|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
See, this is the heart of all of these threads, and it also furnishes its own solution.
YOU have a problem with this particular game mechanic. YOU. It's YOUR problem. So deal with it YOUR WAY. In YOUR game.
Leave the rest of us to do as we please IN OUR GAMES. Where our own players LIKE HOW WE PLAY AND HAVE FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
Problem solved and no drama necessary.
Now please, people, move on from this mentality. No more repeating the same stupid experiment over and over and expecting a different result.
Are you touching your sword when you're wearing gloves? Yes, you are. Just like you're touching the ground when you're standing wearing boots.
You can still feel things through gloves and shoes, and you are still making contact with those things through those articles, despite not making flesh contact.
I don't see any reason to overthink or anguish so hard about this.
The thing is, it's a pissy thing to make criticism of important things illegal. Just as it is bad policy to make certain political parties illegal. It's something that must be very carefully monitored, and of course, it never is.
Of course it is. It's blasted across news channels, picked up by blogs, weighed by policymakers, argued in courts, debated on RPG forums, etc., etc.
The fact that you have given your opinion on it, so far removed from it as you and I are, means it is being very well monitored, indeed.
That's what a free press is for.
As to the case in point, well... Hitler, dude. Nazis. I am not for "thought crime" ordinarily, but I understand this. In the end, most of us lost relatives of only a generation or two distant, to immediate family, to those a-holes. Some of us happen to know who we lost, some remain blissfully ignorant, but believe me - we lost people. We still live with this evil to some extent. I think it makes some sense, that in Germany there be some safeguard to make sure this is not forgotten, or relegated to myth. I don't think this is the perfect way, but I get the intent. It's not to force you to buy some party line - quite the opposite: it's to make sure the party line never rules over rationality and truth - and never KILLS - again.
Just for future reference, I don't hate any of the Paizo classes. And since I am somebody, that means we don't ever have to have threads with the title "Why Does Everyone Hate _______?"
(Well, I have never been a fan of the general way prestige classes work, but that's not the same as hating them specifically.)
Okay, your post was confusing for a moment, but then I realized (I think) that you mean to put the boots of teleportation ON the brachiosaur? Is that right?
Problem is, the brachiosaur can't activate them. That requires intelligence. You have to command them to work, and you have to know where you are going. Dinosaurs lack these qualities. And you cannot activate a wondrous item that is equipped on somebody or something else.
But as a general answer to your question as to why merchants don't always just use teleportation, you are free to create a high magic world where such methods are the norm. That is the difference between a high magic world and a low magic world. In a low magic world, merchants may simply not have enough wizards around to do the job, or they may be too superstitious to want to have anything to do with spellcasters.
That's just for starters. You can come up with about a hundred other reasons why teleport would not be the norm.
The Val' thing hit its peak in the States in 1982 with Frank and Moon Unit Zappa's song ("Valley Girl"), and the film Fast Times at Ridgemont High, followed a couple years later by the film Valley Girl, which happened to co-star a young Nick Cage.
Everything since has been just a joke of a joke of a joke.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
This. I am not a fan of the notion that every single aspect of what the GM puts into play MUST be governed by a rule just to make the players or some other uber-nerd-lawyer happy.
You could easily just say this guy was born with an immunity to petrification (maybe he had a medusa ancestor), and that he has exploited this immunity to indulge himself with a harem of medusae. It says badass, and needs no further explanation. It's hardly game-breaking.
I would prefer such a simple solution over making him blind. Seriously, what is the purpose of a harem if you cannot gaze upon it like a king on a throne?
Bad enough that visitors cannot bask in the glory of such an exotic menagerie without making its master blind, as well.
As a GM, I tend to name many of the magic weapons in my games. My players, less so. I have one player, though, who comes up with funny names for things all the time, and tends to enjoy randomly naming various objects and even tries to name every group of PCs after his own character.
For instance, if he has a character named "Joe," he'll start calling the party "Joe's Heroes," or some such. Of course, everybody just rolls their eyes and continues on as if nobody's said anything.
There is a Big Eyes Small Mouth d20 variant out there, that you can still find on places like eBay.
I think anybody who is into Manga and Anime with any seriousness, and also understands 3.x/Pathfinder well, has a good understanding that the two do not match up well in most cases. Characters in Manga and Anime tend toward overpoweredness and often possess random powers and suddenly manifesting powers that cannot always be duplicated in a standard class format under normal RPG rules.
