RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with Charles, as well.
If any of these threads were about Pathfinder RPG (for example, noting that in a Pathfinder playtest, the changes to grapple and trip made a difference in the relative power level...), they'd be germane in that topic, but as those threads stand, polite or heated, they address issues in 3.5 gaming experience.
If people want to argue about relative power of classes, that's great. That's fine. That's what some people think of as fun.
But it's primarily a 3.5 issue, and I agree that the threads properly belong in the 3.5 / d20 forum.
|
These threads seem to me to turn into repeated debates along the lines of:
I think the wizard/druid/cleric is better because blah, blah, blah.
Well actually in situation blah, blah, blah, a Fighter is clearly blah, blah, blah.
Well NO that is clearly a fallacy because blah, blah, blah and if you in fact blah, blah, blah, then clearly blah, blah, blah.
Well ACTUALLY in my game, blah, blah, blah and in any case your points are not valid because you are not blah, blah, blah.
IF you had any notion of blah, blah, blah, you would realise that my methodology blah, blah, blahs and in any case I blah, blah, blah, and YOU clearly have no idea how blah, blah, blah. And at some point things degenerate into name calling and/or personal attacks.
I have yet to notice any of these threads start to produce solutions to the supposed 'imbalances' being disputed; just endless debates raging back and forth of 'this class is clearly superior; no it's not; yes it is' which don't seem to be very productive as they have long since seemed to have ceased to raise any new or interesting points for consideration with regard to Beta.
I appreciate that some posters seem to genuinely enjoy the cut and thrust of expounding the virtues of their favourite classes, so perhaps these threads could be shunted off to their own 'hot potatoes' debating forum, created especially for them?
I have actually stepped away from most of the Beta forums since the math crowd reclaimed design rights over everything, reducing the feeling of roleplaying to a sequence of number crunching "all things must be of equal power to achieve perfect balance".
Not everything should be balanced in the game.
Quite the contrary, some unbalanced designs should be integral to the rules framework.
Spellcasters should be more powerful than non-spellcasters of equal level.
Spellcasters should not be able to survive without non-spellcasters.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Not everything should be balanced in the game.
Quite the contrary, some unbalanced designs should be integral to the rules framework.Spellcasters should be more powerful than non-spellcasters of equal level.
Spellcasters should not be able to survive without non-spellcasters.
QFT. If someone really wants a completely balanced system, 4e is much closer. It's also a lot less fun to play for anyone who wants to feel some variety between classes. The PRPG forum should remain about PRPG and not something inherent in the system. Sure, the goal is to improve that system, but making these types of sweeping changes would screw the backwards compatibility design goal.
That said, I don't think that we or anyone should remove the threads completely. Just move 'em.
|
I have actually stepped away from most of the Beta forums since the math crowd reclaimed design rights over everything, reducing the feeling of roleplaying to a sequence of number crunching "all things must be of equal power to achieve perfect balance".
Glad to know I'm not alone on this one. I have nothing else of value to say.
|
|
I have actually stepped away from most of the Beta forums since the math crowd reclaimed design rights over everything, reducing the feeling of roleplaying to a sequence of number crunching "all things must be of equal power to achieve perfect balance".Glad to know I'm not alone on this one. I have nothing else of value to say.
Yep same for me as well.
dont try to hide the truth!!! people need to be warned about the inbalance of power. Down with the spellcast'in man!THERE IS A WAR GOING ON FOR YOUR MIND.
but seriously, dont read the post if you hate the discussion ( gloss over every elf discussion to the best of my ability)
My group (and many others for what I hear) are having problems with the enjoyability of non-spellcasters, no one wants to take the "take 10" class when they could play the "take 20 5 times per day" classes. THAT is a problem that I care about. Theses are problems that CAN be discussed maturely and could be backwards compatible, hence, should be allowed to be brainstormed upon for a beta.
I do understand the weariness of these ongoing debates, I feel that too. and I agree that more fixes should be mentioned than just complaints. but I see a substantial sized group that would like to see their need addressed if possible.
NOT trying to bring the debate over here, just want to give a little bit of the view from the other side.
|
I agree with Charles, as well.
If any of these threads were about Pathfinder RPG (for example, noting that in a Pathfinder playtest, the changes to grapple and trip made a difference in the relative power level...), they'd be germane in that topic, but as those threads stand, polite or heated, they address issues in 3.5 gaming experience.
If people want to argue about relative power of classes, that's great. That's fine. That's what some people think of as fun.
But it's primarily a 3.5 issue, and I agree that the threads properly belong in the 3.5 / d20 forum.
The other problem is, when someone accurately refers to PRPG and provides playtest experience, it is dismissed as somehow invalid because it wasn't optimized. Or because "well, only X, Y, and Z have changed in PRPG, so I can tell what the changes will be without playing, and so I can still talk about problems with 3.5 ad nauseum".
