|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a continuation of a thread that was unfortunately locked due to a bit of baiting and flaming so let's keep a lid on that. Shall we?
Now I just want to point out that I hate what magic items have become. They have become math filler and I don't like this. I saw in another thread where a player's GM checks their sheets and then offers items to fill in the gaps. Now some of you may have no problem with that but I do.
Also, something else I want to point out are specific builds and player's claiming they need XY and Z in order to function. I say this is false because last time I checked, no class has to have a specific set of various items in order to do their job. Getting pluses to hit, damage, AC, and a specific ability score and you are all set, doesn't even have to be the best gear. I've never known a fighter who had trouble hitting the ACs of appropriate creatures in the bestiary. Now if it's a certain flavourful concept then yes you may need XY and Z.
There are plenty of magic items for flavor, and all of us have our favorites. But when it comes right down to it some of us love tweaking the gear ratios that grind the game. Nothing does that like belts, headbands, cloaks, and all the other enhancement bonuses. At that point it isn't the magic item that makes our character interesting, but the build of the character themselves shining at their full potential. I'll always love picking up dust of dryness, or a rod of wonder, or a lyre of building for fun, but the crux of my build is in the mechanics. I'll roleplay the flavor.
This is a continuation of a thread that was unfortunately locked due to a bit of baiting and flaming so let's keep a lid on that. Shall we?
Now I just want to point out that I hate what magic items have become. They have become math filler and I don't like this. I saw in another thread where a player's GM checks their sheets and then offers items to fill in the gaps. Now some of you may have no problem with that but I do.
Also, something else I want to point out are specific builds and player's claiming they need XY and Z in order to function. I say this is false because last time I checked, no class has to have a specific set of various items in order to do their job. Getting pluses to hit, damage, AC, and a specific ability score and you are all set, doesn't even have to be the best gear. I've never known a fighter who had trouble hitting the ACs of appropriate creatures in the bestiary. Now if it's a certain flavourful concept then yes you may need XY and Z.
Shallowsoul
I am going to itemize what I believe are your current discussion points, please correct me if any of the following is incorrect.
1.) Please be polite and let us make this a fun and cordial discussion.2.) I (Shallowsoul) do not enjoy the way that currently items have become a required part of the APL to CR equation and are assumed as part of PC power at each level.
3.) I (Shallowsoul) do not believe any character "Needs" specific items with the exception perhaps of specific flavor reasons such as an Aldori SwordLord using an Aldori Dueling Sword and no other weapon for role-playing reasons.
4.) Gear does not have to be "the best", however a certain to be established later minimum is required to cover "pluses to hit, damage, AC, and a specific ability score".
5.) Full BaB classes do not require any specific gear as long as they are able to acquire the afore mentioned minimum to hit stock bestiary monsters.
Is this mostly correct?
If not please point out the inaccuracies so that I can discuss this with you.
|
|
Valuable contribution bookrat...
SS: I decide what I think a shopkeeper would have before hand. Then I have shipment days where the shopkeeper will get some new items from the incoming wagons once a week.
I also think it is crap when a shopkeeper just happens to have the exact item the PC is hoping for. If they are in a big city(read huge) then they have much higher chance of such items being shipped in but I think any DMs who make magic shops a vending machine (IE the player always gets what they want if they have teh money) are guilty of two things:
1) Breaking verisimilitude
2) Not being a good GM
I agree on most points there.
I don't agree with the 75% chance of finding what you need in a a city so that's why I don't use it. I have my players make Gather Information checks and Knowledge Local, followed by a quest to find an item, not in a shop might I add.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what more do you have to say Shallowsoul that you haven't said already?
You don't like the idea of magic shops.
You don't like the idea of easy access to magic items.
You really don't like access to "powerful" magic items.
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.
Out of even more curiosity, what do you like about Pathfinder?
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.
Not trying to add fuel to the fire here, but if this is true, it's absurd. You don't like magic items and the idea of shops that sell them? Fine. That's your prerogative. But don't try to justify and elevate your opinion by insulting the intelligence of every other GM in existence. You're essentially saying that any GM who uses the default "Purchasing Magic Items" rules is a bad GM.
