S's page

YES! Please make fewer feats, all of which stand on their own, rather than having lists of prerequisites.

.
.
.

Feats get boring.
Characters get so many feats that there's a design problem trying to make each feat interesting. I understand that you don't want to give a 5th level character 3-8 special abilities on top of what they get from class and other sources. However, a huge number of interesting feats require boring (numerical bonus only) or almost unrelated prerequisites. Not only does that make a bloated list, but it means players often sit with boring or unused feats on their character sheets.

Examples:

• Spell Focus (only effects spells with saves) is required before taking Augment Summoning (only effects spells without saves).
  
• Dodge (AC) required before taking Spring Attack (movement), and
• Spring Attack before Whirlwind Attack (attacks during which you can't move).
  
• Improved Trip (eliminates a penalty) required before... you get the point by now!

Feat selection is a skill tester.
One of the biggest problems with d20 (D&D 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder) is that a player's skill and experience with the game system often leads them to make characters with wildly varying effectiveness. It's okay if an experienced player can squeeze more out of a class than a newb, but the characters should at least belong in the same adventure together.

There are many reasons for this, but one is feats. There are a huge number of feats to choose from, and often you have to plan multiple prerequisites of ability score, level, other feats, and miscellaneous features to get the ones you want, planning which must take place many months in advance. Beginners make choices that seem cool and effective, but often fail to make a character build that works as expected.

I don't mind starting at any level between 1-5, but my favorite is 4. It's low enough to create pretty much create the a standard Pathfinder campaign feel, yet high enough that all classes and most builds function as designed:

• Everyone has enough HP that a single hit is unlikely to kill a PC.

• Everyone has enough gold/equipment to make their characters function, including nonmagic armor, weapons, mounts, etc

• Combat classes that need certain feats difficult to attain at 1st level to function can have those feats by third level. (Weapon Finesse, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, etc.)

• Caster classes can all cast enough spells to make it through a day of adventuring with just a little bit of rationing.

• Multi-class characters can have...multiple classes.

• Class abilities that are key to the theme and functioning of the class, but too powerful to give out at 1st level lest people use one-level dips to acquire them, are mostly in place by level 4. (Wild Shape, Ki Pool, Channel Positive Energy, more than one point in various pools, Hunter's Bond, etc.)

Blueluck wrote:

I enjoyed your guide, and I hope you will continue developing it. I'll share a few thoughts for improvement, just my opinions of course.

It's OK to have a weakness!
I don't think you should lower your various requirements, but I do think you should recognize that after identifying weak areas, one option is to leave one of your weak areas as a legitimate weakness.

It's true that a high level fighter should do something to shore up their will save, but not every fighter needs a 12+ Wisdom, a trait, and a feat dedicated to plugging that hole, especially not by level five. Some will want to, some won't, and both are reasonable choices.

The Party
To me, any advice on how to make characters is incomplete without mentioning other party members. Somewhere after your "3 character origins" I'd love to see a bit about filling basic roles within a party, and not stepping on other characters' shticks. I know this isn't the emphasis of your guide, so a single paragraph seems sufficient.

Keep up the good blogging!

Honestly I'm thinking about excising the three origin story schtick in this one and expanding it in it's own post. I like the idea still, but it doesn't tonally fit with an otherwise Math/Logic oriented benchmarking article.

Party composition is another excellent prompt for a post. Finding where you fit in a given campaign is a very common challenge. I don't think I should dilute the focus of this post, but it would be an interesting topic to take on in the future.

Taking out the part about character origin seems like a good idea. "How to come up with a character to play" is an excellent idea for an article, and it is quite separate from your current project.

I look forward to seeing that post sometime:)

I enjoyed your guide, and I hope you will continue developing it. I'll share a few thoughts for improvement, just my opinions of course.

.

.

.
It's OK to have a weakness!
I don't think you should lower your various requirements, but I do think you should recognize that after identifying weak areas, one option is to leave one of your weak areas as a legitimate weakness.

It's true that a high level fighter should do something to shore up their will save, but not every fighter needs a 12+ Wisdom, a trait, and a feat dedicated to plugging that hole, especially not by level five. Some will want to, some won't, and both are reasonable choices.

The Party
To me, any advice on how to make characters is incomplete without mentioning other party members. Somewhere after your "3 character origins" I'd love to see a bit about filling basic roles within a party, and not stepping on other characters' shticks. I know this isn't the emphasis of your guide, so a single paragraph seems sufficient.

Keep up the good blogging!

I think it would be fun to play a pair of ratfolk with sneak attack. rogues and ninjas have sneak attack, but to avoid duplicating abilities too closely, I'd make one of the two a vivisectionist alchemist.

Ratfolk are used to living and fighting communally, and are adept at swarming foes for their own gain and their foes' detriment. Up to two ratfolk can share the same square at the same time. If two ratfolk in the same square attack the same foe, they are considered to be flanking that foe as if they were in two opposite squares.

If the rogue/ninja takes the scout archetype, they'll get sneak attack after charging or moving, then the vivisectionist can move into the same square and use flanking to deal sneak attack damage. A few of the teamwork feats that benefit sneak attack are better than average, and the infusion discovery will let the alchemist share formulas with the rogue/ninja.

1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?

I don't discourage dump stats. As a GM, I like it when characters have distinctive characteristics like a low ability score.

2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?

I don't mind if dump stats are discouraged, but I wouldn't put up with a "screw the player" enforcement method. If you don't want me to have a certain ability score, character class, alignment, etc. just tell me up front.

I agree with all of the previous posters, and both members of the design team - the player builds the cohort. While it's appropriate for the GM to work with the player to integrate a cohort into the game, the GM should not impose any more restrictions than are absolutely necessary.

I like to introduce cohorts into the game and give them a reason to follow their leader, so I ask players to create their cohort (using whatever character creation rules apply to PCs, but with NPS wealth) and give me a copy, with either a verbal or written personality description. Then, I use that NPC as a story element. Regardless of a "limited population" I'm sure you can think up a reason to have any cohort available once the PC creates it. If you're stuck on ideas, start with this brainstorm:

• The party frees the cohort from captivity. (jail, prison, kidnapping, cult indoctrination, a tower accessible only by hair ...)
  
• The party rescues the cohort from harm. (attack/combat is the simplest, but a cleric could gain a cohort by casting Heal or Resurrection)
  
• The cohort seeks out the PC/party because of some past deed they have done. (presumably some impressive feat(s) done in a previous part of the campaign.)
  
