Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thegreenteagamer wrote:
The consensus answers seem to be that most people either do not play the game as is, or that those who do are not nearly as vocal about it..

There is no consensus. The vast majority of the people who play the game as it is... are those who stay off the messageboards (for reasons which I've outlined previously). which are disproportionately represented by the vocal malcontent segment of the population.

So in other words, it's the latter case.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
My question was, as I stated in the title, to see if anyone plays an unmodified, RAW Pathfinder, since I often see so much banning, so much customization, so much house ruling, so much complaining, and so much general disapproval of the system as it is on the boards.

I play pretty much normal Pathfinder. Sacred Geometry is the first thing I have ever seriously considered banning at my table.

However, we do also allow 3.5 and third party material. That's because there were a lot of concepts that simply didn't work well with Paizo only rules. Wanna have a dragon as a pet? Either mess around with Leadership or play Genius Game's Dragonrider. Wanna play one soul in two bodies? The you need to look at (ironically) Paizo's old rules for the Dvati race, most easily found these days in the Dragon Compendium.

Heck, until recently you could only play a Crossbow user or Throwing Specialist if you're willing to accept you'll never be as good as someone using a longbow. How is that a good thing? I honestly cannot think of a single reason why one style of fighting should be supported while another is made naff.

While not all choices will be equal, or even can be without a prohibitive level of testing, there's really no reason to frustrate someone's character concept by making them mechanically worse off on purpose. And often it is simply a dev's opinion that 'this should be worse than this' that creates the issue. Makes me a little frustrated.

But Paizo do take honest, well intentioned feedback on board. We now have options for throwing, unarmed, crossobows and the like. If people hadn't mentioned they wanted these things, would they have eventually shown up? Maybe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
"The Most Important Rule" wrote:
...Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games.

I consider some minor house rules to be the way the game was intended to be played. Pathfinder is intend to be used to play games people enjoy, part of that is that it is customizable, because not everyone enjoys the game for the same reasons.

I change some of the rules and ignore some of the guidelines, but I can point to The Most Important Rule, and say that I'm playing exactly as the developers intended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:
discosoc wrote:

My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.

I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.

Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.

The best advice I can give if you're experiencing Pathfinder fatigue is this:

1. Swap DMs every so often:

I expect that most groups do this, but for those that don't: F@#+ing do it already. Players become better players when they DM every once in a while and DMs become better DMs when they play every once in a while. I would say to do it at least once every three campaigns.

2. Play with different people/invite a new player

Part of the fatigue from Pathfinder, IME, comes from playing with the same people every week. You pick up tendencies, play similar characters, have stale combinations of game mechanisms/rules, etc. You enjoy playing with them, but it can become repetitive and create system fatigue. Playing with others, or more drastically, being DMd by someone new can really help break monotony, and lessen system fatigue.

It's something that my group is very firmly looking at doing right now.

3. Play some other games one night

Anything (except Monopoly, Risk, Diplomacy, or Mario Party) that you can sit around a table and play together. Settlers of Catan, Twilight Imperium, Stone Age, Carcassonne, freaking poker. I'm not even suggesting another TTRPG, just another game for one week to take a mental break from roleplaying.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Zark wrote:
discosoc wrote:

My group is just really burned out with Pathfinder, after a year and a half of playing. Combine that with about 10 years of 3/3.5, and it becomes a pretty heavy dose of fatigue.

I think a lot of people are in that boat, which is why 5E seems to be doing so well. It feels like the anti-3.5 version.

Are there other people out there that starting to feel burned out with Pathfinder? I though we was alone in this. I’m not being sarcastic. We even have one in our table top group who has bought 5ed players guide.

The best advice I can give if you're experiencing Pathfinder fatigue is this:

1. Swap DMs every so often:

I expect that most groups do this, but for those that don't: F!#*ing do it already. Players become better players when they DM every once in a while and DMs become better DMs when they play every once in a while. I would say to do it at least once every three campaigns.

2. Play with different people/invite a new player

Part of the fatigue from Pathfinder, IME, comes from playing with the same people every week. You pick up tendencies, play similar characters, have stale combinations of game mechanisms/rules, etc. You enjoy playing with them, but it can become repetitive and create system fatigue. Playing with others, or more drastically, being DMd by someone new can really help break monotony, and lessen system fatigue.

It's something that my group is very firmly looking at doing right now.

3. Play some other games one night

Anything (except Monopoly, Risk, Diplomacy, or Mario Party) that you can sit around a table and play together. Settlers of Catan, Twilight Imperium, Stone Age, Carcassonne, freaking poker. I'm not even suggesting another TTRPG, just another game for one week to take a mental break from roleplaying.

We already do all three. It really is just Pathfinder fatigue. Or, more specifically, 3/3.5 fatigue. Stuff unique to Pathfinder certainly adds to it, but it's the overall design that's wearing thin.


LazarX wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
The consensus answers seem to be that most people either do not play the game as is, or that those who do are not nearly as vocal about it..

There is no consensus. The vast majority of the people who play the game as it is... are those who stay off the messageboards (for reasons which I've outlined previously). which are disproportionately represented by the vocal malcontent segment of the population.

