Makes sense to me anyway - what deity would allow his divine power to be bottled and sold to highest bidder, to be used to who knows what purpose?Someone should tell all those bards about the divine nature of healing...
Or those Samsarans. Or those Witches. Or those Alchemists or the some-odd godless Rangers out there.
Or, y'know, all the divine casters that don't worship a deity but still have divine powers.
Also, the reason they sell wands and potions of divine healing is because it 1) benefits the Church by bringing in cash and 2) saves lives.
Also, don't forget that evil divine casters and divine casters worshiping gods of trade are selling these wands too.
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.
I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.
I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.
Extreme viewpoints get noticed because they are extreme. That does not make them the majority. If I look into the first 5 threads on each topic and I actually count posters the ones with extreme points matching what the OP said will be the minority. I am sure of that.
Couple of things:
1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.
2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.
Man, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Evocation wizards are badwrongfun. Not only does Fireball Fred lack the crowd control (yeah yeah i know, dazing fireball, it's a late game ability and i know you aren't doing evocation for it) and buffing skills of his competent cousins, he robs the martial classes of the one thing they do very well and only manages to be "as good" at it. You don't fill the wizard role and you still fill the "guy who *****es about getting hit" role.
Man, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Evocation wizards are badwrongfun. Not only does Fireball Fred lack the crowd control (yeah yeah i know, dazing fireball, it's a late game ability and i know you aren't doing evocation for it) and buffing skills of his competent cousins, he robs the martial classes of the one thing they do very well and only manages to be "as good" at it. You don't fill the wizard role and you still fill the "guy who *****es about getting hit" role.
You'd probably hate my typical blaster cleric builds...
Man, I'm just gonna come out and say it: Evocation wizards are badwrongfun. Not only does Fireball Fred lack the crowd control (yeah yeah i know, dazing fireball, it's a late game ability and i know you aren't doing evocation for it) and buffing skills of his competent cousins, he robs the martial classes of the one thing they do very well and only manages to be "as good" at it. You don't fill the wizard role and you still fill the "guy who *****es about getting hit" role.You'd probably hate my typical blaster cleric builds...
I would, actually! *shakes a stick angrily in your direction*
Couple of things:
1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.
2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.
I only see an anti-GM attitude in certain extreme cases, and in general the player is sided with if the GM doing something that would also be socially unacceptable.
As for 2, some people do that, but other times it is in the vein of "..but did you know about this?".
Sometimes the person won't know about ___, but I do think that once the person settles on X, the others should accept it. Also some of these post can be quiet long, and I understand why someone just coming in will skip certain information, and yes I still find it annoying, but I do understand.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing in combat is like drunk in public. Every once in a while is fine but it shouldn't be a habit.
5) Rogues are terrible, you should never play them ever. If you do, you're stupid
4) If you are a wizard, you'd better be a conjurations specialist, or you are the dumbest mage on the planet. Universalist wizard? Doubly so.
3) Do you ever plan on attacking with a melee weapon? You need power attack.
2) Pathfinder rewards hyperspecilization.
1) Healers are useless, you don't need healers, never, EVER heal in combat.
5) If ever that argument was made it might have been an exaggeration. Most other roguelike classes are better than the rogue but that doesn't make one playing a rogue stupid. Just suboptimal in most cases.
4) No opinion, don't care much about wizards but I never read this one.
3) That would mean everyone needs PA because even a wizard might make a melee attack at some point. Even is only as an AoO. And giving PA to a wizard would be silly most of the time.
2) Pathfinder sometimes forces hyperspecialization. That is not the same as rewarding it. In a lot of cases some versatility is needed to be viable.
1) Dedicated healers are bad most of the time. Hyperspecialized ones are even worse. A guy who does nothing but heal only drags the combat out. But sometimes a cure spell in the right situation CAN save the day.
You know. Just a question, but, err. Isn't the Rogue the only class that can disable magical traps?
Also, I'll admit that I don't play the most optimized game in existence, but my combats aren't the easiest things in the world, and one of my players is a dedicated Oracle Healer who's optimized for it in just about every way he's managed to figure out (Which is minor), but, he's managed to atleast get 2 free empowered heal spells.
When he realized he wasn't doing anything but healing, however, he started to take every Summon Monster __ spell he could get his hands on, as well as that one chain of perdition spell. That said, he orders that, and heals whoever likely needs it.
Though with all due respect, I expect a party death soon, but, all the same, he has breath of life and raise dead. I kind of enjoy his character, but, at the same time I'm getting ready to hit them with things that do no less than 60 damage a round, and he can't outheal that. That said his party members are starting to get good in the DPS department as well...
Regardless, him aside, Why is the fact that Rogues are the only one's that can disarm magical traps ever brought up, or do we just assume that wizards just automatically dispel them with their caster level checks?
Though with all due respect, I expect a party death soon, but, all the same, he has breath of life and raise dead. I kind of enjoy his character, but, at the same time I'm getting ready to hit them with things that do no less than 60 damage a round, and he can't outheal that. That said his party members are starting to get good in the DPS department as well...
