Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Why do Pathfinder classes, or any other build choice, need to live up to a specific number?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

51 to 100 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i have a few concepts i would love to play. the problem is, they wouldn't live long in Weekly William's Hack and Slash Group of kicking down the door and tracking kill count. so i need groups specifically for these characters, but a few of them are complete noncombatants the city guard wouldn't let out of the gates without some form of extreme protection.

Ok, so look--I like Pathfinder. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I like pretty much every version of D&D actually. But the game does have certain limitations and weaknesses--that's a fact. One of those weaknesses is in playing noncombatants. The whole focus of the game is on combat. I'm not saying you can't go a few sessions between fights or whatever, but at its core, the d20 system is totally focused on fighting.

There are dozens, no, hundreds of rpgs out there, however, where this is not the case. If you want to play non-combat characters, you really should take a look at some of them.

Again, not saying, "Hey, don't play Pathfinder if you're not into fighting!" I'm just saying, "there are lots and lots of games that do non-combat stuff significantly better than the d20 system does." Frankly, I'd put the d20 system near the bottom of my list of the best systems for non-combat or combat-light games.


By regular I meant in many people's games. While all of our(other board members) games are not the same they similar in some aspects. As an example slow fall is not likely to see use every session.

So it is no about my point of view. It is an issue of being able to port the character over to another GM's game and expecting it to work in most occasions.


a Fighter's Sole Contribution is DPR.

Now

Paladins can be secondary healers and serve as the party face, though they tend to be locked into a set fighting style. they also tend to wear heavy armor and can afford slightly less strength than a fighter because of smite they can also dump wisdom due to divine grace..

Rangers can be scouts, tertiary healers, bloodhounds, and potentially switch hitters.

Cheliax

wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games. While all of our(other board members) games are not the same they similar in some aspects. As an example slow fall is not likely to see use every session.

So it is no about my point of view. It is an issue of being able to port the character over to another GM's game and expecting it to work in most occasions.

And again, who do you think you are that you get to dictate that to other people? Because, to me, it sounds like you guys are playing entirely different types of games. And his is absolutely no less wrong than the one you subscribe to.

Now, when he shows up and says that things are okay by his standards, and you say that they're not okay by your standards, that's fine. Making a thread like this about it was not the correct course of action after such an event. But you coming in here and claiming he's wrong for enjoying the game the way he likes is even worse.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
a Fighter's Sole Contribution is DPR.

Why? Why limit yourself with such an open chassis?


Alexei Dawnreach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games. While all of our(other board members) games are not the same they similar in some aspects. As an example slow fall is not likely to see use every session.

So it is no about my point of view. It is an issue of being able to port the character over to another GM's game and expecting it to work in most occasions.

And again, who do you think you are that you get to dictate that to other people? Because, to me, it sounds like you guys are playing entirely different types of games. And his is absolutely no less wrong than the one you subscribe to.

Now, when he shows up and says that things are okay by his standards, and you say that they're not okay by your standards, that's fine. Making a thread like this about it was not the correct course of action after such an event. But you coming in here and claiming he's wrong for enjoying the game the way he likes is even worse.

How about not assuming and reading my post.

Just to clarify I am speaking of threads where there are discussions comparing classes. If two people are saying different things about a class then it makes sense that some common ground is needed or else what is the point of the discussion.

Now you can stop accusing me, thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is wrong with people? I specifically said not my point of view, but I guess we will just ignore that right.

If that is hard to understand it is safe to ask me what I meant.


mplindustries wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i have a few concepts i would love to play. the problem is, they wouldn't live long in Weekly William's Hack and Slash Group of kicking down the door and tracking kill count. so i need groups specifically for these characters, but a few of them are complete noncombatants the city guard wouldn't let out of the gates without some form of extreme protection.

Ok, so look--I like Pathfinder. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. I like pretty much every version of D&D actually. But the game does have certain limitations and weaknesses--that's a fact. One of those weaknesses is in playing noncombatants. The whole focus of the game is on combat. I'm not saying you can't go a few sessions between fights or whatever, but at its core, the d20 system is totally focused on fighting.

There are dozens, no, hundreds of rpgs out there, however, where this is not the case. If you want to play non-combat characters, you really should take a look at some of them.

