But this goes beyond even house rules, generally the basic design of the campaign is going to be more important upfront than most house rules. Are we playing APs? A PFS home-game? Home-brewed campaign, with an overarching plot like an AP, but more agency? Full on sandbox game?
Even within APs, you'll have different expectations for Kingmaker, Wrath of the Righteous or Skull & Shackles.
What's the setting? Golarion? Converted D&D world? Where in any of those? Home-brewed world?All of those are things you really need to know before you're ready to play. You can't really expect to get decent results with "We're playing Pathfinder. Bring a character."
I'd say I'm using the phrase houserules loosely, since the variations provided by a given setting is a part of what I'm calling "houserules". My game is always in a homebrewed world. Just as I won't play PFS, I also don't ever play in Golarian, nor Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk nor other published D&D setting.
But yes, all those things need to be known upfront to potential players, and they are for all my players. I don't ever limit what I say "We're playing Pathfinder. Bring a character." I don't want the players to be surprised. They will fully know up front all pertaining details of an intended game.
|
The dropping of Ivory Tower Design is also awesome. I've yet to see something that I would never take.
I actually don't mind have inferior feats etc. The inferior feats are then able to be used as a feat tax for feats which are inherently better and would otherwise be OP, allowing for a greater flexibility in the feat system as a whole.
And with the new Brawler class, many of the extrememly situational feats are actually useful for them to grab temperarily when in a situation where they come into their own.
If you say you are playing Pathfinder, but your game is more like some mashup of Shadowrun and Exalted then you are not playing Pathfinder anymore. You are just using the Pathfinder name.
You may have started from Pathfinder and overtime made so many changes that it is not even a D20 game anymore. At some point, as I alluded to with my car vs SUV example, a thing can change enough that it is no longer that original thing.We're on to the Ship of Theseus, eh?
It's like I said: the game you're playing is the one you expect your players to know the rules for as a starting point.
If I'm using a heavily houseruled Pathfinder that turns out to only be 40% Pathfinder rules, that's still the book they need to know. But how often does this even happen?
Like the Ship of Theseus, we're onto purely academic problems now.
I agree this is mostly academic. I just disagreed with the poster's statement since he did not have an "except" clause. :)
I think the rule 0 thing is pretty lame, as it is an easy escape for the developers to make bad rules, or to not care about balance or what have you.
If you think about it, the "Rule 0" exists for every game. Why is it that Pathfinder gets a free pass? When people find a bug or something in Starcraft, other players don't say "Oh just don't use that" or "Just mod it out if you don't like it, leave our game alone". Instead, they ask Blizzard to fix it.
I don't think that was the intent of rule 0. Not everyone will agree with the rules that are written, but having it(rule 0) in the book gives the GM written power that he can change the rules as needed. It also keeps certain players off of his back, while doing so.
Some use it as an excuse to say "The GM can never be wrong". It is really more like "the GM has the power to make any rules he wants", which is different from "It is impossible for him to be incorrect even if he has no clue about WTF he is doing".
|
|
I actually don't mind have inferior feats etc. The inferior feats are then able to be used as a feat tax for feats which are inherently better and would otherwise be OP, allowing for a greater flexibility in the feat system as a wholeDo you have any examples of this? From what I can tell, it is pretty much terrible all round, since the feat taxes are so bad.
I'm one of the few who actually likes how feat taxes allow more variation in the game's design. (Sometimes I'm also annoyed by them, but I'm also sometimes annoyed when my level 3 sorceror can't cast Finder of Death. That doesn't mean he should be able to. :P)
For example - Whirlwind Attack is really too good to be a single feat, especially before you get iteritive attacks. Several of the earlier feats in the chain are pretty weak.
As it is, it's still worth getting for certain specific builds, but it's in no way a standard feat choice.
Shatter Defenses is a great feat, and far too good for only a single feat. (though WF & Dazzling Display aren't too bad) Otherwise for two feats & a trait, rogues & ninjas of sufficient BAB would get sneak attack on nearly every strike. (Blade of Mercy/Enforcer/Shatter Defenses) Still not a bad combo - but costly enough so not every character takes it.
