|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A side note? That is good advice for almost every thread on the forums. Things get circular after a while. Best wishes and good gaming.
Also, you mention a game that you run in your home - do you have to host? If not and that game involves parents with kids, it may be easier (quieter, etc) to move the game to the parents' house if they're willing, a lot of times kids can keep themselves entertained if they have access to all their toys and are someplace familiar.
Father of three here, two tens and a four. I agree with this comment from Leganduil regarding allowing those with children to host (if they can.) I've found that it is actually quieter and there are less interruptions for boredom or "where is the X" or "Can I have blah to eat/drink" if they are in familiar territory.
Moreover, as a parent, I can say I am much more at ease and concentrating on the game (and I usually GM!) when I am not worrying that my children are doing something in another room. My wife is the same, and she tends to worry that they are in there dismantling things instead of just being quiet. A quiet room can be more terrifying for parents than a noisy one.
I do not think it is rude to make a 'no kids' night if you host. That said, I'd talk to the parents before hand. If, like with my wife and I, they both play then someone may have to stay home to take care of the kids as babysitters are not an expense some want to foot. As long as you are honest and direct I think you'll be fine. And they should understand -- they have to live with the little monsters!
As a person with your life experiences I feel you would have an appreciation for how unique they are. If someone wrote you as a PF character I would expect them to realize that there would be mechanical disadvantages, or would you have me believe that not once has your genetic issue left you in a situation that would have not been easier to deal with without said issue?
A quote from Auren earlier:
speaking of lucky star and the like, i'm a more extreme real life case, i'm a 25 year old young adult woman chronologically, but could pass for a 10 year old girl cosmetically. but then, i am also mute and have to be accompanied by my boyfriend any time i want to see a movie, eat a chocolate bar, shop at a comic book store, or drink a margarita.
That definitely seems like more than a cosmetic modification. In fact, I know that is a HERO games disadvantage (I remember from some NPCS.)
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
There's the thing. What is the intent by playing the child? What are you trying to accomplish and where are we going to stand when mechanics come into play as they are almost likely to do? Same goes with just letting the halfling pretend to be a kid because it is a cosmetic thing and so on.
I'd like to bring back Zodiac_Sheep's comment
2) How does you being a child further the story? Doesn't have to be in definite terms (he's the child of the king in the AP or something isn't necessary, but it's a little weird to want to play an 11 year old 'just cuz').
That is important in all of this.
As for the bit about whether X book is or isn't a valid rules resource, that's for an individual to decide. It does give a GM and player common ground to see how the game suggests they could take this.
But it isn't cosmetic. This is something covered in the rules -- that is, modifiers due to age. This isn't "I want to be short", this is something that carries advantages and disadvantages, enough so that Halflings can take Childlike as a Feat.
With anything someone does when designing a character, intent plays into it.
Does the GM have the right? Well, yes. If the two of you can find a way that you can agree on to make it work, then there you go.
For myself and my table, we'd be fairly leery to allow child PCs into most games. It isn't something we are particularly interested in to begin with, and unless it is a specific campaign focusing on the children/young adults, you can usually get the same results with someone that edges a lot closer to the adult age range.
I've run and played in a number of online (text) games where it was just not allowed at all because, well, people tend to take things into areas that they shouldn't and the owners of said games didn't want Chris Hansen wandering over to ask some questions. That may colour some of my view of this as well.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Well, I wouldn't say completely untrue. I am sure there are GMs out there who have had players that were a handful, just like there are players that dislike Gms that are too controlling because of that one time with the guy with the thing that scarred them for life.
Our tables have swung the entire range from low to high magic, from barely finding anything to get by on to tripping over artifacts on the way to the Biggest Magical Emporium ever. I prefer a middle range, myself, as a GM and a player both. I don't prefer having players that are never able to find an item they could use or want, but at the same time I dislike being handed a spread sheet and being told that the player won't have a good time if they don't get X by Y level.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bolded for emphasis. Regardless of anything else said in this thread or another thread, this right here is all that matters. Talk to your players -- they don't bite, usually -- and ask their opinions. See what kind of game they are looking for, compare to what you are interested in, find the middle ground if you aren't on the same page. Adjust as needed.
