Why all the nerfs Paizo?

[Rynjin]

It seems to have helped, since Paizo only (seemingly, still haven't gotten a payoff for Chris' promises) took notice after a year of radio silence because of a lot of delayed screaming.

Maybe it isn't important to them...which is a red flag in itself. Releasing a product you acknowledge as sub-par and then not being very concerned with fixing it despite disappointment and anger from your player base is a bad sign.

And it's not just the ACG, it's this big dump of things that apparently they DID find important enough to spend time on, but not important enough to explain their thought process on...which brings us back to the main problem.

It's not specifically an ACG problem. The ACG is a symptom of a much larger problem, and this errata especially.

Paizo has completely shut down on communication with the players, and "they don't want to because people are pissed" is not an excuse.

Fact of the matter is, people are pissed BECAUSE they aren't communicating, so you have your cause and effect reversed. What was their excuse for shutting down in the first place? Because people rightfully pointed out the flaws in one of their products?

That makes them out to be immature people who can't take criticism. I don't want to think that's the case.

Because they're too busy to? That will always be the case. If so, they might as well make an official announcement saying they don't care to do it any more and have done. At least that would be something definitive.

They don't think the complaints are important? Well, that in itself is unimportant in the grand scheme. Because their players think it's important, and their players are kind of necessary for their company to survive. What's important to their players should be important to them.

There's really no valid excuse for what's been going on the past year.

[Kthulhu]

Kryptik wrote:

I always interpreted that part to mean you can't hide the rope within the extra dimensional space itself.

I'd expand that to meaning that you can't in any way use magic to conceal it. No making the rope invisible, etc.

[Petty Alchemy]

I'd like one order of compliment sandwich please, extra sugar.

[DinosaursOnIce]

This is in response (mostly) to the questions Chris asked, I don't remember them exactly and I don't feel like digging through this monster to find them:

These numbers don't correlate to anything outside of my own numbering system.
1) I would like to see previous errata and such available in some easily accessible form.

2) I like the idea of separating FAQs, FAQerratas/Errata's into different things. Minor text changes (ie: spelling errors/punctuation) I don't care about.

3) I think it be neat to see explanations and such following FAQ and errata, it be nice just to know what the devs thought and why they thought such.

4) specifically with FAQs I think blog posts would be nice. Or at least some way to reasonably search them.

5) I like the idea of polls, I love polls! But, more seriously, I think it be cool if the people on the forums got to have some direct input about what changes might happen, and even get some direct discussion with the devs about what changes might happen, and ideas for doing so (kind of like the play test threads).

6) following from 5, I think it be nice to have some forewarning in general about hot button FAQs and large amounts of errata changes.

That's about it with those, Thanks Chris!

On another note, personally I was/am pretty annoyed/frustrated/irritated over the whole ACG errata (I've also been annoyed with all the seemingly nerfs in general with recent FAQs). Some things need changed, I get that, some things I really don't understand why they were changed. I strongly dislike how it feels like things get lowered to basically worthless status when they get FAQ'd or Errata'd.

Just my opinion(s).

Cheers!

[Kthulhu]

It is definitely the GM's job to make adjustment to keep power levels decently balanced. However, it's the dev's job to provide a system where this is possible without that GM needing to rewrite vast swaths of the system and ignore other large swaths.

The Pathfinder devs are failing at that responsibility.

[Insain Dragoon]

I just hope they take that "Burning Questions of the Month" seriously.

It's a great and fun way to handle forum feedback on issues directly or indirectly related to recent release.

It was a practice I saw first performed on the MWO forums. They make a thread every month that they leave open for a few days and allow people to post questions, limited to one per post and one account per thread. After that they close the thread and ask people to hit favorite on the question(s) they want answered most (yes you can favorite multiple) after that they take the top X number of questions and answer them within a week.

This is great because

1. It can get dev feedback on hot button issues that they previously would have had no idea were issues.

2. It's community driven, so at least people feel involved.

3. It finally allows stuff from non-core material to be addressed, such as with Sacred Geometry or that Cavalier Gunslinger archetype hybrid that can't actually challenge with guns.

4. It's controlled and clean. No need to wade through giant bickering threads, just singular questions.

[Chris Lambertz]

Had to go back and remove some bickering posts. Final reminder here to keep things civil, because as much as I'd like to keep a light hand on this discussion, the continued personal sniping doesn't help any conversation. Again, I'd rather not cut off discussion here, but if it continues to be a problem, I'll have to lock it.

And for some clarity: I said I would do what I could with my team to hear and see what we can do to improve where we can. It is really unrealistic to expect that to have a result within a matter of days, especially with limited staff.