Again, not saying, "Hey, don't play Pathfinder if you're not into fighting!" I'm just saying, "there are lots and lots of games that do non-combat stuff significantly better than the d20 system does." Frankly, I'd put the d20 system near the bottom of my list of the best systems for non-combat or combat-light games.

if combat weren't such a heavy focus and my group actually cared about backstories, political intrigue, espionage, reconnaissance, personality and things like nationality or title over stuff like combat. i would be more willing to play a few of these character ideas.

as a few examples

a mad count's sickly niece whom was chosen to inherit his title and is just as crazy as her uncle and surrogate father. she has goals of overcoming her frailty, becoming immortal and taking over her uncle's estate. she would be kind of like Ciel Phantomhive in that she doesn't actually do the fighting, she has an entourage of exotic servants that do it for her.

a multifacted craftsman and scholar who got dragged along, not because he knows how to fight, but because he provides and maintains the gear, cooks for the group, provides the information, does the negotiations, and does the overall secondary utilitarian duties the adventurers don't wish to do.

a Sherlock Holmes/Mcguyver hybrid.

Cheliax

wraithstrike wrote:
Alexei Dawnreach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games. While all of our(other board members) games are not the same they similar in some aspects. As an example slow fall is not likely to see use every session.

So it is no about my point of view. It is an issue of being able to port the character over to another GM's game and expecting it to work in most occasions.

And again, who do you think you are that you get to dictate that to other people? Because, to me, it sounds like you guys are playing entirely different types of games. And his is absolutely no less wrong than the one you subscribe to.

Now, when he shows up and says that things are okay by his standards, and you say that they're not okay by your standards, that's fine. Making a thread like this about it was not the correct course of action after such an event. But you coming in here and claiming he's wrong for enjoying the game the way he likes is even worse.

How about not assuming and reading my post.

Just to clarify I am speaking of threads where there are discussions comparing classes. If two people are saying different things about a class then it makes sense that some common ground is needed or else what is the point of the discussion.

Now you can stop accusing me, thanks.

Who's assuming? You've almost outright claimed his playstyle is wrong.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you decide to drop DPR(fill in other ability as needed) instead of option X then option X should be something that can be used consistently and be effective, otherwise you have to be able to defend the lack of DPR or whatever else you exchanged for option X.

It is not about winning the fight alone, but being able to pull your own weight to a large extent. An expert can hurt a monster, but he is not a real threat, and unless the monster is dumb or the expert gets lucky with high rolls the monster will know that.

This right here is a perfect example, even. You are claiming that because he took something that does not improve his combat ability, he's suddenly not effective. Who are you to arbitrarily state that 250 DPR won't hold a monster's attention but 350 DPR will? What if he's not SUPPOSED to hold the monster's attention? Why should he have to defend this choice to you or anyone? Why should he have to do that 350 DPR if he doesn't feel it's necessary? If he's comfortable with how much he contributes in combat, and he's still performing his role, who cares?

Optimization is well and good, but you shouldn't be required to squeeze every last drop of DPR to be playable at a table of likeminded players. If you don't want him at your table, that's cool, too.

wraithstrike wrote:

What is wrong with people? I specifically said not my point of view, but I guess we will just ignore that right.

If that is hard to understand it is safe to ask me what I meant.

I hadn't seen you say anything of the sort. Still, my point stands. No one has the right to tell a person that they're wrong for giving up some DPR for other abilities, even if they won't use them frequently. It's their decision to make.


You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Alot of rogue players thought that the talent that changes your sneak attack rolls of 1 into 2 or 3 was amazing. But as it turns out it was a trap talent. Once again without the people running the numbers how does one know?

Silver Crusade

Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?


shallowsoul wrote:
Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?

Yes keep throwing CR 1 encounters at them until level 10 to solve all problems. Or perhaps play a different RPG. There are plenty of other RPGs that demand less GM tinkering even if players don't crunch numbers. D&D + PF ain't one these.

Silver Crusade

There is absolutely nothing wrong with synergy. Lot's of people try and choose race, class, and other things that mesh well but that's not what we are really talking about. It's about not having to get that Skill at +65 when the DC's are only in the 20's but being called "not contributing" when you don't have those inflated numbers.


Or tailor your character to better fit the group. Note, I'm not arguing for or against either side, but if you can't make a character that will function in the group you're playing with, be that a hack and slash fest, a grand galla ball, or something in between, you need to find a different group.

