A Call To All Sub-Optimals, Middle-Lines and Min-Maxers!


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Kyle Baird wrote:
Eric Brittain wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
the player, regardless of build, who gets his or her fun by ruining the other players' fun.
I have certainly experienced these players as well.
I think Dragnmoon experienced that at PaizoCon last year. :D

It was a learning experience...

I know for a fact Kyle experienced an Ass of a GM last year... ;)

The Exchange 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Eric Brittain wrote:
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
the player, regardless of build, who gets his or her fun by ruining the other players' fun.
I have certainly experienced these players as well.
I think Dragnmoon experienced that at PaizoCon last year. :D

It was a learning experience...

I know for a fact Kyle experienced an Ass of a GM last year... ;)

oh, we all get one sometime.

But you know, overall I've found PFS to be better than LG... and in eight years I never left LG.

wait... is there a Dragnmoon/Kyle undertone I'm missing here?

5/5

Only the most epic table ever. Link

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Todd Morgan wrote:
Robert Trifts wrote:

Without putting too fine a point on it? I think all of you are mistaken.

quality stuff

Anything else is simply hypocrisy

There is room in our large community for Robert's optimized players as well as people who view optimization in the worst light. Saying one side or the other is wrong or that they are hypocrites is inaccurate IMHO.

Not is sure as hell is not.

What somebody prefers to play is their own affair. I am not talking about preferences. What I am talking about was this:

Quote:
The many monthly and semi-monthly publications of Paizo are, in fact, specifically pitched and crafted to appeal to this type of player. They are designed on that basis, written on that basis, sold on that basis, bought on that basis and used on that basis. That is the game we are all playing. If you think Pathfinder RPG isn’t that kind of game? You are profoundly mistaken and you are stuffing your head in the sand with a loud “glurk”

.

Pathfinder is inherently and explicitly designed for players to play the optimization game-within-a-game. What an individual may prefer or may not prefer as a play style is entirely within their own tastes. Your style of game is okay and my style of game is okay. I have no problem with that at all.

But that's not PFS. At PFS the rules are VERY different.

When the premise of the RPG you are playing features all of these monthly releases and when the premise of Pathfinder Society is that if you show up with one (or more) of these new releases to a table, you are entitled to play it and use it at our table -- then you are knowingly playing a game where optimizers and character twinkers are absolutely CERTAIN to show up. It's a campaign which has been explicitly designed for them to do exactly that.

If you don't want that? Then don't play PFS and stick to a home game.

For someone to say that even though a player CAN do this they should not do it in Pathfinder Society? As if that's the WRONG way to play? And for me to agree with that view? Damned right that's hypocrisy. That's clearly not the way this game is being marketed, packaged and sold. There are posters on this thread and others who want Pathfinder RPG -- and PFS -- to be something other than it plainly is.

Preferences are one thing -- but reality is another. And no - there really isn't room for both of these views in an open table, anything goes, game like Pathfinder Society. If you play PFS, then you have signed on to play with people who are going to plan, build and tweak. Accept it or not -- that's the game we are playing and that's the game we are selling.

PFS is, in the end, a marketing program to promote the sale of this game and its myriad of products. And that myriad is released monthly, each of which is designed to be integrated, combined and used together on an ongoing basis. That's the game and that's the marketing program that Pathfinder Society is designed to be.

But a player should not use these products to their advantage? They should just...buy them and not use them?

Gimme a break. That's not reality. For Venture Captains who are promoting the sale of this game to say this with a straight face certainly is hypocrisy.

What else would you call trying to promote a product weekly in a bid to sell that person something and then sitting there with a straight face when telling him he should not use them if it provides his character an edge during play -- if not hypocrisy? Is there some other word for that?

Dark Archive 4/5

But the opposite is also true, that optimizers need to realize they may sit at a table with unoptimized characters and they may need to alter their play style so that everyone has fun. It's not only The GM's job to make sure everyone has fun, players need to actively help too. I don't think we are diametrically opposed on this issue, Robert, in fact I suspect that we are mostly in agreement.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Robert Trifts wrote:
However, what many people in this thread and others refuse to acknowledge is that the very nature of player character design in Pathfinder RPG itself is intended to appeal as a game-within-a-game to a significant minority of players who enjoy crafting optimized characters. The many monthly and semi-monthly publications of Paizo are, in fact, specifically pitched and crafted to appeal to this type of player. They are designed on that basis, written on that basis, sold on that basis, bought on that basis and used on that basis. That is the game we are all playing.

You've said this more than once now. But that still doesn't make it true. Paizo products are crafted to appeal to more than just "a significant minority of players"; that's just good business sense. Insisting that the products are just designed for some of the player base, and that those players are therefore entitled to dictate how things are done at PFS events, is wrong. That isn't the game we all are playing; if it were there wouldn't be any "fluff" in the products.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

JohnF wrote:


You've said this more than once now.

Correct. Something that important bears repeating. And it appears it's necessary a third time, too.

Quote:


But that still doesn't make it true. Paizo products are crafted to appeal to more than just "a significant minority of players"; that's just good business sense. Insisting that the products are just designed for some of the player base, and that those players are therefore entitled to dictate how things are done at PFS events, is wrong. That isn't the game we all are playing; if it were there wouldn't be any "fluff" in the products.

Yes, it is the game you are playing. It's clear that isn't what you want your PFS experience to be (and that's fine -- preferences are not the issue here - you are entitled to like what you like) but that doesn't change the inherent design of the program. That's why each of these new products is listed in the Additional Resources list that you can find HERE. It's generally updated monthly. That's not an accident.

The resources that they are talking about isn't the fluff John. There are 77 products and two blogs listed in those resources. That's not a list which presumptively excludes, it's a list that presumptively includes material from a new book into PFS by default as they are released.

And yes, that really does "make it true". Pathfinder RPG is the game you want it to be. Pathfinder Society, otoh, has some rigid rules to it which are independent of your own preferences.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
JohnF wrote:
Robert Trifts wrote:
However, what many people in this thread and others refuse to acknowledge is that the very nature of player character design in Pathfinder RPG itself is intended to appeal as a game-within-a-game to a significant minority of players who enjoy crafting optimized characters. The many monthly and semi-monthly publications of Paizo are, in fact, specifically pitched and crafted to appeal to this type of player. They are designed on that basis, written on that basis, sold on that basis, bought on that basis and used on that basis. That is the game we are all playing.

