Does weapon types tied to class mechanics irk anyone else?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 55 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

While these classes don't generally appeal to me, I would agree that limiting abilities to very specific weapons isn't really justified.


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


I disagree, in that the rules should point out what is "dumb" and what is not. This can be done by setting but as most rules are so tied into their settings and not being generic it often gets lost.

I want to disagree with you, but you're right. What one determines as "reasonable" is subjective. Many builds I see posted around that are comical are beyond what I'd like to see supported.

So I suppose what you're left with is a setting (for lack of a better term). This setting has a kind of expectation in how combat works, magic, skills, the reliability, availability & power of each, and what the various classes represent in essence (the front combative foghter, the quick and seemingly prescient rogue, the overwhelmingly powerful sorcerer, etc). However with that, the rules should try to stand back, and place as little restriction on the players as possible. So come up with as general an archetype for your class as you can, and let the players build out however they see fit...and stop adding fluff text to traits. I just want diplomacy as a class skill without being an evangelical.


Ranishe wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


I disagree, in that the rules should point out what is "dumb" and what is not. This can be done by setting but as most rules are so tied into their settings and not being generic it often gets lost.
I want to disagree with you, but you're right. What one determines as "reasonable" is subjective. Many builds I see posted around that are comical are beyond what I'd like to see supported.

Ever play one of these games with someone who is an IRL expert on some topic that brushes up against the game? "What's dumb" is going to shift a lot depending on whether you're playing with someone who knows a ton about pre-Christian European Religion, or Rapier fencing, or Engineering, or Tax Policy, or whatever.

That's kind of why you can't codify "that's dumb" in the rulebook, if your players are unhappy about how something works in the rules, just go and change it so they're happy. What specific random rules quirk is going to annoy someone who devoted six years of their life to mastering some bit of minutiae is basically impossible for the game designers to predict so it's kind of unreasonable to ask them to do so.


Ranishe wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


I disagree, in that the rules should point out what is "dumb" and what is not. This can be done by setting but as most rules are so tied into their settings and not being generic it often gets lost.

I want to disagree with you, but you're right. What one determines as "reasonable" is subjective. Many builds I see posted around that are comical are beyond what I'd like to see supported.

So I suppose what you're left with is a setting (for lack of a better term). This setting has a kind of expectation in how combat works, magic, skills, the reliability, availability & power of each, and what the various classes represent in essence (the front combative foghter, the quick and seemingly prescient rogue, the overwhelmingly powerful sorcerer, etc). However with that, the rules should try to stand back, and place as little restriction on the players as possible. So come up with as general an archetype for your class as you can, and let the players build out however they see fit...and stop adding fluff text to traits. I just want diplomacy as a class skill without being an evangelical.

I agree, I often disallow various builds (even though they are supported by the rules) as they do not fit the style of game I am running, even if I am using a companies published setting information.

MDC


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Ranishe wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:


I disagree, in that the rules should point out what is "dumb" and what is not. This can be done by setting but as most rules are so tied into their settings and not being generic it often gets lost.
I want to disagree with you, but you're right. What one determines as "reasonable" is subjective. Many builds I see posted around that are comical are beyond what I'd like to see supported.

Ever play one of these games with someone who is an IRL expert on some topic that brushes up against the game? "What's dumb" is going to shift a lot depending on whether you're playing with someone who knows a ton about pre-Christian European Religion, or Rapier fencing, or Engineering, or Tax Policy, or whatever.

That's kind of why you can't codify "that's dumb" in the rulebook, if your players are unhappy about how something works in the rules, just go and change it so they're happy. What specific random rules quirk is going to annoy someone who devoted six years of their life to mastering some bit of minutiae is basically impossible for the game designers to predict so it's kind of unreasonable to ask them to do so.

I agree in general, all companies have to make decisions when they design the system for which there game is run on. Those decisions prevent some problems but also give rise to other problems.

The main problem I have seen over the years is various game designers are more authors and less worldly. That is to say when creating an interesting idea it is more often based on a "story" they have in mind and often do not see the ramifications it will have on the larger game.
(But also note even the best game designers in a field can be easily blindsided by various effects that they do not see or did not see a cause a problem. Think back the the various Magic the Gathering cards/sets through out the years (I stopped playing seriously in the 2000's, so thing's may have gotten better since then) and the various card combo interactions the designers did not see.)

When I see a rule or a system now I ask what are they trying to do or what problem are they trying to solve in there game or are they just trying to find a new mechanic and sell some games around it? And by extension is that a problem in my game or a rule change that I should look at or adapt to other systems?
So the damage based on level, I think is a way to deal with increased HP per level (shortens combat), a way to represent just increased knowledge of how to inflict damage and an effort to keep melee class more relevant. (But I could be wrong as I have not talked to the developers and my impressions are from a quick analysis of the various rules and my experiences through the years)

MDC

51 to 55 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Does weapon types tied to class mechanics irk anyone else? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion