|
Nissir posted:How do you deal with a player that is vastly over powered compared to the rest of the party when it comes to combat? To make a long story short, I am the broken combat monster and the rest of the party are great roleplayers but are really, really, really badly built. Respec yourself before you wreck yourself. I'm assuming of course your table allows free respeccing and that your table isn't having fights where they all wipe instantly and have to watch you solo the remainder of the encounter. I find its a lot easier to play a goofy/eccentric/non-viable weirdo build than to convince 3+ other people to drop their poorly built (and probably lovingly fluffed) builds in order to start the min-maxing.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
We are playing Pathfinder if that helps. The game started out innocent enough, level 1 basic gear etc. I am playing a Zen Buddhist who believes that through a series of lives and reincarnations he had been given the ultimate reward for being a good soul, a life as a fully sentient being. So he is going to have a good life, gambling, drinking, and whoren about...while still being a good soul. I started out a broke beggar with nothing but a short bow, 10 arrows, and a beggar’s cup surrounded by a Witch, a Gunslinger Paladin, a Gnome Barbarian, a Battle Cleric, and a Rogue with a Rifle. I thought I would just stay in the back and shoot an arrow here and there and be pretty safe. Over the course of 10 levels, my companions have turned out to be less then effective in combat based on their builds, combat styles, and general disregard for their own safety. I have adapted to be a mobile missile platform doing everything in my power to keep them alive long enough to ascend to their next level of enlightenment. The DM and I have talked about the issue, I have offered to build a new character focused on buffing allies and debuffing baddies, but my Monk is well liked by the players but is totally out of the range of the rest of the party in combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Does 4e still suffer the same "OMG NINJA YESSSSSS" bs that 3.0 suffered with the monk class? When I was running 3.0, I had to outlaw monks entirely in my games because they were just way too overpowered, even if the player wasn't trying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
I don't know about 4th, but the monk is almost universally panned as being woefully underpowered in 3.5. How is it that they ended up overpowered in your campaign? Edit: Not trying to be a smart rear end or anything, I am really curious. There is a monk in my 3.5 party right now and so far he isn't very powerful, but it's a new campaign and we're all only 2nd level at this point. armorer fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
armorer posted:I don't know about 4th, but the monk is almost universally panned as being woefully underpowered in 3.5. How is it that they ended up overpowered in your campaign? 4E monks are hard-to-hit, extremely mobile, low-damage, multi-target strikers. They are neither under- nor over-powered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I think that the fact that I am almost totally built around combat while the others are not even remotely optimized is the big issue. Here is the build that I am using, as far as I know, it is legal but this is my first Pathfinder game so it is very possible that I messed something up along the way. This is also a mythic campaign, and our mythic level is 3. Stats were rolled and after adjustments for old age and magic items 18 str 16 dex 13 con 12 int 25 wis 14 cha. Gi Gong the Zen Archer Traits: Exile, Resilient Mythic Longevity and Legendary Item (Quiver) Feats: 1st: Toughness Human: Improved Initiative Monk 1st: Improved Unarmed Strike Monk 1st: Perfect Strike (bow, special) Monk 1st: Precise Shot Monk 2nd: Weapon Focus (longbow) Monk 2nd: Point Blank Shot Monk 3rd: Point Blank Master 3rd: Deadly Aim 5th: Stunning Fist Monk 6th: Specialisation (longbow) Monk 6th: Improved Precise Shot 7th: Deflect Arrows 9th: Clustered shot Monk 10th: Improved Critical (longbow) Do you think I should just make a new character, try and tone down the mass destruction, or is there some other path that my DM and I just haven't thought of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Does 4e still suffer the same "OMG NINJA YESSSSSS" bs that 3.0 suffered with the monk class? When I was running 3.0, I had to outlaw monks entirely in my games because they were just way too overpowered, even if the player wasn't trying. 