I seriously am not seeing any compelling reason AT ALL to be a rogue over Investigator/Bard/Urban Ranger/Slayer/Swashbuckler/alchemist/Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcanist/Mesmerist/Nin ja... besides to write ROGUE on your character sheet...
Ok, so rogue is a bad class, even the unchained version is at best passable. But there are flavor things I want out of rogue that each of those fall short of.
is, I do not want to have innate powers of a clearly magical nature, I want to just be a person. Argue all you want for the reflavoring of ninja ki but the very first power you get with it is the ability to jump like you're in a wire works kung fu movie and at 6th level I can literally walk across lava. Too magic. Don't want. All the others either have straight up magic or brew magic potions that only they can make use of.
The remaining two you bring up are swashbuckler and slayer.
Swashbuckler doesn't get any particular benefit from getting the drop on people which is part of the flavor I expect out of a rogue.
Slayer... I'll admit is mostly a better rogue. This one's hard to argue against. Still doesn't quite feel right to me though. I think that's mostly because it feels more like a front liner that can get his sneaky underhandedness on when he needs to than it does someone who relies entirely on the sneaky underhandedness.
The argument on the last one is weak, and if I put my mind to it I could probably make a Slayer that scratched 95% of my rogue itch but that doesn't stop me from wanting a class that scratches it 100%.
I don't think locking someone into a choice is the best plan of attack and agree that kestral that the best option may be to give every class an unlock at 5th level.
As a middle ground you could limit it to one of their class skills.
That way the ranger who wants to be the very best at tracking still can be but the ranger who's put one token rank into survival isn't locked into a character type that the player's not interested in.
Just wanted to pop in and say to Joe M. huge props for the way you not only clearly stated the parameters of what you were trying to determine but then showed your work in crazy detail.
It's a refreshing change and I very much respect it.
1/2 Orc Scarred Witchdoctor with the strength Patron. This Character serves three functions
1) Buff up a for a round or two and head into melee with a Falchion. Preferred buffs involve an increase to size category and all the reach funness that comes with that.
2) Cast Summon spells, feel like I don't need to elaborate on why this is good.
3) Serve as a backup healer with the healing and major healing hexes.
and as a bonus 4) fire off utility spells as required and battlefield control spells that don't involve saves.
I've statted out to level 15 because I wanted to see if the character would still be viable come high level.
The Attribute Scores:
25 point buy, after level increases and enhancement items
STR: 26
DEX: 18
CON: 20
INT: 7
WIS: 10
CHA: 11
INT getting dumped over Charisma was a roleplaying decision. I'm well aware that dumping charisma would be the smarter play.
Hexes
Lvl 2 - Fortune
Lvl 4 - Soothsayer
Lvl 6 - Healing
Lvl 8 - Flight
Lvl 10 - Retribution
Lvl 12 - Major Healing
Lvl 14 - ????
I specificly avoided save hexes on the ground that I'm not paying all that much attention to my casting stat. It's ok, but not amazing.
The Gear:
This is quick and dirty gear purchasing. I know there's ways I could better spend my money I just wanted to get it done quickly. Also you may note there's one custom item, when my OP stated none. My DMs pretty cool with which bonus goes in which slot so I know that one will fly, but wholly unique items won't.
Falchion +5
Ring of Protection +5
Cloak of Minor Displacement
Garment of Resistance +5
Belt of Physical Perfection +4
Headband of Wisdom +4
The Buffs:
The following buffs have a long duration and are assumed to be on.
Mage Armor
False Life
Heroism
Fortune Hex
One Round of buffing, expending a 7th level and an 8th level spell slot
Giant Form I (Troll)
Quickened Divine Power
Second Round of Buffs
Retribution Hex if I suspect the opponent has a vulnerable will save
Scarshield for 7 points of natural armor if I suspect the opponent has a strong will save
Plus some other quickened buff I've yet to decide on.
The Combat Stats:
After one round of buffing my combat stats look like this
Initiative: +3
Hit points: 182 + 17 temporary
I get a reroll on the first d20 I roll and on a d20 of my choice in the second round.
Offense
Falchion, Power attacking and Arcane Striking
+30/+30/+25, 2d4+41, 18-20/x2
Defense
AC: 25
20% Miss Chance
Regeneration 5
Saves
Fort: +20
Ref: +16
Will: +19
I took the Sacred Tattoo alternate racial trait incase anyone is really doing the math
A second round of buffing adds either +7 to AC or forces the opponent a DC 23 Will save or suffer half the damage they deal.
The Problems:
My buff plan is only really doable once or twice per day so if I want to melee minor encounters I'll be relying on lesser buffs.
Without a round to apply scarshield my AC is pretty garbage.
Honestly I'm pretty happy with the results overall. There's still a few blank spots that I'd be interested to hear advice on and am still interested in any cool ideas that haven't been considered yet.
Thanks for all the options guys, it's been super helpful, I have a few build ideas I'm toying around with now. When I narrow it down a bit I'll post a preliminary build and see what people think.
