Jason, I would greatly appreciate it you would read this.


General Discussion (Prerelease)

251 to 300 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
As far as the OP and his points I would say that they are all over powered. I don't want PFRPG to be an ever scaling powergrab for all the core classes

Thank you. This was my point exactly earlier in the thread.


Dear baby Jesus, please come and bring someone with a ban hammer. I'll happily take a glancing blow, but make this stop.

Scarab Sages

underling wrote:

Because they're right. After all, they've been telling us how right they are since this thread began. Its not our fault that we're too dense to see the awesome rightness they bring to the table.

Oh, and didn't you get the memo that said you can be an abrasive 'Richard' if you're right? Come on guys, get with the program already.

I think that I'm so dense that I keep forgetting just how dense I really am. I better not go swimming anytime soon.

And I did miss that memo. Can you please resend it.

;-)

Scarab Sages

Tholas wrote:
Dear baby Jesus, please come and bring someone with a ban hammer. I'll happily take a glancing blow, but make this stop.

We could bring out the smurfs.

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:
If you're reading "he's calling me a retard!" into "this sucks, here's why" I'd say the fault is yours.

Less than a minute. Nice.

As for the actual stuff that the OP was talking about, removed from the extraneous stuff that led to a massive derailment, I'm also not sure I like the Rage point / Ki pool thing.

Using a point structure invariably seems to lead to powers where one blows a lot of points for some massive 'alpha strike' which then leads us right back to the 15 minute adventuring day. (Psions going Nova, for instance, or Duskblades Arcane Channeling everything they have and shooting their wad in the first combat of the day.)

Having Rage Powers be in effect throughout a Rage, or activated as a Swift / Immediate Action *during* a Rage, might work better than the whole 'blow X points to do Y.'

I don't care for Elemental Rage thematically, but as an option for some dude from the frozen north who has 'ice in his veins' and can channel an 'icy fury,' it could be neat. +1d6 elemental damage is fine and dandy, even at high levels, because not every encounter is with an Outsider that has Energy Resistance. But it should be a much cheaper effect, and, if presented as a Rage Power option in a non-Rage Point revamp, might be a suitable power to add in around 8th-12th level as an option. "When Raging, the howling wind from the north chills my foes and makes my sword like bitter ice!" If it's Elemental Resistance *of your choice at the time of activation,* it's *way* more effective, since there are very few creatures with Energy Resistance to *everything.*

Having the Monk lose one of his Class Abilities if he 'runs out of Ki' also doesn't feel right for me, although the *idea* of a Ki Pool works better for me thematically than the idea of a Barbarian with a Rage Pool. (It just 'feels' right for a Monk to focus and exert himself in specific ways, and then need to meditate to recover that focus, while a Barbarian picking and choosing from a menu of Rage effects seems a little too methodical and deliberate for someone who is seeing red and biting his shield.)

Monks with full BAB has always seemed like a sensible choice, as well. They aren't Clerics who can cast spells, they aren't Rogues who may be using finessable weapons, ranged weapons and often benefitting from flanking bonuses. They are front-line warriors and need to be able to compete with Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and NPC Warriors for BAB. A Monk should be *at least as good* a face-puncher as a Fighter with Improved Unarmed Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting. Having a two-track BAB, one applying to Unarmed attacks and the other to Armed attacks, might make sense here. Full BAB for the face-punching, the 'normal' Monk BAB for the quarterstaff-fu.

Ah, Rangers and their Companions. At least it only takes 24 hours to replace them when they fall down in the first round of every combat. :) Can they be made more useful without overpowering the class? I'm not sure how. I'd like to see a good alternative for making the Companion useful, and *also* a good alternative for getting rid of the thing and having some significant class feature take it's place (d10 hps would be a start!).

Mage Armor, I agree, should be Abjuration. Even the Abjurant Champion PrC from WotC assumes that it is an Abjuration spell! A Conjurer's class power should involve conjuring either items or creatures. Perhaps a bonus to the Familiar, since the Conjurer is the specialty Wizard that should be most attuned to the whole companion creature concept.

If it's a summoning effect, it could be a scaling Summon Monster effect, or just a bonus to duration for Summon Monster, or the ability to communicate with Summoned Monsters, regardless of language, allowing the Conjuror to make use of non-attack utility. Perhaps a reduction of metamagic costs to Conjuration spells (-1 to total adjusted cost, but never less than the base level of the spell) would allow for a Conjuror to Extend a spell for cheap. If it instead focuses on the Conjuration aspect more than the summoning, the Conjuror might be able to create small items within a limited size and mass, in their hand, producing whatever tool or item, within a very limited price range, would be handy at the moment. These items would be temporary, and of no use as spell components, but perhaps they could be 'used' in other ways, such as creating food or water or lamp oil that is then consumed. The Conjuror with this feature would be seen to reach into his 'bag of stuff' and pull out whatever sort of smallish item is needed. There are tons of options, some mechanically useful in combat (bonuses to summon spells) others more useful out of combat (conjuring temporary stuff). An armor bonus feels a little too unthematic. (Conjuring actual armor? Neat. Force field? Not so much.)

I really don't think that the Cleric and Druid can be 'fixed' and remain backwards compatible. Certain spells, like Righteous Might and Divine Favor, have been tweaked, which is great. Nightsticks and Persistant Spell and Divine Metamagic are all gone, as they aren't in the SRD, so that's all great. The most nasty abuses of 'CoDzilla' relied fairly heavily on all that stuff, and while a 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, lesser armored Cleric might be more appropriate, given the strength of 3.X Clerical spellcasting (and Domains) over 1st and 2nd edition, it's all water way under the bridge, as making those sorts of changes to the Cleric at this point would, IMO, wreck backwards compatibility.

On the other hand, tweaking things around with some sort of backwards variant of the Holy Warrior Alternate Class Feature from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, and having a lesser armored, lower BAB 'Cloistered Cleric' sort be the better spellcaster, and the fully armored medium BAB 'Battle Cleric' use a smaller spell-list (or have less spells / day) might be a possible solution.

On the other, other hand, one huge glaring problem that *I* see with the Cleric and Druid is that they have enormous lists of spells known, at no cost to themselves, and every single product that adds a new Cleric or Druid spell automagically adds it to the list of stuff a Cleric or Druid can pray for (barring DM shouting 'no!').

I would love, love, love if Clerics and Druids were forced to choose between Spontaneous casting (very small selection of spells known, able to swap one out every level) and Prepared Casting (big book 'o holy rituals, and I have to decide at the beginning of the day which ones I'm gonna prepare, and pay money for the priviledge of learning them and copying them into my scriptures). The Cleric and Druid would then function like either the Wizard (potentially tons of spells, but at a cost and not guaranteed) or the Sorcerer (much smaller list of spells, usable spontaneously). This, IMO, would go a huge step towards balancing the Cleric / Druid against the Sorcerer / Wizard.


Yes, smurf them until they cry for mercy...

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Set wrote:

Looking over the OP's list, I agree with much of what he's saying.

Unfortunately, it's all been phrased in aggressive, confrontational, if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-retard Frank Trollman-speak, and I find myself having to force myself to agree, because every other sentence seems to be going out of it's way to piss me off.