The book rules on settlements are a starting place and don't have the final word at your table anymore than anything else. As long as you understand what you are getting into by giving less (or more!) treasure, be it from drops or garishly bright warehouse sized buildings with massive assortments of things, you'll be fine.
Not only that, you can change anything you and your group may find unappealing with hardly any effort.
As far as the potion bit versus the FAQ goes, it is pretty easy (as mentioned above) to hammer out a simple magic item. The FAQ, on the other hand, likely requires conversation with multiple people and digging through rules and interpretations and, although I wish it didn't have to consider this, the consideration of if you should change things and how much/how little grar and screaming you are going to get out of it.
Every time there is a new answer, the forums have to decide which side gets the pitch forks and torches and what the rallying cries will be.
As far as the LGBT banner bit -- the gaming community and communities in general are made up of all sorts of people. The vast majority, regardless of what you may believe, are incredibly nice and creative people who all want to play a game that has heroes that resemble them. And they deserve it. So a bit of banner waving now and again is good for the game, the community, and the world. And this is how we continue to get great stories. For peoples of all sorts. That is why I love Paizo.
Sorry for the soapbox.
My suggestion would be a homebrew class or to pull from some of the various 3.0/3.5 sources -- the Candlecaster was mentioned above for example.
I'm afraid what you are looking for isn't something that I see the Witch class becoming anytime in the near future. Rather, much like anything in the game, you should always feel free to alter things to fit you and your table's wants and needs. I'm certain that there are a number of people here that would be eager to help you with a great deal of the heavy lifting in that regard.
My wife mentions that going through the rules for Pathfinder and all the books (and in many other games as well) can be a little like going to TVTropes or Wikipedia. You only meant to look up one little thing and before you know it, it's 4 AM.
I love the game but it can be daunting when you start out or even if you've done it for a while if you want to check, double-check and recheck that you haven't missed that one little trait or feat or bit of gear that is going to really make this character shine or do just what you wanted.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think you are right, this is what the Strategy Guide will hopefully fix.
And yes, people tend to forget that some things are easier for them than others. When I was playing Shadowrun hardcore (since it was mentioned) I could calculate the Essence and nuyen cost in my head for just about any piece of ware and apply it as I went; others were flipping pages back and forth at a loss.
The same thing applies for Pathfinder. Not everyone creates lots of characters for fun or interest; they may only create the one they intend to play until that game ends which could take years and not look into the myriad of feats, spells and gears otherwise. For some people character creation can be as fun or more fun that then actual playing of the character itself.
This is why we have some of the grar and yelling on the boards -- some people do this as a passion, rummaging through the numbers and various feats to decide what is "best" and "worst" (for a given value of such) while others get lost in the forest of options and pick out what they think is a good idea at the time.
If you've made dozens or hundreds of mages or fighters or whatever, you have that experience to draw on. If you haven't done that, or don't go over and over the various books looking at options and making notes of what would be good combinations it can be a harrowing experience sometimes.
Neither one of these methods or styles is better or worse than the other. This is no different than the people who play a video game and those who study it and build walkthroughs and dig through every class and combination and little traveled path to see every aspect of the game. One isn't better than the other, or more dedicated.
I agree, I always find it a little odd given my experience with role playing. When I started with my first long-time group in the late 70s there were two ladies present that pretty much drove the game in fact, the main PCs. When I went to college in the 80s several women played in our various games, and later at another college, this one primarily female, the majority of those I ran games for were women.
From talks with my wife about her friends at work and at school, they were all heavily into fantasy/scifi books and had at least played once or were neutral/positive about RPGs in general.
The bolded above is mine. I wouldn't allow this, especially if you believe him to be overpowered. My common practice is to keep a copy of the full character sheet of each person on hand, in case they miss a session or leave theirs behind or some other mishap happens. That way you are all on the same page and someone cannot "remember" some stat or item that they don't have incorrectly. Some people cheat, and some people have faulty memories; either way, this prevents that.