The game's combat is more than about numbers. The sooner they understand this, the less likely you'll murder them.
Regardless, him aside, Why is the fact that Rogues are the only one's that can disarm magical traps ever brought up, or do we just assume that wizards just automatically dispel them with their caster level checks?
Because they're not.
Thanks to archetypes, and now a trait, nearly every class can disarm magical traps with disable device.
But, it's honestly not the most efficient way to bypass them either.
Once you have a trap identified and can determine what it will do you can often find more interesting and creative ways to bypass it other than a skill check.
Would you happen to tell me which Archetypes those are? Derailing the thread a little, but I want to make sure my players aren't allowed that trait. I actually enjoy seeing the rogue being played, and, well... I mean it's one of my first classes I did well in, if only because I didn't make the beginner mistake of going two weapon fighting with them.
Generally speaking I liked playing the rogue because, whether I was amazing in combat or not, I still had the added benefit of being the guy who could detect and disable magical traps and normal one's alike, yeah?
If there're other classes that can just take an archetype to fill the roll (And be better in every way) that's fine, but the trait just seems... a bit much.
|
You know. Just a question, but, err. Isn't the Rogue the only class that can disable magical traps?
...Regardless, him aside, Why is the fact that Rogues are the only one's that can disarm magical traps ever brought up, or do we just assume that wizards just automatically dispel them with their caster level checks?
Because they aren't the only ones that can disarm magical traps. Investigator, slayer, ranger, bard, alchemist, sorcerer, oracle, and monk all have archetpyes or PrCs that give trap finding. Even without trapfinding any caster can cast dispel magic and get rid of them.
|
|
Would you happen to tell me which Archetypes those are? Derailing the thread a little, but I want to make sure my players aren't allowed that trait. I actually enjoy seeing the rogue being played, and, well... I mean it's one of my first classes I did well in, if only because I didn't make the beginner mistake of going two weapon fighting with them.
Generally speaking I liked playing the rogue because, whether I was amazing in combat or not, I still had the added benefit of being the guy who could detect and disable magical traps and normal one's alike, yeah?
If there're other classes that can just take an archetype to fill the roll (And be better in every way) that's fine, but the trait just seems... a bit much.
The investigator has trapfinding by default and the slayer has it as a talent. The rest are as follows:
Ranger: trapper, urban ranger.
Bard: archaeologist
Alchemist: crypt breaker, trap breaker
Oracle: seeker/wrecker curse
Sorcerer: seeker
Monk: brother of the seal Prc
Without even going into archetypes investigators can disarm magical traps in addition to rogues, since they get trapfinding, while slayers can get trapfinding+trap sense with a single slayer talent.
Edit: swordsage'd
Would you happen to tell me which Archetypes those are? Derailing the thread a little, but I want to make sure my players aren't allowed that trait. I actually enjoy seeing the rogue being played, and, well... I mean it's one of my first classes I did well in, if only because I didn't make the beginner mistake of going two weapon fighting with them.
Generally speaking I liked playing the rogue because, whether I was amazing in combat or not, I still had the added benefit of being the guy who could detect and disable magical traps and normal one's alike, yeah?
If there're other classes that can just take an archetype to fill the roll (And be better in every way) that's fine, but the trait just seems... a bit much.
And honestly, saying you refuse to allow the trait just to promote forcing someone to play a wrong if they don't want to play one... well that seems terrible to me.
If no one at the table is playing a rogue, what's the harm in allowing someone to do this one thing by picking up that trait. They still have to invest in disable device. It literally only lets them disable magical traps in addition to normal traps.
Promoting the requirement of a specific class into a campaign is something that should be avoided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, i'm a big fan of Rogues, but not everyone is or wants to play one, plus if you say lack a cleric but have a Bard (Archaeologist archetype) and a Witch you don't need one.
don't make people take classes they might not prefer because a book published 16 years ago (3.5) said you had to:-)
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, i'm a big fan of Rogues, but not everyone is or wants to play one, plus if you say lack a cleric but have a Bard (Archaeologist archetype) and a Witch you don't need one.
don't make people take classes they might not prefer because a book published 16 years ago (3.5) said you had to:-)
Technically, that would be 3.0. 3.5 was a few years later. (Sorry.)
Your point stands, though. :)
yeah, i'm a big fan of Rogues, but not everyone is or wants to play one, plus if you say lack a cleric but have a Bard (Archaeologist archetype) and a Witch you don't need one.
don't make people take classes they might not prefer because a book published 16 years ago (3.5) said you had to:-)
Technically, that would be 3.0. 3.5 was a few years later. (Sorry.)
Your point stands, though. :)
Lol! was waiting for someone to correct that:-p
(sorry it was you, expected it to be someone else:-p)
Because they aren't the only ones that can disarm magical traps. Investigator, slayer, ranger, bard, alchemist, sorcerer, oracle, and monk all have archetpyes or PrCs that give trap finding. Even without trapfinding any caster can cast dispel magic and get rid of them.You know. Just a question, but, err. Isn't the Rogue the only class that can disable magical traps?