Flipping through BESM, you will quickly see this reflected in the drastic ways in which the classes are adjusted and even reformatted completely. I recommend this.
We've had some success replicating a few Anime characters using psionic rules from the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook and some sorcerer variants, but the effects are more aesthetic and require some concept compromise on the part of the player.
We've had greater success in cases where I helped my players create characters with racial abilities that replicate whatever abilities they liked in their favorite anime characters. We treat those characters basically like "monsters" for purposes of determining a CR to add class levels to. We proceed from that point as outlined in the Bestiary section on using monsters as PCs.
Jack Assery wrote:
I don't know. Is it? Sounds like you don't like it, which answers the question for you.
I personally would love if everybody at the table had a character ready to go with a big backstory and a whole concept with no conflict with each other, but that can't always happen.
In my experience, players run the gamut from uber-control over every aspect of their character, which they guard jealously against any tampering from the GM, to needing help with every little aspect, to everything in-between.
Sometimes, a GM needs to sit down with a player to ask them or guide them into tweaking a character a little or into taking on some role that is otherwise absent from the party. My players are usually amenable to this, as they tend to be team players.
Is that wrong? Where do you draw the line?
There are as many answers to this as there are players and GMs.
A tiger stands at only 3 ft tall at the shoulder, according to the Bestiary. I suppose a gnome or halfling could ride it. Anybody else would be scraping their knees on the ground. (Yes, I know it's Large, and technically by RAW a human might be able to ride it, but...)
Tigers don't have "levels" per se. They have 6 Hit Dice, and are a CR 4 creature.
Where are you getting the price of the tiger? Is that the price of a fully trained tiger?
is this actually a Pathfinder Society question?
Once again, everybody is clamoring for a totally unnecessary FAQ. Really? Can nobody think for themselves anymore?
An armed melee combatant threatens, whether the weapon is manufactured, a monk's fist, a dragon's claw, or a chair from a tavern.
The rules on improvised weapons are very clear, concise and simple:
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to
The Catch Off-Guard and Throw Anything feats mitigate the penalties.
There is nothing here that even implies on the most basic level that these improvised weapons are treated any differently for matters of AoO.
Please, please, PLEASE stop, stop, STOP trying to FAQ so relentlessly and thoughtlessly. Drives me nuts. Come on people. We're gamers. We're supposed to be the smart kids.
I'm working two jobs, six days a week, about 50 hours or so (not counting commute and having to change into my uniform for the second one).
Don't make enough money at either to really take advantage of the benefits. Both offer them, even though part time, though they're not great. But I'm just not making enough to be able to shell out the cash per paycheck.
One is hard work (FedEx) which I don't mind so much, though it's a demanding job and they expect too much from you. You work a lot of hours you don't get paid for, because there's so much prep you need to do to get ready, but they don't give you the time to do it on the clock. Also one of those jobs where you're in trouble pretty much from the moment you wake up in the morning, and feel like you have to "prove" every day that you deserve not to get yelled at. And... you're going to get yelled at, anyway.
The other is depressing because it is a job at the place where I worked before the "good times." That is, for many years I had a steady, well-paying job with great benefits. When I lost that job, I could not find full time work, and was becoming very, very depressed trying for so long. So I finally begged my old job from many years ago for work, and luckily they had a position similar to the one I had back then, but only part time. The place is not doing as well, or as nice as it once was, so there is all that in addition to the simply depressing deal of having to go back to a job I left years ago.
Most of my players are not too worried about sticking to the rules or knowing every little thing about the mechanics of the game. In fact, for the most part, they ignore that stuff.
For me, some of the quaintness and simplicity of the original game is missing. But then, I'm not sure that is entirely the fault of 3.x/Pathfinder. Maybe partly. But I think it also was simply the fact that I grew older, wiser, more experienced, and my personal perspectives on things changed. My own mind became more filled up and complicated, and my feelings on the whole thing were changing long before the advent of 3.x.
One thing that does help bring back some of the old feeling, is viewing some of the old illustrations from the original PHB and DMG. Must of the appeal of the game for me came from the claustrophobic feeling of these little black-and-white illustrations of dark rooms filled with dangerous people.
So I try to sneak descriptions into every adventure that echo the feel of those illustrations.
I personally feel that people erroneously lay blame for changes in the feel of their games on rules sets. I think if you're allowing the rules to ruin it for you, you're probably concentrating on the wrong thing, and blaming the wrong element for it. The fact is, your tastes will change with time, and everything in your life is going to feel different to you at different times. Rules can be made to govern any type of game with any type of feel. But "glory days" are usually one-time-only events, regardless of the game rules.