• The cohort has an existing relationship to the PC. (blood relative, marriage, betrothal, childhood friend, etc.)
  
• The cohort was hired to oppose the party (spy on, assassinate, thwart, follow, etc.) but after observation has decided to turn on it's employer and join the PCs instead. (They may reveal their original job right away, or only admit it later when they feel the need. There's lots of room for story in this one!)

I have two distinct opinions on this matter.

What you should say to your GM
"So my GM plays all opponents as smart, regardless of their background, ability scores, etc. It doesn't feel like how the characters would likely act, and it makes gameplay less fun for [me]."

See that, you know what to say! If you feel it's un-fun or unrealistic to have all enemies fight smart, tell the GM. As Kobold Cleaver suggested, he GM can always use numbers (or gear, or hit points, or terrain) to make fights challenging instead of using tactics.

What I would like to say to you about attacks of opportunity
Almost no enemy is bad enough at fighting to provoke attacks of opportunity unless it is to their advantage to do so. Many animals with intelligence scores of 2 (wolves, lions, dinosaurs) are full-time professional predators, and darn good at it! If they weren't good at killing things, they'd have starved to death long ago. Human combatants are similar, in that even the dumbest fighter knows how to fight, maybe not how to read or do math, but how to avoid getting stabbed in the back during a fight.

The only time enemies should provoke attacks of opportunity are:

• When it benefits them. (e.g. It may be worth provoking an attack from the non-flanking rogue to finish off the wounded caster before another spell gets cast.)
  
• When they don't have enough information to avoid it. (e.g. Invisible PC, Snap Shot, concealment)
  
• When they're mindless. (e.g. An ooze or zombie who has already chosen a target may ignore other enemies, or a frenzied animal may ignore danger.)
  
• When the PCs force them to. (e.g. Cornering or surrounding a spellcaster, Come And Get Me, Greater Trip)

First off, there are the Combat Maneuver rules, where which combat maneuver a character can use against another are restricted by their sizes. These have got to go.

I agree. "Can't" isn't nearly as fun as "Probably won't be able to because the roll is so hard." It would be reasonable for certain maneuvers to give a very large bonus/penalty for each difference in size category.

Secondly, Weapon Size Categories are double-dipping bonus damage onto creatures who already have massively higher strength scores than their smaller contemporaries.

Yes! Also, weapon sizes play havoc with die sizes and introduce strange inconsistencies. Personally, I would tone down some of the STR bonuses a bit and make weapon damage add a die for each additional size category. (But I would also eliminate weapons with more than one die of damage.)

Third, is the existence of the Small Size being so damn similar to Medium. Why have the size if it's going to take the same space and have the same reach dammit. For my own games I'm actually working on eliminating the Small Size, moving creatures in it to either Medium or Tiny.

Biggest Gripe Ever! Well, biggest gripe about size. The most common sizes are the ones that don't follow the rules? Bah!

1) What Would Happen If You Kicked a Chihuahua?

When big creatures hit smaller creatures, it should move them. It should be built right into the size mechanics. Awesome Blow isn't good enough. If a Stone Giant hits a Halfling, that Halfling shouldn't stay in the same square it started in. My house rule is Any creature who hits a creature two or more size categories smaller than itself can initiate a Bull Rush as a free action. Use the Grenade Scatter rules to determine the direction of the Bull Rush.

I like your house rule a lot!

2) Big Things Take Big Steps. ... A good fix is to make a creature's in-combat Adjusting Step equal to the creatures own Space.

Another good house rule, although I prefer the way D&D Next handles it. If you move out of an opponent's reach, you provoke. Period. No measuring, no tricks, the rule introduced in 3.0 that was intended to keep people from fleeing without a moment of vulnerability is used to prevent fleeing rather than as a geographic movement limit.

3) Fleas Can't Actually Jump Very Far.

I don't actually care about this one, but I commented on the rest. In my experience this problem is exceedingly rare, and can be handled with simply logic by the GM.

I've seen this problem in many games, and have a default solution when I GM. I simply set my adventure in a location that allows me to ignore most of the races/cultures.

Advantage #1 - I don't have to write about too many different cultures, instead just developing one, two, or maybe three that the PCs will encounter. So, if we're exploring the Mwangi jungles, I only think about the Mwangi culture. Every other culture is easily forgotten.

Advantage #2 - The PCs races/cultures either match the locals, or are left up to the player do define. If someone is playing a dwarf in my Mwangi adventure, they get to decide what it means to be dwarven. Some players will make stuff up on their own, others borrow from popular literature, and others find an "official" source to make their decisions for them. In any case, I don't have to do anything as a GM except support their assertions by reacting appropriately. (Once in a while I might throw in a fellow dwarven traveler, because it gives the PC a chance to talk about being dwarven.)

Another school of thought on "what should we do" moments is to just assume they do the right thing in most circumstances. For example, if the party enters a room with some bedding, and any party members says anything to the effect of "What's here" or "I look around", just tell them what they find in the bedding!

For many people it is difficult to accurately picture their surroundings based on a brief description by the GM. Also, rather than being immersed in the game world, the players are in a room full of friends with books and character sheets stacked around them. Waiting for someone to say, "I look under the bed" is a losing battle.

Umbranus wrote:

That Gygax had a gaming style with which I don't agree doesn't help.

I can say from personal experience that the vast majority of internet stories pegging his games as 'killer' are bull$hit...

A few days ago I posted a similar comment about Mr. Gygax's reputation, and it sounds like you have even more experience with him than I do.

People who never played old-school D&D don't realize that before the days of PFS and RPGA, many players would simply bring their home-game characters to conventions and expect to play them in someone's D&D game. This is before the days of WBL guidelines, point-buy ability scores, multiclass balance, and internet FAQs, so all sorts of crazy overpowered characters would show up. The players wielding the most powerful characters would frequently be the most competitive types, and they were there to beat the GM's game. Mr. Gygax responded to these players in kind, by creating difficult and unforgiving adventures just for them, and they rose to the challenge.

I've personally been at the table when Mr. Gygax was running a non-competitive game and asked for everyone's HP totals before declaring the damage from a fireball trap - a blatant ploy to avoid killing anyone's character.

>>>------------->

It's important to keep your audience and goals in mind.

• When I run a game to teach a bunch of 6th grader's how to play, nobody dies. You don't learn much about the game while your character is dead, and it doesn't make you want to play a second time.
  
• When I run a game for my friends, death is rare. A lot of time and effort goes into those characters, and we can't tell a very engaging story if the cast keeps dying and being replaced.
  
