[QUOTE=M.Ciaster;44565671]or you know
just fucking talk to your buddies
'hey guys mind not going so overboard with your kickass wizard dudes/ladies? i'd like to do some cool stuff as well'
'hey sure'
alternatively just do some homebrewin', freedom of choice and adjustability's what I always thought RPGs were about - nerf wizards, buff everything else, whatever
this is what I don't like about Pathfinder actually, despite all its claims of balance and shit the wizards still remain the superior choice to everything else
look at me drunkposting about rpgs[/QUOTE]
best solution is to roll 3d6 in order for stats so nobody can be the class they want
[QUOTE=Glent;44566579]best solution is to roll 3d6 in order for stats so nobody can be the class they want[/QUOTE]
Only good for throw away characters and quick campaigns.
My first time dming for my group is coming up in a few months
We're playing 3.5, but I'm only worried because we have "that guy" in our group and he really wants to be in it.
He's a huge min-maxer and he always plays barbarian, pretty much soloing bosses that were designed for our entire party to take on. He also always goes the chaotic evil route.
I was thinking about maybe doing 1 test session with him. My friend, who is our most experienced dm, centers boss fights around him dishing out damage and tanking while we support from the sidelines. I don't think it's possible to tell him to not play a min-maxed character, but I'm hoping if I invite him that I have some strong encounters on hand.
Party size is probably going to be around 5-6, with level starting at 11. I know 11 looks high, but we're doing a chain of campaigns in the same world. Our party started at level 1 and we switched DMs for each new campaign. Any ideas on how to effectively deal with a min-maxer? I'm not going to straight out kill him unless he goes on a mass-murdering spree.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44559066]I'm not, go look up a guide to optimizing clerics in pathfinder and you'll quickly see how they can basically do anything better than any type of warrior/fighter class. Theyre good in most any situation and do it very well. Same goes for wizards.
Of course, this is totally min/max-y, but it's not hard to pull off at all. Like, you're going to put thought into how you make your character, and you want your character to be viable to play and not just a third wheel.
My Monkey Monk was fun to play as a character, but he was notso good in combat (which was the only thing he was good at), you know who was the best in combat?
The Cleric.[/QUOTE]
To be totally honest, i made the cleric with more of a fighter in mind, being a cleric of the war god. If i had actually made a fighter it would've hit more often and done more damage and just generally been better in combat. This was also the only campaign i've ever been in where i've gotten a natural 20 on an attack roll every session, and finding a +2 greatsword nearish the start of the campaign didn't really help things either.
[QUOTE=fruityfruit;44566759]My first time dming for my group is coming up in a few months
We're playing 3.5, but I'm only worried because we have "that guy" in our group and he really wants to be in it.
He's a huge min-maxer and he always plays barbarian, pretty much soloing bosses that were designed for our entire party to take on. He also always goes the chaotic evil route.
I was thinking about maybe doing 1 test session with him. My friend, who is our most experienced dm, centers boss fights around him dishing out damage and tanking while we support from the sidelines. I don't think it's possible to tell him to not play a min-maxed character, but I'm hoping if I invite him that I have some strong encounters on hand.
Party size is probably going to be around 5-6, with level starting at 11. I know 11 looks high, but we're doing a chain of campaigns in the same world. Our party started at level 1 and we switched DMs for each new campaign. Any ideas on how to effectively deal with a min-maxer? I'm not going to straight out kill him unless he goes on a mass-murdering spree.[/QUOTE]
Cripple him. Pry on the barbarians weaknesses. Spam him with mind altering spells, mind-control, sleep, that sort of thing. Also if he's the kind to just rush forward, then use lots of traps. Also, have boss encounters use more than one big baddie, give him like 4 minions or summon monster spell.
Barbarians are pretty good at 1v1, but fuck them up with 4v1. Flank the shit out of him, give the enemies sneak attack stuff.
[editline]16th April 2014[/editline]
With poison. Lots of poison and hope he doesn't pass the fort save. He probably will, but every inch helps.
OH also, disarm him, or knock him down. He probably has tons of HP, and tons of damage with decent AC. So, get rid of his weapon and his big stats.
If you can entangle him or make him flat footed, that'll really fuck his AC over.
Wanna know how to cripple a barbarian? Hit him with a ray of fatigue. Done.
[QUOTE=Jax Strife;44567061]Flank the shit out of him, give the enemies sneak attack stuff.[/QUOTE]
He's a barbarian. Didn't they already have improved uncanny dodge in 3.5?