Silver Crusade

Gignere wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?
Yes keep throwing CR 1 encounters at them until level 10 to solve all problems. Or perhaps play a different RPG. There are plenty of other RPGs that demand less GM tinkering even if players don't crunch numbers. D&D + PF ain't one these.

Actually, D&D and PF is one of these.


Seranov wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Alexei Dawnreach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games. While all of our(other board members) games are not the same they similar in some aspects. As an example slow fall is not likely to see use every session.

So it is no about my point of view. It is an issue of being able to port the character over to another GM's game and expecting it to work in most occasions.

And again, who do you think you are that you get to dictate that to other people? Because, to me, it sounds like you guys are playing entirely different types of games. And his is absolutely no less wrong than the one you subscribe to.

Now, when he shows up and says that things are okay by his standards, and you say that they're not okay by your standards, that's fine. Making a thread like this about it was not the correct course of action after such an event. But you coming in here and claiming he's wrong for enjoying the game the way he likes is even worse.

How about not assuming and reading my post.

Just to clarify I am speaking of threads where there are discussions comparing classes. If two people are saying different things about a class then it makes sense that some common ground is needed or else what is the point of the discussion.

Now you can stop accusing me, thanks.

Who's assuming? You've almost outright claimed his playstyle is wrong.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you decide to drop DPR(fill in other ability as needed) instead of option X then option X should be something that can be used consistently and be effective, otherwise you have to be able to defend the lack of DPR or whatever else you exchanged for option X.

It is not about winning the fight alone, but being able to pull your own weight to a large extent. An expert can hurt a monster, but he is not a real threat, and unless the monster is dumb or the expert gets lucky with high rolls the monster will know that.

This right here is a perfect...

You are assuming. If you had bothered to ask you would know I was talking about such threads in general, and basic build strategy, not one person. Now are we going to assume or ask? Never mind I already know.

I said what I did because in such threads many people will expect you to be good at something. Since the topic(is on judging the usefulness of builds), and he is asking about why lack of DPR is an issue, and I gave a general response, I am not telling him how to play, but explaining how things basically work on the boards.

Thanks again for assuming.

I don't know exactly how his games work so I can't critique his games.<--common sense.


Seranov wrote:


I hadn't seen you say anything of the sort. Still, my point stands. No one has the right to tell a person that they're wrong for giving up some DPR for other abilities, even if they won't use them frequently. It's their decision to make.

Are you implying I told him he was wrong?

See what I did? I asked. I did not accuse you since that might be a general statement, not directed at me.


Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers...

You can't say that. People might accuse you of telling others how to play. ;)

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Seranov wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Alexei Dawnreach wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games. While all of our(other board members) games are not the same they similar in some aspects. As an example slow fall is not likely to see use every session.

So it is no about my point of view. It is an issue of being able to port the character over to another GM's game and expecting it to work in most occasions.

And again, who do you think you are that you get to dictate that to other people? Because, to me, it sounds like you guys are playing entirely different types of games. And his is absolutely no less wrong than the one you subscribe to.

Now, when he shows up and says that things are okay by his standards, and you say that they're not okay by your standards, that's fine. Making a thread like this about it was not the correct course of action after such an event. But you coming in here and claiming he's wrong for enjoying the game the way he likes is even worse.

How about not assuming and reading my post.

Just to clarify I am speaking of threads where there are discussions comparing classes. If two people are saying different things about a class then it makes sense that some common ground is needed or else what is the point of the discussion.

Now you can stop accusing me, thanks.

Who's assuming? You've almost outright claimed his playstyle is wrong.

wraithstrike wrote:

If you decide to drop DPR(fill in other ability as needed) instead of option X then option X should be something that can be used consistently and be effective, otherwise you have to be able to defend the lack of DPR or whatever else you exchanged for option X.

It is not about winning the fight alone, but being able to pull your own weight to a large extent. An expert can hurt a monster, but he is not a real threat, and unless the monster is dumb or the expert gets lucky with high rolls the monster will know that.

This right
...

Subjective, pure and simple. What constitutes as "useful" and "contributing" is a matter of opinion that varies from group to group. There is no one "point" of usefulness.

Cheliax

wraithstrike wrote:
I don't know exactly how his games work so I can't critique his games.<--common sense.

And that's my point. That's the ENTIRETY of my point.