Right now I'm going back and forth between a Transformation spell focused, orc bloodline, blood arcanist and a Scarred Witchdoctor with the strength patron.
Do feel free to keep throwing new options at me in the meantime if you think of any.
Whenever I sit down to make an Oracle I end up making a Cleric.
I just don't think the spell list suits spontaneous casting particularly well. Trying to select spells I'm always left with too many I regret not having room for.
That being said, as people have noted up thread there's not really such a thing as an underpowered 9 level spell casting class and with sufficient system mastery there are a number of frighteningly powerful Oracle builds.
... I still end up with a cleric though.
- Torger
*edit* or an inquisitor, I ended up with an inquisitor once.
As long as the new materials restrain themselves by the overall cap of power presented in the CRB, even if you examine such a thing in a level to level basis, nothing is "more powerful" in an objective sense. You may dislike a player having two moderately powerful options compared to one. However, they're no more powerful simply because the other option also exists. They're just as powerful but in different ways. From all evaluation I've done of the game (which includes all the hardback line and most of the companion and setting splats) I am wholly unconvinced Paizo has actually impinged on the boundaries of the CRB from both a 1-20 sense as well as any increment thereof.
I love players having two moderately powerful options to choose from, that's the definition of perfect for me.
Feel free to show me a core rule book feat that stacks up to Spell Perfection (APG) in terms of power level as an option for 15th level casters.
The only one I can think of is Quicken spell. Interesting how quicken spell itself can be made a more powerful option If you also take spell perfection.
Call it the ceiling, call it the "level 15 plateau" call it power creep, call it w/e. For me this is options getting tougher and again, I don't like it.
Maybe you don't see it that way and that's fine, but some of us do. As "wholly unconvinced" as you are that Paizo has not "impinged on the boundaries of the CRB" I am equally convinced that they have.
Appearance isn't water wherein someone can have more or less of it, indeed the sentence, 'she has more appearance than you' doesn't even make grammatical sense in English. This is by far your silliest argument yet anyzr.
Yet another fine argument for Charisma having anything to do with either appearance or physical beauty being silly.
Charisma in this game is a number that you have less or more of and if appearance and/or physical beauty is a part of that number then mechanically you can have either more or less of it. That's what happens when the game requires that we apply numbers to a subjective concept.
If the DM who passes away is a close friend. Take some time grieving then move on and find a new DM.
In that scenario a new game would happen, whatever game is getting played after my death, it's not my game. My game is over. Even if they just pick up and continue in the same world I was running with the same characters using my notes (the notes part is especially creepy) it's now someone elses game.
Much the same way anyone can write Conan but no one else can write Robert E. Howard Conan.
- Torger
*edit* to clarify there's nothing wrong with that, there are some great Conan stories not written by Robert E Howard. But they're not his Conan.
Torger, I'm going to assume(for the final time) you are honesty trying to understand me and are not trolling.
Please open a dictionary, as long as it is in English and published before 1950 I suspect it will be suitable. Look up the word "appearance", go ahead and write it down and post it in full here.
Appearance, by the common usage as reported by nearly every dictionary in the English language, does in fact refer to concepts such as "attractiveness". I'm am really mystified if you disagree with this point, and I'll just disengage if that is the case.
When you use the phrase, "directly equates", I suspect you are engaging in a logical fallacy, I'm not going to try and tutor you now but I highly recommend you study math and philosophy, these two general fields of knowledge will assist you in clarifying your thinking and will improve your life.
I merely am asserting that "looks" are a part of CHA, whether it be a small part or a big part, whether it is linear or exponential or proportionate to inverse square of some other factor I cannot say, all the rules say is that CHA reflects, in part, appearance. How you can disagree with this is again a mystery to me, the example you gave of a creature with horrific appearance having a high CHA is easily explained by reflecting that they could easily make up the deficiency of their appearance with the other qualities associated with CHA such as "personal magnetism". Perhaps you can link us to an example to focus your thoughts?
Please go and read the rules of the game you are playing, let me know where you are struggling to understand the rules as they are written because I would like to try and help you.
Thanks so much for your condescending reply. Talking down to people is a great way to make them want to listen to you in any way </sarcasm>
But fine let's do this. According to dictionary.com which is good enough for me.
ap-pear-ance
[uh-peer-uh ns]
noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public:
"the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso inAïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting."
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect:
"a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance."
3. outward show or seeming; semblance:
"to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor."
4.Law. the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances:
"By all appearances, he enjoyed himself."
6. Philosophy. the sensory, or phenomenal, aspect of existence to an observer.
7. Archaic. an apparition.
Definition #2 looks most applicable to the description of the charisma attribute. If you'd like to argue for one of the other defenitions feel free but I'll likely ignore you.
The argument being put forth by other people is that a higher value in an attribute that includes appearance, must be more physically attractive. While a lower value must be less physically attractive.