[Caedwyr]

Since the discussion has turned more to the game design, I figured it might be useful to repost some observations/rants I made in another thread from the perspective of someone who started playing D&D around the time of Pathfinder's Alpha and how newbie unfriendly the game actually is if you don't have someone more experienced doing the heavy lifting of introducing the game to you.

Caedwyr wrote:

As someone who has gotten into D&D around the beginning of Pathfinder, all of the unspoken assumptions just drive me up the wall. It's like there is a giant elephant in the corner of the room and all of the oldtimers and developers act like it isn't there at all and even get upset if you mention it. This game has a huge amount of pitfalls that the more experienced players navigate around without even thinking about.

This really makes the game difficult to pick up and I've had a number of people who expressed interest in trying out the game give up on it because in their words "the game isn't even remotely balanced and I'd rather not waste my time on such a flawed system". Of course, this typically means we end up not playing any TTRPG and so I'm left disappointed we can't play the game together. That said, I'm pretty sympathetic to this point of view. Part of the fun in playing with a mechanical system and not a game of imagination is being able to find cool combinations and being inspired by the system. Part of the appeal of a system like D&D or Pathfinder is the breadth of the system and all the different character archetypes you can potentially create. That the game doesn't actually live up to what it claims it does leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth.

Also, the other thing that drove my group up the wall was the very poor consistency in rules language. This is a game, not an imagination book. Games have their own structures and rules language. Pathfinder and D&D in general appear to have been written with almost no effort to creating consistent language for rules. It's like every time someone comes up with an idea, they just write up some new rules for it rather than looking to see if something similar has already been done. It reminds me of the old "engineer designed programs" which have an extra toggle switch, an extra menu option, or an extra entry field instead of trying to create any sort of unified UI or any sort of design pass to make sure they aren't duplicating a function in a way that is 99% the same.

Sorry for the rant, but as a newer player who has tried but failed to pick up the game several times, the denials that the game rules are unfriendly to new players (and not just the length) really looks like the old boys club sticking their head in the sand.

This rant also ignores the atrocious layout/organization of the books, which make sense for someone who has been playing for 20 years, but not so much for a new player. The beginner's box made an attempt to clean things up, but good luck having a chance of picking up the game without lots of mistakes if you try to switch to the CRB.

And a follow-up comment:

Me wrote:

Tormsskull wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

As someone who has gotten into D&D around the beginning of Pathfinder, all of the unspoken assumptions just drive me up the wall. It's like there is a giant elephant in the corner of the room and all of the oldtimers and developers act like it isn't there at all and even get upset if you mention it. This game has a huge amount of pitfalls that the more experienced players navigate around without even thinking about.

That's some valuable feedback, thanks for sharing. It sounds like you want in black and white some of the more common interpretations / house rules. My concern would be that if that was done, and let's say a new version (Pathfinder 2,) I believe the same kind of arguments or issues would then crop up from that new baseline.

I'll use an exaggerated example here. Should the CRB have to say something like "While it might be easy to acquire a lot of gear quickly by killing merchant NPCs (or perhaps your comrades,) you shouldn't do that?"

I'd be curious to see, from your point of view, what a few of these unspoken assumptions are though.

Caedwyr wrote:

This is a game, not an imagination book.

Ah, but it is an imagination book. Every rule, every bit of descriptive text, every part of the book is designed with the goal of allowing you to imagine a character adventuring in another world.

Based on your separation of these two, you seem to have a lot of disdain for "imagination books." Why? Do you feel that if there is not a concrete rule for something, then the game loses its value?

Obviously the Game Master is meant to handle some of these situations, but if you feel that a Game Master having to make a ruling or wing it causes the game to not be as fun, I would suggest that a different rule set would work much better for you.

And I don't mean that in the dismissive "go play something else" manner, I mean that the game is literally designed around the concept that there will be a GM in place handling these things.

To the second point first. I like imagination games. They are a lot of fun. However, one of the pitfalls that comes up in these games, is without a proper framework you end up having to rely on the personal balancing skill of the Teamaster/GM rather than allowing the Teamaster/GM to provide scenarios and in-world responses to the player's actions. It makes for a huge burden on the GM, and makes it extremely daunting for a new group. Our original plan was for rotating GMs, but all of the gentleman agreements and balancing the game offloads onto the GM means that people without a strong sense of balance and understanding of how the game functions cannot do the GM role. Or they feel extra stressed out. This has the unfortunate effect of in our situation preventing some of the more creative people from feeling like they can participate in the GM role and makes the GM role feel more like work. The GM has to spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on balancing the game mechanics and fixing problems from the game rules rather than spending that time on crafting cool scenarios and characters. In other game systems (board games, CPRGS, card games) the rules are well understood and following the rules is the responsibility of the entire group.