It's like some cute waitress just came up and said, 'Hey there! Want some cheesecake?' and then sat down in my lap and started slapping me in the face while I was eating it. Okay. I like the friendly hottie. I like the cheesecake. I like the lap-sitting. But the face-slapping is turning me off to the whole experience.

I could live with the face-slapping. I might even grow to like it. ... Where was this metaphor going again?

;-)


Hmm...I always seem to get Smurfette when I use the smurf word. I wonder if it'll do it again this time?


Aubrey:

Spoiler:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Well, you are wrong, actually - I don't mind strong and passionate language. What I mind is disrespect. The OP showed me terrific disrespect in the past, without provocation, stating that I was stupid for querying him (I think he was copying Frank, which makes me think he is young and maybe not as clever as he thinks he is). There was no need for it, I wasn't hostile, but he just did it.

Your history with this specific poster is your business.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
You posted on the thread that I should not post until I read everything. That, actually, was pretty disrespectful, irrespective of the weasel words you came out with about how "don't post" was actually encouraging me to do so. That said, in retrospect, I overreacted, but the temerity of telling me not to post on an open thread was pretty breathtaking. Again, I suspect you are a kid, and you seem a nicer guy that Psychic Robot, but it was cack-handed, to say the least. (And yeah, I'm patronising you.)

If you're so against disrespect, why are you patronising me?

I didn't mean to say I was encouraging you to post. I meant to say I was encouraging you NOT to post without reading the thread, but the Pathfinder boards were acting up and I couldn't edit the post at the time. I forgot about it after.
"Temerity"? You're the one talking about respect. It's not respectful to say "hey I didn't read whatever you guys said BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY because it's so important". You talk about civility? Reading a thread before you post is basic net etiquette. If you don't do it, you're going to bring up points that.
I asked you to try and read the thread first, so you didn't throw up stuff that had already been talked about. This is temerity?

This post is incredibly hypocritical given your own behavior.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
You just showed disrespect to a friend of mine (Heathanson). Etc. You get the picture.

I responded to a post that was basically a sneering comment about how much the OP sucks. Why on earth would I show respect there? He posted "Abusers and bullies always try and justify their actions", basically, in response to the OP. What about this post is worthy of respect? Should I respect him just because he's your friend?

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
As Craig points out, you are talking to a small clique with this stupidity about how being nice doesn't matter. Not only are you taking up the technical errors of Trollman but you are also picking up the social errors too. So you limit the discussion to a bunch of social retards, and who seem mainly interested in mutual back-scratching - plurality it ain't.

I never said being nice doesn't matter. Posting "Jason is an idiot for designing [x] and you guys are all morons for liking it, Pathfinder blows goats for pocket change because X, Y, and Z" would be bad.

But just like that's bad, overreacting to "ability X sucks, it does nothing at its level" is bad, too.

"Nice" seems to mean covering everything you say in so many "in my opinion" and "maybe" and "please consider"s that a sentence turns into a paragraph.

If anyone here is interested in mutual backscratching, I think it's the people going on about how "we're so much better than Frank Trollman! I'm glad he's gone!"

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
And where is Trollman? Irrespective of whether he was chased away by phillistines such as myself or self-exiled in a strop, he is having little influence here, kind of indicating that actually his lack of politeness had a big impact on whether he got his message across with the powers that be. Perhaps you might reflect on what happened then and see the bigger picture of what his approach actually achieved - nothing. Whether that damages Pathfinder or not depends on your point of view, but what is pretty clear is that if he had taken a different approach, he could still be providing input. Or did you think we were all just jealous of his genius?

I don't really care where Frank Trollman is. I don't know the guy beyond what I've seen him post on a couple of forums. I don't post the way he does.

He has nothing at stake in Pathfinder's success or failure, so I don't really think he cares all that much that he's not still providing input.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I've been accused of hypocrisy in being robust on this point (which is pretty hypocritical from a bunch of people who say civility doesn't matter).

Accusing you of hypocrisy would only be hypocritical from people who say HYPOCRISY doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I think civility matters (I think it does--up to a certain point): YOU said it matters, so it's hypocritical for YOU to throw it away.

You talk about how important it is to be nice and civil, then you say things like "you must be a kid" (and people complain that "X ability sucks" implies that they're stupid?) and "yeah, I'm patronising you" and "you limit the discussion to a bunch of social retards".
You are giving me absolutely no reason to be any more civil than I am. Please notice that I'm not calling you a kid or a retard of any stripe. For all your talk about being nice, you seem to think that strong disagreement is license to insult.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I'm probably much less tolerant than I was before Frank showed up, when tolerance and politeness was thrown back with hysterical bile and venom. You agree with Frank, so you probably were not on the receiving end. It wasn't nice. Try disagreeing with him before you tell me that politeness doesn't matter in discourse.

I've been in internet arguments with venomous people before. Somehow, I managed to survive. I even managed to survive without getting offended and whinging about how they're not RESPECTING me.

I don't know what Frank posted here. If he was too rude, whatever. That doesn't magically turn "ability X sucks" into "you're a retard."

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
But it is also simple sense. How old are you? Do you have a job? Do you need to persuade people to do stuff for you, like co-workers, subordinates, your boss? How do you do it, by insulting their intelligence, belittling them?

I'm plenty old enough to have a job in IT, thanks. I have no problem ineracting with people. You can stop being condescending and questioning my real-life social skills. If you are going to post this way, stop complaining that people are rude to you. You don't see me going "being a hypocrite must make you friendless and alone. Doesn't that suck? Wouldn't it be better if you stopped it?"

I'm having a hard time being civil at this point, because you are giving me absolutely no incentive to do so. You're tossing out demands for civility hand-in-hand with backhanded insults.

I have not insulted anyone's intelligence on these forums. Insulting someone's intelligence is going "you're stupid", not "you're wrong and here's why".

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
You would fail utterly and be jobless if you did that. Why is this different? Or are you just hiding behind anonymity? Is this important to you because you really care about Pathfinder, or is it (like it was for Trollman) just an ego trip? Look above a few bloody numbers for a moment and think about what this is about.

I don't really care about Pathfinder. I think it's kind of pointless. But since it's being done, I do think it'd be nice for it to be better than it is now, and that won't happen unless you guys start paying attention when someone says "X sucks" and explains why.

To me, this looks like plenty of other internet communities I've seen: full of people patting each other on the back about how nice and cool they are, while being horribly resistant to criticism of any sort.

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Ok, but could it have been written better?

A little, probably.

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Couldn't this have been changed to say something like...

I really felt like getting DR 5/- at level 19 is fairly worthless. An extra 5 points of reduction really doesn't do much at that level when facing creatures that are doing 50+ points of damage every hit. It would be nice if it was either spread out a bit more (like the barbarian's ability) or if it was achieved at an earlier level (like maybe level 5). This would also allow the fighter to get more usage out of the ability than one session.

Requiring people to preface every opinion with "I really feel like" and "it would be nice if" and qualify them with "like maybe" is ridiculous. Do you really need people to do THAT MUCH tiptoeing around before they say anything critical? Why would they bother? They're not getting anything out of it. I also don't see you posting that way all the time.

What's more, that makes the post seem mild and timid. If someone's wobbling about how "well I feel like this is kind of not good maybe?", it's hard to take them seriously and what they're saying isn't crisp and clear.