Scribbling Rambler wrote:
Not only that, but to those who may be new to these boards and aren't used to the certain level of charm that some may employ the raging fits thrown can make this seem like an unhappy or hostile place. There are places on the Internet that I just don't go because I don't want to be bogged down with what is essentially screaming and yelling. I doubt I am the only one.
Constructive criticism is good and helpful. Unrelenting negativity doesn't do much for the people that work at Paizo, fellow gamers, or to fix the problem.
yeah it probably should be in advice i just thought since i was basically asking the rules on players killing players but yeah
The only rules for that are the ones you and your players make. That said, player versus player conflict seldom ends up well; it requires a great deal of maturity (and no, not age) to deal with this sort of thing. Usually it results in bad feelings and can even break up gaming circles.
Additionally, having someone who has to be Evil (with a capital E) and mustache twirling and betraying his own party seldom works out well either. From discussions on the board and first hand experience, you seldom see people with the subtlety to pull it off without being a cartoon.
Better to talk to the player, or have the group in general talk to them since the character seemed to not mesh with them. As it was the second game, I'm sure you could have written his character out and brought in something new without much problem.
And to follow the general comments here, punishing someone you find annoying in game is not a great way to go about it. If you continue to GM, you have to be able to deal with people who annoy you OR people you really really like with the same even hand. While the other players might have been cheering you on, they'd be less understanding if one day they forget your pizza and you kill them out of hand.
I wish I could give this post a standing ovation instead of a favorite. This is how you explain what you see as a problem without all the grar (as Chris calls it) that we often see. Bravo.
Heh. Customers tend to believe that, and producers believe otherwise. It is hard for both sides to see it from the same direction.
I'll agree to disagree with you regarding the criticism. We could dig up threads and quotes that will likely come down to how an individual reads it. I'll concede to say that there is not enough constructive criticism.
And yes, more time on the schedule would be great for the editors I'm sure, but that brings up another issue: if they cut a book, two, or more from the schedule -- just talking about the game now, and not the other stuff as they say that there are other people dealing primarily with that -- is it something that is going to upset people or make them happy. Less mistakes, but less product. That book you were looking forward to in December is now slated for next October.
It's a fine line and something they have to balance against paying people I imagine. Do too much and the error rate gets atrocious. Do too little and you run the risk of losing fans or the very people creating for you as they cannot pay bills on X books instead of Y.
Finally, as far as sight unseen goes, yes that can be an issue. But, the upside is that you don't buy something that you are unhappy with and are "stuck" with it. And you give other people time to tear into it and review it, assuming you put weight on the reviews or particular reviewers.
To wrap this up -- I am sure that the staff here is not happy with the error rate in the new book. Heck, the cover alone is embarrassing. But the number of threads that cropped up that were primarily negative don't really do more than pile on. Do we think that shaming them will somehow make them do better? Do we think that the comments are going to shame them or upset them more than they are already upset? Message boards/the net tends towards beating dead horses until they are beyond ghosts, so I know this tends to fall on deaf ears, but I suggest giving it a rest. No one is saying anything new or different. There are unhappy people. They get it. People that live under a rock get it. From what I can see they are getting their act together after the big conventions and likely having meetings on what to do. Let them do that for a week or two before we continue in the inevitable tide of criticism.
Whether it is easy or not isn't the issue. Whether someone who is critical of the book could do a better job or not isn't the issue. The fine folks at Paizo have made a profession out of what they do. As professionals they should have a higher expectation of themselves. As someone who is giving a team of professionals money in exchange for a product, sight un-seen, I expect them to have higher standards for themselves.
Actually, it is somewhat of an issue. They are professionals, as you've just said. So I'd expect they'd have a better idea of whether or not they are overtaxed than the people on the message boards.
Second, I see a lot of criticism and a lot of "I could do it better" and threads on how dumb/untalented/etc that the devs must be if they made a mistake in the book. That makes me wonder why, if we have dozens if not hundreds of such talented people that have the spare time and energy to tear the books apart to tell Paizo what they've done wrong, why they aren't using some of that energy to put out quality products with no mistakes on time, for a certain budget. To show Paizo how it is done, you know?