• When I run a game at a convention, deaths don't happen until the final battle, and are always glorious or humorous. You drove to another city, got a hotel, paid an entrance fee, and signed up to spend 4 hours of your weekend playing my game. I want you to get your time and money's worth.
  
• When I run a game for power-gamers who are trying to "beat" the GM, I'm pretty harsh. They haven't proven anything to themselves if I'm a pushover, and they're not pulling any punches against me either.

I've played games with over-controlling GMs, and games with Monty Hall* GMs, and I've seen both go terribly terribly wrong. Generally, modest changes go over well, and the more experience and system mastery the GM has, the more customizations they can make without causing problems.

ZenFox42, I would simply not make a spellcaster to play in your game. You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person, and an experienced GM. I'd be happy to work on a project with you, have you as a player, or even to play a martial character in the game you're planning. But, your introductory sentence actually states the difficulty I have, "relatively new to D&D/Pathfinder, I've recently become aware of spells that many consider to be breakers"

I strongly suggest that you don't change things you haven't experienced for yourself. There's a lot of BS on these forums, statements made by inexperienced players and GMs, statements made by people who are upset after a single bad experience, and blatantly false statements made by people who are just trolling. Don't take our word for it that a particular spell is overpowered. Try it for yourself!

An middle road between houseruling a game you don't know yet and playing a game you suspect might be spoiled by certain spells, would be to establish a "watch list". Take your list of breakers and share it with your players. Tell them that you feel those particular spells could be abusive, and that you reserve the right to modify the spell descriptions if they get out of hand.

every few days I click and open up this thread

and I put my cursor in the typing box

and I try to type in it

but the only thing I can type in this thread is

AGGGGHHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH
AGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
AAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHH

over and over

well I mean except for all these other words

I'm having a similar experience.

I keep wanting to type, "This is the Advice forum, not the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum!"

• If you want to suggest paizo make changes to the game, go to the appropriate place.
  
• If you want to discuss extensive house rules, go to the appropriate place.
  
• If you want to make a homebrew game, go to the appropriate place.
  
• If you want to disagree that OP has a problem, PM or start a new thread.
  
• If you want to insult each other, join 4chan.

PhelanArcetus wrote:

I like Blueluck's idea a lot, actually. Just divorcing magical equipment from the regular treasure helps a bunch, at least freeing up treasure for things other than more gear.

I liked your idea as well Blueluck, great thematically. It reminds me a lot of Earthdawn (by FASA). How did you set the magical allotment by level? Off the Pathfinder guidelines or another scale? So, the item crafting feats for gear really don't get used either(except potions/scrolls), removing a nice minor headache for the GM.

I simply adopted WBL as the magic allotment.

Yes, I simply dropped the item crafting feats. I had a sorcerer who wanted to craft his own magic staff - so he did. All the work (roleplaying) he put into working on his staff late into the night while sitting around the party's campfire made an excellent explanation for its increasing power.

Would you consider publishing that as a Google Document, or a simple HTML page? The way it's currently published, with everything behind spoiler tags, makes it fairly unusable.

In my opinion, the CN character hasn't done anything wrong. Here's how I see each of the three actions you describe:
1. Played with a dead body, in an angry manner.
2. Played with a dead body, in an unsanitary manner.
3. Played with a dead body, in an intimidating manner.
.

Some earth religions teach that it's a sin to play with dead bodies, while others don't. Some people find dissections to be disgusting, while I've assisted in autopsies and just thought it was fascinating. There's nothing evil about any of those actions.

As you said, there's nothing evil about being angry, it's how you act on your feelings that matters. The character in question got extremely angry, and took out his emotions without hurting anyone or even causing any property damage.

So, no evil, none, not a trace.

Whoever Said wrote:

We grew up playing video games where you die, hit Continue, and keep playing.

Just as an aside to whoever said this, I grew up playing video games where if you died you were dead. Out a quarter or had to start from the beginning, and usually if there were continues they were limited in nature and/or you had to earn them somehow.

Yeah, me too. I started out in arcades where the "death tax" was paid in quarters:)

>>>------------->

A number of years ago I had the opportunity to play D&D with Gary Gygax at a convention. After sitting down at the table in my reserved slot and turning in characters, I gave up my seat to a little boy who was on the wait list and was clearly more starstruck than I, but I did stick around to watch them play.

From first hand experience I can tell you that even the dreaded Gary Gygax, who wrote Tomb of Horrors with the express purpose of killing off characters, adapted his GMing style and mortality rate to fit his players. Much of Mr. Gygax's reputation as a killer GM comes from his interactions at conventions with players who showed up with "super characters" intending to break his game (Hence tomb of Horrors). Presented with an excited 10 year old, he was pretty much a kindly old man who wanted everyone to have a good time.

If we're going to refer to the oldest of old-school GMs as a data point, we should do so with accuracy. If Gary Gygax can ask for people's hit point totals before announcing the damage from a fireball (an obvious attempt to avoid killing the lower level characters too early in the session) then I don't think we're perverting his game when we do the same.

P.S. Back in my day! Get off my lawn! Kids these days! Harrumph!

I don't like characters rotating in and out of my games. I want people to be attached to their characters, and keep them around so that I can plan ahead for them.

.

This is my three part plan to make death safe, legal, and rare. Wait, I mean, meaningful, rare, and part of an interesting story.

No random death.
I'm not a fan of having PCs die random, ignoble deaths, so I just fudge the results if a death would be too stupid. I don't fudge anything that has to do with the plot, just stupid random stuff. (Random encounter, tiger, charge, pounce, roll nothing below an 18 for a total of 5 hits, two are crits? Nope! Didn't happen. Kitty clawed the PC until he stopped moving, and will now move on to a different target. Yeah, PC is at -5 and got his butt kicked by a critter, but he isn't dead.)

Defeat doesn't necessarily mean death.
Enemies don't chase PCs down and kill them without a very good reason. I try to leave retreat as a viable option whenever it's reasonable. "Save or Die" traps are usually "Save or Lose" instead, like petrification, polymorph, etc. If the PCs make an enemy, that NPC won't assassinate them, he'll undermine their mission, ruin their reputation, or humiliate them, not murder them in their sleep.

Death is a transformative experience.
When death does occur, I like to roleplay a post-death experience with the character. This is something gauged to the player as well as the character, and should result in some kind of change to the character: alignment shift, religious shift, mission from god, a vow, a new direction, maybe even a small character rewrite.

(You died and get resurrected? How did you like meeting your god? Oh, it wasn't the god you thought it would be? Are you going to stand by the god of your youth, or dedicate yourself to the one who resurrected you from the dead?)

