Recommendations for character rebuilds

[EldritchWeaver]

Some words on the background first:

I've joined an existing group. After the GM mentioned that they have no artillery, I decided that blasting can be fun. So I've built a SoP Incanter with Admixture Adept and Destruction Sphere specialization, half of the magic talents went into Destruction, but rest is used for base Divination, base Light and some Telekinesis and Alteration talents. In addition, I am using the Transformation and Improved Transformation feats to be able to assume some animal and humanoid forms at will. Last, but not least I have invested into Bluff and Cunning Caster, so I don't get spotted casted. Overall a nice versatile character, who is capable to survive and contribute in fights as well.

Unfortunately, I have been accused to attempt to cover all niches aside from frontlining and traphandling, making the most characters superfluous. As I didn't intend to create a superpowered character, I've checked how optimized my character actually is (result: IMO, Tier 3 for a character of his level). I also checked how the others build their characters, which shed some light on the root cause. The players didn't optimize at all, basically choosing flavor over usefulness and dividing the niches among them with no overlap. While I normally wouldn't mind a RP focused build by other players, this particular constellation proves to pose a particular problem for me.

I can think of a number of solutions:The actual root cause remains unaddressed, only dealing with symptoms. Probably a recipe to make all unhappy.

I retire the character. But considering I like a character being able to contribute both in and out of combat, any character to my taste likely repeats stepping into an occupied niche or using one which disrupts current party dynamics. And that means complaints that certain characters have been made useless.
The other players adapt their characters to be more robust in face of my character's participation.


The first two are going to lead either in dissolving the group or me leaving it, so I'm planning to propose some alternative builds. These builds shouldn't be complex to use and should fit their envisioned character as closely as possible, as well not be useless despite my participation. These are the current builds as far as I know:


Human Gunslinger 9 and Elf Rogue 9 (played by same player). I haven't seen the character sheets, but as the player hates building characters, he can be safely assumed to have not chosen any archetypes or doing any multiclassing. It's my impression that the gunslinger is for the ranged damage niche and rogue for dealing with locks and traps. Whatever the proposals might be, they should be mindful of any overlap between these two.
Dwarf Monk (Monk of the Four Winds) 9. The player actually built this character himself and did not ask the GM doing so for him. I don't expect any particular tricks hidden, assuming low system mastery.
Elf Ranger (Beastmaster) 9 and Human Sorcerer 8/Bard 1 (played by the same player). I happen to have the sheets for these two characters, so I can go into more detail. The player wanted to play a character with animal companions, so this needs to remain. The ranger has Two-Weapon Fighting feats, but is pumping Dex (he has Str 18 and Dex 20 thanks to house-ruled PB). The player also wanted a character capable of providing magical support, but I'm not sure how capable the sorcerer is. The character is aimed to be a seductress (also party face) and has custom bloodline, which gives the following benefits:



Bonus Spells: Charm Person (3rd), Seducer’s Eyes (5th), Tongues (7th), Confusion (9th), Smug Narcissism (11th), Serenity (13th), Greater Polymorph (15th), Euphoric Tranquility (17th), Overwhelming Presence (19th).
Bonus Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Feint, Cosmopolitan, Still Spell, Seduction, Spell Penetration, Expanded Arcana, Deceitful, Extend Spell

Other powers include a bonus to seduction attempts (but weirdly the targets can get a bonus for their rolls as well, up to complete immunity), a defense power which gives a penalty to attack rolls to reduce the chance of being hit, some kind of special charm person, which is badly defined (until now all powers usable 3+Cha), at-will alter self and as capstone the special charm person as a extraordinary aura. IMO, it isn't crafted well. As GM I'd have disallowed it, but it is not my call to make.

Also, the chosen spells are:Level 0: Jolt, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Touch of Fatigue; Message; Spark; Light; Mage Hand; Mending; Resistance; Drench


Level 1: Ear Piercing Scream, Mage Armor; Charm Person; Magic Missile; Interrogation, Comprehend Language, Color Spray, Shield
Level 2: Cat's Grace, Seducer's Eyes, Bull's Strength, Burst of Radiance, Darkvision, See Invisible
Level 3: Haste, Tongue, Heatstroke; Heroism
Level 4: Stoneskin



Considering the choices, is there a way to improve the buffing without sacrificing the seduction theme? Maybe at least a way to fold in the bardic stuff, so the casting doesn't suffer?

Regarding allowed options, currently it is Paizo with Spheres of Power (since I've joined). Path of War was declined previously because the players didn't want to rebuild then when the GM offered it as a new option. But if I end up convincing them to improve their characters, they might be willing to give it another look. Maybe even SoP, too. Still, the less 3PP dependent, the better. If you need more info, I'll try to get them.

[exelsisxax]

You've said that one of the players with two characters doesn't like building characters. This seems like one of those things where you inherently lose. Everything is wrong there. He or she is going to suck forever and you can't change that unless they are willing to play builds made entirely by someone else.

