Why all the nerfs Paizo?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

551 to 600 of 923 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I think a lot of the mechanical problems in the game are due to a large subsection of the gaming population optimizing too much, and judging the game's options based on that.

Not just players, either, but DMs and entire gaming circles.

If you look at the base line Bestiary, published Iconics, published designer characters, etc, you can immediately see that the game is being run in a manner that is for all intents and purposes, lighter.

Many players don't even look at 15 point buy. And I include myself in this group. My players use rolled stats that are probably similar to 70 point buy, and I buff up monsters all the time with gear and resources.

But to use an analogy, if you are designing a car that you expect to drive between 30-50 mph, and you test it at 60 mph (for optimizers), you might determine you have a satisfactory, well built machine. Then when your average customer starts it up at 80mph, and the real vocal ones like to drive around 150mph, you're going to have a lot of complaints. Is the answer to make them a car that can handle 80? One that can handle 150? Or make it so that your car can't even go faster than 60?

I don't honestly know the answer to that question. I do know that you max out point buy at 102, and they suggest 15. And that's just right from the get go. I wonder if a lot of 'nonviable' options don't become more viable in an environment where losing initiative isn't the same as a TPK.

Derail:
The Wizard class is one of the SADest classes in the game and the most abuseable spells are right there in the CRB. 15 pt buy {9,10,14,20,8,7} plus 2 feats at first level. It really is disparity of options NOT this option only goes to 11 while this option goes to 17. 15 pt buy CRB only wizard starts out at 11 and goes up from there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Lower point buy does nothing but widen the gap, though. Monks are virtually unplayable on a 15 point buy, but once you get up to at least 25 points the class is usable even without pinpoint optimization. Meanwhile the only full casters that care about how many points you get are Shamans and (to a slightly lesser extent) Arcanists.

You say that, but you are working from a different baseline than that which is clearly being utilized by the designers. Ostog the Unslain hasn't worn armor since level 1. James Jacobs' character is some sort of bard-fighter multiclass. These aren't tactically sound choices, but the characters are still playing, winning, advancing.

In my games, even if overpowering enemies screw around for a single round, the entire encounter tips wildly in favor of the PCs, that's just the stakes. (The PCs, on the otherhand, are never willing to sacrifice tactical supremacy for the sake of looking cool, so I can't tell you if it can happen in reverse.) Clearly, in a game where a 12th level PC has 28 AC and 84 hp and she's doing just fine, that's not the case.

Monks can probably drive the car at 40 mph if everyone else is going 40 too.

Edit: That goes for you too, BigDTBone. This isn't just about point buy, that's just the beginning of the differences. If monsters, and encounters, and environmental damages and adventures are all way more relaxed than you are used to, the wizard and fighter can operate on the same level. Because it is never making you rev up to 50, so to speak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
I think a lot of the mechanical problems in the game are due to a large subsection of the gaming population optimizing too much, and judging the game's options based on that.

I think you are totally correct. However, that is only one part of the problem. Many issues with the game arise without optimization, or at least without intentional optimization. For example, all it takes to make a wizard hit well above his APL is a high Int, and picking from the dozens of available save or suck spells. Many aspects that disrupt play are practically built into the class - such as bonus crafting feats. I'm glad the the developers don't design the game for people using weird combos to win theoretical PvP combats. On the other hand it does seem like they are a little too willing to produce content that has a high potential to disrupt games, such as the APG summoner class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:


The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.

This

And closing this thread now would be a mistake.
Telling someone who is angry to shut up right now seldom leads to a lessening of anger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Another note for Paizo / Chris:

Pushing out a errata that everyone damn well knows is going to be controversial five minutes before the entire staff leaves to go to GenCon doesn't exactly paint Paizo in the most positive light.

The ARG errata was an unfortunate timing issue so I can accept that the intent wasn't to drop a bomb and run off. The ACG errata however was specifically timed to blow up in people's faces right before Gencon. We know from Mark that the errata document has been finished for a couple months now but they didn't want to release it yet, and the new printing isn't for sale yet so that wasn't the trigger. Essentially, this debacle occurred (unintentionally I'm certain) by design. I would like to see the decisions which led to that design be reevaluated and avoided in the future.

Also, that is just the tip of the problem as it were. The actual issues are the substance of those errata documents. I don't want anyone to get the idea that the issue here was merely timing. The issue was quality of work; the insult on top of that injury was the manner of release.