This depends a lot on your gaming group. If you make characters that are mechanically sub-optimal for flavor reasons and the rest of your group does too, that's fine. The GM just tunes combat difficulty to adjust to your group's overall power level and everyone gets to play their quirky builds. Similarly, if the group is highly focused on RP and story development, and one guy is a combat machine, nobody will mind too much when the inevitable fight comes along and optimized combat guy finally gets a chance to show off.

Where DPR starts to matter is in groups where character optimization is required. This can be a hardcore GM who tunes his encounters based not on what the players rolled but on what they could have rolled. It could be that a new player with low system mastery has joined a group of veteran hack-n-slashers. But it can also be because of a published adventure path.

My best example of this is an AP from the 3.X era... I don't remember the name of the series but it culminated in a module called the "Bastion of Broken Souls". Our group started out with a bunch of fun, but horribly mechanically suboptimal characters. I was playing a kobold bard with no combat capability beyond a small crossbow, there was a whip specialist rogue, a halfling caster-only cleric... etc. By the end of the AP nobody was playing their original character. One by one we all ended up re-rolling into terrible charop monstrosities just to make it through the modules. It was so bad I nicknamed the last module "The Bastion of Broken Builds".

So, I guess my point is there are valid reasons for character optimization and it's not necessarily bad. Some of us even enjoy it. :)


This will be my last post, because like all your other post you just refuse to listen to the other side. You keep bringing up these ridiculous numbers like 500 DPR, +65 to a skill.

Those are not the numbers the characters need to live up to. However, there are definitely minimum numbers that you need to hit, so the GM can stop fudging dice or keep throwing low CR encounters at the group. I think most people are more interested in these baseline benchmarks.

Yes I think the monk doesn't meet baseline and I am a pretty good optimizer, so if I have trouble hitting the minimum numbers, I believe a good many other players making monks will fall further from the baseline.

What is the fun in always having the GM cater to you due to mechanical deficiencies? I certainly would not find that fun.


shallowsoul wrote:
Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?

If the GM has to tailor encounter for the group a commoner can work. The issue with the other thread was that people want the monk to work without having to tailor things for the group. I am not a saying a good GM never makes adjustments. We just want someone to be able to play a class, not just monk, without always having to adjust too much.

Yes I am aware that "too much" is subjective. <--I don't want to be accused again so I had to state that.


whirlwind! wooosh

Silver Crusade

Horbagh wrote:

This depends a lot on your gaming group. If you make characters that are mechanically sub-optimal for flavor reasons and the rest of your group does too, that's fine. The GM just tunes combat difficulty to adjust to your group's overall power level and everyone gets to play their quirky builds. Similarly, if the group is highly focused on RP and story development, and one guy is a combat machine, nobody will mind too much when the inevitable fight comes along and optimized combat guy finally gets a chance to show off.

Where DPR starts to matter is in groups where character optimization is required. This can be a hardcore GM who tunes his encounters based not on what the players rolled but on what they could have rolled. It could be that a new player with low system mastery has joined a group of veteran hack-n-slashers. But it can also be because of a published adventure path.

My best example of this is an AP from the 3.X era... I don't remember the name of the series but it culminated in a module called the "Bastion of Broken Souls". Our group started out with a bunch of fun, but horribly mechanically suboptimal characters. I was playing a kobold bard with no combat capability beyond a small crossbow, there was a whip specialist rogue, a halfling caster-only cleric... etc. By the end of the AP nobody was playing their original character. One by one we all ended up re-rolling into terrible charop monstrosities just to make it through the modules. It was so bad I nicknamed the last module "The Bastion of Broken Builds".

So, I guess my point is there are valid reasons for character optimization and it's not necessarily bad. Some of us even enjoy it. :)

*shivers* Wizards of the Coast modules were not known for their.......what's the word........functionality.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
if combat weren't such a heavy focus and my group actually cared about backstories, political intrigue, espionage, reconnaissance, personality and things like nationality or title over stuff like combat. i would be more willing to play a few of these character ideas.

Right, but I'm saying that if you want to play those characters, you probably shouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. Lots and lots of games could support characters like you described--and Pathfinder isn't one of them.

Legend of the Five Rings, World of Darkness, Savage Worlds--I could just list games for hours.