Hmm, shit. And he has trap sense. Okay nope, just blast the fucker with spells.
No, really, just fatigue him. Even stage 1 fatigue will drop a barbarian out of rage ( exhausting him automatically unless he's high level ), and disallow him from going back into rage until the next combat.
Played an adept sniper once in 4e shadowrun. It was fun as fuck because the GM had us all be part of Aries Corporate Military so we got pretty much anything we wanted. I teamed up with the hacker so he could hack my spare sniper with a pilot upgrade and smartgun system and snipe with it and I could be at another position also sniping or giving close range support. I really like how shotguns and snipers used the same skill. So we had the hack with his own mecha, and I converted a motorcycle into an exosuit. Then we got sucked into Valhalla and we haven't played since.
For the next shadowrun game that I'm being a GM, I'm making the players slowly befriend a terrorist named Kavros and then making them help him and escape the police.
And then, I present them characters that want to catch Kavros and then I show how they aren't all that much nicer (They kill criminals without any mercy).
Going to play with their minds so much, also a dragon lying to them or something.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;44563092]All the offense taken.
Ask anyone I play with, believe me, I'm RP first, "zomg the powers of dooooooooom" second.[/QUOTE]
that's all fine and good, but if your character is so ridiculously overpowered that he just steals the spotlight all the time then that's still terrible
[QUOTE=elowin;44568676]that's all fine and good, but if your character is so ridiculously overpowered that he just steals the spotlight all the time then that's still terrible[/QUOTE]
1. I tend to play with a lot of wallflowers so they force me into it
2. I work with the DM specifically so that doesn't happen and back off in an attempt to get the other players to join in.
3. Judgmental much? Jesus.Those guns sure are sticky.
In my experience if people in a game are min-maxing, usually it's all the players that are doing it so it doesn't really matter.
[QUOTE=doomkiwi;44568961]1. I tend to play with a lot of wallflowers so they force me into it
2. I work with the DM specifically so that doesn't happen and back in an attempt to get the other players to join in.
3. Judgmental much? Jesus.Those guns sure are sticky.[/QUOTE]
chill out much?
All i'm saying is if you min-max your character to the point of it being straight up better than the rest of the party, I would not want to play with you.
[editline]17th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cl0cK;44570943]In my experience if people in a game are min-maxing, usually it's all the players that are doing it so it doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE]
That's not always the case though. You've been lucky. Or unlucky. Depends on your outlook.
[QUOTE=elowin;44571006]That's not always the case though. You've been lucky. Or unlucky. Depends on your outlook.[/QUOTE]
If all the players minmax, then you've just got to buff all the enemies and challenges to create some semblance of balance.
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;44571946]If all the players minmax, then you've just got to buff all the enemies and challenges to create some semblance of balance.[/QUOTE]
Three words:
Tomb of Horrors
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;44571946]If all the players minmax, then you've just got to buff all the enemies and challenges to create some semblance of balance.[/QUOTE]
Or play smarter. Feed on their weaknesses, however few they may be.
[QUOTE=elowin;44571986]Or play smarter. Feed on their weaknesses, however few they may be.[/QUOTE]
Smart and imaginative players know all their characters weaknesses and plan around them. A thousand times worse if they're also an experienced GM too.
Either way I don't like weakening characters that are too powerful for the sake of balance. The players obviously want to go around being badasses, so I'll make them fight badass enemies.
I think people look at minmaxing parties the wrong way, both as players and the GM. As a GM I see them as an excuse to finally go crazy with encounters and scenarios. As a Player I see them as the GM's excuse to give me wildly imaginative and crazy scenarios. It's a win/win for me either way.
I don't even know how to minmax. Seems like a lot of work/bullshit just to be 'better'.
[QUOTE=Aperture fan;44571946]If all the players minmax, then you've just got to buff all the enemies and challenges to create some semblance of balance.[/QUOTE]
Listen to Appy here, he had to deal with Brick, who I literally created just to show how broken unarmed was in Fallout PNP. He tried to nerf him several times, but I managed to get around it and, in some cases, even turn them into little buffs :v:
The problem is when one player takes/does something that makes them vastly superior to everyone else.
Then you either make shit that works against the rest of the party but is instantly wrecked by that one player, or you make something that can stand up to that one player but then is far too strong for the rest of the group to handle.
Or find a way to completely remove that player from combat which leads to more issues.
Also, the stronger a character is, the more aggro they'll get, which means the more enemies will attack him.