The other 2-character player is currently managing 3 spell lists between 2 characters, as well as an animal companion. This person has likely been overwhelmed the whole campaign and so isn't optimized at all. The best option is for them to NOT be doing that, and instead play one character that works properly.

The other guy is playing a monk. Monks suck. Give him the good news about Unchained Monk, the Monk, but drastically unsucked.

[EldritchWeaver]

You've said that one of the players with two characters doesn't like building characters. This seems like one of those things where you inherently lose. Everything is wrong there. He or she is going to suck forever and you can't change that unless they are willing to play builds made entirely by someone else.

I have a build available which should be closer to mine. Maybe I can motivate this player to switch over.


The other 2-character player is currently managing 3 spell lists between 2 characters, as well as an animal companion. This person has likely been overwhelmed the whole campaign and so isn't optimized at all. The best option is for them to NOT be doing that, and instead play one character that works properly.

Considering he was the one who petitioned for having two characters, I'm not sure how he will react to that.


The other guy is playing a monk. Monks suck. Give him the good news about Unchained Monk, the Monk, but drastically unsucked.

Should he use an archetype? Perfect Scholar maybe?

[TheFamilarRaven]

In my experience, people tend to get defensive when you start suggesting they rebuild their character(s), IDK if you've already broached this subject with them yet, but do be careful. You might have to come to some sort of middle ground between your two solutions. Rebuilding their characters to be better while also toning back some of your abilities.

For player 1 (gunslinger and rogue). For the ranged niche, all they really need is point blank shot, Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, and Clustered Shots feats. If they don't know about alchemical cartridges, they should. It reduces the time to reload by 1 step. If they like using Muskets, point them towards the Musket Master archetype, which let's you reload muskets as if they were 1-handed firearms. If they like one-handed guns, either the Pistolero or Mysterious Stranger archetype are good (the latter's ability to ignore misfire is awesome, plus at level 9 you get Gun training 2, which let's you finally get DEX to damage with guns.)
As for the rogue, point them towards the unchained rogue. They get DEX to damage with any one finesse-able weapon, and get Weapon Finesse for free. Without knowing exactly what kind of rogue they wanna be, however, it's hard to suggest talents.


Player 2: If the monk has got high STR and decent CON he should do fine with the current party's level of optimization. Will he compare to what you've built? I don't know. Probably not, knowing what I do about monks. But looking at the unchained Monk might be worthwhile. What kind of niche is he suppose to fill?

Player 3: Okay, the TWF Ranger with that high of a DEX shouldn't be boosting it up higher, They should focus on strength to get that extra damage and to-hit bonus, unless he is using finesse weapons. the Double Slice feat allows for full STR mod to damage on the off hand attack, which is cool. If they player wants the focus to be on the animal companion, the Hunter class works nicely for this, and also has a slew of support spells available to them at level 1.

Any reason the seducer didn't go straight bard? Like, Fascinate + Suggestion is all you need to realize that concept. As a bonus they'll probably end up with some decent buffing spells and buffing abilities along the way. Both Hunters and Bards are spontaneous casters should it should be less book keeping involved too.

Sorry, without knowing these guys or what the campaign is like or exactly how you seem to over shadowing people, I can only give a small amount of assistance. However, from what you describe, it could be that these players just don't have the same proficiency of Pathfinder that you do. So no matter how good a build you give them, even a simple one, they still may not be able to play it to its full potential. And thus, no matter what kind of build you or they bring, you'll probably still over shadow them. Even if all you are really doing is thinking a little more out-of-the-box when it comes to problem solving then they are.

[exelsisxax]

I have a build available which should be closer to mine. Maybe I can motivate this player to switch over.



Considering he was the one who petitioned for having two characters, I'm not sure how he will react to that.



Should he use an archetype? Perfect Scholar maybe?
Your problem is that you need to convince EVERYONE to change their characters. It'll be a steep uphill battle convincing 3 different people (even rightly so) that they need to alter their builds because they made bad build decisions. THAT is the crux. If you assume you've got that in the bag, we can throw good builds at you all day. But without more information, you're on your own doing that.
Except for the monk. You can tell him, completely honestly, that paizo totally screwed up the class and it was so broken useless they had to re-release it and it's called the unchained monk. Then help him retrofit his character if he needs it.

He got in over his head and didn't make good builds. Do as the above poster said and get him to drop sorc entirely if you can (unless spell failure was houseruled, did he whiff often or get smashed a lot from no armour?) Again, you might have to build one or both of these PCs for him from the ground up. Not sure how he can't do well with a TWF with obscene stats though.

Unchained classes have no archetypes (yet...?) by RAW. Some of them might be reasonable for the DM to allow, though. They're not necessary though, because UCmonk isn't a crap sandwich. It's also got a pretty high power floor, so that's a bonus.

[P.F.]

Unfortunately, I have been accused to attempt to cover all niches aside from frontlining and traphandling, making the most characters superfluous.

