|
That means that many different people are engaged in substantially different threads on a related topic, and those threads have distinct enough content from other threads that a new forum makes sense.
Until then, no amount of arguing for or against is going to help. Find the place that makes the most sense for your discussion, and let it evolve naturally.
Awww so my suggestion about starting a fighter CO thread and proving it was something worth discussing, capable of being civil, and active enough to stay on top of an appropriate forum actually had some merit...
...too bad the CO enthusiasts ignored the suggestion/challenge and kept beating the dead horse.
|
Welcome Treantmonk. i would love to see your handbooks. i admit i only did minor posting on gleemax. you've heard about my good buddy Yami Shinobi, right? he was quite the object of Board Hate. Infamous for the Nekogami. a race that took him years to balance. i tried to help him with it. by adapting it to pathfinder. it took forever. it's abilities were too hard to weigh by 3.5 standards. it was too weak for ECL+1 and slightly too strong for +0. there was no ECL +1/2 option. the guy happens to be an unpublished Suethor. his races are somewhat tame (ECL +1/2) giving exotic minor class features as racial abilities. he undervalues hide in plain sight (the shadowdancer ability), lay on hands, slight build, wild empathy, swim speeds, amphibious and tremorsense. as proven by rough drafts of a few of his creations. which i will not list.
Vic Wertz: Understood. Consider the request withdrawn.
Seekerofshadowlight: Is community content the right forum? I thought General discussion would be appropriate...
SirUrza: I didn't see your request, I honestly didn't ignore it. However, I'm not very good with Fighter optimization (they stab stuff with pointy sticks right?), but wizard content will be posted within the next week or so (I'll probably wait for my Bestiary so I can make accurate summoning suggestions, that will be next Wed, and then the actual work takes awhile as well).
I could show you any of the threads I've created on other forums, and on none of them have I seen unacceptable behavior. There was some healthy debate on some (I'm specifically remembering alot of debate on my Necromancy thread) but it was healthy and respectful debate on all sides.
Luminiere Solas: I'm afraid I never heard of your friend before now, however, it is a large community. Remember if UA level buyoff is used, +1 LA isn't so bad, especially by mid to high level. Also remember that Planetouched are all +1 LA, so really it doesn't take much to bump up a race. Basic rule, if its better than the PHB races, it probably should be at least +1 LA. However, without seeing the actual stats, I can't comment specifically.
However, I usually err on the side of caution, especially with homebrew stuff, but any race with Hide in Plain Sight or Tremorsense as racial abilities should probably be at least LA +1 by merit of that alone, even with stat penalties, and probably LA +2 or more.
Treantmonk, first off let me add my "welcome" to the list. As a long time lurker and occasional poster over at the WotC forum boards I am quite familiar with your work (so to speak) and look forward to your presence here. Despite what some may have said/how they feel, I can only say the community will be that much richer for it.
As for where to post, I think I'd disagree with Seekerofshadowlight. The community boards are specifically called out for "House rules, variants and conversions" and as what you are doing is none of those, but based strictly on the actual game rules, I'd say General Discussion or *maybe* Rules Questions. Also as you are new to the boards here, just in case you haven't run into it, there is a limit to how long you can edit your posts (roughly an hour after the post is live) iirc. This will probably be somewhat of an annoyance with maintaining the handbooks as new content comes out, so you may want to plan things out in advance with that in mind (possibly breaking the handbook up into a number of smaller posts).
@
...too bad the CO enthusiasts ignored the suggestion/challenge and kept beating the dead horse.
Hate to say it (not that it is going to stop me) but that last comment sounds way too much like a "you didn't do what I said so that proves me right" attitude than I care for - ESPECIALLY towards someone who has put as much time and effort into compiling useful information on our "favorite game" as Treantmonk has. Granted this is all text so there are no other cues going on but... I mean we get it, you don't care for it, but that doesn't make it right or wrong as you aren't the other 99.99999999% of the population. On a message board, a vocal minority can easily seem like a majority, but the reality is - it just means they have more time to post then the rest. This is the internet, "We" aren't on your time table, Treantmonk will get around to it when he/she can, just like I'll post when and where I can regardless of what anyone has to say or has replied to what I have written prior. Because something wasn't done when/as someone else suggested isn't admission of fault or they were wrong or a proof that someone was somehow "right", and it is something some of the regular posters on this board do that is simply infuriating to see. You read posts from these "long time Paizo posters" about civility and how the boards have gone down hill, and they are just as much to blame as anyone else a lot of the time. Just some food for thought.
Chief Technical Officer
|
The community boards are specifically called out for "House rules, variants and conversions" and as what you are doing is none of those, but based strictly on the actual game rules, I'd say General Discussion or *maybe* Rules Questions.