Last of all -- you aren't required (as far as a I know, there could be a court case or assassin involved) to buy anything sight unseen. Wait for it come out. Wait till you can pick it up and flip through it. While the editing issues and perceived lack of quality can be laid at Paizo's feet, the last issue is not their fault.
I haven't even mentioned the publication that, about a year ago, ratcheted both my faith in and my respect for Paizo down quite substantially. Mostly because it had very little to do with the RPG.
Actually, you just did.
In any case, no, they don't have too many irons in the fire, balls in the air, plates spinning, clowns in the car or whatever other term we'd care to use.
More of what we're seeing, I think, is the more pronounced use of the message boards to talk, good or bad, about the books. Paizo seems to have a handle on what they are doing and planning to do; some items aren't as polished as we, or they, would like.
Problem is you seldom hear "Hey, good job on this book" or "I really liked X". Instead, it's thread after thread of "OMG the end is nigh!" or "X is broken and here's why the devs should be beaten with a wet noodle."
It's easy to backseat drive, harder to create. This, as an aside, isn't just a problem for Paizo but for pretty much every company that has an internet presence (Facebook, Twitter, message board, etc.) It's a litany of complaints and dire predictions of why the company is going bankrupt, not as good as before, or how the user will never, EVER darken their door again.
The solution my GM had was to figure out all my off spring. Several were still kids and I found out about them and could help take care of them if I wanted. A few were older and were planning my death, as were their mothers.
Actions lead to plot hooks if you let them. Maybe they decide to get married, or take responsibility for their by-blows, or they push the party to help the village after the bar maid they were seeing gets taken by the bandits.
Anyway, what they do in their off time can have as much or as little impact as you and they allow.
So, reading this before the moderation comes through and muddles it, the intent I am getting from Driver 325 yards comments is that the high level character is basically Elminster or whatever and the other players live in their shadow and do little side missions while they take care of the "big stuff."
As I recall, that went over like a lead balloon when it was an NPC doing it. I cannot say that it goes over better when it is a PC or GMPC doing it to the other players.
This is less how to manage a diverse party and more how to manage two parties: Mr. 20th level and everyone else.
As with most of these threads, my answer is "it depends." For races/classes/etc, it depends on which world I am running, which players I am running for.
If I have people that are interested in things that would not work for whatever reason in one of the existing worlds I have set up, I'll run Golarion or Greyhawk or something kitchen sinky and let players run wild. For other games, I have documents that explain what is allowed and what isn't. And yes, there are times when the player and I can talk out a new/restricted race or class or item and see if we can work together to make it work.
Other times, the answer is no. On X world, there are no existing dinosaurs, and no, there are not Primeval style gates that dump them into the world, so therefore you cannot have one as a companion.
It all depends.
Eh, back when I started playing oh so many years ago two of the ladies at our table brought knitting and needle point to keep their hands busy while they played. I've seen homework, novels, miniature painting and so on at the table as well. I allow whatever at my table as long as you are paying attention to what is going on.
Heh, no not to that degree (although a bit more description would be nice on occasion.) However, I do let my players know that I'd prefer that they give some indication of the hows and whys of what they are doing. It's fine to want to use diplomacy or tactics or seduction or whatever, but I'd like (A) a starting point for the conversation otherwise things get muddled, and (B) I don't want to play your character for you.
By that I mean that if you want to be a tactical genius (or at least OK at it) or the type of character who can talk their way through situations that I expect you are willing to meet me half way in the role play or tactical thinking. You don't have to be Moist von Lipwig or Hannibal in real life to play those characters in my game, don't get me wrong, but you have to be willing to do more than throw dice at the table and expect me to play out both sides of the conflict or conversation.
I may be one of those older style GMs that Kydeem de'Morcaine mentioned above -- I like my players to be a bit more descriptive in what they are doing. This, again, doesn't mean that you are on your own and if your own Intelligence isn't on par with your Investigator's 20 that I won't give clues and hints and so forth, and I don't penalize your IRL Charisma of 8 with no clue about seduction when you are playing Joe Casanova; I just expect more than the clatter of dice and a bored "I do that. Yeah, diplomacy or whatever."