Pathfinder is a combat game with some non-combat stuff in it. Again, not saying anyone is wrong for playing non-combat stuff with it, but it's unquestionably built for fighting. If you want to do something other than fighting, seriously, play a different RPG. There are so many of them that are good. Trust me.


This thread really makes me want to play my fighter archtype that trades Weapon training for improvements to craft basket weaving. I'm still a fighter and do decent damage, plus I have baskets!


shallowsoul wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with synergy. Lot's of people try and choose race, class, and other things that mesh well but that's not what we are really talking about. It's about not having to get that Skill at +65 when the DC's are only in the 20's but being called "not contributing" when you don't have those inflated numbers.

Nobody is asking for inflated numbers, that is what you described is not happening. In the other(not your monk thread) thread we only used stock monsters, not even an actual AP monster which is normally more difficult than a stock monster with the same CR.


shallowsoul wrote:
Horbagh wrote:

This depends a lot on your gaming group. If you make characters that are mechanically sub-optimal for flavor reasons and the rest of your group does too, that's fine. The GM just tunes combat difficulty to adjust to your group's overall power level and everyone gets to play their quirky builds. Similarly, if the group is highly focused on RP and story development, and one guy is a combat machine, nobody will mind too much when the inevitable fight comes along and optimized combat guy finally gets a chance to show off.

Where DPR starts to matter is in groups where character optimization is required. This can be a hardcore GM who tunes his encounters based not on what the players rolled but on what they could have rolled. It could be that a new player with low system mastery has joined a group of veteran hack-n-slashers. But it can also be because of a published adventure path.

My best example of this is an AP from the 3.X era... I don't remember the name of the series but it culminated in a module called the "Bastion of Broken Souls". Our group started out with a bunch of fun, but horribly mechanically suboptimal characters. I was playing a kobold bard with no combat capability beyond a small crossbow, there was a whip specialist rogue, a halfling caster-only cleric... etc. By the end of the AP nobody was playing their original character. One by one we all ended up re-rolling into terrible charop monstrosities just to make it through the modules. It was so bad I nicknamed the last module "The Bastion of Broken Builds".

So, I guess my point is there are valid reasons for character optimization and it's not necessarily bad. Some of us even enjoy it. :)

*shivers* Wizards of the Coast modules were not known for their.......what's the word........functionality.

Hah! I think their function was to make you buy splat books for ever more powerful prestige classes...

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?

If the GM has to tailor encounter for the group a commoner can work. The issue with the other thread was that people want the monk to work without having to tailor things for the group. I am not a saying a good GM never makes adjustments. We just want someone to be able to play a class, not just monk, without always having to adjust too much.

Yes I am aware that "too much" is subjective. <--I don't want to be accused again so I had to state that.

Do you honestly not understand other reasons why people play specific classes beyond DPR or nuking the encounter in a matter of seconds?

It's not always about the numbers when it comes to RPG's. I can create optimized PC's with the best of them but I don't always dig those types of games. Sometimes I have a concept that I want to play which may require a race, class, and feat that doesn't work perfectly with each other. It's not about whether or not a Commoner can survive in it, it's about playing your concept. Commoners can't cast spells, they can't Sneak Attack, they can't Summons creatures, Inspire with their Music etc....


wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Gignere wrote:

You need to hit some numbers because otherwise there is no objective way to weigh melee classes or classes that proclaim to do DPR.

What if you are trying to get a group together and the group gets one of each role. The tank/DPR player shows up with a halfling with no physical stat over 10. Are you going to say whoa what an amazing character concept and just go with it? Or are you going to you know maybe give them some advice.

Also noone is looking for MAX DPR for every character but having a baseline to compare is good. Does my concept require nerfing my damage so much that it is way below baseline, if it is perhaps you are looking at the wrong class to fit your concept?

So there are very legitimate use of DPR models and calculations. Also say you hope to increase damage, and you are planning on picking up power attack. How do you know that power attack will raise your DPR, you don't until you math it out.

Or maybe tailor your encounters to better fit the group?

If the GM has to tailor encounter for the group a commoner can work. The issue with the other thread was that people want the monk to work without having to tailor things for the group. I am not a saying a good GM never makes adjustments. We just want someone to be able to play a class, not just monk, without always having to adjust too much.

Yes I am aware that "too much" is subjective. <--I don't want to be accused again so I had to state that.