You are misrepresenting what Mark said. Mark said that the Design Team was done with the errata a while ago, I don't remember the exact timing, but that it still had to go through editing. Paizo puts a lot of effort into their editing and layout even for free products like an errata, the ACG being a noted and acknowledged exception. After the editing debacle of the ACG the last thing they were going to do was not put every available minute into the document to make sure that spelling and grammar did not create more confusion. They also promised repeatedly that the ACG errata would be out before GenCon.

It is more than a little disingenuous to misrepresent Mark like that.

I think that assuming malicious intent on the timing is a waste of time and energy for everyone involved.

It's a good thing that I specifically disqualified malicious intent from my comment. Also, a competent copy editor can easily do 9 pages in a very short amount of time.

The New Yorker, for example, has famously amazing copy editors and they do an entire magazine in a week. That includes correcting submissions to match their own style guides, which Paizo asks the contributors to do themselves. In short, even if you take into account copy edit times, my point still stands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

Whenever I open up a Dreamscarred book I'm bombarded with rules options that trigger my imagination and make me excited to put together cool new character concepts. I've been juggling dozens of ideas, including things that are ridiculously ineffective in Pathfinder - twin spear wielder, for example.

Whenever I open a Paizo book I resign myself to digging through the dregs of the feat chapter for the few genuinely interesting options. I really feel things like Anticipate Dodge, Open Up and Slow Faller make up 80% of the new material that's released, and I'm really not happy with that.

Pathfinder was made to address the issue of power creep in the previous 3.5 game. No one bothered to think about the consequences of power seep. All new material is balanced around being as strong or weaker than existing options. This has lead to new material being weaker and weaker. Which only highlights martial v caster problem. Sure tons weak spells aren't great but for casters they are just more options, more possible silver bullets. Their power goes up with each released book. For martials, a glut of trap options are presented to them. Spont feats could be an answer, but the quality of feats have degraded as such that they basically do nothing.

A small point of contention here. Weak options are not the same as trap options. A weak option, especially if it's weak because it's situationally useful is fine as long as the rules are clear about what it does. Trap feats are things like the original prone shooter which don't offer any benefit, or when feats can through certain synergies actually make your character worse.

The issue is the perceived prevalence for the former, not the existence of the latter.

An option does not have to actively make you worse to be a trap option. If I presented you the option to take the 3.5 wizard class or the PF wizard class, the 3.5 wizard class would be a trap option since it just has less/worse features than the PF one (assumes everyone is using PF spells).

Most of the options for martials are just worse than a small bundle of options for martials. Playing a martial itself is generally falling into a trap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

I think a lot of the mechanical problems in the game are due to a large subsection of the gaming population optimizing too much, and judging the game's options based on that.

Not just players, either, but DMs and entire gaming circles.

If you look at the base line Bestiary, published Iconics, published designer characters, etc, you can immediately see that the game is being run in a manner that is for all intents and purposes, lighter.

Many players don't even look at 15 point buy. And I include myself in this group. My players use rolled stats that are probably similar to 70 point buy, and I buff up monsters all the time with gear and resources.

But to use an analogy, if you are designing a car that you expect to drive between 30-50 mph, and you test it at 60 mph (for optimizers), you might determine you have a satisfactory, well built machine. Then when your average customer starts it up at 80mph, and the real vocal ones like to drive around 150mph, you're going to have a lot of complaints. Is the answer to make them a car that can handle 80? One that can handle 150? Or make it so that your car can't even go faster than 60?

I don't honestly know the answer to that question. I do know that you max out point buy at 102, and they suggest 15. And that's just right from the get go. I wonder if a lot of 'nonviable' options don't become more viable in an environment where losing initiative isn't the same as a TPK.

I'm actually not going to disagree that optimization, and the community's emphasis on it has highlighted the problems with the rules. I think that battle is over though.

I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Lower point buy does nothing but widen the gap, though. Monks are virtually unplayable on a 15 point buy, but once you get up to at least 25 points the class is usable even without pinpoint optimization. Meanwhile the only full casters that care about how many points you get are Shamans and (to a slightly lesser extent) Arcanists.

You say that, but you are working from a different baseline than that which is clearly being utilized by the designers. Ostog the Unslain hasn't worn armor since level 1. James Jacobs' character is some sort of bard-fighter multiclass. These aren't tactically sound choices, but the characters are still playing, winning, advancing.

