Or, people could just not hyper-optimize and think that they have to be the absolute best in a given stat to function in the game. Something that's much more reasonable and doesn't require jury-rigging point buy allocations for players in order for them to function.
As for the Kobold Core Monk, I'd be dubious on playing it. Not saying I wouldn't, but I'd really only consider playing it if I wanted to challenge myself with making it function with little to no resource support. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if players wouldn't want to play with me simply because I have this insane attribute array and they don't, though.
Maybe if other players had the array and had a similar restriction, I'd do it, even if only for the challenge factor. Otherwise, I'd pass.
"Write down whatever you want" is the best stat generation method, if you've got suitably mature players, I agree. It can get old after a while so a modified version of it we've done is to run character concepts through a game of telephone.
Specifically:
Player A explains to player B what player A's character is like.
Player B explains to player C what player A's character is like.
Player D asks questions to player C to find out what player A's character is like
Player D writes down stats for player A's character and hands them to the GM, who makes sure they're all in the same ballpark.
Put a timer on each part of this, and don't let players listen in on exchanges they're not part of, and it's basically a game for teaching the basic (and applicable to this hobby) improv skill of "listening" and "recalling details".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is that having fun has nothing to do with functional game system. They are two different, NON MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE things, and yet there are people who seems to think that either you can play a functional character, or have fun: never both.And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.You do see the contradiction in your two statements, don't you?
No, I don't (you might have fun despite the party disparity, not because of it). Please stop trying.
- Allowing Robes of Arcane Heritage not only on Sorcerers but also on Bloodragers, since they also have a Bloodline. The item was written when Sorcerers were the only ones having a Bloodline, this is probably the reason why Sorcerers are the only ones being called out explicitly, and it's sensible to assume that it should apply to Bloodragers as well. While I'm OK with not allowing this, I see no problem in allowing it either.That would be against RAW:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9ux4
For the Rogue, again, not kosher, hence not good.If I'm understanding you, then, you're claiming every single house rule that goes directly against RAW is a clear sign of bad GMing, per your earlier statements. There is no such thing as house rules that improve the balance/enjoyment of Pathfinder over what Paizo has as a default.
Is that an accurate summary?
See? The system works! Thanks for the FAQ, I missed it (it was 3AM).
Yeah, while enjoyment is somehow subjective, I don't think a major house-rule could actually improve balance in the game (barring some very specific exception that might be seen as bugs), and while I welcome a bit of tinkering and experimenting with the rules, I do not accept the intensive use of RAW-altering house-rules as default, since I believe Paizo team is more qualified than a random GM in terms of system design, despite the length of his playing career. In particular, Sneak attack is a powerful feature that is internally balanced by non not always working. Removing elementals immunity removes a big limiting factor, that can be easily exploited.
How do you think those Paizo developers came to be? That they maybe gained a job a and with it a template that grants them +10 to Profession(game designer)? Or could it be that they tinkered enough with the rules, crunched enough numbers and just WORKED at becoming better designers.
I'm not saying that you have to like people's house rules and can play the game as written, but to think that only Paizo developers can make good rules (when they are obviously capable of making really bad ones), makes no sense, as there would be no new developers, which is certainly not the case.
And another point, you have no idea about balance if you think that sneak attack is a powerful feature and that monster having immunity is the balancing point on which everything hinges on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you deliberately misunderstand my words.
Paizo designers are better not only because they are more competent than the average GM, but also because they do it as a job and not as a hobby, and because they are a team with time and resources to effectively test their rules. The average GM in a room with his 4 friends playing once per week for a few hours? This is no playtesting.
About sneak attack, are you saying that adding a bunch of d6 to every attack is not powerful when it works? Cause to me it is. Plus, I don't recall saying that immunity is the main balancing factor, just that it is a big one.
I again make a shifter counterpoint to your Paizo are better designers. Your whole point you are trying to enforce as a fact rather than opinion is that nobody but paizo can make a good house rule. Which simply isn't and cannot be the truth. Is Paizo more reliable? They certainly are, but to think that they don?t fail and that average DMs don't regularly succeed in making up rules really makes no sense.
And no sneak attack on a rogue isn't a powerful or reliable class feature. It is on vivisectionist, maybe. And sneak immunity removal isn't rogue balancing but rather monster balancing.
|
|
And I again think you deliberately misunderstand my words. And I'm quite tired to repeat always the same things.
