On second thought, let's not go to Unearthed Arcana.
It is a silly place.
3x UA was kinda cool, though...
Yeah, big difference between those two, except, as you noted, for a few little gems hidden amongst the old dross.
|
I thought UA (1E) was a load of crap, btw. Except for some of the spells. And the stuff from modules.I liked the Thief-Acrobat, the granddaddy of prestige classes. One of my favorite characters was one... Eventually I'll have to stat her up in Pathfinder.
I also liked the cantrips.
The Bard was the proto-prestige class ;)
And, at the same time, the überprestige class.
|
|
The Bard was the proto-prestige class ;)
Now there was a real bard, wasn't anyone laughing when the 1e bard wandered into town. No "Is that a flute in your pocket or are you just please to see me?" jokes I tell you. Now look at them, at what they have be reduced too. Everyone is so focused on the cleric - the bard, it's the bard that has got the raw deal from the day Gygax raised a single digit to TSR.
<sigh>
"Memories,
Like the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were..."
S.
Re: Char Op stuff.
Thing is, though, unless your DM is a big softie powder puff, most Paizo APs will chew sub-optimal characters up like wood in a chipper.
Just sayin'.
I never buy any pre-made adventures for the monster stats, just the plots, setting, and story. Even all of those I alter to fit. If you only run things RAW then I guess your right. If you run them though to be an exciting and fun time for a group of friends they could make it through playing Experts, Adepts, and Warriors with 10s and 11s everywhere. ((Not that I would go that far, but it might be interesting to try))
|
It's sad because as human beings we should seek to better ourselves and provide our lives with rich and rewarding experiences.And that's pigeonholing someone who optimize as not having a rich and rewarding experience.
Sure, I'm not saying a person who Optimizes all the time is wasting their life - they are enjoying it the way they want. What I am saying is that there is more to life. Take a risk now and then. Maybe you'll enjoy playing a Sorcerer who only casts divination spells and fights with two weapons.Because optimizers only play one character type?
To go back to your candy bar analogy:
Non-optimization lets you choose what you want from the bulk section.
Optimization says that you must only buy [Peanut Brittle] because it [has the most varied ingredients per price point].Where does optimization say that? ANYTHING can be optimized. As people have mentioned before, you're optimizing when you build any character. You put more points in one skill over another? Optimized. Why'd you choose that feat instead of the other one?
This attitude is exactly the same as the attitude people describe the optimizers as having.
I think we'd better just agree to disagree. Nobody wins in these debates. I'll just conclude my piece with this final thought:
My argument applies to ANY situation (even roleplayers). Anybody who thinks there is only ONE TRUE WAY to do something is living life in a bubble, and likely making a good many upset angry at the same time. I've told as many "roleplayers" that they cannot play the CN Kender Rogue for the sake of sanity as I have optimizers they cannot use a certain book or feat.
I think we'd better just agree to disagree. Nobody wins in these debates. I'll just conclude my piece with this final thought:
My argument applies to ANY situation (even roleplayers). Anybody who thinks there is only ONE TRUE WAY to do something is living life in a bubble, and likely making a good many upset angry at the same time. I've told as many "roleplayers" that they cannot play the CN Kender Rogue for the sake of sanity as I have optimizers they cannot use a certain book or feat.
I don't disagree with your statement about "one true way". I'm not advocating that. My issue is more with the atrocious condescension aimed towards optimizers throughout this (and other) threads. I don't even count myself as an optimizer - my last two characters were a HoH Dread Necromancer (which, according to the WotC optimization forum, has lots of dead levels, and is useless past a certain point. That's fine, it probably does. At least that post wasn't rude or condescending, nor are most of them.), and prior to that, a core Fighter - no multiclassing, etc. I simply find the optimization threads interesting and potentially useful. I don't find the attempts to suppress them to be in the spirit of the game (either D&D or Pathfinder), nor in the spirit of this board.
I don't understand why so many people feel threatened by a forum that supports a style of gameplay, or by those types of players that, from reports, aren't even allowed in their game in the first place. People champion free thought and creativity, and then make comments of "I don't want my players even thinking about that!"
It's sickening.