In my games, even if overpowering enemies screw around for a single round, the entire encounter tips wildly in favor of the PCs, that's just the stakes. (The PCs, on the otherhand, are never willing to sacrifice tactical supremacy for the sake of looking cool, so I can't tell you if it can happen in reverse.) Clearly, in a game where a 12th level PC has 28 AC and 84 hp and she's doing just fine, that's not the case.

Monks can probably drive the car at 40 mph if everyone else is going 40 too.

Edit: That goes for you too, BigDTBone. This isn't just about point buy, that's just the beginning of the differences. If monsters, and encounters, and environmental damages and adventures are all way more relaxed than you are used to, the wizard and fighter can operate on the same level. Because it is never making you rev up to 50, so to speak.

I think a lot of people would say that if the game only works when you play with on specific playstyle out of several possibilities, the game claims to support, that's a weakness of the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:

A small point of contention here. Weak options are not the same as trap options. A weak option, especially if it's weak because it's situationally useful is fine as long as the rules are clear about what it does. Trap feats are things like the original prone shooter which don't offer any benefit, or when feats can through certain synergies actually make your character worse.

The issue is the perceived prevalence for the former, not the existence of the latter.

An option does not have to actively make you worse to be a trap option. If I presented you the option to take the 3.5 wizard class or the PF wizard class, the 3.5 wizard class would be a trap option since it just has less/worse features...

Yeah. That's not a trap option at all because there is nothing deceptive about it being weaker than the Pathfinder version. It'd be pretty obvious to anyone looking at it.

Is it a weak option? I guess, it's still a wizard after all. Is it a trap option? No.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Yeah. That's not a trap option at all because there is nothing deceptive about it being weaker than the Pathfinder version. It'd be pretty obvious to anyone looking at it.

A trap with a low perception DC is still a trap.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a trap option is more akin to someone thinking a vanilla str/dex fighter who fights with a bastard sword in each hand is going to be awesome because 2d10 damage!1!1!

The rules exist to make that fighter, but because he has to split his pb between strength and dex, burn an extra feat on proficiency, and eat -4 penalties on all his attacks I'd say the odds are not in his favor. That probably won't be apparent to someone starting out though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
Kudaku wrote:

Whenever I open up a Dreamscarred book I'm bombarded with rules options that trigger my imagination and make me excited to put together cool new character concepts. I've been juggling dozens of ideas, including things that are ridiculously ineffective in Pathfinder - twin spear wielder, for example.

Whenever I open a Paizo book I resign myself to digging through the dregs of the feat chapter for the few genuinely interesting options. I really feel things like Anticipate Dodge, Open Up and Slow Faller make up 80% of the new material that's released, and I'm really not happy with that.

Pathfinder was made to address the issue of power creep in the previous 3.5 game. No one bothered to think about the consequences of power seep. All new material is balanced around being as strong or weaker than existing options. This has lead to new material being weaker and weaker. Which only highlights martial v caster problem. Sure tons weak spells aren't great but for casters they are just more options, more possible silver bullets. Their power goes up with each released book. For martials, a glut of trap options are presented to them. Spont feats could be an answer, but the quality of feats have degraded as such that they basically do nothing.

A small point of contention here. Weak options are not the same as trap options. A weak option, especially if it's weak because it's situationally useful is fine as long as the rules are clear about what it does. Trap feats are things like the original prone shooter which don't offer any benefit, or when feats can through certain synergies actually make your character worse.

The issue is the perceived prevalence for the former, not the existence of the latter.

An option does not have to actively make you worse to be a trap option. If I presented you the option to take the 3.5 wizard class or the PF wizard class, the 3.5 wizard class would be a trap option since it just has less/worse features...

Pretty much, yeah.

Honestly, that's the reason why I mainly stick to Path of War for martials. It's more mechanically interesting and provides more options in combat than standard PF martials. Hell, I'm pretty sure with some changes (Sutff like Iron Heroes-style skill packages, for instance), you could build a new d20 variant using their material.

As a side note, the whole "Playing like an MMO" argument for imbalance being conducive to good roleplay is kinda backwards, since in the current state of things, if you want to roleplay certain concepts, you end up crippling yourself, creating a huge discrepancy between fluff and mechanics.

As for the "Playing on hard mode" argument that's been brough up, again, that's a false premise, since "Hard mode" should mean "It's going to take all of your strength and wits, but you can pull it off" not "You're going to be forced to sit back and watch 90% of the time". In a balanced system, choosing the "hard mode" option should mean that you'll have to think more strategically than the other players, but you'll be just as capable of participating. Meanwhile, in Pathfinder, taking the "hard mode" option means you're useless most of the time. That's not hard mode. That's watching a live stream that occasionally has audience participation.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:


I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.