Deathless Zealot is too good to be worth a single feat, though in that case I think that the feat taxes are a bit too high.
Heck - nearly all of the final feats in the style chains are too good for a single feat, and in many cases the earlier feats are weak, though some of those are pretty good too. (I'm looking at you Snake Style.)
In the end, are there some feats which are taxed too high? Yes. But it's still a useful tool for designers, giving them more flexibility in their designing.
I actually don't mind have inferior feats etc. The inferior feats are then able to be used as a feat tax for feats which are inherently better and would otherwise be OP, allowing for a greater flexibility in the feat system as a wholeDo you have any examples of this? From what I can tell, it is pretty much terrible all round, since the feat taxes are so bad.
I am not convinced of any system not having bloat or being balanced if it only has one book out. We can look at this in 2 or 3 years and see how it plays out.
Given the inevitable heat death of the universe, running a Pathfinder Game has no meaning.
Given the inevitable heat death of the universe, running a Pathfinder Game has no meaning.On we...
On we go...
On our own...
\ "the GM has the power to make any rules he wants", which is different from "It is impossible for him to be incorrect even if he has no clue about WTF he is doing".Actually no he doesn't, and I think it would be terrible to play with one who did.
Yes, he does. That's exactly what rule 0 is for--fixing situations in which breaking or changing the rules is better for the game than following them. This means "better for the players' experience", not just because the GM felt like it, but there's no way to codify that into hard rules, so the GM is entrusted with carte blanche to change the rules and the responsibility to use that ability, well, responsibly. It's not a new concept, and it's not specific to Pathfinder; it's been in the game pretty much forever.
It's tempered by the unprinted Rule Negative One, which is that a player can always leave the table. It behooves a GM not to abuse Rule Zero because most GMs don't like playing by themselves.
\ "the GM has the power to make any rules he wants", which is different from "It is impossible for him to be incorrect even if he has no clue about WTF he is doing".Actually no he doesn't, and I think it would be terrible to play with one who did.
How doesn't he have the power to do so? You might say players will leave the game if he makes the rule(bad rule), but there is still nothing to stop him from making the rule.
Is GM without players really a GM? I humbly submit they are not.
Is GM without players really a GM? I humbly submit they are not.
That's been addressed already.
Is GM without players really a GM? I humbly submit they are not.That's been addressed already.
Where?
Is GM without players really a GM? I humbly submit they are not.
All of the players might not leave, and the rules can be made before a game starts. The rules exist, and he is a GM due to being in charge of the adventure, just like he is a player, even if he is not currently playing in a game.
It is not much different than being a boss/manager/person in charge, even if you have no employees under you.
As written, Pathfinder is now an all-things-to-all-people rule-set, with everything from laser guns to ancient priests to gunslingers to World War I soldiers.
So... League of Legends, the RPG?
I'm angry about people I will never meet playing the game differently.
In my mind your running pathfinder if the core rule system is in the pathfinder main rules you just need to let players know in advance that you have some house rules restrictions etc
|
|
I'm one of the few who actually likes how feat taxes allow more variation in the game's design. (Sometimes I'm also annoyed by them, but I'm also sometimes annoyed when my level 3 sorceror can't cast Finder of Death. That doesn't mean he should be able to. :P)Here's a challenge for you. Find four feats that are as good or better than a 4th level spell. Then find any 4th level spell which requires that you permanently take some inferior spells to be able to use it. And when you've done that, explain why requiring characters take things that are poor so that can get something that isn't even particularly great at high levels is a good idea.
I'm not going to pretend that there isn't caster/martial disparity, especially starting around 4th level spells.
However, feats have their own internal balance, and feat taxes allow the designers more flexibility with it. (And as I said in my post - I don't think that they always use it well.)
Just because one part of the system has issues doesn't mean that the system having issues is fine.
