mightypion]

There is plently of fear of failure. Its just that failure stops being the most likely mathematical outcome vs appropriate foes that make full use of their capabilities.

As a player, it is a lot more satisfying for me to win if the GM doesnt pull his/her punches. This requires a fair bit of optimization.

[Mightypion]

Concernign Shifter: I dont think its as bad as people say it is. Its just like, once you hit shifter 5, you go level in some other class. Like, Grab vivisectionist and enjoy mutagens, some spell casting and sneak atack.

Concerning the fractured mind/spiritualist dip: I actually kind of dislike it because it is too good on a full martial or 4-caster.
It gets you the shield spell, it gets you really great improvement to your tpyically weakest and most consequential saves, and it kind of just costs you a BAB and your spell progression.

You also get 2 skill foci, as well as UMD as a class skill, as well as all kn. skills as class skills. If you are seeking to optimize, UMD as class skill is kind of an extra trait you can pick for something else.

[DeathlessOne]

Mightypion wrote:

As a player, it is a lot more satisfying for me to win if the GM doesnt pull his/her punches. This requires a fair bit of optimization.

I am simultaneously curious as to what sort of power level you are operating on if it requires a good bit of optimization in order to handle encounters where the GM is not holding back (that's a default setting for me), and hesitant to even ask. Tactics and terrain are two of several different things that can radically alter the challenge rating of an encounter, all without even touching the stat block of an enemy.

Are you constantly fighting things +2 CR's higher than your party's level? Because that will tell me more than I need to know about your table's playstyle.

[VoodistMonk]

I probably just have not played enough, or with enough people... but I have never encountered this in person at any table I have played at. And to be perfectly honest, I do not associate myself with "those people"... being the types of people that would take the time to make fun of someone for their choices in a freaking fantasy game.

Like, get over yourself, @$$hole. We are literally playing Dungeons and Dragons... how freaking serious do you take yourself, right meow?

I have never met anyone that has even mentioned out loud these supposed tiers of power. In fact, the only place those stupid tiers of power matter enough to be discussed, are on these very message boards. When I search the Google and find my answers in Reddit, or whatever, the people there are never talking about it... the ONLY place I have ever, literally ever, heard about tiers of power is right here.

I have ran gestalt games where people made goofy characters that encompassed what they wanted their character to do regardless of how powerful it might be. And they had fun right next to players that built ungodly lethal characters. Same party, same campaign, same table... players with absolute $#!+ characters with absolute $#!+ strategies, right beside players that built wicked good characters with rock solid tactics.

Nobody teased or casted shade on anyone else. No personal insults were said. Who TF does that? What kind of people do you play with?

[DeathlessOne]

Consider yourself lucky to have avoided all that nonsense where ever you call your domain, VoodistMonk. I've been lurking around the internet since the advent of dialup connections and I have seen tons of it, and even in real life where we had to deal with real people face to face 99% of the time to get anywhere with planning games or running them.

Check out Giant in the Playgrounds if you want some more current dialogue on the tier system and a fairly recent attempt to categorize the Pathfinder 1e classes (again). Lots of players of the older variants of D&D still hand out there and chat with the new arrivals. I lurk there under a different username.

[Mightypion]

CR of foe= APL +0 to APL+2 is standard encounter, Boss is frequently CR+4.
We are frequenly highish point buy, have an effective NPC with us etc. So our APL is often one or 2 higher then our level.

I am not telling you that this is how the game is meant to be played, but it actually matches quite closely to what Paizo itselfs writes in gamemastering

Everything with martial training fights cooperatively with his allies like a player party would fight (including starting to run away), every enemy NPC has a name.

[Senko]

Derklord wrote:

There are multiple things to unravel here.

First, there are differences in the power and versatility of classes. The tier list is not a shoehorn or a straightjacket, it's but an observation.
Many people react with strong rejection to any mention of tiers, not because they actually have arguments that prove it wrong, but because they don't like it being right. Virtually any time someone has a strong negative reaction to the tier list, it's either ignorance (not understanding what the tier list really is), or an attempt to deny reality.