Good call. I'd go with General Discussion.
The community boards are specifically called out for "House rules, variants and conversions" and as what you are doing is none of those, but based strictly on the actual game rules, I'd say General Discussion or *maybe* Rules Questions.Good call. I'd go with General Discussion.
That's where I was leaning. Sounds good, that's where I'll post.
What up treant, this is mxyzplk. Welcome to the Paizo boards! I have some PFRPG summoning optimization ideas to add :-)
As an aside, let me explain the antipathy towards CO as someone you know and who's contributed to the same stuff on the Wizards CO boards. I don't think it's the constructive works like the handbooks that people dislike. Paizo has attracted gamers that tend to prefer the immersion and story aspects of D&D more than the pure rules. So when people who are too into the rule aspect show up and spout off about how "the fighter is worthless because it can't be optimized to be as uber as the cleric" or go on and on criticizing whatever random PFRPG rules as being "unbalanced" (and there was a lot of that during the playtest) people here generally get tired of that pretty quickly. Many folks here like designing interesting characters and dislike having a super-optimized character break the curve in their game, and very much dislike anyone dumping in their characters and/or playstyle because their character isn't munchkined out. It's part of the overall Paizo vibe of being largely adventure focused with setting and rules being lovely but secondary pursuits.
Therefore, there is a common sentiment around here (as you've already seen) of "CO is evil." Heck, I generally agree - see this blog post of mine that was in response to a 102-page thread on RPG.net about how Pathfinder must suck because the iconic fighter they released in a preview isn't powerful enough. Now, it's ironic that I was contributing to your and my Malconvoker guides at the same time as that. But I don't think CO has to be evil... :-)
In fact, I have some tips for PFRPG CharOppers. Treant, I don't think you personally need these, as in my experience you were always a hobbyist out to have fun with some builds and not be "one of those c**kknockers" but it's a good exercise.
Mainly, it's "remember that many people do not value, and should not value, optimized characters. In many people's estimation, there is nothing wrong with a numerically less superior character/class/option." That's really where all the conflict comes from. Well, to be fair, there's some from the opposite direction, people who will dump on you because "worrying about min-maxing game stats or coveting total balance is for munchkins and 4e players and other sorts of undesirables." But that'll be the cost of doing business here, as to an extent many folks here feel chased out of other places because of their overweening focus on those things. And they're not wrong.
I think there's some aspects of CO work that are valuable for PFRPG and will be welcomed by the community here. As more books and options become available, the compilation handbooks will be great, so you know e.g. "Hey, if I want to play a summoner, what options are out there for me?" Their publishing methodology with articles in APs means that content can be more spread out than in a splatbook kind of setup.
Also, my pet favorite, ways to make real suboptimal choices (dagger fighter, whip fighter etc.) still competitive with normal folks, assuming people want that. Even if you're not into min-maxing, many of the Paizo APs can be a bit brusque and you may not want to be the total weak link in the party.
Anyway, a bit long winded, but I wanted to welcome you to the Paizo boards and maybe help explain the situation from the point of view of someone who's both a happy Pathfinder immersion gamer but has also contributed to CO.
Ahhh...another summoner here at Paizo...cool.
OK - before responding to anything - is your Avatar for that blog the He-Man character "Fisto"? If so, is there anything you need to tell us? See #1 most ill-concieved action figure
Now that the necessary sarcasm is out of the way - nice to see a familiar face! I would be completely up for collaberation on a summoning guide!
I would of course never suggest a fighter was useless, Pathfinder or not. Dumb, yes, useless never. Without the fighter, the BBG might want to engage me in melee...not good! We all know the fighter should be leaping in front of that BBG to protect me.
As for the thread you were blogging about, it appears to be a LogicNinja thread...so that's where LogicNinja ended up. Yes, I was aware that Logicninja and Jason B had some sabre rattling. Was told that Keith, Frank Trollman and Sunic Flames had trouble here too.
These posters may be optimizers, and all of them have hung out at WOTC at some point (just as they apparently all did here as well at a certain point) but none of them will be found on the WOTC CO boards today, or even for the past couple years. I think FT got the "permaban" at WOTC, not sure about the rest. They all have reputations for using strong agressive language. FT now rants about how he hates everything (and I mean everything) about Pathfinder at the Gaming Den, while SF Pathfinder bashes at BG. Now I guess LN is bashing Pathfinder at RPG.net. Can't say I'm a big fan of most of them, though I was a fan of LN's "Being Batman" thread at Giants in the Playground forum.