APs were also meant to be modified as needed. running them by the book could never provide level appropriate loot for a differently sized party or a sufficiently different party. such as any party with a gunslinger, or a tien character in an AP that existed before ultimate combat was released.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.


Nu'Raahl wrote:
This thread really makes me want to play my fighter archtype that trades Weapon training for improvements to craft basket weaving. I'm still a fighter and do decent damage, plus I have baskets!

That would be ok though. Now if all you did was weave baskets we might say "it works in your games, but not in most games".

Then you could try to defend how it works in most games, and we could debate the merits of it across the board to see if it worked using real game experiences and actual measurable metrics.


mplindustries wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
if combat weren't such a heavy focus and my group actually cared about backstories, political intrigue, espionage, reconnaissance, personality and things like nationality or title over stuff like combat. i would be more willing to play a few of these character ideas.

Right, but I'm saying that if you want to play those characters, you probably shouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. Lots and lots of games could support characters like you described--and Pathfinder isn't one of them.

Legend of the Five Rings, World of Darkness, Savage Worlds--I could just list games for hours.

Pathfinder is a combat game with some non-combat stuff in it. Again, not saying anyone is wrong for playing non-combat stuff with it, but it's unquestionably built for fighting. If you want to do something other than fighting, seriously, play a different RPG. There are so many of them that are good. Trust me.

On a tangent

Spoiler:
Truthfully, I prefer Pathfinder's rules-lite approach to roleplaying games. I was never a big fan of more narrative-driven RPGs like the 'World of' games because I feel that Diplomacy and roleplaying are things you can't completely quantify. And making a great deal of rules about it makes me feel like I've lost control of my character if I fail any kind of 'roleplaying' check. I've seen plenty of narrative driven games that have devolved into 'Roleplaying PvP' and it's just not my cup of tea.

I've always liked a rules light system for diplomacy and roleplaying. I feel like I still have some control over my character's actions when it comes to interacting with NPCs. And as a GM, I feel I don't need mechanics to help me set pacing to a story or plot. They may be good systems, but they definitely aren't what I am looking for in a RPG


Odraude wrote:

Truthfully, I prefer Pathfinder's rules-lite approach to roleplaying games. I was never a big fan of more narrative-driven RPGs like the 'World of' games because I feel that Diplomacy and roleplaying are things you can't completely quantify. And making a great deal of rules about it makes me feel like I've lost control of my character if I fail any kind of 'roleplaying' check. I've seen plenty of narrative driven games that have devolved into 'Roleplaying PvP' and it's just not my cup of tea.

I've always liked a rules light system for diplomacy and roleplaying. I feel like I still have some control over my character's actions when it comes to interacting with NPCs. And as a GM, I feel I don't need mechanics to help me set pacing to a story or plot. They may be good systems, but they definitely aren't what I am looking for in a RPG

Er, have you played those games? I don't like narrative rpgs, and nothing I listed is one.

I also prefer not rolling in general. But I don't find Diplomacy checks in Pathfinder to be very helpful towards that end. It's still all driven by leveling and...yeah, if you don't see how it's different, that's cool.

But when I'm doing my rules light roleplaying stuff, I think level based game play just gets in the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Nu'Raahl wrote:
This thread really makes me want to play my fighter archtype that trades Weapon training for improvements to craft basket weaving. I'm still a fighter and do decent damage, plus I have baskets!

That would be ok though. Now if all you did was weave baskets we might say "it works in your games, but not in most games".

Then you could try to defend how it works in most games, and we could debate the merits of it across the board to see if it worked using real game experiences and actual measurable metrics.

Baskets are extremely usefull. I'll dual wield basket shields and make them interlocking so I can 2h a bigger basket shield. That should take care of the dpr argument. Im also usefull out of combat as I can make a floating basket canoe since I didn't have the skill points for swim, or a basket hut to hide from sandstorms in a desert campaign. In fact, all monks and rogues need to be balanced is a couple of baskets.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.

Um...yeah. How else would he know about their games? That's kind of obvious.


mplindustries wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Truthfully, I prefer Pathfinder's rules-lite approach to roleplaying games. I was never a big fan of more narrative-driven RPGs like the 'World of' games because I feel that Diplomacy and roleplaying are things you can't completely quantify. And making a great deal of rules about it makes me feel like I've lost control of my character if I fail any kind of 'roleplaying' check. I've seen plenty of narrative driven games that have devolved into 'Roleplaying PvP' and it's just not my cup of tea.