My contention is that's not the only metric by which one could assign a number to the word appearance (as defined above). Some people have an appearance which, while not physically attractive does engender trust and/or sympathy. Could it not be reasonable to think that is what the number measures and that a higher number equals more a more trustworthy appearance. Please feel free to point me to where the definition above contradicts this as a valid measurement of appearance.
So I say again, the word appearance does not directly equal physical beauty.
The hilarious thing is that after you boil down both of our arguments we're both saying the same thing. Which is this.
High charisma doesn't have to be hot and low charisma doesn't have to be fugly.
Honestly I have no idea why we're arguing about the definition of the word appearance.
Your argument about how certain character concepts need to be ugly if charisma = beauty is what I call a feature, not a bug.
Then we're probably never going to agree on this topic. I'm all for mechanical trade offs but not for trading mechanical effectiveness for something that does absolutely nothing mechanically.
Why can no martial artist ever be both attractive and effective? They usually are in the Kung-Fu movies I have in mind when I make the character.
Sissyl wrote:
Voila, everyone gets to play a supermodel.
Do you watch movies? We generally expect our heroes to be attractive. Is this a good thing... eh, probably not, but it's certainly true and sometimes it's what we want out of our characters. Essentially restricting that paradigm to Paladins Sorceress and any other charisma based class feels incredibly arbitrary to me. Again, why can't a monk be attractive?
Sissyl wrote:
then excise it completely from the game and replace it with a feat
But it doesn't do anything. I'm with you on excise it but why make it anything at all? Why require players to make a trade off for something that's purely descriptive? I'm not required to pay a feat if I want a bad ass scar or if I want blue eyes or if I want my name to start with a Z. Those are all equally mechanically relevant to attractiveness. Also we now have the situation where a character was butt ugly at level 1 but then took the beauty feat at level 3 and suddenly is a super model.
It isn't their hotness I mind. It is their gangrenous personalities, backed up by unmotivated reasoning like "since charisma is the average of appearance and personality, and I dumped it to 7, I can get away with a -4 in personality if I take an 18 appearance". Then they behave like s%#% and try to claim that they are just playing their character.
Which sounds to me like an excellent argument for excising appearance from the charisma equation entirely.
If you definitively state charisma has zero bearing on appearance and they still act like total asshats then you've determined that it wasn't an attempt to "balance the numbers" but rather that they just want to act like asshats. In which case you've got a toxic group.
Okay... So if your argument hinges upon how something feels to you rather than a more objective metric, you are saying that your feelings are more important than the feelings of another party.
Since we know this is objectively untrue, the argument is meaningless.
Certainly no one has ever bought a product based on how they feel about it.
Therefore Paizo should certainly ignore how their customer base feels about their rulings.
Wait a tick hasn't a component of some arguments against this ruling been how many customers it will piss off... or if you prefer how they'll feel about it. Wonder why they consider their emotions to be more important to paizo than ours... no matter.
Hard to say at this point which side feels stronger but there are definitely some strong emotions on both sides.
And that it was worth noting that the developers specifically allowed for the fact that they weren't quite sure about this one and might go back and revisit it.
It's not like the Pulled the rug out when no one was looking. They were upfront about not being sure they liked the rug in the first place.
- Torger
That's one way to paint it.
However, the part about revisiting was specifically tied to the situation unbalancing gameplay.
A year and a half later there weren't many (if any) complaints about balance. People felt comfortable that the FAQ had been vetted and laid to rest. That's another way to paint the picture.
Just because the people who complained about the balance of the rule quieted down over a year and a half doesn't mean their opinion changed. As evidenced by the number of people in this thread who've stuck their head in and said sweet I never liked it to begin with</paraphrase>
I will grant you that a year and a half is a long time to leave a rule "in beta" so I retract my opinion that people are being unreasonable in expressing shock and surprise.
- Torger
P.S. I like your </paraphrase> tag it's super useful. That you can quote me on :P
It isn't being a "RAW specialist," or "subverting dev intentions," when the dev team explicitly and specifically states, [paraphrase] "We understand this will allow early entry into PrC's. We're cool with that. PrC's are kinda bad right now. Hope this helps. Peace out." drop the microphone[/paraphrase].
That's funny 'cause I read the old FAQ not long ago and what I recall it saying was
We realize this allows early entry into some PrCs but they're generally considered subpar so we're going to try this solution as see if we like it. We might change it up later.</paraphrase>
Which at the time I thought was an unusual caveat for an FAQ. Looks like they decided they didn't like it and changed it up. *shrug*
Wall of Quotes From/Responses to kestral287. If you're not following our conversation I'd skip it:
kestral287 wrote:
Really, my response is more that you're hurting your own cause.
You don't want casters to get stronger. I can-- intellectually, at least-- understand that. Realistically, I don't see it is as a problem, but that might have to do more with my group than anything else (with six gestalt characters across two games, we only have two ninth-level casters. The Druid is in it for Wild Shape and almost never casts, and the Sorcerer is mine. Instead, when we threw open gestalt we got stuff like Fighter//Warlock and Alchemist//Kineticist).