So in other words, it's the latter case.

Totally.

I'd rather eat chalk than play PFS but the PFS gets like 50 people at a time to their events near my house. Near as I can tell, they play by the book as hard as possible.

"I hold my action to back up while he comes forward."

"You can't do that. You must move your figure on the board totally on your turn and you won't know where the NPC moves until his turn."


SockPuppet wrote:
I'd rather eat chalk than play PFS but the PFS gets like 50 people at a time to their events near my house. Near as I can tell, they play by the book as hard as possible.

Yeah, but to me, PFS is like RPG life support. It isn't really living, it's just preventing you from dying. There's no continuity, there's no long-term character development, no relationship development between players, there's arbitrary banning of certain races and classes that seems to change every season, and for some bloody reason the various GMs in my part of town seem to run the same frickin' modules every time. Not to mention the stupid rules about not being able to keep any loot you find unless you buy it (I know this is to prevent cheating, but frankly, you could just lie and write anything down, it's not like the GMs audit anyway).


You would be surprised at the amount of table variation in PFS. Just try playing an illusionist at multiple tables.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
You would be surprised at the amount of table variation in PFS. Just try playing an illusionist at multiple tables.

That's really more the illusion school than anything else. There aren't really hard mechanical rules for it like most other things, so its hard to say stick to RAW.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:


No. Optimizers aren't evil IMO. Whiners are.

Sometimes it’s depressing to be right, but perhaps it was a good thing to get it in the open.

Optimizers, Whiners, whatever. It’s all the same thing: US and Them.

TEAM-GOOD is right and TEAM-EVIL is right. This thread didn’t start with an open question it was always a thread about US and THEM. A thread for bashing.

LazarX wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
The consensus answers seem to be that most people either do not play the game as is, or that those who do are not nearly as vocal about it..

There is no consensus. The vast majority of the people who play the game as it is... are those who stay off the messageboards (for reasons which I've outlined previously). which are disproportionately represented by the vocal malcontent segment of the population.

So in other words, it's the latter case.

The vast majority.

Can’t say you if are wrong or right about the vast majority since it don’t know the vast majority. However, as far as I know, I’m the only one in my current gaming group that is active at these messageboards, and in our current game we do use houserules and there are even discussions of changing game (to 5E or CoC) after this campaign. So in our game the silent majority is not playing the game as it is.

BTW, Perhaps I missed “the reasons which you've outlined previously” but I can’t find them.

================================================

As for PFS play they don’t play the game as it is. They ban classes, races, item Creation, feats, spells, etc. so that is hardly to play the game as it is. Especially since playing the game is using houserules if it fits your game. It even the most important rule.

core rule book wrote:


The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

This thread is not an friendy question on how you play the game. This thread is about US and THEM and this thread and some of it's posters does not "Help us keep the messageboards a fun and friendly place."

Before bashing THEM and loudly complaining on how mean the Paizo messeageborads have become, wouldn’t it be a good idea if we all check out what we write before we hit the “submit post”-button?


@Scavion, Suichimo, Deadmanwalking, Nicos, discosoc, Squirrel_Dude and anyone I might have missed: Thank for the feedback. Nice to know we are not alone. I’ll suggest to my friends that we take a break from PF after this current campaign. Perhaps Unchained will fix some problem, but I doubt it fix the main problem with the game.


Personally, I like the Pathfinder system. I've played the d20 games system since 3rd edition was released in 2000 so I figure they must be doing something right!

We like using mostly the core rules and assess anything else on a case by case basis. It's not too limit power level but just to keep things from getting out of hand. Yeah, more options are always nice but just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I think any preferred imperfections in the system are often largely down to different folks play styles. We tend to be a story-first kinda group so we're not looking for every class to be perfectly balanced and I'm a big believer in defining the character by who they are rather than what(ie race/class/archetype) they are.

I've actually started shouting the Fate RPG ideas of using Aspects in character and scenario design. They don't do anything mechanically, it just helps me think out of system. That way I can create the character much more easily and only start assigning stats, classes and levels afterwards. Most other groups I know go with rules first, actual character it's an afterthought.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to go on the record stating that a lot of the anger here seems to be about stuff that're non-issues.

For example, the mentions of "Low Magic" campaigns.

I actually really like the idea of Low Magic campaigns. If you excise all Casters, and leave in Paladins & Rangers as Warriors of the Holy Light and Skirmishers, you're still left with Alchemists & Investigators to fill the rolls of "casters" without actually touching magic.

And the DM can still have magic items - just make them a bit fewer & farther between, and come up with reasons to still have them be Magic without allowing players to craft them (like, they're granted by the Gods, or they were made in ancient times when Magic was stronger in the world, etc.)

In this regard I think the problem is that people are confusing LOW Magic with NO Magic.

NO Magic campaigns would be similar, but you obviously couldn't really have things like Balor Lords or Great Wyrm Red Dragons being boss fights - that's just asking for a TPK.