I'm curious what niches they think their characters are covering, aside from trapfinding, covered by the rogue. I'm guessing the ranger and monk are considering themselves "frontline?" If so, your actual problem (differs from stated problem obviously) is perceived stepping on toes of only two out of five characters, the sorceress and the gunslinger. Of the two, I would have to classify the gunslinger as "artillery" because ranged damage is effectively the only thing a gunslinger can do. Not sure how much overlap your character has with the sorceress, but I'd guess it's pretty minimal.

Perhaps the real problem is that you are overshadowing the "combat half" of the gunslinger/rogue?

Had I been DMing this little circus act, when asked what role needed filling, I'd have responded, "Cleric."

[DarkSoul]

You've got a ranged damage dealer, three melee damage dealers, and a party face. You've got a skill monkey or two. I'd either play a Buff/BFC caster or a cleric.

Unsolicited suggestions about people's characters tend to put them on the defensive immediately. I think your best bet for improving them is doing so through your own character.

[exelsisxax]

I'm curious what niches they think their characters are covering, aside from trapfinding, covered by the rogue. I'm guessing the ranger and monk are considering themselves "frontline?" If so, your actual problem (differs from stated problem obviously) is perceived stepping on toes of only two out of five characters, the sorceress and the gunslinger. Of the two, I would have to classify the gunslinger as "artillery" because ranged damage is effectively the only thing a gunslinger can do. Not sure how much overlap your character has with the sorceress, but I'd guess it's pretty minimal.

Perhaps the real problem is that you are overshadowing the "combat half" of the gunslinger/rogue?

Had I been DMing this little circus act, when asked what role needed filling, I'd have responded, "Cleric."


You've got a ranged damage dealer, three melee damage dealers, and a party face. You've got a skill monkey or two. I'd either play a Buff/BFC caster or a cleric.

Unsolicited suggestions about people's characters tend to put them on the defensive immediately. I think your best bet for improving them is doing so through your own character.
If that's why they're complaining, they'd likely complain that the cleric is overshadowing the monk's frontline power and the ranger and bard/sorc's utility. They have 5 characters between the 3 of them, it's idiotic to think there won't be role overlap (even if you pretend that trapfinding is a role). The monk and rogue are overlapping, the bard and ranger overlap, the sorc and gunslinger overlap, the ranger and rogue overlap, etc. Competent adventuring parties ALWAYS have redundancy.

And of course it doesn't help that a merely competent cleric will ACTUALLY be better than all of them at everything. The only way a cleric works is if they are so unaware of the entirety of the game that they can't appreciate buff or control spells you cast, and think damage = power. If that's the way they think, the campaign is over for you. They already have such a problem with your PC that they brought it up directly to you, it'll only get worse. Back out, maybe try the group again from the get-go where you can have a hand in actual optimization level and expectations for the campaign.

[EldritchWeaver]

In my experience, people tend to get defensive when you start suggesting they rebuild their character(s), IDK if you've already broached this subject with them yet, but do be careful. You might have to come to some sort of middle ground between your two solutions. Rebuilding their characters to be better while also toning back some of your abilities.

I've been attempting to talk to the most likely to be convinced players first, but I could only catch one of them so far. He wasn't enthusiastic, but at least he agreed to check the unchained monk out. Not sure if that will convince him, but that is as far as I can push him. I can change some parts to go more to BFC than I am right now, but not doing artillery stuff at all breaks my character.


For player 1 (gunslinger and rogue). For the ranged niche, all they really need is point blank shot, Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim, Rapid Shot, and Clustered Shots feats. If they don't know about alchemical cartridges, they should. It reduces the time to reload by 1 step. If they like using Muskets, point them towards the Musket Master archetype, which let's you reload muskets as if they were 1-handed firearms. If they like one-handed guns, either the Pistolero or Mysterious Stranger archetype are good (the latter's ability to ignore misfire is awesome, plus at level 9 you get Gun training 2, which let's you finally get DEX to damage with guns.)
As for the rogue, point them towards the unchained rogue. They get DEX to damage with any one finesse-able weapon, and get Weapon Finesse for free. Without knowing exactly what kind of rogue they wanna be, however, it's hard to suggest talents.

Good ideas. I'd like to tell you more about the characters, but the player is RP-focused. Without asking him (which I want to do last), I'm not sure what he wants from his characters mechanically. He replaced a wizard (?) guy with his gunslinger though. He mentioned though he wasn't enthused with playing two characters at the beginning, but is now not seeking to retire them. So I think he emotionally attached at this point. In combination with not willing to spend effort on builds (he did complain about the introduction of background skills), it is difficult to get him moving at all.


Player 2: If the monk has got high STR and decent CON he should do fine with the current party's level of optimization. Will he compare to what you've built? I don't know. Probably not, knowing what I do about monks. But looking at the unchained Monk might be worthwhile. What kind of niche is he suppose to fill?