Typically I like to distribute my enemies attacks evenly, but if there's a guy doing tons of damage then all the enemies will try and fuck him over.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44572861]Also, the stronger a character is, the more aggro they'll get, which means the more enemies will attack him.
Typically I like to distribute my enemies attacks evenly, but if there's a guy doing tons of damage then all the enemies will try and fuck him over.[/QUOTE]
this, my groups paladin was freaking out why he wasn't getting hit when all he did was heal for the few rounds combat occured, while the knight was the center of it, why? he was fighting the strongest enemy 1v1 and dealing damage. so his little underlings wanted to fight with him. the my human enemies work is:
who's doing most damage, whos the beefiest, whos the most intimidating etc etc is gonna get large portion of the attacks.
Divide and conquer mean nothing to those guys?
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;44573075]Divide and conquer mean nothing to those guys?[/QUOTE]
Not when one guy is definitely going to destroy you. If they were all equally powerful then yes, but this is like the difference between an infantryman an battle tank. You're going to try and take down the battle tank before it fuck you over.
[QUOTE=Rats808;44572844]The problem is when one player takes/does something that makes them vastly superior to everyone else.
Then you either make shit that works against the rest of the party but is instantly wrecked by that one player, or you make something that can stand up to that one player but then is far too strong for the rest of the group to handle.
Or find a way to completely remove that player from combat which leads to more issues.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why GM's pussy foot around with this issue. If someone is ruining the experience for the rest of the players, by nature of making combat balance impossibly difficult, then just tell them to fuck off and make a character more in line with the others.
If they don't then kick them out of the group and move on. Everyone is supposed to have fun more or less equally, if one guy can't have fun without constantly negating the fun of other people then he does not deserve to sit at my table.
[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;44572861]Also, the stronger a character is, the more aggro they'll get, which means the more enemies will attack him.
Typically I like to distribute my enemies attacks evenly, but if there's a guy doing tons of damage then all the enemies will try and fuck him over.[/QUOTE]
That makes little sense against sentient enemies with moderate intelligence/wisdom/smart-stat. If one guy is cleaving your teammates in half with little effort then the logical approach is to kill the other party members first, since they're obviously the lesser immediate threat and therefore you're not throwing your life away while still accomplishing something. The same logic applies to PC spellcasters, especially healers. Regardless of the human tank barreling his way through your teammates, anything you do (which likely isn't much in this scenario) will be negated by the healer; kill the healer first then focus on the brute. You can easily mess up the whole PC party if you have ranged enemies along with melee using tactics, despite the hulk in the middle of the room.
Unless you're not going for realism and just playing, then it's whatever.
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/img]Agree for 3.5
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/cross.png[/img]Disagree for Pathfinder
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/information.png[/img]Informative for a system I've never run before.
As an aside, does anyone else use overland map movement tracking/points, to keep track of time and supplies? I've been using these:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/tCORg3X.png[/IMG]
for my Pathfinder game. I used to have it calculated for the exact number of point per mile the party could travel in one given day, but it became too much book-keeping for even my tastes.
[QUOTE=Axznma;44573282]I don't understand why GM's pussy foot around with this issue. If someone is ruining the experience for the rest of the players, by nature of making combat balance impossibly difficult, then just tell them to fuck off and make a character more in line with the others.
If they don't then kick them out of the group and move on. Everyone is supposed to have fun more or less equally, if one guy can't have fun without constantly negating the fun of other people then he does not deserve to sit at my table.
That makes little sense against sentient enemies with moderate intelligence/wisdom/smart-stat. If one guy is cleaving your teammates in half with little effort then the logical approach is to kill the other party members first, since they're obviously the lesser immediate threat and therefore you're not throwing your life away while still accomplishing something. The same logic applies to PC spellcasters, especially healers. Regardless of the human tank barreling his way through your teammates, anything you do (which likely isn't much in this scenario) will be negated by the healer; kill the healer first then focus on the brute. You can easily mess up the whole PC party if you have ranged enemies along with melee using tactics, despite the hulk in the middle of the room.
Unless you're not going for realism and just playing, then it's whatever.[/QUOTE]
If you're against enemies who are weak willed, then yes, that makes the most sense, but up against enemies with strong wills, or who are well coordinated, then killing the strongest guy makes the most sense.
Also, most evil guys are often brutish, so they'll want to kill the strongest guy for the thrill of it. Same goes for animals and the like, because they want to tackle the biggest threat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