As for the axe and not needing to describe in detail, I'll add that I do expect like you mentioned to at least do more than throw dice and say "I hit one of them. don't care which." For me, it is about Rping and effort. If someone is giving me and the table/game the bare minimum, it makes it hard to want to give more back, you know what I mean?
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
I don't require a player to be a skilled orator. But I at least want some sense of what they are trying.
This is exactly how I handle it as well -- your roll is very nice and all, but I'd like to feel that you are attempting to play someone who is a negotiator or diplomat or might have spoken to another creature at some point in their life.
That goes for any roll, really. "I roll Knowledge (Blah). Tell me everything there is to know." "I do Whatever. Gimme success and let's move on." I just expect and want more, just like I would hope my players would want more than "It's a room with monsters and stuff over there. Roll."
To get back on track, most of my worst role playing backstories I've observed have been of two sorts. The first is, as mentioned above, one to two word answers with no real effort put into it. It either means, in my mind, you don't care or that you are hoping not to give me anything to work with because Another GM has done you wrong by using elements of your story against you.
The second type goes to the other extreme, trying to weave in bonus material in the hopes of getting benefits out of it without spending traits, feats, and so on. Third cousin to the King, mom left a magical sword under a tree that you have to find, and so on. Those can be useful and even make for good plot elements if done correctly, but usually it comes across more ham-handed in the examples I've seen.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I/we fall into the "don't care about them" category. They are certainly nice to have and no one will kick them out of bed for eating crackers, but a large number of my past and current players aren't as interested in them as they are other magical devices. They're expected and ordinary in their minds.
Definitely not alone. Not only that, both myself and a number of my players enjoy passing around loot, customizing gear, and otherwise "shopping". Sometimes we pass entire games doing just that, preparing for a ball or managing resources and so on, and not even to optimize, but to get the right colour gems to match clothing or having to travel to another place to find the right person to make what you want. It can be quite fun if your group is into it.
This is a great post and I wish it was indicative of how more people felt who argue here. But it is the internet, and there are people who get their jollies by tearing down what others like or love. A spirited debate can be good and even improve the product. Some of what we get, however, isn't on the same level as what Kolokotroni is going for and only serves to make the place unpleasant.
I love this game, whether just out of the box or modified to taste. It can be better, but it could be FAR worse. It gives me the platform to play out of the box with others with only minor disagreements or to modify to my heart's content for any number of games.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Therein lies the problem I think, there are too many choices for some people. I have had a few players recently that seem overwhelmed by the choices and/or don't want to be bothered. One young lady was very interested in being a rogue. We offered a selection of ways to do what she wanted and her eyes glazed over. She just pointed to the book and wanted that rogue right there. So that's what she played.
To answer the OP's question
Are the older melee classes getting less attractive / obsolete?
the answer is Yes, but. Yes, they can be less attractive or obsolete if you have sufficient system mastery, time, inclination and so on to construct exactly what you want from the toolbox we are given. There are those who are missing one or more of the above (not all of you, put down the pitchforks) and just want to play a Fighter, a Rogue, a whatever.
You can break down the hows and whys that a X is a better fighter or how you can build a rogue with a dash of this and two of that and there are people that don't want that, they want something simple, direct, and without the extra work.
I can show someone how to make a burrito at home that is incredible, but for a large number of those people they aren't going to want to go to the trouble, expensive, or bother when Taco Bell sells something that is like what they want for a buck.
So yes, these classes can be unattractive when you have the know how and the drive to make something out a Witch Doctor, Ninja and Gunslinger that does exactly what you want to a tee. But the average player may not want to go into that level of design, a newer player may just give up if you go into that level, and even an advanced player may just want to grab a Fighter and bang around instead. It isn't good or bad or wrong or right, it is just how people are.
No doubt. Of course, calling them out isn't exactly a non-aggressive bit either. Therein lies the problem here, which we've seen played out in the last few days with the release of the Advanced Class Guide and dire comments about how folks will never pay for it and how horrible it is and so on. Happens with a lot of books, a lot of changes to the system. My personal favorites are when someone is never ever going to buy another Paizo product.
