|
Squirelloid, all you have shown me is that 3.5 is NOT entirely a gamist system. A system that has inferior options, and an equal likelihood of having an inferior character versus an optimized character is not balanced or designed with gameplay in mind - it is designed with the intent of allowing the players to make choices. There is some gamist in 3.5 (and in all games, and more in 3.5 than in 3.0) but it is not entirely gamist.
If a player wants to make a 1st level half-orc sorcerer with 1 hit point and the Magical Aptitude feat, nothing is stopping them.
You know, I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of logical, well presented information in the original essay on the subject, but I have to say that if I went through my entire life without ever hearing or reading the terms "gamist," "simulationist," or "narativist" ever again, I'd be a happy man.
|
You know, I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of logical, well presented information in the original essay on the subject, but I have to say that if I went through my entire life without ever hearing or reading the terms "gamist," "simulationist," or "narativist" ever again, I'd be a happy man.
you know, before i started posting on gaming boards, i had managed to play since '79 without knowing what "munchkin", "min-maxing", "sub-optimal" and all that stuff was. and all the terms you named above.
strange new gaming world we live in, eh?
|
|
You know, I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of logical, well presented information in the original essay on the subject, but I have to say that if I went through my entire life without ever hearing or reading the terms "gamist," "simulationist," or "narativist" ever again, I'd be a happy man.
Same. We used to just be "gamers".
|
|
You know, I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of logical, well presented information in the original essay on the subject, but I have to say that if I went through my entire life without ever hearing or reading the terms "gamist," "simulationist," or "narativist" ever again, I'd be a happy man.you know, before i started posting on gaming boards, i had managed to play since '79 without knowing what "munchkin", "min-maxing", "sub-optimal" and all that stuff was. and all the terms you named above.
strange new gaming world we live in, eh?
We knew one or two dudes were munchkins, just didn't have that word...
|
|
We knew one or two dudes were munchkins, just didn't have that word...You know, I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of logical, well presented information in the original essay on the subject, but I have to say that if I went through my entire life without ever hearing or reading the terms "gamist," "simulationist," or "narativist" ever again, I'd be a happy man.you know, before i started posting on gaming boards, i had managed to play since '79 without knowing what "munchkin", "min-maxing", "sub-optimal" and all that stuff was. and all the terms you named above.
strange new gaming world we live in, eh?
yeah, i just called them "guys that weren't allowed in my house..."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
We knew one or two dudes were munchkins, just didn't have that word...
Really? Munchkins?
I met a couple of elves once: one male, one female. Seriously. They walked into a bar, went right up to the pinball machine, and started pumping quarters in. About 50 of us just sat and stared at them whispering: "Elves?! Look at those two. They're elves ... unnaturally beautiful elves."
|
|
We knew one or two dudes were munchkins, just didn't have that word...Really? Munchkins?
I met a couple of elves once: one male, one female. Seriously. They walked into a bar, went right up to the pinball machine, and started pumping quarters in. About 50 of us just sat and stared at them whispering: "Elves?! Look at those two. They're elves ... unnaturally beautiful elves."
Were they playing Munchkin 2: Unnatural Axe?
Chief Technical Officer
|
Vic, does Jason have a preference between core-only testing or inclusion of 3.5 stuff? Our group should be starting in about a month and I was thinking of using core-only but hadn't really decided.
Both will be important, given that backwards compatibility is a key design goal.
|
Folks,
In the near future, Jason will be returning from Gen Con UK and the Pathfinder Beta playtest will become his primary focus for next several months. As we prepare for that, I think it's important that everyone have an understanding of what we mean when we talk about "playtest feedback."
It's actually pretty straightforward—"playtest" is a compound verb made up of two smaller verbs, and both of those verbs are equally important to us. We've published a set of rules, and we want you to TEST them by PLAYING with them.
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that. What we need are people to put the rules into play in actual game situations, and tell us—good and bad—what happens.
I can promise you, when Jason's going through the playtest forums, reports of people actually playing sessions using the Pathfinder RPG rules will have a far greater chance of making an impact on the finished game than the people who are merely theorizing about potential rules applications.