Summary: Death is always significant.

My favorite caving moments include a trip through a narrow, twisty, space called the "Birth Canal". In order to get through, you had to lay down on your belly and crawl down a vertical shoot about 10' long and just a bit wider than a man's shoulders. After passing the Birth Canal, the cave opened back up into a series of large chambers. Our guide collected everyone's lamps, had us grasp hands in a long chain, and play follow the leader in a circle a couple times to disorient us. Then we had to find our way out in pitch darkness.

Those were real-world experiences, but both could inform gaming scenarios. Making medium sized creatures squeeze in certain areas could be fun, especially if there were small or tiny enemies running around. Mapping in pitch darkness could be accomplished with areas blanketed in permanent Deeper Darkness, or Fog Cloud.

The implication here is that a rules change is the only way to fix the OP's problem. I'm not opposed to an occasional house rule (I use them myself when I GM) but rather than using sweeping house rules to alter the balance of entire groups of casters, some simple GMing changes can go a long way.

.

• Schedule more fights per day.
  With 1-2 fights per day, casters have a lot of advantages. At 6 fights per day, casters grow conservative with their spells, and non-casters have to (get to) do a lot more of the heavy lifting. Find the balance that's right for your group, and don't be afraid to push them occasionally.

• Build encounters well.
  A single big monster can be taken out by a single spell, as can a swarm of identical enemies who stand together. The right mix of enemies can keep single spells from winning encounters.

  Varying, or not varying, the types of enemies encountered can keep casters on their toes. For example, if you have a caster who can only cast her best AoE spell twice per day, send a third or fourth mass enemy against the party.

• Play monsters intelligently.
  At higher levels when casters are more powerful, most of the monsters are pretty smart. A threatened caster has to expend resources defending himself rather than always being on offense, so don't be afraid to send an enemy at him sometimes. A smart enemy may send multiple waves of troops against the party, drawing out spells before the main attack.

• Be generous with magic items.
  Martial classes are much more dependent upon gear than casters are. By placing treasure suitable to your martial characters, allowing frequent shopping trips for upgrades, and allowing custom built magic items (not "house-rule custom" just letting the crit-fishing fighter order up a keen weapon as soon as he can afford it) you can keep martial characters acting at their full potential.

• Know the rules.
  Spellcasting can be tricky to GM. If you're letting summoned monsters show up too quickly or to psychically understand their summoner's desires, not enforcing full-round actions for spontaneous metamagic, and any number of other common mistakes can make casters more powerful than intended.

• Encourage players to work together.
  The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, and we all know that, but it can be easy to lose track of other people's enjoyment during the stress of battle. Talking to your players about ways that casters and martial characters can support one another can go a long way toward keeping the casters from accidentally becoming glory hogs.

I will start for me I would love to see an archetype for the ranger that is a spell-less ranger something that can make them more versatile without losing their feel.

Are you familiar with the Skirmisher? It fits your description perfectly.

I agree with those above that he 1) did not show mercy, and 2) did not act honorably, and should therefore lose his challenge ability.

In addition, I believe he committed an evil act by killing intelligent free-willed beings who posed no threat to anyone (by virtue of being incapacitated) and should immediately lose his "good" alignment, becoming chaotic neutral.

Yes, I'm replying to myself:)

There's a line in the Order of the Sword that I wasn't aware of, "At 2nd level, the cavalier must select one alignment. As long as he maintains the selected alignment, he receives a +2 morale bonus to one saving throw of his choice." In light of that, as a GM, I wouldn't change the cavalier's alignment on the spot. For a character who has game abilities riding on their alignment, I'd be less cavalier about making a change.

The Law-Chaos/Good-Evil Alignment System
I've been playing and GMing RPGs for more than 20 years, and studying ethics for about as long. As a young man, I spent a few years as a missionary, a few years in the military, and a few more years getting a degree in philosophy with a particular emphasis in ethics. I live with an atheist, a Christian, and a Jew, and my two best friends are a cross-cultural anthropologist and a political scientist working on a book about a dilemma in modern environmental ethics. (Four of those five people are also gamers:)

Why am I blathering on about my background? Just to highlight the fact that my next statement is made after two decades of careful consideration, broad exposure to different systems of morality, deliberate study of the world's most respected works of ethics and religion, and a great number of late night debates; The Law-Chaos/Good-Evil alignment system is extremely clever, yet fails under pressure as both a roleplaying device and as a moral framework.

Here are three ways I've found to reconcile myself with the alignment system, and make it work for better games rather than interfering:

Remember that alignment exists as a roleplaying aid.
To me, the most important part of a character's alignment is that it matches the character's behavior. Some players accomplish that by choosing an alignment, then attempting to act it out. Others accomplish that by thinking of a personality or behavior set, then writing down the alignment that seems to fit best. Neither method is superior.

In making characters interesting, believable, and three dimensional, a certain amount of consistency is necessary. (Does Adonis the Adventurous greet strangers heartily, or eye them suspiciously from a distance? Does Diana the Druid prefer to avoid cities, or burn them down?) When there is no consistency of personality, one of two things is usually going on, there really is no character aside from the numbers, or the character is being subverted to serve the momentary desires of the player.

What I really want from a player when it comes to alignment is that they tell me something about their character that I can believe and count on. If a character (or party) always takes prisoners after a surrender, I may write an interesting NPC and have him surrender, interact with the party, adopt their point of view, and become an ally or follower - or lead them to their certain deaths (which they will dramatically escape). If a party always kills foes rather than taking prisoners, I may have them approached by NPCs wishing to hire them for an assassination. My best GMing efforts, if they don't fit the player's behavior, would be entirely wasted and the game would be disappointing for all involved.

So, I talk to my players about their characters, and specifically about their alignment. The answer to "In what way is your character Chaotic Good?" tells me just as much as the answer to, "What is your alignment?" Occasionally, given a player's description, I'll suggest a different alignment than they originally conceived of, but always to make the words fit their character, and not the other way around.

Remember that the game universe differs fundamentally from our own.
In the real world, we can say thing like, "doing evil things doesn't make you evil" but until someone invents an evil-o-meter that can be waved over a person to determine their alignment, we're just theorizing. In the game world, alignment is a real thing, detectable by fairly common means. Everyone's walking around with a pair of indicators on their soul, the point toward law or chaos and good or evil, and where those indicators point is just as real as any other powerful unseen force like gravity or momentum.