Second, there is literally no relation between the statements "these classes are the best" and "you should only play these classes". Saying the former does not mean or imply the later. It also doesn't say or imply that one can't have fun with the "weaker" classes.

Third, when people ask for help on a build, it's usually assumed they're looking to make the character stronger. After all, one one can say what is more fun for another player, but saying what is more powerful is possible.

Fourth, I strongly believe that it's every player's duty to create a character that works with the group. That includes no garbage like PVP, stealing from party members, or "no talk, Hulk smash" - but also includes characters that the other characters would not be willing to adventure with if it wasn't for the player sitting at the same table. Adventuring is a life-threatening occupation, there is no place on a team for people not able to pull their own weight. A campaign's difficulty and power level can be adjusted in both directions, but it's hard to compensate for big differences within the party. One character shouldn't steal every spotlight and make others obsolete, but a character should also not be a millstone around the party's neck. The other players are likely to not have fun if they feel they have to 'carry' a character.

Fifth, most forum posts are made with limited information. People asking for suggestions virtually never tell you the difficulty/power...

I can understand the "they're asking for help to make a stronger character" thought but like I said i start my posts saying I know there are stronger options but I want to play one of these two classes which would be better and still get people telling me not to take them but to take something else.

[DeathlessOne]

Mightypion wrote:

CR of foe= APL +0 to APL+2 is standard encounter, Boss is frequently CR+4.

We are frequenly highish point buy, have an effective NPC with us etc. So our APL is often one or 2 higher then our level.

So, your 'standard' encounters run from a 'average' to a 'hard' encounter, and your typical boss fight is beyond the 'epic' challenge rating for your APL? I can certainly see why you think a certain level of optimizing is necessary to survive, because it would be especially if the GM does not hold back.

Just to give a peek into what I consider 'necessary' in a 'normal' game: I assume 15 point buy. I assume that 'average' encounters run from 'easy' to 'challenging' (APL-1 to APL+1) and boss encounters are usually 'epic' (APL+3) due to the boss being a 'challenging' (APL+1) encounter all by themselves, with enough minions, terrain, and other obstacles for the party to deal with at the same time (enough to add that extra +2). This is all in line with the built in expectations for a typical adventure path released from paizo, at least before Strange Aeons, Tyrant's Grasp, and a small few others. Those ones get 20 point buy and more leeway with the character's wealth per level, because those books are hard(er).

A lot of people like to play at the 'high fantasy' or 'epic fantasy' levels of play. That's cool. But I don't judge the worth of classes outside of the 'standard fantasy' level of gameplay that is at the core of the rules.

[Mightypion]

One of the hardest fights in wotr (which probably has the most op PC characters of all modules) was actually APL -4 or so.
The party reneged on a deal made with Nocticula (which resulted in a partial intra party split over the wisdom, or lack theroff, of that decision), so Nocticula sicked her special forces (named "Ladies Batallion of Death") at the party.

These were Succubi who happened to have relocated the main Supply base of the British interventionist forces in the Russian civil war from Arkhangelsk to Alyushinyrra, and used the occassion of world war 1 on earth to grab some levels in mysterious stranger.

They were smart and cunning adversaries, (and hit touch AC at pretty long ranges, adding their CHA to damage), used hit and run tactics, made full use of their alter self abilities (yes, detect evil is a thing, but you outrange it by quite a bit if your standard armament is a Mosin Nagant) and we did not see the near orbital feather token tree strike on Drezen coming.

The party was level 16ish mythic 5 or so at that moment, with 2 character being capable of reliably one turning Balors.
Succubi with one hero level are normally no longer a threat at that point but haha, played smart they sure are.

[DeathlessOne]

Yeah. The moment that you add 'mythic' into anything, you might as well throw out the CR system entirely. It no longer serves as a reliable way to measure anything with. I just tossed a CR23 critter at my group of level 14, mythic rank 6 party and they chewed through it with ease. Likewise, a few CR 10 cultists with a mythic rank each nearly wiped them.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Yeah, so... threads like this remind me I need to take a class in encounter design. That, and I need players that are just SLIGHTLY less experienced.