Now, don't get me wrong, it's perfectly fine to theorize—that's where the TEST part of playtesting comes in. If you think a particular rule is problematic, set up a scenario to exercises that rule—ideally, a somewhat "realistic" scenario that one might find in a published adventure—and try it out with some friends. But please do it by actually PLAYING—and then, at the appropriate time, tell us about your playing and your testing in the playtest feedback forums.
Thanks!
Just wanted to say that, I have read the PDF and I really like what I see...Me and my group will start play testing it this sunday and I am really looking forward to it..
|
Just to pop in and present one final thing about why nitpicking on certain rules is important.
Pathfinder society will start using PFRPG a year from now. By then if some things are left unchanged, it will show. That's why at least I am concerned over these issues. On a global scale you will find scum who want to abuse the system. Sure, you can get rid of them soon enough, but those players still sour the mood.
|
|
On a global scale you will find scum who want to abuse the system. Sure, you can get rid of them soon enough, but those players still sour the mood.
Woah, 'scum' is a bit harsh. Some people have different styles of play, which sometimes cross over into what some of us call 'system abuse' (but they are having fun, nevertheless, so we don't want to get too far into badwrongfun).
I entirely agree that the system should contain less loopholes (and I personally enjoy the posts of people like Logicninja, Psychic_robot, squirelloid, Set and others that think hard about this stuff), but I don't see that the people that might otherwise exploit the loopholes in play, to the consternation and irritation of some others, are 'scum' or some other demonisation.
Bagpuss said it nicer than I would have.
|
|
On a global scale you will find scum who want to abuse the system. Sure, you can get rid of them soon enough, but those players still sour the mood.Woah, 'scum' is a bit harsh. Some people have different styles of play, which sometimes cross over into what some of us call 'system abuse' (but they are having fun, nevertheless, so we don't want to get too far into badwrongfun).
I entirely agree that the system should contain less loopholes (and I personally enjoy the posts of people like Logicninja, Psychic_robot, squirelloid, Set and others that think hard about this stuff), but I don't see that the people that might otherwise exploit the loopholes in play, to the consternation and irritation of some others, are 'scum' or some other demonisation.
Is today "Harass Deussu for his choice of words" day? Makes me feel so uncomfy! :( Tomorrow it's Deussu Hunting Season I guess. :P
This 'scum' used annoying loopholes and such in games to be more powerful. And actually very distasteful tactics, which were frowned by players and DMs. Just saying. I'm not into pressing all players, just those some few. This world is a cruel place, my friend, and you can find these immoral creatures if you dig deep enough. :P
Maybe people are getting excited over a spelling error? I mean, (and I quote) "if you dig deep enough", surely you would find skum.
; )
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
1) Should we be using Pathfinder Society scenarios, 3.5 scenarios, self-designed scenarios, or a combination of the three for play testing?
All of the above! And 3.5 scenarios from other publishers as well, since backwards compatibility is a goal.
2) Will Paizo be providing a specific format for feedback?
At times, Jason will provide specific requests. At other times, just tell us the bits you think are important.
|
1) Should we be using Pathfinder Society scenarios, 3.5 scenarios, self-designed scenarios, or a combination of the three for play testing?All of the above! And 3.5 scenarios from other publishers as well, since backwards compatibility is a goal.
2) Will Paizo be providing a specific format for feedback?At times, Jason will provide specific requests. At other times, just tell us the bits you think are important.
Got it, thanks
The Stormwind and Oberoni is strong in this one.
Stormwind (Fallacy): There is an inverse relationship between one's ability to optimize and one's ability to roleplay. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. There is no correlation between ability to optimize and ability to roleplay. It is just as likely a person will be good at both as bad at both as good at one and bad at the other.
Oberoni (Fallacy): Something can be fixed, ergo it is not broken. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. Broken is broken, regardless of whether it can be fixed or not until such time as it is fixed.
If the rule set is not usable there is no reason to use it. Any system is as good as any other for roleplaying. That includes free form, which doesn't cost a dime. The rules must be able to handle 'I shot you!' and the variations and derivatives thereof or there is no reason to buy the rulebook. Since Paizo, being a business naturally wants to make money...
Now where were we?
Longer versions: http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-822626
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=46916
It took 5 seconds on Google to find both. Which is longer than it took to copy paste and write this.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The Stormwind and Oberoni is strong in this one.
Stormwind (Fallacy): There is an inverse relationship between one's ability to optimize and one's ability to roleplay. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. There is no correlation between ability to optimize and ability to roleplay. It is just as likely a person will be good at both as bad at both as good at one and bad at the other.
True, as far as it goes. Being good at optimization, in a theoretical sense, doesn't make you a bad roleplayer. Bringing your "three-base-classes-and-two-prestige-class-with-feats-that-were-never-meant -to-work-together" character to a table and trying to play it, does indeed make you a bad role-player, because you are setting up a PC-playing-piece that will dominate play, and are wrecking other people's fun unless they also design twinky munchkin characters.
Oberoni (Fallacy): Something can be fixed, ergo it is not broken. This is false, thus it being a fallacy. Broken is broken, regardless of whether it can be fixed or not until such time as it is fixed.
True, as far as it goes. But there's a diffrence between rules that stymie play (3.0's version of blade barrierjust doesn't make sense, 3.5's find the path, when cast the way it's intended, makes the game less exciting) one one hand, and rules that everyone interprets the same way(Pathfinder's use of the term "at will"), and which don't interfere with play at all, on the other. The latter rules aren't broken; they might be subject to better phrasing, but that's a smaller issue.
And as people have mentioned, just because someone looking to do violence to a game system can break a rule, doesn't mean that rule is broken.
|
|
True, as far as it goes. Being good at optimization, in a theoretical sense, doesn't make you a bad roleplayer. Bringing your "three-base-classes-and-two-prestige-class-with-feats-that-were-never-meant -to-work-together" character to a table and trying to play it, does indeed make you a bad role-player, because you are setting up a PC-playing-piece that will dominate play, and are wrecking other people's fun unless they also design twinky munchkin characters.
No, that might, at most, make you a bad social player, optimizing your own enjoyment at the expense of others, but it does not automatically make you a bad roleplayer.
The same optimization of personal enjoyment at the expense of others can and does occur regularly when the self-indulgent roleplayer takes actions in game that hinder the success or enjoyment of the group as a whole while holding up the shield of "But I am just roleplaying my character!" That is bad roleplaying. Both are bad social playing.Addition:
Likewise that is used as a weapon, claiming someone's character is too good, and therefore your character is marginalized. Particularly when combined with deliberate hamstringing of your character in development, it is used to attempt to dominate play with your character, and with your roleplaying, however good or bad it might be.
Again, that is always bad social playing, it may or may not be bad roleplaying.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
No, that might, at most, make you a bad social player, optimizing your own enjoyment at the expense of others, but it does not automatically make you a bad roleplayer.The same optimization of personal enjoyment at the expense of others can and does occur regularly when the self-indulgent roleplayer takes actions in game that hinder the success or enjoyment of the group as a whole while holding up the shield of "But I am just roleplaying my character!" That is bad roleplaying. Both are bad social playing.
Likewise claiming someone's character is too good, and therefore your character is marginalized. Particularly when combined with deliberate hamstringing of your character in development, it is used to attempt to dominate play with your character, and with your roleplaying, however good or bad it might be.
I think we're more or less in agreement, Sam, we're just using different terminology. To me, "social play" is an esential part of "role-playing". It doesn't make sense to me to talk about "role-playing" without addressing the reality of people around the table-top.
For example, I can come to a beginning campaign and say that I'd like to play Galdalf, "except that he needs to start as a half-Celestial 3rd-Level Wizard, 3rd-Level Druid, 4th-Level Mystic Theurge, because he's just that powerful." Even if I were a gifted actor and able to improvise a terrific performance of Gandalf's character, it would be a lousy role-playing job, because the other (1st-Level) characters would have almost nothing to do.