Moff Rimmer wrote:
I would imagine that Jason's skin is pretty thick when it comes to this stuff -- but even so, if you were the one that came up with these rules, how receptive would you be if someone said that your rules were "a joke" or "pathetic". Why should he be more inclined to listen to that than constructive criticism?

I've posted homebrews and fixes before. I've gotten criticism. Somehow, I managed to live through it without being horribly offended that someone doesn't like it.

I'll wager Jason realizes that he doesn't put pen to paper and instantly get gold, that some of what he's done could suck. "This ability is a joke at this level" conveys something very different form "I feel this ability might be better off if you maybe did X, possibly, but don't feel like I'm saying it's bad, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, I'm sure it's very nice."


don't know why I'm stepping into this, but...

The term 'constructive criticism' has 2 words in it. The 1st affects the 2nd very much. It also impacts the reception said criticism receives.

If you have time to defend your argument or the manner in which it was delivered you have time to carefully choose how you phrase it in the 1st place. And yes you should carefully choose your words.

Especially if you wish to garner majority support for rule changes.

The same rules apply to all posters, else the tone of the message override the message itself.

Scarab Sages

LogicNinja wrote:
Requiring people to preface every opinion with "I really feel like" and "it would be nice if" and qualify them with "like maybe" is ridiculous. Do you really need people to do THAT MUCH tiptoeing around before they say anything critical? Why would they bother? They're not getting anything out of it. I also don't see you posting that way all the time.

I think what you get out of being polite to people is that they're more willing to listen to what you have to say, even if they disagree with it. If you're disagreeable about what you have to say, then it could be brilliant but you'll likely alienate a lot of people who might have otherwise agreed with you.

Or, to put it another way, posting in the manner of the OP on this thread is like showing up to an open house party and complaining about how the food, the beer, and the music suck, and then being surprised when everyone is somehow left with the impression that you're being a jerk.


I suppose I'll maintain the spoiler.

Spoiler:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
You just showed disrespect to a friend of mine (Heathanson). Etc. You get the picture. As Craig points out, you are talking to a small clique with this stupidity about how being nice doesn't matter. Not only are you taking up the technical errors of Trollman but you are also picking up the social errors too. So you limit the discussion to a bunch of social retards, and who seem mainly interested in mutual back-scratching - plurality it ain't.

Wait, he showed disrespect to Heathanson? Heathanson called him out for trolling (which was a lie - LN isn't trolling), and LN correctly noted that the pot is black. He also noted the irony of Heathanson's ranting about the ranting quality of the OP. And Heathanson has had nothing productive to say this entire thread, where the OP did. Lying and vitriol doesn't add up to being worthy of much respect - at least the OP has useful game discussion to accompany his vitriol. Respect has to be earned.

LN hasn't been harsh with his language, but he's been firm with his attitude that the only thing that matters is having the best possible game, irrespective of the acerbity of the people who help make it so. Can people not disagree with you now without being disrespectful?

Quote:


And where is Trollman? Irrespective of whether he was chased away by phillistines such as myself or self-exiled in a strop, he is having little influence here, kind of indicating that actually his lack of politeness had a big impact on whether he got his message across with the powers that be. Perhaps you might reflect on what happened then and see the bigger picture of what his approach actually achieved - nothing. Whether that damages Pathfinder or not depends on your point of view, but what is pretty clear is that if he had taken a different approach,...

And the game is worse for Frank Trollman being gone from these boards, because Frank Trollman is right 95%+ of the time. Yeah, he may be an absolute bastard, but he also understands D+D as well as anyone and better than many of the people who wrote it (such as Skip Williams, who got Frank banned from the WotC forums simply because *Frank was consistently proving Sage Advice wrong* and Skip tried (and failed) to out-argue him. Frank wasn't even nearly so... volatile... back then.)

And you know something else, FT doesn't really care - he and K already did most of the hard work on a balanced version of 3.5 - their Tome series. They didn't need Paizo nearly as much as Paizo needs them or people like them - people capable of finding all the places where the rules break and finding effective fixes for them, and people capable of separating what the rules actually say from how they play around the table.

Honestly, most of the time I just found Frank funny. Admittedly, a few of his posts here were over the top. But his usual 'I'm going to call a spade a g~~-d$+ned shovel' style can be quite entertaining to read if you can censor your inner mother who gets in a tissy over swear words.


Tarren Dei wrote:
Set wrote:

Looking over the OP's list, I agree with much of what he's saying.

Unfortunately, it's all been phrased in aggressive, confrontational, if-you-disagree-with-me-you're-a-retard Frank Trollman-speak, and I find myself having to force myself to agree, because every other sentence seems to be going out of it's way to piss me off.

It's like some cute waitress just came up and said, 'Hey there! Want some cheesecake?' and then sat down in my lap and started slapping me in the face while I was eating it. Okay. I like the friendly hottie. I like the cheesecake. I like the lap-sitting. But the face-slapping is turning me off to the whole experience.

I could live with the face-slapping. I might even grow to like it. ... Where was this metaphor going again?

;-)

I don't know. I'm still stuck in happy land. ;-)


Aaron Whitley wrote:
My biggest gripe with the OP is the assumption that there is some grand high list of obvious problems with 3rd edition that are written in gold with a giant blinking sign on them and if you don't know what they are and acknowledge that they are problems then you are an idiot. If nothing else this process shows that no-one can agree on what is actually broken. There are some general ideas thrown out (high level play is too swingy, fighters aren't useful past 10th level, etc.) but most people can't even agree on those.

Not everyone understands D&D mechanics. This is a fact. People say things like "mystic theurges are overpowered" and "TWF is too good", although I fortunately haven't seen either of those here yet.

But...
if you don't know what they are and acknowledge that they are problems then you are an idiot
...that? That's all you. The OP doesn't say anything like this. You're choosing to be offended because someone disagrees with you and is phrasing that strongly.

If nothing else this process shows that no-one can agree on what is actually broken.
Not "no one". Some people don't agree that well-known problems are there. OK, great, I'll discuss that with them some more, but let's not pretend that thinking those people are wrong is the same thing as calling them idiots.

Auxmaulous wrote:

As far as the OP and his points I would say that they are all over powered. I don't want PFRPG to be an ever scaling powergrab for all the core classes; fix some mistakes and issues - In the case of 3.5 I would say most of them are the way spells work, and add in some options and features to advance the game.

P_R is a 4e hater from the wotc boards who has admitted that he doesn't really like 3.5 (or that he even plays) and wants a totally different game. I don't have a problem with what he wants, just more with the fact that he thinks that he is going to get it by leaning on PFRPG devs in an aggresive fashion.

Nothing he said in the OP is about wanting a totally different game. It's about balance in Pathfinder. It's by and large correct.

PFRPG can't "fix some mistakes and issues" without powering up at least *some* of the classes (I have no idea why someone felt that wizards needed to be made more powerful), because part of the mistakes and issues are that some classes (like the Monk and Fighter) are mechanically terrible in 3E core.

Aaron Whitley wrote:
The PF devs are doing the right thing, keep the game 3.5 compatable, scale the core classes to match the Prc standard, and fix and modify some spells and abilities. They do not need to create a radically different or up-powered game (DR 5 at level 5 is beyond sane gaming), just fix and evolve what already exists.