I'm not going to repost all the crud I've thrown out in other threads. Bottom line, my fights are pretty boring: static traps in the battlefield, hazards and monsters straight out of the books, sometimes with templates or class levels added.

Based on their experience and the optimization of the PCs, along with the fact that 2 of their 4 cohorts adventure with them (90% of the time providing buff or healing spells), I estimate their APL at 11 even though they're only 9th level. Even still, if I put down an "average" CR 11 fight, its usually 2 or more monsters instead of just one big bad.

I keep trying to add spells or class levels to the monsters to make the encounters more strategic, but it never works. For buffs to be effective, the villains need to know the party is coming, and for offensive spells to threaten, the PCs have to fail saves. Neither of these things happen.

Then there's the CASTING of spells. Two of the PCs in the party, both melee types, can usually move at 60' thanks to Consumables or class abilities. They also have Dodge, Mobility, Improved Evasion, Spring Attack and other movement/defense things. Generally once a creature has been ID'd as having significant spells or SLA's that foe is surrounded, grappled, and stabbed to death with Sneak Attacks.

I guess I need laser grids, lava pits and symbol spells all over the place to actually make things an actual threat nowadays...

[Azothath]

so this THREAD is a rehash of an old topic and focuses on one aspect of the game as written.
Powergaming wise PF1 took it down a notch from 3.5. It's definitely less magic wise than Forgotten Realms. It's definitely less on GM intervention than Ravenloft.
I think people are the same and you see the same spectrum of function, desire, and capabilities in players. Some are more competitive, egotistical and narcissistic than others, some more cooperative, compassionate, and caring. Some want it to be a war game and vent some frustrations over their regular life and feel better.
In a Real perspective yall sat around a table having a good BS session, rolled some dice, and hopefully had a good time.

[DeathlessOne]

I'd love to help you out with that, Mark. I've seen many of your previous posts. If you could get me an idea of the resources your players have, I can take a peek at it to see if there is any specific insight I can offer.

[Azothath]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Yeah, so... threads like this remind me I need to take a class in encounter design...

I know sometimes people get into competition with the players and want the NPCs to break even or win once in awhile. I have to say a GM can always win every encounter every time. So it's not a competition in the area of in-game power. GMs represent the World so they have it all.

You want to tell a good story, make the players feel that they got involved and accomplished something. That some crazy fun *stuff* happened that yall will talk about for years.

I'm going to suggest some investigation and recognizing your players goals and then adjusting your goals.

I'd say write up and end of session questionnaire for your players to see what they think and feel. This means you're asking rather than relying on observation during the game. Don't make it complicated, just 3 simple questions. The more they write the more involved they are so word count is important. Read the responses the next day.

You also need to vary the types of encounters [exploration/discovery, combat, skill, social, trap, hazard, puzzle, affliction, NPC support...]. This gives a wider swath of challenges to the players and doesn't focus so much on martial prowess or some special skill/feat combo.

Next you have your AP or dungeon. Get Cliff Notes on a play by Shakespeare or some other play. Incorporate some of that plot & DRAMA into the game.

[Senko]

Azothath wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Yeah, so... threads like this remind me I need to take a class in encounter design...

I know sometimes people get into competition with the players and want the NPCs to break even or win once in awhile. I have to say a GM can always win every encounter every time. So it's not a competition in the area of in-game power. GMs represent the World so they have it all.

You want to tell a good story, make the players feel that they got involved and accomplished something. That some crazy fun *stuff* happened that yall will talk about for years.

I'm going to suggest some investigation and recognizing your players goals and then adjusting your goals.

I'd say write up and end of session questionnaire for your players to see what they think and feel. This means you're asking rather than relying on observation during the game. Don't make it complicated, just 3 simple questions. The more they write the more involved they are so word count is important. Read the responses the next day.

You also need to vary the types of encounters [exploration/discovery, combat, skill, social, trap, hazard, puzzle, affliction, NPC support...]. This gives a wider swath of challenges to the players and doesn't focus so much on martial prowess or some special skill/feat combo.