Instead, in a NO Magic Campaign, the DM should probably focus on human-level threats - a Lv20 Antipaladin (probably, again, a Warrior of Holy Light, but with an "evil" twist) with 10 Mythic Ranks is still powerful, yes, but also well within the realm of possibility for a band of hyper-confidant muggles to take him down.

I think a lot of the rage against the system kinda stems from the fact that people want hard-coded rules for things that are otherwise left up to world-building and storytelling.

---

I like playing interesting builds of characters, and I also like playing powerful builds. I've even designed builds that are much better suited to fluff than anything else.

I'm of the belief than nearly any class can be overpowered, underpowered, or balanced, depending on how much you want to optimize the class. Some are easier to optimize than others, but none of the now-32 base Classes are helpless or severely underpowered, really - you just have to get creative with how you use them (which, really, is the point - why have different classes if they were all supposed to be great at killing monsters, or sneaking, etc.)

I'm also of the belief as a DM that, while I approach adventures with a Gygaxian method of "try to kill the party fairly," you need to put things into a campaign that let each class and party member shine at different times. That means different things for different classes and different players.

---

I like the Pathfinder system more than just about any other. FantasyCraft is a good alternative, but the two are both rules-fixes for 3.5 that take slightly different routes in how they go about fixing it.

I'm not a fan of pure-roleplay at all. Say what you will, but as a writer I spend my whole day in the heads of dozens of characters all at once; so while I like RPing a bit, I play the comic relief when I do because I don't want to think or get emotionally deep - instead, I'm happy to play a game that also has hard rules about how the physics of a world work.

To this end, 3.5 and now Pathfinder do that very well: it's a system that gives hard rules for things involving physics (like fighting, chases, etc.), yet it leaves social interactions up to the imagination and roleplaying, and it also provides a system whereby those who aren't great at roleplaying can still play savvy characters (i.e. someone who's not great at talking in real life can still have a great Bluff score in-game). And, of course, if the story demands it, there's still always DM Fiat.

Are there issues I can find with the system? Well, yeah. But most of the big-ish issues actually come from non-core stuff, I've found. 90% of the non-Core materials are meant to be used in a vacuum of the current Season or Path for PFS. I get that - I play Magic the Gathering, so it's not unlike the design for Standard in that game. So are there going to be gnarly interactions and rules inconsistencies when you reference material used in the 2011 Season vs the 2013 Season? Yeah, absolutely. But, look, don't blame the toy manufacturers if your Han Solo action figure doesn't fit into your Batmobile - you should have known better, or at least be prepared to do some modding to make it work.

Out of all the PFSRD books that've been put out, the only one I'm not an enormous fan of is the Mythic Handbook, and even there, I can't say I dislike it; Mythic Ranks for monsters is phenomenal, and allows for cool designs for Monsters, especially bosses. I just don't personally like the idea of characters gaining Tiers in tandum with their class levels; if I used Tiers for the party, it's only post-level-20, and even then I'm more inclined to just have the party go through CL20+.

If I have a problem with a player min-maxing, instead of raging against the system, I find a way of bringing him back down to earth.

For instance, if a party member is being a cheesemongering Cleric, I pull a "loophole" from the book:

"Clerics meditate or pray for their spells. Each cleric must choose a time at which she must spend 1 hour each day in quiet contemplation or supplication to regain her daily allotment of spells."

So, a Cleric has to pray for their spells... meaning that the Gods grant a Cleric their spells. Well, anyone with even a passing knowledge of just about every world religion will tell you, Gods are jerks; if a Cleric is causing problems, I'll invoke this trope and, playing the Cleric's Patron Deity, not only not give him the spells he wants, but vaguely useless spells, as a "test" given by the Deity. This also goes for Druids or any other Divine casters

Wizards must rest and write spells. There are a number of ways to make it so the Wizard doesn't get enough sleep to replenish their spells, or to cause problems for the Wizard such that they can't get all the spells back that they need.

Your melee guys are causing problems? Put them in social challenges where they can't just smash their way through things.

Or, alternatively, always remember that "There's always a bigger fish" - you can always come up with NPCs who're just more powerful as adversaries

OR, again, maybe the min-maxing is fine. Nothing ever says you have to play a game where the players are always challenged; sometimes, a campaign where your Party is like the Power Rangers and can't really be beaten can be a good respite from Westeros-like death and loss en masse.

The rules are just rules; they don't dictate the mood or design of your campaign - they're just mechanics and pseudo-physics to help DMs and players play a game & tell a story.

---

I'm just saying, I'm seeing a lot of yelling and vitriol, and yet it seems like the anger is misplaced against the system.

Are a lot of the things I mentioned "house rules?" Well, kinda; I wouldn't call them as such, more storytelling strategies, or workarounds.

But what it comes down to isn't so much a lack of balance or shortfallings of the system so much as the inability of DMs to either address problems they see with players or to balance their own game world with the strengths and weaknesses of the party.

So, in summation, do I think some things can be fixed? Yeah - I'd like some worldbuilding rules that're a little less time-intensive, for one, but I'm aware that you often trade customizability for ease of use if you do; I have a few other minor qualms, but there aren't major problems I can see, frankly. But do I think these issues present a major, cancerous problem to the system as a whole? No, not really.