...Regardless, him aside, Why is the fact that Rogues are the only one's that can disarm magical traps ever brought up, or do we just assume that wizards just automatically dispel them with their caster level checks?
Plus there is a trait that gives trapfinding and there is always summon a monster to run down the hallway ahead of you.
Edit: ugh. Failed my will save vs troll. Vampbyday has 400ish posts and 102 of them are new threads. Masterful troll is masterful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Couple of things:
1. I will say that I find these boards have a fairly strong anti-GM attitude.
2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.
1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.
In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.
2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.
Simplest example is the whole rogue thing. Without question, the rogues potential ability to do stuff is less then every other class. But that is only an issue if other classes are meeting their potential or close to it. If the optimization of a group is low, then there isn't a need to say 'rogues suck dont play them' because it isn't an issue. It is often worthwhile to point out alternatives within the same theme just so the poster can make an informed choice, but the truth is, there are no universal truths of gaming. Group adopted conventions can change every single factor we hold sacred in our insulated world of forum discussions. We talk, debate, and theorize in what amounts to giant gaming clean room. The actual world of gaming (besides possibly pfs) is contaminated (this isnt meant to be a negative, just an extension of the clean room metaphor) with all sorts of factors that alter what we can talk about here.
Edit: ugh. Failed my will save vs troll. Vampbyday has 400ish posts and 102 of them are new threads. Masterful troll is masterful.
This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".
I feel that way.
When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....
See above, please. I'm not really sure why you're responding to me anyways; it doesn't make sense that you'd defend Vamp from me commenting on his posting history. Unless Vamp is one of your other accounts.... Is he?
(Wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone make multiple accounts just so they can make a show of "other people" agreeing with their posts. In fact, one particular news agency once made a job culture of this.)
Simplest example is the whole rogue thing. Without question, the rogues potential ability to do stuff is less then every other class. But that is only an issue if other classes are meeting their potential or close to it. If the optimization of a group is low, then there isn't a need to say 'rogues suck dont play them' because it isn't an issue.
I've seen rogues in low-optimization groups a couple of times. The rogue was still the least useful party member - a poorly optimized rogue can easily be a guy who can't take go into melee because he'll almost certainly die, and can't hit the enemy if he risks it.
This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.
Given that there are several comments about healing on this very thread that are wrong, and many of them favorited several times, I think he is dead on about the general attitude towards healing.
I addressed it here:
Healing myth busted
and here:
Whole thread about healing in combat
(with posts by James Jacobs and Evil Lincoln)
and here:
And you barely break a sweat healing
If multiple characters have gotten banged up, a channel will heal 5d6 (avg 17hp). while this isn't a very big chunk of hp at 10th level, if you hit everyone in the party, and a summoned creature, mount, familiar, etc. It could likely be almost 100hp of healing.
Considering that neither of these options uses any substantial resources, or requires any special feats, equipment, build (other then healing domain), I would say that healing is VERY effective!"
Haven't been around these boards as long, but I find most of these "big five wrongs" are discounted in certain situations, or with certain gms.
I've seen posts that show how a rogue can get pretty brutal - someone recently mentioned (apologies if I can't remember who) a dazzling display/shatter defenses bow build was actually closer to that level 10, 300 dpr you mentioned (maybe ~150dpr or so without having to worry about action economy and moving, assuming you were being facetious about *actually* hitting 300dpr with anyone, reliably).
A lot of non-fighter/monk builds are necessarily "hyperspecialized" because of their lack of feats. If, at level 9, you've got a feat chain (for example, on the above rogue build) that leads to the single tactic of intimidating then sneak attacking your enemies, you've only got 6 or 7 feats with which to pull it off: aside from what skills you may sprinkle around, you know you're gonna have to max out intmidation for X build, then take weaponfocus bow, dazzling display, p.b shot, precise shot, rapid shot, manyshot, and shatter defenses, plus combat performer and a performance feat. There's no room *not* to be hyperspecialized if you want to be able to pull this build off. But you are right, it still suffers from a weakness somewhere (namely, in this case, enemies immune to fear/mental effects)
I don't know if there's any build (hyper or not) that's good in *every* situation. Most people go this road just to flex their math-brains and to see what is possible, and some hyperspecialists are a little more universally applicable than others, as they can pick up all the feats that make their core strategy applicable at lower levels -- which is why you see them crop up so much in games/on the boards (the reach AoO mounted warrior, the precise-strike magus, etc).
Anyway - I don't think the system "rewards hyper-specialization" so much as a GM rewards it: If the campaign you're in is mostly social/political, and one of the players is a rogue with copious social skills/feats, while the other is a mounted fury self-enlarging dinosaur rider, guess who's going to be more useful, feel more rewarded? I guarantee the Barb is not getting invited to any aristocrat's tea-parties to discuss foreign policy.