No clue about his physical stats. IIRC, he dumped Int and Cha. He is doing tanking stuff, as far as I can see. The player didn't seem interested in expanding niches, when I mentioned the Perfect Scholar archetype.


Player 3: Okay, the TWF Ranger with that high of a DEX shouldn't be boosting it up higher, They should focus on strength to get that extra damage and to-hit bonus, unless he is using finesse weapons. the Double Slice feat allows for full STR mod to damage on the off hand attack, which is cool. If they player wants the focus to be on the animal companion, the Hunter class works nicely for this, and also has a slew of support spells available to them at level 1.

Any reason the seducer didn't go straight bard? Like, Fascinate + Suggestion is all you need to realize that concept. As a bonus they'll probably end up with some decent buffing spells and buffing abilities along the way. Both Hunters and Bards are spontaneous casters should it should be less book keeping involved too.

I still need to talk with that player, so I only know what the GM told me and what I've seen from the charsheets. It's my impression that he tried to do some succubus light character, for which he even homebrewed a bloodline. So the bard level is likely for bardic performance. I think I have number of options to keep his character concept true, while removing that bard level (assuming he doesn't go straight bard). I also discovered that the ranger doesn't cast at all, so any way which trades the spells into useful features. That's assuming the player still keeps the two characters around. Of the two animal companions one is basically flavor only and the other seldomly used anyway, but that's before my proposals which I've found when looking for a spell-less ranger.


Sorry, without knowing these guys or what the campaign is like or exactly how you seem to over shadowing people, I can only give a small amount of assistance. However, from what you describe, it could be that these players just don't have the same proficiency of Pathfinder that you do. So no matter how good a build you give them, even a simple one, they still may not be able to play it to its full potential. And thus, no matter what kind of build you or they bring, you'll probably still over shadow them. Even if all you are really doing is thinking a little more out-of-the-box when it comes to problem solving then they are.

The last session following actions caused complains:

I've disabled/killed trolls basically single-handedly (use of AoEs, which were both damaging and BFC at once, trolls had no ranged weaponry, so that were basically optimal conditions for me)
I've dragged in horse form a troll to a dam (there is a x15 multiplier compared to what a medium biped's heavy load is, so it isn't surprising that I could do that. Also, the party would have used a horse likely anyway.)
That for dragging the troll I only required the monk for keeping the troll unconscious, making the other chars superfluous (meaning gunslinger and rogue, which I've unintentionally did, but then they feared to take on the 4 trolls without having the ranger and sorceress available...). Truth to be told, strictly I wouldn't have needed the monk, but it was easier that way anyway
I've telekinetically transported the troll into a magical chamber inside of the dam (cue complaints about that his 5th level caster optimized for telekinesis could not have done this regarding load and duration)
I've stealthed better than the stealth optimized one (which means ranks, class skill, Dex and trait only, so there is additional potential left. I've reduced stealth in the meantime to address this on my side.)
I've managed to use my high Charisma to get a NPC to reduce the price of the fee for staying in a hotel (I'm a Cha caster, so I've skilled accordingly, I've got personal beef with that NPC so I was motivated to solve this issue, which the party face didn't seem to by herself in the previous session, not to mention that her player wasn't present anyway. And despite being told that he liked that I roleplayed the solution he accused me of trying to take over the party face function. Which I don't want to anyway.).

I'm surprised that following the troll tracks wasn't listed, but maybe the reason was that the tracks were very obvious and I didn't need to roll, in which case they'd noticed that I don't have much Survival anyway. So yes, I've got a flexible character which happened to be near perfectly matching a particular sequence of obstacles. I can understand some complaints, but then some things were out of my control (like that the trolls were delivered on a silver platter).


Your problem is that you need to convince EVERYONE to change their characters. It'll be a steep uphill battle convincing 3 different people (even rightly so) that they need to alter their builds because they made bad build decisions. THAT is the crux. If you assume you've got that in the bag, we can throw good builds at you all day. But without more information, you're on your own doing that.
Except for the monk. You can tell him, completely honestly, that paizo totally screwed up the class and it was so broken useless they had to re-release it and it's called the unchained monk. Then help him retrofit his character if he needs it.

I'm well aware of the risks and challenges. It's my hope that giving them a build which matches both better their character visions and works better mechanically speaking is enticing enough.


He got in over his head and didn't make good builds. Do as the above poster said and get him to drop sorc entirely if you can (unless spell failure was houseruled, did he whiff often or get smashed a lot from no armour?) Again, you might have to build one or both of these PCs for him from the ground up. Not sure how he can't do well with a TWF with obscene stats though.

The sorceress doesn't wear armor, the ranger does and both are two separate characters.


Unchained classes have no archetypes (yet...?) by RAW. Some of them might be reasonable for the DM to allow, though. They're not necessary though, because UCmonk isn't a crap sandwich. It's also got a pretty high power floor, so that's a bonus.

Actually, according to the guide there are some archetypes available.