You've said this more than once now. But that still doesn't make it true. Paizo products are crafted to appeal to more than just "a significant minority of players"; that's just good business sense. Insisting that the products are just designed for some of the player base, and that those players are therefore entitled to dictate how things are done at PFS events, is wrong. That isn't the game we all are playing; if it were there wouldn't be any "fluff" in the products.

Oh, but it is true, JohnF - the subset he is talking about is appealed to by that 'minigame' and the existence of that minigame is part of what makes Pathfinder appeal over, say, NWoD since it implements a better version of that game than the White Wolf products. You seem to be conflating PFRPG and PFS...

We are insistent (and I believe correct) in that that PORTION of the player base is catered to by the away-from-table minigame aspect of PFRPG. Because RAW is the ONLY way to operate an organized play campaign and have it keep the 'organized' attribute, PFS therefore has an innate, perhaps unstated but definitely present, design pressure to accommodate the optimizers. If you don't let us play with the new toys you offer us, how is it advancing the marketing of the game?

The campaign we are playing is a marketing aspect of PFRPG that offsets some of its own costs. Don't make the error of thinking it's about the players FIRST - it's about selling more PFRPG product. The fluff is important. Good stories are important. Selling more product is the POINT.

Still, we need to play nice in the sandbox or sit in the corner making mudpies by ourselves....

Dark Archive 4/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
JohnF wrote:


You've said this more than once now.

Correct. Something that important bears repeating. And it appears it's necessary a third time, too.

Quote:


But that still doesn't make it true. Paizo products are crafted to appeal to more than just "a significant minority of players"; that's just good business sense. Insisting that the products are just designed for some of the player base, and that those players are therefore entitled to dictate how things are done at PFS events, is wrong. That isn't the game we all are playing; if it were there wouldn't be any "fluff" in the products.

Yes, it is the game you are playing. It's clear that isn't what you want your PFS experience to be (and that's fine -- preferences are not the issue here - you are entitled to like what you like) but that doesn't change the inherent design of the program. That's why each of these new products is listed in the Additional Resources list that you can find HERE. It's generally updated monthly. That's not an accident.

The resources that they are talking about isn't the fluff John. There are 77 products and two blogs listed in those resources. That's not a list which presumptively excludes, it's a list that presumptively includes material from a new book into PFS by default as they are released.

And yes, that really does "make it true". Pathfinder RPG is the game you want it to be. Pathfinder Society, otoh, has some rigid rules to it which are independent of your own preferences.

That still doesn't mean that PFS can't cater to more than one crowd. No offense but you seem to be a bit condescending with your remarks.

Silver Crusade

TetsujinOni wrote:
Don't make the error of thinking it's about the players FIRST - it's about selling more PFRPG product. The fluff is important. Good stories are important. Selling more product is the POINT.

Quite a cynical viewpoint. Perhaps it would help to consider that the single most effective way to sell more product is to give the customers what they want. If that doesn't equal "players first", then nothing does.

In other words, "players first" and "selling more product" are not mutually exclusive as the post seems to suggest. On the contrary, they go hand in hand. And right there with them is the idea of catering to the widest player base possible.

In the posts I've seen by Mike and Mark, it seems clear that while considering potential game changes, they place the highest priority on the understanding the opinions and experiences of all players, and go out of their way to find creative ways to do so.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Todd Morgan wrote:


That still doesn't mean that PFS can't cater to more than one crowd. No offense but you seem to be a bit condescending with your remarks.

Well that's just the thing isn't it? By intent, it does cater to more than one crowd.

PFS is intended to exist as a point of first contact for players. That means that it exists to teach new players the game and to act as a group of players that a new player can attach to. So yes, the intention of the entire PFS program is to exist for players who are not yet (and may never become) enthusiastic character optimizers immersed in the player crunch of the game. It's there to teach the game and to permit a new player to attach to a gaming group.

This purpose also has consequences. I think it is fair to say that in terms of the overall game balance the PFS scenarios shoot for, the design is aimed at low to no optimization parties, too. Without this, we'd be offering up scenarios that kill off new characters too easily. That would be a pretty crappy first point of contact for the game, wouldn't it? Or at least -- that's the argument.

I don't want to get into a scenario difficulty debate here -- this isn't the place for it. But it is worthwhile acknowledging that this is a central problem that arises from trying to serve both player types. It creates a considerable "struggle" within PFS (for lack of a batter word).

So this is the inherent conflicting mission statement within PFS: (1) act as a point of first contact to teach players the game; (2) act as a longterm marketing program for established players, too. The aims are very difficult to rationalize with one program at the same table when RAW rules the day and there is no discretion to say "no". It's a struggle that has got worse over the course of 2011 with the release of both UM and UC. It will worsen this year, too, as new products are released. I think it's fair to say that it becomes increasingly more difficult with every release of a new product.

That means this problem just gets worse and it is unlikely to EVER get better.

Power creep widens the gap between a Core rulebook first character, and that of an experience Pathfinder RPG player with 40 books at the table/on her iPad.

The two lie very uneasily together under the same aegis. This is why we have complaints about ease of scenarios == and why we have complaints about "highly optimized" characters stealing the spotlight. How is it that you fit these same players at the same table, co-existing at the same time?

Only with very great difficulty. If your local PFS group is large enough, you can stream optimized players to play with one another - and new players to play with new players and attempt to separate them by table. The tier process attempts to do this for us by default -- but it's too blunt an instrument.

The first step to any solution is to acknowledge the problem. Moral suasion in a bid to ask experienced players to not optimize their characters in deference to new players or those who do not like to "build" or twink a character as part of the game-within-a-game is, imo, a Pollyanna approach. It's just not realistic and it doesn't work.

That's why we see these recurring complaints on the forums. When you put these players at the same table often enough, someone is going to go away unhappy. Ultimately, they are going to just go away, period.