On the contrary, any GM who feels the need to limit and restrict his PCs by dampening (or outright removing) the Magic Item economy is a a bad GM. Especially if he does nothing to ease the encounters they face to offset this imbalance. You're making the game less fun and interesting for your players by diminishing a core portion of the game, simply because you're paranoid that the PCs will be "too powerful".
Good GMs allow players to build their characters however they want and do not dampen the magic item economy (unless you're intentionally running an adventure that wouldn't have a normal magic item economy - for the purpose of group interest, NOT because of PC paranoia - such as a pre-historic setting). Good GMs find other ways to challenge powerful PCs that don't involve restricting their freedom.
To those who are trying to get the OP to drop the subject, I apologize. I read that little sentence and just couldn't remain silent. ^_^
|
|
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.Not trying to add fuel to the fire here, but if this is true, it's absurd. You don't like magic items and the idea of shops that sell them? Fine. That's your prerogative. But don't try to justify and elevate your opinion by insulting the intelligence of every other GM in existence. You're essentially saying that any GM who uses the default "Purchasing Magic Items" rules is a bad GM.
On the contrary, any GM who feels the need to limit and restrict his PCs by dampening (or outright removing) the Magic Item economy is a a bad GM. Especially if he does nothing to ease the encounters they face to offset this imbalance. You're making the game less fun and interesting for your players by diminishing a core portion of the game, simply because you're paranoid that the PCs will be "too powerful".
Good GMs allow players to build their characters however they want and do not dampen the magic item economy (unless you're intentionally running an adventure that wouldn't have a normal magic item economy - for the purpose of group interest, NOT because of PC paranoia - such as a pre-historic setting). Good GMs find other ways to challenge powerful PCs that don't involve restricting their freedom.
To those who are trying to get the OP to drop the subject, I apologize. I read that little sentence and just couldn't remain silent. ^_^
Might want to actually ask before you take the word of others. There are a few posters around here that like to post what they want to believe, because it tries to validate their argument, instead of whats there.
Secondly, no poster here gets to decide when a topic is finished. You decide by not posting, declaring the topic is finished is not a choice you get to make (Vod or anyone else here).
I never said anything about it making someone a bad DM.
Just for the record, there is no official rule that you have to use magic shops or that they have to exist. There are other ways of obtaining gear from people using money.
Lastly, this is a discussion board so that means we discuss things. My opinion of magic item shops is just as valid as anyone else's so I am going to discuss it.
|
|
Out of curiosity, what more do you have to say Shallowsoul that you haven't said already?
You don't like the idea of magic shops.
You don't like the idea of easy access to magic items.
You really don't like access to "powerful" magic items.
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.Out of even more curiosity, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said anything about being a bad DM so get your facts straight. While I don't like it, it doesn't make you a bad DM.
Never knew the above encompassed all of Pathfinder. So if I have a problem with the above then I obviously have a problem with all of Pathfinder.
Gotcha.
|
|
Out of curiosity, what more do you have to say Shallowsoul that you haven't said already?
You don't like the idea of magic shops.
You don't like the idea of easy access to magic items.
You really don't like access to "powerful" magic items.
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.Out of even more curiosity, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said anything about being a bad DM so get your facts straight. While I don't like it, it doesn't make you a bad DM.
Never knew the above encompassed all of Pathfinder. So if I have a problem with the above then I obviously have a problem with all of Pathfinder.
Gotcha.
So, what you DON'T have a problem with?
Might want to actually ask before you take the word of others. There are a few posters around here that like to post what they want to believe, because it tries to validate their argument, instead of whats there.
Secondly, no poster here gets to decide when a topic is finished. You decide by not posting, declaring the topic is finished is not a choice you get to make (Vod or anyone else here).
I never said anything about it making someone a bad DM.
Just for the record, there is no official rule that you have to use magic shops or that they have to exist. There are other ways of obtaining gear from people using money.
Lastly, this is a discussion board so that means we discuss things. My opinion of magic item shops is just as valid as anyone else's so I am going to discuss it.
And this is exactly why I added the "if this is true" disclaimer. I'm glad it's not true. =) I have no qualms then. Carry on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what you DON'T have a problem with?Out of curiosity, what more do you have to say Shallowsoul that you haven't said already?
You don't like the idea of magic shops.
You don't like the idea of easy access to magic items.