I'm not sure it is a new version of the game we need, but a new version of the message boards and/or fans. It doesn't take a "Paizo Defense Force" to note when people are being negative, antagonistic, or not even in the neighborhood of constructive in their criticism.
I just dont believe you. I do think some people probably got pushed away and that is a shame. Though I think these forums are pretty well moderated and have fair discussions. The forums are welcoming to anyone who likes PF and even those who dont. There are trolls but what site doesnt have them? I also dont think you have a basis for a biased playtest. The goal was to make a backwards compatibale system so having a lot of changes was never in cards.
The forums are welcoming, but many of the participants aren't. I've watched far longer than I've posted and there are what I call "The Usual Suspects", a counter to the Paizo Defense Force if you will, that run out to stir the post and be as negative as they can about the product. It may not run people off the forums, but it certainly puts a damper on people who are not willing to deal with the sheer level of hostility on some of the subjects to bother to post.
Yeah, it's probably just an Internet thing, but it doesn't really help anything.
Unless you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure that you can definitively say that. It might be something completely and totally the opposite of what you want.
My vote is No, by the by.
Wouldn't mind seeing an Alex Kingston or Helen Mirren sort, or Pierce Brosnan for the other side, generally older but still capable adventurer.
I'm less interested in seeing fan service being done just for the sake of fan service. After the nightmare threads about such around here, I'd just as soon see everyone dressed to adventure and less to titillate; that said, downtime pictures would be great in other places.
Race is less an issue for me, although it would be nice to see the occasional pull from the ARG, and yes I'm aware that we must look to Society gaming. That said, I don't think that should make a difference once we've stepped beyond the Core book -- this stuff is already optional, so I don't feel that we have to cater exclusively so that those playing Society games don't get upset that they can't play Bob the Iconic Whatever.
Pretty much this.
For me, it comes down to GMing 101: You can change things. The stuff in the books is the baseline view for the setting, set that way for all the reasons people have delineated above (PCs are bastards, NPCs raiding places, etc etc.)
You can certainly alter anything you choose to flavor the game for yourself and your players. There are good reasons to have lower level rulers, or higher level, as long as you are capable of addressing the questions that come up from your players. Heck, the designers are great but don't always take everything that PCs can think up into account and you have to add protections from things they'd never think of. This has become more apparent in recent years in things like comics, where they've had to address why supers haven't killed the President or taken all the nukes and so on.
As with everything, they've given you the beginning of the game but if you have specifics in mind you have to adjust what is written to take that into account.
tl;dr: The trope exists as a baseline.
Too many good things to quote
I have to say I agree with everything said in Kolokotroni's post. D&D5 and Pathfinder and hosts of other games can and will co-exist without issue. There are rules light, rules medium and rules heavy games out there that all manage to get a share of the market and there are players of multiple systems that enjoy them all at the same time for different reasons.
A small sub point, and one that exists for any game system really: your familiarity with it speeds you up and you don't have to always check every book every round. Make cheat sheets, improvise modifiers (if your table isn't a stickler for such), and so on.
Even before most everyone had a tech object they could look things up on we'd have cheat sheets and notes and so on to speed things up. And while I've had people get irritated with the suggestion in the past, part of the game is work -- enjoyable work, don't get me wrong -- but work nonetheless. For the GM, for the players. Know your character and what it can do. Know what is going on, pay attention, keep notes, get bookmarks or tabs, use phones/computers for the online resources and so on.
Even with "rules lite" games there is still some responsibility for the players and GM to know their stuff and work together to keep things moving.
Heh, no, no breath holding, I just didn't want to duplicate effort on the project. I'm happy to print it off and make a nice little supplement for her and myself for that matter. Thanks!
Asking here instead of staring a new thread .. are all these posts about these iconics (and the ones from the other books) going to be collected at some point in a book or other resource?
My wife is interested in the backstories, so looking to see if there are collections or if I need to save each individual blog post for her to read.