By your logic, it's okay to be a shoplifter because serial killers exist. :P
I'm one of the few who actually likes how feat taxes allow more variation in the game's design. (Sometimes I'm also annoyed by them, but I'm also sometimes annoyed when my level 3 sorceror can't cast Finder of Death. That doesn't mean he should be able to. :P)Here's a challenge for you. Find four feats that are as good or better than a 4th level spell. Then find any 4th level spell which requires that you permanently take some inferior spells to be able to use it. And when you've done that, explain why requiring characters take things that are poor so that can get something that isn't even particularly great at high levels is a good idea.I'm not going to pretend that there isn't caster/martial disparity, especially starting around 4th level spells.
However, feats have their own internal balance, and feat taxes allow the designers more flexibility with it. (And as I said in my post - I don't think that they always use it well.)
Just because one part of the system has issues doesn't mean that the system having issues is fine.
By your logic, it's okay to be a shoplifter because serial killers exist. :P
Not exactly. The problems are linked in that feats are a primary source of martial power and martial feats are the majority of feats with prereqs. Spells are the caster source of power, plus they get feats, plus their feats have less taxes by far. So essentially, casters get similar numbers of feats to martials after you take taxes into account. So casters get the primary source of martial power at equivalent levels to martials, plus they get spells (without prereqs)
Imagine if in order to get black tentacles, you needed to take obscuring mist and hold person. And imagine that you only got 1 spell per level (total, that's it, just 1), and imagine that obscuring mist and hold person actually sucked instead of being awesome.
That's what feat taxes are like for martials. The analogy is closer to "I feel like I should be able to walk on the grass to save 1/4 mile hike around the lawn. There is a sign that says I can't though. Oh look, that guy is doing it, I'll follow him." And then a cop beats the crap out of you for daring to walk on the grass while he waves hello to the other dude.
|
Outside of the obvious question of "Who really cares>?" A pathfinder game can be anything no matter what house rules someone puts on it.
There are those that use the pathfinder rules to run their own world
There are those that use pathfinder rules to run Golarion
Some even like pathfinder rules for their old 3.0 / 3.5 campaigns and settings.
Some are adjusted more than others with house rules. But both are pathfinder games right?
And why should the Paizo powers that be address this situation? Do they really care? And why should we care? I read these boards all the time and stay away from the stupid threads like, "Casters should be nerfed" or "I don't allow evocation spells in my game".
I don't play with unreasonable house rule enforcer GM's.
As a player, I choose what game to play in, and if feats and spells and class abilities are restricted or removed from play, then I move on, but I never think of them as non-pathfinder games.
|
|
Stuff I mostly agree with.I'm one of the few who actually likes how feat taxes allow more variation in the game's design. (Sometimes I'm also annoyed by them, but I'm also sometimes annoyed when my level 3 sorceror can't cast Finder of Death. That doesn't mean he should be able to. :P)Here's a challenge for you. Find four feats that are as good or better than a 4th level spell. Then find any 4th level spell which requires that you permanently take some inferior spells to be able to use it. And when you've done that, explain why requiring characters take things that are poor so that can get something that isn't even particularly great at high levels is a good idea.I'm not going to pretend that there isn't caster/martial disparity, especially starting around 4th level spells.
However, feats have their own internal balance, and feat taxes allow the designers more flexibility with it. (And as I said in my post - I don't think that they always use it well.)
Just because one part of the system has issues doesn't mean that the system having issues is fine.
By your logic, it's okay to be a shoplifter because serial killers exist. :P
I already agreed that casters > martials. I'm not defending every case of feat taxes nor the lack of it on powerful caster feats.
All I said was that I like the option of feat taxes on powerful feats as a design tool. BigDTbone - nothing that you said actually disagreed with that. All you did was bring up caster / martial disparity. The same issue I'd already agreed with.
IMHO, Pathfinder is any game that uses the basics of the Pathfinder System, classes, spells, basic rules, skills, etc.
If you want pure Pathfinder, go play PFS. Saying "I'm running a Pathfinder game" simply means, I'm using the Pathfinder system in my game. It's the same as saying I'm running a D&D game. It's a system, it can be set in your own world, you can have house rules. Now if you said I'm running a PFS game and then threw in house rules and what-not, THAT would be lying to your players.