(Unless we were playing Ars Magica)
When Aaron Allston wrote "Strike Force" for Champions, which is essentially his memoir of how to run a game notorious for having characters of drstically different levels of effectiveness, he gave us his house rules on power levels, that put hard caps on characters' speeds, effective attacks, defenses, and so on. He allowed each PC to break one of those caps. So you could play "the dude with awesome defenses", but not "the dude with awesome defenses, attacks, and investigative powers."
Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies. With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies.
"Melee" is a combat. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
As for "keeping up with enemies", exactly. And that's a losing proposition. The DM can always pul another 6d6 trolls out of thin air and win. You can't keep up with the enemies.
What you can do is create a character that outpaces all her allies, in all the ways that matter. And the DM sends all those half-demon vampire trolls against the party, to offer her some challenge, and the poor, solidly-built ranger and fighter/dwarven defender get in their way.
With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything.
"pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand.
And yes, despite your arrogant, dismissive tone, a twinked-out "just for theory" build will indeed dominate combat. I've seen it happen repeatedly, when high-schoolers who peruse optimization boards actually try to bring a gimmicked build to a table. It's one of the reasons that DM's restrict their players to "Core-only" or "only one splatbook" characters.
"pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand.
I believe he is referring to the increase in power spellcasters experience. Specifically comparing their increase in power as they level to a quadratic curve and comparing the increase in power of a fighter to a linear curve (at some level the power of the quadratic character will shoot past the power of the linear character and that gap will only continue to widen). So in this case the fighter-type character is attempting to close that gap by taking prestige classes and such to try to keep up with the power of spellcasters (becoming psedo-quadratic).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thank you, Zynete.
I'm not sure how a spellcaster's powers are increasing quadratically, though. In total points of damage delivered per day, perhaps. But not in terms of effectiveness per round. And a 10th-Level mage certainly doesn't have 4 times the number of hp, as her 5th-Level apprentice, nor does she have one-fourth the chance of being hit.
|
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that.
ya know this got me thinking... If you already have those folks on the payroll... then how did so many obvious problems get through. In fact had I not just been toying with CMB in my head I would never have noticed that it is poorly defined, and the current definition allows STR modifier and BAB to be added twice to the attacker's roll.
So, I am going to assume then, that since you have so many talented people on the payroll to fix those problems that it is intentional to add Str modifier and BAB twice to the maneuver rolls.
Come to think about it, in the course of playing there are a LOT of things that would be overlooked. Which of course would make for a very sloppy ruleset. I assume you guys aren't really wanting a sloppy ruleset.
So, I am left confused...
|
|
We're really not terribly interested in having people read the rules and then just imagine how things might play out. We already have talented folks on our payroll who are fully capable of doing that.ya know this got me thinking... If you already have those folks on the payroll... then how did so many obvious problems get through. In fact had I not just been toying with CMB in my head I would never have noticed that it is poorly defined, and the current definition allows STR modifier and BAB to be added twice to the attacker's roll.
So, I am going to assume then, that since you have so many talented people on the payroll to fix those problems that it is intentional to add Str modifier and BAB twice to the maneuver rolls.
Come to think about it, in the course of playing there are a LOT of things that would be overlooked. Which of course would make for a very sloppy ruleset. I assume you guys aren't really wanting a sloppy ruleset.
So, I am left confused...
I don't think he is saying the Beta is perfect. I think they are playtesting right alongside us.
Thank you, Zynete.
I'm not sure how a spellcaster's powers are increasing quadratically, though. In total points of damage delivered per day, perhaps. But not in terms of effectiveness per round. And a 10th-Level mage certainly doesn't have 4 times the number of hp, as her 5th-Level apprentice, nor does she have one-fourth the chance of being hit.
I think that it is limited to the spellcaster's spells. However, I think the response would be that spells are not just limited to damaging opponents, the 10th-level mage will likely have access to better defensive spells that might just give him that four times the hit points, and four times the ability to dodge attacks.
|
|
yes, but my point is that in playing a game, people tend to smudge rules based upon the situation. People tend to play the way they think something is rather than the way something actually is. So in playtesting, a great number of issues will just plain be missed.
Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.
yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is. If someone realizes that the current definition of CMB allows a 10th level fighter to grapple successfully in almost every situation, then does it matter that the realization came through playtesting, or a thought experiment?
I realized the definition of maneuvers is broken through a thought experiment. So does that mean they will ignore it and leave it as is, since that is not valuable to them? They never caught it.
yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is.
I don't think that is the case. I believe that Vic has said that the thought experiments are useful. But. They very much prefer the playtests to pure thought experiments and if you do a thought experiment, that it would be much more useful if you then do a playtest to test what you experienced in the experiment.
|
|
Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.Not attacking you at all with this but... no one here is Einstein.
If they are, I implore them to do something more useful with their time. And also explain how Einstein was cloned/resurrected/brought forward in time.
Three base classes and two PRCs? Sounds like some poor melee trying to keep up with the enemies."Melee" is a combat. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
As for "keeping up with enemies", exactly. And that's a losing proposition. The DM can always pul another 6d6 trolls out of thin air and win. You can't keep up with the enemies.
What you can do is create a character that outpaces all her allies, in all the ways that matter. And the DM sends all those half-demon vampire trolls against the party, to offer her some challenge, and the poor, solidly-built ranger and fighter/dwarven defender get in their way.
With the straight forward approach (ToB) not available for whatever reason he has to try to power dip for the pseudo quadratic effect. Come on. Don't abuse the poor melee. Just look at him. Isn't he cute? He's not going to dominate anything."pseudo-quadratic effect?" I don't understand.
And yes, despite your arrogant, dismissive tone, a twinked-out "just for theory" build will indeed dominate combat. I've seen it happen repeatedly, when high-schoolers who peruse optimization boards actually try to bring a gimmicked build to a table. It's one of the reasons that DM's restrict their players to "Core-only" or "only one splatbook" characters.
My tone is arrogant and dismissive, yet you refer to those 'dirty optimizers' as a bunch of teenage kids. Irony much? Ignoring your complete failure to even insult properly (and yes now, I am b****slapping you back in line for attacking me) here...
Keeping up with enemies means enemies get stronger faster than you do. Simple as that.
Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use one of the later melee classes, made after the devs learned from their mistakes and got it right this time. 2: Powerdip the early ones (your only option if you have a DM who doesn't know better and actually believes core is balanced against any and all logic). After all, the core melees are front loaded. They get most of what they will ever get worth getting in the first few levels, then a lot of crap or nonexistent features composing a bunch of dead levels after. So, the poor melee trying to stay on par with the enemies despite some DM out to get him with illogical templated creatures power dips, taking a few levels of each to get a pseudo quadratic effect and attempt to delay his inevitable uselessness.
While I'm at it, I will smite another false statement of yours. All 'core only' or 'only one splat' means is assuring C/D/W utterly dominate (extreme high end of power spectrum) and F/M/P utterly fail (extreme low end of power spectrum) with the only one that could feasibly be called useful without being overpowered being the Bard, and the other 4 (Barb/Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer) being slightly further away from the two poles while being nowhere the center. That sort of setup can't be very fun for anyone involved. Not even the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, as I can't imagine they want their teammates useless and thereby being dead weight they have to pull. To get the gap to a somewhat reasonable width you must use the later, better written books. Period.
You sound like one of those people who doesn't even know what optimization is (hint: Monkey Grip is its opposite, psionics is inferior to magic, 9d6 HP damage a round at level 15 is utterly pathetic) but insists on attacking it at every turn, only to fail your Balance check and fall flat on your face. Please prove me wrong by demonstrating ability to post intelligently in response without further attacks.
Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use...
You bring utter disgrace to the optimizer's name. You need to tone down your elitism and talk face to face (metaphorically) with everyone else.
One does not need to optimize to be better than the monsters in the books. Only people who intend to do theoretical battle, or player versus player needs to power their character in such ways.
The monsters out of the books are meant for normal characters. You don't need to be a triple-threat, or even a double-threat.
There is no way that the developers or designers will be able to balance the system to the point that optimizers won't be able to make everyone else feel less than they are, short of playing Fourth Edition.
Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here.
Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use...You bring utter disgrace to the optimizer's name. You need to tone down your elitism and talk face to face (metaphorically) with everyone else.
One does not need to optimize to be better than the monsters in the books. Only people who intend to do theoretical battle, or player versus player needs to power their character in such ways.
The monsters out of the books are meant for normal characters. You don't need to be a triple-threat, or even a double-threat.
There is no way that the developers or designers will be able to balance the system to the point that optimizers won't be able to make everyone else feel less than they are, short of playing Fourth Edition.
Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here.
Two words. The first is Bull. Can you guess what the second is?
If you are a non caster, you are assuredly behind. It may be only somewhat (Rogue), it may be by a massive amount (Fighter) but you are behind. To make up for this, you must optimize. Period. 2 + 2 does not equal 5. It equals 11 if you house rule counting to Base 3, but noone cares because base 10 is the assumed norm. The correct answer is 2 + 2 = 4. Simple as that. And when people such as yourself not only fail to grasp very basic concepts such as this but pull crap like disgrace to optimizers, elitism, and other such BS out of their ass while playing passive aggressive and trying to make it seem as if it were all my fault, guess what? Mr. Crusader of Logic demonstrates his Smite Imbecile class ability. For great justice.
Likewise, if you are a character who is naturally exceptionally strong you either hold back a bit, or outclass everyone. A newbie's Druid is about as good as the optimizer's super Fighter at best (and more likely still superior) despite the massive difference in playing and optimization skill between them.
Fourth edition = let's delete all classes but one, then make it look as if there are actually many different classes instead of Everyone Is The Same Group Think Kumbayah. It technically is balanced, but you could do exactly the same thing by just saying x class only and save your cash. Who cares?
Now, does anyone have something constructive they would like to say to me or anyone else, or is this just going to go on for a while?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My tone is arrogant and dismissive, yet you refer to those 'dirty optimizers' as a bunch of teenage kids. Irony much? Ignoring your complete failure to even insult properly (and yes now, I am b****slapping you back in line for attacking me) here...
Actually, I'm referring to individuals I know. They're all teenagers.
I have not attacked you. In fact, in other discussion threads, I've supported your position, despite your tone.
That ends now. You've made an another enemy.
Keeping up with enemies means enemies get stronger faster than you do. Simple as that.
Pseudo quadratic effect is mostly covered, but one part was missed. Spells scale properly with enemies, direct damage spells being the exception and thus the failure. Everything else? Not so much. So you get linear fighters, quadratic wizards, quadratic enemies. Do the math. Two ways to fix this: 1: Use one of the later melee classes, made after the devs learned from their mistakes and got it right this time. 2: Powerdip the early ones (your only option if you have a DM who doesn't know better and actually believes core is balanced against any and all logic). After all, the core melees are front loaded. They get most of what they will ever get worth getting in the first few levels, then a lot of crap or nonexistent features composing a bunch of dead levels after. So, the poor melee trying to stay on par with the enemies despite some DM out to get him with illogical templated creatures power dips, taking a few levels of each to get a pseudo quadratic effect and attempt to delay his inevitable uselessness.
I disagree with almost all of this. Beginning with your misuse of the terms quadratic and linear. One note: if the Dungeons Master is "out to get" a PC with oddball creatures, she always can, and that's not a problem with the rules.
If you think a 3/3/3/3 Level Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Rogue is that much better than a 12th Level Barbarian or Ranger, my experience differs from yours.
While I'm at it, I will smite another false statement of yours. All 'core only' or 'only one splat' means is assuring C/D/W utterly dominate (extreme high end of power spectrum) and F/M/P utterly fail (extreme low end of power spectrum) with the only one that could feasibly be called useful without being overpowered being the Bard, and the other 4 (Barb/Ranger/Rogue/Sorcerer) being slightly further away from the two poles while being nowhere the center. That sort of setup can't be very fun for anyone involved. Not even the Cleric/Druid/Wizard, as I can't imagine they want their teammates useless and thereby being dead weight they have to pull. To get the gap to a somewhat reasonable width you must use the later, better written books. Period.
I disagree with *all* of this.