I know Jason doesn't need our pity, but I was hoping for better from this community in helping him.
Let's get it straight: There are two sides to optimization. The first side is the best side, in my opinion, which is optimization builds and discussion. The other side, which seems to be the side most people dislike, is theoretical optimization. The latter find the loopholes and builds no body in their mind would ever build because it's simply unbearable to watch it in play.
Pun-pun being the key example.
Don't punish the number crunchers because you don't like numbers. Roleplaying and rollplaying are not mutually exclusive.
On topic, the threads begin described here are all theoretical. They are not actually optimization discussions.
|
|
The problem for myself, and a few others I might suspect, is that we see optimization as the following:
1. A juvenile power fantasy in which you create super-characters that are unbeatable and this makes you a better/smarter person.
2. A way to assert yourself in some sort of delusionary intellectual hierarchy, in which because you find one thing that does something in the rules it makes you smarter or better at D&D.
3. A vain, egoistic attempt to "win" at D&D.
I've seen the look on optimizers faces too many times - the self-satisfied smirk as a monsters best ability consistently fails to affect them, or they tear through impossible odds with no threat of injury. I've also seen the reverse - the look of contempt for me as a DM when the monsters figure out their weakness and exploit it, often to the death of their god-thing-PC. I've also seen optimizers get mopey when their character gets killed, then hot-to-trot when they think of the next new superman concept to pit against the DM. That behaviour has forced me to the conclusions above. I don't mean to paint everybody with the same brush, you might be reasonable, intelligent, likeable folks. I just haven't been proven otherwise.
I find it an entirely selfish endeavour, one that takes the focus away from the group at the table, and forces the dynamic into "my character + everybody else versus the DM and his lame un-optimized monsters".
Potential optimizers always get the same warning from me: "If you do it, I can do it better. I have more books and more time to prepare." See my above descriptions of optimizer-horror when one of my abominations destroys an optimized PC.
I'm not saying I intenionally act like a jerk to my players, I just let them know that if they make a character that invalidates the entire adventure, I have to counter. Of course, that's if the character manages to get approved somehow. Oh man, the whining I've listened to when I limit what books they can use.
Funny, none of my non-optimizing players give me even a sideways glance when I say "Core Books only this time!"
You have had bad experiences with immature players. That's all.
I don't optimize to beat anyone, or to cheat the system. I do it because I feel if I don't do it then I am not getting all I can from the system. There is a limit before it becomes the gross munchkining.
I select feats, class levels and abilities in the best possible order simply because the other ways don't make sense. Unless my character has a specific reason in game not to, there's no real reason other than you can't see the choice clearly.
The mechanics should never interact directly with story choices. I am forced to see past specific feats and abilities taken and simply say "This character knows how to hit harder than other characters (Power Attack)." I don't care that they also took Leap Attack and are now charging furiously with a jump.
Contributor
|
Interesting. I won't disagree that there are a lot of optimizers out there like that, but I'd say that not all optimizers are like that.
Most of my group (including me) like to optimize their build, once they've found their concept. So we come up with an idea, usually a little bit off the wall, and then figure out how to make it effective. And we gladly help each other make effective characters, so that no one is sitting there with a character that they feel can't contribute.
Part of the issue for me is that I like tactical/strategy games as well as role-playing games. One of the things I like about 3.5 is that it allows me to do both in one game session, which is good, because I'm lucky to have as much time for games as I do.
And I admit I feel very self-satisfied when I take a concept that looks weak and build it into an effective character that chews through encounter like no tomorrow.
I also like the fact that our optimized party means the DM can hit us pretty hard with tough challenges and we can withstand it. And as a DM, I like the fact that I can push the envelope with CRs and my players can probably take it.
|
|
You have had bad experiences with immature players. That's all.
I don't optimize to beat anyone, or to cheat the system. I do it because I feel if I don't do it then I am not getting all I can from the system. There is a limit before it becomes the gross munchkining.
I select feats, class levels and abilities in the best possible order simply because the other ways don't make sense. Unless my character has a specific reason in game not to, there's no real reason other than you can't see the choice clearly.
The mechanics should never interact directly with story choices. I am forced to see past specific feats and abilities taken and simply say "This character knows how to hit harder than other characters (Power Attack)." I don't care that they also took Leap Attack and are now charging furiously with a jump.
I agree bad experiences have played a part - but it's so consistent I have a hard time believing otherwise.
I don't know you, and I don't mean to judge the way you play. Like you say, I'm speaking from experience.
Like I said in another thread, it seems you are more concerned with taking the best option for your character rather than trying to build a character who is ridiculously good at something. I guess that is the difference between what I can accept and what puts me off:
Acceptable: My barbarian is good at hitting things. I want to make him better, so I'll take Leap Attack.