While versions and settings differ, the alignment system also coincides with a universe in which there are multiple planes of existence, may of which are defined by alignment and populated by powerful beings such as gods, angels, devils, and demons. These powerful forces are eternal, they're locked in conflict, and they care which team you are working for. Imagine a conservative MP or Senator who votes with the liberal party on all of the bills presented in government, he would soon be dismissed by his party! Or imagine living in a rough neighborhood when the cops come to ask you about gang activity in your area, whether you talk or not, either the police or gangs will see you as an ally, and the other as an enemy.

So, alignment exists, and powerful forces give a damn (or a not-damn) about whose side your actions benefit.

Moral Foundations Theory
Arguments about cultural differences in morality are endemic in both the real world and in regards to the game world. What constitutes lawfulness vs. goodness, or chaos vs. evil is a also a constant question. A group of people conducted some excellent research which attempts to examine the basis of morals across the diversity of cultures. Here's their Wikipedia Entry, the Moral Foundations Homepage, and a fun online quiz.

I consider these moral factors to be matters of the good/evil axis:

• Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
  
• Fairness/cheating, justice, treating others in proportion to their actions.

I consider these moral factors to be matters of the law/chaos axis:

• Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
  
• Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation.
  
• Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
  
• Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Overall, I like the changes you have made.

Policies
Your two policies, "Roleplay to Respec" and "No Stepping Stones" are brilliant. I've used both policies at times, but never written them out when creating campaign documents. (I always publish a document something like yours when I begin a campaign, containing an introduction, character creation guidelines, and any house rules I intend to use.)

Abstract Wealth
Like TheRedArmy, the only one I would be hesitant about using is Abstract Wealth, and I see that you only implement that in one campaign. I'd love to read your assessment of how it's been working out.

Battle Adaptation
I also love the Battle Adaptation chain of feats! I would only use it with experienced players, but I would definitely offer it then.

A Suggestion
In keeping with some of the themes I see in your house rules, and combined with your rules for level-based bonuses, I'd actually add one more feat for the fighter types.

Exotic Weapon Mastery (combat)

Prerequisites: Proficiency with martial weapons and at least one exotic weapon.

You are adept with using any weapon, no matter how strange or unfamiliar.

Benefit: You are proficient with all exotic weapons.

That's a rough draft, and I'd consider making it a little more powerful by lowering the prerequisites, or a little less powerful by requiring an hour of practice to swap between exotic weapons. The general idea, however, would be to enable weapon-switching warriors in a rule set that normally encourages specialization.

I've played and GMed a lot of different games over the last 20 years, in lots of different settings, for lots of different groups. There is a wide variety of opinion on the matter, but let me describe how I approach fudging die rolls.

• I don't tell players I will fudge rolls.
  Telling them you'll fudge rolls provokes the list of behaviors you described, like not using healing, not retreating, nor neglecting potions. Telling players you'll fudge rolls is like telling them what's in the dungeon before they enter - it spoils the fun.

• I don't fudge die rolls often.
  An understanding of probability will show that, in the long run, dice are fair. If I start fudging attack rolls against a player who I feel is getting hit too often, even if I think they're getting unlucky, then I've simply given them an advantage compared to their fellow players. I trust that the dice will make up the variance eventually.

• If I think a challenge is unfair, I change the bonus or DC rather than fudging the roll.
  This is mostly an issue with published adventure material, rather than something I make up myself. If an adventure calls for DC 30 climb checks at level 1, over lava that deals 5d6 damage to a character who falls into it, that's not fun! Everybody's just going to die! I'll just change that to DC 25 and 1d6/round until you climb out, or something more appropriate. Whenever possible, the time to make that change is when you spot the problem, not after the die has been cast.

• I will fudge die rolls to make a better story.
  Some rolls control stories, like rolls for weather, random encounters, treasure, etc. Those are total fudge-bait! Basically I'm talking about anything I could have written into the adventure but decided to roll instead of write.

  For example, if I roll a random encounter with enemies who don't fit in at all, would be a total waste of time (CR-5), or would just eat the party (CR+5), I just pick something else. Maybe I'll use the thing I rolled as inspiration, like a group of 1d4 goblins might become a goblin adventuring party that mimics the PC's party, or an ancient dragon might be a dying ancient dragon with a last request, or maybe I just ignore the roll altogether.

• I will fudge rolls in short-term games, just so everyone gets to play.
  When I run a game at a convention, I don't kill PCs unless they really screw up bad. (Or if it's a game where everyone expects to die, of course.) If you travel 100 miles, pay $50, and rent a hotel room just to play a few four-hour RPGs, then I want to give you your whole four-hours worth! It's not like you can roll up a new character and play again next week.

• I will fudge a roll that kills a player arbitrarily.
  "You're walking down the road and get ambushed by five bandits, two jump out in front, two jump out in back, and one launches an arrow at whoever looks like they're in charge." He rolls a 20, confirms the crit with a 20, rolls max damage with a longbow for 33, dropping a 2nd level fighter from full HP to dead in one blow. (This is a true story, by the way.)

  20 auto-hits anyone
  20 auto-confirms against anyone
  33 damage would drop anyone in the party
  You had full HP, a 14 con, d10 hit dice, full armor, and a shield, so there was nothing more you could have done to be prepared.
  Goodbye, and thanks for (not actually) playing!

  That's just too arbitrary for me. As the GM, I caused a situation in which a PC died without any possible involvement of the players. That's not the players' fault, it's mine. Sure, I could "blame the dice" but maybe I should have used a crossbow (x2 crit), or not given the +3 STR bonus, or fired a warning shot over the party instead of into the party. If they players weren't involved in any way, then I won't let a die roll kill them.

  I'd probably fudge the damage roll to be average rather than max damage, which would have put the character into negative HP, but not instantly dead. Or perhaps I would have ignored the critical, just dealing the character 11 out of his 19 hp in one blow.

. . .the objection is usually more to heal-bot playstyles than to casting any cure spells at all. Patching up the Barbarian so he doesn't go down next round is a good use of a cleric's action. "I hold action to cast a cure spell once someone takes damage" or casting Cure Light Wounds mid-combat at level ten is not a smart way of doing things.

Yes, this is the centerpiece of the debate.

If 1/4 of the party is using every action to cast healing spells, one of two things is going on.

• The party is way out of its depth and is just barely managing to survive.
  
• The healer is wasting a lot of actions.

Here's what I have to say about healing in combat in my rather detailed post in one of those recent threads OP mentioned.

I am old school and when someone goes down, one of the group should try an stabilise the downed PC if able.

I don't think you know what "old school" means.