Remember though that these are individuals, and not at all representative of the CO community as a whole. You've been hanging around CO at WOTC - wouldn't you say the community there now is a pretty decent bunch? I would.
As an aside, let me explain the antipathy towards CO as someone you know and who's contributed to the same stuff on the Wizards CO boards. I don't think it's the constructive works like the handbooks that people dislike. Paizo has attracted gamers that tend to prefer the immersion and story aspects of D&D more than the pure rules. So when people who are too into the rule aspect show up and spout off about how "the fighter is worthless because it can't be optimized to be as uber as the cleric" or go on and on criticizing whatever random PFRPG rules as being "unbalanced" (and there was a lot of that during the playtest) people here generally get tired of that pretty quickly. Many folks here like designing interesting characters and dislike having a super-optimized character break the curve in their game, and very much dislike anyone dumping in their characters and/or playstyle because their character isn't munchkined out. It's part of the overall Paizo vibe of being largely adventure focused with setting and rules being lovely but secondary pursuits.
I think this got it in one. Handbooks are cool, way to often most of the so called optimizers hurt more then help. I still stand behind the ideal that CO boards breed and attract a type of player/poster that hurts way more often then helps. Not all but enough that the community as a whole dislikes the ideal more often then not YMMV
Ashiel: Nothing to say but "Perfect Post" *claps* Also, you showed me how to BOLD on these boards (I'm used to a cheat bar for formatting) ;) Much thanks!
Aww, thanks Treantmonk. Oh, I also remember you from the WotC boards. I doubt you'd remember me. I went by the handle DM-Scott back there (with the 9E Serra Angel avatar). I didn't post that much, but all my posts were long and detailed, and I tended to enjoy civil debate (if anything you probably saw one of my pieces on the issues of 3.5 rule conflicts involving undead). I also tended to hang out on the Psionics page a lot.
It's good to see a number of friendly and familiar faces cropping up around here. Now I wish I could find where Tempest Stormwind posts. God, I don't think I ever found a single fault in any word that man posted over at the WotC boards. A hero to me, he was. *_*
If you're going to be working on some new handbooks, I look forward to them. Truthfully, I've yet to scrounge up the cash to purchase the Pathfinder core stuff, so I've been using a combination of the Beta handbook, the SRD, and the 3.5 SRD. I'm beginning to notice subtle but major differences here and there (I just recently looked up the summon monster list in the SRD, and was horrified to find my beautiful fiendish centipedes to be missing - how tragic). Handbooks would help greatly. :)
I may also try to write up some help threads. I enjoy making NPCs, encounters, and short drop-in adventures. Maybe I'll toss a few up here as well. You've got me all itchin' to contribute to the community a bit more. ^_^
Anyway, I'll see you around on these boards. ^_^
Welcome Treantmonk!
I really enjoyed your Wizard's guide over at the wotc forum. Currently I'm playin a conjurer in Curse of the Crimson throne, and it has taken a lot of ideas from your thread.
I'm really excited to see what you come up with. I think once one of your guides is up, a lot of people will see just how useful it can be. If only for a second opinion on the given topic.
I really don't see why people get so worked up about this. Why didnt paizo make a giant d percentile list on the side of feats/spells/skills, so that people can just roll a character up?
One of the most fun parts about PFRPG/DND is building a character.
Ashiel: I'm not sure Tempest Stormwind posts anywhere anymore. I imagine if he did, we would have heard. I'm not sure whether your WOTC handle is familiar or not, I wouldn't know you from the psionics boards (our group usually doesn't use psionics - even though I thought the psionics system was reasonably good). As for the core rules, I had a friend pick me up a copy at Gencon, When I think about the amount of money I spend on movies, cable, or other luxuries - what I spend on RPG's is pretty tame considering the time I spend on them...
Countmein: Don't give them ideas! I expect those who have already read my guides for 3.5 will get the least out of my new Pathfinder guides, since the first ones will likely be simple conversions of the 3.5 material. The first step in any wizard guide I write always needs to reiterate a Wizards job IMO (Buff your party, Debuff your enemy, Control the battlefield), so I can point to it when people ask why I don't give spells that do damage or cause a save or die higher recommendation.
I expect those who have already read my guides for 3.5 will get the least out of my new Pathfinder guides, since the first ones will likely be simple conversions of the 3.5 material.
Aha, you think it will be that easy? I got kinda stuck with the feats.
Obviously you know the core feats are not as varied, and since you get more feats the selection becomes difficult (for a Conjurer). I got my DM to allow sculpt spell and metamagic school focus, but I'm sure a lot of people only use the core Pathfinder rulebook. Some insight would be helpful.