Sounds like it does have more to do with your gaming group. I doubt I'd much enjoy those games. Not my cup of tea. It's great that you and your table do, but they hold little comparative value to me.
kestral287 wrote:
But in my experience as a shameless (and indeed, rather proud) optimizer, the best way to handle the issue is to put something more awesome in front of them.
That is a never ending cycle of the ceiling getting raised over and over and is the exact opposite of what I'd want.
kestral287 wrote:
What you've done is enforce that your stereotypical 'god' wizard is the One True Caster, eminently superior to his poor Fireball-chucking rivals. But...
What if you allowed Magical Knack? Well. Does that actually help the One True Caster? It's not like he wants to dip. But you do allow other designs, and if your optimizers seize on that shiny, you come out ahead.
Addressing the specific option, my players aren't huge class dippers so magical knack would likely go unnoticed.
Addressing the spirit of the comment, when I see an option that I feel is underpowered with no palatable official option to fix it that I'm aware of I start homebrewing. Usually in consultation with whomever has a vested interest in it. In the case of damage casters I've tweaked the damage of certain spells, homebrewed a couple others, created a wizard archetype and am contemplating a line of feats. In a similar vein I just completed a total Rogue rewrite, that I and one of my players are very excited to see play tested.
I swear I'm willing to do the work to see an option come together that the player is satisfied to play and I'm comfortable having in my world.
kestral287 wrote:
Lineage and Spellhunter are another example-- and your previous response honestly cemented my point. Those 'use these traits to boost a non-blaster spell' builds don't exist. Don't get me wrong, I think it's cool Graystone came up with something to do with them that isn't blasting, but I don't think anyone here thinks that Empowered Lesser Rejuvenate Eidolon is actually threatening in a second-level spell slot. Beyond that... I've seen nothing.
And it'd be one thing for me to be saying "I've seen nothing" in my own games, because table variance is high and we have folks who've been playing tabletops for a heck of a lot longer than me. But when I'm saying that, I'm drawing on the observations I've made of a large group of very varied players, and within them a still-large group of utterly shameless, very good at what they do, and very awesome optimizers
If they're not using Lineage and Spellhunter on their Stinking Clouds, I'm not worried. It means that however those two traits look on paper, the gameplay-driven reality is that they're not all that good for the god Wizard (which really makes perfect sense, since two hallmarks of the god Wizard are his flexibility and his lack of reliance on anything that involves metamagic not named Quicken). But if Lineage and Spellhunter make the Blockbuster build viable, and your group's optimizer decides to play that build instead of the One True Caster... then you're winning..
Great, you've never seen it or heard of anyone who's seen it. You'll forgive me if I don't take your observations as fact and instead rely on my gut, my knowledge of the table I run, and my own sense of balance which have all served me well and created many games that people genuinely seem to enjoy playing in. You are after all "a shameless (and indeed, rather proud) optimizer". The opinions of you and your ilk regarding what is and isn't super powerful likely vary considerably from those of me and my ilk.
kestral287 wrote:
That, in and of itself, is why I almost never mind more cogs to play with for a character, as either a GM or a player. Opening up gestalt might mean on paper that I need to prepare for the superTheurge Oracle//Sorcerer who can cast all those spells that we on the forums love to hate. In reality it means I got a Brawler//Hunter and a Monk//Inquisitor.
I on the other hand do not want more cogs. The bigger the machine the more places it can break. If more cogs are absolutely required to get the job done then I want to either inspect them thoroughly or forge them myself so I'm 100% certain they do the job, no more no less.
kestral287 wrote:
And while I might be imposing my group's dynamics on yours,
You are, but then it's really hard to discuss games without doing so at least a little bit so I don't mind :D
kestral287 wrote:
I have the feeling that if you opened up traits, you'd see something similar. Sure, if you compare casters-with-traits to casters-without-traits, yeah, the one with a free feat or so is better. But they're not improving any more than the Swashbuckler who effectively got Medium Armor Proficiency and patched up his terrible Will save by applying Cha where it matters: indeed, I'd actually contend that your stereotypical 'god' Wizard is one of the setups that gains the least from traits. The best traits for casters are ones that work directly against the 'god''s strengths and strategies. He doesn't want those, and since those are his best option he gains less.
Hence: in my experience more fiddly bits to play with are usually good, and traits in particular help out others a lot more than they help the One True Caster.
Well with swashbuckler in particular, that's one example of an official solution boosting something I felt needed a boost in a way that I like.
But I understand the point you're trying to make. My response is only that I'd way rather try to fix a problem in a manner that I like then use an official solution that I don't like.
I've never understood why people see official rules as being written in stone by the gods, like being created by paizo employees makes them unassailable and incapable of being bad but that's a tanget and kind of a whole 'nother big discussion.
Finally I feel it's worth noting that I'm not the only GM at my table and all of us, GMs and players alike (except that one guy who's newish) have looked at traits. We all said meh, not worth it.