The narrative to date has been dominated by a peer pressure view that somehow the twinkers and optimizers are "breaking" the game and "playing wrong". This is the "Bad/Wrong fun argument", as Eric puts it. I can't subscribe to that theory as I find it hypocritical and dishonest. In contrast, Alexander Damocles (and many others like him) says that he can't get behind the "optimize or suffer mindset". Problem is, in the medium to longterm for any player in PFS, I don't see any other alternative. That's the tyranny of RAW and the effect of power creep caused by it.

Perhaps part of the problem here is that by describing characters as "optimized" or "highly optimized" we may not actually be talking about the same thing. What Alexander may be objecting to may be something which I would consider not simply "optimized" or even "highly optimized" but a complete twink monster: Twinkosaurus Rex as we have referred to such character builds. I'm not in favor of such deliberate game breaking rules exploits either. (To whit: the raging barbarian using Crane Fighting Style, etc.) Then again, I don't blame the players for this as much as I have to blame the designers. This stuff needs to be fixed at a rules level.

It may be that its merely all semantics, but I do think it's more than that and that the conflict is a real one.

Dark Archive 4/5

You confuse me with your abundance of words...I don't know who's side you're on, Trifts!

Silver Crusade 2/5

Robert Trifts wrote:


What Alexander may be objecting to may be something which I would consider not simply "optimized" or even "highly optimized" but a complete twink monster: Twinkosaurus Rex as we have referred to such character builds.

What I object to are players who build character with the intention of utterly dominating a scenario, and then proceeding to do it every single time. Zen archer monk with a level of emperyal sorcerer for gravity bow? Cool. Don't kill everything in the room first round. Maybe take single shots. Maybe make some knowledge checks. But the character who goes first pretty much every time and then drops everything in the room in one round? Sure, you *can* do it, but you shouldn't. Its ok to show off how *EPIC* your character is. But, don't do it every single time. Let someone else have their spotlight moments.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Robert Trifts wrote:
The narrative to date has been dominated by a peer pressure view that somehow the twinkers and optimizers are "breaking" the game and "playing wrong".

If that's your point, you're still missing the big picture. It's not the optimizer that's the only example of "playing wrong" by hogging all the glory, kills, &c. - the player who mis-manages his character by bad choice of feats, bad tactics, or just plain inattention to the task at hand is just as guilty of "playing wrong". A PFS table could get any of those, and more. It's the GM's responsibility to manage the behaviour of the players at the table to meet the goals spelled out in "the rules":

Quote:
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. ... When you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior.

Those are the rules, as written. If you can't play your super-optimised character without spoiling the experience for everyone else at the table, you're doing it wrong.

An optimiser who holds back occasionally to let other party members have their time in the spotlight, but is always ready to come to the rescue when things go pear-shaped, would be welcome at my table at any time.

The Exchange 5/5

I can recall in the days of LG an event that I would like to relate. (So here goes the old dude talking about the good ol' days again, sigh)

Ol'War Story - nothing here really:

My sister had just started playing a few months before. She had gotten a character from me (a 1/2 orc that I had originally intended to be a Monk, but had changed to being a Barbarian after assigning the stats). I figured a good character to learn on for her was a Barbarian (back in the old days remember). As she leveled the first time she switched to Cleric... so she had a Barbarian/Cleric 1st/3rd or 4th (Palor cleric with Healing and Sun domain) with an 18 strength and a bastard sword (1 handed).
Anyway, she was off playing with strangers at a CON and had a terrible time. It seems that while her Judge was great, a couple jerks at the table just wouldn't let her play. Shoved her to the back and told her how useless her PC was... and then broke and ran from a fight with a Vampire spawn. The Min-maxed character at the table was my sisters. Normally happy playing as a 2nd line fighter, healbot, letting the rest of the party have thier day in the sun. But, when she would have been the perfict fit for the encounter, the Jerks (with less Min-Maxed characters) yelled at her for not having the right spells prepped, so they could fight the Vampire Spawn.

Some players are jerks. (Sometimes it's me - I try not to let it be, but there is a little jerk in all of us.) The build isn't the issue. The player and his play style? that can be a problem.

And now looking back at this I seem to have rambled on... so I think I'll spoiler it and warn everyone it's an old war story.

The Exchange 5/5

JohnF wrote:

...(trimming it down to a great line)... If you can't play your ... character without spoiling the experience for everyone else at the table, you're doing it wrong....

I think JohnF hit it right on the button.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

A challenge to the PFS community at large:

It sounds like most people are willing to agree that it's all about how you play, not how powerful your build is.

At least, we're willing to say so when discussing that topic.

It's been my observation in the past that, when it's the topic of the day and we need to sound enlightened, we'll admit that it's the player and not the build. But then when we're "out there" (at the table, in a thread on another topic, etc) it's clear from our actions and less-measured remarks that our true belief is still that the uber-builds are the problem, regardless of the player.

I challenge each of you to check yourselves for that hypocrisy (and ask that you all hold me accountable as well). Let's see if our attitudes match or betray our commentary.

The Exchange 5/5

Jiggy wrote:

A challenge to the PFS community at large:

It sounds like most people are willing to agree that it's all about how you play, not how powerful your build is.

At least, we're willing to say so when discussing that topic.

It's been my observation in the past that, when it's the topic of the day and we need to sound enlightened, we'll admit that it's the player and not the build. But then when we're "out there" (at the table, in a thread on another topic, etc) it's clear from our actions and less-measured remarks that our true belief is still that the uber-builds are the problem, regardless of the player.

I challenge each of you to check yourselves for that hypocrisy (and ask that you all hold me accountable as well). Let's see if our attitudes match or betray our commentary.

hay! that's great.

and if you sit at a table with me and I'm being a jerk... tell me. If I'm not letting someone talk, or dominating Judge attention or "stepping on your coat-tails", feel free to call me on it. I'm trying to be better about playing as part of the team. I think this is something everyone should do.