I agree that the GenCon rush must have contributed to the problems this book had in the editing department and mentioned that in my review. Still, I'm glad I got one of the "collector's edition" cover mishaps and got mine now instead of waiting for another printing. There is something much more enjoyable for me about reading a hard copy rather than a PDF.
I look forward to your list of problems and hope you put them up. That way I can notate my book and not have to do the hard work! ;)
My sentiments exactly. This (or any game book) is a gold mine of ideas and concepts and fully realized material. Instead of inventing whole cloth, I can "fix" anything I deem broken or otherwise modify it to my table's tastes.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Which is what I agreed was a good idea (and have even done and am still doing). The problem is the extremes on both sides (they are great and need no help versus let them be super powered). A little moderate thought on both sides (ala what Kirth and Kolokotroni were suggesting) would go a long way. Wouldn't take much more than a chapter in a hardback, maybe a Campaign Guide like Inner Sea magic or whatever.
@Simon: Not a new parent, although my four year old was pummeling me with trains when I wrote that so it may have coloured my words.
In any case, I may be alone over here but I'd love to see casters ramped back a bit as well as martials raised up. I'm a fan of restrictions on casters and putting the godhood off for mythic/epic/super high level play.
K177Y C47 wrote:
Except that it is kind of true. How many times have you heard "well... its too magical, and fighters should have NO magical at all.." or "too wuxia for me," or "that is just ubsurd, that just makes no sense, that is impossible!" when regarding potential abilities for hihg level martials without obvious spellcasting? Heck, look at how a lot of people dismiss the barbarians abilities because "they are too magical and make no sense" becauses "martials are supposed to be normal"...
Or mundane rather than normal. It isn't common, even with a lot of skill in battle, to leap miles. To shatter mountains or as an above poster commented, destroy entire armies by yourself. Even at high level.
That is something some players want, but not all. Not everyone believed the Book of 9 Swords (or whatever the exact name was) was the way that all martials should go. Not everyone wants or is comfortable or want their martials leaping about streaming energy like a kung fu movie.
The game has laid out what a fighter is, and what many posters are asking is to toss all that out and make it into something that is very foreign to many eyes for the same of making them do the same sort of thing that wizards can do.
I believe the reason people say these things is because it isn't a problem for them. If I "fix" something, it is no longer a problem for our game. For your game or his game or their game it might be, and that is still relevant to an extent. But for my or their table, the problem is fixed or taken care of. They are not waiting for the devs to put out a new book to fix this perceived problem or give the OK on the boards, they've moved on.
Now, that might be more common in older players who did this sort of thing over the years before message boards and vocal campaigns to get things fixed or changed. Regardless, and whether people are happy with the response or not, it is a valid response and a valid way to deal with these problems.
Rule books, from this or any game publisher, often have problems that need errata, corrections, balance issues and so on. And not all of them are agreed on. Not every change that people are upset about is bad in the eyes of the devs, no matter how many threads are made about it. Not all of them are good either, mind you.
That said, once the game is in your and your table's hands, it is your game. You can and in my opinion most assuredly should take it apart and tinker with it, exploring what you believe is right or wrong and fixing, discarding, or upgrading as you will. They really won't come to your house and spank you.
To drag this back to the OP, it appears from their first post that their play style and players have prevented many of the problems that are seen on the boards. There are gamers who only play once a month and won't see a tenth of the issues that come up on these boards. There are players and GMs that are content to play and not tear into the rules set to see where it bends and breaks and won't run into the CODzilla in 3.5 or the various broken/bent builds that we see all the time here. They aren't wrong to say "Not seeing the hubbub guys, but good luck with all that."
X is not any more of a problem than you let it be, whatever X is. If you are waiting for your personal X to get fixed by the company, you may be in for a long wait. If these threads are nothing more than blowing off steam and wishlisting, then that is great. But out and out telling people who are voicing their opinion on the matter -- which is all we are doing -- that they shouldn't talk about their experiences with the matter or that they are wrong to do so is out and out dismissive and not very conducive to any sort of conversation on the matter.
By all means, let's "fix" things. But let's not pretend for even a second that someone's fix is better than someone else's, or someone's opinion is somehow lesser because it doesn't conform to The One True Way.