Next you have your AP or dungeon. Get Cliff Notes on a play by Shakespeare or some other play. Incorporate some of that plot & DRAMA into the game.

In my experience if you want the PC's to lose you need to script it that way e.g. no matter what they do the macguffin is gone when they defeat the lieutenant or they are going to lose the fight but its to capture not kill and the enemy has ways to ressurect them onhand. For example what happened between BG1 and BG2 so at the start of 2 your in a cage because of scripted defeat.

[Temperans]

An easy way to script loses is to have a contingency plan and getting into the head space of "why the heck would this monster fight to the death when it can escape and potentially come back later?"

(If you have casters and they are known to be casters, then you just need to justify that the enemies scouted the players out).

[Mightypion]

Another way is that the bad guy hires mercs/bounty hunters.

Copy your players character sheets, change some archetypes, add some number/templates on top and have an "amoral bounty hunter party", that happens to be a slightly or considerably improved version of the pc party, take them out.

These bounty hunters are really expensive though, so the bad guys cant pay them for long.
Why they didnt kill anyone? Well, bringing the PCs in alive gets extra rewards!

[TxSam88]

DeathlessOne wrote:

Mightypion wrote:

CR of foe= APL +0 to APL+2 is standard encounter, Boss is frequently CR+4.

We are frequenly highish point buy, have an effective NPC with us etc. So our APL is often one or 2 higher then our level.

So, your 'standard' encounters run from a 'average' to a 'hard' encounter, and your typical boss fight is beyond the 'epic' challenge rating for your APL? I can certainly see why you think a certain level of optimizing is necessary to survive, because it would be especially if the GM does not hold back.

Just to give a peek into what I consider 'necessary' in a 'normal' game: I assume 15 point buy. I assume that 'average' encounters run from 'easy' to 'challenging' (APL-1 to APL+1) and boss encounters are usually 'epic' (APL+3) due to the boss being a 'challenging' (APL+1) encounter all by themselves, with enough minions, terrain, and other obstacles for the party to deal with at the same time (enough to add that extra +2). This is all in line with the built in expectations for a typical adventure path released from paizo, at least before Strange Aeons, Tyrant's Grasp, and a small few others. Those ones get 20 point buy and more leeway with the character's wealth per level, because those books are hard(er).

A lot of people like to play at the 'high fantasy' or 'epic fantasy' levels of play. That's cool. But I don't judge the worth of classes outside of the 'standard fantasy' level of gameplay that is at the core of the rules.

My group would crush your game. we do 20 point buy, but we have 6, highly experienced players. Even when we play low magic and sub par characters we can usually defeat CR+4 encounters with the GM not holding back. for an encounter to challenge us, it typically needs to be CR+6.

IMO, player experience goes a long way in how well a party does.

As for the original question from the OP, there have always been and always will be the power gamer. I've noticed in every game I have ever played, be in Chess, video games, RPGs, LARPs, wargames, even paintball. There's always at least one guy who wants to be the best, no matter what.

[DeathlessOne]

TxSam88 wrote:

My group would crush your game. we do 20 point buy, but we have 6, highly experienced players. Even when we play low magic and sub par characters we can usually defeat CR+4 encounters with the GM not holding back. for an encounter to challenge us, it typically needs to be CR+6.

Its not a competition, my friend. And that was just was I consider a baseline expectation for the game system. It is from that baseline in which I judge the effectiveness of each individual class, feat, spell, etc, etc. If you are playing in a game that exceeds the recommended 4 to 5 players and 15 point buy, you are not going to fit in the typical game very well.

Quote:

IMO, player experience goes a long way in how well a party does.

It certainly does. But that means absolutely nothing to me when I am giving a critical look at the system itself. Being aware of all the tools at your disposal, and possessing the ability to use them proficiently, turns someone from a novice into a journeyman and then a master.

FYI, I do not often play in such games as I call 'baseline'. PFS itself runs off the high fantasy (20 point buy) and generally greater than 5 player parties. So that is a lot of people's normal expectation for the game. I play, and run, much higher OP games. I just do not let those experiences tint my perception of the game itself.