The system could use a bit of a patch by now - it's 5 years old or so, now, after all - but I don't see any reason to institute a massive rules overhaul from the ground up. Unchained sounds like it has some neat variants, but as my playgroup's basically happy with the general design of PF, we'll stick with it and the books on the PFSRD.


LazarX wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
The consensus answers seem to be that most people either do not play the game as is, or that those who do are not nearly as vocal about it..

There is no consensus. The vast majority of the people who play the game as it is... are those who stay off the messageboards (for reasons which I've outlined previously). which are disproportionately represented by the vocal malcontent segment of the population.

So in other words, it's the latter case.

Right! ;-)


Darkholme wrote:
And of course, to tie it back in with the topic of the thread: Pathfinder as it is can not do low magic well at all.

Excellent post, well said. But I like Iron Heroes, which is d20.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.

;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Tels wrote:

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.

;-)

I guess my group has BADWRONGFUN then :P

Do you think someone from The Internet, will be called in to properly punish my group? Or do you think Alaska is out-of-the-way enough that we'll be ignored?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ordinarily the punishment is deportation to Alaska. So I guess you'll be OK. ;)

(Remember: nine months of winter in a snowbound house means nine months of non-stop Pathfinder!)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Ordinarily the punishment is deportation to Alaska. So I guess you'll be OK. ;)

(Remember: nine months of winter in a snowbound house means nine months of non-stop Pathfinder!)

Spoken like someone who without a real Winter's experience.

Snowboarding, skiing, snowmachineing, hunting, ice-fishing, ice carving, polar bear jump (strip naked and jump into a frozen lake with a hole cut in it), sledding, snowball fights, snowmen...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:


Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.

This usually strikes me as a jealousy or competitiveness issue. I've seen it a lot, in recent years, characterized by "protagonism" and "agency" issues. The spellcasters' reality bending powers set the agenda for the game and martial characters don't get nice thing. These are all focused on what one player can do with his PC that another player cannot do with his.

But I don't see it that way. Who sets the agenda for the game? Is it a spellcaster acting as dictator or do the players have reasonably equal input? If the former, why are they playing with the jerk? And if it's the latter, then the spellcaster doesn't really have more agency, rather, his powers are at the service of the group and it doesn't really matter if it's Joe's PC who is pushing the button - he's pushing it for all of us.

Now, maybe I'm spoiled by being part of groups that have played together with relatively few changes in spans measured by decades rather than months or even years. Most of the competitiveness that comes up between players is done for role playing purposes.


Tels wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

Ordinarily the punishment is deportation to Alaska. So I guess you'll be OK. ;)

(Remember: nine months of winter in a snowbound house means nine months of non-stop Pathfinder!)

Spoken like someone who without a real Winter's experience.

Snowboarding, skiing, snowmachineing, hunting, ice-fishing, ice carving, polar bear jump (strip naked and jump into a frozen lake with a hole cut in it), sledding, snowball fights, snowmen...

I've done all of those. I HATE them all. Lived in northern Idaho in the mountains for a few years, we could expect snow or hail pretty much every month but perhaps august.


DrDeth wrote:
Tels wrote:

A low magic Pathfinder game can work pretty easily, it just forces an entirely different play style.

Instead of the fighters and characters having tons of magical items, they must get those buffs and bonuses from casters who have to change their playstyle from throwing around reality shaping spells, to also preparing a host of buffs and to augment the fighting characters.

Nice idea, but too many players, according to posts I have read here on these boards, would never hear of it. Team work is worthless they say, it's all about solo power. The fact that you have a Sorc in the party who is willing and able to cast T-port is meaningless everyone NEEDS to be able to teleport on his very ow nor the class is worthless.

;-)

Not accurate in the least. Teamwork is very important when it comes to optimization, which is part of the reason that the Fighter and Rogue rate so poorly. These classes contribute very little to the team effort. Not everyone needs to be able to teleport for example, but if you can't teleport, bring plane shift. If you can't teleport or plane shift, bring party wide bonuses. The problem is that the Fighter brings damage and the Rogue brings skills, which are things *every* class can do and some classes can even do those things better then Fighter and Rogue. Bard for example is the skill master Rogue wishes it could be, while bringing utility spells, and party support. Sometimes depending on the build it even brings better damage, even assuming the Rogue is in the magical christmasland of full attacking sneak attack.

Thus classes are derided not for their inability to solo, but their inability to contribute meaningfully to the group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

The problem is that the Fighter brings damage and the Rogue brings skills, which are things *every* class can do and some classes can even do those things better then Fighter and Rogue. Bard for example is the skill master Rogue wishes it could be, while bringing utility spells, and party support. Sometimes depending on the build it even brings better damage, even assuming the Rogue is in the magical christmasland of full attacking sneak attack.

Thus classes are derided not for their inability to solo, but their inability to contribute meaningfully to the group.