The first step in any wizard guide I write always needs to reiterate a Wizards job IMO (Buff your party, Debuff your enemy, Control the battlefield), so I can point to it when people ask why I don't give spells that do damage or cause a save or die higher recommendation.
True. My group has a Paladin, Monk, Fighter and me. Yet I constantly need to defend the fact that the only evocation spells I have are some scrolls of flaming sphere.
Anyway, I'm derailing a bit here.
Good Luck
I do realize that the mechanics are quite different. I just meant my guide will largely be a cut and paste with the crunchy bits redone (which of course is the most work, but hey, that's kind of the point right?)
Yeah - there is still one player in my group who keeps shaking his head that I don't have fireball, even though his fighter does gobs of damage with every hit, and a good deal of my time ensures he and the enemy are in position to do exactly that.
Ahhh...another summoner here at Paizo...cool.
OK - before responding to anything - is your Avatar for that blog the He-Man character "Fisto"? If so, is there anything you need to tell us? See #1 most ill-concieved action figure
Remember though that these are individuals, and not at all representative of the CO community as a whole. You've been hanging around CO at WOTC - wouldn't you say the community there now is a pretty decent bunch? I would.
I'm Fisto wherever I can be!
And though I gave up the Wizards boards totally after the Great Hateful WotC Forum Redesign Of Anti Usability, yeah, it wasn't the people *in* CO that were a problem. It was people who claimed to be CO-driven in other forums that were more the problem. But I think CO forums get the stigma because every time there's a new one all the old undesirables who've been banned from everywhere immediately head there and douche it on up.
I'm Fisto wherever I can be!
Especially in Prison showers!
|
I do realize that the mechanics are quite different. I just meant my guide will largely be a cut and paste with the crunchy bits redone (which of course is the most work, but hey, that's kind of the point right?)
Yeah - there is still one player in my group who keeps shaking his head that I don't have fireball, even though his fighter does gobs of damage with every hit, and a good deal of my time ensures he and the enemy are in position to do exactly that.
So ummmm, get crackin'! I wanna see a bard handbook!
BTW the fireball thing, I had a dude in my group that was a fireball specialist and at 10-12th levels he was dropping fireballs that averaged around 65-70 (100ish if empowered spellshard was used) that overcame all fire resistance and still did 1/2 damage to fire immune critters. Evocations get shafted in a lot of discussions but in reality if you work on them with metamagics and other feats you can get a whole lot out of them. Blistering, fiery, searing, arcane thesis-ed, Ring of mystic fired, empowered spellsharded fire spells are pretty damn bad-assed.
I for one have profited quite well from Treantmonk- he writes some of the more comprehensive guides to classes, I specifically like the guides to spells, they are lifesavers. My DM won't let me run a malconvolker though...
To argue for the case of optimization, sometimes you need to for a character concept. For example, even if you want the character who has serious flaws, whether personal or physical (think Raistlin Majere of Dragonlance, con penalty-ouch) Most of us want a character who can do they're jobs, and do them fairly well. If not for they're own fun (I can't stand NOT contributing to the team's victory) but for thier teammates- a wizard with a low int might as well not play at all, they're more of a tax on the healing than anything else. I've played charcter's based on a concept without thought of optimization and wound up not being able to do what the concept entailed (he was and undead hunter- Paladin3/ Ranger2...just aweful)
To argue against optimization, there are plenty of boards that find the best way to do something and ignore optimizing lesser options (I can't find anything to help a sword and boarder, ever) Meaning if someone wanted a speciffic build for an idea, rather than helping them, the boards would push the player to a different mechanically superior build (like a charging two-handed weapon fighter. For this same reason there aren't many blasty mage guides or heal-bot clerics either.
But- this is a big one, it does let you know where and what the traps are. There are dead ends everywhere in DnD (and pathfinder, for sake of backwards compatability) They let you know that if your wizard is a drow, that level adjustment will hurt alot, and that if being GOD is what's important to you, other races might be appropriate.
When it comes to the tone at gleemax, yes there is contention- but that's found anywhere there is messageboards (see http://www.cracked.com/article_17522_6-new-personality-disorders-caused-by- internet.html) even here. There are plenty of boards complaining about good or bad mechanics and people complaining about character-op can get nasty. (mind you, these boards as a whole are really friendly, and any nastyness is the exception, not the rule)
That's just my opinion of course, I've never posted here before an d I really don't want to make any enemies, but I think posting an occasional handbook won't kill the vibe here either.
On last thing to Treantmonk- you'll still be posting your handbooks on gleemax right?
I do realize that the mechanics are quite different. I just meant my guide will largely be a cut and paste with the crunchy bits redone (which of course is the most work, but hey, that's kind of the point right?)