[VoodistMonk]

Even in paintball? You mean ALWAYS in paintball. I love tagging those hardcore speedball cats with me stock class pump... click-clack-bloop... introduce them to a little thing called humility. Lol.

You can't take life too serious, or you'll never get out alive.

[Matthew Downie]

My first PC died in a TPK.
My second PC died in a TPK.
My third PC died in a TPK.
My fourth PC was the sole survivor of that party's first dungeon.

What lessons did this teach me? Power-game more. You can't make perfect decisions in every battle. You're bound to have a series of bad dice rolls sooner or later.

With a GM who doesn't pull punches, if other members of the party aren't power-gaming, you have to power-game even harder to compensate. Either that or pressure them into making a stronger character.

Or, you can TPK. Again.

So... don't be too judgmental of people you don't know well who play differently from you. They're probably just doing whatever their first GM inadvertently trained them to do.

[Mark Hoover 330]

@ DeathlessOne: I pm'd you. Any ideas are welcome.

I use the same baselines as DO, but probably too hard. Y'know the Monster Creation chart? Well, if I'm adding class levels to a bunch of ghouls, I look at that chart and go "ok, I'm shooting for minions that are CR5, so let's get them gear and feats that get them to AC 18 and as close to 55 HP as I can w/out exceeding it too much.

If I'm building out a CR 10 fight, it might be simply a large, open dungeon room with a gallery level 15' up containing a CR9 Baykok and 2 of these ghouls. That's it.

The XP budget buys me the baykok for 6400 XP, and the two ghouls with NPC levels to get them to CR 5 each eat up the remainder of the CR10 budget. I don't give the baykok any additional items it can use, the ghouls have only the gear to optimize them high enough to get to the CR 5 benchmarks on the monster creation chart, and the room itself contains decor and furnishings that could help or hinder both the party AND their enemies since I can't afford any more than the 3 monsters in the CR budget.

So, 3 enemies totaling CR 10 in one room. The party is 4 PCs all level 8, plus 2 L6 cohorts, a warbull sacred mount and an elder pyrausta familiar.

I could add a passive trap to the room that might threaten EITHER side if they stand in the right square, but if the trap isn't a factor, say, the u-rogue detects it when she scouts ahead of the party, then she can warn the rest of the party where not to step, the monsters already know about it, so it's a non-impact to the combat.

If I add a trap and it DOES impact the combat, this means I've gone over the budget for my XP; either I need to scale back the minions (there's only 2 at this point) or I need to just increase the CR of the room. An increase will mean recalculating GP found here or in another chamber to reward for the extra challenge faced and neutralized.

But again, if it has no bearing on the combat, like if the rogue detected it ahead of time, it might as well have not been there, or been one square of difficult terrain or something.

Speaking of which, in the room for this particular encounter, the original source material said the room was littered with debris but didn't actually give any combat impact for that debris. When I embellished it to make it a CR 10 encounter instead of CR 4, I filled certain 10'x10' sections of the room Difficult Terrain or Low Obstacles. I figured the PCs or the ghouls could use them for Cover, higher ground bonus, as rocks to telekinetically hurl, etc.

Y'know what they ended up being? Colored blobs on the battle mat. That's it. The PCs had the movement to avoid them, and the ghouls were both melee types so since the PCs weren't anywhere near those squares, the ghouls moved to the party members to engage.

Those were non-impact hazards. The Difficult Terrain and Low Obstacles meant nothing to either side in the combat. If that were a 1-off I'd roll with it but my players NEVER use stuff like that.

Well, the guy running the wizard uses Cover all the time; he makes ranged attacks with spells and keeps walls, pillars, doors and so on between him and the foes he's targeting. But unless he's in the middle of an empty field, this is going to happen using ANYTHING in the area he can use for Cover.

In short, none of my players ever slides down a bannister, or stands on top of a table, or topples a bookcase on an enemy or whatever. They don't USE any of the mundane furnishings in a room or encounter area. They move, attack, set up flanks, and shred one foe at a time.