One attraction of TTRPGs is the freedom to do things that the rules/computers don't anticipate and having a GM there to adjudicate. The problem is how frequently it isn't something that arises for an odd edge case or corner case, but fundamental aspects of the game design.

I want to be able to be inspired by a movie or a story and to have a game framework that lets me play out an alternate storyline in one of those settings with a group of friends. What I have gotten instead is a system that requires almost as much work on the part of the GM in balancing everything rather than just spending their time with helping the story along and coming up with awesome plot twists as the GM works through what might be happening out of the eyes of the players.

The thing is, Kirthfinder is a great example of how a lot of the problems can be cleared up. Rule language can be harmonized and more universal mechanics/wordings can be used. This means that players only need to learn things once and keeps the complexity and confusion over rules down. All classes can be built on the same power curve and have the same opportunity to parcipate in all parts of the story throughout their careers. Creating a multi-class character concept, or a character concept that draws from a diverse range of talents can be done without punishing the player (greater freedom of imagination!). The issues I have with Kirthfinder is that it is probably way to dense in options for a good game for beginners and there are still issues with how it is organized (since it was based on the CRB organization structure). There's also missing pieces where it refers to the CRB. It also means that if I play it, I'm limited to a small group of personal friends and I can't go out and expect others to know how to play it.

I've looked at other game systems like Gurps, D&D4th Ed, D&D5th Ed and a few others, but they are either too rule heavy and fiddly with pointless minutae that bog things down, or are too restrictive in their structure or limiting in the imagination and stories you can effectively tell. Or they have as bad or worse balance/role viability issues.

And a final follow-up

Me wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Ideally, the imagination stuff and the rules are mutually reinforcing -- that is, playing by the rules as written leads to exactly the kind of imaginary stories you're trying to create. The old Victory Games 007 rules were the best at that I've ever seen -- a lot of the rules, upon reading them, were apparently nonsensical or even asinine, but if you followed them, game play almost inexorably had the "feel" of a James Bond movie.

Pathfinder is sort of the opposite -- the rules don't actually support the kinds of stories that the APs are trying to tell. As a result, it's a lot of extra work to get them to mesh, and in some cases that's detrimental to the immersion (the level of railroading that's needed in some of the APs goes beyond anything that a lot of people are comfortable with, for example).

Ever watched a movie and said "well, why don't they just do X obvious solution to their problem?" That's the problem with the APs. The game gives you a set of abilities and capabilities and most APs can't deal with what the game provides when someone with even a modicum of problem solving skills and no blinders/gentleman agreements. In which place, why are we playing this imagination game when the rules are heavy, inconsistent and can't even tell the story you want to tell without lots of unwritten assumptions. It wouldn't be so bad if the developers explicitly called out stuff that won't work or things that will need to be removed to work, but it is very rare that they take that step. Even more irritatingly, they will frequently act as though the problem doesn't exist, or it is some sort of personal failing on the player's part if such a problem arises.

Like I ranted above, this makes the game very new player unfriendly and presents an unwelcoming old-boy's club for the community of players who play the game.

So, the long and the short of it is, the game is hard enough to get into for new players given the size of the rulebook and the organization. On top of that, you have to deal with loads of traps and additional work to balance the game and keep things from falling apart. This is extra hard when your whole group is completely new to the game and doesn't know all the "obvious" things to do to balance the game. Rules are written with little to no wording standardization and a review of the forum thread/FAQ shows that something might be intended to work or not when the meaning appears to be the same, but the wording is just slightly different. All of this together means that a new GM is going to be overwhelmed quickly and they will spend most of their time dealing with balancing/rule issues and not acting as the creative person helming the game.

[Insain Dragoon]

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Had to go back and remove some bickering posts. Final reminder here to keep things civil, because as much as I'd like to keep a light hand on this discussion, the continued personal sniping doesn't help any conversation. Again, I'd rather not cut off discussion here, but if it continues to be a problem, I'll have to lock it.

And for some clarity: I said I would do what I could with my team to hear and see what we can do to improve where we can. It is really unrealistic to expect that to have a result within a matter of days, especially with limited staff.

My only expectation/hope/wish is that someone who has company changing power decides to read what you submit. It would be a huge shame if all of this was shunted to someone who couldn't even respond to this.

[StarMartyr365]

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Had to go back and remove some bickering posts. Final reminder here to keep things civil, because as much as I'd like to keep a light hand on this discussion, the continued personal sniping doesn't help any conversation. Again, I'd rather not cut off discussion here, but if it continues to be a problem, I'll have to lock it.