Yeah - there is still one player in my group who keeps shaking his head that I don't have fireball, even though his fighter does gobs of damage with every hit, and a good deal of my time ensures he and the enemy are in position to do exactly that.
So ummmm, get crackin'! I wanna see a bard handbook!
BTW the fireball thing, I had a dude in my group that was a fireball specialist and at 10-12th levels he was dropping fireballs that averaged around 65-70 (100ish if empowered spellshard was used) that overcame all fire resistance and still did 1/2 damage to fire immune critters. Evocations get shafted in a lot of discussions but in reality if you work on them with metamagics and other feats you can get a whole lot out of them. Blistering, fiery, searing, arcane thesis-ed, Ring of mystic fired, empowered spellsharded fire spells are pretty damn bad-assed.
My view is that the wizard's never going to be as good at doing damage as the martial members of the party (at least consistantly), and besides, if the wizard is doing damage - who is controlling the battlefield? The tripping fighter I guess. Seems like poor job placement to me.
That said, I actually and quite a fan of evocation, just not the straight-blast evocations. Evocation is one of the best schools for pushing enemies around the battlefield, as well it is the home of the Bigby's hand spells, wall of force, contingency, and a slew of other goodies.
I would play an evocation-specialized wizard with no problem, but I still likely won't be shooting fireballs.
Unless of course we are playing 3.5, then when you can add explosive spell metamagic - then you turn your fireball into battlefield control that does damage - me likey...and (although it isn't optimization) the visuals are awesome!
One problem that you might run into when writing guides on this forum is the editing of posts. As far as I know you can only edit your post for a little while after making it. So if you put your handbook up and people want to add to it or you want to modify some things, it might not work...
One problem that you might run into when writing guides on this forum is the editing of posts. As far as I know you can only edit your post for a little while after making it. So if you put your handbook up and people want to add to it or you want to modify some things, it might not work...
I've been considering that, and there is no easy solution.
I think what I've decided to do is post the guide at WOTC or BG first, then post the same guide here with a disclaimer regarding editing at the beginning and a link to the guide at WOTC so people can check for updates if they wish to.
Hopefully the editing restrictions will be lifted here at some point in the future...until then, I'll deal with it.
Mainly, I figured if I was going to do Pathfinder work, not having it available for people at the Paizo site would make it kind of pointless.
|
|
I've been considering that, and there is no easy solution.
I think what I've decided to do is post the guide at WOTC or BG first, then post the same guide here with a disclaimer regarding editing at the beginning and a link to the guide at WOTC so people can check for updates if they wish to.
Google docs works well, too; host it on google docs and then link to it in your first post and mention when you update it. It makes printing easier for folks, too.
|
Director of Game Development
|
Google docs works well, too; host it on google docs and then link to it in your first post and mention when you update it. It makes printing easier for folks, too.I've been considering that, and there is no easy solution.
I think what I've decided to do is post the guide at WOTC or BG first, then post the same guide here with a disclaimer regarding editing at the beginning and a link to the guide at WOTC so people can check for updates if they wish to.
That's a clever solution, Gene.
Google docs works well, too; host it on google docs and then link to it in your first post and mention when you update it. It makes printing easier for folks, too.I've been considering that, and there is no easy solution.
I think what I've decided to do is post the guide at WOTC or BG first, then post the same guide here with a disclaimer regarding editing at the beginning and a link to the guide at WOTC so people can check for updates if they wish to.
Hmmm...never used Google docs before. I can certainly take a look (hopefully I'm not too dumb to figure it out - I'm a roleplaying geek - not a computer geek) - it would make it a nice neutral location for an updatable guide.
Thanks for the suggestion!
|
Google docs works well, too; host it on google docs and then link to it in your first post and mention when you update it. It makes printing easier for folks, too.I've been considering that, and there is no easy solution.
I think what I've decided to do is post the guide at WOTC or BG first, then post the same guide here with a disclaimer regarding editing at the beginning and a link to the guide at WOTC so people can check for updates if they wish to.
Hmmm...never used Google docs before. I can certainly take a look (hopefully I'm not too dumb to figure it out - I'm a roleplaying geek - not a computer geek) - it would make it a nice neutral location for an updatable guide.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Yes I greatly enjoyed your guides. Many of the guides taught me new ways to think about things. They helped turn me from a blaster mage into something more intelligent.
if we can't have a CO board, no reason we can't post guides. If there are enough they will make a forum if not, oh well...I guess we are the minority. I need to play these classes more before I give educated opinions.
So ummmm, get crackin'! I wanna see a bard handbook!
You must have burned this into my brain. Work on the Bard Handbook has begun. I'm expecting to have it up within the week.