I say, move on and try to create a new "feel" for your game that you are also happy with. You can't go back in time. Try to get good with the here and now.
Both of your responses assume that every gamer out there knows who Stormwind was/is and knows exactly which fallacy his name has been attached-to.
I would say probably only a miniscule portion of gamers in probably three - at most four - English speaking nations even know what the "Stormwind Fallacy" is, and even fewer know anything about the poster for which it was named.
So in the end, I think any thread invoking same still requires just as much explanation as if the formal term was used. Either somebody in the thread ends up explaining to the uninitiated to what the false dilemma (or false dichotomy) applies, or somebody in the thread ends up explaining to the uninitiated exactly what the definition of "Stormwind Fallacy" is.
May as well use the formal terminology. The name at least hints at what the conversation will entail; "false dilemma/dichotomy" as terms are pretty self-explanatory, whereas the other is code. And code will always need to be explained. To somebody, anyway.
Whenever this gets brought up, I remember that the only thing that really bugs me about these conversations (and I've stated this on these boards before) is that a simple logical fallacy that already has a name is being called "The Stormwind Fallacy."
As I've said before, I remember Stormwind from the old WoTC boards, and I recall being friendly with him. I certainly am not ragging on him. But I don't think he was so wise and godly that we need to rename a common logical fallacy for him.
I mean, we could go to Wikipedia, look up the list of logical fallacies they have there, and try to rename each and every one after somebody on these boards, but my feeling is that this will not fly for the countless instructors, teachers and professors across the globe currently teaching Critical Thinking 101 courses. They are likely to wonder who or what a "Stormwind" is for about two seconds, before wrinkling up their noses, grunting, cutting a fart or two, and calmly reminding you to stick to the lesson plan.
GMs ought not have to justify every little story quirk with an appropriate feat bestowed upon each and every NPC. The players ought not be reading your notes anyway.
You could just as easily say that the lich acquired a one-of-a-kind tome that instructed him in this construction, and then burst into flames. Or that the creature was constructed in a fit of brilliance that can never again be duplicated.
Adventure designers tweak and outright break the rules all the time, or simply design things that have no rules to govern them, or that omit the rules that govern them. They have been doing this since the earliest days of the game, for any manner of unique places or effects. Exceptions to each rule exist. That is the nature of a magical world, driven by story.
As long as there is a means of destroying the golem that is fair, and a means of figuring out the golem's nature that am average party can work out, it is perfectly acceptable to create something unique without naming every single feat and spell that went into it, or nerfing your lich so the rules lawyers on a website can sleep better tonight.
Funny this should come up, as I am in the middle of writing something in just that style. Can't think of a published adventure that is heavy on that, though.
You know, it's interesting that in all the time Privateer Press was publishing 3.5 encounters and mini adventures in their No Quarter Magazine (a good seven years or so), I can't recall them publishing much of anything that had fights or encounters with Steamjacks or other clockwork creatures. Which was/is their bread-and-butter.
LazarX took my answer, so I'd have to go with No Evil Characters, including Neutral (but really evil) or Chaotic Neutral (but I am evil tee hee)
Is that a houserule, though, or a ground rule? Because I think there's a difference.
Houserules are a rules issue. No Evil characters is a style choice.
As to myself, I can't think of running a game where I couldn't make those adjustments that just make more sense to me (not to mention my players who have never disagreed with a houserule I've made).
I'd like to say I will think harder and try to come up with one single houserule I could definitely not live without. But... nyah, too much effort!
Your argument would seem to be valid. If not for the major part you're leaving out, which is that not all feats are available to all classes, and some are specifically available only to the fighter. Rangers do not qualify for many, many feats which can easily make the fighter much more deadly against a wider range of foes and with a wider range of weapons.
The relative blankness of the fighter's class table is misleading. In gaining bonus feats, the fighter is getting class abilities through a backdoor. But he IS getting them.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
That definition is sadly lacking. Don't know what joker wrote that up. Try again. Here.
The actual fallacy in an appeal to authority is NOT limited to when an authority is only a "supposed" authority as the site you linked very incorrectly states. It is a matter of whether you can prove the authority is objectively right in a subject at hand, and moreover, because it shows you are not reliant on your own research, but on that of somebody whose authority you cannot prove.