DR 5 at level 5 is a very strong ability, but it is not stronger than the ability to cast Fly. It is certainly not "beyond sane gaming". Ogres do 2d8+8 or so; five points off of that still leaves a bunch of damage. DR 1 at level ~5, like the barbarian gets, sure isn't useful.

If people -including the OP, don't like the changes or don't think that they are radical enough then they may need to start considering another game as a possible hobby outlet. PFRP will stay 3.5 compatable and that is a good thing, if you don't agree then PFRPG may just not be for you.

Has "3.5 compatible" even been defined? What exactly does it mean? Pathfinder certainly isn't "compatible" with the core books, because it changes so much of them, and it's not "compatible" with the splatbooks, because it doesn't fix any of the issues with them or deal with the stuff they introduce (what's the point of nerfing a few core spells if the Spell Compendium is considered acceptable? Why give a Fighter more AB and damage when he can already take Shock Trooper?).

Aaron Whitley wrote:
And to those defending the ops post and his style of posting, try taking a look at what he originally posted at the Gamers-/4chan/-Den. You may not be so quick to come to his defense after reading some of the garbage posted over there.

This isn't 4chan.

The way people post on 4chan has little to no bearing on what they do other places.
The post in question is here. Nobody's defending the OP, they're saying people are overreacting to his post. You know, the one here. Not the ones on 4chan or on GamersDen or wherever. The two are separate things.

grrtigger wrote:
I think what you get out of being polite to people is that they're more willing to listen to what you have to say, even if they disagree with it. If you're disagreeable about what you have to say, then it could be brilliant but you'll likely alienate a lot of people who might have otherwise agreed with you.

I think you mean In my opinion, what you might get out of being polite to people is that they might be more willing to listen to what you have to say. I think that maybe if you're disagreeable you might possible alienate some people who might otherwise have agreed with you, but that's just my opinion, YMMV, I'm not saying you're doing anything wrong, just maybe it could be better.

Yes, being polite is good, but there's reasonable limits on just how much bowing and scraping you should have to do.

grrtigger wrote:
Or, to put it another way, posting in the manner of the OP on this thread is like showing up to an open house party and complaining about how the food, the beer, and the music suck, and then being surprised when everyone is somehow left with the impression that you're being a jerk.

No, it's nothing like that. This is a forum SPECIFICALLY FOR talking about Pathfinder's mechanics, including critiquing them. It's not like someone's joining Jason's tabletop group and complaining about how much the game sucks there.

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:
Well, other people aren't contributing because they feel the atmosphere is too sensitive to criticism of Pathfinder, and too eager to be offended. This whole "oh my god, he said X sucks, he's calling us retards" thing is pretty offputting for a lot of people.

A little here, a little there. Some people are a little too sensitive. Most of the OPs comments weren't that bad. Some were (I can't see how the AIDS comment could be anything but tasteless, and it doesn't add anything to the post). It doesn't really bother me, outside of it takes a few seconds to re-read the post and remove any off-putting comments in my head. However, I would strongly discourage that using "Ability X sucks, Ability Y is s$++" as the default. Its alright in the case of the OP, as just solely criticizing abilities. However as this goes on, people are going to propose things, and using "Ability/Idea X sucks, Ability/Idea Y is s+++." can considered dismissive and insulting especially once the debate goes on and "Ability/Idea X sucks, Ability/Idea Y is s~&%." becomes increasingly read as "Your Ideas are s@~~.". Once you get there, the debate just turns into a flame war.

Also, just in general, "Ability/Idea X sucks, Ability/Idea Y is s$$~." is just confrontational language and the beta is a collaborative project. Even if you must make a point, using confrontational language is going to create a disconnect with your intention.


LogicNinja wrote:

People aren't not posting because you, Craig Shackleton, specifically, are too thin-skinned.

They're not posting because criticism phrased as straightforwardly as "ability X is terrible and here's why" gets jumped on as "offensive" and "he's implying we're retards!".
You said you aren't contributing because you felt the OP was too rude.
Well, other people aren't contributing because they feel the atmosphere is too sensitive to criticism of Pathfinder, and too eager to be offended. This whole "oh my god, he said X sucks, he's calling us retards" thing is pretty offputting for a lot of people.

I don't want to get taijutsued by a ninja armed with an enormous brain, but I don't think that's actually it. I think people are fine and dandy with Pathfinder criticism. I think the other jillion posts where criticisms are made and then soberly discussed proves that point.

And Psychic Robot, I'm about to mention a few things about your post here, but please don't take this is a personal attack, because it sincerely isn't meant as such. Good on ya for seeing what you perceived to be problems and then creating a solution for them.

Anyway... Psychic Robot's tone was a little caustic, because he, like many of us, was having a socially inept moment IMO. I get 'em too. Who doesn't? If you can't talk to people without painting your good points in a glaze of disrepect and/or anger, people aren't ever going to listen to those good points. So, you've, in effect, masturbated. If the point was actually to get people to listen, you speak in a language people are willing to hear. So if, as you say, these boards are notorious for being thin-skinned, well then it should have been obvious to keep to the facts and leave certain more personal, pissy statements by the wayside. They're insulting, and they obscure the focus of the true argument rather than amplify it. Even on the net, we don't want to be yelled at. Calling rules broken, bad and lame is one thing...

"ARGH. This is what makes me so annoyed. It makes my blood boil."

"You might disagree with the tone of some of the things that I'm writing--and trust me, it's far nicer than what I had originally planned on saying..."

However these, and some other things that were said, are almost inviting blowback.

I don't sum up Psychic Robot as a person by his post here, nor do I want to be summed up by any single post I make. It was his approach on a single post that ruffled feathers, so why macro view this into some larger statement about the perpetually peturbed posters at Paizo? I've read Psychic Robot's post him many times and said to myself, "Now there's a funny guy." But the AIDS reference struck me as bizarrely out of place, and a little too thoughtless for this board, or society in general. Hey look, a guy with AIDS read it and wasn't too happy about it. See, we're not cracking gallow's humor jokes in our living room with a few close friends, we're in a public forum.

Paizo posters don't always succeed, but realizing the power of our words, we mostly take the time to be precise because we don't want to hurt feelings. Makes for better group trust. There is a delicate balance held here, populated by a ton of sometimes difficult, stong personalities... but we pull it off because we're @$%!ing fantastic.

If people on another site are afraid to come here and speak their minds rudely, aces. So, to the locals finally speaking their mind about how pussy this site is for demanding consideration from posters, and to what may be a rhetorical vanguard sweeping in from other forums, I say, show up in force if you must and rally for your champion, cause, or whatever it is that floats your boat, it's certainly your right; but know that few here are going to side with rude tone being justified by anything short of a response to a troll attack, or in response to anything Sebastian has ever said to anyone, ever.

That all said, I'm truly impressed with all of you guys who can read the mechanics of rules so well because I can't. Thing is, some people have that sort of intellect and yet still manage to be polite. Polite's still cool, right? Anyone wanna split an order of politeness with me?


BM wrote:
Also, just in general, "Ability/Idea X sucks, Ability/Idea Y is s@~&." is just confrontational language and the beta is a collaborative project. Even if you must make a point, using confrontational language is going to create a disconnect with your intention.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

For example, if I'm talking about the 3.5 core monk, I'm pretty much forced to say that the monk is a terrible class. It is useless. If I were to say "the monk is kinda weak" that would not get the extent of the point across.