Minstrelinthegallery: I don't know how I missed your question earlier on - yes, I will be posting on Gleemax as well.
|
|
So ummmm, get crackin'! I wanna see a bard handbook!You must have burned this into my brain. Work on the Bard Handbook has begun. I'm expecting to have it up within the week.
Minstrelinthegallery: I don't know how I missed your question earlier on - yes, I will be posting on Gleemax as well.
Yeah! I think doing the classes that seem to be the least popular first would be cool and draw people into roles that they may not really consider because of popular opinions such as "Bards suck" or "Monks are a flurry of misses".
I tend to try to play the "lesser" character classes whenever possible and am looking forward to playing a bard soon in either PRPG or 3.5.Can you link to your 3.5 bard handbook?
True, the bard needs a handbook more than the wizard, as the wizard has seen the least changes and everyone already knows wizards can be good. So a guide to being an awesome bard would probably be used more.
I'm actually in the camp that the bard is more of an attractive option now- the nerfs it got are okay. Seriously. The DC versus a 3.5 bard fascinate was just silly-brokenly high. Also the whole able to play songs all day was unnecessary- my 17th level bard uses about 6 of his use attempts. Withthe new system you should be covered, the only beef is that you can't play two songs at once-which is a nerf. BUT now you can cast spells while singing- and Inspire Courage+Irresitable Dance is better than Inspire Courage+Inspire Greatness. Still being able to have two song effects at once would be nice...any way I digress- yeah, bard guide +1.
Well, I've been playing with Google Document and am happy with it. I'll be posting a link to the Google Doc at the beginning of the guide, allowing me to edit, and use color and images. I'll just post plain text here with some bolding and spacing to make it readable.
Guides are important for wizards primarily because there are so many spell options that if you can get them altogether and evalute them against each other, it makes it easier for spell selection. The guide isn't to convince anyone that the class is the best option, but to make the build process easy and effective.
Besides, wizards have always been my favorite class to play, and therefore, I have more personal interest in Wizard Guides naturally. However, in a new campaign I'm playing a Bard, so my personal interest drifts in that direction currently ;)
Bards are a whole different ballgame since the tactics to make an effective Bard are a bit more complex. They need to mix spellcasting with attacks and Bardic Music to be effective. So often you hear that "Bard's suck", and then the typical response is, "Bard's are good at what they do." without any explanation. The obvious response to that I would think is, "Yes, they are good at sucking." We need to look at how a Bard can mix their various abilities to be consistantly effective, rather than a crappy spellcaster and meleer built into one mediocre package.
3.5 splatbooks made Bards far more effective. 9th level spellcasting, inspire courage bonuses in the 20's, and DC's for facinate which were insane. That's before you get into Diplomancer options. However, when dealing with core, then you need to approach the build carefully, plan out what you are going to do with your Bard to be effective. For this reason (and to discuss how to play the Bard tactically effective rather than as a crappy sorcerer) I think a Bard guide is especially appropriate as my initial Pathfinder Handbook.
Personally, I can think of 3 ways to make a Bard effectively in Pathfinder core. I'll go through each in the Handbook. If I think of more ways to make an effective Bard - I'll have more than 3 when I post it.
I don't have a 3.5 Bard Handbook. If you do a Google Search, I know that at least one exists - though I don't know if it was ever finished.
My advice if you are playing Pathfinder, but 3.5 sources are allowed, check out Knowledge Devotion in Complete Champion. Then look at the changes to Bardic Knowledge in Pathfinder. Then laugh maniacally. :D
I have to say, if you're trying to make the point that COers would never post contentiously or insultingly, then comparing people who don't like CO to country-club racists in your third post seems like a funny way to go about that. You don't think that might be a little contentious, insulting, or intolerant?
I don't think that anyone objects to the more benign forms of character "optimization". As a person who enjoys playing wizards, I've posted in many threads where people are trying to figure out how to make a more effective or fun wizard character. But it's the sort of exercise where reasonably people can disagree about varying tradeoffs, different characters will be more or less effective in different campaigns or situations, and different people enjoy different aspects of characters. And there's always the most important rule.
OTOH lots of people genuinely dislike the more pernicious aspects of character "optimization". Even that "10 Commandments of Practical Optimization" reads like a screed against the worst aspects of "optimization": dumpster-diving splatbooks to make broken combos and Pun-Pun, rules lawyering over "RAW", ignoring design intent and pointlessly exploiting ambiguity, and in general scorning common sense when interpreting the rules. That's from the DEFENSE of "optimization" that you linked to.
I suspect that it all derives from the term "optimizing", which to some extent implies that only "optimized" characters are worth playing, and non-min-maxed or organically developed characters (not developed within the framework of an "optimized build") just suck.