I say again. Appeal to Authority.
How about rapid shot, with a BAB +6 and rapid shotcould you make two attacks at +4 and -1 and then throw the trident at +4?
You can only throw the trident once. Rapid Shot applies to ranged attacks ("you can FIRE one additional time..." "all attacks take -2").
I invite you to work that one out from there.
I see a few people in this thread saying that they might give out extra skill points so their characters can add them into a Profession without taking them from other skills.
I have to wonder why? My personal feeling is that after the first few levels, even supposedly difficult skill checks become easily rolled-against. I can't help but to feel that, with only a few exceptions, there are too many skill points floating around the classes, and not enough challenge against them. (Unless you're combining multiple environmental factors into every situation, which, let's face it, you can't always do.)
Given the way skill ranks in a class skill are applied, bonus-wise (which I still think was an improvement over 3.x), if you have a fairly rounded party, you basically have a guaranteed skill check for nearly every situation.
My players typically do not know what to do with all the skill points, and I appreciate the checks being more challenging, so when they put some into a profession, it not only pleases me from an RP and world-building standpoint, it also pleases the part of me that wants to challenge the players.
The same thing happens when I'm creating outsiders. I'm big on monster creation and advancement, and for some reason I tend to run outsider-heavy games. They are so skill-point heavy, sometimes you just do not know what to do with all the points. Can't always give those guys professions (not a lot of bakery or florist experience for a lord of hell), but at least the PCs can benefit (and benefit the game) from Profession ranks.
Remy Balster wrote:
Which is exactly why this will NEVER, EVER, EVER nor SHOULD it EVER, EVER, EVER, be answered in a FAQ.
Because it is yet another in a long, sad line of questions that are not covered in the rules because they are common sense.
Is heat damage and fire damage the same? That question has been asked here by many fools, and still many more fools have hit the FAQ button. I've seen the answer from the designers, and it is that they will never FAQ that because you ought to know it without being told. Inane questions like these abound. "If I'm not flying, am I walking? I don't believe I am because the rules on flying don't say that when I don't fly I walk!" I warned the designers of 3.0 way back when it was announced and bits were leaking out, that they were rewarding the worst of the players out there - people who cannot allow their characters to take a breath without a rule governing it - by codifying every little action, and that has been proven true again and again over the years.
In short (too late), don't expect to get a FAQ for this, because it is common sense that the answer is yes. It does not need to be in the rules. Any reasonable GM will say, "yeah, I've seen a hundred movies where a guy gets hit in the face with the pommel or haft of a weapon, rather than with the business end (Darth Maul vs. Qui-Gon Jinn, anybody?!?!?), no problem."
The designers expect you to reason this out, just as thousands, if not millions of players have done before you. There is nothing new about this question. It comes up all the time. GMs allow it all the time.
It depends. Some of my players want me to be ruthless. For them, pretty much no spell is off the table, though their application ought to be carefully measured so as to seem fair and reasonable under the circumstances. For instance, a party who has been chasing down a wizard known for having a fondness for making his enemies "disappear from existence" should not be surprised if somebody gets disintegrated.
On the other hand, I have players who would see the save-or-die nature of such a situation a cheap shot and an empty end to the game.
So this is yet another topic that gets firmly placed for me into the GM-know-thy-players file.
Thought of one more thing. Not sure if anybody mentioned this. I see mentions of statistics and math, which is expected.
But, specifically, remember that game design has become very big business in this modern world. I am speaking of video games now. There are courses at reputable universities in game design now, as well as a host of smaller colleges dedicated to same.
The rudiments of most of the games out there, in terms of the basic algorithms and building blocks used to manage characters within the games, come from roleplaying games, ultimately tracing their lineage to D&D and then to the wargames that inspired it.
A course in how to design and manage the resources of a Pathfinder character, easily serves as a sort of grammar lesson in the origin of video game characters and the resource and skill management that comes with them. Thus, it's an introductory course for future video game designers.
As a Dutch kid I learned a great deal of English by reading the 2.5 D&D books. Wanting to actually read cool stuff like the Bestiary can be a powerful motivation to learn a language. (Not so useful if you're a native English speaker though.)
Although, even for a native speaker of English, the early books fostered a love of mythology and interest in history that has lasted my whole life.
Every time we came upon a creature we had never heard-of, we went about researching it to see if it was made up for the game, or came from a historical, anthropological source. Surprising how many creatures in all iterations of the game actually have a source in the real world, even some of the weirdest ones.