There's a Play-by-Post forum here, something I (and likely others) find no interest in, but I don't see anyone petitioning for it's removal, and I'm sure quite a few people would be up in arms at the suggestion.
I know you said you were stepping away, and if you don't respond, that's fine. You said your piece, I'm saying mine.
So leave number crunching and excessive optimizing out the door and create a character that you enjoy and bring it to life!!!
We could also leave false dichotomies at the door, as well.
When I first started playing PnP, I used to treat it like a video game. Looking for that absolute best combination of abilities that would make my character the most powerful ever. I quickly found that I was outshined by the other characters who "wasted" money, skills and/or feats on things that didn't allow them to do more damage but gave their characters better flavor and more personality.
I don't really remember much about any of my early characters besides the fact that they were powerful. I remember more about the guy who had an Apron of Cooking and often fixed us up dragon chops. I remember the guy that pulled out the Eversmoking Black Lotus Bottle at the end of the adventuring day. I tend to play more like this now especially since our group isn't heavy into optimization.
EDIT: I'd love to see a CharOp forum on here for when I DM though. What a wonderful reference tool for BBEGs it would be.
I don't understand why so many people feel threatened by a forum that supports a style of gameplay, or by those types of players that, from reports, aren't even allowed in their game in the first place. People champion free thought and creativity, and then make comments of "I don't want my players even thinking about that!"
I am not really a powergamer when playing D&D. But I don't worry about such things. I have found though that if developers ignore the value that such can bring to refine a game they end up with a broken game.
But personally I am not for supporting all styles of play, I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
But personally I am not for supporting all styles of play, I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
I don't see an end to heavy armored cleric, costs ya a feat and is very easy to do. Not really an issue
Seems like this thread has run it's course when it becomes obvious that taking a feat to get one old option formerly available without a feat is the straw that causes a Copernican revolution on the one hand, and it devolves into the minmax/role-play discussion on the other. What's next? Paladins and alignment?
Seems like this thread has run it's course when it becomes obvious that taking a feat to get one old option formerly available without a feat is the straw that causes a Copernican revolution on the one hand, and it devolves into the minmax/role-play discussion on the other. What's next? Paladins and alignment?
There's a discussion a couple of threads over about paladins serving Asmodeus, if you're interested ;)
Trouble maker. :P
I agree with Mairkurion. The original topic has vanished totally and has been replaced with "Best of Circular D&D Arguments" theme.
Heck, I'd even recommending smurfing it back to the Stone Age.
I don't see an end to heavy armored cleric, costs ya a feat and is very easy to do. Not really an issue
Not an issue? Where the heck have you been? :)
Wouldn't that be the Smurf Age?
I like the changes in PF compared to that of 3.5, etc.
The boost to the core classes now means there is a reason NOT to toe dip into five different PrC.
I do however think a trick was missed by putting a minimum stat restriction to a class. I believe this would stop min/max problems and the "I'm a cleric/fighter/rogue/bard/monk" builds which annoy the nine hells out of me.
Overall I think it has been nothing but positive with only a few minor quirks which are easy to remedy.
I don't see an end to heavy armored cleric, costs ya a feat and is very easy to do. Not really an issueNot an issue? Where the heck have you been? :)
Oh I know it causes some b*$&%ing, but really it's not an issue. You have more feats and can have it if you really want to. Now if you could never gain it I could see it as an issue. But really it's not one unless you make it one
And please Gods don't go into paladin AL stuff in here much less the LG paladins of Satan
About the optimizer boards, one thing to consider is, is a player picking a suboptimal choice because it is "roleplaying" or because they are just ignorant of the options? With all of the different books available in 3.5 (and assumably available due to backwards compatibility in PF), it is often hard for people to realize what are all the options out there. Therefore it is sometimes nice to get suggestions of perhaps better options then you had realized. By better, I don't mean necessarily more powerful, but perhaps even more accurate to portray your concept.
Optimization can be done with strict limitations, in fact that is often the most valuable optimization. Pun-Pun isn't optimization, that is just a mental exercise.
I don't see an end to heavy armored cleric, costs ya a feat and is very easy to do. Not really an issue
But personally I am not for supporting all styles of play, I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
It was just a joke, some of you people need to relax a bit more. I guess next time I have to start and end with /joke because you all are pretty uptight about someone not liking every change in pathfinder.