Any GM worth his salt can stop optimization in its tracks. Again, I have outlined dozens of ways to stop "caster creep" and the easiest one is, "Put your players on a shot clock."

Do that and watch what happens to casters. Suddenly they *aren't* casting those big spells. They are plinking away at the edges while the Martials mix it up to conserve points because they know if they rest too soon they could miss the deadline.

Interrupt their sleep cycles. If casters can't sleep, then caster's can't cast.

Have understandable counters in place to deal with problematic spells like teleport. Teleport trap into an airless box 20 feet below the palace foundation. It only costs 7,000 GP to make something like that permanent.

If, however, you never take steps as a GM to reign in your players then it is your fault as the GM for letting things get out of hand.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.

Any GM worth his salt can stop optimization in its tracks. Again, I have outlined dozens of ways to stop "caster creep" and the easiest one is, "Put your players on a shot clock."

Do that and watch what happens to casters. Suddenly they *aren't* casting those big spells. They are plinking away at the edges while the Martials mix it up to conserve points because they know if they rest too soon they could miss the deadline.

Interrupt their sleep cycles. If casters can't sleep, then caster's can't cast.

Have understandable counters in place to deal with problematic spells like teleport. Teleport trap into an airless box 20 feet below the palace foundation. It only costs 7,000 GP to make something like that permanent.

If, however, you never take steps as a GM to reign in your players then it is your fault as the GM for letting things get out of hand.

Hammering down casters does not make martials more fun.

You're tackling the balance issue without addressing the problem.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.

Any GM worth his salt can stop optimization in its tracks. Again, I have outlined dozens of ways to stop "caster creep" and the easiest one is, "Put your players on a shot clock."

Do that and watch what happens to casters. Suddenly they *aren't* casting those big spells. They are plinking away at the edges while the Martials mix it up to conserve points because they know if they rest too soon they could miss the deadline.

Interrupt their sleep cycles. If casters can't sleep, then caster's can't cast.

Have understandable counters in place to deal with problematic spells like teleport. Teleport trap into an airless box 20 feet below the palace foundation. It only costs 7,000 GP to make something like that permanent.

If, however, you never take steps as a GM to reign in your players then it is your fault as the GM for letting things get out of hand.

and i've mentioned before that this way of stopping "caster creep" heavily restricts the kind of story the GM is allowed to tell. I'd prefer the system didn't force this kind of behavior from the GM or the Players. Sphere's of power honestly does this very well, i'm quite happy with it.

Hwalsh, you should look into it even if you don't have problems with CvM, it's a good book that makes casting i think easier and quicker to pick up, while at the same time making it more constant like a martial & funner which is the big grab for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.

A problem that has sought solution in d20 since around 2000, let alone 2003 and 2009. Though a reduced ceiling would actually do much of the latter job described there. The floor is easier to launch from, than the ceiling to launch to. Though I am loathe to recommend methods as HWalsh gave above.

Kudaku wrote:

I think a trap option is more akin to someone thinking a vanilla str/dex fighter who fights with a bastard sword in each hand is going to be awesome because 2d10 damage!1!1!

The rules exist to make that fighter, but because he has to split his pb between strength and dex, burn an extra feat on proficiency, and eat -4 penalties on all his attacks I'd say the odds are not in his favor. That probably won't be apparent to someone starting out though.

This is one of those points at which I'd have to say GM'ing is annoying work. Partially in trying to find ways to help that fighter get good without having to curb their idea. Even if you know the system well (and thus don't have rules legwork), you have legwork to show that player better ways to execute their concept. Sometimes tackling some very simple assumptions that just aren't true (like that flavour text matters). That doesn't refute what a trap option is, but it's why as I put above, dropping the ceiling is an easier first step. Because tackling the player who figured out a terrifying power build means telling someone they're being a dick if they run it. And few like hearing that or saying that.

Problem still exists that you have a lot of legwork to deal on either end. And both ends are the Martial/Caster disparity, in a more generalized term.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


I think a more productive solution would be to bring down the optimization ceiling a bit, but to also raise the optimization floor of the game so that GMs of even moderately optimized players don't need to do so much work to make resources like the Bestiary and NPC codex usable.

Any GM worth his salt can stop optimization in its tracks. Again, I have outlined dozens of ways to stop "caster creep" and the easiest one is, "Put your players on a shot clock."