I'm curious what niches they think their characters are covering, aside from trapfinding, covered by the rogue. I'm guessing the ranger and monk are considering themselves "frontline?" If so, your actual problem (differs from stated problem obviously) is perceived stepping on toes of only two out of five characters, the sorceress and the gunslinger. Of the two, I would have to classify the gunslinger as "artillery" because ranged damage is effectively the only thing a gunslinger can do. Not sure how much overlap your character has with the sorceress, but I'd guess it's pretty minimal.

As far as I can tell, you are mostly spot on. The rogue is both ranged and melee support. I don't think I share any spell effects with the sorceress.


Perhaps the real problem is that you are overshadowing the "combat half" of the gunslinger/rogue?

Thanks to the enemies (clustering and no ranged weaponry), I've overshadowed all of them there at once. But considering that this is supposed to be my niche, how could I not? Toning down to let the others do more damage isn't enough, if the enemies keep being that easy and not using my capabilities at all is not fair to me, considering that is my fundament I based my character on.


Had I been DMing this little circus act, when asked what role needed filling, I'd have responded, "Cleric."

I can provide Fast Healing, but otherwise I'm not fan of being the primary healer.


You've got a ranged damage dealer, three melee damage dealers, and a party face. You've got a skill monkey or two. I'd either play a Buff/BFC caster or a cleric.

I can do some BFC already. I might be able to refocus a bit, but I would sooner or later pick these talents to keep me viable regardless of the foe.


Unsolicited suggestions about people's characters tend to put them on the defensive immediately. I think your best bet for improving them is doing so through your own character.

I didn't solicit complaints, this is reacting to them. I have the right and duty to try to find a way which addresses all issues and interests.


If that's why they're complaining, they'd likely complain that the cleric is overshadowing the monk's frontline power and the ranger and bard/sorc's utility. They have 5 characters between the 3 of them, it's idiotic to think there won't be role overlap (even if you pretend that trapfinding is a role). The monk and rogue are overlapping, the bard and ranger overlap, the sorc and gunslinger overlap, the ranger and rogue overlap, etc. Competent adventuring parties ALWAYS have redundancy.

It's my impression that they went out and not created any redundancy, so losing a character or two because a player can't make it jeopardizes the rest.


And of course it doesn't help that a merely competent cleric will ACTUALLY be better than all of them at everything. The only way a cleric works is if they are so unaware of the entirety of the game that they can't appreciate buff or control spells you cast, and think damage = power. If that's the way they think, the campaign is over for you. They already have such a problem with your PC that they brought it up directly to you, it'll only get worse. Back out, maybe try the group again from the get-go where you can have a hand in actual optimization level and expectations for the campaign.

I've invested a lot into my own character (an interesting and fun concept I might not be able to get to play anywhere else), so while in the worst case I'll leave the group, I don't want give up right now.

[exelsisxax]

You just aren't giving enough information for us to do anything actually useful. These guys seem to care about nothing but RP in character generation, but we know nothing except the sorc/bard wants to be a seducer, which has the answer "just (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/diva) be a (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/geisha) bard (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/lotus-geisha)"

On the other hand, you're getting whining that your PC is great in the exact situation it's supposed to be, even though the sorc should be better still (fireball, fight over). Have you tried telling them that you're RPing a great adventurer?

Really though, if you can't get them to upgrade to unchained monk and rogue, that's it. It is an unconditional upgrade (both in power and ease of use in those cases) that does not interfere at all with either fluff or function. They stop complaining, you stop listening, or you leave(or get kicked if they're *******s about it). So when you talk to the rogue and monk players and offer to help them convert their classes, what do they say? Because if they won't accept a straight improvement to their PCs that takes away nothing, they will do absolutely nothing to try to meet you halfway.

[TheFamilarRaven]

I
Had I been DMing this little circus act, when asked what role needed filling, I'd have responded, "Cleric."

Y'know that was my first thought too. My guess is that given this DM's preference for low optimization, high roleplay, is that they are not well aware of how nasty mid to high level combat (or combat in general) can be without access to regular cleric spells. Or they suppose damage > support. But I don't know the guy from Adam so who knows?




Good ideas. I'd like to tell you more about the characters, but the player is RP-focused.


emphasis mine.

In my experience, that's code for, "I don't know the rules, and I don't care to. My character can do 'x' because I want them to". I wish you all the luck in the world trying to bring this person around. Maybe open with how cathartic it can be when a solid build goes to town on a monster...

Is this person actively engaged in the game? I mean, one would suspect so if you claim he seems to be emotionally attached to his characters. But I occasionally game with someone who is similar in that xe can't seem to grasp the rules, loves their characters, but when it actually comes down to participating in the game, well, let's say that it's barely noticeable, unless xe is complaining about why their characters aren't the gods that xe thinks they are.