You were the lack of proficiency in heavy armor that broke the camel's back.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All right, back to the original topic. Paradigm shift?
I'd say the most obvious shift in Pathfinder (and one shared with D&D 4th Edition) is the inclusion of much more common "cheap and ready" magic.
Tracing magic from 1st Edition AD&D through to the current products, I see a strong and continuous shift from magic being something extraordinary --even for magic-users-- to a standard tool in the adventuring arsenal.
Take, for example, analysis magic. In 2nd Edition AD&D, detect magic is a 1st Level spell that indicates that an area contains something magical, but it doesn't allow the caster to pinpoint the source without some shuffling. There is a 10% chance per caster level that the wizard can tell the school of magic, or the priest can discern the sphere of magic. Meanwhile, identify requires eight hours, does Constitution damage, costs a pearl of at least 100 gp, and only has a 10% chance per caster level to tell anything useful about an object.
In 3rd Edition, detect magic is a cantrip, and is much more powerful, able to determine the exact location, as well as the strength and school of the magical auras. The casting time for identify is down to one hour, doesn't deliver any Constitution damage, and always works, determining all the magical aspects of an item. And analyze dwoemer is a new, higher level spell that works faster, better, and more completely than identify.
In Pathfinder, detect magic, and all other cantrips, are at-will abilities. (In D&D 3.5, having detect magic as an at-will ability was a feat available to casters of at least 9th level.) And identify is a standard action, requiring no expensive pearls.
In 2nd Edition, the party picks up a ring with mysterious rubies and emeralds and doesn't know what it does; in Pathfinder, every wizard and sorcerer has detect magic up and running throughout the exploration and taking a standard action to determine that the mysterious object is a +3 ring of protection. I'd call that a paradigm shift.
And yet death spells don't kill you anymore. Funny how that works. :)
snipIf a game designer honestly believes that there's only one legitimate option for a character build but still designs other options and then implies that folks who take those choices are being sub-optimal... he's doing the game a disservice by being a game designer.
You mean like when a certain Pathfinder designer said that using Combat Maneuvers is only for showing off on mooks or being desparate?
In 2nd Edition, the party picks up a ring with mysterious rubies and emeralds and doesn't know what it does; in Pathfinder, every wizard and sorcerer has detect magic up and running throughout the exploration and taking a standard action to determine that the mysterious object is a...
From there I think you get into the question of how people played versus what was in the rules. That itself is hard because everyone tends to base their reading of the game on their own experiences.
I was never big on the lengthy process to identify items in 2nd edition, for example. If someone finds a weird ring, they could find out what it was by putting it on (this came with the warning that they'd also be subjected to any curses on the item). One of the things I liked about 3rd edition and subsequently Pathfinder was that the rules began to better reflect how I played the game.
Now, if my play experience is in the minority, then there is indeed a paradigm shift there. If my experience is typical for most players, then the only shift is that the rules are now tailored to the generally preferred style of play.
Overall, I think that a major shift in the game can only be discovered by actually playing it for a while - in which case, we probably won't get a definitive answer as to how the game has changed for at least another year or so. As a side note, that's also why I have the tendency to roll my eyes a bit when folks online start overly praising or criticizing the Pathfinder RPG based on a read through the book. Until you've actually played the game, then all the theories and number crunching in the world amount to squat.
That's not to say there isn't the shift you mentioned - magic definitely became more common between 2nd and 3rd edition. Pathfinder seems to have added a little more low-level magic, but in my game that's been mitigated so far by the fact that the book has a few considerations mentioned in running low-magic games, making that easier than it used to be.
|
|
Another shift I've noticed is the attitude towards house ruling. We took it as a normal and expected part of the game way back when, and Gygax pretty much encouraged it a zillion times in the old DMG (don't reference the Dragon articles, people took those way too broadly when he was talking about a specific circumstance...).