In any case I've enjoyed our discussion. We game very differently I think but I do enjoy a lively exchange of ideas. ^_^
Wizard casts Simulacrum on the Paladin, instructing the Simulacrum to love A. Wizard casts Simulacrum on X, instructing the Simulacrum to convert for the Paladin. Wizard begins dating X*.
And then magic solved everything!
*Obviously, if there's a Sorcerer who knows the spell, this step will go over much better with X.
Simulacrum, wrecking games of all styles since 19XX!
even if it's something as simple as this spell's range was close, but now thanks to enlarge I can use it outside of normal charge range for no cost.
kestral287 wrote:
So... literally what I said in the first place.
kestral287 wrote:
So while I can see your argument in theory... I'm not sure that the reducer traits do ever help anyone but blasters (rods are a different story; everybody wants a Quicken Rod at the least).
Really?
I provided, with very little time and thought put into it, an example of a way in which a reducer trait could help a non blaster wizard.
It's definitively a net increase in power over not having the trait. Is it a huge one? Probably not?
But my argument has never been that it has to be huge. It's been that casters don't need anymore increases in power large or small.
Or if you prefer stop giving casters even more power.
and to step outside the scope of my argument and address what seems to be your argument, I've absolutely no doubt that someone could do something OP as hell with metamagic reducers and control spells. Do I know what that is off the top of my head? No. Am I going to spend the time digging for it/coming up with it when it would serve no purpose other than to win this argument? Also no.
But again that's irrelevant to my position which has always been net increase to caster power bad.
Rather than ban traits outright, you could just veto the ones that you don't approve of as they come up. That way you don't have to comb through any books, your players do all the work. You were going to look over the character anyway (I hope) so that's a great time to say no to the traits that don't meet your approval. Make them choose something else at that point.
Or I could just not deal with the optional subsystem and have one less thing to audit.
It's no different than going through the new book and looking to see if equipment, feats or spells are to your liking. You're already going through the book so do you expect anyone to think going through the traits is a huge burden?
If you don't like traits, that's cool but just say that. Just don't pretend a few strong trait options makes them super hard to go through. You can go to a site like d20pfsrd or archives of nethys and skim through the entire list of traits in no time. It doesn't take more than a glance to see the maybe 10% that aren't some variety of class skill with bonus. Look those over and write down ones you don't like.
And I should tell you, I don't think I've ever had a character with reactionary. Looking at my last few characters I've had Two Worlds, Inner Beauty, Student of Philosophy, Trifler, Naturally Gifted, Unscathed, Secret Revolutionary, Adopted(almost human), Muscle of the Society, Indomitable Faith and Magic Lineage(Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser). The only one I've heard people think is powerful that I took was Magic Lineage(Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser) and I used it to empower the healing on my Eidolon. Maybe you're playing with the wrong set of people is you keep seeing reactionary.
Which I don't do. I skim new books when I get them and delve into specific bits and pieces of them when I feel like it. If I felt like I was required to read and develop an opinion on even everything in even just the Core RPG line I would never have it in me to DM. I'm simply not that interested in learning the minutia of every new rule and how it impacts every other area of the game. Standing rule is if it's not out of the CRB ask me about it. The answer is usually yes, and if not it gets added to the ban list.
So perhaps I should rephrase, after a quick skim I didn't feel traits add enough to the game to make it worth my time to keep up with them or even read them. No one has yet missed them or even asked about them. So by that metric I was correct. It wasn't worth my time.
Great, you've never had a character with reactionary. You must admit it gets suggested for an alarming number of characters when ideas get brought up here. And with good reason it's pretty much awesome sauce for every character ever.
and I don't see reactionary ever, because traits don't get used in games I run or play in. Which is perfect for me and the people I play with.
Yes, why get rid of the few you don't like when you can just dump the whole system. Just think of how many games they've saved from the horribly powerful ability to automatically stabilize a dying creature merely by touching it or gaining Int to heal instead of Wis...
The list of trait is already silly huge and will only continue to balloon. I have no desire to read/adjudicate each one and have seen several that are straight up no goes. I'd way rather set the parameters for character creation tightly than have to take something away mid game that slipped by me.
Way to go magical lineage you ruined it for everyone.
That being said if someone wants a genuinely harmless little tack on ability because they think it would be cool and add a nice heaping of flavor to the character then I'm open to discussing it and working something out.
Finally traits are sold as a fantastic way to differentiate characters and their backgrounds with tiny little bonus... funny how many characters out there are reactionary due to their backgrounds.
I have a DM that won't allow traits at all because they can "break the game"... Is this something that'll ruin character customization, or is this not a huge deal?
I do this myself. Most traits are pretty mediocre little bonuses that don't add much but flavor. Unfortunately there's a small handful that don't look like much to the untrained eye but basically just more tools to make casters nutso tough and they don't need anymore.