4e is all about balance there isn't any class that overshadows another on any level compared to 3.5 or Pathfinder.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Nissir posted:This is also a mythic campaign, and our mythic level is 3. Stats were rolled and after adjustments for old age and magic items 18 str 16 dex 13 con 12 int 25 wis 14 cha. If you're at this point in the game and "the others are not even remotely optimized," you could probably make the least optimal feat choice every time from here on out and still not have the rest of the party come near catching up to you. socialsecurity posted:4e is all about balance there isn't any class that overshadows another on any level compared to 3.5 or Pathfinder. While this is almost always true, there are a few classes so bad that they'll be noticeable drags on the party (Vampire...). However, they'll still be way more viable, and way closer to the party's ace, than an unoptimized 3.5/Pathfinder character. disaster pastor fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Does 4e still suffer the same "OMG NINJA YESSSSSS" bs that 3.0 suffered with the monk class? When I was running 3.0, I had to outlaw monks entirely in my games because they were just way too overpowered, even if the player wasn't trying. Holy poo poo someone who thinks monks are overpowered. Next you're going to tell me how Warlocks were too good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
3rd edition, not 3.5 or 4e. In vanilla 3rd, they were waaaay OP. I don't know much about 3.5 or 4e. It was basically poo poo like: "Oh, there's a nasty wizard casting poo poo from a strong position? Send the monk at him." *monk casually wanders up* "What, 50 gazillion traps? Naw, we won't try to find 'em, let the monk do it." *monk casually wanders around, setting off all the traps* "A horde of well-matched fighters? Ehhh, everyone hang back and let the monk handle it." *monk casually kills everything without taking a hit* Unless you're being sarcastic. Like I said, I don't know much about 3.5 or 4. Bad Munki fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:3rd edition, not 3.5 or 4e. In vanilla 3rd, they were waaaay OP. I don't know much about 3.5 or 4e. If your monk was doing well, the DM was letting him win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Maybe it was the players, then, because in every 3e game I ran, the monks were always effectively invincible compared to the rest of the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Maybe it was the players, then, because in every 3e game I ran, the monks were always effectively invincible compared to the rest of the party. If the monks were overpowered, somebody was doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
We did heroic stats, so 4d6, drop lowest, re-roll 1s, roll 6 stats, apply them as desired. (This leads to an average, if I recall, around 15.) The monks ended up with silly-high armor classes, huge hit bonuses, and of course the many attacks. Also, very good saves. It's possible the party funneled gear to the monk that helped him out excessively, but when there's a cleric and a monk and you give, say, a +wis item to the group, it's their choice if they put it on the monk instead of the cleric. I'll accept that it's quite possible the parties made the monks OP in these cases, I don't recall as it was quite some time ago. The trend happened over multiple character sets, though, albeit with the same set of players (not like it was the same person playing the monk all the time, though.) I dunno. v  v In any event, 3e is out, it's just too cumbersome for my tastes these days.