And for some clarity: I said I would do what I could with my team to hear and see what we can do to improve where we can. It is really unrealistic to expect that to have a result within a matter of days, especially with limited staff.

Since this is your most recent post I'm just going to hijack it.

The thing I want the most is something like the twirlys on the main forum page that close sub-forums that you are not interested in but for people instead. If that's not possible, then perhaps a way to flag a person so that you do not see their posts or their posts are closed like sub-forums unless you click on them. I don't want popularity contest up vote/down vote or "like" button. I simply want the ability to filter the forums to make them easier to read.

SM

[Insain Dragoon]

I am vehemently against that idea. The dissolution of open discourse is a horrible idea.

[Steve Geddes]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I am vehemently against that idea. The dissolution of open discourse is a horrible idea.

Would you notice? It doesn't seem like it would impact on anyone any more than just ignoring a poster (as we can do now). Or is it more a matter of principle?

[Feed the troll]

StarMartyr365 wrote:

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Had to go back and remove some bickering posts. Final reminder here to keep things civil, because as much as I'd like to keep a light hand on this discussion, the continued personal sniping doesn't help any conversation. Again, I'd rather not cut off discussion here, but if it continues to be a problem, I'll have to lock it.

And for some clarity: I said I would do what I could with my team to hear and see what we can do to improve where we can. It is really unrealistic to expect that to have a result within a matter of days, especially with limited staff.

Since this is your most recent post I'm just going to hijack it.

The thing I want the most is something like the twirlys on the main forum page that close sub-forums that you are not interested in but for people instead. If that's not possible, then perhaps a way to flag a person so that you do not see their posts or their posts are closed like sub-forums unless you click on them. I don't want popularity contest up vote/down vote or "like" button. I simply want the ability to filter the forums to make them easier to read.

SM

That is a totally bad idea. You should have to see all the posts and react accordingly.

[Icyshadow]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I am vehemently against that idea. The dissolution of open discourse is a horrible idea.

Would you notice? It doesn't seem like it would impact on anyone any more than just ignoring a poster (as we can do now). Or is it more a matter of principle?

For me, it's a bit of both.

[BigNorseWolf]

StarMartyr365 wrote:

The thing I want the most is something like the twirlys on the main forum page that close sub-forums that you are not interested in but for people instead. If that's not possible, then perhaps a way to flag a person so that you do not see their posts or their posts are closed like sub-forums unless you click on them. I don't want popularity contest up vote/down vote or "like" button. I simply want the ability to filter the forums to make them easier to read.

SM

I'll assume you can see my posts since you don;t know this exists...

[Steve Geddes]

Icyshadow wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I am vehemently against that idea. The dissolution of open discourse is a horrible idea.

Would you notice? It doesn't seem like it would impact on anyone any more than just ignoring a poster (as we can do now). Or is it more a matter of principle?

For me, it's a bit of both.

So you think you would notice? I can't see how it impacts on anyone else if StarMartyr365 has the option of not seeing some of our posts. (Even more so, given BigNorseWolf's link to that option already existing).

I can understand opposition to the idea on principle, just not on pragmatic grounds.

[HWalsh]

Bandw2 wrote:

@HWalsh as i said before, if it;s intended for experienced GMs then it's intended for the wrong person, you don't NEED the CRB when you're experienced, but you do when you;re not.

basically all that stuff you mentioned means jack squat when the GM isn't aware that levels in PC classes aren't equal or that CR isn't actually equal to something else of the same CR. it gives some advice but the majority of the advice, the actual rules, goes against the first advice.

The GM isn't bound by the rules. Rule 0.

[Snowblind]

HWalsh wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

@HWalsh as i said before, if it;s intended for experienced GMs then it's intended for the wrong person, you don't NEED the CRB when you're experienced, but you do when you;re not.

basically all that stuff you mentioned means jack squat when the GM isn't aware that levels in PC classes aren't equal or that CR isn't actually equal to something else of the same CR. it gives some advice but the majority of the advice, the actual rules, goes against the first advice.

The GM isn't bound by the rules. Rule 0.

Shame they are bound by the social contract. Which usually includes not abusing Rule 0.

The only way for an inexperienced GM to make things go the way they want without being able to set it up mechanically from the get go is to fudge dice, change encounters mid session or even mid combat and explicitly railroad. Most would consider this breaking the social contract, rule 0 be damned.

[HWalsh]

Snowblind wrote:

The only way for an inexperienced GM to make things go the way they want without being able to set it up mechanically from the get go is to fudge dice, change encounters mid session or even mid combat and explicitly railroad. Most would consider this breaking the social contract, rule 0 be damned.

Incorrect.