I still need to talk with that player, so I only know what the GM told me and what I've seen from the charsheets. It's my impression that he tried to do some succubus light character, for which he even homebrewed a bloodline. So the bard level is likely for bardic performance. I think I have number of options to keep his character concept true, while removing that bard level (assuming he doesn't go straight bard). I also discovered that the ranger doesn't cast at all, so any way which trades the spells into useful features. That's assuming the player still keeps the two characters around. Of the two animal companions one is basically flavor only and the other seldomly used anyway, but that's before my proposals which I've found when looking for a spell-less ranger.



The Ranger has two archetypes, the Skirmisher, and the Trapper, that both remove spellcasting from the class. Sorry if you already knew this. I was unsure as to whether or not you were seeking alternatives to spell casting for this Ranger who doesn't use his spells.




The last session following actions caused complains:

I've disabled/killed trolls basically single-handedly (use of AoEs, which were both damaging and BFC at once, trolls had no ranged weaponry, so that were basically optimal conditions for me)
I've dragged in horse form a troll to a dam (there is a x15 multiplier compared to what a medium biped's heavy load is, so it isn't surprising that I could do that. Also, the party would have used a horse likely anyway.)
That for dragging the troll I only required the monk for keeping the troll unconscious, making the other chars superfluous (meaning gunslinger and rogue, which I've unintentionally did, but then they feared to take on the 4 trolls without having the ranger and sorceress available...). Truth to be told, strictly I wouldn't have needed the monk, but it was easier that way anyway
I've telekinetically transported the troll into a magical chamber inside of the dam (cue complaints about that his 5th level caster optimized for telekinesis could not have done this regarding load and duration)
I've stealthed better than the stealth optimized one (which means ranks, class skill, Dex and trait only, so there is additional potential left. I've reduced stealth in the meantime to address this on my side.)
I've managed to use my high Charisma to get a NPC to reduce the price of the fee for staying in a hotel (I'm a Cha caster, so I've skilled accordingly, I've got personal beef with that NPC so I was motivated to solve this issue, which the party face didn't seem to by herself in the previous session, not to mention that her player wasn't present anyway. And despite being told that he liked that I roleplayed the solution he accused me of trying to take over the party face function. Which I don't want to anyway.).




Yeah I remember reading your other thread about that first bit. Honestly it seems like an oversight on the DM's part. I mean, according to you the DM clearly said "The party needs artillery", yet didn't seem to realize that artillery is effective against clumps of creatures, or that it was possible for a single character to bring down trolls easily.

Also, the party consists of six level 9 characters! If a few trolls, (which are CR 5 assuming they weren't variant types), was this DM's idea of a fight that shouldn't have been handled in a few rounds, maybe that speaks more towards the level of competency of the party, before you even joined the group. If that encounter was meant to be a challenge, then that's the level of play this DM is used to dealing with. It's getting harder for me to see how you can continue on with this group without seriously toning down your character's effectiveness, even if you convince everyone to upgrade their character builds, there is no guarantee they (Dm included) can keep up with their own capability, as well as make use of it both on and off the battle map.

On the other topics.

If there was never any point where another player offered to help, but was shut down when you either explained that "you didn't need them" or " that you could do it better", then I would say it's their fault for not finding some way to participate.
If on the other hand you disallowed them to participate by going ahead with whatever plan you came up with based on your abilities alone (or with menial assistance), then yeah, that's kind of over shadowing.

But it sounds like you doing your damndest to jive with the party, so props to you.




It's my impression that they went out and not created any redundancy, so losing a character or two because a player can't make it jeopardizes the rest.


Like the poster above already said, the classes they have tend to naturally overlap anyway. Like, it sounds like they have more of a gentlemen's agreement to deliberately exclude their characters from taking any course of action that would be considered another character's "schitck".

If that's how this party thinks then it seems as though any character that displays some sort of versatility is going to raise red flags to them. It denotes (in my limited experience), a kind of mind set where the players expect the game to pander to them, where each challenge is designed to have one solution that one member of the party is capable of solving. "Hey look! A trap! Rogue, un-trappify that trap!". "Uh oh, we need to talk our way into the king's palace! Good thing we've got someone skilled in seduction!". "Oh dear, you say the kidnappers fled into the wilds? Sounds like it's time for the Ranger to step up!" It doesn't encourage players to problem solve together, rather, they wait for their obvious cue for their character to come to the plate.

So of course any player who takes initiative is going to seem like they're bossy, or over shadowing the rest, when in actuality, they're participating and trying to move the game along and have fun (excluding the obvious case of bad gamers).


And that's not to say they're playing the game wrong. If they're having fun then they're having fun. I'm merely saying this to highlight the point that I think that even if you manage to convince them to upgrade their characters, the difference between your play style and that of the group may be what's the root cause of the complaints, even though they point to specific incidents with your character.




I've invested a lot into my own character (an interesting and fun concept I might not be able to get to play anywhere else), so while in the worst case I'll leave the group, I don't want give up right now.

Nor should you, and kudos to you for trying to work things out amicably.

Now I do have some suggestions.