Bad Munki fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Okay, so that's the rub. All those attacks that monks get don't mean much when they have penalties to hit AND they only get one attack after they move so all that speed doesn't work out to as much damage as a power attacking barbarian. And all that AC from wisdom items is kind of pointless when its cheaper to just buy armor. Monks take a lot of investment to be passable. And if the party funnels all their funds to the monk, that would mean that the rest of the party is lacking. Also, monks don't get uncanny dodge and don't keep any of those AC bonuses when flatfooted. Something to keep in mind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Well, if I ever run a 3e campaign again, I'll have to revisit that particular house rule, I guess. On a side note, that reminds me: anybody wanna buy a couple feet of bookshelves worth of 3e books? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Down With People posted:Sounds like the best case scenario, when everyone knows what everyone's comfortable with and no-one's a creeper. I mean, I came up with one of the most intentionally creepy scenarios. It involved farms of forced human/giant and human/dwarf breeding, where the offspring is sold off to the military. Later the party found out they sacrifice the children to a comatose dragon king. So yeah. Maybe sexual themes succeeded when the goal was to creep people out, because hey, it's Ravenloft.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
God Of Paradise posted:I mean, I came up with one of the most intentionally creepy scenarios. It involved farms of forced human/giant and human/dwarf breeding, where the offspring is sold off to the military. Later the party found out they sacrifice the children to a comatose dragon king. I'm kind of confused, because in Dark Sun, this is Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Nissir posted:We are playing Pathfinder if that helps. quote:I have to ask. Why is there such an aversion to anything sexual happening in role playing games? I don't think there is, but I play with mature groups that I game with a lot. 1. If you're asking why in general, look at your demographics. Gamers* aren't likely to be the people heading out every weekend, getting laid, forming healthy relationships and dealing with western cultures's difficult sexual mores. They probably spend more time on forums than the average person, which is a much different model than normal social interaction. Anyway, when you bring a load of baggage to the game table, it's easier to avoid it. American Culture has always been more comfortable with violence than sex, so the average dungeon crawl isn't likely to raise many issues. 2. From a systems perspective: Consider Monsterhearts, which bills itself explicitly as "the messy lives of teenage monsters." I haven't had an immature experience** with the game, because the game is what it is. And the mechanics are clear. That which gets measured gets done best. So in D&D, where "Charisma+Diplomacy+(1-20 randomly determined=Binary success or failure"), you either get the bar wench or you don't. Uncomfortable, and hard to game. Or you cast charm person. That's binary; it's not gameable. In Monsterhearts, 2d6+hot=failure (with a general list of in-game badnesses), somewhat success (from am explicit set of options) or emotional power (gain strings, they do what they think you'd like). If you want to, you can use emotional leverage to increase your roll after you make it, and they can counter it. There are complex subsystems to manipulate everyone else; it's a social game, and sex is a social action. If your system represents sex as a flat probability curve, and success as "you sleep with the prince/captive/demonic messenger", then you're guided to an immature experience. Monsterhearts doesn't function as a dungeon crawler, swashbuckling adventure or Civ-building. It's a scalpel, not a multitool. But sometimes a scalpel is best. *As opposed to you, who's reading this! I mean everyone else. **Relating to its themes. One guy stated at start of play his intention was to kill my character...he hosed up repeatedly and, after an hour and a half, stormed out of the room.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
My friends want to play a Halo campaign about normal Marines fighting the terrifying covenant. Dangerous enemies requiring careful planning and execution to survive. One of them is really pushing for Strands of Fate because it has rules for powers and augmentations, but a lot of games do. What are some games and rulesystems that handle Big Scary Bad Guys vs Underdog Heroes well and would work well in the Halo universe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
If you're after a massively combat-heavy game, 4e D&D (much as I personally hate it) has really good tactical combat, and could be reskinned with a bit of effort. I'm a huge fan of fate, but combat is definitely it's weakest point. e: Really, the system that's best will depend on what you want the focus of the campaign to be (in terms of 'what they do during a session' rather than the setting). I'm assuming combat-heavy, because Halo. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Feb 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
tzirean posted:Thanks for the help, everyone. Guess I'm trying my hand at papercrafting! Unless it's Monsterhearts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
NinjaDebugger posted:I'm kind of confused, because in Dark Sun, this is Tuesday. Yeah, heh. I think I just become a contrarian whenever I hear knee-jerk reactions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