Fudging Dice, changing encounters mid-session, and "railroading" doesn't break the social contract.

Read the GMG it recommends all of those things. For every gaming group I've ever been in, for example, its understood that these things will happen

Example:

"I teleport us to Evil McBaddie's lair!"

"You close your eyes and feel yourself pulled through the spaces between worlds but when you open them you are not at your destination. You find yourself at the base of a forest."

"Why?"

"You aren't sure."

-----

Later on after having defeated Evil McBaddie.

"Make a spell craft check as you look at the strange orb."

"Check passes."

"It's the Orb of Osarin, it is said that it strengthens the bonds of time and space and none can teleport within 5 miles of this orb."

-----

No social contract broken. Teleport cheese revoked and the game now establishes that teleport blocking is possible.

[Jamie Charlan]

Rule 0 warning:

When you IGNORE a rule, that doesn't mean the rule was fine as-is

When you CHANGE a rule, that doesn't mean the rule was fine as-is

Yes, one can always just ignore or change the rules. But that DOES NOT AND CAN NEVER be used as an excuse to claim the ruleset is just fine.

If it was fine, you would not have thousands upon thousands all coming up with their own fixes and demanding to know why planetouched wizards now have about a 40% chance of dying before level 1 (with a majority of the remainder having less than a decade left before old age permanently claims their decrepit body).

Similarly, if the Kineticist was tier 2(I can't believe someone actually claimed this. Has our education system fallen so far that people can't count past two anymore?) or 3, you wouldn't be seeing so many people taking issue with its restrictions, drawbacks, limitations and inability to outshoot even a "not even a real fighter NPC sub-class".

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

You know, I read these threads where HWalsh wanders in, and I can't help but wonder what sort of affliction plagues him that he confuses "I can handwave and change things until they work as intended" with "Everything is working as intended."

In what world is GM fiat a preferable method for dealing with a situation such as quadratic wizards, next to the possibility of actual functional mechanics?

[HWalsh]

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:

You know, I read these threads where HWalsh wanders in, and I can't help but wonder what sort of affliction plagues him that he confuses "I can handwave and change things until they work as intended" with "Everything is working as intended."

In what world is GM fiat a preferable method for dealing with a situation such as quadratic wizards, next to the possibility of actual functional mechanics?

Because of the need of the fiat.

I've been in groups where the player choices never once necessitated an obvious fiat. Where there were no artificial roadblocks thrown up. Where the PCs went along with the story in the way it was intended and didn't seek to circumvent the story.

We used Teleport, we used Dimension Door, and not a single spell was blocked. We didn't try to break the game by finding the most powerful combinations humanly possible for our characters.

I've been in groups where the opposite happened. Where an arms race of optimization caused the GM to make snap judgments.

I've been in groups where some people optimized and others didn't and again, the GM had to step in and keep things fun and fresh for everyone.

You can't come up with a unified ruleset that doesn't allow abuse. Someone will always figure out something. It is up to the GM to keep it in check ultimately.

Note:
I am not saying that there aren't rules problems. I am simply saying that the complaints about class disparities are incorrect. Casters can be outshined by melee depending on the GM. Melee can be outshined by casters depending on the GM. To ignore that the "disparity" is mostly caused by the GM and not the game is a problem worse than the rules in this regard.

[The black raven]

I am amazed that this thread is still open, and that it did last more than a few pages.

In all honesty, I now have a far better opinion of Paizo's willingness to indulge its customers (and maybe listen to them) just because of this.

Kudos to all involved.

[Rynjin]

Yes, yes, a level 1 Commoner can outshine a 20th level Mythic 10 Wizard with "the right GM".

That doesn't mean jack about anything that matters any more than anything you says does.

[Legio_MCMLXXXVII]

The complaints are entirely correct. To deny this is to deny problems in the rules, since the disparity arises directly from the problems in the rules which allow spellcasters access to things that no martial class can hope to do. The only way to fix the disparity is by fiat. That is not the same as the problem being caused by the GM not exercising a large degree of fiat.

Why is this hard for you?

[supervillan]

The only version of D&D that balanced the classes is 4e. We didn't like that game. The reasons we didn't like it were that it lost the D&D flavour, that every class just felt the same as every other, there was no distinctiveness and the game resembled too much a board game rather than an RPG.

In consequence, Pathfinder was born.

If you want a more "balanced" fantasy rpg there are plenty of options out there: 4e, Conan, WFRPG for example. D&D needs difference if it's still going to feel like D&D.

Can we end the disparity/game balance derail now please? There are plenty of other threads discussing that subject.

[HWalsh]

Rynjin wrote:

Yes, yes, a level 1 Commoner can outshine a 20th level Mythic 10 Wizard with "the right GM".