You really don't like access to "powerful" magic items.
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.Out of even more curiosity, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said anything about being a bad DM so get your facts straight. While I don't like it, it doesn't make you a bad DM.
Never knew the above encompassed all of Pathfinder. So if I have a problem with the above then I obviously have a problem with all of Pathfinder.
Gotcha.
I will make it easier and list what I don't like.
Magic Item creation rules.
Problematic spells.
Weaknesses of magic fading.
How gear has become math filler.
Bad wording of things.
Magic Item Marts.
Spell Component rules.
I like most everything else.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about the good old "go play 1E/2E"?
No, really. You'll be happier - these games have none of things you identify as problems. No rules for magic item creation, no problematic spells, no WBL, no wording problems (because most of the time, there's no wording), no MIMs and "GM is the Overgod of Creation" is spelled out right there in the book.
We will be happier - we won't have to endure 65 threads of yours that ultimately lead to nothing, because what you really want is to revert half of the ruleset to Gygaxian paradigm, something that most of people here are not the least interested in. While at the same time you have no issue with things that most people actually identify as 3.5/PF ruleset inadequacies, such as the iterative attack system, 15min adventuring day, Rogues/Monks being weaksauce, high levels being too unwieldy, Ivory Tower, etc. etc.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to your opinions, but you're getting nowhere.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what more do you have to say Shallowsoul that you haven't said already?
You don't like the idea of magic shops.
You don't like the idea of easy access to magic items.
You really don't like access to "powerful" magic items.
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.Out of even more curiosity, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said anything about being a bad DM so get your facts straight. While I don't like it, it doesn't make you a bad DM.
Never knew the above encompassed all of Pathfinder. So if I have a problem with the above then I obviously have a problem with all of Pathfinder.
Gotcha.
You certainly have no problem showing scorn and insulting GMs that don't have problems with those sorts of things.
You also don't like the magic item creation rules, the changes made to spells and golems, the spell component system, the way that death is handled, traits, WBL, the way some of the rules are written, combat maneuvers, Monks and Style feats.
That list just comes from threads you have started. So I ask again, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Gotcha.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about the good old "go play 1E/2E"?
No, really. You'll be happier - these games have none of things you identify as problems. No rules for magic item creation, no problematic spells, no WBL, no wording problems (because most of the time, there's no wording), no MIMs and "GM is the Overgod of Creation" is spelled out right there in the book.
We will be happier - we won't have to endure 65 threads of yours that ultimately lead to nothing, because what you really want is to revert half of the ruleset to Gygaxian paradigm, something that most of people here are not the least interested in. While at the same time you have no issue with things that most people actually identify as 3.5/PF ruleset inadequacies, such as the iterative attack system, 15min adventuring day, Rogues/Monks being weaksauce, high levels being too unwieldy, Ivory Tower, etc. etc.
I'm not saying that you don't have the right to your opinions, but you're getting nowhere.
Im actually fine playing Pathfinder and pushing for the changes that I think would make a better game.
Question.
Who the hell do you think you are anyway? Do you think you are somebody special or someone with authority around here? The answer is of course no on both accounts.
You have the exact same level of authority as I do around here, none. You don't get to decide what thread stays and what thread goes. You don't get to decide what game I play nor do you get to speak on behalf of the community. You have a real neck on ya in thinking you can hop into any thread you like and derail the hell out of it with your almighty claims like you have some authority. You have a real nasty habit of doing that. I have already called you out on it before. You have no reason what so ever to post in a thread you don't like and if you can't srand to even look at it then there is the hide thread option. The thing is, you think your words carry weight and you just want to see how many favorites you can get.
My purchases of Paizo products help keep this site open and people paid their salary, I am a customer so I do have the right to play the game, not like certain aspects of the game, and then post about it on these forums. I can do that without your almighty permission.
Flagging posts do no good so I feel you needed to he called out yet again.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to offer some off-topic criticism and advice.
I've read quite a few of your threads and it seems to me you continually face the same issues. I would like to offer some advice on how to avoid these.
First let's start with the issues as I see them.
1) Unclear objective statement vs. presented arguement
2) Unclear objective statement
3) Taking an unpopular stance
4) Passive aggressive writing
5) Arguing fact vs. opinion
So seeing as these are the issues, as I see them, here's the advice I would like to offer.
