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

[JustinAlexander]

I want to grab all the handy pre-published foes and use them*. But most pre-published foes are built to target reasonable ACs.

This is the part I'm not getting. I thought there was a possibility that Paizo's creature guidelines were incorrect, but looking at the attack bonuses of CR 7 creatures I get: +10, +17, +13, +8, +12, +13, +12, +14, +13

Which means that bog standard, straight-out-of-the-book opponents should generally still be hitting her with a decent amount of regularity.

Problem 2: Her character makes two other players feel weak and useless.

This, unfortunately, is an almost unavoidable problem if you've got two characters both trying to perform in the same niche. It's difficult to comment on it without a wider understanding of the characters: I'm not really clear on how "she's 30% more difficult to hit, so I'm completely useless now" works, so there must be more to it than that.

For example, we've established that the AC 23 fighter/juggernaut is devoting essentially NONE of his resources in terms of class abilities, feats, ability scores, or equipment to improving his AC. Where are those resources going?

You don't have to play the "find every bonus" game, but these characters must be doing something with the resources they're given, right?

Edit: Also, I seldom have more than 2 combat encounters in a day. I don't run dungeon crawls.

Which should make the character even less problematic. If combat is making up only a minor portion of your game, the character who has specialized their spell slots for combat must be functioning non-optimally outside of combat.

 

[RangerWickett]

The fighter is big into bull rush.

 

[Clyde Lee Graham]

Edit: Also, I seldom have more than 2 combat encounters in a day. I don't run dungeon crawls.

Which should make the character even less problematic. If combat is making up only a minor portion of your game, the character who has specialized their spell slots for combat must be functioning non-optimally outside of combat.

Yes and no. Spell casters benefit pretty heavily from the metagame knowledge that they can use all of their tricks because they can just rest and get them back. That's true to some degree of most classes, but...

I've learned over the last year that if I'm only going to run one or two fights before the party will be able to rest that I need to throw a lot more at them to keep the pressure up. Otherwise the wizard player steps up, casts Glitterdust or Color Spray, and then goes back to reading his book...

 

[Psion]

Mostly I'm just irked that players who make reasonable choices -- I'm a fighter in plate armor with a shield -- are just blown out of the water by players who know how to take advantage of every nook and cranny of the rules system.

I don't mean to slight you, but how many games of this have you actually played? A Zen Archer can be hell on wheels, but mixed in with 3 caster levels, I can't help but think that this character is all Barkskin and no bite. I wouldn't be too surprised if they monk takes little damage but also has a big damage output problem.

I'd much rather beat the offending player with a nerf bat than get into some arms race, contorting the game world and the narrative in order to justify enemies who can threaten her.

If that's what you gotta do. But I'd make sure it's a real problem here. The point Justin Brings up is very good. There are plenty of CR7 creatures that can threaten her before dipping into the special strategies some of the other posters have mentioned.

As for "contorting the game world narrative", I think if NPCs have a problem, they will deal with it logically. If the PCs present a problem, and they get a reputation, they will bring in talent that they know can deal with it, using strategies that they know can deal with it. It doesn't contort the game world narrative for an experienced caster to know that if the wizard/monk is banking +10 AC from spells cast at level 3, they are 1 dispel away from being a near sitting duck.

But I'd use this strategy carefully. I imagine that the player designed this character because they want to be untouchable. You say you have two fights a day. On the average, make one fight where she gets away with it, and one fight where the opposition has a few counters to her tricks.

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.

Does a lower AC make the other character underpowered if the monk's damage output is anemic?

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.'

I don't think it's that complicated, but if you think it is, then you logically have to address it. Why exactly are you playing Pathfinder? If it's not working for you, is there another system that does similar things that will satisfy the players?

If they players want pathfinder for the specific options it provides, you may have to find a way to make your peace with it. Players here and on other forums can churn out some stats you don't want to deal with (but in most cases, I think it can be done by taking core options and adding one or two feat or spell selections.) You might try some of the rules tweaks for de-christmas-treeing pathfinder, like some of the options in Wulf's Trailblazer or in Green Ronin's Advanced GM Guide for 3.5.

If they players want rich character options and a d20-ish core but aren't stuck on pathfinder, you might try Fantasy Craft. It doesn't have wealth-by-level magic item assumptions.

If you want a simpler, more generic system, you might try Savage Worlds or one of the FATE variants.

 

[ggeilman]

Don't know why there is all this advice about not playing Pathfinder. There are means to limiting the game to what is comfortable for you w/o changing the system. For instance you could start with just using Core Rules and then adding what you are comfortable with a little bit at a time. I think part of the problem here is trying to take the system on whole hog at one time. It is your game. Set the limits where you are comfortable with and make it enjoyable for everyone.

 

[RangerWickett]

I do want to thank everyone for the feedback and suggestions. I'll try to forbear further judgment about her character until we've had a few more sessions.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Don't know why there is all this advice about not playing Pathfinder. There are means to limiting the game to what is comfortable for you w/o changing the system. For instance you could start with just using Core Rules and then adding what you are comfortable with a little bit at a time. I think part of the problem here is trying to take the system on whole hog at one time. It is your game. Set the limits where you are comfortable with and make it enjoyable for everyone.

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...

 

[RangerWickett]

To be fair, aside from the bow-using thing, she's core. I guess the dragon shaman and warforged juggernaut might be nerfing themselves because they're using 3.5 classes?

I'm just glad I said no to letting her be a Zen Gunner. She was completely willing to blow all her money on an rifle, and have enough feats to flurry with it.

 

[billd91]

To be fair, aside from the bow-using thing, she's core. I guess the dragon shaman and warforged juggernaut might be nerfing themselves because they're using 3.5 classes?

Unlikely. I don't know the juggernaut but the dragon shaman can be pretty potent, particularly compared to a monk. She can get virtually the same output with a 3.5 sorcerer and monk so, aside from the archetype (and there was a zen archery feat in 3.5) PF isn't making that much of a difference.

 

[Empirate]

Don't know why there is all this advice about not playing Pathfinder. There are means to limiting the game to what is comfortable for you w/o changing the system. For instance you could start with just using Core Rules and then adding what you are comfortable with a little bit at a time. I think part of the problem here is trying to take the system on whole hog at one time. It is your game. Set the limits where you are comfortable with and make it enjoyable for everyone.

The OP pretty clearly stated that he specifically doesn't like the way bonuses stack in PF, and the way some characters in the hands of competent minmaxers can become very powerful compared to characters built using more of a laid-back attitude. Those are problems with the system in general, not with particular splatbook abuse. Limiting your game to Core only just cuts down on the number of options available, not on the general trend that system mastery >>> no system mastery.

Other game systems (like the aforementioned FATE variants, which I personally hate with a passion, but that's just me) take a very different approach to structuring PC building, which can result in less of a differential between "powerful" and "weak" characters.