Whenever you need to redirect players back to the real meat of the game, just say something like "you spend a significant amount of time listening in on the dwarves, but don't hear anything else of interest." That will always always get them to do something else.

You have two good choices, and describing an insignificant conversation for an hour isn't either of them. The easy solution is what Avatar-1 said, simply tell the players that the conversation is insignificant.

A slightly more difficult solution is to make the conversation significant. You could move one of your planned quests over to the dwarves, or even just have the dwarves redirect the players toward your planned quest giver.
"Hey, Bombo, what was that old hag bothering you about?"
"Well, Bimbo, it turns out she lost her cat, and she's looking for someone to find it."

A very important part of running a successful RPG is giving the illusion of choice. As a player, you want to feel that your character can do anything they choose to. As a GM, you don't want the party to separate into four groups, and you never intend to let the action "I swallow the moon!" succeed. So, what is a GM to do? Metagame!

If you have a party who wants to quest, and two quests prepared, then subtly push the characters toward one of them. Perhaps the barmaid serves them a round of drinks and complements their weapons & armor. Oops! A conversation about the fact that they're adventurers ensued? Well, in that case, it's only natural that she would ask them to help save her father from the troglodytes!.

Did the party choose to help the barmaid? Yes.
Could they have chosen to take up knitting instead? Yes, kinda.
Would knitting ever have entered they're minds? No, probably not, if you never bring it up.

If they players are allowed to do everything they ever choose to do, then they have total freedom, no?

Let's go back to the inn.
You have three major activities prepared for the PCs: the barmaid's quest, the hag's quest, and bar games. Which do you think the players would enjoy most right now? Now, trick them into choosing that activity!

• Bar Games -> The dwarves stand up, go to the game of strength, and start drunkenly trying to best each other. Your barbarian goes and shows them both up. If the barbarian doesn't quite catch on that he can join in the game, then the dwarf who beats his buddy calls out, "I could beat Bimbo with one hand tied to my beard! Is there any real competition in this joint?"

• Barmaid's Quest -> Dwarf says, "Penny the barmaid is having an off day. That's the third drink I've seen her spill tonight! She's usually good, but she really seems distracted by something."

• Hag's Quest -> Dwarf says, "Since when did old women start hanging out at this tavern? She gives me the creeps, just sitting there, nursing one drink, staring at those newcomers like she's deciding which one to eat for supper."

So, you had three things prepared, but the party wanted to listen to dwarves? No problem!

Yes, it does. The player is using his abilities correctly.

@ Blue. It also warrants considering several other factors though.

Exactly! There are a great many factors impacting the decision, of course. The point of my question isn't to pose a full blown scenario, but to illuminate the type of situation that is actually in question.

Nobody thinks that a 10th level cleric who's friend took 8 points of damage during the surprise round should spend his first round of combat running over and casting Cure Light Wounds - that's a waste of an action. Nobody thinks that allies should be allowed to die rather than getting a healing spell when they're at negative HP and bleeding - that's a waste of a life (or an expensive resurrection). In combat, If you're asking questions like, "Who has the next action?" and "Is my buddy likely to die on the next round if I don't heal her?" then you are, in my opinion, displaying good tactical play.

Leisner wrote:

Healing is important, but it is best done outside of combat. . .

But if you play like the mainstream, like my group and the way James Jacobs sez he plays, then every PC is critical. You'd NEVER let your buddy die. And, a combat might last 10 rounds.

In those cases, yes you DO need to heal during combat. You need to heal when the next hit will drop you buddy- maybe dead but at least down. If he's down he can't continue to do his share, and if he's dead then one of your boon companions is gone. . .

This is a great example of the debate over healers and healing getting out of hand. The argument, "You need to heal when the next hit will drop your buddy" is used by both sides in the debate.

The argument for healing recognizes that:

• Nobody wants PCs to die.
  
• An incapacitated party member doesn't help win the fight.
  
• A party with healing available is more able and willing to take risks, and therefore gets more done.

The argument against healing recognizes that:

• It is easier to deal damage than to heal damage.
  
• Characters operate at 100% efficiency all the way down to 1 hit point.
  
• A fight isn't over until the enemy is defeated.

The side for healing claims that:

• Healing in combat is necessary.
  
• Somebody's primary job should be healing the party.

The side against healing claims that:

• Just because somebody is wounded doesn't mean they need healing in combat.
  
• Every party member should contribute to defeating the enemy, not just healing the party.

Both sides use straw man arguments and allow outliers to contaminate their main. Healing is obviously different when special circumstances apply, and everyone knows it. These special cases should be left out of the main argument, and addressed only as called for:

• Unusually high or low wealth
  
• Unusually high or low access to magic items
  
• Unusually large or small party size
  
• Unusually hard or easy battles

Healbot vs. Paramedic
When the chaff is cut away, the real point of disagreement is fairly narrow. It can be seen in two areas, character building, and battlefield actions.

When it comes to character building, the anti-healing camp wants a cleric to invest in offense, physically (high strength score, power attack, and a two-handed magic weapon) or magically (spell penetration, dazing spell, or augmented summoning). The pro-healing camp wants resources spent to maximize healing and defense.

When it comes to battle, the difference can be illuminated with a single question. When the fighter says, "One of the two monsters is down, but I've been hit twice and I'm at 40% health." should the party's best healer cast a healing spell, or make an attack?

With STR 10, and WIS 18, you're definitely set up to be more of a caster than a brawler. Especially since you don't have anyone else in the party who casts spells, I suggest you focus on casting.

Here's a great reference document for druid spells from the core book.

Summoning
Don't forget that you can spontaneously cast Summon Nature's Ally spells, so you don't need to memorize them.

I suggest picking out one big, tough, tank of a monster at each spell level. You can print that critter's stats out from here and keep it with your character sheet. You won't need to summon in every fight, of course, but summoning an enormous dinosaur behind the bad guys can really put a damper on their plans!

Healing
I'm a big fan of a 3rd level Cure Wounds spell with a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Reach Spell. A combination of metamagic feats & rods granting Quicken Spell & Reach Spell can really cut back on the time it takes to run around casting heals.

As magic items go, I suggest that you buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds for 750 gold. The Ranger can carry it in combat, in case you get clobbered. Outside of combat, it can be a great way to fill up hit points after fights.

Lesser Restoration is probably the best 2nd level spell you can memorize. It won't come in handy every day, but when it does, it's a lifesaver!

Spells
Druids don't specialize in "Save or Lose" spells, or damaging spells, but you're the only source in your party. So, when they're the best solution to a problem, you get the be the hero!