Comparing how the various rulebooks interpreted a god, or creature, or item of legend, to how those things were recorded in real world history, could practically fuel a career.
Actually, about a year ago or so, one of my new players asked me to GM a game for her and a couple of friends who'd never played before. The big bad was a human fighter who had taken over an abandoned tower and reinforced it as a fortress for his army of half-orc fighter mooks.
His goal was the sacrifice of the last heir to the tower on a certain night with a certain dagger, which would somehow imbue him with demonic power to help him take over the kingdom. He was a finely tuned killing machine with no mercy, but only if he thought you were worth his time. Mostly, he just unleashed the hounds. We never got to finish the adventure, so they did not get to have the Big Showdown with him.
It would have been tough. He was a pretty darned good bad guy. Sort of something Northern, Saxon-ish name, with a bit of something from a Frazetta painting to him. Lots of heavy, black armor. Wielded a maul.
In a similar vein, we were playing through a campaign and the players were stuck on a difficult riddle, so I decided to allow the smartest character an Intelligence check to see if I could give him a hint.
I looked over the character sheets, sighed, turned to the player of the paladin and said, "Summon your celestial pegasus. He needs to solve a riddle for you."
The black raven wrote:
I always like to quote Ben Stiller from The Zero Effect at times like this:
"Do you hear what you're saying? We aren't the good guys. There are no good guys in this. There are no bad guys. It's just a bunch of... [waves hands around] ...guys."
Really. Just because you see some weird things out there, doesn't mean everything out there is weird.
My group plays entire campaigns where humans are the only playable race. Mostly those are the games we base on a historical period on Earth, or are set in the modern world.
For the most part, we stuck with the "classic" races from about 1981 to about 1999, at which point somebody decided they wanted to play a drow. (Not too great a departure, there.) Then, my wife joined the game in 2000, and she immediately changed things up with a gem dragon "cursed" to remain in human form.
Since then, my wife has played two elves, a half-elf, three different humans in our modern/historical games, and an angel. My son has played an elf and a turtle-man that I statted up for him. But now he is back to a dwarf. Another friend has just statted up a sylph. We had a friend in our game for a long time who loved her lizard-woman. Our upcoming game, I allowed them to stretch a little, and one player is taking a xorn bard.
I think we have so much variety because, aside from me and an occasional other player, nobody in our group is very rules-savvy. They all rely on me to adjudicate and know the rules encyclopedically. Because they come from a more creative place than a rules place, they are thinking outside the box and allowing their imaginations to run free. Thus, they have more unusual concepts.
But all that said, these are the exceptions. Of our last four campaigns since we began using Pathfinder, counting the one we're about to start, we've had:
The humans pretty much take it in a landslide. And then the dwarves. And if you count the aasimar, the remainder are pretty much tied between "normal" or "classic" races, and anything unusual. And in my experience, we play a "weirder" game than is reported by my other GM friends.
Matthew Downie wrote:
RD is taking a lot of these threads out of context and not fairly judging them for what they are: requests for help in keeping the game challenging from new GMs.
So what if a noob needs help coming up with challenges for a newly leveled-up party? So what if that same noob needs help challenging a powerful fighter? So what if he needs help understanding how to keep the mobile monk engaged and interested?
Pretending all of these threads are made by people who somehow don't understand that a fighter kills things, is just some sort of confirmation bias. You want to think "kids these days" are dummies, so you find "proof" of it and start a thread removed from any real evidence.
I don't think the DM sounds like a problem. Sounds like he's just all about letting it play, no matter what happens.
Which is a gigantic problem in this case.
The type of player the OP is describing is not that uncommon. I have had these guys at my own table. Trust me when I say they do not change, or at least not easily, and not quickly. And they usually end up destroying entire groups, or worse, getting in anything from party-wrecking arguments to outright fist-throwing with other players.
A good GM must be ready to reel in problem players, and he must be concerned with the fun and comfort of the ENTIRE GROUP.
"Just letting it play, no matter what happens," in this case is tantamount to begging for your game to end a bloody death and putting a gun to make it happen in the hands of an ass.
The GM is arguably the BIGGEST problem here.
Perhaps I can phrase this in a way that creates better understanding through context. "Just letting it play, no matter what happens" is a style that ought to be reserved for GMing trustworthy, mature players. The player in question is neither, has stated that he is neither, has stated his desire to go on being an immature, awful player out for only his own enjoyment, and especially sadistic, to boot.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Roughly same amount of time playing. Both sides of screen. Opposite experience. Every DM/GM I played with allowed the finding/purchasing of spellbooks, learning from scrolls, etc.