-Based on the the Rogue being out stealthed, do they have magic items that enhance their skill? If no then getting some of these would be a good place to start.
-I don't know how to address the issue of the transporting troll. I mean, I don't think the party even has another 5th level caster. Much less one that is "specialized" in telekinesis, so whose toes were you stepping on? Because other than making something seem trivial, no one else in the party could do that.
-As for the horse, ermm IDK where you're getting x15 multiplier from. A quadruped has x4 carrying capacity that a biped has, and a large creature has x2 the carrying capacity of a medium creature. And a horse is a large creature, so at most your looking at x8 carrying capacity. This should easily be enough to drag a troll regardless, but it was a nitpick I wanted to clarify. As for addressing the issue... maybe ask the party what their ideas are before doing this kind of stuff in the future? I don't know. No one else can transform so I can't see why the hell this was an issue. All you did was drag something. Is dragging things the monk's job?.
-Also, give the rogue some wands maybe? Things like Greater Invisibility are great for rogues if you can afford it.
-If the party face didn't step in to help you out with a social situation then they can't be blamed when you are forced to use whatever skills you have to solve it. Was the fact that you succeeded that upset the party face?

[EldritchWeaver]

You just aren't giving enough information for us to do anything actually useful. These guys seem to care about nothing but RP in character generation, but we know nothing except the sorc/bard wants to be a seducer, which has the answer "just (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/diva) be a (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/geisha) bard (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/lotus-geisha)"

On the other hand, you're getting whining that your PC is great in the exact situation it's supposed to be, even though the sorc should be better still (fireball, fight over). Have you tried telling them that you're RPing a great adventurer?

Really though, if you can't get them to upgrade to unchained monk and rogue, that's it. It is an unconditional upgrade (both in power and ease of use in those cases) that does not interfere at all with either fluff or function. They stop complaining, you stop listening, or you leave(or get kicked if they're *******s about it). So when you talk to the rogue and monk players and offer to help them convert their classes, what do they say? Because if they won't accept a straight improvement to their PCs that takes away nothing, they will do absolutely nothing to try to meet you halfway.

I'm sorry, I don't have more information, which could provide you with more insight on that, at this point of time. I suppose, if you'd clarified what you need, I could try to gather it. Assuming they do agree on this.


In my experience, that's code for, "I don't know the rules, and I don't care to. My character can do 'x' because I want them to". I wish you all the luck in the world trying to bring this person around. Maybe open with how cathartic it can be when a solid build goes to town on a monster...

Is this person actively engaged in the game? I mean, one would suspect so if you claim he seems to be emotionally attached to his characters. But I occasionally game with someone who is similar in that xe can't seem to grasp the rules, loves their characters, but when it actually comes down to participating in the game, well, let's say that it's barely noticeable, unless xe is complaining about why their characters aren't the gods that xe thinks they are.

I don't have the impression that this player cares much for the mechanical side except for "I can do that". He happens to participate in a campaign I run, too. He liked playing the NPC with some history with the party I happened to have for the purpose of bolstering the party numbers. He said he was really happy about not having to build a character, but he didn't like the perspective of having to build a character himself. Especially since I've houseruled extensively to reduce the martial/caster discrepancy. So I did think of donating a secondary build (which would fill a gap in my background) to him, which happens to cover his two characters' niches by itself. That makes it unlikely that I'll get this character into the group anyway unless he switches over completely. But he declined after I brought it up as an alternative to having play two characters, which he didn't like to in the first place... I'm really not sure if he accepts the offer of merely upgrading the rogue without touching his concept, even if he has little work to do.


The Ranger has two archetypes, the Skirmisher, and the Trapper, that both remove spellcasting from the class. Sorry if you already knew this. I was unsure as to whether or not you were seeking alternatives to spell casting for this Ranger who doesn't use his spells.

The skirmisher is more useful, as creating traps involves another mechanic which I want to avoid to introduce.


Yeah I remember reading your other thread about that first bit. Honestly it seems like an oversight on the DM's part. I mean, according to you the DM clearly said "The party needs artillery", yet didn't seem to realize that artillery is effective against clumps of creatures, or that it was possible for a single character to bring down trolls easily.

Also, the party consists of six level 9 characters! If a few trolls, (which are CR 5 assuming they weren't variant types), was this DM's idea of a fight that shouldn't have been handled in a few rounds, maybe that speaks more towards the level of competency of the party, before you even joined the group. If that encounter was meant to be a challenge, then that's the level of play this DM is used to dealing with. It's getting harder for me to see how you can continue on with this group without seriously toning down your character's effectiveness, even if you convince everyone to upgrade their character builds, there is no guarantee they (Dm included) can keep up with their own capability, as well as make use of it both on and off the battle map.

I've talked about it with the GM a bit because I wanted to have him buy in into the plan. He said he would consider toning down the challenges to accommodate the party's capabilities, if necessary, but the monk player complained to me that the fights are currently somewhat boring, as they lack diversity in tactics. I had no opportunity yet to tell the GM about this, so I don't know what his reaction would be. I also don't know how experienced the GM is with non-standard tactics. At least he is a seasoned roleplayer, so he might have been just too nice for our good so far.