Firstly, I believe you need to formulate what you are trying to do with your post. Taking point 2 above as a starter, it's not clear if you are trying to persuade others to your point of view or make clear what your opinion is on the subject. Both of these are handled slightly differently in the body of the text your are trying to relate as well as how you present information. In a persuasive argument, presenting facts often prove better than opinion. Whereas when relating your opinion on the subject, supporting it with facts helps but your are inherently expressing your opinion.
The second item to be presented is that you are not always clear in what you are trying to relate. This thread is actually a great example, but you have done it in others as well. You effectively have no objective statement I can find, the threat title being the closest thing. But your objective statement discusses magic shops, where you discuss magic items in general in the thread. There is a correlation between certain items being accepted by a portion of the player base as required but there's a disconnect between what you are discussing and what you mean to discuss. I'd recommend trying to include a clear objective statement in your posts.
The third item on the list above has a strong connection with the fourth. You often choose an unpopular opinion to your target audience on topics and choose to argue it. This is not a bad thing. Each person is entitled to their own opinion. But when you argue for your point or respond to others arguing against your point, particularly when in violation of number 5 above, there is a hint of a passive aggressive stance in your posts wording. Particularly when you respond to them and are selective of only certain items, taking them out of context of the written statement. When responding to posts it would be wise to consider the full statement they have presented and be acutely aware of word choice and intent.
The fifth item listed above is actually quite important. You have a tendency to argue your opinion as fact and often deny when you do so. Let's see if I can't help with this. Starting with your original post above, you state:
Now I just want to point out that I hate what magic items have become. They have become math filler and I don't like this. I saw in another thread where a player's GM checks their sheets and then offers items to fill in the gaps. Now some of you may have no problem with that but I do.
This is a pure opinion statement and is fine that way. You even acknowledge this in the statement.
Also, something else I want to point out are specific builds and player's claiming they need XY and Z in order to function. I say this is false because last time I checked, no class has to have a specific set of various items in order to do their job. Getting pluses to hit, damage, AC, and a specific ability score and you are all set, doesn't even have to be the best gear. I've never known a fighter who had trouble hitting the ACs of appropriate creatures in the bestiary. Now if it's a certain flavourful concept then yes you may need XY and Z.
This is also an opinion, and one backed by no facts whatsoever. I wanted to specify a portion where you discuss appropriate creatures and AC. This would have been a perfect time to present some factual evidence. A comparison of, as an example, a fighter using no magical items against CR appropriate creatures from the Core Rulebook (and not a selected set but the full listing of CR appropriate creatures). Display how a typical fighter build would fare attacking these creatures using some pre-defined variables would help to establish your point.
As I hope you can see, backing up opinion with facts gives your opinion a concrete base that's more difficult to argue with. Or at least easier to defend.
In conclusion, I hope this information helps you to write posts more constructively with clearly defined goals and objectives and supporting facts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity, what more do you have to say Shallowsoul that you haven't said already?
You don't like the idea of magic shops.
You don't like the idea of easy access to magic items.
You really don't like access to "powerful" magic items.
You think that any GM that allows all those things is a bad GM.Out of even more curiosity, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said anything about being a bad DM so get your facts straight. While I don't like it, it doesn't make you a bad DM.
Never knew the above encompassed all of Pathfinder. So if I have a problem with the above then I obviously have a problem with all of Pathfinder.
Gotcha.
You certainly have no problem showing scorn and insulting GMs that don't have problems with those sorts of things.
You also don't like the magic item creation rules, the changes made to spells and golems, the spell component system, the way that death is handled, traits, WBL, the way some of the rules are written, combat maneuvers, Monks and Style feats.
That list just comes from threads you have started. So I ask again, what do you like about Pathfinder?
Gotcha.
I said I don't like those types of games. Guess what? I am allowed to do that you know.
Well besides whar you listed and what I listed I like everything else.
There a problem with that?
|
|
I would like to offer some off-topic criticism and advice.
I've read quite a few of your threads and it seems to me you continually face the same issues. I would like to offer some advice on how to avoid these.
First let's start with the issues as I see them.