If your party of adventurers has a "face" - let him do his shtick, and maybe aid him. "My fighter stands back behind him as he talks - as if I were his body guard. Roll aid for Diplomacy - 17 minus 2! yeah! Plus two to you Bard" then sit back and realize that you're the reason he nailed that DC30 Diplomacy. Then, when the Big Bad is in your face and you need that little extra to hit AC 30, he'll be behind you singing his little heart out - and maybe even rolling at attack to "aid other" and raise your to hits.

the same applies to any skill. This is a team effort - it's a social game. We need to play like we're part of a team.

(getting down off of soap box now. Sorry.)

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Todd Morgan wrote:
You confuse me with your abundance of words...I don't know who's side you're on, Trifts!

Side? I'm not on anybody's "side".

I'm for truth, honesty and integrity. I'm for evidence based analysis and the implementation of practical solutions wherever possible -- and a frank admission that there is no practical solution when there isn't one. Even when that frank admission is unsettling and makes people uncomfortable.

Above all, I'm against hypocrisy in all things.

So when people are posting "no, no that's not what PFS is suposed to be all about" -- when the very rules and marketing aims of PFS clearly demonstrate otherwise -- that's a point that needs to be clarified and outlined in electric neon pink. Even if it pisses people off.

And yes, even if that means that the aims and objects may be exposed as fundamentally irreconcilable without some other rule or new mechanism to bring order to the resulting chaos.

5/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
when the very rules and marketing aims of PFS clearly demonstrate otherwise

I'd like to point out that the quote above is still just your opinion and can not be proven as a fact without a statement from Paizo management explicitly stating such claims.

Dark Archive 4/5

The nature of organized play means we get a combination of different play-styles at our tables. There are the ones who enjoy creating optimized and stable characters who are good at what they do; there are also players who take the Childlike feat for their halfling rogue with 10 constitution at first level. Of course we can't forget the ones who grab the deadliest parts of the game and attempt to create some eldritch synthesist x/paladin 2/alchemist x/barbarian 1 monstrosity.

All these styles have difficulty meshing, and the nature of organized play means that we cannot bar any from our tables simply because of different playstyle.

A way of mitigating this issue is education for the poorer players, and education also for the players who are overclocking their characters. Even if we can't get everyone on the same page as far as style of play goes, we can still communicate how difficult a scenario should be. Perhaps when the overclockers realize it's too easy for them they'll let up. Similarly, perhaps the less-optimized players will get some tips from the overclockers on stepping up their game.

In any case, a thread like this can only help.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mergy wrote:
In any case, a thread like this can only help.

Is that a challenge? ;)

Dark Archive 4/5

Jiggy wrote:
Mergy wrote:
In any case, a thread like this can only help.
Is that a challenge? ;)

Uh oh, I've ruined the thread by appealing to Jiggy's contrary-wise nature.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Robert Trifts wrote:
when the very rules and marketing aims of PFS clearly demonstrate otherwise
I'd like to point out that the quote above is still just your opinion and can not be proven as a fact without a statement from Paizo management explicitly stating such claims.

That is utter nonsense Kyle. Not only ought you to know better -- you DO, in fact, know better.

Everybody involved in Pathfinder Society knows that is is a marketing program intended to promote the Pathfinder Roleplaying game; moreover, everybody knows that the promotion of book sales is the reason that a player is required to have a copy of the book or a watermarked copy of the .pdf with them at the table when the rule is quoted. The addional resources list is updated monthly to assist in sales promotions of Pathfinder products through PFS.

Making money is not a sin and crafting your OP program to assist in that object is not a corporate evil or a wrong to be ashamed of; rather, it's smart business and a laudable way of managing the brand and the Pathfinder Society.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
stuff

Maybe I'm reading you wrong here Rob.

Yes PFS is a marketing tool, yes PFS encourages everyone to buy the monthly subscriptions. But it seems like you're saying that if you aren't using those books you are playing the wrong game. PFS has plenty of room for all types of players, whether they buy the extra books or not.

To say 'optimize or die' is to spit on the majority (since you yourself claimed the optimizers were the minority) and tell them to play somewhere else. That isn't in Paizo's best interest. There's room for all of us at the table. No play-style supported by the PFS structure should be shunned or reviled, whether it's the optimizer or the suboptimal.

I may be reading you wrong, I've gone over several of your posts and tried to cool myself off from my immediate reactions and say something calm. You come across as saying that only the optimizers deserve to be in the game, and I hope I'm reading that wrong.

5/5

Robert Trifts wrote:

That is utter nonsense Kyle. Not only ought you to know better -- you DO, in fact, know better.

Everybody involved in Pathfinder Society knows that is is a marketing program intended to promote the Pathfinder Roleplaying game; moreover, everybody knows that the promotion of book sales is the reason that a player is required to have a copy of the book or a watermarked copy of the .pdf with them at the table when the rule is quoted. The addional resources list is updated monthly to assist in sales promotions of Pathfinder products through PFS.

Just because I agree with your opinion does not make it a fact.

I disagree that the requirement to have book or pdf copies is the sole reason for their requirement. If you want to use feat X out of book Y, don't expect me as the GM to have that book. Bring a copy of it for me, so if I'm not familiar with it, I can learn how it works.

Again, I agree that the additional resource list being expanded continually is intended to help sell new product.

The Exchange 3/5

Clint Blome wrote:
I may be reading you wrong, I've gone over several of your posts and tried to cool myself off from my immediate reactions and say something calm. You come across as saying that only the optimizers deserve to be in the game, and I hope I'm reading that wrong.

I don't think he's saying that Mr. Blome, but I know that Steel can speak for himself.

As for the meat of what Steel is saying: I don't think it's wrong, but I would couch it differently and go further into finding solutions.

Clearly, there are large elements of power creep happening with the PFS ruleset. For each and every instance of more powerful options being available, some players (those who are more power focused) will advance to those options and widen the gap between the two groups. I think we should cater and promote the game towards both groups. We need to find common reasons (and common restraints) that allow both groups to play together.

These boards are rife with those seeking a good way to handle the two groups at the table. This might just be growing pains.

On one hand, I've made it known that these power issues are causing problems in our local community (and others seem to notice the same).

On the other hand, Mike Brock is aware of the problems and is trying to address them and asks patience in that. Mark's recent blog speaks to that.