Unacceptable: How can I build a character who can kill everything in one hit? Let's see...
EDIT: RE: Craig
I just find that too much optimization means the DM has to do more work to play catch up. It isn't fair to the DM, as a matter of fact I think it's pretty selfish - but then again, your DM might be happy to work with you in this way.
Acceptable: My barbarian is good at hitting things. I want to make him better, so I'll take Leap Attack.
Unacceptable: How can I build a character who can kill everything in one hit? Let's see...
The difference in my world is being a munchkin or being an optimizer.
I have a quick relation to mention.
I have two friends that come to mind in this debate. Between myself and these two others, we have an optimizer, a munchkin and a pure role-player.
I tend to build optimally, but not at the expense of character. If a choice I want to make means my character isn't the same anymore, than I usually stick with the more story-based one.
My friend, who is really into optimizing, cannot make a character without reading the rules in their entirety. Now, he's not a bad player, or suck at his game, but he has a touch of those attitude issues. If he can't be the best at his job than he's upset. He has to build his character (Which, I'll add, is usually a duplicate of the actual player's mentality.) around mechanics. He plays a game, not a character.
My last friend makes his characters in 10-20 minutes usually with one source book. Yup. He just likes to role-play.
|
|
The difference in my world is being a munchkin or being an optimizer.Acceptable: My barbarian is good at hitting things. I want to make him better, so I'll take Leap Attack.
Unacceptable: How can I build a character who can kill everything in one hit? Let's see...
I agree. I'm just trying not to use the term "munchkin" when talking about optimization, as it upset some people a while back. Heck, I make good choices sometimes too, but it becomes part of my character. I just don't always feel the need to take the BEST choices.
My mongrelfolk cleric with 3 Cha and 20 Con is a good example - he has all of the "Destiny" feats from Races of Destiny, essentially meaning it is tough to actually kill him, which is very good for the party cleric. Heck, the "reroll fumbled saves" feat actually saved him in SCAP from the Vanishing Curse - goodbye Charisma! By no means is he "optimized", he is just good at staying alive and healing. He is terrible at just about everything else. I could have made him a Reach Spell/Augmented Healing/Sacred Boost cleric, but I didn't feel the need to.
My post at the bottom, Chrono-Legionere, is a good example of a character walking the line between the two.
I forgot to post the link. Oops.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'm not particularly keen on the threads in question, partly because I can't wrap my head around how someone makes a claim that they've taken an objective approach to playtesting/game design/character optimization without choking. It is a silly claim to be making. (A methodological approach might be possible, but an objective approach would be unbelievably complicated.)
At the same time, I'm generally against any closing down of conversations. Keep the threads open.
|
|
I'm not particularly keen on the threads in question, partly because I can't wrap my head around how someone makes a claim that they've taken an objective approach to playtesting/game design/character optimization without choking. It is a silly claim to be making. (A methodological approach might be possible, but an objective approach would be unbelievably complicated.)
At the same time, I'm generally against any closing down of conversations. Keep the threads open.
I don't think the OP was asking to close the thread, merely move it out of the PRPG Feedback group, as it currently has absolutely no relevance to PRPG discussions (despite my attempts).
But yeah, definitely keep it open.
OP:
Don't like the thread, don't read it, don't post in it.
I don't think the moderators of this forum have any interest in shutting down an open forum for discussion.
I don't care for what goes on in those threads either. But asking the mods to shut it down isn't cool. They should shut things down only when it's offensive.
Let people discuss whatever they like. We're not actually here to create solutions for Pathfinder, that's the designer's job. We're here to discuss things.
|
|
OP:
Don't like the thread, don't read it, don't post in it.
I don't think the moderators of this forum have any interest in shutting down an open forum for discussion.
I don't care for what goes on in those threads either. But asking the mods to shut it down isn't cool. They should shut things down only when it's offensive.
Let people discuss whatever they like. We're not actually here to create solutions for Pathfinder, that's the designer's job. We're here to discuss things.
My opinion:
Part of it comes down to resisting change. More and more of these types of discussions are happening, and it is changing the nature of the forums. Ignoring it might make it go away, but then again maybe not. At that point there is no turning back, so some people feel they have to stand up for the "old boards" now.
well in a cookie cutter game this works (when 4/5 characters never get separated, always are conscious, and don't betray the party) and if you run the game like a board game or MMORPG
unfortunately or fortunately, my group operates story first, mechanics second.