God Of Paradise posted:I mean, I came up with one of the most intentionally creepy scenarios. It involved farms of forced human/giant and human/dwarf breeding, where the offspring is sold off to the military. Later the party found out they sacrifice the children to a comatose dragon king. If you must run it in the d20 system use the Veil. The Veil is a rule that gets used in local Monsterhearts games(I thought it was universal but I didn't see another mention). It's an agreement at the table that every player, including the DM, has the power to at any time say "I want to Veil this/fade to black". This is because if your game is going to include things like rape, abuse, addiction and other messed up stuff someone might have a literal panic attack at the table because these acts are personal to them somehow. If someone calls a Veil the scene immediately stops and is resolved off camera. So if that one guy starts talking about his weird Dwarf sex fantasies you can Veil it. This means the scene stops and any conflicts have to be stated completely out of character, "Bill roll DEX to see if you get the key off the skullery maid." The Veil: - "We may be dealing with things that may be traumatic for people. Therefor we are using The Veil. - "The Veil allows any player to end a scene by stating that they wish to 'veil' or 'fade to black.'" - "If a scene is veiled it must end immediately." - "You are not a jerk if you get Veiled." - "You are a jerk if you keep bringing it up or ask the Veiler why they ended the scene." - "Do not be afraid to use the Veil." Also, never allow players to roll Social Skills on each other. Unless its Monsterhearts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
Razorwired posted:The Veil is a rule that gets used in local Monsterhearts games(I thought it was universal but I didn't see another mention). Lines and Veils are definitely widespread, if probably rarely used, concepts. A Line, incidentally, is basically used like a Veil, but when someone says that a scene or action crosses a Line it just plain doesn't happen. This lets people veto certain types of content from the game that they wouldn't be comfortable with even being implied. Obviously it's still good to agree on what content is acceptable before starting the game, but given the tendency of RPG sessions to veer wildly off-course, Lines are a handy tool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
I've been running a D&D 2e campaign for a while now and one of the hooks for how the PCs came together in this place is the Harvest is a time of critical importance to the area, and a legendary dwarf bard named Glenndan Zeeg will be coming there to perform at a HarvestFest concert, followed by an invite-only feast to which the PCs will be present along with the leadership of the castle, all of whom regardless of their intentions are targeted probably by the PCs as future corpses. The hook worked great to get the PCs to believably travel large distances to this out-of-the-way place, but soon I'll have to actually create some dialogue and scenes. Any suggestions or thoughts? Also this campaign has been subjected to enough silly moments that it's accepted and expected, so really my only guide here is the bard doesn't join the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Not really helpful but two things: 1) "Also this campaign has been subjected to enough silly moments that it's accepted and expected"...Call it Wheatstock and make it the elven bard B'ob D'lahn. Make him not attend for various reasons. 2) Ahhhh, 2nd ed. That brings back memories. I know we were just talking about balance and hoo boy, 2nd ed. Longest-running game I was ever in was 2nd ed, actually. I still have my binder with all my major characters and can see it from where I'm sitting right now. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
It is a perfect set-up for a Hangover-style adventure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
They stole Mark Tysol's krenshar?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:They stole Mark Tysol's krenshar?! hahaahaha o god yes Basically have rough equivalents of the set ups in the Hangover, and then give it a robust tweaking so they can enjoy the similarities but still have their own adventure. I would love to play that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Dookie-In-The-Pants posted:I'll have to actually create some dialogue and scenes. In my (limited) experience, there's no need to do this - create characters instead. If you have a wall of pre-written speech, everyone's eyes will glaze over as you read it, but if you have something like 'the waiter who's fanatically loyal and looks down on the PCs', the character can respond in an interesting way to what they say/ask - for that example, she'd be really patronising and give the PCs an immediate minor goal of 'make her swallow her words'. Same applies to scenes - don't read a wall of text about how the volcano is really hot, but have props be too hot to easily hold, ropes ignite, and so on. If you want them to not like the bard, the easiest way would be to have the bard sing a few 'witty' verses parodying the PCs. e: wrods are hrad. petrol blue fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Not really helpful but two things: Even better, have the PCs drafted into finding a replacement and passing him off as the real thing to a surly crowd of yokels. Also seconding Petrol -- write NPCs and set them up with conflicting goals, and the plot and dialogue will write itself. Whybird fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Feb 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:In my (limited) experience, there's no need to do this - create characters instead. If you have a wall of