And RAW sucks, there are just too many things wrong with that and that's without considering differing interpretations.
IMHO, Pathfinder is any game that uses the basics of the Pathfinder System, classes, spells, basic rules, skills, etc.
If you want pure Pathfinder, go play PFS. Saying "I'm running a Pathfinder game" simply means, I'm using the Pathfinder system in my game. It's the same as saying I'm running a D&D game. It's a system, it can be set in your own world, you can have house rules. Now if you said I'm running a PFS game and then threw in house rules and what-not, THAT would be lying to your players.
And RAW sucks, there are just too many things wrong with that and that's without considering differing interpretations.
Two things
1) PFS is a heavily house-ruled spin off of pathfinder2) It is impossible to run a game RAW, even in something like PFS
IMHO, Pathfinder is any game that uses the basics of the Pathfinder System, classes, spells, basic rules, skills, etc.
If you want pure Pathfinder, go play PFS. Saying "I'm running a Pathfinder game" simply means, I'm using the Pathfinder system in my game. It's the same as saying I'm running a D&D game. It's a system, it can be set in your own world, you can have house rules. Now if you said I'm running a PFS game and then threw in house rules and what-not, THAT would be lying to your players.
And RAW sucks, there are just too many things wrong with that and that's without considering differing interpretations.
Two things
1) PFS is a heavily house-ruled spin off of pathfinder
2) It is impossible to run a game RAW, even in something like PFS
Ah, I thought PFS was one of the ones that tried to stay close to the RAW. That's what I kept hearing anyway. I haven't played it. I do not like games with so many rules and I don't like their point buy system. It's like Living Greyhawk. That whole thing annoys me so much and is not my idea of fun.
I don't really like the premise of this thread, because the answer is simply that it's subjective.
Is it no longer a Pathfinder game if you use Psionics? Nothing else has changed and you're playing with an adventure path but is it now a different game because Psionic classes and options exist? Some will say that it's too scifi, some say that it's just fine, some say that if new mechanics are in then it is now a Psionics game no matter how prevelant the mechanics are. What if I have more than one book of third party options. Some will say that not only does that make it not Pathfinder anymore but is Wrongbadfun because the GM is decreasing the player's system mastery by introducing material they haven't memorized.
Some people got their panties in a twist over Samurai, Ninja, Gunslinger or technology because its not very 'pathfinder'. Now disregarding that all those things existed in the setting before there were rules for them, some people will say that it's not a Pathfinder game when guns, or asians or aliens go on the table. Things that Paizo prints itself is not Pathfinder.
What if I house-ruled that we're playing Pathfinder but the setting does not have elves or dwarves and instead have tieflings and aasimar. Some people will be aghast that the GM DARES to restrict race selection. Some people will think that elves and dwarves are mandetory for Pathfinder. Some people don't care.
What about the Gamemastery Guide. It has a ton of advice on worldbuilding and some of the images in that chapter has a dwarf with a wrist mounted steampunk gun of some sort and the iconic barbarian with tight shiny clothes and a space gun. If the Gamemastery Guide is suggesting that genre varies between campaigns then high fantasy isn't exactly required to be Pathfinder but some people still believe that.
What if I house-ruled that fighters get 4+Int skill ranks per level instead of 2+Int. Uh oh, now it's not Pathfinder? I recently posted some house rules here and on Reddit's pathfinder subreddit. In both threads I got that there were too many house rules and not enough house rules to really call them house rules.
Now personally I think that banning or adding things doesn't change enough about the system to discredit it from being a Pathfinder game. Even changing basic things about classes aren't the line. I found out my line relatively recently when I joined a game where feats had point costs, all prepared casters were spontaneous, metamagic worked on a point pool, everyone got some sort of half gestalt class feature they could buy with points, and there were inherent bonuses to everything to replace magic items, but what got to me was magic and creatures didn't even work like they normally do so I detect magic and spellcraft was borderline useless.