in a game where npcs can have the same builds and classes as pcs, a little balance should be encouraged. if your pc party fights a powerful npc party, and the only ones still up at the end of the 6th round happen to be your 9th level Fighter and their 9th level wizard. Your fighter shouldnt have to turn tail and run because he mechanically CANT take on the Wizard. (Lord knows when the fighter is going to be the LAST one to fall, only if hes specialized in ranged combat)
I don't want PVP, and my group doesn't in fight. It is just disturbing when a poorly built wizard can one hit kill my well thought out Fighter (Iron Will just doesn't cut it)
|
|
well in a cookie cutter game this works (when 4/5 characters never get separated, always are conscious, and don't betray the party) and if you run the game like a board game or MMORPG
unfortunately or fortunately, my group operates story first, mechanics second.
in a game where npcs can have the same builds and classes as pcs, a little balance should be encouraged. if your pc party fights a powerful npc party, and the only ones still up at the end of the 6th round happen to be your 9th level Fighter and their 9th level wizard. Your fighter shouldnt have to turn tail and run because he mechanically CANT take on the Wizard. (Lord knows when the fighter is going to be the LAST one to fall, only if hes specialized in ranged combat)
I don't want PVP, and my group doesn't in fight. It is just disturbing when a poorly built wizard can one hit kill my well thought out Fighter (Iron Will just doesn't cut it)
Situation like thats happend to me before only the "supposedly useless" fighter took on the wizard and handed him a butt kicking. Funny that
at 9th level or higher? I would love to believe you, its just a bit hard. do your wizards buff??? tell me the magics in which the mechanics flow with how the story should proceed. a unprotected mage SHOULD be a sitting duck. NEVER happens in ANY game I have EVER played. only at low levels and only if you get the drop on them. after six round of spells and buffs you prolly want to wait until the greater invisibility, stoneskin and Fly are up.
probably the mage you had to fight only memorized attack spells, that CAN happen (idiotic as it is) better win initiative get a full attack, or pray that he doesnt have anything worse than suggestion left (and better make that save or its game over)
lower levels, for sure. but at 9th level or higher, dont rightly know how.
|
|
at 9th level or higher? I would love to believe you, its just a bit hard. do your wizards buff??? tell me the magics in which the mechanics flow with how the story should proceed. a unprotected mage SHOULD be a sitting duck. NEVER happens in ANY game I have EVER played. only at low levels and only if you get the drop on them. after six round of spells and buffs you prolly want to wait until the greater invisibility, stoneskin and Fly are up.
probably the mage you had to fight only memorized attack spells, that CAN happen (idiotic as it is) better win initiative get a full attack, or pray that he doesnt have anything worse than suggestion left (and better make that save or its game over)
lower levels, for sure. but at 9th level or higher, dont rightly know how.
No was a fully buffed mage of course having a spell storage weapon with dispel magic in it can prove very usefull
so they was not flying? or mirror imaged? you have to hit for the spell to be released.
so I gotta spend 8000 plus gold and have my WIZARD OR CLERIC friend enchant my weapon to hit the guy. when the bad guy just need to wake up in the morning and memorized a suggestion spell to take me totally out of the fight?
To much other people buffing me so I have a chance. give me a feat like dispelling strike and let me do it once or twice per day. I have plenty of feats that are next to useless anyways
(hey I am actually envious of you, my group knows the ropes to good, and by the book, I dont have much of a chance with my nonspellcaster which I love. F%^&in spellcaster)
|
|
so they was not flying? or mirror imaged? you have to hit for the spell to be released.
so I gotta spend 8000 plus gold and have my WIZARD OR CLERIC friend enchant my weapon to hit the guy. when the bad guy just need to wake up in the morning and memorized a suggestion spell to take me totally out of the fight?
To much other people buffing me so I have a chance. give me a feat like dispelling strike and let me do it once or twice per day. I have plenty of feats that are next to useless anyways
(hey I am actually envious of you, my group knows the ropes to good, and by the book, I dont have much of a chance with my nonspellcaster which I love. F%^&in spellcaster)
Well Flying dosent count for much when your in a fairly small room and mirror image dosent count for much when you have had 6 rounds before hand to deal with the mirror images.
Well Flying dosent count for much when your in a fairly small room and mirror image dosent count for much when you have had 6 rounds before hand to deal with the mirror images.
Well, every situation can be different and players may not know how to play their class to a T. However, the wizard should not have lost.
|
|
Well, every situation can be different and players may not know how to play their class to a T. However, the wizard should not have lost.
Well all im saying is any time ive had these caster v fighter situations the fighter (or every other melee class for that matter) has always come out ahead. Then again Ive always had a group of players who can be somewhat creative in solving problems
|
|
ckafria: There is a difference between "flaws" and "design elements that are intentionally and circumstantially not as good as others".
Yes, to the average PC the Self-Sufficient feat is not such a great choice. But if you are playing a game where 1st-level characters are stranded on a desert island (or if the DM wants to create a Robinsin Crusoe-style NPC) the feat looks much better.
Monte was commenting on presentation, not on design elements themselves.