1) Unclear objective statement vs. presented arguement
2) Unclear objective statement
3) Taking an unpopular stance
4) Passive aggressive writing
5) Arguing fact vs. opinionSo seeing as these are the issues, as I see them, here's the advice I would like to offer.
Firstly, I believe you need to formulate what you are trying to do with your post. Taking point 2 above as a starter, it's not clear if you are trying to persuade others to your point of view or make clear what your opinion is on the subject. Both of these are handled slightly differently in the body of the text your are trying to relate as well as how you present information. In a persuasive argument, presenting facts often prove better than opinion. Whereas when relating your opinion on the subject, supporting it with facts helps but your are inherently expressing your opinion.
The second item to be presented is that you are not always clear in what you are trying to relate. This thread is actually a great example, but you have done it in others as well. You effectively have no objective statement I can find, the threat title being the closest thing. But your objective statement discusses magic shops, where you discuss magic items in general in the thread. There is a correlation between certain items being accepted by a portion of the player base as required but there's a disconnect between what you are discussing and what you mean to discuss. I'd recommend trying to include a clear objective statement in your posts.
The third item on the list above has a strong connection with the fourth. You often choose an unpopular opinion to your target audience on topics and choose to argue it. This is not a bad thing. Each person is entitled to their own...
To save you some typing time I didn't start the Magic Shop thread. That was actually Adamantium Dragon who started it. Some of the same usual people started flaming the thread in which it was locked. Ross Byers said we could open another one, about the same topic, if we kept the insults down. Now of course the same people that like to wreck threads they feel shouldn't be here is already in operation so there you have it.
Some of us weren't done with the topic.
While I certainly respect your right to dislike aspects of the system, Shallowsoul, the simple fact of the matter is that there already exist games out there that behave the way you want: AD&D (1E or 2E) spring to mind. Pathfinder does not work that way (for better or worse). The point you keep making is that you want Pathfinder to change back to ways that were abandoned over a decade ago.
So, try this question out: why do you want Pathfinder to change when there are already rulesets out there that function the way you want?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess part of it comes down to what's important to the players oncept of heir character.
In the games my group runs, we care more about the plot advancement and the personalities of our characters than we do about our gear. As far as we're concerned, the gear is just a useful tool to help our characters reach their potential.
None of us talk about using the mighty sword flame striker to kill something. We do however regularly talk about moments like the time Malus the cleric leapt off the bridge in Sharn to pursue a shape shifter, all the while hurling magic at the foe while plummeted from the mighty spires of that city.
We focus on the character, not some story behind an item. Part of the reason is if you start wielding weapons with epic names and history, then it is the gear that is epic not the character.
As such, we tend to have moments during a campaign where we can respec our gear to wbl. This is done at moments that make sense, such as down time in big cities.
The equipment is secondary to the characters and the characters drive the story. Magic shopping allows the DM to spend more time weaving great plots than trying to throw in loot that's useful. It also lets us spend more time focusing on our characters and the plot rather than chasing some tenuous lead for a sword that in likelihood ha already been looted if it was that famous to start with.
I suspect it's a divide in what's important to a player in regards to his character that drives the like or dislike of ye olde magic shoppe.
Cheers
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im actually fine playing Pathfinder and pushing for the changes that I think would make a better game.
Question.
Who the hell do you think you are anyway? Do you think you are somebody special or someone with authority around here? The answer is of course no on both accounts.
You have the exact same level of authority as I do around here, none. You don't get to decide what thread stays and what thread goes. You don't get to decide what game I play nor do you get to speak on behalf of the community. You have a real neck on ya in thinking you can hop into any thread you like and derail the hell out of it with your almighty claims like you have some authority. You have a real nasty habit of doing that. I have already called you out on it before. You have no reason what so ever to post in a thread you don't like and if you can't srand to even look at it then there is the hide thread option. The thing is, you think your words carry weight and you just want to see how many favorites you can get.
My purchases of Paizo products help keep this site open and people paid their salary, I am a customer so I do have the right to play the game, not like certain aspects of the game, and then post about it on these forums. I can do that without your almighty permission.
Flagging posts do no good so I feel you needed to he called out yet again.
Who do I think I am anyway? Hmmm... Let's see.