That doesn't mean jack about anything that matters any more than anything you says does.

Nice childish insult there Ryn. I can see that the disparity hurts you badly and that you feel strongly. I don't want the GM to be marginalized.

[Snowblind]

HWalsh wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Yes, yes, a level 1 Commoner can outshine a 20th level Mythic 10 Wizard with "the right GM".

That doesn't mean jack about anything that matters any more than anything you says does.

Nice childish insult there Ryn. I can see that the disparity hurts you badly and that you feel strongly. I don't want the GM to be marginalized.

How about the rest of us, who don't want to see the GM burdened with having to constantly compensate for flaws in the mechanical system.

I seriously have to ask you - how bad does the system have to be before it stops being the GM's fault or the players' fault that the table has issues? Because if your answer is "never" or some roughly equivalent answer, then practically nobody is ever going to see eye to eye with you.

[HWalsh]

Snowblind wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Yes, yes, a level 1 Commoner can outshine a 20th level Mythic 10 Wizard with "the right GM".

That doesn't mean jack about anything that matters any more than anything you says does.

Nice childish insult there Ryn. I can see that the disparity hurts you badly and that you feel strongly. I don't want the GM to be marginalized.

How about the rest of us, who don't want to see the GM burdened with having to constantly compensate for flaws in the mechanical system.

I seriously have to ask you - how bad does the system have to be before it stops being the GM's fault or the players' fault that the table has issues? Because if your answer is "never" or some roughly equivalent answer, then practically nobody is ever going to see eye to eye with you.

How bad?

I have seen games get so bad that the GM can't run it without significantly re-writing the system. The point a game gets too difficult to run is when the core mechanics simply fail to function. Where descriptions of what things do break so completely that nobody is sure what skills do anymore.

Pathfinder is not that broken.

At best the criticism of Pathfinder's mechanics realistically are:

"There are a number of feats which feel, to many players, as though they are mechanically inferior in comparison to others and in some cases there are feats which are objectively inferior to others. This results in a generally narrow number of feats being selected by experienced players despite there being a much wider variety of feats available."

"Certain classes appear to fill the same roles as other classes in an almost objectively superior way while generally allowing for the same flavor of character. Namely some players will play two classes with the exact same flavor but one is simply objectively better than the other."

"The counters to casters are far more ambiguous than the counters to some melee classes. In many cases the melee class can be significantly reduced in effectiveness by common, readily apparent, methods (such as movement and battlefield positioning) whereas to do the same to casters requires manipulating resource management. One absolutely requires more thought and planning than the other."

[Otherwhere]

What I want to know is: when do I get paid for doing so much work home-brewing a system that isn't "that broken"?

CRB had some flaws, but not overly burdensome to tweak for a home game. But with each expansion adding more: feats; traits; classes; archetypes; and mechanics, it has become ungainly (see all the "bloat" threads from a few months back) and cumbersome, full of junk that is either OP or worthless, and needs to be constantly monitored by the GM for a "thumbs up" or "Thumbs down" vote on whether it should be included in their campaign.

PFS has it even worse. Poor sods.

[CWheezy]

supervillan wrote:

The only version of D&D that balanced the classes is 4e.

This isn't true btw, it was still pretty broken

[Tormsskull]

First a preface:

Spoiler:

Please, no one quote me. I'm tired of getting my posts modded. Secondly, super happy well-wishes to everyone. I hope everyone is having a super great day and stuff.

Thirdly, and this is not aimed at anyone at all in this lovely community of super happy, friendly people:

It seems that there is a group of people who dislike that a GM needs to be involved to make the game work. They would like the game to work right out of the box, even with a newbie GM and newbie players. While that is a laudable goal, is it a realistic one?

I think a lot of this goes back to some players not liking the concept of a Game Master that controls everything. These players are used to playing within defined rules, where if you master the rules, you can do whatever the rules allow you to.

The idea that the GM can say "no, that's not going to work, regardless of what the rules say," seems to bother these type of players. They don't want to have any kind of authority figure limiting their capabilities.

While that's not my play style preference, I understand the mindset. Especially if you've had a handful of really bad GMs.

That being said, I don't think it is possible to have the kind of game most of us seem to want without a human being in the GM role responding to things on the fly.

So, in summary, while there may be certain key issues that could certainly be tightened up in the rule set, we shouldn't expect that doing so would magically solve all problems that are going to arise at the table. Newbie GMs are going to struggle even with a near-perfect rule set, simply due to the sheer amount of possibilities in the game.

[Otherwhere]

@ Tormsskull:

I run into Players who will site "the rules" because the rules support what they want to do, especially when that application is broken. Then I have to say: "Look, I feel that's broken and unbalanced. And in MY game, it needs to be nerfed or banned."