Do that and watch what happens to casters. Suddenly they *aren't* casting those big spells. They are plinking away at the edges while the Martials mix it up to conserve points because they know if they rest too soon they could miss the deadline.

Interrupt their sleep cycles. If casters can't sleep, then caster's can't cast.

Have understandable counters in place to deal with problematic spells like teleport. Teleport trap into an airless box 20 feet below the palace foundation. It only costs 7,000 GP to make something like that permanent.

If, however, you never take steps as a GM to reign in your players then it is your fault as the GM for letting things get out of hand.

Yeah, all it takes is fundamentally changing how the game works to specifically defeat one type of player to make another playstyle entirely viable.

I mean just look at APs, they totally suggest doing everything that you're doing so that casters aren't allowed to cast. You know, that thing that makes them fun in the first place.

And totally redesign cities to ruin teleportation, this is something entirely fair to do to a 9th level character who wanted to teleport.

We're forgetting that EVERY NEW GM SHOULD BE AWARE OF HOW TO DO THIS, because we all start 'worth our salt' or whatever other buzzword title you have to create for yourself to describe that you're better at running a game.

It's not a failing of the system that it's broken enough to the point where you HAVE to reign in a type of class by default because they're not properly balanced to the rest of the game.

ON TOPIC: Chris, I am actually really proud of how well you're handling this, it's something to be commended. There's a lot of emotions flying around since as I've said before, we're all working towards a better game, and it does feel like input is being listened to even if the implementation of it will be slow (we know Paizo isn't huge).

Personally, I think some new eyes looking at rules in an official sense might help, since as I've stated before, it looks like the old eyes that are currently doing are getting more dim as to what the player base wants.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think a lot of people would say that if the game only works when you play with on specific playstyle out of several possibilities, the game claims to support, that's a weakness of the game.

Can you quote me where anyone substantially involved with the design of the game has stated that the game works with massive, unfettered optimization? Or even moderate, competitive amounts of optimization?

Or even a quote regarding any level of optimization?

Like I said, I suspect the car has been designed for 0-60, and they consider 45 a sweet spot. Meanwhile, most people start at 80, and go up from there.

The evidence is all over the game. Look at the NPC Codex and CR. Look at the iconics. Look at the Paizo Staff Characters in the NPC Guide. They simply aren't encountering the same problems that most of the boards do, because the boards are saying 80 is casual and 150 is optimized.

Their first combat in their first adventure suggested that the goblins avoid attacking every round, that they stop and eat bugs and stuff like that. That's a fun game, but that's not optimized goblin super commandos attacking. You can't expect to get similar results when you aren't even on remotely similar pages.

And you can argue up and down that your pages aren't wrong, but I never said they were. I said they weren't the same. That's where this dissonance is coming from.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
and i've mentioned before that this way of stopping "caster creep" heavily restricts the kind of story the GM is allowed to tell. I'd prefer the system didn't force this kind of behavior from the GM or the Players.

Agreed. As I noted just a couple posts ago, if the game only "works" when played one specific way out of the multitude of playstyles it's supposed to support, that's a problem with the game. Really, the fact that people talk about how to structure their entire campaign around keeping casters from being too powerful is pretty clear evidence that casters can be really powerful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

The words "willful ignorance" come to mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm really glad that the hasn't been any mass deletions or locks. Whenever Paizo does that in response to grar it agitates the heck out of me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Physically Unfeasible wrote:
This is one of those points at which I'd have to say GM'ing is annoying work.

You have no idea! That fighter was a real character idea a friend who used to play during 3.0 brought to our PF campaign. Showy "arena fighter-type" based on someone he'd seen on Spartacus: Gods of the Arena. I spent a lot of time looking up fighter archetypes, tracking down the right feat and gear options and convincing our GM to homebrew some feat options to make the character less god-awful.

Then the guy got bored with the fighter because all he could do was blenderize people that were five feet away and look vaguely intimidating, and retired him at level 5. UGH

If he'd come to me with that character now I'd just hand him Path of War and bookmark the Warlord. it's astonishingly hard to make a useless PoW martial unless you're actively sabotaging yourself. Pick whatever class, discipline and maneuvers appeals, odds are it'll turn out all right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Like I said, I suspect the car has been designed for 0-60, and they consider 45 a sweet spot. Meanwhile, most people start at 80, and go up from there.