Paizo team is not perfect, this doesn't mean however that 3PP is: basic logic, how many times do I have to repeat this? Mistakes happen, and the Shifter was a mistake due to lack of thorough playtesting, and guess what: this is what happens when you implement untested rules.
I was asked if I agreed with allowing sneak attack on elementals. I don't, because Paizo material is rich enough to include other rogue-like options less reliant on sneak attack, hence an invasive house-rule is not necessary. I answered, no further action is required.
|
|
Paizo team is not perfect, this doesn't mean however that 3PP is: basic logic, how many times do I have to repeat this?Probably as often as you see strawmen. If Paizo is not perfect, and 3PP is not perfect, why does one get a pass and the other does not?
Because it's still possible that, even if two things are not perfect, one is better than the other (I can't believe I had to explain this). And also, because I'm playing Pathfinder, not Pathfinder and a bunch of other things allegedly compatible with Pathfinder.
|
|
It's when your interlocutor starts being rhetorical that you know it's time to let the conversation die.
When I played D&D3.5, I didn't allow (early)PF material, because although being allegedly compatible, they were different systems that could possibly interfere with each other.
Now that I play (modern)PF, I don't allow 3PP material, because although being allegedly compatible, they are different systems that can possibly interfere with each other.
When "3PP" will be its own game, I'll give it a try.
And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.
The point is that having fun has nothing to do with functional game system. They are two different, NON MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE things, and yet there are people who seems to think that either you can play a functional character, or have fun: never both.
you might have fun despite the party disparity, not because of it). Please stop trying.
In your first quote, you are claiming that rolling stats leads to frustration. Not can, or might, or maybe: your statement is unequivocal (“not challenging, nor fun. Just frustrating.”). It is your contention that rolling stats is a non-functional game system (“unplayable”).
Gray Warden's beliefs: If one uses stat rolling, then one cannot have fun.Therefore, If one does not use stat rolling, then one can have fun.
However, in your second quote you claim that fun has nothing to do with functional game system, that they are “different, NON MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE things.” This statement of yours flies in the face of the first one, in which fun is dependent upon a functional game system.
That is a contradiction.
Your last quote is the first time you use a qualification (“might have fun”). This equivocation negates the absolutes of your first two quotes. Now you're saying that one might have fun despite the disparity, not because of it. However, you previously flat out stated that the disparity was not fun. You went on to clarify that the only thing the disparity was, was frustrating.
Yeah, if someone were logically picking apart my contradictions, I'd probably want them to stop, too.
I don't think that's a good example because the Fellowship is soon sundered . . . In an RPG each player might have a character in each party (a high-powered character and a low-powered one). That's how it's been done in the games I've played that have attempted to emulate the scope of LOTR.
On the other hand, the CR of the hobbits' encounters aren't lowered just because the hobbits are a lower-powered group on their own. The must still get to Mordor, by-pass the Black Gate, face Shelob, infiltrate Mt. Doom, and destroy a major artifact. All while traveling with a centuries old being that has been infected and possessed by that artifact.
The whole point that was being made was that low-powered characters can't hack it when there are high-powered people about. The hobbits are an example that contradicts that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who are arguing about the Shifter being a case of whether Paizo is good or bad designers in relation to other third party designers, some relevant information:
The big man himself spoke up and outright said that there was no Shifter playtest whatsoever due to time constraints on releasing both Ultimate Wilderness and Starfinder. Pulling resources from one or both products into themselves would have most likely resulted in a delay of release and may have resulted in even further backlash than what was presented.
Personally, I disagree with that sentiment and would've rather they delayed the release of the product(s) for the hopes of making it a better quality release instead of a hodge-podge of options for other classes that, while they could have used some of them, are something that probably could've just been printed in a splatbook at a later date, since their application to the book is minimalistic in nature. (And some of those options suffer from similar problems with the Shifter, since they are likewise not playtested.) Yes, that pun was intended.
When some say balance, they are mostly talking about stopping power creep. And while this policy wasn’t with Paizo from the beginning, it has been the policy for most of the run. So pointing out all of the new weaker options isn’t very meaningful to the discussion. Paizo has been trying to make new options weaker for quite a while now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, from what I've seen amongst numerous threads in relation to this sort of thing, lack of player equality is more often than not the source of players not having fun than it isn't, and rolled stats are more than likely capable of perpetuating this sort of thing than using stat arrays or point buy (of equal values, of course).