On my alchemical-vestigial third hand, while I know and understand that PFS is a marketing program, I still want it taken care of and protected as I want something worthy of me giving my volunteer time and effort to support. At a certain point when the marketing aspect (not that that's wrong) overtakes the fun/good management of the game, I'll be gone. I support Paizo's desire to market and make money...but I also need those same products not to ruin the game.

Power creep is fine and can be managed and I support Mike's efforts to keep the game at an even keel.

And, at some future time, we want to address how to handle power creep and/or making PFS more tolerable for both groups, I'd love to have that discussion.

-Pain

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Clint Blome wrote:
PFS has plenty of room for all types of players, whether they buy the extra books or not.

And even if they do buy the extra books (and the map packs, and the other accessories) that still doesn't mean they buy the books with the intent of building the best kick-ass character they can. There's a lot of material in that ever-growing list of approved sources that can be used to add flavour and variety to a sub-optimal character build, if that's what the player wants.

It's all but impossible to get a perfect balance of characters across all the different core classes, archetypes, prestige classes, etc. This isn't a new problem - back when "Unearthed Arcana" came out in 1985 and introduced the Barbarian and Paladin to a wider audience, complaints about overpowered character classes showed up on a regular basis (adding to the regular grumbling about magic users being too weak at low levels and too powerful at high levels, rogues getting too many special abilities, etc., etc.). But despite all that it was quite possible to have a good time with a group of characters of widely-varying ability levels. The solution we used then still works today - remember this is a shared experience, not a solo competition. Play nicely with others, and everybody can have a good time.

The Exchange 5/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
Robert Trifts wrote:
when the very rules and marketing aims of PFS clearly demonstrate otherwise
I'd like to point out that the quote above is still just your opinion and can not be proven as a fact without a statement from Paizo management explicitly stating such claims.

That is utter nonsense Kyle. Not only ought you to know better -- you DO, in fact, know better.

Everybody involved in Pathfinder Society knows that is is a marketing program intended to promote the Pathfinder Roleplaying game; moreover, everybody knows that the promotion of book sales is the reason that a player is required to have a copy of the book or a watermarked copy of the .pdf with them at the table when the rule is quoted. The addional resources list is updated monthly to assist in sales promotions of Pathfinder products through PFS.

Making money is not a sin and crafting your OP program to assist in that object is not a corporate evil or a wrong to be ashamed of; rather, it's smart business and a laudable way of managing the brand and the Pathfinder Society.

Wait. I take exception to the bolded (my bolding by the way) sections above.

I'm "involved in Pathfinder Society" but I do not "know that it is a marketing program intended to promote the Pathfinder Roleplaying game". It's my hobby. If it wasn't PFRPG I'd still be doing it. I sit at the table and talk about other games - does that mean I'm going to be banned?
Perhaps it would be better to say, "everyone involved in Pathfinder Society knows that is is a marketing program intended to promote the Role Playing hobby" - but not that's not right either.
Let's try again "everyone involved in Pathfinder Society knows that it is a marketing program intended to promote the fun of everyone else" - nope... still not right.
how about "everyone involved in Pathfinder Society are involved for one (or more) of a variety of diverse reasons. That amoung these reasons are:
a) the promotion of the Pathfinder Roleplaying game (not sure about this one, I've never met anyone in PFS there just to promote PFRPG).
b) Personal enjoyment (that would be me, and I think most of us)
c) the enjoyment of someone else (GF gamers fall in this group)
d) Piazo profits (company guys... related to f below)
e) a job (surely someone does this for a pay check)
f) Expansion of customer base for a store (store owners and employees)

heck, have I missed anyone?

Why are YOU involved in PFS?

(edited: wow, I didn't even get to the second bolded line. sigh. I talk to much).

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Clint Blome wrote:


Maybe I'm reading you wrong here Rob.

You come across as saying that only the optimizers deserve to be in the game, and I hope I'm reading that wrong.

No, the optimizers are not the only ones who deserve to be in the game; however, in the medium to longterm, I do not see any practical solution for the non-optimizers OTHER THAN to throw in and optimize to a considerable degree (or just suck it up -- which isn't very fun).

I believe that the degree to which the non-optimizer must become "more optimized" in order to remain an effective character at the table in PFS need not be to such a high degree that it will be objectionable or odious to the vast majority of players. I expect that some players will not like it while others will simply bite the bullet and just do it.

I believe that on a practical basis, this approach is necessary, because there are no other practical solution available in PFS play. I'm not saying it's A Good Thing. I'm not proposing it is The Right Thing , either. This isn't a valued laden prescription or some pathway to the One True Game.

It's simply the only practical choice avialable, in my honest opinion.

Now, I want to be sure that we are talking about the same thing here. "Optimize" is a pretty nebulous term that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

I mean it in the sense that the Player's character(s) need to be effectively built, drawing from a number of hardcover resources, in a manner so that the combat (usually) or other key special ability (atypically) of that particular character secures a substantial mechanical benefit from the "build" (whatever it is) through a combination of requisites, feats and abilities that key off of synergies built into the Pathfinder RPG system.

I think most experienced players do this to one degree or another, though many do not make it the end aim and object of their character's design.

I do not mean that the build must take a "7" on a requisite and I do not mean that the character must explore level dipping in order to remain "competitive". It need not be that extreme.

That said, I do mean that the character will have to select at least some magical equipment that is particularly eppropriate for their class and build focus in order to remain competitive in practical terms.

So that's what I mean to say -- and to be clear, I mean that is the only practical choice in the medium to longterm involvement of that player in Pathfinder Society.

Now, let me explain why I believe this is a practical necessity.

Due to RAW and the way that character builds in Pathfinder RPG work, there are character builds which are significantly more effective than other builds at the combat portion of the game. When non-optimized characters play at the same table as highly optimized characters, a disconnect during the combat portion of the game usually surfaces between thse types of players. The highly optimized characters are stealing the spotlight and doing a LOT more damage than a sub-optimal character.

We've all seen this and I expect we have all experienced it, too (to one degree or another).