Take a look at the D&D games being played at the next convention you attend. Take a look at (a) what material is being actually allowed in use, and (b) what character levels are being represented.
How many tables are playing at character levels 4 - 8? How many are being played at levels 16 - 20?
Core-only, and core-plus-one, work fine at the levels where people are playing. Melee characters fit in fine when the sorcerer is casting a single third-level spell a day.
You are too contemptuous to take a look at actual play. "That sort of set-up can't be very fun for anyone involved." And yet ... people seem to be having fun.
And here's the heart of the matter. Instead of presenting your evidence, asking people here for their critiques, and joining in the conversation, you have decided to label anyone with different exprerience as "wrong, false, unreasonable... Period." You shun other people's advice and experience, and you close off conversation with your disrespect.
You will never learn anything with that attitude. If you're not interested in what other people say, then just post and leave.
You sound like one of those people who doesn't even know what optimization is ... but insists on attacking it at every turn, only to fail your Balance check and fall flat on your face. Please prove me wrong by demonstrating ability to post intelligently in response without further attacks.
You can continue to post, if you please, but I won't be reading anything else you write. I deal with unpleasant students as part of my job, and I'm not getting paid enough to do so here.
Play nice; play mature, and we'll all get through this beta test. Feels like a natural disaster relief program in here.
Very well-said, Neceros. Indeed, I'm currently in a natural disaster relief zone, and it's less messy outside than it is in this thread.
Are melee guys outclassed by casters at high levels? Yes.
Does anyone play the game at those levels? Some, but not most.
Can they be "fixed"? Yes; suggestions were given on other threads -- mechanical suggestions, with rules language, not just "Use Bo9S or you suck" -- Robert Brambly, for example, posted a complete variant fighter, with new class features, that would do the trick nicely.
But, overall, does it matter if the fighter is "made of fail" or whatever, if we're all having fun? Probably not. On the other hand, what good is a mathematically-perfected gem of a system if evetyone associated with it is constantly bickering instead of playing?
|
|
You can continue to post, if you please, but I won't be reading anything else you write. I deal with unpleasant students as part of my job, and I'm not getting paid enough to do so here.
Heh. Chris is thinking the same thing as me. Ignoring people is so much easier than trying to reason with them - especially when your day job is reasoning with them.
I'm not calling out any posters in particular, I'm just agreeing with Chris in general. I find the boards much more tolerable if I just do not respond to certain avatars (okay, I will pick on Aang).
Power dipping is not and never was an even divide. Especially when you stop at an odd Fighter level than isn't 1. The rest I'm not even touching. You do whatever you want. Just leave me out of it. Simple as that, and there will be no problem.
|
|
yes, but my point is that in playing a game, people tend to smudge rules based upon the situation. People tend to play the way they think something is rather than the way something actually is. So in playtesting, a great number of issues will just plain be missed.
Let me put it another way... Einstein created his theories with nothing but thought experiments. All the playtesting later proved his thought experiments correct.
yet in this case, we are told that thought experiments are not valuable, only the playtesting is. If someone realizes that the current definition of CMB allows a 10th level fighter to grapple successfully in almost every situation, then does it matter that the realization came through playtesting, or a thought experiment?
I realized the definition of maneuvers is broken through a thought experiment. So does that mean they will ignore it and leave it as is, since that is not valuable to them? They never caught it.
Ugh.
Thought experiments are great, but they do fall short of repeated playtesting. Thought experiment rely on strict, controlled situations that doesn't allow for the myriad of variables to crop up in actual play. While something may look pat on paper, actual playtest may expose something quite different.
Thought experiments are useful, but without playtesting they're meaningless. Even Einstein would tell you that a scientific theory is only good if observable evidence backs it up.
Thought experiments are good -- as the first step in the process. It must then be proceeded by playtesting. Then the evidence must be weighed against the theory and the theory revised as necessary.
So... I repeat, thought experiments are nice, but they are no ends unto themselves -- they must be backed with actual testing.
I'm not trying to offend you, Krome, or anyone else. I just want to kill the theoretical vs playtesting debate once and for all. We need both, but in the end observable data trumps theory.