I've always liked a rules light system for diplomacy and roleplaying. I feel like I still have some control over my character's actions when it comes to interacting with NPCs. And as a GM, I feel I don't need mechanics to help me set pacing to a story or plot. They may be good systems, but they definitely aren't what I am looking for in a RPG

Er, have you played those games? I don't like narrative rpgs, and nothing I listed is one.

I also prefer not rolling in general. But I don't find Diplomacy checks in Pathfinder to be very helpful towards that end. It's still all driven by leveling and...yeah, if you don't see how it's different, that's cool.

But when I'm doing my rules light roleplaying stuff, I think level based game play just gets in the way.

I was more focused on WoD in my little rant. I felt it was more narrative driven than I like. Haven't played Lot5R and I like Savage Worlds. And I like rolling I guess. I don't mind failing and leaving some things up to chance. And there are always +2 circumstances which are GM fiat, but I think that GM fiat is a part of any game.


>pant< I give up following this >pant<


Pendagast wrote:
>pant< I give up following this >pant<

At least you came away with a pair of pants.

Cheliax

Horbagh wrote:
Pendagast wrote:
>pant< I give up following this >pant<
At least you came away with a pair of pants.

Hilarity. Flawless victory.

Thread defeated, let's all go about our days/nights.


i would prefer less inflated combat numbers across the board. and less incentive to roll for completely mundane tasks. such as sandwich making, repairing equipment, ballroom dancing or similar things.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i would prefer less inflated combat numbers across the board. and less incentive to roll for completely mundane tasks. why should somebody with a craft (Culinary) bonus of +10 or higher have to roll for something so mundane as making a sandwich? i think there should be a rule for taking 10, even in combat or when distracted.

Why are you making a sandwich in combat? ;)

But seriously, if you want less inflated numbers, try a different RPG.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.
Um...yeah. How else would he know about their games? That's kind of obvious.

ToZ why is this guy playing semantics with me, when he knows what I mean. It seems that most of the people I have encountered online(across multiple forums), and in real life have the same features to a large extent in their games. Considering the fact that he had to make this thread it seems he is encountering them also. :)


mplindustries wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i would prefer less inflated combat numbers across the board. and less incentive to roll for completely mundane tasks. why should somebody with a craft (Culinary) bonus of +10 or higher have to roll for something so mundane as making a sandwich? i think there should be a rule for taking 10, even in combat or when distracted.

Why are you making a sandwich in combat? ;)

But seriously, if you want less inflated numbers, try a different RPG.

you know what i mean, similarly mundane things. not neccessarily making a sandwich in combat. but for example, when you can hit the monster on a 2 or better. can we just declare each of the valid applicable attacks an autohit to save rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.
Um...yeah. How else would he know about their games? That's kind of obvious.

ToZ why is this guy playing semantics with me, when he knows what I mean. It seems that most of the people I have encountered online(across multiple forums), and in real life have the same features to a large extent in their games. Considering the fact that he had to make this thread it seems he is encountering them also. :)

From my experience, pointing out semantics, grammar mistakes, and typos are the usual MO for people that can't debate well ;)

Not saying you can't shallowsoul... just an observation on people in general :D

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.
Um...yeah. How else would he know about their games? That's kind of obvious.
ToZ why is this guy playing semantics with me,

I find most people tend to do that when they don't have an argument and they know it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.
Um...yeah. How else would he know about their games? That's kind of obvious.
ToZ why is this guy playing semantics with me,
I find most people tend to do that when they don't have an argument and they know it.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD CHARLES!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

By regular I meant in many people's games.

Many people's games that "you" know you mean.
Um...yeah. How else would he know about their games? That's kind of obvious.
ToZ why is this guy playing semantics with me,
I find most people tend to do that when they don't have an argument and they know it.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD CHARLES!

I'M MENTOK! THE MINDTAKER!

Osirion

shallowsoul wrote:

DPR!

On these boards I see a lot of people judge the effectiveness of a class by it's DPR and I want to know why that magical number matters so much?

Personally: my PFS character just used his 5th level feat to make diplomacy a class skill.

I just don't feel a need to keep funneling everything into DPR.

51 to 100 of 469 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why do Pathfinder classes, or any other build choice, need to live up to a specific number? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.