On the other topics.

If there was never any point where another player offered to help, but was shut down when you either explained that "you didn't need them" or " that you could do it better", then I would say it's their fault for not finding some way to participate.
If on the other hand you disallowed them to participate by going ahead with whatever plan you came up with based on your abilities alone (or with menial assistance), then yeah, that's kind of over shadowing.

But it sounds like you doing your damndest to jive with the party, so props to you.

Thanks you. :smallsmile: I discussed the approach with the other players, starting from the angle how to keep the trolls unconscious and later I mentioned that I could drag the trolls as a horse, but I didn't know exactly how to do that. So there was a chance to participate more at least, although I couldn't tell you what else could have been done to involve the present characters more than they heave been.


Like the poster above already said, the classes they have tend to naturally overlap anyway. Like, it sounds like they have more of a gentlemen's agreement to deliberately exclude their characters from taking any course of action that would be considered another character's "schitck".

If that's how this party thinks then it seems as though any character that displays some sort of versatility is going to raise red flags to them. It denotes (in my limited experience), a kind of mind set where the players expect the game to pander to them, where each challenge is designed to have one solution that one member of the party is capable of solving. "Hey look! A trap! Rogue, un-trappify that trap!". "Uh oh, we need to talk our way into the king's palace! Good thing we've got someone skilled in seduction!". "Oh dear, you say the kidnappers fled into the wilds? Sounds like it's time for the Ranger to step up!" It doesn't encourage players to problem solve together, rather, they wait for their obvious cue for their character to come to the plate.

So of course any player who takes initiative is going to seem like they're bossy, or over shadowing the rest, when in actuality, they're participating and trying to move the game along and have fun (excluding the obvious case of bad gamers).


And that's not to say they're playing the game wrong. If they're having fun then they're having fun. I'm merely saying this to highlight the point that I think that even if you manage to convince them to upgrade their characters, the difference between your play style and that of the group may be what's the root cause of the complaints, even though they point to specific incidents with your character.

That is possible. I'm not a dominating person in general, but if I have an idea, I speak up. If the others are a tad slower than me, I would end up driving the show unintentionally.


Nor should you, and kudos to you for trying to work things out amicably.

Thank you once more.:smallsmile:


Now I do have some suggestions.

-Based on the the Rogue being out stealthed, do they have magic items that enhance their skill? If no then getting some of these would be a good place to start.
-I don't know how to address the issue of the transporting troll. I mean, I don't think the party even has another 5th level caster. Much less one that is "specialized" in telekinesis, so whose toes were you stepping on? Because other than making something seem trivial, no one else in the party could do that.
-As for the horse, ermm IDK where you're getting x15 multiplier from. A quadruped has x4 carrying capacity that a biped has, and a large creature has x2 the carrying capacity of a medium creature. And a horse is a large creature, so at most your looking at x8 carrying capacity. This should easily be enough to drag a troll regardless, but it was a nitpick I wanted to clarify. As for addressing the issue... maybe ask the party what their ideas are before doing this kind of stuff in the future? I don't know. No one else can transform so I can't see why the hell this was an issue. All you did was drag something. Is dragging things the monk's job?.
-Also, give the rogue some wands maybe? Things like Greater Invisibility are great for rogues if you can afford it.
-If the party face didn't step in to help you out with a social situation then they can't be blamed when you are forced to use whatever skills you have to solve it. Was the fact that you succeeded that upset the party face?


I've listed every bonus the rogue had, overall +17 or +18. No magic items there.
Aside of the sorceress, none. The wizard character has been retired already at level 5, but supposedly could cast telekinesis (or whatever core has for a 3rd level spell).
The multiplier is x2 Large, x1.5 quadruped and x5 for dragging. Checking the rules, I see mixed up my calculation. Quadruped for Large gives x3, so overall it was a x30. Also, no one else volunteered a dragging solution, but they might not have gotten to the point to have an idea to propose.
Not sure why, but wands seem to be rare in games I participate in. I have never seen someone using UMD checks. I wouldn't be surprised if the rogue has 0 ranks, unlike my character, who would end up taking over another niche. But I'll keep it in mind.
The player of the party face wasn't present then. In a previous session, IIRC, the party face tried to talk down the inn keeper to reduce the outrageous fee, but got only down from 5 GM to 4 GM. When my character found out about having paid five times more than actual worth, he tried his hands, but got only into an argument he lost and the only diplomacy check I did only managed to get the inn keeper to offer a room again, for the same price. This session I used some downtime to try and figure out the root cause, but only managed to involve a NPC who solved this problem (no, I don't know why the inn keeper had a problem in the first place). The player of the rogue had a problem with me covering another niche, even though I had a personal stake in this matter, making me want to solve this problem, and the party face not being available anyway.