Butler: "Mm.. pardon me sirrah, would you kindly leave the dinosaur *away* from the stables? And I must ask you to take off those.. muddy...fur... boot things, before you come into the manor."
Thog the Deadly: "Thog not like talky man! Talky man not like Sorriz!"
Butler: "Mmm... ah... yes, very well, we'll have... ah... some repast brought out to you and... Mr. Sorriz."
Thog: "Sorriz not need cupcakes and tea. Sorriz eats Talkyman!" *glowers and pats his T-Rex's leg*
Butler: "Oh dear, how uncouth-" *gets eaten*
(side note, if the GM didn't tell the dinosaur-rider what kind of game it was going to be, he's a d***, but also, this could be kinda funny.)
Point being, different campaigns reward different play styles, and for the most part specialized characters *are* rewarded when they fill a role of one kind or another, and do that role well. Who wants to play a healer - for example - that stinks at healing? It just makes you feel useless and unappreciated in the end, so people tend to build them to excel at that one thing.
That's not to say people don't go overboard with .... oh nevermind, I'll shut up about stat dumped optimization. 'nuff said.
and also, I totally took the bait, if this was all a troll
This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.Given that there are several comments about healing on this very thread that are wrong, and many of them favorited several times, I think he is dead on about the general attitude towards healing.
I addressed it here:
Healing myth busted
and here:
Whole thread about healing in combat
(with posts by James Jacobs and Evil Lincoln)
and here:
And you barely break a sweat healing
** spoiler omitted **
Two issues with this and views expressed in the linked thread.
1) The healing domain cleric casting her highest level spell should be healing more on avg than the "high avg" for a CR appropriate monster. Ie, you are specialized in healing and you have just dropped one of your most powerful daily resources. You should be able to MORE than undo the damage caused by a single monster in a single round.
2) the burst heal myth is just as bad as the fireball myth. "If we can get all of the baddies to stand in exactly a 20-ft radius circle then I can do 123,547 damage with my 4d6 fireball."
If that works out then great, but that isn't exactly likely. Also, who cares if you can heal 100 damage in a round if it is spread out in 17hp chunks to all of your allies. The dude at the front soaking that 50hp a turn isn't helped by you patching up "grimoire" the witch's familiar for damage he hadn't taken.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed.
I wonder if you might be misunderstanding me.
Let's take the OP's comments about rogues as an example. Now, I think you and I (and the OP!) could all agree that there is a sentiment on the boards that "rogues are weak". So if the OP had listed something like "People say that rogues are underpowered and other classes can do the rogue's job(s) better than the rogue," then I wouldn't have made the post that I did. That sentiment is everywhere.
But the OP severely mischaracterized that sentiment.
He portrays the "rogues are weak" crowd as calling any players of rogues stupid. He says that the "rogues are weak" sentiment is based on a comparison to the combat ability of combat-only classes.
Those are false. Typically it's only the defenders of rogues that make it personal, with the "rogues are weak" criticisms just being about the class's mechanics. No name-calling.
Similarly, critiques of a rogue's combat effectiveness are based on how it compares to other 3/4 BAB, "not-just-combat" classes. You know, the kinds of classes it SHOULD be on par with. But then the OP lied and said that the benchmark for saying rogues are weak is dealing "redonkulous" damage that no Pathfinder character should ever be dealing and being worse at combat than the fighter. He just made that up to help his own view sound better by comparison.
And that is what I'm calling him out for. Not for noticing the "rogues are weak" sentiment, but for demonizing people by lying about how the discussions actually go.
2) the burst heal myth is just as bad as the fireball myth. "If we can get all of the baddies to stand in exactly a 20-ft radius circle then I can do 123,547 damage with my 4d6 fireball."
If that works out then great, but that isn't exactly likely. Also, who cares if you can heal 100 damage in a round if it is spread out in 17hp chunks to all of your allies. The dude at the front soaking that 50hp a turn isn't helped by you patching up "grimoire" the witch's familiar for damage he hadn't taken.
Situational. Say you're facing an enemy sorcerer (using greater invisibility or similar so he won't just die immediately). He hits your entire group with a fireball. If you channel energy, this heals about half the damage you took - maybe all the damage for allies who passed their reflex save. It won't win the battle, but it doesn't cost you much and it buys the group time to respond. There's no reason to assume any given cleric will have a better option available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.
In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.
2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.
1. I still think this board tends to skew toward player favoritism. For example, whenever there's a thread where people talk about their house rules, the following will happen: Someone will say they don't allow this feat or that race, or what have you. Inevitably, several people will chime in and either tell the person they're wrong for disallowing that choice or demand justification for their decision so they can argue that the person with the house rule is wrong. However, house rules that give the players an extra benefit, such as high stat arrays or extra abilities, are almost never questioned.