I think a lot of posters are afraid that setting up a subforum for "CharOp" will not encourage the positive part (helping people have fun with the game) but will encourage the negative part (pointless, nonsensical rules arguments).
I think it would be wrong to call people interested in helping others enjoy the game "rotten apples"... but perhaps some of those who have been perma-banned from multiple sites due to their behavior deserve the appellation.
EDIT
Advice on playing a bard may be a good choice, because it is a class fewer people enjoy, and has changed somewhat more in Pathfinder.
Thank you for your response Goblin Witchlord,
I have to say, if you're trying to make the point that COers would never post contentiously or insultingly, then comparing people who don't like CO to country-club racists in your third post seems like a funny way to go about that. You don't think that might be a little contentious, insulting, or intolerant?
I would never compare someone I don't know to a country-club racist, and if that's the way I come across, I apologize to any who took it that way.
Instead I was comparing the behavior of intolerance to other intolerant behaviors, using the exclusive club as an example. The behavior was unacceptable, and I was pointing out why.
As for COers never posting insultingly, I wouldn't claim that either. CO is a big community, and I'm no spokesman for everyone. Personally, I try to avoid personal insults in my posts, I certainly enjoy debate, but I don't enjoy fights.
As for posting contentiously, I would be a huge hypocrite if I claimed that COers don't do that, since I post contentiously all the time. I like to play devil's advocate, and consider myself a philosophical skeptic, so posting contentiously is something I've done regularly, even in this thread. I don't think there is anything wrong with controversy, because it tends to create dialouge (edit: DIALOGUE - wow - next I'll be playing a rouge!!!), which brings communication and understanding.
I don't think that anyone objects to the more benign forms of character "optimization". As a person who enjoys playing wizards, I've posted in many threads where people are trying to figure out how to make a more effective or fun wizard character. But it's the sort of exercise where reasonably people can disagree about varying tradeoffs, different characters will be more or less effective in different campaigns or situations, and different people enjoy different aspects of characters.
I'm not sure that some posters would even think there is such a thing as "benign" optimization. I'm hoping by posting a few handbooks, that the culture will change with exposure. I think I will label the handbooks "(optimization)" because I'm not sure they would even be recognized as such...I guess just to be "contentious" ;)
And there's always the most important rule.
Your link took me to Pathfinder preview #14...I'm guessing it was supposed to take me elsewhere...
OTOH lots of people genuinely dislike the more pernicious aspects of character "optimization".
Myself included. I am a huge ascriber to the 10 commandments of practical optimization, and bring it up regularly when I think it's been ignored.
Though I must say I don't necessarily dislike the people who do it, I consider them "Theoretical" optimizers, I just like to ensure that it is recognized as Theoretical, not as a way to make your DM not want you in his group anymore!
At WOTC there used to be a seperate "Theoretical Optimization" forum, and when I would tell people that their post should be posted there instead of the main forum, the response amusingly was nearly always, "But nobody goes to that forum."
dumpster-diving splatbooks to make broken combos and Pun-Pun, rules lawyering over "RAW", ignoring design intent and pointlessly exploiting ambiguity, and in general scorning common sense when interpreting the rules. That's from the DEFENSE of "optimization" that you linked to.
If you've read the Pun-Pun thread, you will know that Khan the Destroyer was a huge fan of civility in posting, and also that he specifically pointed out Pun-Pun as a "thought exercise" and that Pun-Pun was not intended to ever see actual gameplay.
Khan had NO tolerance for nasty or snobbish COers, and would call them on it publicly. He was a class act, though I haven't seen him post in years now.
I suspect that it all derives from the term "optimizing", which to some extent implies that only "optimized" characters are worth playing, and non-min-maxed or organically developed characters (not developed within the framework of an "optimized build") just suck.
Are we talking about these characters sucking mechanically, or that they suck to play? I think those are two different questions.
Optimization is mechanical, and has nothing to do with character concept. If character optimization meant you should always make the best character mechanically possible, then class handbooks wouldn't exist, you would just need to post one build - with the heading "Copy this exactly".
I think a lot of posters are afraid that setting up a subforum for "CharOp" will not encourage the positive part (helping people have fun with the game) but will encourage the negative part (pointless, nonsensical rules arguments).
And that's a fair concern. However, if such a culture does come to these boards, then it is better to be in a seperate forum than in "General Discussion".
However, I agree with previous posters that the best thing to do is start posting the handbooks in general discussion and see if we can't build up a positive CO community here, and only worry about a seperate Forum if the number of CO posts warrants it's own home.