I play rogues all the time. I never feel that I am not meaningfully contributing to the group. I may not be the barbarian, but nobody complains that I'm in the party. I have a friend who plays nothing but martials ever. He prefers fighters due to their static constant bonuses, as opposed to say barbarians. He has played in dozens of games and, again, while he may not be the best possible killer, he always contributes and I enjoy having him in my party.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

The problem is that the Fighter brings damage and the Rogue brings skills, which are things *every* class can do and some classes can even do those things better then Fighter and Rogue. Bard for example is the skill master Rogue wishes it could be, while bringing utility spells, and party support. Sometimes depending on the build it even brings better damage, even assuming the Rogue is in the magical christmasland of full attacking sneak attack.

Thus classes are derided not for their inability to solo, but their inability to contribute meaningfully to the group.

I play rogues all the time. I never feel that I am not meaningfully contributing to the group. I may not be the barbarian, but nobody complains that I'm in the party. I have a friend who plays nothing but martials ever. He prefers fighters due to their static constant bonuses, as opposed to say barbarians. He has played in dozens of games and, again, while he may not be the best possible killer, he always contributes and I enjoy having him in my party.

You may simply play in a low op group. I think you would find that even a lightly optimized Bard would not only have more skills then you, but be better at them (and lets not bring up Pageant of the Peacock). Furthermore, the Bard can then use magic to enhance or even replace skills (who needs climb when you have Spider Climb or Fly?). Not only that he can supply the party with a rare bonus (competence) to attack and damage. Most of that doesn't require high optimization.

Similarly, your friend who only plays Fighters, is going to find himself feeling useless next to a low optimization Barbarian (take Beast Totem, Power Attack, and a 2 Handed Weapon, be awesome), who will have more AC, better saves (by a mile if Superstition is taken, by a light year if human FCB is in play). He will also out damage the Fighter most rounds thanks to his ability to charge and full attack. To add insult to injury, he will have more skills to contribute to the group as well.

And its not really that you aren't meaningfully contributing to your group. It's that either of those classes (Bard and Barbarian) would contribute more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
I play rogues all the time. I never feel that I am not meaningfully contributing to the group. I may not be the barbarian, but nobody complains that I'm in the party. I have a friend who plays nothing but martials ever. He prefers fighters due to their static constant bonuses, as opposed to say barbarians. He has played in dozens of games and, again, while he may not be the best possible killer, he always contributes and I enjoy having him in my party.

1) Anecdotal evidence is worthless in an argument.

2) He says it incorrectly when he say incapable of contributing. More like less capable of contributing. Take bard vs rogue. Even if we dispose of the argument that bard is better than the rogue at skills, something I find very much to be true, they are at the very least on the same playing field.

So you could bring a bard to the table and have approximately equal DPR and skills, while bringing magic, team wide buffs, and better defenses at the same time.

3) The usefulness of lower power party members dips as the average CR of encounters in a campaign rise. Just recently someone stated they couldn't understand why people though rogues were so bad. Their rogue was doing the most damage in their party by far.

When we evaluated the character however, we found that he was forgetting his twf penalties on his main hand and was combining the speed weapon property with haste. All in all his attack sequence at level 12 was for 18/18/18/13/13 with haste running. It barely broke 60 DPR against a CR 12 creature even if we didn't bother to separate his sneak attack out from crittable damage.

Obviously, he wasn't feeling the effects of high AC's because he was playing in a low power game and so his view of the class was skewed against the norm, rather than comparing his damage against the average AC of creatures his level should be facing.


Anzyr wrote:
You may simply play in a low op group. I think you would find that even a lightly optimized Bard would not only have more skills then you, but be better at them (and lets not bring up Pageant of the Peacock). Furthermore, the Bard can then use magic to enhance or even replace skills (who needs climb when you have Spider Climb or Fly?). Not only that he can supply the party with a rare bonus (competence) to attack and damage. Most of that doesn't require high optimization.

It's true we do not make optimization the end-all goal for our characters, but rather pick an idea and make it work as well as possible given the rules. A bard can't sneak attack as well as a rogue, if at all. My last rogue I was playing was a two-weapon fighting dagger master, and I unleashed a handful of d8's when I attacked. I popped enemies like zits in round one, and usually was tactically capable enough to contribute well in the other rounds.

Anzyr wrote:
Similarly, your friend who only plays Fighters, is going to find himself feeling useless next to a low optimization Barbarian (take Beast Totem, Power Attack, and a 2 Handed Weapon, be awesome), who will have more AC, better saves (by a mile if Superstition is taken, by a light year if human FCB is in play).

How do you figure a barbarian has more AC than a fighter? Fighter has full armor and no rage penalty to AC. Superstition has real drawbacks if you have any buffers or healers in your party. I've seen it in play. Fighter may take more op knowledge to keep up with a barbarian, but it doesn't mean it's not a viable contributor to any party.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


2) He says it incorrectly when he say incapable of contributing. More like less capable of contributing.

In my defense my exact words were:

Anzyr wrote:


These classes contribute very little to the team effort.

&

Anzyr wrote:


Thus classes are derided not for their inability to solo, but their inability to contribute meaningfully to the group.