Many pre-written modules over those years featured spellbooks for the finding.
We could do this all day. My experience is the "norm" as far as I'm concerned.
I think you WANT the wizard to suck, either to "win" the argument or to justify some fairly hefty houserules. You go looking for suckage, and sure enough, you're bound to find it.
I've thrown my back out a couple of times (and by the way, you don't need to be old to do this -- the first time I really threw out my back I was only about 22).
You hobble a bit. Have a hard time standing up straight and getting up. Besides any penalties you might get for the pain, or whatever other conditions you might impose, you ought to consider that the character's speed is affected somehow.
I know I wasn't up for running or quick movement in general.
Spastic Puma wrote:
One word: Jonestown.
Another word: Waco.
Another couple words: Nazi Germany.
How about this word: Evangelicals.
Charismatic people have gotten previously sane individuals (and mobs) to go along with, and believe things that all logic and even their very own eyes, tell them is patently untrue. Right here in the real world.
Miguel O'Hara (Spider-Man 2099) had a Latina mother. The Tarantula was Latino, but he was a bad guy.
My feeling is that if you care about the game more than anything else, then you care about it more than staying out late getting so drunk that you won't be able to operate the next day. That would be what it meant to "care about it MORE than ANYTHING ELSE."
Clearly, getting drunk and hungover, in this case, is at least as important as the game.
That said, players have come to sessions tired from lack of sleep, and some have fallen asleep during sessions. If the session has gone on long enough, we tend to just start winding it down when that happens. When the session is in its early stages, we usually let that player sleep and just play around him as if he weren't there that day, or sometimes we wake him for the combat rolls.
If somebody is being completely disruptive, that's a different story. That's where the "stupid" part comes into play. We tolerate disruption fairly well, being veterans of it after playing with a guy for years who pretty much thought the game was all about him. But if "stupid" starts really ruining it for everybody, that's when we have THE TALK.
In this case, if somebody was hung over, causing him to be sleepy, act stupid and be disruptive, then yes, that seems like the trifecta of bad, and I would probably ask him if he'd like to sit this session out and return on a day that was better for him.
As to kicking somebody out, that's what you do when a behavior is chronic and there is no cure for it after a certain number of sessions.
As to the title of your thread, keep in mind that your "right to be stupid" MUST be balanced against the rights of the other individual players, who are giving up their own free time and energies for their own love of the game. They have a "right," therefore, to be free from your stupidity.
See, I don't think of trolling in such broad terms, and I don't think most others do, either.
I think most of us consider trolling to be something that at least irritates a majority in the affected thread, that we sense has been made intentionally irritating, all the way up to actual abuse.
I have a couple of aliases on this board, which I use to say something funny, be prankish or mischievous or even insert a link to a clip on YouTube that seems relevant (but often funny or tongue-in-cheek in context), and nobody ever accuses me of trolling.
That term is reserved for the people who are clearly trying to disrupt.
Firstly, I'm not sure it's fair to use the term "class bloat" in this case. Class bloat implies that there is a problem with the game. Some of us like having at least a good amount of optional classes around (I am fond of Paizo's base classes). I think your issue has to do with your own open-mindedness in allowing all these classes (and the third party stuff) into your game. You have the option to disallow whatever you think does not fit your world and whatever you just don't want to deal with.
Screamers can scream all they want (there are entire - very angry - threads surrounding this topic), but in the end, you have to have fun, too, and if you are working too hard to have any fun, well... that's no fun.
My rules for limiting this sort of thing are pretty basic. I allow any core or basic class from Paizo, so long as it fits the world or the player can work with me on a backstory that is interesting and plausible.
I have only rarely allowed third party stuff, and only after careful, thorough review. Not because I don't think somebody out there can create something decent, but because I feel I can more easily trust the prime source, so it cuts down on all the extra curricular study.
In both cases, I have to own a copy of the class, either in pfd or book form. I have to be able to look it up quickly and I have to have time before we actually play it, to review it. Nobody gets to play a class I cannot fairly adjudicate.
I have to make all of this easier for myself because the majority of my players are not particularly rules-savvy. I have to keep all their class abilities in mind because they do not always do it themselves. We tend to play a they-conceptualize-it-I-build-it kind of game.