The refrain has been for GMs in PFS to try to persuade their players to NOT engage in character optimizing in order to give others a chance to shine too. Sometimes this works in the most egregious of cases, but my experience is that overall, it does not work.

Admonishment by GMs to players to not power game is not a realisitc solution to the problem which the very RAW nature of PFS creates -- and which the product release schedule of Paizo exacerbates. Pretending it is sufficient to address this issue on its own is a bald faced lie. It's not a fix, it's a band-aid, at best.

While the effect can be lessened by moral suasion, the problem will contunue to occur despite our admonishments of players who engage in that style of play.

We must be honest about this, or we are just sticking fingers in our ears, singing la la la loudly and pretending things will be okay if we just say the right things louder and more often -- when they are plainly NOT okay because of the underlying rules of the game itself and how those rules are used in PFS.

Moral suasion can deter this style of play at the most egregious corner of the envelope. It can lessen it, but it does not stop it. Power gaming is a persistent sub-genre among gamers and it has been for decades. Those gamers will continue to power game in the manner they prefer -- even if we prefer they don't and say it loudly, too.

To pretend that we can deal with this by just asking people to share the spotlight and not to build highly effective characters is being unrealstic. It's not being truthful. We end up selling a flea circus.

It is unrealistic because in the end, it doesn't work.

So what else can we do? Honest answer? Not much, really.

Right now there is nothing else available to address this issue. We can attempt to stream like-minded players with other like-minded players in order to minimize its effects where we can. This is probably the best thing we can do. However, PFS tables and game sessions being what they are, quite often the two types of players will be sitting at the same table anyways.

When moral suasion does not work and when there are no other tools in a RAW game like PFS, you either admit defeat and suck it up -- or you do what you can to minimize the impact upon the suffering players. You choose to recapture the spotlight for your character by taking those steps to make your own character more effective in combat. You elbow your way back into the game session.

If you can't beat 'em -- join 'em.

In the medium to longterm, you either accept that power gamers are going to lessen your enjoyment of some of your own game sessions, or you take some steps on your own to increase your character's effectiveness so thast you can recapture the spotlight for your character on your own terms.

I believe that if we are being honest about this problem that we must come to admit that right now this appars to be the only practical solution in the longterm that is available to us as PFS players and GMs.

I am NOT saing that we should not attempt moral suasion to deal with the extreme abuses and Twinkosaurus Rex. We can and we should do that. But we must also recognize that moral suasion only goes so far. It's a tool but it is NOT a viable longterm solution to this problem.

If you have aother idea or practical proposal to solve this conundrum? I'm happy to hear it.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Let me see if I can sum up Robert Trifts' position with fewer words...

Are you saying the following?

There's a "gap" of sorts between optimized and non-optimized characters in PFS, which creates friction. Two solutions exist: for the optimized characters to become less so, or for the non-optimized characters to become moreso. The latter is preferable.

Is that pretty much it?

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Jiggy wrote:

Let me see if I can sum up Robert Trifts' position with fewer words...

Are you saying the following?

There's a "gap" of sorts between optimized and non-optimized characters in PFS, which creates friction. Two solutions exist: for the optimized characters to become less so, or for the non-optimized characters to become moreso. The latter is preferable.

Is that pretty much it?

No, that's not it at all. Preferable does not enter into it at all. This is not a value laden judgment; it's a practical one.

The optimized players won't willingly change except in the most egregious cases. Power gamers will be power gamers. And there's no other way to make it work in the long-term but to just suck it up or become more optimized and elbow your way back into the game.

NOT because that's preferable, but because it's the only practical solution available under PFS RAW.

Dark Archive 4/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:
You confuse me with your abundance of words...I don't know who's side you're on, Trifts!

Side? I'm not on anybody's "side".

I'm for truth, honesty and integrity.

You are like an Ent Paladin.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Let me see if I can sum up Robert Trifts' position with fewer words...

Are you saying the following?

There's a "gap" of sorts between optimized and non-optimized characters in PFS, which creates friction. Two solutions exist: for the optimized characters to become less so, or for the non-optimized characters to become moreso. The latter is preferable.

Is that pretty much it?

The optimized players won't willingly change except in the most egregious cases. Power gamers will be power gamers. And there's no other way to make it work in the long-term but to just suck it up or become more optimized and elbow your way back into the game.

So, if one side sits there and refuses to negotiate, the other side must naturally cave and give in to every demand? I think not. I do not build optimized characters, and I won't do so going forward. Consider me just as obstinate in that view as an Optimizer is in theirs.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Todd Morgan wrote:


You are like an Ent Paladin.

Given the length of these posts. in more ways than one it would appear.

Lawyers learn to speak Entish in law school :)

Dark Archive 4/5

I don't know that the majority of non-Power Gamers need to necessarily take the onus of having fun at at a table. I think it is far easy for the minority to cool their jets during game time every once in awhile to share the spot light.

It's the GM's responsibility to make sure that they run a fun scenario. The players can also help so that is fun for the GM and other players. That is the solution. Engage in a social contract to be the best player at the table that you can be, regardless of play style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What material is or is not available for PFS should not matter.

An average player with a character made only using the Core Book and an average player with a character made using all available material should be able to play together in a game and both contribute and have fun. Feel free to substitute optimizer or min-maxer or munchkin for average for both players and it should still hold true. But at the other end of things, when you think sub-optimal, are you talking about the player or the character? A sub-optimal player, who barely does anything other than roll the dice, can be a real downer at a table regardless of character build or resources used, but a sub-optimal character can still shine if the player is good and participates fully in the session.

And Robert, do not take this personally, but I am wondering if you have some local players who are really jerking on your VC chain to get you so worked up over this.


Jiggy wrote:


There's a "gap" of sorts between optimized and non-optimized characters in PFS, which creates friction.

I know you were trying to sum up someone else, but I wanted to comment on this.

It's not that 'gap' which creates friction, it's the belief that the other person should conform to your way of playing that creates the friction.

(This is exacerbated by the rules forcing you to play your character at a given tier when your character is more suited to another tier of play.)