I have however added a houserule that at character creation everyone gets to pick a skill to make a class skill regardless of their classes skill list. The house rule's actually older than traits. I highly recommend it to anyone who gets rid of traits across the board.
Also because text across the internet can come off as unintentionally adversarial I feel compelled to add the following.
This is the sort of thing that bothers people with a particular set of gaming priorities and doesn't bother at all people with a different set of gaming priorities.
And that's perfectly fine. Playing the Hydra as written and everyone at the table having a great time with it is fantastic and could certainly never be "bad or wrong".
I say this with the full realization that I've categorized the way the monster functions as bad. My intent has always been to convey bad for me and my gaming group. Which should have no impact what so ever on it's quality for any other gaming group, but that's a lot to type each time.
GM: NO
player: why not?
GM: no reason, I just want to tell you no
player: well, would you please let me play a fighter? I really want to be a generic feat guy for this character.
GM: No, you can't be a fighter because I said so. There is no other reason besides the fact that that is what I said.
player: That's pretty lame, you're not allowing me to play this guy for no reason?
GM: Correct
player: Pft, that's stupid. I'll now be angry and yell at you about this
GM: I'm going to continue to say no for no reason and get angry that you're getting angry
Why do people jump to this whenever DM imposed limits are brought up? Does this actually happen to anyone? If so stop hanging out with these people and go meet better ones. Shouldn't be hard to up the bar on that.
Frikkin obviously a DM will have a reason for imposed limits. You even called out "I don't want to deal with it" as justifiable which is certainly a more generous stance than many others. So is there really a horde of DMs out there who give no reasons at all when asked? Or can people finally start assuming that when a DM imposed limit is brought up they have a reason?
Bloat makes it harder. People who like that sort of thing have invested a lot into the system and have trouble justifying switching, knowing they'll be purchasing another shelf full of books. You hear it here every time a 2nd edition comes up.
With a smaller rules set, it's easier to move on, there's less to lose.
"People who like that sort of thing" are the people buying the shelves of books to begin with. They're the reason it's a successful business model. When a new edition comes along they have the same choice they had going from 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 to PF. Get on board and reinvest or continue playing their older system.
Historically a sufficient quantity have gotten on board and bought a second shelf full of books.
Those who haven't are quickly replaced with the new generation who are getting into the hobby for the first time. X years down the road they'll be faced with the same choice.
For example I played some earlier editions under other DMs invested modestly in 3.5 chose to make the jump and invested fairly substantially in pathfinder and when PF 2e hits I'll probably stop purchasing new product and shore up my PF collection. I'll have enough content to keep running games for the foreseeable future. I'll have a full and robust rule set that I've tweaked to my liking and know inside and out with witch to do it.
My consumer dollars will be replaced by someone who is getting into buying product for the first time with PF 2e and the circle of life will continue.
So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.
The question I asked was a sincere one... with so many versions of the game out there and more seemingly on the way, what does the end-game look like?
One side keeps getting what they want because they're the side that makes Paizo money.
By contrast if the "marginalized" side got their way pazio would be out of business. Further more that side can get the game they want by drawing a line in the sand as to what is and isn't allowed.
Bloat will never go away, that's not a bad thing and this is coming from someone who doesn't even allow everything from the CRB at my table.
As to the end game, it looks like the end game of any other system. Many many many options to the point where people no longer feel the need to purchase them followed by a shiny new edition.
Arcane Mark and/or Brand seem like superior "combat" cantrips to Acid Splash, if only due to the fact that they can be used to grant a Magus "free" Two-Weapon Fighting.
More accurately free Two Weapon Fighting and Double Slice with a single one handed weapon.
But why must builds be cookie-cutter? Because that's easier for the lazy GM? That's really the only reason to enforce cookie-cutter characters.
The phrase "Lazy GM" really grinds my gears. The laziest of GMs still has exponentially more work to do than a player. If they want to impose limits that make the work more manageable for them that's their prerogative.
Not playing and running a game without those limits is on the flip side the player's prerogative.
None of those ideas are stupid. They are wrong, but they did not turn stupid. The people who formulated them were basing them on what they knew.
... and the people who believe them today are basing them on.... what, exactly?
Because they should know a lot of things that weren't known then.
If the best information you have available to you suggests that the earth is flat, and you believe it to be flat, that's reasonable.
If the only way you could believe the earth to be flat is to ignore literally thousands of years of human knowlege,.... that's stupid.
Today, all of those ideas are stupid, precisely because today we know so much more than the people who formulated them did. Or we should. If we don't know more than those people today, we are stupid.
I reject your comparison entirely.
The originally suggested rule does not work for me. It does not work for you. However I can conceive of people for whom it would bring a desired balancing factor to the game and therefor would work for them. In fact I can easily think of three people I know that would consider implementing it. It would be the right and correct rule for them.
Therefore it cannot be objectively wrong.
Subjectively wrong for the both of us, yes.
Objectively and provably wrong across the board such as the ideas you've presented in your argument. No.