I don't really like the premise of this thread, because the answer is simply that it's subjective.
Exactly my point. Pathfinder can't be stuck in a little box and nothing else goes. It's a game system, game systems can be modified and still remain the same basic system. I look at RAW more like guidelines than rules set in stone because if something doesn't work for you, or if you don't find a specific rule/class/race/equipment fun and neither does your group, why subject yourselves to it? People who say you aren't playing Pathfinder because you allow <insert random thing here> but don't allow <insert another random thing here> are trying to stick something in a box that really shouldn't be.
Of course, I must point out that I think the same thing of every single game system ever created.
The dropping of Ivory Tower Design is also awesome. I've yet to see something that I would never take.I actually don't mind have inferior feats etc. The inferior feats are then able to be used as a feat tax for feats which are inherently better and would otherwise be OP, allowing for a greater flexibility in the feat system as a whole.
And with the new Brawler class, many of the extrememly situational feats are actually useful for them to grab temperarily when in a situation where they come into their own.
I disagree. You'd accomplish the same with much less frustration with a simple level requirement/BAB requirement. I'm tired of feats chains in general. They're designed such that many characters end up with only that trick up their sleeve in a game that rewards versatility.
Now personally I think that banning or adding things doesn't change enough about the system to discredit it from being a Pathfinder game. Even changing basic things about classes aren't the line. I found out my line relatively recently when I joined a game where feats had point costs, all prepared casters were spontaneous, metamagic worked on a point pool, everyone got some sort of half gestalt class feature they could buy with points, and there were inherent bonuses to everything to replace magic items, but what got to me was magic and creatures didn't even work like they normally do so I detect magic and spellcraft was borderline useless.
At this point they are no longer playing even the basic rules. You can call this a setting based on Pathfinder, but I wouldn't call it Pathfinder. The system has to at least work mostly the same as the original system to call it that system. But changing little things like adding classes, house ruling stat changes, bonuses, skill point amounts... those aren't changing the basic system. Magic still works the same, the way you get skills and feats and what not is still the same, the basic system is still the same.
Stuff I mostly agree with.I'm one of the few who actually likes how feat taxes allow more variation in the game's design. (Sometimes I'm also annoyed by them, but I'm also sometimes annoyed when my level 3 sorceror can't cast Finder of Death. That doesn't mean he should be able to. :P)Here's a challenge for you. Find four feats that are as good or better than a 4th level spell. Then find any 4th level spell which requires that you permanently take some inferior spells to be able to use it. And when you've done that, explain why requiring characters take things that are poor so that can get something that isn't even particularly great at high levels is a good idea.I'm not going to pretend that there isn't caster/martial disparity, especially starting around 4th level spells.
However, feats have their own internal balance, and feat taxes allow the designers more flexibility with it. (And as I said in my post - I don't think that they always use it well.)
Just because one part of the system has issues doesn't mean that the system having issues is fine.
By your logic, it's okay to be a shoplifter because serial killers exist. :P
I already agreed that casters > martials. I'm not defending every case of feat taxes nor the lack of it on powerful caster feats.
All I said was that I like the option of feat taxes on powerful feats as a design tool. BigDTbone - nothing that you said actually disagreed with that. All you did was bring up caster / martial disparity. The same issue I'd already agreed with.
My point, which was perhaps to subtle, is that while the designers could use feat taxes to allow more design room for powerful feats that they don't. So in practice the use a feat taxes are terrible and don't help in the way you suggest they might. Adding insult to injury is that casters get insane powerful feats that have no feat taxes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point, which was perhaps to subtle, is that while the designers could use feat taxes to allow more design room for powerful feats that they don't. So in practice the use a feat taxes are terrible and don't help in the way you suggest they might. Adding insult to injury is that casters get insane powerful feats that have no feat taxes.
Okay; so we still agree. Feat taxes are a useful design tool, but they're sometimes overused and / or should be used on some of the most powerful feats which aren't part of a chain at all.
Many people seem to be against the very idea of a feat chain even in theory. It's those whom I disagree with.