The class mind you. Saying a player's character contributes is meaningless, when we are talking about classes.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
You may simply play in a low op group. I think you would find that even a lightly optimized Bard would not only have more skills then you, but be better at them (and lets not bring up Pageant of the Peacock). Furthermore, the Bard can then use magic to enhance or even replace skills (who needs climb when you have Spider Climb or Fly?). Not only that he can supply the party with a rare bonus (competence) to attack and damage. Most of that doesn't require high optimization.

It's true we do not make optimization the end-all goal for our characters, but rather pick an idea and make it work as well as possible given the rules. A bard can't sneak attack as well as a rogue, if at all. My last rogue I was playing was a two-weapon fighting dagger master, and I unleashed a handful of d8's when I attacked. I popped enemies like zits in round one, and usually was tactically capable enough to contribute well in the other rounds.

Anzyr wrote:
Similarly, your friend who only plays Fighters, is going to find himself feeling useless next to a low optimization Barbarian (take Beast Totem, Power Attack, and a 2 Handed Weapon, be awesome), who will have more AC, better saves (by a mile if Superstition is taken, by a light year if human FCB is in play).
How do you figure a barbarian has more AC than a fighter? Fighter has full armor and no rage penalty to AC. Superstition has real drawbacks if you have any buffers or healers in your party. I've seen it in play. Fighter may take more op knowledge to keep up with a barbarian, but it doesn't mean it's not a viable contributor to any party.

Beast Totem. Check the "Barbarian versus Fighter by the numbers" thread for more info. Superstition has very little to no drawback (rage-cycling) since healing is most optimal after a fight, not during it and buffing is most optimal before a fight not during it. Fighter take more optimization knowledge to achieve parity with minimal mastery Barbarian. And lord help you if the Barbarian has high system mastery.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's not so much that Rogues and Fighters don't contribute, it's that they only contribute 1 thing.

Rogue's bring skills; if nothing else, Rogue's are great skill monkeys. But, so too do Bards, Rangers, Inquisitors and any Intelligence Caster. With the ACG, you also add Hunter, Investigator and Slayer to the list. Now, of that list, the Bard is going to out-skill the Rogue except at the lowest levels. The rest of the list, all has 6 skill points, but they also have something else they bring.

Rangers, for example, are also a fantastic front-line melee class. Great switch hitters, good damage, good AC, an in-class flanking partner, and a touch of spellcasting. Sure, they have 2 less skill points, but what they lose in skills, they more than make up for in other areas. The Ranger brings more to a party, than the the Rogue.

Inquisitors may not have as many skills as the Rogue, but they can make up for it with top notch damage, great spell casting, and some in-class abiliites to make some of their skills go farther. Again, they bring more to the table because they can fulfill the role of Skill Monkey, while also being an amazing damage dealer, and support caster.

The same trend is true for all of the other classes. The Hunter falls into the same line as the Inquisitor, the Slayer falls into the group of the Ranger. Intelligence casters, Arcanist, Magus, Witch, Wizard, all have spell casting, plus their skill points will be nearly equal to that of the Rogue. The Magus also has the addition of being a fantastic melee character.

Special note is payed to the Investigator. Not only does he have 6 skill points, but he's also a pseudo-intelligence caster. So he's guaranteed to have an Intelligence modifier, meaning he's probably going to equal or exceed the Rogue in number of skill points. On top of that, he can add Inspiration to any skill roll, and can take a number of abilities to add it for free. THEN he also has access to Extracts which can obviate the need for certain skills.

So the Investigator and the Bard are the top 2 kings of Skills, while also bringing a host of other abilities to the table. In addition, the Investigator more-than-likely probably outfights the Rogue. Why? Because he can self-enhance himself to be more accurate in battle. Every single bonus on attack rolls the Rogue can get, the Investigator can get too, but the Investigator also gets more bonuses that the Rogue can't get.

The same little things come up for the Fighter class. Every full-BAB martial class can deal the same damage or more than the Fighter can, but they also bring a host of abilities that can be used to benefit the entire party. The Fighter's abilities benefit only himself. Just to add further shame to the Fighter, every other full-BAB class also gets 4 or more skill points per level. [Edit] Forgot the Paladin. He has the same skill points, but his combat ability so far above the Fighter it's not even funny. In addition, all of his saves will be better, and he'll be able to take more damage than the Fighter ever will, and can self-enhance himself or have a powerful pet/mount to use.

There is simply no real need to take the Rogue. The Fighter has some decent archetypes that keeps him relevant, and his bonus feats are always good for a dip, but he really doesn't bring a lot to the table other than combat damage.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
How do you figure a barbarian has more AC than a fighter? Fighter has full armor and no rage penalty to AC. Superstition has real drawbacks if you have any buffers or healers in your party. I've seen it in play. Fighter may take more op knowledge to keep up with a barbarian, but it doesn't mean it's not a viable contributor to any party.

Fighters when going 2 handed don't have the dex to take full advantage of their Armor training. When they don't they don't have the same damage, unless they're archers and even then pounce machine is on par with most archers.