- Torger
*edit* I can even conceive of people who would implement this rule on the ground that a fighter proficient in armor he's incapable of carrying is stilly. Your criteria for what makes an enjoyable (right) vs unenjoyable (wrong) addition to a game are not the same as everyone's. That's the very definition of subjective.
And anyone who thinks those minimums are okay (they ARE in the rules, you know) should seriously consider finding a forum that is more to their tastes than this one?
No, they should accept that there are differences in opinion. They should also accept that they hold the minority opinion. That doesn't make them wrong on a subjective subject, it just means people disagree.
If they get fighty about their disagreement, like the OP came off as (to me at least), then they should realize the natural conclusion of these facts.
The OP posted a rule, and his first post doesn't seem particularly fighty to me. Before he made a second post he was greeted with
"This idea is dumb.
I don't have any qualms about stating it that way."
"Your idea is terrible and you should feel bad for spending the time to write it down."
"You're not wrong, you're just an #!@hole"
"And here's what I think of this." Linked to a rude dismissive meme
But when the gamemaster is saying "these are the table rules that I am going to enforce to make sure the table runs to MY preferred style," the gamemaster has forgotten that there are four other people at the table.
As has a player who makes an every splat book included unstoppable rule bending monstrosity. There's a pretty good chance none of the other four people at the table want to play with that.
The GM gets to decide the rules because he's the one that has to deal with every single thing in the world. That's a lot of work.
GM: This is the game I wish to run under this framework
Players: We're really not into that framework
GM: Guess I'll take a pass for now maybe try to come up with something else.
No harm no foul. What's wrong with that scenario? or even with this one
3/4 players: Sounds great let's do it
4th player: not into it
3 players + DM: well this is what's ready you can play or not but this is what's going down.
Democracy in action
I also don't understand why whenever a house rule is posted people get up in arms assuming that they will be decreed without any discussion what so ever. Do you guys regularly get weird house rules dumped on you with no warning and discussion at all? Genuinely asking 'cause that's not how it goes at any table I've sat at.
This is not someone saying "no thanks, this is too powergamy for my taste." This is someone saying "because I don't like powergaming, this is how you have to play.
"Nope this table isn't power gamey enough for my tastes" is also an option. that argument goes both ways.
You don't have to play in my house ruled toned down game, and I don't have to play in your all options are on the table regardless of power level game.
My questions is why does the existence of mine offend you?
Ok then riddle me this Oh Mighty Torger Miltenberger.
How do you keep the pacing/drama/tension of a big boss fight when it loses initiative and dies to the first spell. Without railroading.
I'll wait.
By modifying the living s*** out of the system so that the odds of one shot/round victories are minuscule.
No, I'm not going to get into how with you. You don't care and I don't have the patience.
- Torger
So you don't play with core assumptions of the system. So what you are saying isn't really representative of Pathfinder at all. For future reference could you please note that earlier on?
Which again, if that concept is so anathema to you why are you here, in a thread about breaking one of the core assumptions of the game? Leave us to play the game we like.
Ok then riddle me this Oh Mighty Torger Miltenberger.
How do you keep the pacing/drama/tension of a big boss fight when it loses initiative and dies to the first spell. Without railroading.
I'll wait.
By modifying the living s*** out of the system so that the odds of one shot/round victories are minuscule.
No, I'm not going to get into how with you. You don't care and I don't have the patience.
- Torger
So you don't play with core assumptions of the system. So what you are saying isn't really representative of Pathfinder at all. For future reference could you please note that earlier on?
In a thread about breaking one of the core assumptions of the game you must be truly shocked.
If a GM is worried about the Player's Save or Die ruining the pacing/drama/tension of a scene, then that GM is probably a GM of the Rings and quite frankly I don't think I'd enjoy playing such style of a game. If you like the railroad you're more then welcome to ride the rails though.
But I wouldn't advertise as that as how Pathfinder actually plays. My version is more accurate in that regard.
Fantastic, we've established that we enjoy two very different styles of game, and yes, you've described how unmodified, anything goes pathfinder works.
That you believe pacing, drama and tension are unachievable without "rails" is adorable but beyond the scope of the discussion.
More on topic, no one is disputing that making pathfinder low magic/less gear reliant is hard work. Is it worth the work? Probably not to you. It definitely is for me. Regardless I don't understand the need of some people to see a conversation about a style of game they have no interest in to stick their nose in and say "you're doing it wrong."
We know what we like and you know what you like. Why can't both camps just let each other game on in peace.
games are different and there is no need to worry about pacing, drama, or tension.
Wow, this is likely the root cause of why I disagree with pretty much every post of yours I've ever read. Thanks so much for sharing it.
My players and I (and I suspect we're not alone) want... nay, require all of those things out of a tabletop roleplaying game. They are far more fun to us than our character's numbers getting higher.
Clearly that's not the case for you, and that's ok. But I really wish you'd stop advertising what you and yours enjoy about the game as what IS enjoyable about the game.
