It's not only the core rulebook. There are around a 100 player companions and another 100 campaign settings and another 100 adventure paths and maybe 25 core rule books.
I have skimmed almost every book, but many details elude me.
It's true... I tried not to focus on the expansion rules because so many other systems do that to. I mean, AD&D 2E split the rules between Players and DM guide... but really, Pathfinder has a DM guide too... I know 3.x went crazy with books for every occasion, but between just the Ultimate and Advanced books, I'd be surprised if Pathfinder hasn't caught up yet... First glance here is showing about 17 books I consider 'Rule Books' not counting the 6 bestiaries and Codex's...
I know people who are on top of all the new classes as they come out and know how all these new feats work together and what equiptment would be ideal for my characters... but to claim it's 'easy' to learn ALL the rules??
No way... that's a serious achievement to be able to claim that. Worlds apart from proficient enough to play your character... and actual 'system mastery'.
System mastery is the background data, knowledge of options, experience with the game etc that lets you know, when reading a newly published rules element, whether it is going to see use or not.
Steve Geddes is my spirit animal (having never met, I assume he's some sort of floofy, iridescent purple, badger-like creature).I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of that description (since I have no idea what floofy means).
Particularly fluffy
It's one thing to have a library or archive, and another thing to know how to use it effectively. Knowing how to navigate information is a critical part of system mastery (in any field). You don't necessarily have to know everything, if you know how to find what you need to know when you need it.
As a GM, and especially as one who prefers building my own worlds to running published adventures, I feel that it's one of my duties to acquire as much system mastery as I can, and to help my players improve their own. (That's one of the reasons that I try to run my games pretty close to RAW.)
I played and ran v.3.5 for a good 10 years (and v.3.0 before that), and acquired a pretty high level of system mastery during that time--enough so that I maintain an archive of unofficial errata for my favorite product lines, and landed a paying gig updating some 3.0 adventures to 3.5.
I only started playing Pathfinder about 4 years ago, and while a lot of my v.3.5 knowledge transferred, I'm still not at the level of system mastery that I was with my previous system of choice. That irks me from time to time, but I'm working at improving it. I'm going to need those skills more and more as my ambitious new 1st-20th level campaign progresses. PFS is helping a great deal with that, by giving me more opportunities to play new builds, to see content in play that I haven't used myself yet, and discuss rules with other experienced players and GMs. Joining PFS prompted me to follow the boards here, which has been a very useful resource for both PFS and my home games.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have witnessed so many build by guides character from new players that are painfully ineffective.
System mastery for me comes from 2 things managing action economy and managing limited resources.
The fundamentals as I try to explain them to new players
- Never pass a turn.
- Always more the part toward victory.
- The earlier the card is played the greater the effect. The more rounds something is in effect for the greater the effect it has on the fight. (this takes developing judgement and knowledge checks)
eg. a good alchemist knows how many bombs they will throw in a fight and, with fast bombs, throws all or most of them of them round one.
- Take the free actions you are allowed especially knowledge checks.
- Never forget the value of the swift action economy
- Count attacks
eg. Don't run up take a single attack then get full attacked. Ready and attack let them come to you trade 1 for 1 and then get the first full attack. If you have reach by the end of your first turn you can be up 1 full attack + 1 aoo before the opponent gets his first aoo.
Limited resources
- A caster played best is a caster with almost nothing in the tank at the end of the day (save for slots used before bed). This takes a long time to master. (exception being if you break each fight with one spell).
...a couple of weeks ago, I built a few PC's with my players for our new Serpent's Skull game using Hero Lab and the sheer volume of options was overwhelming to them... "what do you mean I have 489 traits to choose from????" Having all the options available was daunting and discouraging and I had to step in to make suggestions on what they should take.
I have encountered this numerous times while trying to introduce new people to the game.
Usually, I just end up telling them not to feel too overwhelmed by all of the options, and that if they wish, they can tell me what they're looking for in a character in their own words. Then I help them track down good options that help them accomplish their concept's goals.
Traits in particular are especially bad, since feats at least unfold and are gated by things like BAB, skill ranks, rereqs, etc., but traits are all taken at level 1.
I've often considered trying to curate a list of relevant traits at the start of the campaign (the sorts of things that are plausible for people who are in and around the area the campaign starts in) with the caveat that "if you find another trait you like, show it to me and we can work it into your/the story".
But honestly curating a list of traits is even more work than picking 2, and it's not the sort of thing that will travel from campaign to campaign easily.