You say that it's just an anti-jerk sentiment, but that doesn't really do anything to dispel anti-GM bias when people are extremely quick to characterize the GM as a jerk for doing anything unfavorable toward PCs.
2. I think we're in agreement on this point, but I just want to add: The thing that annoys me is that I there's a lot of arrogance among many of the posters here. If I say I want advice building a character who is class X and does concept Y, don't jump in and say, "class Z does that better", especially if I've explicitly said I want to play class X. In all likelihood the reason I'm asking for advice in the first place is because I already know that class Z is the Obvious Choice for concept Y, but I want to try to make it work with class X instead.
This is why I think the OP said that he feels posters here infer that people who play rogues are stupid. Perhaps I'm misremembering things, but I've seen threads where people ask for rogue advice, acknowledge up front that they know rogues are a mechanically weak class, yet still get told to play a bard/investigator/slayer instead. If I say I want to play a rogue, knowing full well its limitations, telling me to play something else because "rogue is weak" is in fact calling me stupid.
People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extreme viewpoints get noticed because they are extreme. That does not make them the majority. If I look into the first 5 threads on each topic and I actually count posters the ones with extreme points matching what the OP said will be the minority. I am sure of that.VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.I must disagree. I have been haunting these boards for around 6 years, and I got the same exact impressions the OP listed. No, I did not exhaustively research every topic and read thousands of posts to track down every differing opinion, so as to "fact check". Many of us cannot keep up with the sheer magnitude of post output on these boards. But, I have consistently seen the same or similar "absolutist" opinions that are being discussed, and I drew the same conclusion as to the prevailing attitude toward the subjects outlined by OP.
I think many of you are being very hard on the OP. In fact I have rarely seen so many well considered opinions posted on these varied topics in all my years here.
I don't fall into the trap of the absolute opinions, just as I don't go for all the "optimization", but I can easily see how someone could.
Agreed they are more noticeable because they are extreme. Sometimes they are also more numerous.
Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts declaiming it as an awful idea. They were very clear on the NEVER heal in combat over-and-over-again.
After a few pages of that I actually checked the posters aliases.
Turned out there were actually only 2 guys using multiple aliases just to make sure they massively shouted down everyone else. I sometimes look for that now.
Don't know how often it actually happens, but I have seen a least a few instances of a small number of people actively working to seem like a large number of people to promote some absolutist extreme point of view.
It's one of the reasons I really wish these boards had an 'ignore' function.
People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.
It's anti-GM when people tell the GM they're wrong for doing it or demand justifications for making the decision. Especially when those people aren't actually players in that game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.It's anti-GM when people tell the GM they're wrong for doing it or demand justifications for making the decision. Especially when those people aren't actually players in that game.
I'm a GM and I disagree with that statement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. If by anti gm, you mean gms are not treated as unapproachable infallible gods...then yea I guess you are right. The paizo boards are actually fairly balanced in the overall opinion. The thing is, by now MOST experience gamers have been on both sides of the screen. And a great deal of the entitlement on both sides (as a player and a gm) gets mitigated by the universal experience.
In the end there is an Anti Jerk sentiment. If you are being a jerk, whether a player or gm, you get called out on in these boards. For the most part, gms have the most influence over a game, so they have the most opportunity to be a jerk. Chances are thats why you have your impression. Either that or you think gms are still infallible, unquestionable demigods whose every whim needs to be catered to. Then I've got nothing for you.
2. I can agree here. In the end, everyone plays their own way. And there are so many uncontrolled factors in a given game/group for there to be some kind of universal consensus. It's important to listen to the OP when trying to help them. Because often, our assumptions on what works within a given situation will be altered by the poster's game group.
1. I still think this board tends to skew toward player favoritism. For example, whenever there's a thread where people talk about their house rules, the following will happen: Someone will say they don't allow this feat or that race, or what have you. Inevitably, several people will chime in and either tell the person they're wrong for disallowing that choice or demand justification for their decision so they can argue that the person with the house rule is wrong. However, house rules that give the players an extra benefit, such as high stat arrays or extra abilities, are almost never questioned.
You say that it's just an anti-jerk sentiment, but that doesn't really do anything to dispel anti-GM bias when people are extremely quick to characterize the GM as a jerk for doing anything unfavorable...
People come to the boards to complain about things, among other reasons. Other complainers jump on board if they're encountered similar hassles. I've certainly been there.
Some of us have a "Why not?" mindset and often challenge seemingly kneejerk or strangely arbitrary restrictions (I don't want no ninjas in my Western European game!" "You do realize that's just a name plastered atop a bundle of game mechanics, right?"). Some people seem to view things more along the lines of the Archie Bunker style of GMing. Naturally, there's conflict between the two mindsets.
As a GM, I am comfortable with the role of being the Guy Who Occasionally Says No. That often leads to feelings of persecution. I try to review my decisions and reverse or modify them if they seem imbalanced or flat out wrong. That's hard to do, as everyone wants to be Right, and that probably leads to a lot of unnecessary squabbling.
I'd like to think that if dispassionate, logical arguments and math are put forth, both parties can reach an equitable agreement. I've not always found that to be the case, unfortunately.
"Gamers are strongly opinionated about their hobbies."
Wait...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two issues with this and views expressed in the linked thread.
1) The healing domain cleric casting her highest level spell should be healing more on avg than the "high avg" for a CR appropriate monster. Ie, you are specialized in healing and you have just dropped one of your most powerful daily resources. You should be able to MORE than undo the damage caused by a single monster in a single round.
2) the burst heal myth is just as bad as the fireball myth. "If we can get all of the baddies to stand in exactly a 20-ft radius circle then I can do 123,547 damage with my 4d6 fireball."
The issue with this argument is that SHOULD and CAN are two different statements. What works on paper and what works in practice are rarely the same thing.
I play healer for the group about half the time, and while I always spec to do more than just heal (last big healer was actually a Holy Smite specialist who disabled more than his fair share of encounters), I ALWAYS have to heal in combat. It's about numbers, it's about odds.
Yes, a Hold Person could disable an encounter, but if the opponent's save is decent then trying to keep the fighter in fighting shape is a better option. Average damage means squat when the dice turn up against you in your favor. I've seen BBEB's one-shotted and I've seen mooks disable PCs in one go. You come prepared to fight undead, but end up sitting face to face with a flesh golem instead. The encounter composition, setting, and what you have prepared change EVERYTHING.
Most of the analysis here is made using a 1 v 1 scenario, verses a known enemy, using basic tactics. All of that goes out the window as soon as you change those variables. Battlefields aren't static, they're dynamic. As should you action choices. You heal in combat as the situation requires.
Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.
Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts declaiming it as an awful idea. They were very clear on the NEVER heal in combat over-and-over-again.
After a few pages of that I actually checked the posters aliases.Turned out there were actually only 2 guys using multiple aliases just to make sure they massively shouted down everyone else. I sometimes look for that now.
Don't know how often it actually happens, but I have seen a least a few instances of a small number of people actively working to seem like a large number of people to promote some absolutist extreme point of view.
It's one of the reasons I really wish these boards had an 'ignore' function.
Requoting because it definitely pays to check aliases, though some of these guys make puppet accounts, also.
Another thing to do is check tone and style, as well as how quickly the posts occur. If these three elements match up, it may be a puppet account.
For the more extreme views on anything, there tend to be a smaller number who are very, very loud. That is true about most anything.
1. I still think this board tends to skew toward player favoritism. For example, whenever there's a thread where people talk about their house rules, the following will happen: Someone will say they don't allow this feat or that race, or what have you. Inevitably, several people will chime in and either tell the person they're wrong for disallowing that choice or demand justification for their decision so they can argue that the person with the house rule is wrong. However, house rules that give the players an extra benefit, such as high stat arrays or extra abilities, are almost never questioned.
I disagree. Most folks tend to ask why because they're curious and then offer a reason on why banning the option isn't helpful to the goal the GM stated. Banning Wizards for example could be a flavor of the setting or be because of legitimate balance concerns. House Rules that grant players an extra benefit aren't really questioned because there is nothing to question...the GM is simply amping the power level of their game. Banning say...Slayers because they make better Rogues is a really petty reason and I'd be happy to tell someone so.
You say that it's just an anti-jerk sentiment, but that doesn't really do anything to dispel anti-GM bias when people are extremely quick to characterize the GM as a jerk for doing anything unfavorable toward PCs.
Has to make sense. GMs doing things for bad reasons are often the target of criticism. Fumble Rules for example should die in a fire because they target martials far more than casters.
2. The thing that annoys me is that I there's a lot of arrogance among many of the posters here. If I say I want advice building a character who is class X and does concept Y, don't jump in and say, "class Z does that better", especially if I've explicitly said I want to play class X. In all likelihood the reason I'm asking for advice in the first place is because I already know that class Z is the Obvious Choice for concept Y, but I want to try to make it work with class X instead.
Most folks will do that because why go through the work of using something not built for that purpose conceptually? Most folks who come looking for build advice don't mind and actually like hearing that their build idea is done better another way because they haven't seen that option or REALLY thought out their concept besides "hit stuff with Katana."
This is why I think the OP said that he feels posters here infer that people who play rogues are stupid. Perhaps I'm misremembering things, but I've seen threads where people ask for rogue advice, acknowledge up front that they know rogues are a mechanically weak class, yet still get told to play a bard/investigator/slayer instead. If I say I want to play a rogue, knowing full well its limitations, telling me to play something else because "rogue is weak" is in fact calling me stupid.
I think this is highly exaggerated. Most of the time this doesn't happen. If you say up front that you're playing Pathfinder on Masochist Mode, I've rarely seen people call WRONGBADFUN.