Baleful Polymorph - Basically a fortitude save or lose the battle.

Flame Strike - An excellent area of effect spell. I'd keep one memorized all the time in case of swarms (literal or figurative), oozes, any enemies immune to physical damage.

Wall of Thorns - An amazing "battlefield control" spell. This is just the ticket when you're worried that the party has bitten off more than it can chew! It can be a little tricky to use, so keep a copy printed out to hand your GM when you cast it.

"Healers suck in Pathfinder" is a false oversimplification, derived from two true statements:

• Most people don't like playing a character that only serves to heal the other characters.
  
• Spending actions in combat casting healing spells when it's not necessary is a poor tactical choice.

.

To me, a good healer is one who contributes to the party's success in other ways when healing isn't needed, and can deliver healing when it is needed.

• An oracle or cleric can fight, buff, and blast, as well as heal.
  
• A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.
  
• A paladin with a decent charisma can tank and deal damage with the best. He can also Lay on Hands, Channel Energy, and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

Here's what my 12th level character is carrying at the moment. They're all stored in a Handy Haversack, so it's a move action to retrieve any one, and generally a standard action to use.

Alchemical Items:
Alchemist's fire – In case I need to stop regeneration with fire.
Bladeguard - Ooze you say? Protect your weapon.

Skill elixirs are cheap, and give +10 for an hour:
Elixir of Hiding
Elixir of Swimming
Elixir of Tumbling

Potions:
Potion of Invisibility - Emergency Escape Plan #1
Potion of Gaseous Form – Emergency Escape Plan #2
Potion of Fly – For fighting flying enemies or navigating problematic battlefields.
Potion of Water Breathing

Cures - I have party members who can cast these, but what if the person with the spell is the one in trouble? What if we all get blinded at once?
Potion of Neutralize Poison
Potion of Remove Blindness/Deafness
Potion of Remove Curse
Potion of Remove Disease
Potion of Remove Paralysis

Potion of Cure Serious Wounds - A backup measure. I'm playing a Paladin, so I'd never actually use this on myself while conscious. However, I never want to be lying on a battlefield at -13 HP, and not have a good healing potion on me. What if the Rogue is the only party member who can reach me?

Scrolls of spells I can cast, but expect to use rarely so don't want to memorize:
Scroll of Heal Mount
Scroll of Raise Animal Companion
Scroll of Sea Stallion
Scroll of Sky Steed

Lots of people feel this way. There are tons of threads addressing this topic from many different angles. Many people have made rules, either at home or published, to change this aspect of the game.

I've even done it myself.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

XP, just say no.

I no longer do XP. I level players characters up by plot.

This. It is working wonderfully in my RotRl campaign. For my upcoming campaign we are trying out Sean K. Reynolds' step leveling system. Would post a link but posting from my phone so it's a pain.

I've never heard of this until just now, but here's a link to Sean K. Reynolds' Step Leveling System.

Blueluck wrote:

I wouldn't take any monk levels, but I'd still strongly consider Crane Style.

Here's a example of a level 8 human Lore Warden build I like...

@Blueluck...I really dig this build. What did you take for the starting feats here? I will assume Weapon Finesse and Improved Unarmed Strike, at least.

You're right about those two. I believe my other feat at 1st level is Dodge.

This is a terrible plan. Don't do it.

I know it's going to be funny sure, especially when they find out I've been lying to them the whole time. . .

No, it won’t be funny. It won’t be funny at all. Correction, it might be funny to you, the way it’s funny to a bully when he teases another kid on the playground, but it won’t be funny to them.

I want to find a nice balance between useless fake fighter and giant jerkface wizard who could have been saving the party the whole time.

There is no nice balance between “useless fake” and “giant jerkface”. There’s nothing “nice” in that plan at all.

I wouldn't take any monk levels, but I'd still strongly consider Crane Style.

Blueluck wrote:

That's not how multiclassing works. One level of Oracle gives +0 BAB, and one level of Sorcerer gives +0 BAB.

It does if you use fractional BAB. Add up the total of the fractions. 4 monk/1 oracle/1 sorcerer would give 4 x 3/4 + 2 x 1/2. would be 4 for instance, and then the 7th level could be in fist of the forest.

Wow, from a sidebar in the D&D 3.5 Unearthed Arcana. That's digging deep!

Something that has been suggested by a few people, but which I recommend against, is adding a "defense roll" of some kind. It doesn't change the math on an attack, but it does slow down combat. As the game goes up in level, the slowdowns get much worse.

(There are some game systems that do something special with opposed combat roles, but they're specially designed to do so.)

You're describing a Ranger. Is there a reason you're using Rogue levels instead of Ranger?

Making Craft Work is outstanding. It addresses your concerns very well, and only costs 99 cents. I'm not usually a buyer of third-party material, but this was the best $1 upgrade to Pathfinder I've ever seen!

Blueluck's idea sounds exciting. Sure, it's metagamey, but I agree that WBL was already kind of metagamey. All those adventurers looking to make a fortune, but when they do, instead of enjoying it, they invest it into more gear because the players know there's bigger stuff yet to come.

I think the biggest thing I dislike about WBL is how poorly it works if the PCs get their hands on vast wealth, like the finances of a kingdom. Sure, there may be an uprising when people figure out they've diverted the entire treasury and fiscal year into their pockets, but with the power they can get from it, they'll be like gods. Likewise, WBL groans if one (but not all!) of the PCs should set up a lucrative business.

Thanks:)

That's one of the main reasons I created a new system for my campaign. I wanted the characters to use wealth like wealth, not like a game mechanic. When all the gold isn't being used to buy magic items, it's fun to see it used for charity, bribes, building armies, investing, showing off. . .

.

I've been pondering my own take on magic items, which would work roughly like this. . . magic item spirits become more powerful by gaining XP.

I stuck with gold as the measurement because the math is already built into the game - it meant less work for me, and less chance of screwing something up. If in your system one gold=one XP then you have the same mechanic I did, but with a cooler flavor.

I like Blueluck's idea a lot, actually. Just divorcing magical equipment from the regular treasure helps a bunch, at least freeing up treasure for things other than more gear.

It also is solid at keeping the party at appropriate WBL for their magical gear. I do wonder, when the party defeated an enemy who had magical equipment, what happened to that?

They rarely encountered enemies with magic gear. Few monsters have magic items, and those that have something simple in their stat block, like +1 weapons, I just ignore it. (The monster keeps the stats, it was just "+1 stronger" rather than having a "+1 sword".)