While people may wish to see this as two camps of players (us vs them), it's really 2 different dividers that bring out 4 effective camps. It's not the division between optimizers & gimpers that's the issue but rather it's the division between those that will accept other playstyles into their group and those that won't where the friction is created.

That's to say nothing of dealing with jerks, etc which frankly are annoying regardless of the character they have.

-James

Dark Archive 4/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:


You are like an Ent Paladin.

Given the length of these posts. in more ways than one it would appear.

Lawyers learn to speak Entish in law school :)

Do they allow Canadian lawyers to wear suits made of other materials than Lumberjack-plaid and camouflage?

Dark Archive 4/5

james maissen wrote:

It's not that 'gap' which creates friction, it's the belief that the other person should conform to your way of playing that creates the friction.

(This is exacerbated by the rules forcing you to play your character at a given tier when your character is more suited to another tier of play.)

While people may wish to see this as two camps of players (us vs them), it's really 2 different dividers that bring out 4 effective camps. It's not the division between optimizers & gimpers that's the issue but rather it's the division between those that will accept other playstyles into their group and those that won't where the friction is created.

That's to say nothing of dealing with jerks, etc which frankly are annoying regardless of the character they have.

-James

Well said, Eidelon, well said!

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Thanks for the clarification Robert.

I actually agree with you for the most part. The gap between the two groups is widening with every release. I just remember the horrow stories from LG of how the power creep turned into an 'optimize or die' mentality on behalf of the campaign management in most regions.

I don't think its unreasonable for anyone to play an optimized or unoptimized character. People should know where they fall in that line. I think it's reasonable for the optimizers to let the unoptimized do their thing when its appropriate and vice versa. Basically, everyone needs to stay out of each others way when it comes to their 'thing', whatever that may be.

The gap is only getting wider and perhaps a wider discussion need to be held in order to try to decrease it. I don't see there being anything of use coming out of that discussion though. It's a situation where too many people have already drawn their lines in the sand. All we can do is hope that they can leave each other in enough peace that they both can have fun.

The Exchange 5/5

Robert Trifts wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Let me see if I can sum up Robert Trifts' position with fewer words...

Are you saying the following?

There's a "gap" of sorts between optimized and non-optimized characters in PFS, which creates friction. Two solutions exist: for the optimized characters to become less so, or for the non-optimized characters to become moreso. The latter is preferable.

Is that pretty much it?

No, that's not it at all. Preferable does not enter into it at all. This is not a value laden judgment; it's a practical one.

The optimized players won't willingly change except in the most egregious cases. Power gamers will be power gamers. And there's no other way to make it work in the long-term but to just suck it up or become more optimized and elbow your way back into the game.

NOT because that's preferable, but because it's the only practical solution available under PFS RAW.

well... sorry.

you seem to have spent a lot of effort on trying to explain your view.
Much like the guy who spent over an hour once trying to explain to me why a character with no ability at doing damage was a waste of effort.

I'm fear I am not seeing it.
I have been accused of having Uber-build characters - (built strangly enough from the CRB, almost totally in fact), and yet the beginners, persons with just the CRB to build with and almost no background (never played before) seem to injoy playing with me. And that's been true for more than a year now.

What is it that your are trying to say? that the hobby is going to over-Power-grow and split into the "haves" and the "have nots"? or that PFS will become a band of elitist snobs?

I'm been in the gameing hobby for a long time. Games come, games go. I'm hoping PFS has a run longer than LG - it looks like it will by the way. Do I think I'll be playing it in 10 years? well... no. Do I think I'll be playing it in 5? you know what? I have to say Yeah. and I think it will still be fun. I'll enjoy running my "skate-board, frisby king Fighter sub-class" or some such at that point... just like I'm looking into Gun-Tank now. LOL! and enjoying every bit of it as I teach the new kid on the block about Take 10 ("Yeah, I remember when you couldn't ...." in old guy voice).

We're here to have fun. If it's not fun, let's move on. Just like we moved when WotC went to 4.0. Just like when ... goodness. Let's just leave it at that note.

We're here to have fun. Let's PLAY!

5/5

Robert Trifts wrote:


No, the optimizers are not the only ones who deserve to be in the game; however, in the medium to longterm, I do not see any practical solution for the non-optimizers OTHER THAN to throw in and optimize to a considerable degree (or just suck it up -- which isn't very fun).

I know you wrote a bunch of other stuff, however, your post lost meaning amd interest for me after the quoted section of your statement.

If I choose not to optimize my character that is my choice, and I would hazard a guess that the majority of players feel that way as well...

Why should I have to "Suck it up" for the minority? How about, for a change, the minority optimizers manage to "suck it up" and play the game normally and not try to overrule the table or break the scenario?

**wanted to make a lot of analogies but knows that every one I make will offend someone so I won't**

The Exchange 5/5

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Robert Trifts wrote:


No, the optimizers are not the only ones who deserve to be in the game; however, in the medium to longterm, I do not see any practical solution for the non-optimizers OTHER THAN to throw in and optimize to a considerable degree (or just suck it up -- which isn't very fun).

I know you wrote a bunch of other stuff, however, your post lost meaning amd interest for me after the quoted section of your statement.

If I choose not to optimize my character that is my choice, and I would hazard a guess that the majority of players feel that way as well...

Why should I have to "Suck it up" for the minority? How about, for a change, the minority optimizers manage to "suck it up" and play the game normally and not try to overrule the table or break the scenario?

**wanted to make a lot of analogies but knows that every one I make will offend someone so I won't**

ha! don't buy into it PF CBG!

there are a lot of us "Opti-Misers" who are fun to play with! I have a character who is Opti-Mised to do no damage... yep. 6th level (almost 7th) and has never done a HP of damage to anything other than herself. She's optimized to be a fun team player... somebody you like to have in your party of adventurers.

They keep splitting us into "fun" and "not-fun" players and calling one group Power gamer, and the other Non-power gamer. Not true I say! It's not the way you build your PC, it's the way you play your PC. Some people are jerks. Give them a Power-maxed Munchkin PC and they are still jerks. with a under-power Pre-gen they are still jerks.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Robert Trifts wrote:


No, the optimizers are not the only ones who deserve to be in the game; however, in the medium to longterm, I do not see any practical solution for the non-optimizers OTHER THAN to throw in and optimize to a considerable degree (or just suck it up -- which isn't very fun).