Now, I see less of a "roll with the punches, change it at the table" attitude in gamers, and more of a "it had better be perfect out of the box" attitude. Well, I see a split, anyway. It seems a lot (but not all) "old schoolers" (OD&D/AD&D 1e weaned) approach a rules issue with "eh, don't like it, change it", and "middle to new schoolers" (but not all, and generally mid 2e to present weaned players) feel like RAW should reflect what they need in a rules set without tinkering.
Personally, I fall into the former camp, and don't see the problems a lot of people have with some of the changes. But that's neither here nor there, frankly. I just see that a lot of the "D.I.Y." sensibilities have been lost to gaming these days.
As to spells, magic has been made less wondrous in my opinion, so I have to agree with the posters above who have noted the shift.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I was never big on the lengthy process to identify items in 2nd edition, for example. If someone finds a weird ring, they could find out what it was by putting it on. One of the things I liked about 3rd edition and subsequently Pathfinder was that the rules began to better reflect how I played the game.
Now, if my play experience is in the minority, then there is indeed a paradigm shift there. If my experience is typical for most players, then the only shift is that the rules are now tailored to the generally preferred style of play.
Hi, Charlie. You make a great point. And you're right: if nobody's using, say, Weapon Speed Factors, and the game's next edition doesn't even bother to mention WSF, then that's not so much a shift in game play as a reality check for the designers.
But I don't think you've picked a good example. It's my understanding that Gary Gygax (1st Edition) and Zeb Cook (2nd Edition) wanted players to try on mysterious cloaks, taste potions, and the like. They thought that the investigation about what each item did was part of the fun. The spells were there as a last resort.
In subsequent editions, this experimentation has given way to the PC casting a spell, possibly rolling a simple skill check, and the DM announcing the properties of the item. 3rd Edition didn't reflect how you played the game. That's the paradigm shift I'm talking about.
The Ranger was based off of Aragorn from LotR.
(Comes out of lurk mode to comment on something posted 10 pages ago)
I'd argue the 1e ranger was just as much based on Belphebe from de Camp & Pratt's Complete Enchanter stories.|
|
Another shift I've noticed is the attitude towards house ruling. We took it as a normal and expected part of the game way back when, and Gygax pretty much encouraged it a zillion times in the old DMG (don't reference the Dragon articles, people took those way too broadly when he was talking about a specific circumstance...).
Now, I see less of a "roll with the punches, change it at the table" attitude in gamers, and more of a "it had better be perfect out of the box" attitude. Well, I see a split, anyway. It seems a lot (but not all) "old schoolers" (OD&D/AD&D 1e weaned) approach a rules issue with "eh, don't like it, change it", and "middle to new schoolers" (but not all, and generally mid 2e to present weaned players) feel like RAW should reflect what they need in a rules set without tinkering.
Personally, I fall into the former camp, and don't see the problems a lot of people have with some of the changes. But that's neither here nor there, frankly. I just see that a lot of the "D.I.Y." sensibilities have been lost to gaming these days.
As to spells, magic has been made less wondrous in my opinion, so I have to agree with the posters above who have noted the shift.
Y'know, stepping back and looking at it I'm inclined to agree with you. Like you, I fall into the former camp--the games that I started out on--1E AD&D/BXCMI D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and Paladium (blech!!)--all pretty much required a GM to make house rules because they failed to cover something or the existing rules were terminally obtuse.
In subsequent editions, this experimentation has given way to the PC casting a spell, possibly rolling a simple skill check, and the DM announcing the properties of the item. 3rd Edition didn't reflect how you played the game. That's the paradigm shift I'm talking about.
Fair enough. Now that I look at it, it seems that my mind has still been in a mindset where identify was a spell the wizard didn't prepare until after the adventure and everyone was in town again. But without a material component, it can be cast in the middle of a dungeon or even the middle of a fight. Still, I think that 3rd edition started the trend of easily identified magic, with Pathfinder only continuing that trend.
In terms of low-level magic being common, the at will cantrips changes the base expectation of the world a bit. Previously, spells were something a caster would basically hoard in case they needed them - no sense in wasting even a 0-level spell if you only have 4 of them a day. Now that they are at will effects, I imagine that wizards performing street magic, cleaning their houses with prestidigitation, and the like are probably more common. That's fine by me, since I think spellcasters should be able to do that, but it is a change from earlier editions.