(By the way - who is this subtle, and why was your point only to them? I'm too confused to figure it out! :P - Sorry - I failed my grammar police will save.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point, which was perhaps to subtle, is that while the designers could use feat taxes to allow more design room for powerful feats that they don't. So in practice the use a feat taxes are terrible and don't help in the way you suggest they might. Adding insult to injury is that casters get insane powerful feats that have no feat taxes.Okay; so we still agree. Feat taxes are a useful design tool, but they're sometimes overused and / or should be used on some of the most powerful feats which aren't part of a chain at all.
Many people seem to be against the very idea of a feat chain even in theory. It's those whom I disagree with.
(By the way - who is this subtle, and why was your point only to them? I'm too confused to figure it out! :P - Sorry - I failed my grammar police will save.)
I'm generally cautious about two/to/too but the cell phone autocorrect has been taking some interesting liberties lately so some crazy things have made it into my posts.
Feat taxes are a useful design tool
I have yet to see you show this to be true. You keep repeating it but all your examples show the opposite, that the game would be improved if you could just take the feat in question and do cool things.
What feat taxes are good at is filling up pages with content. This is similar to MTG printing a lot of terrible cards in order to make money, Paizo just printing a lot of crappy feats so that you get to experience the "joy of Discovery".
Feats like Spring Attack are way overpowered without feat taxes. So while I agree that feat taxes should be removed, I think the feats that feat taxes are built to allow (like spring attack) should be removed as well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats like Spring Attack are way overpowered without feat taxes.
No they are not. All you need to do is set a BAB or other level-based requirement. Characters don't get it early, and they have to invest their limited resources into it when they do get access to it. (Every feat you take cuts you off from taking other feats. If it has a prerequisite of BAB +16, it takes up one of your 16th level or higher feat slots, hedging out other high level feats you could have taken.)
Feats like Spring Attack are way overpowered without feat taxes.No they are not. All you need to do is set a BAB or other level-based requirement. Characters don't get it early, and they have to invest their limited resources into it when they do get access to it. (Every feat you take cuts you off from taking other feats. If it has a prerequisite of BAB +16, it takes up one of your 16th level or higher feat slots, hedging out other high level feats you could have taken.)
I could agree with that - makes sense.
|
|
Feats like Spring Attack are way overpowered without feat taxes.No they are not. All you need to do is set a BAB or other level-based requirement. Characters don't get it early, and they have to invest their limited resources into it when they do get access to it. (Every feat you take cuts you off from taking other feats. If it has a prerequisite of BAB +16, it takes up one of your 16th level or higher feat slots, hedging out other high level feats you could have taken.)
Except that would make it so that virtually everyone takes said powerful feats once they meet the BAB pre-req, thereby lowing character variety.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that would make it so that virtually everyone takes said powerful feats once they meet the BAB pre-req, thereby lowing character variety.
Not if you have enough feats worth taking that people actually have to choose, due to not being able to take them all.
What if Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack were all equally good?
(Also, Spring Attack is garbage on top of a heap of garbage.)
I'm going to write up a fighter right now, with idea of no feat prerequisites outside of BAB. You tell me if you would write it up the same way. (assume feats integrate previous feat effects when needed)
Human Fighter || 18 14 14 10 10 10 || Intimidate, Climb, Survival, Ride, Swim; Perception|| Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
2 |Bravery, Power Attack
3 |Armor training, Step Up
4 |Whirlwind Attack
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy), Blind-Fight
6 |Bravery, Lunge
7 |Armor training, Steel Soul
8 |Quick Draw
9 |Weapon training(Bows), Rapid Fire
10|Bravery, Deadly Aim
11|Armor training, Pin Down
12|Pummeling Charge
13|Weapon training(Spears), Teleport Tactician
14|Bravery, Deathless Master
15|Armor training, Leadership
16|Stunning Assault
17|Weapon training(Close), Improved Second Chance
18|Bravery, Spirited Charge
19|Armor mastery, Mounted Archery
20|weapon mastery(GS), Stunning Critical