Talking about how this is s@~& and that's s@~& all the time isn't great, but saying "ability X sucks/is useless at this level, here's why" is fine. It's succinct and presents the problem.


Emperor7 wrote:

don't know why I'm stepping into this, but...

The term 'constructive criticism' has 2 words in it. The 1st affects the 2nd very much. It also impacts the reception said criticism receives.

If you have time to defend your argument or the manner in which it was delivered you have time to carefully choose how you phrase it in the 1st place. And yes you should carefully choose your words.

Especially if you wish to garner majority support for rule changes.

The same rules apply to all posters, else the tone of the message override the message itself.

This word, I do not think it means what you think it means (see bold). Constructive means you provide solutions to the problems found. The OP actually does that much of the time. Constructive criticism doesn't imply being nice at all.

Some of the best constructive criticism I ever received on my writing was brutally honest and didn't pull any punches. It wasn't nice, it beat me to a pulp and forced me to massively overhaul a paper. But the paper was 1000% better afterwards.

Auxmaulous wrote:


As far as the OP and his points I would say that they are all over powered. I don't want PFRPG to be an ever scaling powergrab for all the core classes.

Except you have to balance where the balance point is. That balance point is set by two things: (1) the MM, (2) the other classes. Wizards currently dominate non-casters, even in 3.P (in fact, they seem to have gotten stronger from 3.5...), and Clerics and Druids probably still do as well but I haven't looked as closely. Nothing the OP suggests bridges that power gap, its barely a step in the right direction. Unless of course you're fine with Fighters most useful skill being Profession (Barkeeper) and his party role being 'making the casters martinis'. Because, you know, owning is thirsty work and you wouldn't want them doing it on a dry throat.

Now, you could make a concerted effort to change that balance point (rewrite most of the MM and 99% of the spells in the PHB), or you could balance where the actual balance point is. This would be most easily solved by a design statement from Jason which specified one or more benchmarks for balance so we had an idea where that balance point was. What we have makes it look like he doesn't know, because we get a fighter fix that doesn't fix anything and a wizard upgrade (pushing the power level up even further). I think he does know, he really needs to show us he knows and tell us where, because otherwise no feedback we give him is going to be useful because we won't know what we're supposed to be aiming at/comparing to.

Dark Archive

Auxmaulous wrote:

As far as the OP and his points I would say that they are all over powered. I don't want PFRPG to be an ever scaling powergrab for all the core classes; fix some mistakes and issues - In the case of 3.5 I would say most of them are the way spells work, and add in some options and features to advance the game.

P_R is a 4e hater from the wotc boards who has admitted that he doesn't really like 3.5 (or that he even plays) and wants a totally different game. I don't have a problem with what he wants, just more with the fact that he thinks that he is going to get it by leaning on PFRPG devs in an aggresive fashion.

The PF devs are doing the right thing, keep the game 3.5 compatable, scale the core classes to match the Prc standard, and fix and modify some spells and abilities. They do not need to create a radically different or up-powered game (DR 5 at level 5 is beyond sane gaming), just fix and evolve what already exists.
If people -including the OP, don't like the changes or don't think that they are radical enough then they may need to start considering another game as a possible hobby outlet. PFRP will stay 3.5 compatable and that is a good thing, if you don't agree then PFRPG may just not be for you.

I couldn't agree more. I mean the OP and others who agree are missing the point of what Pathfinder is supposed to be. They have said since day one it's NOT intended to be an entire new system! It's unfortunate that they just don't get it.

Sovereign Court

This thread is getting all wonky. Some new posts are appearing on page 5. Strange.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Man, I had all sorts of points to make on the whole 'aggressive tone' subthread going on here, but LogicNinja has been living up to his name and hitting the bases before me (not in any implying that you should even slow down, by the way).

Oooh, here's one!

Aubrey wrote:
And where is Trollman? Irrespective of whether he was chased away by phillistines such as myself or self-exiled in a strop, he is having little influence here

As readily as you invoke his name as if he's still here, posting, I'd say you're very much acting like his influence remains.

Upon reading the prior sentence, I wish I had studied grammar better.

I'm not sure how the game is hindered by Psychic Robot's power upgrade requests. A decent portion of the scaling doesn't see real effect until past the 'sweet spot' as Tarren Dei refers to. The primary upgrades spoken of are desired upon the non-casters, who are woefully behind casters.

I repeat, properly played casters drastically outshine noncasters past level 7. And lowering casters to the noncaster's level is, more often than not, going to cause a noticeable increase in TPKs if you continue to follow the CR rules.

I only wish anecdotal evidence could help me here when I make reference to a long-running campaign that I was in, where I constantly had my wizard constantly hold back to not outshine almost the entire party combined.

I don't know if this has been brought up before, nor do I have the Beta book on hand to see if they changed it, but I think that Inspire Competence should apply to an ally's Stealth/Move Silently (certainly not their own). Think of it as using your sound to drown out their footsteps.

As for the Inspire Competence bonus itself, a scaling bonus that gets higher than what Aid Another gives would be awesome; and as long as magic items readily give +15s, it should really be a number that matters (such as Robot's suggested +Level).

Another point that is only hinted at, Two-Weapon Fighting. Numerically, this needs an upgrade for non-rogues to even be a comparable choice.


Squirrelloid wrote:
Emperor7 wrote:

don't know why I'm stepping into this, but...

The term 'constructive criticism' has 2 words in it. The 1st affects the 2nd very much. It also impacts the reception said criticism receives.

If you have time to defend your argument or the manner in which it was delivered you have time to carefully choose how you phrase it in the 1st place. And yes you should carefully choose your words.

Especially if you wish to garner majority support for rule changes.

The same rules apply to all posters, else the tone of the message override the message itself.

This word, I do not think it means what you think it means (see bold). Constructive means you provide solutions to the problems found. The OP actually does that much of the time. Constructive criticism doesn't imply being nice at all.

Some of the best constructive criticism I ever received on my writing was brutally honest and didn't pull any punches. It wasn't nice, it beat me to a pulp and forced me to massively overhaul a paper. But the paper was 1000% better afterwards.

It means exactly what I think it means. To build. Sometimes you have to deconstruct in order to build, but it has an overall forward momentum to a better end result. 'It could be/might be better if...' falls into constructive criticism.

When dealing with people issues how you get there can be just as important as the end result. You'll note that I didn't challenge the OP's points. That wasn't the intent of my posting. It was geared towards the lost opportunities resulting from the alienation of others.


BigDaddyG wrote:


I couldn't agree more. I mean the OP and others who agree are missing the point of what Pathfinder is supposed to be. They have said since day one it's NOT intended to be an entire new system! It's unfortunate that they just don't get it.

I think you mean "in my opinion some people are missing what I see as the point of what Pathfinder is maybe supposed to be, possibly."

Pathfinder isn't intended to be "an entire new system", but it seems to have had no problems totally changing the barbarian, for example.

What exactly does "3.5 compatible" MEAN?