The evidence is all over the game. Look at the NPC Codex and CR. Look at the iconics. Look at the Paizo Staff Characters in the NPC Guide. They simply aren't encountering the same problems that most of the boards do, because the boards are saying 80 is casual and 150 is optimized.

Their first combat in their first adventure suggested that the goblins avoid attacking every round, that they stop and eat bugs and stuff like that. That's a fun game, but that's not optimized goblin super commandos attacking. You can't expect to get similar results when you aren't even on remotely similar pages.

And you can argue up and down that your pages aren't wrong, but I never said they were. I said they weren't the same. That's where this dissonance is coming from.

If you don't mind, let's stick with your car analogy for a bit.

Pathfinder is a car which chugs along just fine at 35 miles an hour. which is where the devs designed it to work. However, some people want to drive it on the freeway, at 55 miles an hour. At that speed, the car shakes, rattles, and leaks. Other folks might even want to drive it on the open road, where the speed limit goes up to 70 miles an hour. At that speed, the car blows up like a Pinto.

Despite this, the car is supposedly designed as and marketed towards every driver on the road, fully capable of driving at high speeds.

Or, to drop the analogy, if the devs don't want players optimize the slightest bit, they shouldn't make a system that strongly rewards optimization. If the system can't handle people driving at 70, then don't make rules that allow people to drive at 100.


Chris Lambertz wrote:

Just a temp closure while I catch up here...

And back open.

Just real quick, thank you to everyone who responded to my questions! Some of these suggestions do reaffirm what I'd been led to think would be beneficial. Others are definitely ones I wouldn't have expected either, but am pleased to see. As was mentioned, it probably is divergent from this threads original premise, so if you'd like to continue this feedback, drop a line to community@paizo.com and I'll take a look.

I did have to go back and remove some overly sarcastic/gossipy posts and their responses, however. Again, we hear the frustration coming out of this thread, but it needs to be kept civil.

As a heads up, I am contemplating leaving this closed starting this evening and over the weekend because I don't want some of these questions and concerns going completely unaddressed. Understand that we are running on a much leaner crew than usual and it's been an incredibly busy week, and it's not at all motivated by us not wanting you to post your thoughts and opinions, but that I'd to address this as best as possible.

I made a post regarding James Jacobs' (an important dev) opinion on caster martial disparity that got deleted.

Was this getting chewed up an accident, or are we no longer allowed to discuss the design philosophy and opinions of Paizo and Paizo developers?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
If he'd come to me with that character now I'd just hand him Path of War and bookmark the Warlord. It's astonishingly hard to make a useless PoW martial. Pick whatever class, discipline and maneuvers appeals, odds are it'll turn out all right.

Challenge accepted :p.

(Kidding, of course. I don't think it proves anything if I make a 100% iron tortoise initiator with no shield proficiencies.)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

it got pretty heavy Aratrok...

i mean not much i would mind, but easily deletion worthy.


Felyndiira wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
If he'd come to me with that character now I'd just hand him Path of War and bookmark the Warlord. It's astonishingly hard to make a useless PoW martial. Pick whatever class, discipline and maneuvers appeals, odds are it'll turn out all right.

Challenge accepted :p.

(Kidding, of course. I don't think it proves anything if I make a 100% iron tortoise initiator with no shield proficiencies.)

Fair point, amended to say that it's astonishingly hard to make a useless PoW martial unless you're actively sabotaging yourself. :)

Though I should note that a TWF Warlord with zero maneuvers is still a better base class than a fighter. ;)


Rynjin wrote:

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

No Ryn, you are the one who refuses to admit when you are wrong. I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre. Your answer, the only real rebuke you have even tried, has been:

"Well what if I don't wanna run a game like that?"

And I tell you, for the millionth time, then you can't complain about it.

Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.


Aratrok wrote:

I made a post regarding James Jacobs' (an important dev) opinion on caster martial disparity that got deleted.

Was this getting chewed up an accident, or are we no longer allowed to discuss the design philosophy and opinions of Paizo and Paizo developers?

I fund that it is doubtful they are restricting that

The post may have been responding to another that was being deleted, I could also easily imagine that while you felt the comment was appropriate it may have not been, either taking the thread off track or something else.

When I see discussion about the design philosophy and opinions of Paizo and it's developers, it is not because they were being criticized as much as issues of the language used in the complaint.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

No Ryn, you are the one who refuses to admit when you are wrong. I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre. Your answer, the only real rebuke you have even tried, has been:

"Well what if I don't wanna run a game like that?"