Free post secondary Ed is all well and good, but my concern has always been how the western world keeps pushing back the age at which it's possible to get a decent job.
It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the TWELVE YEARS that kids already spend in school more meaningful. Somewhere in the range of grade 8-10 you've already learned the math/language skills you'll actually be making use of the rest of your life. Current education past that point serves no purpose other than to prepare you for more education.
My proposal is that somewhere around grade 10 a branching path is offered, the current model for those that want to pursue traditional education and 2 year trades type programs for those that don't.
That way we get 18 year old grads leaving high school already certified for high demand jobs.
Obviously I'm no expert but it really feels to me like we get very little for the 12 years invested in the average high school grad.
And what is with people always wanting to screw up wishes anyway? "Hi, I'm your GM and good friend. Congratulations, your character whom you've spent much time playing has now gained the ability to cast a wish spell! As a reward, every time you try to use it I will royally screw you over. You might as well be a Paladin for purposes of how badly I'll make you suffer."
It's because if you took the spell wish, removed the name called it something else and all it ever did was the specific listed effects it would still be the most obscenely versatile spell ever, even without the inherent bonuses effect.
In other words what it can do before invoking the DM discretion clause is already 9th level spell worthy and DMs who invoke DM discretion when the character is making a wish within those parameters is indeed a bad DM.
However pushing past those boundaries comes with a risk that the caster is well aware of. a DM who decides a wish is going too far and decides to pervert the intent isn't being mean, he's doing exactly what the rules are telling him to do and exactly what the caster knew could happen.
It's right there in black and white, push the limits and it could go bad for you. My question isn't why do DMs go there it's why do players whine about it when they knew damn good an well it could happen.
Quoting people directly and then responding with something dismissive, curt and rude is an attack.
This response I'm writing right now is an attack and you sir have been attacking people this entire thread.
I have some ideas that you might consider constructive and might not but have no remaining desire to share them with you at all because for this entire thread you've been taking a piss on the vast majority of people who've been trying to critique. Yes some of them have been doing a poor job of it but you're not creating a very welcoming environment.
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Inspiration Ability wrote:
An investigator has the ability to augment skill checks and ability checks through his brilliant inspiration. The investigator has an inspiration pool equal to 1/2 his investigator level + his Intelligence modifier (minimum 1). An investigator's inspiration pool refreshes each day, typically after he gets a restful night's sleep. As a free action, he can expend one use of inspiration from his pool to add 1d6 to the result of that check, including any on which he takes 10 or 20. This choice is made after the check is rolled and before the results are revealed. An investigator can only use inspiration once per check or roll. The investigator can use inspiration on any Knowledge, Linguistics, or Spellcraft skill checks without expending a use of inspiration, provided he's trained in the skill.
Inspiration can also be used on attack rolls and saving throws, at the cost of expending two uses of inspiration each time from the investigator's pool. In the case of saving throws, using inspiration is an immediate action rather than a free action.
Seems straight forward enough, can be used on skill check and ability check and can be used on Knowledge, Linguistics, or Spellcraft skill checks without expending a charge. No problem so far
An investigator can pick any one skill that he is trained in but that he can't use his inspiration with. He can use inspiration with that skill. An investigator must be at least 17th level to select this talent.
I can't figure what the purpose of this talent would be as the base ability seems to indicate that inspiration can be used with all skill checks. Also 17th level? seriously?
Further complicating the issue we have
Inspired Intelligence Investigator Talent wrote:
An investigator can add his inspiration die to all Knowledge, Linguistics, or Spellcraft checks without expending a use of inspiration, even those he's not trained in.
Which aside from the inclusion of skills not trained in is precisely what the base ability already lets me do.
This feels like perhaps there was a list of allowed skills that is supposed to be there and was replaced with the line about not expending points for knowledge, linguistics and spellcraft. That is of course complete speculation.
Still I'm wondering if there's been any official or semi official word regarding this.
Some GMs seem to have this idea that pathfinder is a guideline.
Some players seem to have this idea that every single decision about how the world works should be made by committee. Even if this wouldn't bog the creative process down in a mire of minutia eventually two people will have divergent opinions and neither will budge. Much simpler from the get go if the person tasked with running and creating the world doesn't have to ask permission.
- Torger
By your own argument that means the player is required to submit to the person running the game. I'm merely stating that should be clearly stated by the GM before the game starts. Talking about expectations of play will make a better gaming table.
Talking is great, house rules should be laid out as clearly as possible from the get go for sure, but things get adjusted over the course of a game as it evolves and that's fine.
Player input is great and something the GM should certainly consider but what I'm really getting at is that after the talking is done the player has two options, play in the game the GM is running or don't.
Some GMs seem to have this idea that pathfinder is a guideline.
Some players seem to have this idea that every single decision about how the world works should be made by committee. Even if this wouldn't bog the creative process down in a mire of minutia eventually two people will have divergent opinions and neither will budge. Much simpler from the get go if the person tasked with running and creating the world doesn't have to ask permission.