Squirrelloid wrote:


Except you have to balance where the balance point is. That balance point is set by two things: (1) the MM, (2) the other classes. Wizards currently dominate non-casters, even in 3.P (in fact, they seem to have gotten stronger from 3.5...), and Clerics and Druids probably still do as well but I haven't looked as closely. Nothing the OP suggests bridges that power gap, its barely a step in the right direction. Unless of course you're fine with Fighters most useful skill being Profession (Barkeeper) and his party role being 'making the casters martinis'. Because, you know, owning is thirsty work and you wouldn't want them doing it on a dry throat.

Devastating Blow does against crit-immune creatures--but it's poorly designed. It adds a "break" to the game, it doesn't fix them.

You are definitely right about having to define an acceptable power level (it should probably not be over 9000). My biggest problem with the design of Pathfinder is that there doesn't really seem to BE a design. The changes are reactive experiments, rather than methodical designs. "This is a problem, some people say? Well, we'll try THIS. Better yet?"


Aubrey: Seriously, shut up about how I was a big meanie to you in the past. That's neither here nor there. It affects nothing about what I say. If you're going to be so petty as to quibble about what I said to you on an Internet messageboard instead of discussing the actual mechanics, you need not to participate in this thread.

Furthermore, I do not try to imitate Frank. Again, I do not want to be Frank. Frank is Frank. Frank is better at being Frank than I am, so imitating him would be a waste of time. The fact that we're STILL TALKING ABOUT FRANK is indicative of the problems that the Paizo board has. (In short: "Bawwww, he was mean to me; his ideas must be wrong.")

The amount of fail you've managed to conjure with your nonsense about Frank and how I'm "young" and "maybe not as clever as" I think that I am is impressive. It's the exact kind of bullsh*t that drove other posters away. You think you can get away with your horsesh*t baiting/trolling/flaming because it's written in a nicer manner than "you're an idiot."

Moff Rimmer: I shouldn't have to post a pile of bullsh*t that disguises what I'm trying to say as something other than criticism. It's far more efficient to say, "This sucks; it doesn't do enough damage; make it better; here's how."

Auxmalous and Aaron Whitley: My posting activities on another board having NOTHING to do with my posting here. This is yet ANOTHER example of the bullsh*t that goes on with these forums. Apparently, it's okay to disregard my points because I make not-nice posts on another forum. That is a patently retarded ad failinum argument, and the fact that you think that it is acceptable makes me sad for the human race.

Auxmalous (again): Yes, the abilities are more powerful. Do you know why? Because casters still dominate the game. What part of this do you not understand? There's no way to bring casters down to an acceptable power level without re-writing the entire spell system. We can nerf spells all we want, but that's not going to change the fact that wizards can fly and fighters can't. Wizards get to do cool things like teleport and give people miss chances. Fighters get to take shots to the head.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The amusing thing about this thread is that, beyond the complaints about hurt feelings from folks that haven't posted anything otherwise contributory, it actually has some valid discussion going on.

Thank you to the *Spoiler* users for trying to keep the side-bar less hijacking.

I for one want to keep the talk going without digressing into a flame war. If you're upset about the OP's tone, start a new thread about "Polite Posting" and handle it elsewhere. If the OP was rude to you in another thread, don't fan the flames here and exacerbate the problem. Most all of P_R's replies in this forum have been on topic.

Sorry... [/rant][ontopic]

3.5 compatible, to me, means that you can actually translate the basic ruleset to older, third party products without much pain. For example, using PF, I can use my 3e MM, Spell Compendium, Book of Eldritch Might, with minor tweaks, if required. I can't use any 4e products that way without major work...

I want PF to be aggressive about addressing balance issues in the classes. The 3rd edition core mechanic is sound - the system is very flexable and works great. However, class design has some notable problems, hence the updates and beta testing.

I understand that when PF redesigns the barbarian or (insert class) from ground up, its not going to be the same as my 3e or 3.5 build. That's a good thing! I don't want PF to implement a rule that invalidates the 30+ D&D books I own, which is the whole point.

You can be aggressive with changes and not make things overpowered. If something is mathmatically inferior (DR 3/- at 20th level), then make it substantial. It doesn't need to be DR 30/-!

Anyway, Jason, Erik, et al - please don't pussyfoot around the ruleset - there are few sacred cows in D&D.

[/rant2]

Dark Archive

I think the biggest problem is that some folks have taken open playtest and rules critique to mean free license to be egotistical a-holes with absurd entitlement complexes. The OP didn't need to preface his thoughts with "In my opinion" or "I would like it if", but by the same token he didn't need to be adversarial either. He could have just said the problems with Barbarian are..... and then list them. The overall tone of his post is needlessly confrontational. I mean comparing a problem in the game mechanics to a patient with AIDS? Really????? When a person uses language like that they will not be amicably greeted by their audience. There is a difference between blunt and abrasive, critical and acerbic. The OP comes across as angry that Jason didn't adopt all of HIS ideas for the game because they were THE way to fix things.

Anyone who can't see why the OP is getting so much vitriol for the post doesn't have a clue about human social interactions, and you can quote me on that. The thing I don't personally understand is why all these folks who have no interest in Pathfinder, see it as nothing more than a passing oddity, and so on feel the need to come here and make sure that Pathfinder is the "best" it can be. Everytime I see one of these folks they are flaming the posters here, the designers here, every rule mechanic known to man.... I find it highly dubious these folks are here to help the design process at all. That said, I don't really have to make a point of that. Their words speak for themselves.

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:


Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

For example, if I'm talking about the 3.5 core monk, I'm pretty much forced to say that the monk is a terrible class. It is useless. If I were to say "the monk is kinda weak" that would not get the extent of the point across.

Talking about how this is s@~& and that's s@~& all the time isn't great, but saying "ability X sucks/is useless at this level, here's why" is fine. It's succinct and presents the problem.

I agree, but wouldn't consider the 2 examples you give as confrontational. Terrible isn't (to me, anyway) a confrontational word, or not at least in the usage in the example. "Ability x sucks/is useless at this level, here's why" isn't bad either, though I wouldn't use the word suck too much. Really, if you want to word it strongly, I would use "Ability X is completely useless at this level and here is why". Strongly worded, more descriptive, and less offensive.

Liberty's Edge

WOW! This is quite a charged debate! Between the flames, namecalling and pleas for civility, there's actually a pretty good discussion of the Beta rules going on. Well done!

I agree that the OP started off a little aggressive in his POV, but he's got some very solid points. I share the opinion that rage points don't appear to work very well as presented. I would also point out that the vast number of complicated subsystems that have been proposed for each class makes the game, IMO, more and more complicated and difficult to learn.

Some sort of scaling system would be best, and perhaps a base mechanic could be worked out and applied accross the board. Maybe we could look at the base classes and categorize them, and from that build a tool set that could be applied accross those classes. Something like:

Martial Classes: Fighter, Barbarian
Full Caster Classes: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard
Skilled/Nifty Tricks Classes: Rogue, Monk, Bard
Caster/Martial Hybrid: Ranger, Paladin

Each of these four groupings have similar party roles, so why not build their base mechanics to function similarly? Full caster to get new spell levels every two or three levels, a special power every 4 and a bonus feat related to their class every 5th? The nature of each of these cookies defines the class. I know this totally destroys backwards compatibility, but it could make the game work better and make it easier to learn.