And I tell you, for the millionth time, then you can't complain about it.

Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

actually that thing you mentioned, with the airless box(how did they even get it airless in the first place?), i believe he actually mentioned he was playing an actual caster with a scroll of air bubble (or whatever it is called) and simply has certain scrolls as a matter of fact as a wizard.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre.

*Rolling eyes*

To summarize, either you are building a massive strawman or you are clearly not understanding what other people are saying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.

It isn't a matter of being the official "front man" for rules. It's a matter of not awknowleding a problem in the core of a system he writes for AND actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
and i've mentioned before that this way of stopping "caster creep" heavily restricts the kind of story the GM is allowed to tell. I'd prefer the system didn't force this kind of behavior from the GM or the Players.
Agreed. As I noted just a couple posts ago, if the game only "works" when played one specific way out of the multitude of playstyles it's supposed to support, that's a problem with the game. Really, the fact that people talk about how to structure their entire campaign around keeping casters from being too powerful is pretty clear evidence that casters can be really powerful.

No. You don't seem to get it.

Needing 8 hours of rest to regain their spells. That is a NORMAL FEATURE of the casters. That isn't using the game in a way it wasn't intended, it was INTENDED to be a weakness. It was INTENDED to be something that the game master used against the class.

Did you think it was there for fluff? That is a mechanic.

One of the fundamental core mechanics of every caster is resource management. Managing time, rest, and spell slots. Those are core parts of the class.

If you ignore their biggest weakness then you are asking for them to be overpowering.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i've mentioned that a ring of sustenance bumps it down to 2hrs, and i use that, also rope trick, but what ever. :P


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre.

*Rolling eyes*

To summarize, either you are building a massive strawman or you are clearly not understanding what other people are saying.

It is actually, quite impressively, both of those. Really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

No Ryn, you are the one who refuses to admit when you are wrong. I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre. Your answer, the only real rebuke you have even tried, has been:

"Well what if I don't wanna run a game like that?"

And I tell you, for the millionth time, then you can't complain about it.

Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

You still don't get that the way you play or GG played is not the one-and-only-true-way. That the game is supposed to cater to multitude of playstyles?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
and i've mentioned before that this way of stopping "caster creep" heavily restricts the kind of story the GM is allowed to tell. I'd prefer the system didn't force this kind of behavior from the GM or the Players.
Agreed. As I noted just a couple posts ago, if the game only "works" when played one specific way out of the multitude of playstyles it's supposed to support, that's a problem with the game. Really, the fact that people talk about how to structure their entire campaign around keeping casters from being too powerful is pretty clear evidence that casters can be really powerful.

No. You don't seem to get it.

Needing 8 hours of rest to regain their spells. That is a NORMAL FEATURE of the casters. That isn't using the game in a way it wasn't intended, it was INTENDED to be a weakness. It was INTENDED to be something that the game master used against the class.

Did you think it was there for fluff? That is a mechanic.

One of the fundamental core mechanics of every caster is resource management. Managing time, rest, and spell slots. Those are core parts of the class.

If you ignore their biggest weakness then you are asking for them to be overpowering.

Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

honestly the caster is at his weakest when he's preping spells, that's when you strike.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre.

*Rolling eyes*

To summarize, either you are building a massive strawman or you are clearly not understanding what other people are saying.

Oh yeah, it's a hilarious opinion, especially when they're not recognizing that the default of pathfinder, the APs, don't have any of these 'safeguards' that any GM worth their salt would include. So this means HWalsh wouldn't consider PF adventure path designers worth any amount of salt. (Note: The beginning of Carrion Crown book 2 does kind of have this issue of keeping casters from sleeping, but it's only at the start and barely an issue.)

This also doesn't account for new GMs who pre salt worthiness are unable to anticipate this since the game SHOULD be balanced before without needing these safeguards. I mean to me it seems like being easy to run for new players would be really important if you want new players.

Personally, I just think HWalsh is salty. Besides, Gygax may have created it, but he was FAR from perfecting good design encounter.

I do think it's important that we have a dev who doesn't believe in this clearly documented problem with the system. He's not a rules guy, but he is in close contact with rules guys. It's an issue that needs to be looked at for sure.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Samy wrote:
JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.
It isn't a matter of being the official "front man" for rules. It's a matter of not awknowleding a problem in the core of a system he writes for AND actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons.