If I choose not to optimize my character that is my choice, and I would hazard a guess that the majority of players feel that way as well...

Why should I have to "Suck it up" for the minority? How about, for a change, the minority optimizers manage to "suck it up" and play the game normally and not try to overrule the table or break the scenario?

I believe that Robert is positing a progression where in year 5 or 6, the scenario writing will have shifted its assumption of base party capability to a higher minimum level of effectiveness based on the then-to-be-current core assumption. There is already a gap between the expected capability of 3rd level characters in PFS (at least half the time should be playing subtier 1-2) and in normal adventure writing (Feast of Ravenmoor has a reputation for danger). This is a natural progression in the available options of an expanding game without a retirement rotation for content. I don't want to see Pathfinder "Standard" and "Modern" formats like there are for Magic: the Gathering, so eventually even minuscule incremental power increases available to the PCs will make theoretically equally-CR enemies written with only CRB or CRB plus limited Always Available acces substantially weaker in practice.

In such an environment, without a degree of optimization, unfocused PCs may feel like they are being carried through some or most scenarios by their more-focused fellows, to the point where they can't find a place in the spotlight.

Choosing a focus and being good at it, and having that focus be something that will occur regularly in organized play, is the responsibility of the person choosing what character to play. It's what I consider the obligatory level of optimization for anyone who wants to have fun in an organized play game. (Yes, I said obligatory level of optimization. Everyone's choices when making a character should become constrained by the intention of that character to be a team player who will be a member of the Pathfinder Society - and other players can reasonably consider that an obligation).

Be goofy, be serious, have a funny hat and a little voice to play your gnome (I miss having Cat in my OP campaign, but he's busy over in LFR for the nonce). Have fun!

Similarly, I could be playing a non-optimized character and break scenarios in half. That's a separate game. When done with appropriate motivation and agreement among the players and GM, it can even make for better games. Or at least earlier dinner breaks before the con special...

2/5 *

Todd Morgan wrote:
But the opposite is also true, that optimizers need to realize they may sit at a table with unoptimized characters and they may need to alter their play style so that everyone has fun.

Several of you have mentioned that if you have an optimized PC, that you should downplay his power.

In theory, I agree with you. (And I wish the truly uber builds just didn't exist in the first place.)

In practice, if I'm grouped with non-combat PCs, I find that it's impossible to do this. If 1-3 PCs in my party are not contributing significanty to combat, I find that I actually have to do everything in my power to play as optimally as possible, or we die.

Having a non-combat PC in the party, especially a 4 person party, actually forces everyone else to do everything in their power to succeed, overshadowing a non-combat PC even more.

The time when we can relax is when everyone is contributing to combat, then we don't have to use our most uber abilities.

If a player with a non-combat PC feels really bad about being overshadowed in combat, I'm not sure what this person is expecting. Don't buy a Smart car when you want a Mac truck.

The thing about optimized PCs. If you don't need the power, you don't have to use it. However, if you have a very average PC and you need the power, and it's not there, you just die. Dying (after spending 50+ hours on it) isn't fun imo.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Jason S wrote:
Todd Morgan wrote:
But the opposite is also true, that optimizers need to realize they may sit at a table with unoptimized characters and they may need to alter their play style so that everyone has fun.

Why I don't hold back either

Table full of optimizers who aren't worried about the combats lets you do fun, different stuff with the roleplay in the adventure. It's harder to prep but oh it's fun when it works out....

Sovereign Court 1/5

If I understand him correctly, I think we can derive two very good points from Robert Trifts’ comments. First, Paizo wants to make a profit and will not discourage PFS members from buying their products. Second, PFS is not exactly PFRPG. There are some small limitations on players, but, more importantly, the PFS GM is no longer God, able to change anything and everything.

Beginners and casual players often feel overshadowed by the affluent (and compulsive) players who own everything and build everything. Only the optimisers seem to be having fun. What is to be done?

First, if everyone has to become an optimiser, let’s help the process. There has been talk on the boards about character rebuilding at first level. Maybe everyone should be allowed the option of rebuilding their first and second characters before they reach second level.

Second, next year’s adventures will be designed for six players. I think this means everyone in a party will have a lot more to do to avoid a TPK.

Third, optimisers should learn to have fun without overdoing things. I have five effective characters, none of whom has an ability score below 10.

EDIT: Fourth, I second Fleegle's suggestion that the best Game Masters should run for newcomers.

thanks,

Kodger

4/5

As a frequent GM the optimizers at the table hold a two fold challenge. First they rarely if ever hold back so the others can contribute and nearly all games are not and should not be written to challenge them. I appreciate the optimizers because like those that know how to clock their computer or super charge their cars they teach us more about the hobby. They also buy all the new books which is a good thing for the way the gaming industry is run. The new players often don’t buy the books until they hit level 4 or higher which means if they quick because they are tired of being overshadowed and before they buy a book then that is a lost sale.

What could be done to fix it?

More rules and restrictions. Not a good idea.

Separate tables for power gamers? Not doable in a public setting like PFS. Besides the scenarios would not challenge them even more.

Adjustable scenarios. Can we trust every GM to be able to do this?

Maybe we should show every player how to optimize but this seems like micro managing and also it’s like saying sub-optimal characters are some how broken.

Possibly write scenarios that occasionally penalize quick kills. This has obvious drawbacks.

So this might be a situation that is inherent in organized play. When the games are public then this is what happens. We become a group of unequal equals.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

We are starting up PFS play at another FLGS in our area, and we had an interest / description / character building session last week.

It seemed good to have a few experienced players be able to talk about what the Society is like, what PFS OP is like, and various things about how the PFRPG rules differ from other D&D-alikes. Both for "how optimized" and "what can I do with this class". I fear that perhaps I didn't push optimization hard enough for one of the characters to contribute to adventures... But I'm a vicious optimizer by default inclination.

I actually like the quick kills can be bad concept a bit...

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / A Call To All Sub-Optimals, Middle-Lines and Min-Maxers! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.