Of course, I could be completely nuts, and you can tell me to shut the smurf up. :)

Sovereign Court Contributor

LogicNinja wrote:
BM wrote:
Also, just in general, "Ability/Idea X sucks, Ability/Idea Y is s@~&." is just confrontational language and the beta is a collaborative project. Even if you must make a point, using confrontational language is going to create a disconnect with your intention.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

For example, if I'm talking about the 3.5 core monk, I'm pretty much forced to say that the monk is a terrible class. It is useless. If I were to say "the monk is kinda weak" that would not get the extent of the point across.

Talking about how this is s@~& and that's s@~& all the time isn't great, but saying "ability X sucks/is useless at this level, here's why" is fine. It's succinct and presents the problem.

This is a straw man argument and you've made it repeatedly. No one is saying that you have to bend over backwards and be wishy-washy. No one has a problem with statements like "The monk as written in the PHB is weak compared to the other classes and challenges of comparative level because of X, Y and Z." That is clear and succinct and doesn't hold back the point. It also doesn't say "sucks" or "is a joke" or any other comments that are clearly insulting.

And it may be insult to nobody here to say "The monk in the PHB sucks," but it is indicative of how a poster is likely to hand out criticism. I can handle having a poster tell me my ideas suck, but I certainly don't feel motivated too. And it's easier to not take it personally when they say "The feat you wrote is weak compared to X feat from Y that does a similar thing" than if they say "That feat sucks. It's a joke, and the monsters laugh at your fighter for taking it." There's no reason I would expect to be treated with more respect than any poster gives to Monte Cook, so I have no reason to expect not to receive this kind of comment myself. I can take it, by why do I want to?

The Rambling Scribe

Sovereign Court

Xuttah wrote:


Martial Classes: Fighter, Barbarian
Full Caster Classes: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard
Skilled/Nifty Tricks Classes: Rogue, Monk, Bard
Caster/Martial Hybrid: Ranger, Paladin

Each of these four groupings have similar party roles, so why not build their base mechanics to function similarly? Full caster to get new spell levels every two or three levels, a special power every 4 and a bonus feat related to their class every 5th? The nature of each of these cookies defines the class. I know this totally destroys backwards compatibility, but it could make the game work better and make it easier to learn.

I know! Let's call them striker, defender, controller, etc.

Sovereign Court

Craig Shackleton wrote:
"That feat sucks. It's a joke, and the monsters laugh at your fighter for taking it."

That's a lot more interesting to read than the alternatives, at least from where I stand. Or, more precisely, sit. But the content's what I care about, mostly, and however they want to write it, I'll read it (and leave the presentation up to them), broadly speaking.

Craig Shackleton wrote:

There's no reason I would expect to be treated with more respect than any poster gives to Monte Cook, so I have no reason to expect not to receive this kind of comment myself. I can take it, by why do I want to?

Why does anyone expect respect? It seems like a recipe for disappointment, second only to demanding it.

Sovereign Court Contributor

Bagpuss wrote:
Craig Shackleton wrote:
"That feat sucks. It's a joke, and the monsters laugh at your fighter for taking it."
That's a lot more interesting to read than the alternatives, at least from where I stand. Or, more precisely, sit. But the content's what I care about, mostly, and however they want to write it, I'll read it (and leave the presentation up to them), broadly speaking.

You are welcome to do that. I'm simply expressing that, I, and others won't, and it's a loss for development.

Bagpuss wrote:
Craig Shackleton wrote:

There's no reason I would expect to be treated with more respect than any poster gives to Monte Cook, so I have no reason to expect not to receive this kind of comment myself. I can take it, by why do I want to?

Why does anyone expect respect? It seems like a recipe for disappointment, second only to demanding it.

I specifically said I didn't expect it, and I certainly didn't demand it.

Dark Archive

[threadjack]
Calling all Cultists of Sebastian!

Spoiler:

Lets begin the ritual!

In the name of Sebastian, the Ruler of Bella Sera, King of Ponies, I command the forces of Magic to bestow their Horseshoe power upon me!
Open wide the gates of the Stables and come forth from the hay to greet me as your brother and friend!
Grant me the indulgences of which I speak!
I have taken thy name as part of myself! I live as the horse of the field, rejoicing in the beauty of life! I favor the just and curse the rotten!
By all the Horses of the Stable, I command that these thins of which I speak shall come to pass!
Come forth and answer to your name by manifesting in this thread!


[/threadjack]

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well taken from the main mans own mouth from another earlier forum post

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

On this, you would be incorrect. Good ideas do not make up for bad behavior. Driving other posters from a thread and these boards with your posts is not acceptable, even if your ideas are fantastic. This does not just apply to Frank either.

I ask that people post up their ideas. If you can't do that without discrediting someone else or insulting other posters, then perhaps you should hold off on posting until you can.

This thread is being moved to the appropriate folder.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

[/spoiler]

Liberty's Edge

Bagpuss wrote:
I know! Let's call them striker, defender, controller, etc.

Not quite what I meant, but the classification is sound. Sadly, the execution was not, or we wouldn't be having this excellent discussion. ;)

I think I would call them
Meat Shield
FTW
Skill Monkey
Ignored middle child

Or something...


Jason Beardsley wrote:

[threadjack]

Calling all Cultists of Sebastian!

** spoiler omitted **
[/threadjack]

Spoiler:
*bows down and begins chanting*

HOMME SOMME NOMME DAE!
HOMME SOMME NOMME DAE!

We call you oh leader of the soapbox and vanquisher of poodles!
Please visit justice and wisdom upon these souls!

HOMME SOMME NOMME DAE!
HOMME SOMME NOMME DAE!


Psychic_Robot wrote:

Aubrey: Seriously, shut up about how I was a big meanie to you in the past. That's neither here nor there. It affects nothing about what I say. If you're going to be so petty as to quibble about what I said to you on an Internet messageboard instead of discussing the actual mechanics, you need not to participate in this thread.

Furthermore, I do not try to imitate Frank. Again, I do not want to be Frank. Frank is Frank. Frank is better at being Frank than I am, so imitating him would be a waste of time. The fact that we're STILL TALKING ABOUT FRANK is indicative of the problems that the Paizo board has. (In short: "Bawwww, he was mean to me; his ideas must be wrong.")

The amount of fail you've managed to conjure with your nonsense about Frank and how I'm "young" and "maybe not as clever as" I think that I am is impressive. It's the exact kind of bullsh*t that drove other posters away. You think you can get away with your horsesh*t baiting/trolling/flaming because it's written in a nicer manner than "you're an idiot."

Moff Rimmer: I shouldn't have to post a pile of bullsh*t that disguises what I'm trying to say as something other than criticism. It's far more efficient to say, "This sucks; it doesn't do enough damage; make it better; here's how."

Auxmalous and Aaron Whitley: My posting activities on another board having NOTHING to do with my posting here. This is yet ANOTHER example of the bullsh*t that goes on with these forums. Apparently, it's okay to disregard my points because I make not-nice posts on another forum. That is a patently retarded ad failinum argument, and the fact that you think that it is acceptable makes me sad for the human race...

I wouldn't know anything about any other boards you post on and don't really care so that is irrelevant. The reason I disregard your posts is because the way you present your information leads to more discussion on the way you post than the actual information and critiques you present. The fact that this many people object to the manor in which you post and the fact that everyone is still arguing about it pages in should indicate that your manor of presentation is not effective.