The fact of the matter is that, just because it's possible for players to have fun with lack of equality amongst themselves (AKA Fighters having fun with rolling dice in combat while Wizards dominate the rest of the game, even though this is a staple Caster/Martial Disparity issue), doesn't make it likely to be the case, or even to be normally acceptable amongst other kinds of players.
The GM being a favoritist towards certain players or being indifferent on the matter doesn't help the situation much either, I might add. Time and again, equality has shown to be more successful in fun and balanced games than if a disparity existed, and when the GM perpetuates the opposite, one should consider the value of their presence at the table very carefully.
|
|
That is a contradiction.
You made my day, my good sir. It must take an incredibly huge amount of obtuseness to pick on a single (missing) word, after 3 (THREE) pages of discussion, deliberately neglecting the whole context. That, or you're just trolling (and I really hope so).
I was expressing my idea of bad GMing, correlated by a list of considerations. True, at first I didn't use auxiliary verbs such as could and might, but since they are by definition MY opinions, there's no reason to specify at the beginning of every phrase "In my opinion", and since the argument is intrinsically non-absolute by nature (unlike maths, for example), it makes only sense to assume that those sentences refer to general trends, rather than to an objective truth. Example: "Apples are good for your health" is an absolute statement, and yet it doesn't mean that you cannot have a healthy life if you don't eat apples, or that rotten apples are good; it rather refers to apples in general(I cannot believe I'm explaining this, pt.2).
This became even more trivial, if possible, when I, myself, had explicitly stated that I was referring to general trends: it's called clarification. But you, the almighty experienced old player who got triggered because for the first time in his life someone dared to critique his stale GMing style, are still here, THREE pages of discussion later, spinning your whole argument around a lexical contradiction that only you can see. This is truly, genuinely amazing.
But hey, let me errata my statement:
And playing an effective 13pt buy character because you happened to roll poorly, while your teammate is playing an effective 25pt one is, according to the totality of my, my friends', and many other players' experiences, not challenging, nor fun. Just, probably, frustrating.
Here, not an absolute anymore. I guess you'll be kind enough to make a tiny mental stretch and include similar expressions in all my other statements.
And yet, what does this accomplish? Does this change in any meaningful way what I wanted to say? Does this make you feel less triggered? I truly hope so.
But the high-powered people aren't about when Sam and Frodo enter Mordor, which is my point.
However, the high-powered group are still furthering the hobbits' 'module;' using the palantir to deceive Sauron into thinking Aragorn has the One Ring, feinting an attack at the Black Gate to draw out his forces. They are still working together as a group even though they're not in the same physical location.
No further actions are required.
No, I don't
First further action.
That, or you're just trolling
Second further action.
And I'm the one who got triggered?
Last time I checked, they were two different games.pathfinder is literally just 3.5 with a metric s#** ton of 3rd party and house rules
I've always felt like every game in this family is just a different version of the red box D&D with a bunch of house rules.
Last time I checked, they were two different games.pathfinder is literally just 3.5 with a metric s@~% ton of 3rd party and house rules
Guess he's gonna have to quit pathfinder then.
True, but they have become two separate parties so their relative capabilities don't impact upon each other's enjoyment of the game. If it were an RPG the two parties would be doing separate adventures within the same campaign, and either the players would have a character in each party or the two parties would be played by separate groups of players. Either way if I were playing Sam I wouldn't need to worry about Gandalf or Aragorn making me feel inadequate.
You know what, you've convinced me: I concede your point. The more powerful party members are effectively a separate group and even though their actions affect the hobbits, it doesn't make them feel inadequate because they are unaware of them at the time.
I'll have to find a different example of a mixed group of lower and higher powered individuals where the low-powered ones still meaningfully contribute without feeling inadequate.
And to return to a comment you made earlier the problem with disparity is not usually that the weaker characters "can't hack it" but that they are overshadowed by more powerful characters who steal the show, relegating the weaker members of the group to the role of minor characters.
I think that this has more to do with the DM and the players than the characters. On the one hand the DM should shine the spotlight equally on each player regardless of their characters' power. Sure, the wizard could curb-stomp the tyrant, but the people will only accept the legitimate heir to the throne, who is the fighter. Players, on the other, should recognize that just because their character is the most powerful one at the table that they are not the only one at the table. For example, I am currently playing an 11th level drow noble (chill, everyone is a drow noble; its an Underdark campaign) vampire abjurer. And yet I haven't killed anyone or even done a single point of damage . . . in combat (I do have to feed ;-) [ah, but that's just my stable of human cattle, so they don't really count].