pre-written speech, everyone's eyes will glaze over as you read it, but if you have something like 'the waiter who's fanatically loyal and looks down on the PCs', the character can respond in an interesting way to what they say/ask - for that example, she'd be really patronising and give the PCs an immediate minor goal of 'make her swallow her words'. I'd agree, with the caveat that having 2-3 lines (no more) that you can drop in are worthwhile if they're particularly evocative of character. So for me a character note might be: quote:Scurvy Jack, Old Pirate I'd consider much more work than that to be a waste of time - you can develop Jack further if the plot and the characters interest warrants it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Xaander posted:My friends want to play a Halo campaign about normal Marines fighting the terrifying covenant. Dangerous enemies requiring careful planning and execution to survive. One of them is really pushing for Strands of Fate because it has rules for powers and augmentations, but a lot of games do. What are some games and rulesystems that handle Big Scary Bad Guys vs Underdog Heroes well and would work well in the Halo universe? Are you familiar with FFG's Warhammer 40k RPG books? Maybe Only War would be suitable after some re-skinning. It's basically "regiment of non-augmented human soldiers face off against the dangers of the galaxy". Hell, players even get NPC squadmates!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
It ever fair to kill a player character in finality? Even if the plot and circumstances call for it? I'm nearing the end of a weekly campaign that has lasted over a year. I have one character who has turned into a Dark Lord of Ravenloft. Explaining would be too complicated at this point, but I will say, this player became a Dark Lord of Ravenloft in a plane-hopping Planescape game, and through death I plan on giving his character redemption during the end game. In game, we've both written his current character into quite a corner. He already has a back-up character, from when his character first died, who has currently following in the party as a support character.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 12:51
|
|
|
God Of Paradise posted:It ever fair to kill a player character in finality? Even if the plot and circumstances call for it? Is the player up for it? If so, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
Characters die all the time where I play. Low level characters die and get buried, higher level/richer ones get raised from time to time, all depends on the characters. I had a human paladin whose backstory was he was banished from his temple for getting married to an elf. He died and the druid in the party reincarnated him and he came back as and elf. He said hell with it, that this was a sign from the gods and went back to be with his wife. To the party, he was still dead, and I rolled up a new character and life/game went on for all involved. Some games/groups are totally ok with a random death in a seemingly meaningless combat. Others would only be ok with the sacrifice of a PC only as a last resort to stop the BBEG. Even other groups would be appalled that one of their beloved PCs would die from anything besides extreme old age. Seems like you have written the character a good ending and even have the backup made so you won't have to disrupt gameflow that much. Go for it! I still don't know what I am going to do about my group's situation, so I am jealous of yours!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Nissir posted:Characters die all the time where I play. Low level characters die and get buried, higher level/richer ones get raised from time to time, all depends on the characters. I had a human paladin whose backstory was he was banished from his temple for getting married to an elf. He died and the druid in the party reincarnated him and he came back as and elf. He said hell with it, that this was a sign from the gods and went back to be with his wife. To the party, he was still dead, and I rolled up a new character and life/game went on for all involved. I run from impartial to wishy-washy about meting out character deaths, and I let new players know up front that their characters might die. I like to think I'm the good kind of GM, regarding PC deaths at least. I never fudge the rules to kill a PC, but sometimes I fudge them to save a PC. Nobody wants to die because some chump goblin rolled a crit during a random encounter. Also, nobody saw that natural 20 I rolled behind the screen, so... I guess it was a regular hit  I'll absolutely let people die to pre-planned traps and setpiece fights, if that's how the dice come out, since that's kind of why they're there. You want that enormous pile of gold and weapons? Prepare to run the gauntlet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:Nobody wants to die because some chump goblin rolled a crit during a random encounter. I agree with this, but I think the solution rather than fudging dice is to skip all encounters you're not okay with players dying during. If a fight is not central enough to your plot that players wouldn't get a glorious death, then it's not important enough to keep in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
-10 hp being the point of death in Pathfinder and 3rd Edition makes sense. Because yeah, no chump goblin should kill a player. That's loving lame. Since the "bleeding out" rules were introduced, stabilizing against chump monsters is easy if they ever get lucky. I got no issues with a player character falling to like big bad or a monster that demands some respect. God Of Paradise fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:59
|
|