Low level NPCs simply don't have magic items. (That's part of what makes magic items special!)

For powerful NPCs, I used the same system as the players, but since friendly NPC's gear never becomes treasure, it doesn't really have to be detailed out. If it's a powerful, tool-wielding enemy, I would give them a single magic item which radiated a palpable sense of evil. (Basically, an evil artifact to destroy.)

Occasionally, I would toss in an interesting magic item for fun. A Lyre of Building, Horn of Valhalla, or Bottle of Air is fun to find! The overall system also meant that "cool but not powerful" items got kept, not sold off.

The problem with getting rid of magical items is figuring out how to handle stat bonuses and AC increases. Weapons, imho, is less of a big deal, though you could certainly get rid of the +X to hit on them or modify it and up everyone's attack bonus a bit.

However, this is far from a trivial thing. Different classes need multiple stats to different degrees. Some are great with one good stat. Some are great with one, and benefit from another being boosted. Some really need two. Some honestly could use three to varying degrees. Armor Class is even harder since there are so many sources of it.

It's hard to make a really elegant system for handling this. Most things I see really just shuffle things around a bit so you're getting magic items, but at a fixed rate and they are inherent to your body or something. Like personal crafting points you can only use on yourself.

I ran a campaign a few years ago in a homebrew setting that was very "dark ages" rather than the typical "high fantasy".

This is the most elegant system I was able to come up with.

• Magic items are rare.
  Most magic items are objects of legend, tied to the stories of heroes, villains, kings, and kingdoms. With the exception of potions and certain other consumables, they are never sold on the open market.

• Treasure is divided into two categories:
  Loot - Gold, silver, jewels, commodities, mundane objects, etc. The characters can do whatever they want with this wealth, buy mundane equipment, live a life of luxury, pay bribes, acquire property. . .
  Magic Allotment - Every player gets a budget equal to their expected wealth by level. This budget can be spent on improving or creating magical gear as they choose. This operates as a metagame construct, just like experience points, leveling up, and increasing class abilities.

• Few is better than many.
  There is no penalty for stacking abilities on a single magic item. Instead, there is a 20% discount on the cost of every ability on an item except the most expensive one.

• Tell a story!
  All new magic items and major enhancements to magic items require a story element. The GM can think them up, or come up with your own.

Each character had 1-3 magic items, each with a history. Should an item be taken away, it was imperative to retrieve it. For the player who loved ancestry and wanted to fulfill his family destiny, his heirloom charm brought him power (rogue). For the player who liked crafting, he made his own staff of power (sorcerer). For the player who loved finding stuff (barbarian) I planted "abilities" in the monsters she defeated so that she could add them to her arsenal.

Simulation though.. Crossbows historically, had more power than a long bow. There is lots of use of crossbows, but the similation of the game doesn't fully allow that. Its far too stiff and demands that every little thing becomes a feat.

Blueluck wrote:

D&D has been a simulationist game from its origin.

Only with a rather tight definition of "simulationist", jumping out of 10th floor and stand up and run away is not simulation.

A simulationist complaining about a mechanic will say, "Crossbows are better than that." A narrativist, complaining about the same game will say, "Why should I do less damage just because I want to use crossbows?"

The devil is not, as the saying goes, in the details. The difference is in the approach, the philosophy, the way of looking at the game.

There's a philosophical difference in game design between, to borrow some terms, a simulationist and a narrativist approach.

A simulationist approach tries to create a game in which the rules reflect reality, or a fictional reality. The simulationist, when deciding how much damage a particular weapon will deal, first looks at the real world, then decides how to represent that information in the game. They are likely to do something like this:

• Sling 1d4
  
• Shortbow 1d6
  
• Longbow 1d8

A narrativist approach tries to create a game in which the rules tell a story, according to the will of the players. The narrativist, when deciding how much damage a weapon will deal, first thinks about the impact of those weapons on the story. They are likely to do something like this:

• One handed ranged weapons 1d4 (examples: javalin, sling, spear)
  
• Two handed ranged weapons 1d6 (examples: shortbow, crossbow, staff sling)
  
• Martial, two handed, ranged weapons 1d8 (examples: longbow, foot bow, blunderbus)

D&D has been a simulationist game from its origin. (An interesting and relevant article.) I've played a wide variety of RPGs, and I have a strong urge toward the narrativist approach which D&D/Pathfinder definitely do not serve. Fudge, Tri-Stat, QAGS, older versions of WOD, and a great many other games use a more narrativist approach. Interestingly, D&D 4e backed off somewhat from the simulationist model, and I believe some of the complaints leveled against it were caused by that change in philosophy. Most obviously, complaints that "all 4e characters are the same" stem from that change.

You're not going to get Pathfinder to change, because it's the game for people people who want simulationist fantasy. However, you can easily make house rules to create the kinds of adjustments you want. For example, if one of your players wants to be a crossbowman, let them use the rules for bows and simply re-skin their bow as a crossbow. BOOM! Your crossbowman is now an optimized ranged attacker!

The goalie with the dark sunglasses, does he say "deal with it"?

If he blocks a goal, yes. Yes he does.

I just joined a soccer team a month ago. I'm playing for the first time in 20 years. It's a men's "over 30" team. I'm the slowest guy out there, I'm doing the best I can, and I'm fantastically glad that my team doesn't have your freaking attitude.

There's a big difference between your position on the soccer team, and Renegadeshepherd's position on the PFS team. When you play soccer, you are presumably putting in your best effort to win. Renegadeshepherd switched from a perfectly good character to a very ineffective one, willingly, and without warning.

Imagine if you showed up to the first three games (or practices) of the soccer league, played three different positions, and did a pretty good job. Then, when you showed up to the fourth game, you insisted on playing goalkeeper, and were wearing a 40 pound backpack, ankle weights, and dark sunglasses?

The first thing your teammates would do is ask you why you were wearing all that junk, and if you didn't have a really good reason, they'd ask you to take it off. Your teammate wouldn't be a jerk if they said, "Hey man, if you could drop the backpack and play forward for a while, it'd really help the team."

I've played with a lot of groups, including a lot of organized play groups at various levels of difficulty ranging from "Learn to Play" up to being a member of a team that made it through the finals of D&D Championship at GenCon. Just about everyone I've ever played with is happy to have new players, supportive of young or inexperienced players, and forgiving of mistakes of all kinds. (They'd be great folks to be on a soccer team with if you were the slowest guy on the team.) However, if you act like you don't care, or mess things up on purpose, most people will get pretty irritated.