But retraining to get a different feat because you want the prerequisite for something that's coming up at least makes sense in a way that retraining your traits doesn't really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
System Mastery is a thing, yes. Not a hard thing, but a thing.
Several have pointed out the bigger thing.
Building and playing an appropriate character for your table/adventure is the big thing.
If your character sucks the fun out of the game for everyone else, you failed, even if you can out damage the entire rest of the party... Actually, Especially if you can out damage the rest of the party. If the GM has to up the threat of encounters just because of you, especially if it makes things too dangerous for the rest of the party, you failed, not them.
If your character is in all other ways appropriate to the table, but exceeds the table's Ick-Factor, you failed.
"Mastery" of the social aspects of the game has always been the hardest, and most rewarding part of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. It's called picking up the book.
Close thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. It's called picking up the book.
But which book? There are so many!
and remembering what options are in what book is a PITA... heck, remembering all the options is a pain. Just recently I got reminded of an alchemist spell from the APG that I'd totally forgotten about, even though the APG was about all that was available back when I played my alchemist character.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with the idea of system mastery is that for some it begins and ends with googling "x's guide for playing y". Much of which contains some hinky "mastery".
Speaking as "X" in this equation, not exactly sure what you mean here. No one's saying that's system mastery, it's just a helpful tool for new and old players to get a grip on content. You'd be shocked how many Paizo devs and freelancers I've talked to whom have told me how helpful my guides are.
Inalso have an issue with the idea of focusing on one mind of build and just checking books from there. It keeps you only concerned with one kind of character.
Most guides list multiple different styles of play, so not sure how this is relevant either, although if you don't believe me, check literally any of the guides in my profile.
Lastly I think that Golarion is an amazing setting with great focused concepts that get thrown out the window to Frankenstein "mastery" as well, because of the focus on system.
Golarion isn't all there is to PF, so it's not really relevant here.
Basically if a player isn't making choices that actively or accidentally hinder the group I consider that mastery enough. The concept of total mastery is moot when a book comes out a few weeks later.
What you just stated is system mastery, making hindering choices. It's more base system mastery, but system mastery is being able to accomplish your goals within the bounds of the system, be they to make the most powerful character ever or to make someone who's just able to make a mean ham sandwich. No one's bashing anyone else's system mastery here, it's more asking if this ephemeral concept has a basis, and I'd say so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest issue with the idea of system mastery is that for some it begins and ends with googling "x's guide for playing y". Much of which contains some hinky "mastery".
Inalso have an issue with the idea of focusing on one mind of build and just checking books from there. It keeps you only concerned with one kind of character.
Honestly, I see this as the OPPOSITE of System Mastery.
I ran a Paladin for Kingmaker+ and ended up level 20/Mythic 5... I have a really good handle on how Paladin's play, which are some awesome feats to take and how to build my character fairly well...
That's not mastery. That's just playing your character.
I have a friend who will listen to anything idea/class you have and start telling you what feats work for whichever class it is, what spells you should focus on, what weapons are good and which properties you should build to and then start listing various magic item slots that should be bought at first chance...
That's a mastery I only dream of.
When I start a new character, I usually check out a guide or two BECAUSE I have no mastery of the new class or participated in the dozen threads about what's broken and what's FAQ'ed or which items/spells/gear are decent or not.
I don't always follow the guides if they don't fit my concept, but they do seem to have better understanding of a lot of the little nuts and bolts of the system than I do...
AND I don't want to rummage through 30 books or scroll through 2 hours of feats to find what may be good at 1st level but screw over a prerequisite at 7th...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the real question is does system mastery really make the game better. mastery of rules so you don't have to look up everything seems solid and very useful. Making the most OP character you can however seems to cause more problems.
Lets say I make uber character there is about 3 options that can come from it as far as I see.
1. Your dm accepts it keeps the game going as he planned and you trivialize every combat making game boring for all. (or dm emphasizes non-combat portions instead of combat and your min maxing is wasted)
2. Your DM adapts and increases the CR of all encounters and does so in a way that doesn't mess up his game to much. your still fighting difficult fights and no matter how much Min and maxing you do your will still be fighting difficult encounters that challenge you the same if you hadn't made said op toon.
3. Your character roflstomps everything dm fails at compensating either killing party or having all of his fun taken away and drops the game.
Is there really a reward somewhere for it? Now I am referring to the high end of optimizing. making a effective character is fine and fun its when you go to far that it becomes a problem.