I'm a guy who sees a person that seems deeply troubled with this game. I mean, 99% of your presence here is calling out things you don't like and demanding them to be changed. And all the time you're having a major emotional outburst every time somebody actually does not agree with your observations.
So I'm suggesting, and nothing more, that perhaps a different ruleset is better suited for your tastes. I'm not enforcing any authority, I'm not riding any high horse, I'm not telling you to shut up. It's a discussion forum and I'm entitled to speak my mind as long as I'm not crossing over any lines.
What you actually are doing is telling me to get out of this thread. Do you notice the paradox? You identify people as ordering you to "go away", you say they have no authority to do that and you'll do whatever you please and you proceed to request them to ... go away.
You're falling into logical loops and getting entangled in your own argument. You can't turn this place into some personal playground of yours where people who don't agree with you are not allowed. Discussion forums don't work that way.
As a suggestion, perhaps you could set up a blog or your own forum where you will dictate the rules and invite everybody to discuss things there. I'm sure many will join such initiative. You will be able to lay down your own rules, enforce them being observed and ensure that your opinions remain at all times visible and no moderator will shift them around to a less-popular part of the website.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's see....someone posts that he doesn't like part of the system and wants to discuss the why and (potentially) how to change it around a bit. This assertion seems to inflame a few people who then proceed to pile onto the first to try to make his point look moot, stupid, unrealistic, etc. and continue to post despite not really needing to be a part of the thread besides to crap on others. Part of the crapping involves a "you can take it or leave it" ideal.
Why not allow the discussion to continue without crapping on it? I personally would love to see how it evolves into possibly a different mechanic on Magic Items in game.
Usually when I see a thread that someone is writing that I have nothing good to contribute to I just leave it alone. It is called maturity and a respect for other peoples' POV.
I think some people should exercise some of this.
I hope this can become a "how to change X" instead of a "You opinion of X is badwrongfun".
@ shallowsoul just for the record i agree with a lot of what you say but you need to lighten up China . It's clear that some people on this forum push all your buttons and get you to bite
Just let it go mate people can have there opinions just like you can have yours
No need to get all bent out of shape over it I'm sure that's what some of them want so just relax and don't give them the satisfaction
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
SS, I agree with you, and even I think you should just let it lie at this point.
I often agree with you as well (not always, but often) but frankly you've gotten to the point where you are not helping your cause, and even when you have a good point, people who agree with you are tuning you out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, although I continue to disagree with much of shallowsouls conclusions about the game and his often antagonistic posting style ( telling people that they are stupid never succeeds in changing their opinion and just makes your own argument less worthy ), there is a small number of people who seem to make it their job to harass posters whose opinions about rules differ from the rote "Paizo is doing everything perfectly perfect".
"Love it or leave it" in particular is one of the lowest forms of jingoistic statements, clearly intended to create an emotional outburst and destroy rational discussion.
While I certainly respect your right to dislike aspects of the system, Shallowsoul, the simple fact of the matter is that there already exist games out there that behave the way you want: AD&D (1E or 2E) spring to mind. Pathfinder does not work that way (for better or worse). The point you keep making is that you want Pathfinder to change back to ways that were abandoned over a decade ago.
So, try this question out: why do you want Pathfinder to change when there are already rulesets out there that function the way you want?
Possibly because there are other aspects of Pathfinder he does like better?
I know there are lot of things in PF/3.x I have problems with and prefer the AD&D approach to, but there's also a lot of cruft in AD&D I was glad to see go. I suspect my ideal version of D&D would be some kind of hybrid, but it would be a lot of design work to hack it together.
I'm quite liking what I'm seeing of D&D Next for the purposes of a less mathematically intensive gaming system which looks like it's been built around character capability with magic items being a "nice to have" rather than "must have, or you may as well go home".
And, to be honest, I don't imagine it would be all that hard to hybridise 2E and PF. The problem areas (from Shallowsoul's perspective) appear to be around magic (items, spells, whatever).
The way I see it, if WBL (and by extension treasure per encounter) is thrown away as a rule (or guideline) then that resolves one issue completely (it removes the "should have items this powerful" problem, and if that doesn't exist, then there's no need for magic shops anywhere). To cope with that, though, you need to remove the CR system. Not a big deal for experienced 2E GMs who were used to eyeballing encounter difficulty. Then you remove the Spell Component Pouch from the equipment list and require tracking of material components for spells. I think that gets around most of the objections.