The Exchange

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Aubrey: Seriously, shut up about how I was a big meanie to you in the past. That's neither here nor there. It affects nothing about what I say. If you're going to be so petty as to quibble about what I said to you on an Internet messageboard instead of discussing the actual mechanics, you need not to participate in this thread.

But it affects my view of your character and judgement - which isn't good. So how good can your decision-making be? But actually I'm really just here to annoy you now. And I'll post where I like - one of the joys of the internet.

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Auxmalous and Aaron Whitley: My posting activities on another board having NOTHING to do with my posting here. This is yet ANOTHER example of the bullsh*t that goes on with these forums. Apparently, it's okay to disregard my points because I make not-nice posts on another forum. That is a patently retarded ad failinum argument, and the fact that you think that it is acceptable makes me sad for the human race.

I was bringing context and history to what you have as an agenda. I was there for most of your anti-4e posts on the "other" forum; you wanted to change the game to vision of what you thought it should be (and 5e). You are doing the same with PFRPG. The point that you have stated repeatedly in other places that you never really played 3.5 is also an important fact. PFRPG is not going to be an entirely new game, deal with it. I would love if it were to go back to more of a 1st/2nd ed feel but that isn't going to happen, it doesn't give me liscense to s%%$ on other posters or whine about the rules changes the devs are TESTING out with the Beta.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Auxmalous (again): Yes, the abilities are more powerful. Do you know why? Because casters still dominate the game. What part of this do you not understand? There's no way to bring casters down to an acceptable power level without re-writing the entire spell system. We can nerf spells all we want, but that's not going to change the fact that wizards can fly and fighters can't. Wizards get to do cool things like teleport and give people miss chances. Fighters get to take shots to the head.

Casters do NOT dominate the game, spells are the factors, spell casting classes without the spells are garbage. So the issue is how do you fix the game so some spells do not function in an overpowered or overshadowing capacity. This can be fixed in more ways than giving fighters ownzorz !!!!!1!!1 l33t abilities.

One example: change the way concentration/disruption on spells work...like fly, or summoning, etc and you have nerfed, gimped and brought back down to earth all your errant PvP concerns. Part of the problem isn't the power levels of the spells but more their "fire and forget" aspect of their use. You don't need to give 5th level fighters DR which would make them immune to daggers and short swords. A DM with half a functional brain can do this, it's not too hard to implement set of game rules. Change the way spells work and that applies to every splat which meets up with PFRPG, they meet the game and the mechanics PFRPG not the other way around.

The power scaling of the characters is a never ending game, if you are using all the other spats and some idiotic spells as a measure of how much fighers need to be powered up than maybe we would all be better off switching to 4e, because once you are done giving the fighter all those powers he will be pretty unrecognizable from anything which existed from 1st to 3.5 ed.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
But it affects my view of your judgement - which isn't good. But actually I'm really just here to annoy you now. And I'll post where I like - one of the joys of the internet.

I see we've gone from "we should be polite and civil" to "I'm admitting to trolling!" and "YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM POSTING!"

Of course he can't. But if this is what you're going to post, I wish he could.

Quit. Trolling.

The Exchange

Bah - you got me. Anyway, it's bed time.

Scarab Sages

Craig Shackleton wrote:
And it may be insult to nobody here to say "The monk in the PHB sucks," but it is indicative of how a poster is likely to hand out criticism. I can handle having a poster tell me my ideas suck, but I certainly don't feel motivated too. And it's easier to not take it personally when they say "The feat you wrote is weak compared to X feat from Y that does a similar thing" than if they say "That feat sucks. It's a joke, and the monsters laugh at your fighter for taking it." There's no reason I would expect to be treated with more respect than any poster gives to Monte Cook, so I have no reason to expect not to receive this kind of comment myself. I can take it, by why do I want to?

Not to mention, but saying that something "sucks" or is "terrible" or "useless" really doesn't jive well with those who might actually enjoy said rules, and the people who created them.

With that said, I give up on this thread. I've tried to present some ideas, and a few posters (Nameless, and even Logic_Ninja) have taken the time to discuss the issues at hand. But it is getting drowned out, despite numerous suggestions from the Paizo staff that the side discussions were not helping.

I'll be back [if things change to actual rules discussion].

And yes, I realize the irony that this post has nothing to do with rules. But I wanted to reaffirm something Craig mentioned - I am not interested in discussing a game in the middle of an argument.

Sovereign Court

Craig Shackleton wrote:
I specifically said I didn't expect it, and I certainly didn't demand it.

Actually, you said that you didn't expect more respect; I had taken that to mean that you did expect some respect (just not as much as Monte Cook gets) but if that's not what you meant, fair enough.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Good lord, how many times does a publisher need to ask people to stop commenting on tone and language and focus on the rules before a thread is locked?

ENOUGH META B*$$+#~%.

EEEEAAAAIIIIEEEEEYYYYAAAAAAGGGHHH!!!!!

::publisher breaks::

The Exchange

Er, I never had any time out. But yeah, I'm sorry, I was trolling at the end there.

Scarab Sages

Erik Mona wrote:
Good lord, how many times does a publisher need to ask people to stop commenting on tone and language and focus on the rules before a thread is locked?

It should probably be locked anyway. My apologies for getting into it as well.

Dark Archive

2 hours ago, I posted quite a lot of concrete commentary, almost entirely in support of the OPs positions *again,* complete with suggestions for how some of these things could be resolved (and even expanding on one of his own suggestions, that Rage powers could be 'always on' features that turn on while Raging).

No reply.

Fine. Me the big sucker. I am the fool for speaking out in support of his ideas.

Perhaps in some later thread that isn't swirling down the drain, I wouldn't mind exploring some of those ideas with many of the other posters in this thread, most of whom have *also* spoken out in support of many of these ideas, if not the manner of their presentation. It would be nice to have a grown-up discussion about stuff like Rage points and Ki pools and what could be done to make the Cleric / Druid a little more balanced versus the other classes, and the specialist Wizard powers more reflective of their school focus and the Rangers Animal Companion a little less of a stone around her neck.

Many of these ideas are pretty valuable feedback, and I'd love if someone else wanted to have a useful discussion about them.


@Set:
I started a post asking about where the game should, in theory, be balancing, because talking about these issues is going to lead to a lot of useless yelling unless there is a known objective. Otherwise you get claims of overpowered by the people who don't understand what casters can do, and claims of useless by the people who do, and everyone leaves bitter and unhappy. We need a reference point. Then and only then can we seriously discuss all the stuff that misses that reference point.

Scarab Sages

Set wrote:

Many of these ideas are pretty valuable feedback, and I'd love if someone else wanted to have a useful discussion about them.

Your posts are very good and thought out. Sorry it got lost in this mire.

At the same time, aren't there already a number of threads that already talk about much of this stuff on the Alpha and Beta testing threads? It really felt like this thread was misplaced right from the beginning.

The OP did have some good ideas and some that I disagree with. However I have no desire to discuss anything with someone who ...

Nevermind.

Scarab Sages

If anyone is interested (specifically Set, since it was his idea) I have created a thread to discuss classes here.

251 to 300 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Jason, I would greatly appreciate it you would read this. All Messageboards