There is indeed a big difference between:

"I don't see the caster/martial disparity in my games"
and
"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Samy wrote:
JJ has specifically stated several times that he's not a "rules guy". He's a campaign setting guy for the most part.
It isn't a matter of being the official "front man" for rules. It's a matter of not awknowleding a problem in the core of a system he writes for AND actively denouncing those people who would draw attention to the problem as liars trying to hijack the game for their own devious and unworthy reasons.

There is indeed a big difference between:

"I don't see the caster/martial disparity in my games"
and
"I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."

this is going to go exactly the same direction as last time...


Bandw2 wrote:
actually that thing you mentioned, with the airless box(how did they even get it airless in the first place?), i believe he actually mentioned he was playing an actual caster with a scroll of air bubble (or whatever it is called) and simply has certain scrolls as a matter of fact as a wizard.

First off, it is very easy to make a space airless. You make it air tight then you lock an animal inside of it. The animal eventually suffocates and uses up all of the breathable oxygen.

What? These are bad guys we are dealing with here.

Maybe Ryn is just the most Batman-like player I have ever seen. Where he plans for every single eventuality and always has every base covered. Anything a GM can possibly throw at him he has a response for.

Good for him. He's a cut above. Of course if he's that good then he can do that with pretty much any class and therefor it isn't an issue with the game so much as an issue with his skill level being so high that he's literally accounted for every eventuality. He's memorized the Beastiary and knows the most optimum weapon to use against every enemy. He's run the numbers and he's determined the perfect numerically optimal path for everything.

You don't balance the game based on players like that. Ever.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

People have explained, and explained, and explained to you why none of those options actually work, including that EXACT SCENARIO if you'll recall.

Not our fault you refuse to admit when you're wrong.

No Ryn, you are the one who refuses to admit when you are wrong. I get it, you WANT to play the uber-optimization sandboxy non-story driven game. That is cool, but it isn't representative of the genre. Your answer, the only real rebuke you have even tried, has been:

"Well what if I don't wanna run a game like that?"

And I tell you, for the millionth time, then you can't complain about it.

Except I've never said any of that. Not a single word of it. Lying does not become you.

What I have done is pointed out various reasons the 100 Encounter Day just dicks EVERYONE over, not just the caster, and pointed out about 6 different ways a caster could get out of that box...that I could think of off the top of my head.

Now, fact of the matter is, I DO like sandboxes...but to run them, not to play them, and my group generally has an unspoken gentleman's agreement not to over-optimize (since that just gets into an arms race that I, as the GM, will ultimately "win" even if it is a Pyrrhic victory).

HWalsh wrote:
Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Which would explain why people have had DECADES to come up with contingencies for getting out of scenarios like that. Case in point, half the reason my Skull and Shackles player's Wizard carries a bunch of scrolls and prepares spells like Air Bubble on a daily basis (he has two prepared right now, I can give you the sheet if you want) is because he played a lot of 2nd Edition with "tricks and traps" like that...and thus has learned from falling into them how to counter them.

The thing with a caster is, there really is a spell for everything, and any given trick will probably only work once. The more experienced the caster, the more easily they can get out of your traps.


BigDTBone wrote:
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.

Dude. Dispel Magic, it's a 3rd level spell.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Those kinds of tricks, traps, and actions have been done since day one. Since Gary Gygax HIMSELF for crying out loud.

Wow... The "Gary Gygax did it!" fallacy.... Hadn't seen one of those in a long time... Careful, everyone! It's an antique!

(BTW, GG would be considered a horrible GM by modern standards)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
actually that thing you mentioned, with the airless box(how did they even get it airless in the first place?), i believe he actually mentioned he was playing an actual caster with a scroll of air bubble (or whatever it is called) and simply has certain scrolls as a matter of fact as a wizard.
First off, it is very easy to make a space airless. You make it air tight then you lock an animal inside of it. The animal eventually suffocates and uses up all of the breathable oxygen.

ah okay you meant oxygenless, that's more understandable.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.
Dude. Dispel Magic, it's a 3rd level spell.

The only way to beat spells is with better spells.

Confirmed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Dude, rope trick. It's a 2nd level spell.
Dude. Dispel Magic, it's a 3rd level spell.

Dude. Keep up.

Last time you brought THIS up I pointed out to you that Dispel Magic doesn't work on Rope Trick.

It's in the description of the spell, man.

"Creatures in the extra-dimensional space are hidden, beyond the reach of spells (including divinations), unless those spells work across planes."

551 to 600 of 923 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why all the nerfs Paizo? All Messageboards