Pathfinder 1E Your experiences with broken Pathfinder characters? (edit: more accurately, w/1 avg PF character when the rest of the party is meh)

[Super Pony]

Based on the last couple updates, it sounds likea bit of disparity between the players' playstyles. Mixing in system mastery players is going to be an excercise in diplomacy if you have more laid back players. That being said, her use of Reduce Person spells on herself is a mistake since her character is an Aasimar and thus not a humanoid (since 3.0, not a PF addition). It's not the end of the world, but it may be an indication that she is, perhaps innocently, making other mistakes in her quest to stack numbers ontop of more numbers.

But really, it may be easier to talk it out as a group. If the other players feel useless then maybe it's something they talk out with you and the pile o numbers player.

 

[ggeilman]

One of the ways I handle min-maxing is not using a point buy system, but rather an array for stats. It provides everyone with a balanced set of stats to start with. Also just because Pathfinder uses WBL doesn't mean you have to use it. You can set it wherever you like or ignore it completely. I guess I can understand why there is a resurgence of OD&D systems like Swords and Wizardry although for me that is going too far back.
I am also limiting everyone to core races and core classes save for one character per game so that we can learn one character at a time. Since doing this the table has settled down and we are better learning the system as a group.

 

[sheadunne]

The monk's AC is high, but the AC of the other characters is really low. The Wizard should probably be around 16 minimum (mage armor and 14 dex), the Juggernaut AC is ok, for a great weapon fighter, but could be higher. It looks like none of the other characters but the monk invested in defensive items.

I ran a wizard from 1-20 with an AC of 10. Wizards don't need AC. If you're being hit by things, you're doing it wrong.

 

[Empirate]

I ran a wizard from 1-20 with an AC of 10. Wizards don't need AC. If you're being hit by things, you're doing it wrong.

I have to second this. My current PF Evoker rarely bothers buffing AC. When I think I might be focus-fired, I put up Mirror Image, but sometimes I just accept getting hit a bit. Taking one for the team and all that (Wizards in PF can be beefy enough to risk that). Having Fly and Invisibility means I'm usually only in danger from attacks as long as I plan to be, at least at the level we're currently at. I'll probably switch to a more cautious approach once we hit 7th or 8th level or so, but our game has run from 3rd to 6th so far and I only ever went below 0 once or twice (and these in ambush scenarios, where buffing AC wasn't much of an option anyway).
I did use Reduce Person once or twice, actually, but less for AC than ranged attack rolls (Scorching Ray that absolutely needed to hit, and I haven't got True Strike).

 

[Clyde Lee Graham]

Some of us see core-only as a last ditch resort. Personally, I'd rather execute surgical nerfs where necessary, or change systems rather than restrict my players to core. Half the fun of D&D are all those splat books!

Different strokes, and all...

True enough, but on the flip side, core only and add as you go is fairly practical. It's easier to add than it is to nerf and take away after the fact.

 

[Systole]

Problem 1: Her character reminds me regularly of many of the mechanical elements of the game that irk me. I can get over this, however.

Problem 2: Her character makes two other players feel weak and useless. Those players don't want to delve into the complexity of the bonus-stacking system of 3.5/PF, so their characters are weaker than hers. The system too easily allows you to make under-powered characters.

Problem 3: Her character is not threatened by things that threaten the rest of the party. I, like the two aforementioned players, don't want to spend tons of time prepping for my game by designing custom foes. I want to grab all the handy pre-published foes and use them*. But most pre-published foes are built to target reasonable ACs. I feel it lessens the fun of the game if you're at no risk of defeat. Now sure, I could add foes who are higher level, but they'd just overpower the rest of the party.


*I feel that if you're going to design a game and release content for it, that content should be useful for the mainstream player base. Now perhaps I'm not mainstream for Pathfinder. I clearly want a system that doesn't demand as much time be spent on 'getting the numbers right.'

Edit: Also, I seldom have more than 2 combat encounters in a day. I don't run dungeon crawls. This was a reason I don't like 4e pre-Essentials; you were expected to have 4 or 5 combats in a single day, and I just don't run that way.

Pathfinder is a good system when everyone is on the same page. It sounds like the problem is, you've got two different viewpoints in the group. For the sake of simplicity, I'll call these two viewpoints 'casual' and 'hardcore.' There's nothing inherently better about either -- it's just personal preference. You, the GM, fall more on the casual side. So do most of your players, except for your one hardcore.

The way I see it, your choices are:
1. Ask your hardcore player to take it down a notch.
2. Ask your hardcore player if perhaps she'd be better off in a group that matched her playstyle better.
3. Switch to a different system that doesn't cater so much to optimization and has a progression that's a bit flatter. Savage Worlds or FATE spring to mind.

As much as I like PF, it really doesn't work well for mixed groups of casuals and hardcores. Every system has its flaws; this is PF's weak point. I've been on both ends of this. Usually, I'm more hardcore and have to tone it down a bit to match the other guys. Once, I thought I was getting into a lighthearted campaign and made a lighthearted, combat-incapable character. Said campaign turned out to be a survival horror meatgrinder and playing my character was a total drag.

 

[amethal]

That being said, her use of Reduce Person spells on herself is a mistake since her character is an Aasimar and thus not a humanoid (since 3.0, not a PF addition). It's not the end of the world, but it may be an indication that she is, perhaps innocently, making other mistakes in her quest to stack numbers ontop of more numbers.

Unless she has taken the Scion of Humanity alternative racial trait from Advanced Races Guide ...

Scion of Humanity Some aasimars' heavenly ancestry is extremely distant. An aasimar with this racial trait counts as an outsider (native) and a humanoid (human) for any effect related to race, including feat prerequisites and spells that affect humanoids. She can pass for human without using the Disguise skill. This racial trait replaces the Celestial language and alters the native subtype.

 

[dnoonan]

The way I see it, your choices are:
1. Ask your hardcore player to take it down a notch.
2. Ask your hardcore player if perhaps she'd be better off in a group that matched her playstyle better.
3. Switch to a different system that doesn't cater so much to optimization and has a progression that's a bit flatter. Savage Worlds or FATE spring to mind.

If you opt for "take it down a notch," one way you can get buy-in from your hardcore player is what I call the "Harrison Bergeron" technique. Challenge the hardcore player to start with a known suboptimal setup (half-orc bard, for example) and make the most of it. If you get buy-in and if it works, you get a reasonably balanced table, and your hardcore player gets the satisfaction of working the system to max out a character.

There's a guy at my table who does this naturally--he loves making the most out of what he's been given, and his esoteric character builds fit in nicely at an otherwise middle-of-the-road table.

(This brings up a different problem, though--he likes changing characters too much.)

--Dave.
blog: nnnooner.blogspot.com
twitter: @davidnoonan

 

[Empirate]

In Pathfinder, Half-Orcs actually make decent Bards...

 

[dnoonan]

He was definitely more challenged by the "bard" part than the "half-orc" part. But that probably says more about him than the system.

The really interesting thing is going to be next month, when our table sees what happens with Systole's #3 above. When we start a FATE game, how does my friend's hardness of core manifest itself? I doubt it'll just go dormant. That's going to be fascinating to see. (And I mean that genuinely--this guy makes our table better, and I can't wait to see what he comes up with.)

--Dave.
blog: nnnooner.blogspot.com
twitter: @davidnoonan