On the other hand, a barbarian can usually by end game have enough dex to just make it out with mithral breast plate (Start with 14 dex and proper items at high level take care of the rest). So fighters generally won't beat them in the dex area.

At the same time, barbarians beast totem grants a natural armor bonus that stacks with the amulet and scaled up to a +6. By level 8, it equals the difference between breastplate and full plate.

Finally, rolling dodge, and guarded stance. They take a move action each to activate but they give up to a +3 dodge bonus, so they stack with all others, to AC for 3+ new con modifier rounds against all attacks.

Considering the total difference between breastplate while raging and platemail is 5, the beast totem alone will bring them out on top, but with the guarded stance and rolling dodge they actually equal a fighter in his fullplate while raging at level 12.

This doesn't even bring up touch attacks, where a barbarian with his weapon raging, naked, with a dex of 10, has a touch AC of 29 at level 20. All he needs is his weapon and his touch AC is 29. Without his weapon, a completely nude barbarian can still have a touch AC of 26, no magic involved.


A Fighter discussion! Better Post builds then :P lvl 12 version, lvl 20 version, Mythic Version

He can fly via non-magical means, He can hit things well, The saves are decent, the ac is very good, He can grab feats spontaneously: That may not sound like much, but having Improved or Greater Blind-Fight when needed is handy, Grabbing Teleport Tactician + Pin Down should prevent teleport for at least a round (next round they can just move and eat the AOO then teleport. I heven't figured out how to stop that for high CMD foes before mythics), there are other options too.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
You may simply play in a low op group. I think you would find that even a lightly optimized Bard would not only have more skills then you, but be better at them (and lets not bring up Pageant of the Peacock). Furthermore, the Bard can then use magic to enhance or even replace skills (who needs climb when you have Spider Climb or Fly?). Not only that he can supply the party with a rare bonus (competence) to attack and damage. Most of that doesn't require high optimization.

It's true we do not make optimization the end-all goal for our characters, but rather pick an idea and make it work as well as possible given the rules. A bard can't sneak attack as well as a rogue, if at all. My last rogue I was playing was a two-weapon fighting dagger master, and I unleashed a handful of d8's when I attacked. I popped enemies like zits in round one, and usually was tactically capable enough to contribute well in the other rounds.

Sneak attack is nothing in itself, it is just more damage. A bard can do more damage than a rogue, it is just not in the form of sneak attack.

Quote:

How do you figure a barbarian has more AC than a fighter? Fighter has full armor and no rage penalty to AC. Superstition has real drawbacks if you have any buffers or healers in your party. I've seen it in play. Fighter may take more op knowledge to keep up with a barbarian, but it doesn't mean it's not a viable contributor to any party.

As a fan of fighter concept I have to sadly say that anzyr is right. Not at low levels when beast totem is not up but eventually the barbarian will have more AC.

And that is not taken into account that barbarian archetype with heavy armor proficiency.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread is way too hostile.


Stereofm wrote:
I think this thread is way too hostile.

We have different definitions of hostility then, as everyone seems to be contributing in a nice polite fashion.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bill Dunn wrote:

But I don't see it that way. Who sets the agenda for the game? Is it a spellcaster acting as dictator or do the players have reasonably equal input? If the former, why are they playing with the jerk? And if it's the latter, then the spellcaster doesn't really have more agency, rather, his powers are at the service of the group and it doesn't really matter if it's Joe's PC who is pushing the button - he's pushing it for all of us.

The problem with this argument always seems to be that "just hope the spellcaster decides to play nice" isn't really a long-term solution. If anything it's highlighting the problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

A Fighter discussion! Better Post builds then :P lvl 12 version, lvl 20 version, Mythic Version

He can fly via non-magical means, He can hit things well, The saves are decent, the ac is very good, He can grab feats spontaneously: That may not sound like much, but having Improved or Greater Blind-Fight when needed is handy, Grabbing Teleport Tactician + Pin Down should prevent teleport for at least a round (next round they can just move and eat the AOO then teleport. I heven't figured out how to stop that for high CMD foes before mythics), there are other options too.

To be fair, you're using two archetypes that were just released ~a month ago and are probably in the top 5 archetypes for the fighter over-all. You're also kind of proving the point that the Fighter takes high levels of optimization in order to equal or exceed what the Barbarian can do with lower levels of optimization.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

A Fighter discussion! Better Post builds then :P lvl 12 version, lvl 20 version, Mythic Version

He can fly via non-magical means, He can hit things well, The saves are decent, the ac is very good, He can grab feats spontaneously: That may not sound like much, but having Improved or Greater Blind-Fight when needed is handy, Grabbing Teleport Tactician + Pin Down should prevent teleport for at least a round (next round they can just move and eat the AOO then teleport. I heven't figured out how to stop that for high CMD foes before mythics), there are other options too.

Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition and Beast Totem. Don't forget to buy a Furious Courageous weapon. It has now been improved. With more skills to boot. Though admittedly Mutagen Warrior and Martial Master are the way to play Fighter if for some reason you must.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Umm no offense, but he can't hit things all that well. Your level 12 version while hasted still has to roll a 5 to hit on his best attack. 6 if he isn't hasted.