Because unless you REALLY like the character building game of Pathfinder, most folks are looking to get the most out of their concept. Class is the most important factor in that and choosing the wrong one can leave you very unsatisfied.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People dislike it when GMs ban their favourite things. That's not anti-GM, unless you believe that GMs are beyond all criticism.It's anti-GM when people tell the GM they're wrong for doing it or demand justifications for making the decision. Especially when those people aren't actually players in that game.
It's anti-GM when you say, "let's play one of those GM-less RPGs like Capes because GMs suck".
A sentiment like "GMs should not change the rules just because they feel like it" could more accurately be referred to as "anti-all-powerful-GMs" or similar. These people are still in favour of GMs, they just want the power balance tilted more towards the players. Calling them anti-GM is biased language, like accusing people of hating rogues if they think rogues should/shouldn't made a bit more powerful.
It might seem like a minor distinction, but imagine being labelled "anti-police" for saying police should have to obey the law. It's the kind of thing that happens in political debates all the time, and it just leads to greater misunderstandings and the escalation of arguments.
Couple years ago, I had a big long post with almost everyone acting like I was a complete moron because I was trying to help a friend build a combat healer. He was familiar with PF and wanted to try a combat healer and his party was ok with him making the attempt.
Almost no matter what I posted or the couple of people trying to help me posted, there would be 1-5 posts declaiming it as an awful idea. They were very clear on the NEVER heal in combat over-and-over-again.
After a few pages of that I actually checked the posters aliases.Turned out there were actually only 2 guys using multiple aliases just to make sure they massively shouted down everyone else. I sometimes look for that now.
Don't know how often it actually happens, but I have seen a least a few instances of a small number of people actively working to seem like a large number of people to promote some absolutist extreme point of view.
It's one of the reasons I really wish these boards had an 'ignore' function.
Requoting because it definitely pays to check aliases, though some of these guys make puppet accounts, also.
Another thing to do is check tone and style, as well as how quickly the posts occur. If these three elements match up, it may be a puppet account.
For the more extreme views on anything, there tend to be a smaller number who are very, very loud. That is true about most anything.
But I don't think most of do that very often. I certainly don't usually do that. It is very easy to get swayed by the large number of very extreme absolutist posts.
In my previous group, one of the new guys came to the boards for help with his low level cleric. He was very clear that when he hit them, they fey usually went down but he (as well as the rest of the group) was having a hard time hitting the fast little buggers. Almost 2/3 of the replies he got told him to take power attack. So he spent gold to retrain his weapon focus: long spear into power attack. Yes, those rare times he hit changed from and unconscious fey into a dead fey. But he hit even less often than before.So I am with the OP on some of this. There at least a noticeable portion of people that do tell you some 'generally speaking' comments in very absolute terms. Unfortunately, they sometimes manage to convince people they are correct.
I personally, tend to ignore someone as soon as I see they are stating almost anything as an absolute.
Two issues with this and views expressed in the linked thread.
1) The healing domain cleric casting her highest level spell should be healing more on avg than the "high avg" for a CR appropriate monster. Ie, you are specialized in healing and you have just dropped one of your most powerful daily resources. You should be able to MORE than undo the damage caused by a single monster in a single round.
2) the burst heal myth is just as bad as the fireball myth. "If we can get all of the baddies to stand in exactly a 20-ft radius circle then I can do 123,547 damage with my 4d6 fireball."
The issue with this argument is that SHOULD and CAN are two different statements. What works on paper and what works in practice are rarely the same thing.
I play healer for the group about half the time, and while I always spec to do more than just heal (last big healer was actually a Holy Smite specialist who disabled more than his fair share of encounters), I ALWAYS have to heal in combat. It's about numbers, it's about odds.
Yes, a Hold Person could disable an encounter, but if the opponent's save is decent then trying to keep the fighter in fighting shape is a better option. Average damage means squat when the dice turn up against you in your favor. I've seen BBEB's one-shotted and I've seen mooks disable PCs in one go. You come prepared to fight undead, but end up sitting face to face with a flesh golem instead. The encounter composition, setting, and what you have prepared change EVERYTHING.
Most of the analysis here is made using a 1 v 1 scenario, verses a known enemy, using basic tactics. All of that goes out the window as soon as you change those variables. Battlefields aren't static, they're dynamic. As should you action choices. You heal in combat as the situation requires.
This is exactly how I'd perceived the basic argument against healing in combat. I'm not sure if I should take up arms against you or not, because you seem to be on my side (HP healing is a largely a waste of an action), not the other!
Hmm. Drive-by OP, contentious thread. 0/10, do not recommend.
Played to wide accusations against the community. Little evidence or analysis doing so. Shot at a couple of community sore spots.
Points deducted for barn-yard shooting style attack. 2/10; provided space to beat the dead horses.
The most important thing to take away from anything on the boards is that it is all opinion. All of it. One gamer's experience is often quite different from another. Listen and look at what they say, but make your own decisions and experiences. Dismiss power attacks and play rogues and do what you want.
How dare you suggest that the statements I deliver on a gaming system that carries non-mathematically determined events may not be absolute truth! Next you'll tell me that modern empirical philosophy doesn't assume symmetrical knowledge!