I don't have the support of the system, and it gets tiring really fast.

[HWalsh]

Tormsskull wrote:

*snip* As per your request.

100% agree

[HWalsh]

Otherwhere wrote:

@ Tormsskull:

I run into Players who will site "the rules" because the rules support what they want to do, especially when that application is broken. Then I have to say: "Look, I feel that's broken and unbalanced. And in MY game, it needs to be nerfed or banned."

I don't have the support of the system, and it gets tiring really fast.

That is just part of being the GM. We've had to deal with that since day 1.

In AD&D it was something called, "The Elven Machine-Gunner."

Yes, "By the rules" it was totally doable.

The thing is, however, you do have the support of the system.

"The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours.

You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."

The Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules

It is like, the first rule in the PHB.

[Tormsskull]

@ Otherwhere

You don't have the support of the system - why is that? I'm really trying to understand this viewpoint. Is it that the players feel that the rules trump you as the GM?

How would a game company support the thousands of different GMs? Are you looking for the rules to be near-perfect, or are you looking for a solid indication from the rules like "All of these rules are just guidelines. Every GM will have different rules and interpretations. When in doubt, check with your GM."

What specifically could be done to the rules so that they support you better?

[N. Jolly]

@Tormsskull:

Just because we'll never get a perfect system doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the current one. Saying that we'll never get a perfect system shouldn't hinder our attempts to improve upon what we have now.

The rules we have now don't help make the GM's job easier, and really, the rules should be helpful to both player and GM alike. I as a player want to be able to depend on the rules to allow me to do what I envision my character doing without having to worry about rule zero being shoved in my face.

I as a GM would like a rules set that didn't require a large amount of rewrites to make sure that the entire thing didn't collapse in on itself because a caster was using rules as they were intended (ie: using a teleport spell to teleport to a location, using freedom of movement to be free of a hindrance, or simulacrum to make a copy of something they wish to copy), instead keeping things relatively balanced between the classes.

Errata should work towards that goal of reaching balance, and as has been stated again and again, errata is rarely in favor of the marital, removing their options which only leads to more and more static characters and static ideas since new ideas are chopped down at the knees by these decision.

Personally I laud things like the gamemaster's guide and ultimate campaign, they're great books, and I really enjoy them. They're a great help, but in the back of my mind I wish that they weren't almost mandatory reading for a GM, that the system itself was intuitive enough to allow a new GM a lack of 'growing pains' to hit their stride.

[alexd1976]

N. Jolly wrote:

@Tormsskull:

Just because we'll never get a perfect system doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the current one. Saying that we'll never get a perfect system shouldn't hinder our attempts to improve upon what we have now.

The rules we have now don't help make the GM's job easier, and really, the rules should be helpful to both player and GM alike. I as a player want to be able to depend on the rules to allow me to do what I envision my character doing without having to worry about rule zero being shoved in my face.

I as a GM would like a rules set that didn't require a large amount of rewrites to make sure that the entire thing didn't collapse in on itself because a caster was using rules as they were intended (ie: using a teleport spell to teleport to a location, using freedom of movement to be free of a hindrance, or simulacrum to make a copy of something they wish to copy), instead keeping things relatively balanced between the classes.

Errata should work towards that goal of reaching balance, and as has been stated again and again, errata is rarely in favor of the marital, removing their options which only leads to more and more static characters and static ideas since new ideas are chopped down at the knees by these decision.

Personally I laud things like the gamemaster's guide and ultimate campaign, they're great books, and I really enjoy them. They're a great help, but in the back of my mind I wish that they weren't almost mandatory reading for a GM, that the system itself was intuitive enough to allow a new GM a lack of 'growing pains' to hit their stride.

I agree with everything you said here, but I have to mention something that occurred to me recently:

You can just ignore the Fighter (or Martial classes) altogether.

There are TONS of base classes to choose from, maybe they released them to 'fix' the disparity issue, rather than re-write the existing material?

For example, I will NEVER play a Fighter again. Hunter or Swashbuckler from now on. Interesting abilities, some spellcasting (Hunter), unique rules... way more fun than 'roll to hit, roll for damage'.

I treat Fighter as an NPC class now, when I GM, it's my 'go to' class for grunts. Works GREAT for that.

My two cents.

[Insain Dragoon]

It's always fun when you're 6 sessions into a game then suddenly your GM tells you "Oh actually that thing you just tried to do? Nah it doesn't work."

"why didn't you tell me before the session?"