I do like guides for the sheer fact that they have already looked though and found the feats and options that will work and at this point it is kind of a job unless you have a photographic memory.
Although not every character I make is gonna be choosing all purple (red or w/e) options.
@Vidmaster7:
There is more than just "mechanical optimization". That´s just the most flashy aspect, as it tends to "break games" (see "Tier" discussion and related stuff).
And yes, it is also "system mastery" to have a firm grip on the "social aspects" and understanding on how "spotlight" works in that context.
Well I did say rules knowledge was helpful^. I don't think the term "system mastery" includes social aspects I think that would require a different term. System mastery I think refers to the Knowledge of book rules and not all aspects of Play. Is my definition in error here?Social awareness is of course important too.
Your definition is inasmuch in error, as the term has a positive and a negative connotation to it, and it´s quite obvious on which context people often focus on.Well I did say rules knowledge was helpful^. I don't think the term "system mastery" includes social aspects I think that would require a different term. System mastery I think refers to the Knowledge of book rules and not all aspects of Play. Is my definition in error here?Social awareness is of course important too.@Vidmaster7:
There is more than just "mechanical optimization". That´s just the most flashy aspect, as it tends to "break games" (see "Tier" discussion and related stuff).
And yes, it is also "system mastery" to have a firm grip on the "social aspects" and understanding on how "spotlight" works in that context.
Can you define it then Cause i feel your putting unfair context on my comment. as I said above
mastery of rules so you don't have to look up everything seems solid and very useful. Making the most OP character you can however seems to cause more problems.
So I'm saying their is a positive side to it knowing the rules immediately and knowing how to help make players successful at what they want to do is a positive and my statement says so. such as here
I do like guides for the sheer fact that they have already looked though and found the feats and options that will work
I also wanted to address the point that people have problems with and what benefit comes from doing it.
I still don't understand what your disagreeing with. I also don't see how social aspects would fall under the umbrella of system mastery.
So your definition of system mastery includes all game related information? In that case for your definition I guess i'm referring more to rules mastery.
Not sure there is an accurate definition. The term has never been properly defined, to my knowledge.
Maybe we will accomplish that here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure there is an accurate definition. The term has never been properly defined, to my knowledge.
Actually, I think it's pretty good.
If we're talking seriously about "mastering" a game, it's hard to ignore chess, especially since chess "mastery" is not only acknowledged to be a thing, but Chess Master (or even Grand Master) is even a formal title, and the FIDE ratings are used to put people's mastery of the game on a linear scale.
So, what's involved in chess mastery? A proper answer, which I'm not going to give here, would involve references to literally thousands of pages in the psych literature. Chess masters literally perceive the game differently than novices. And, as Purple Overkill noted, knowing "the rules" is only a small part of chess mastery.
* The bishop moves diagonally is a rule.
* The bishop can only move on squares of one color is not a rule, but an implication of the previous rule. Everyone who's played more than a dozen games of chess, however, knows that each player has a "black" bishop and a "red" bishop, and never the twain shall meet.
* Control the center is not a rule, but a tactical guideline, part of how the chess "system" interacts.
* A bishop is worth roughly three pawns is also not a rule, but a tactical--or maybe strategic--guideline.
* The Caro-Kann defense is also not a rule, but a standard tactic of the sort you'd find in any of the thousands of guidebooks on opening theory, which of course are the equivalent of Pathfinder's charop guides. And, no, reading the books won't make you into Magnus Carlsen or even Paul Morphy, but you will find it very hard to achieve high-level mastery without reading those books. (I was roughly a 1500 FIDE-rating in high school. That was as high as I could get without reading all the damn books and memorizing classic games, which I found less fun than actually playing them.)
I think we can all come up with Pathfinder equivalents; for example, I suggest that knowing what spells are good for a sorcerer to have is kind of the same as knowing to "control the center." I wouldn't want to open 1. a3, and I wouldn't want my first level wizard to take the Spell Penetration feat, for roughly the same reason (it slows development).
So your definition of system mastery includes all game related information?
I think that's appropriate. Some examples of how rules mastery alone doesn't indicate system mastery:
1) Spell Penetration is generally not a useful feat for a first level caster. It lets you more easily bypass spell resistance -- but low-level monsters don't usually have spell resistance. There's no "rule" that says that, and nothing keeps Paizo (or your GM) from creating a CR 1/3 monster with SR 15, but it's generally understood that SR is a device for keeping high-level spellcasters under control.