2. The most annoying thing about these boards is when people don't bother to listen. I see lots of posts where people are looking for advice within the context of some guidelines or constraints (such as wanting to play a certain race or be a certain class) and people will skip right by that and offer useless suggestions as a result.
OK, this is perhaps the only thing mentioned here that does piss me off to see while lurking. Fact is, if we want to just optimize then great; everyone, go out and play full casters. It's no good to wave some system knowledge heading towards performing only a certain set of characters. Optimization is defined (commonly) as making something as perfect as possible. Throwing out that very thing is rather failing to optimize it.
Fortunately, that's not that common behaviour. Makes it no less poor conduct though.Anyway, I know the OP is probably trolling but on the other hand, these are appreciable points, trawled over as they are, and always worth examination for the sake of the system:
Disclaimer: This is mostly being done to whittle away a slow day (and it is fun).
5) I think the big problem in many d20 systems, is simply that the "skill-monkey" role is best when supplemented with various features. See how Bards are famously the best at it. Plus Inquisitors are fairly strong.
But then it meets another issue. "I can stealth well because I have a lot of practise." "So can I, magic!" Facetiousness aside, the fact that there is a much much lesser narrative constraint on magic, both by table treatment and game design, means magic gets a whole host of tools to make many situations irrelevant.
To be fair, on the system's roots, that's expected - but the paradigm is salient. Expecting the Rogue to be magic would probably hit the flavour most people want, but something like Bardic Knowledge would probably go a long way to making the Rogue actually a skill monkey.
4) Summoning is stronk. Mostly because action economy is a thing. Same for buffing and crowd control stuff. The former of those because it is an investment in other actions and the latter because the results are more instantaneous (and widespread) than swinging a sword at something - delivering the condition of unconscious taking longer than dazed is expected by magnitude but the sheer scale of difference is what makes en masse actions (and having more actions) useful.
Given combat manoeuvres are how non-magic characters deliver this, that's arguably the weak point.
3) Power attack is actually great. It's simple and optional. It provides more choices and it easy for a new player to grasp why they want it. What's annoying is how binary and small the choice is. Cleave is a nicer feat in this respect because the choice can be accused of having more in the internal mechanics...that particular example just drops off a bit (and how many times do enemies cluster?).
2) Most posters I see bemoan one-trick ponies. That point was just weird. Though a team game rewarding specialization is expected and good design. If my playing a social character is of marginal effect for my group; then when do I enjoy a moment in the spotlight?
Yes, roleplaying is more than stage-hogging but there is a certain thrilling euphoria in the fact that some clever planning and well-rolled dice changed the narrative significantly.
1) The claim itself is irrelevant. There's something more important to mention called nuance. See, if I say to you "You shouldn't buy that car", that statement only holds under the conditions under which I said it. Which, assuming I'm not a dick, presume you have better options. If your other option is walking to work 15 miles everyday, then my statement is clearly irrelevant.
The thing is, PF as a system exists in a paradigm where usually removing an enemy is your more expedient option. Now, it is evidently not more expedient when it's the difference between a dead party member and an alive one.
When advise comes to do X, that can (for common sense's sake) come with the caveat as long as X is feasible. Similarly, "don't do Y" carries the caveat unless Y becomes your best means of fulfilling your objectives.
The possibility that that minor bit of sensibility might be missing from people looking at things is worrisome. The advantage of people over computers is (supposedly) that they don't operate on binary. The ability to add an: unless; but; however, and so forth to an absolute statement* I would have thought a sodding basic segment of critical thought.
*Unless we're going to discuss some actually absolute statements (cl; Mathematics, Philosophy).
Edit: ugh. Failed my will save vs troll. Vampbyday has 400ish posts and 102 of them are new threads. Masterful troll is masterful.This is why I said earlier that based on Vamp's posting history, he's unlikely to apologize to anyone for "misunderstanding" what's been said on the forums.
VampByDay, if those are the things you got from the boards, you need to be more faithful about actually reading people's posts (and also the Core Rulebook) and really absorbing what's actually being said instead of what you assumed was coming once you got through the first sentence. Frankly, you have a lot of people to apologize to.Based on other threads he has started, this is exactly what he does and I doubt it's going to change.Look, maybe the thread leans a little into Troll territory, but I took it as another way of saying, "I am frustrated with all of these absolutist opinions that say you're doing it wrong".
I feel that way.
When I see posts talking about a single spell that ends a combat before it has begun, or 300 damage in a round...consistently...at 10th level, I wonder what game people are playing...and what target dummies their GM is throwing against them....
See above, please. I'm not really sure why you're responding to me anyways; it doesn't make sense that you'd defend Vamp from me commenting on his posting history. Unless Vamp is one of your other accounts.... Is he?
(Wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone make multiple accounts just so they can make a show of "other people" agreeing with their posts. In fact, one particular news agency once made a job culture of this.)
Um...no.