"rule 0"

[alexd1976]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

It's always fun when you're 6 sessions into a game then suddenly your GM tells you "Oh actually that thing you just tried to do? Nah it doesn't work."

"why didn't you tell me before the session?"

"rule 0"

Bad GM if the ability has already seen play... I always encourage people to have the GM review characters before playing, and have the players explain whatever hook or trick they built their character around...

Pulling out your super-nova ability that you HID from the GM may sometimes warrant rule 0, but that situation could be blamed on the player if they deliberately tried to conceal the abilities of their character...

[Entryhazard]

"Rule 0" is moot, as I paid the book for having the rules ready instead of making up an entire system for myself.

[chaoseffect]

Entryhazard wrote:

"Rule 0" is moot, as I paid the book for having the rules ready instead of making up an entire system for myself.

I'm now picturing a book the size of the CRB except all the pages are blank except for the first one which contains nothing Rule 0. Still costs $50 hardcover though.

[alexd1976]

Entryhazard wrote:

"Rule 0" is moot, as I paid the book for having the rules ready instead of making up an entire system for myself.

Rule 0 could also be interpreted as this:

In cases of rules disputes between players and GMs, GMs always have one vote more than the total of the players votes.

I mean seriously, someone RUNS the game, everyone else PLAYS it. It's not a contest between opposing forces, it's a group of friends trying to have fun.

If you don't like the way someone adjudicates something, run your own game and show them how it's done.

[HWalsh]

Entryhazard wrote:

"Rule 0" is moot, as I paid the book for having the rules ready instead of making up an entire system for myself.

The reason why my side™ is having such a tiff over this is because of statements like that.

Having to plan to counter certain problematic spells isn't making an entire system for yourself. I've made entire systems. That is a LOT of work that you don't have to do.

You have a combat system.
You have initiative systems.
You have ability scores and benefits.
You have carrying capacity.
You have classes.
You have skills.
You have feats.
You have spells.
You have combat maneuvers.
You have crafting rules.
You have...

You get the idea.

Having to tweak parts of it isn't making it all yourself by any stretch.

[Insain Dragoon]

alexd1976 wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

It's always fun when you're 6 sessions into a game then suddenly your GM tells you "Oh actually that thing you just tried to do? Nah it doesn't work."

"why didn't you tell me before the session?"

"rule 0"

Bad GM if the ability has already seen play... I always encourage people to have the GM review characters before playing, and have the players explain whatever hook or trick they built their character around...

Pulling out your super-nova ability that you HID from the GM may sometimes warrant rule 0, but that situation could be blamed on the player if they deliberately tried to conceal the abilities of their character...

Quote:

I think a lot of this goes back to some players not liking the concept of a Game Master that controls everything. These players are used to playing within defined rules, where if you master the rules, you can do whatever the rules allow you to.

The idea that the GM can say "no, that's not going to work, regardless of what the rules say," seems to bother these type of players. They don't want to have any kind of authority figure limiting their capabilities.

Based on Walsh and Tormsskull it seems that if one player was significantly outshining another due to the difference in power between the class they would continually target that player. Stuff like "Oh you want to SCRY? Nah man. Oh you want to hide the Rope from rope trick 100 ft in the air above a forest? Nah, you can't. Man the way you trip everything that comes near you, even in the surprise round? Totally not feeling that anymore. That way you used a bunch of magic items, feats, skill points, and charisma to buff your diplomacy? Means nothing, I'm looking for a high dice roll. Your cleric had raise dead prepared and was ready to use it in case of emergency? Plot says this guy needs to die, so nah man. Oh you just so happened to have the silver bullet spell for this encounter prepared today? Nah, I don't like it.

Quote:

. Casters can be outshined by melee depending on the GM. Melee can be outshined by casters depending on the GM.

The only games where casters are getting outshone by martials are either games where

1. The DM has heavily nerfed casters to be balanced within the world
2. The caster player is intentionally holding back so that he doesn't outshine his brethren who are equal in mechanical skill, but just so happen to prefer a martial character concept.
3. The caster player is bad.

Both cases one and two are proof that the rules as written don't lead to a balanced game. If there was no disparity you wouldn't need nerfing/buffing houserules. Three is not the GM, nor the developers fault.

Houserules are cool and dandy, but they need to be put in place before a game starts, not in a session.

Walsh wrote:

Having to plan to counter certain problematic spells isn't making an entire system for yourself

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why are they problematic? Because generally they, RAW, give significantly more power than other similar abilities.

Is the answer to take those options and throw them away? Sure, that's fine and is a houserule.

To modify them? That's a houserule, which is great.

To ignore them until the player decides they want to use it then suddenly you have to come up with a contrived reason to deny them access to it? That's not a houserule and is pretty dickish.