That is not a lot of work, unless you want to still have the advantage of the CR mechanic for designing encounters, in which case you could probably bump the CR by 1 for every so-many HD to at least get an approximation ("so-many" is a number, probably around 3-5).
The thing I don't understand is why Shallowsoul feels that some of the core Pathfinder rules should be altered for everybody so that they suit his preferred playstyle. That I just can't get my head around.
|
|
While I don't wish to speak for SS, I think most of it revolves around a perception on here that a good deal of what breaks games is self imposed.
The magic item creation stuff is a guideline unless the item actually exists in the game. And those who handwave things that are balancing factors, or read things in the most open way possible, really shouldn't be complaining about power level and balance being off, because...well, that is something they are doing that is causing that power level and balance issues.
And all of that makes it hard to have an actual discussion of where problems in the system lie and where to correct those problems.
Like I said, I quite often agree with Shallowsoul's message, but the messenger has been more Don Quixote than Perry Mason lately.
|
|
So let's see....someone posts that he doesn't like part of the system and wants to discuss the why and (potentially) how to change it around a bit. This assertion seems to inflame a few people who then proceed to pile onto the first to try to make his point look moot, stupid, unrealistic, etc. and continue to post despite not really needing to be a part of the thread besides to crap on others. Part of the crapping involves a "you can take it or leave it" ideal.
Why not allow the discussion to continue without crapping on it? I personally would love to see how it evolves into possibly a different mechanic on Magic Items in game.
Usually when I see a thread that someone is writing that I have nothing good to contribute to I just leave it alone. It is called maturity and a respect for other peoples' POV.
I think some people should exercise some of this.
I hope this can become a "how to change X" instead of a "You opinion of X is badwrongfun".
Here the thing though 99% of the op posts always seem to be about things he hates about the game. Which on the surface seems like a decent topic of conversation.
Except he start a thread where it looks like he wants to hear from both sides on the topic. He does not. He wants everyone saying that his op is correct and that everyone else is wrong. The op is seeking validation and only validation. Wants to hear from posters and only posters thta validate his position. And gets angry and insulting to boot when posters counter his op. It's not the forum piling on one guy. It's one guy going out of his way to post the same topic over and over again. While rewording thinking were not going to notice it. Don't beleive me check SS post history.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
SS seems to have a lot of inflammatory threads/comments that keep Getting shut down. Perhaps that's something to do some personal reflection on. Just a thought.
In a lot of cases, it now seems that a lot of that stems from thread crappers dogpiling on the threads he starts/restarts. In this case, his OP is reasonable but the very first response is utterly non-constructive. And it got favorited multiple times.
I don't really care if people have a problem with the poster - then don't participate. But people should have a chance to get a thread off the ground before others come to take a crap on it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there is a small number of people who seem to make it their job to harass posters whose opinions about rules differ from the rote "Paizo is doing everything perfectly perfect".
I have nothing against anyone who wants to debate both the flaws and merits of PF. It's when a thread is created to that effect and the op really just wants validation about the OP. Not really interested in a actual debate. And lashes out at posters who post against his op. Then posting the same thing over and over again reworded differently. Debate is all good on a fourm. Threads that are essentially broken records after awhile get annoying. Even then at least don't attack or insult those who diagree with you. I'm not a saint on these boards and have been involved in a few threads where I have said a few things I regret towards another psoter. That's the difference between myself and the op. I'm not proud of my behavior. The op keeps getting worse and worse as time goes on and seems proud of it imo.
SS, I agree with you, and even I think you should just let it lie at this point.I often agree with you as well (not always, but often) but frankly you've gotten to the point where you are not helping your cause, and even when you have a good point, people who agree with you are tuning you out.
I do not keep track of other posts and who was on them.
On this subject, my preferences are actually fairly close to what I think shallowsoul prefers for his games. I am not sure of that but I think so. However, I also understand that I am in a minority. Most people seem to want what is closer to the current ‘baseline’ where most people play their PF games. Sometimes I do agree with those people.
But I also have to say some people write their posts in such passive-aggressive manner and with such implied derision that I don’t find myself wanting to agree with them. That applies to some people on ALL sides of this discussion.