Another shift I've noticed is the attitude towards house ruling. We took it as a normal and expected part of the game way back when, and Gygax pretty much encouraged it a zillion times in the old DMG (don't reference the Dragon articles, people took those way too broadly when he was talking about a specific circumstance...).
"This is your game" is called out as the most important rule of the Pathfinder RPG, so I don't think house ruling should be much of a hurdle. At the same time, it baffles me that people assumed you weren't supposed to house rule 3rd edition considering that WotC released an entire book of nothing but house rules.
|
|
To answer the OP I think that Pathfinder while allowing gamers to use their 3.5 books needs to move away from it at the same time. For example we do not have any really indepth rules for Epic levels besides the basic stuff in the core book. Their solution is to use the Epic Level Handbook. Which while helpful is not going to make the game stand on its own. Otherwise it will imo forever be known as Paizo 3.5 clone rather then PF. Paizo needs to fill in the blanks that is missing from PF. The less reliance on 3.5 material for the missing parts the better imo. Otherwise you give those who that like 3.5 but are unsure about PF no reason to switch over.
Until you've actually played the game, then all the theories and number crunching in the world amount to squat.
Déjà vu. I could have sworn I've heard similar things said about another version of the game as well. Nah!
|
|
I don't disagree with your statement about "one true way". I'm not advocating that. My issue is more with the atrocious condescension aimed towards optimizers throughout this (and other) threads. I don't even count myself as an optimizer - my last two characters were a HoH Dread Necromancer (which, according to the WotC optimization forum, has lots of dead levels, and is useless past a certain point. That's fine, it probably does. At least that post wasn't rude or condescending, nor are most of them.), and prior to that, a core Fighter - no multiclassing, etc. I simply find the optimization threads interesting and potentially useful. I don't find the attempts to suppress them to be in the spirit of the game (either D&D or Pathfinder), nor in the spirit of this board.I don't understand why so many people feel threatened by a forum that supports a style of gameplay, or by those types of players that, from reports, aren't even allowed in their game in the first place. People champion free thought and creativity, and then make comments of "I don't want my players even thinking about that!"
It's sickening.
There's a Play-by-Post forum here, something I (and likely others) find no interest in, but I don't see anyone petitioning for it's removal, and I'm sure quite a few people would be up in arms at the suggestion.
I know you said you were stepping away, and if you don't respond, that's fine. You said your piece, I'm saying mine.
I'll be honest, like a few others here and elsewhere I've been personally put off of the concept of optimization because of a few bad eggs, but I try not to judge. You've been a shining example of how to conduct a discussion.
I was thinking all day though:
1) "optimizing" - as you defined it is picking something good at the expense of something worse. Like you said, most of us do it at some point or another. For example, the other day I made a cleric and to maximize (read: optimize) his healing ability I took Extra Channeling.
2) "Optimizing" (captial O) - what James mentioned and what I was talking about, is maximizing something to the extreme so that no other choice is considered superior.
When we talk about optimizing, we're mostly talking about #1 and that is fine. But when people try to enforce #2 on the game table it's a nuisance unless everybody is into it. Does that make sense?
By the way, you could easily talk the same way about "roleplaying" and "Roleplaying".
Down with dwarves, well yeah, where do you think we live, sheesh. But I kinda like "up (the trees) with elves" or "long live (in their slum infested cities) humans". :P
I am not really a powergamer when playing D&D. But I don't worry about such things. I have found though that if developers ignore the value that such can bring to refine a game they end up with a broken game.
But personally I am not for supporting all styles of play, I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
I don't think you get enough credit for comments like this. Quite amusing.
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.
Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!
I would love to see an end to all the non-heavy armored cleric play style I fear runs rampant out there.Soon, all threads everywhere shall be about me, the cleric in heavy armor. Victory is mine!
::Casts rushing Grasp:: "Here cleric cleric cleric..."
::Casts rushing Grasp::
Material component: iron fist in velvet glove.
Verbal component: "ooooooOOOF SALES-men!"Alternate Joke: ...bard list only?
You're lucky to be able to afford that stuff. I've yet to gather enough coin. Now back to the dungeon to smite more of Pelor's foes and take they're stuff!