2.45*35*1.1=94.325

An average CR 12 creature has about 200 hitpoints, meaning it takes just over 2 rounds of full attacks to kill one CR equivalent creature.

His skills really aren't all that great, he has intimidate, perception, knowledge engineering, and fly.

Knowledge engineering is one of the least used, intimidate is the least useful social skill as it produces negative results after the fact, and fly you need just to use one of your abilities.

His reflex is pretty bad on the 12 version and his will is only ok.

Your AC is good, but it looks like you could have equipped yourself better to get the same AC for 10k less.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

But I don't see it that way. Who sets the agenda for the game? Is it a spellcaster acting as dictator or do the players have reasonably equal input? If the former, why are they playing with the jerk? And if it's the latter, then the spellcaster doesn't really have more agency, rather, his powers are at the service of the group and it doesn't really matter if it's Joe's PC who is pushing the button - he's pushing it for all of us.

The problem with this argument always seems to be that "just hope the spellcaster decides to play nice" isn't really a long-term solution. If anything it's highlighting the problem.

Maybe it's because of my personal rule "Don't play with a@#$*#!s, no game is better than a bad game", but I've never had this problem. The party functions as a team...I've never played in a game that was as constant a game of one-upmanship that seems to be the default standard assumption on these boards.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I wish Know(Engineering) was more useful (not counting sacred geometry).

I really wanna feel like my siege gunner has all that bonus knowledge for a reason.


Kthulhu wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

But I don't see it that way. Who sets the agenda for the game? Is it a spellcaster acting as dictator or do the players have reasonably equal input? If the former, why are they playing with the jerk? And if it's the latter, then the spellcaster doesn't really have more agency, rather, his powers are at the service of the group and it doesn't really matter if it's Joe's PC who is pushing the button - he's pushing it for all of us.

The problem with this argument always seems to be that "just hope the spellcaster decides to play nice" isn't really a long-term solution. If anything it's highlighting the problem.
Maybe it's because of my personal rule "Don't play with a#%&@!#s, no game is better than a bad game", but I've never had this problem. The party functions as a team...I've never played in a game that was as constant a game of one-upmanship that seems to be the default standard assumption on these boards.

It's not intentional one-upmanship that we're talking about. Often times a caster can just go:

"Well you know I'm really good at casting save or dies. Bam! There goes the boss! Now you guys aren't in any danger. Uh... Fighter? Rogue? Where are you going? Is this because I said we could use Invisibility instead of your stealth to scout ahead?"


Squiggit wrote:

I wish Know(Engineering) was more useful (not counting sacred geometry).

I really wanna feel like my siege gunner has all that bonus knowledge for a reason.

Indeed, the only time I've ever seen anyone use a knowledge engineering check was in the Order of the Stick


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Maybe it's because of my personal rule "Don't play with a+%!&#+s, no game is better than a bad game", but I've never had this problem. The party functions as a team...I've never played in a game that was as constant a game of one-upmanship that seems to be the default standard assumption on these boards.

Which has literally nothing to do with the point at all, so I'm not even sure why you're saying it. You don't need a to have "constant one-upmanship" for a wizard to be better than a rogue. Nevermind that, again, saying that the wizard can just play down at the rogue's level doesn't change the fact that that's a conscious choice on the player's part and therefore only highlights the issue.


Anzyr wrote:


Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.


DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

Except for rage cycle...

Edit: And teleport only grants saves to weapons. Superstition forces you to make a save, but the spell never says people have to make saves, only items in use or held by people. It doesn't even technically say it allows for a save for other people.

Heck, superstition doesn't even force your items to make saves.


Kthulhu wrote:


Maybe it's because of my personal rule "Don't play with a$&+%%!s, no game is better than a bad game", but I've never had this problem. The party functions as a team...I've never played in a game that was as constant a game of one-upmanship that seems to be the default standard assumption on these boards.

I did play with a table like that...once....

But yeah, only Richards play like that- dont be a Richard- dont play with Richards.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

Except for rage cycle...

Rage cycle requires moderate system mastery to accomplish thoroughly. With moderate mastery you can cycle once, maybe twice, but most characters are going to have to multiclass or the like to pull off anything more useful.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

Except for rage cycle...

As a Immediate action?


DrDeth wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Ok... now redo that as Barbarian with Human FCB for Superstition

Who can't be healed or buffed or Tported out when the group needs to leave NOW.

Superstition is a trap for a team. It's fine for a solo.

Buffing and Healing in combat is sub-optimal. Buffing should be done before combat begins and Healing should be done after combat has ended. Certain buffs (like Haste), might be important enough for a Superstitious Barbarian to delay in order to receive them, but realistically the caster is going to beat the Barbarian's initiative and give it to them before their turn (and thus Superstition) is active anyway. Superstition is far from a trap. It is in this sense a rare anti-trap, as it only punishes you for doing things sub-optimally.

401 to 450 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does anyone just like Pathfinder as it is? All Messageboards