1b) Improved Initiative, however, is good or even great for a first level caster. Go first, color spray the baddies before they have a chance to move out of their initial positions, win the combat.
2) Everyone should have a missile weapon. Again, that's not a rule, but it's a good guideline, especially at low levels. Otherwise you might find yourself fighting at long range against something like goblin archers atop a wall and be unable to do anything useful. That's something that a lot of us have personally experienced, and many of us will share that experience when helping a new player kit out.
3) In PFS, everyone should spend their first two prestige points on a wand of cure light wounds. Again, no rule, but a commonly-followed guideline because it makes it more likely that someone in the party will be able to keep you alive if things go wrong
4) Perception is generally a more useful skill than knowledge (engineering). I don't know that anyone has actually gone through the various PFS modules to calculate how often each skill is rolled, but it's (again) generally understood both that perception is a very commonly called-for skill and the consequences of a failed perception check can be serious and even fatal.
I think the skills in playing PF are building characters, using characters and roleplaying. Building is straightforward though a few people do have a hard time grasping it, and others need help finding options. Using them is a partly social thing, partly rules-based - knowing when to charge and when to move more cautiously, working with the other PCs etc. Roleplaying gets hints from the rules but is basically social.
Claiming 'system mastery' even if you mean only the first two is setting yourself up for a fall though. Are there people that do that?
Yeah, but all that is still rules/mechanical stuff.
The argument that started this side discussion was the "system mastery" went beyond rules and mechanics advantages to the social aspects and spotlight issues of the game - implying that system mastery would involve things like "not overshadowing the other characters".
I've never before seen it used to cover that.
Think about it this way - system mastery should also entail knowing when options are useful. Some options are going to be better than others... but that largely depends on context. Sometimes those contexts are broad, sometimes narrow. Something weak for a kick in the door dungeon crawl may be very useful for a courtly intrigue game. And the social/spotlight aspect of the game helps set the context.
Claiming 'system mastery' even if you mean only the first two is setting yourself up for a fall though. Are there people that do that?
If you look at how people use "system mastery" in other threads and conversations what they generally mean is just building characters, not using them or role playing. That may be different from the concept of mastering pathfinder, but that seems to be how the word is actually used.
Think about it this way - system mastery should also entail knowing when options are useful. Some options are going to be better than others... but that largely depends on context. Sometimes those contexts are broad, sometimes narrow. Something weak for a kick in the door dungeon crawl may be very useful for a courtly intrigue game. And the social/spotlight aspect of the game helps set the context.Yeah, but all that is still rules/mechanical stuff.
The argument that started this side discussion was the "system mastery" went beyond rules and mechanics advantages to the social aspects and spotlight issues of the game - implying that system mastery would involve things like "not overshadowing the other characters".
I've never before seen it used to cover that.
But that's still very different than a kind of "system mastery" that focuses on making sure you don't outshine the other players or overpower the GM's scenarios or wind up having too much of the game spotlight focusing on you.
You're still trying to make a character that's going to excel at whatever the game is likely to focus on.
It's closer than you think. What if the game focuses on each player having a good time and being able to contribute? There's one of your contexts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have system mastery, you should be able to tell that you have a character much more powerful than others, but I certainly see it as a different thing to being aware you shouldn't play that character...that's inter-personal relations mastery, not system mastery.
Not saying you shouldn't have that too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using System Mastery to include Social aspects causes some dissonance in the US because, outside of specialists that few here listen to, no one really speaks of Social Systems. As you can tell from the posts, people get the concepts, just not that tag for it.
Realistically, Game Mastery says it best, but a whole lot of people limit the words to only apply the one behind the GM screen. Clearly it takes the same skills to play well as it takes to run the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is system mastery really a thing though? Or is it just whether or not the player making the builds has access to d20pfsard, the Archives of Nethys, Hero Lab, or some other comprehensive rule sorting tool?
Yes, system mastery is a thing. "Build mastery" (making characters) and "rule mastery" (knowing/finding specific rules) are part of system mastery, but not the only parts.
As many in this thread have stated, system mastery also involves an understanding of general principles, the interactions between various rules and options, how specific choices "fit in" with the background/goals of the character/party/adventure/campaign, and the context of a given encounter/situation ("tactics"). Just like art, sports, or other complex endeavors, technique ("builds" and rules access/knowledge) is necessary, but not sufficient, in and of itself, for mastery.
And (again, just like art, sports, etc.), mastery involves knowing when (and how) it may be useful to "break the rules" (and the associated risks/rewards).