If the thread hadn’t degenerated so far so fast, it is a discussion with which I might have chosen to get involved. When the new one came up I thought ok, “I can get involved with it.” But it had already degenerated. Ignore me as you chose, but you would all get more meaningful participation with a civil discussion.
I would request that more people read the bottom of the screen when making a post,
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.
If you really don’t like someone or their thread, please just don’t post more insults. It doesn’t help anyone and you don’t win anything. Just hit hide and move on. Some of us would have liked to discuss the subject. I will be hiding this thread just like the other one and moving on with my life.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing I don't understand is why Shallowsoul feels that some of the core Pathfinder rules should be altered for everybody so that they suit his preferred playstyle. That I just can't get my head around.
This, 100% this. I get that shadowsoul is unhappy with certain parts of the system and feels they could be improved - I think most of us agree with that premise, though most to a significantly lesser degree. However, not everyone agrees on WHICH aspects of the system should be improved or how to do that - this fact that there is no consensus means things are probably in about the right spot, IMO. I personally think the master of many styles monk is far too good of a 1 or 2 level dip for certain builds and that it actually TAKES AWAY from the monk class. By incentivising taking a few levels in this archetype to skip pre-reqs of some and then removing flurry of blows, this archetype gives everything away in the first few levels and then doesn't scale well. Therefore it's mostly relegated to "dipping", meaning that the character can't take too many levels of this archetype (or any other monk level), lest the be mechanically behind. But that's a conversation for a different thread... I think shadowsoul must have decided that if his voice is loud enough, he'll influence things towards his direction (which I disagree with) and hence he's being the loudest voice out there.
In the end, however, I think we all (shadowsoul included here) would be much happier if shadowsoul would understand that he is in the minority on this complaint (as he is on most others I've heard him make) and instead of trying to force his direction the the paizo team (and thus all of us), look for creative ways to fix the things he percieces as problems for his own home games just as most of us do. (I personally have buffed up the regular monk base class in order to deincentivise the master of many styles archetype. I've done so by allowing it to choose style feats with it's bonus feats, but not skipping all pre-reqs, they still have to meet monk level & skill rank requirements. I've also buffed up the monk's unarmed damage and taken away their good fort save -which I then gave to the rogue, who I feel needs some help in order to keep spells balanced in total. This makes monk's scale better, which also deincentivises the MoMS archetype.)
tl;dr - House rules are meant for this exact thing shadowsoul - please consider this.
|
|
The op really does not want any actual debate. All that Shallowsoul wants is validation of his gaming style and RAW to be rewritten to fit his houserules.Don't we all.
I think we all do to a certain extent too. Except unlike some we know that it's not going to happen in a discussion forum. If I for example start a thread that is titled Sahugain are useless monsters. And start my op with a statement along the lines of that never should have never been included in the Bestiary let alone have a page of ink wasted on them. The majority of posters would imo probably disagree with me. I would not then lash out at my critics for disagreeing with me or if the initial thread gets locked start the same one again and again in the hope that the majority would agree with me.
If a poster does not want to hear from both sides at least have the decency as a poster to word the title of the thread correctly. For example Those who dislike Magic Shoppes post her or something similar. Seems kind of counterproductive to have a open endedd thread where one only wants to hear from one side.
|
|
Hey now, let's not get carried away!
How is that getting carried away. I go to other forums where if a poster does get out of line one of the flagging options include something along the lines of "trolling/flamebaiting" as a option that can be chosen. I think if they actively included it as a flagging option the amount of traffic in terms of negative threads imo would decrease. It's obvious we can't really police ourselves and some people go out of their way to cause trouble so why not. That would apply to myself. If I get out of line I deserve to be reported to the mods.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is that getting carried away.
Hey now, let's not get carried away!
Successful Troll must remind fellow poster who fellow poster is talking to.
Also, clamoring for changes of large sections of the core rules at this point is a futile endeavour. The developers already have made it crystal clear that they will not change the general layout of the core book and rewriting large sections of the rules would just do that.
Doing some lobby work for the next edition of Pathfinder ( still way down the line, IMO ) OTOH might not be a bad idea. Development cycles are pretty long after all.