In the meantime, there is this nice handy reminder of the CoC right below the posting box that is enforceable, and can be used to get rid of those that ignore it, whether they be COers or not.
I think it would be wrong to call people interested in helping others enjoy the game "rotten apples"... but perhaps some of those...
Without a doubt, and certainly, some have NO interest in helping others as well, but are more interested in soothing their own fragile egos. Again though, I think the majority of that type of COer was already through here during the BETA test, and are likely gone for good.
I'm told there are posters seeking delicious baked goods in this thread. You're in luck, I made a fresh batch of cookies tonight. How does thick, chewy peanut butter and dark chocolate chip cookies with toasted walnuts and hazelnuts sound? :)
*offers virtual cookies*
Welcome to the boards Treantmonk and kyrt-ryder. :)
|
|
Well Treantmonk, your first few posts in this thread really gave me a sour opinion of the way you put things, but after reading the rest of the thread I'd say you recovered fairly nicely.
You might want to stray away from exaggerated simile's in these parts; I've found that they'll earn you nothing but scorn. I'd make two recommendations for the boards:
1) Try to stray away from making statements that can be interpreted as insults to others on the boards.
2) Do not try to find insults in other people's statements that could just as easily be explained as a poorly worded generalization.
If you keep those in mind you'll find many friendly people who might be against CO, but are willing to discuss it without insult-hurling! Such as me!
I am of the opinion that people (as a group) are stupid and hopeless. Individual persons, however, are usually reasonably bright and easy to get along with. See the difference?
The same could be said about the group of optimizers vs. individuals who optimize. You seem like my kind of guy, and I can understand a lot of your reasoning. Character optimizers in general, though, give off a fairly negative vibe.
This says nothing of the individual, because a group is more than the sum of its parts.
I'm all for what Vic said. Start a CO thread for a character, and see what happens. You're just well spoken (after the first few posts anyway :P) enough that you might make a believer out of me.
I'm told there are posters seeking delicious baked goods in this thread. You're in luck, I made a fresh batch of cookies tonight. How does thick, chewy peanut butter and dark chocolate chip cookies with toasted walnuts and hazelnuts sound? :)
*offers virtual cookies*
Welcome to the boards Treantmonk and kyrt-ryder. :)
Sounds interesting *takes a bite* mmmmm...thanks.
Well Treantmonk, your first few posts in this thread really gave me a sour opinion of the way you put things, but after reading the rest of the thread I'd say you recovered fairly nicely.
You might want to stray away from exaggerated simile's in these parts; I've found that they'll earn you nothing but scorn. I'd make two recommendations for the boards:
1) Try to stray away from making statements that can be interpreted as insults to others on the boards.
2) Do not try to find insults in other people's statements that could just as easily be explained as a poorly worded generalization.If you keep those in mind you'll find many friendly people who might be against CO, but are willing to discuss it without insult-hurling! Such as me!
I am of the opinion that people (as a group) are stupid and hopeless. Individual persons, however, are usually reasonably bright and easy to get along with. See the difference?
The same could be said about the group of optimizers vs. individuals who optimize. You seem like my kind of guy, and I can understand a lot of your reasoning. Character optimizers in general, though, give off a fairly negative vibe.
This says nothing of the individual, because a group is more than the sum of its parts.
I'm all for what Vic said. Start a CO thread for a character, and see what happens. You're just well spoken (after the first few posts anyway :P) enough that you might make a believer out of me.
Overall, I've found the majority of responses overwhelmingly welcoming.
My Bard Handbook is a bit over 50% done. I have the spell section and then some organization and formatting. Hopefully I will have it up within a week, I think a lot of people won't even recognize it as character optimization, as there definitely is a stereotype floating around that I don't think applies to the reality.
When I do put it up, I'll post here with a link. Hopefully you'll check it out and respond with what you think...
|
|
Overall, I've found the majority of responses overwhelmingly welcoming.
My Bard Handbook is a bit over 50% done. I have the spell section and then some organization and formatting. Hopefully I will have it up within a week, I think a lot of people won't even recognize it as character optimization, as there definitely is a stereotype floating around that I don't think applies to the reality.
When I do put it up, I'll post here with a link. Hopefully you'll check it out and respond with what you think...
I look forward to it, and I'll keep my mind open while reading it.
|
What is this thread all about.
Edit: I do not even comprehend why anyone would want a so-called character optimization board? Sounds like a throw-back to the munchkin training grounds of 2002-2005. Haven't we determined already that the spirit of the game lives on, and those who do extreme optimal builds tend to cause discomfort for most players looking to have fun and don't wish to watch the one person who seeks loopholes in the rules continue to botch every potentially balanced scenario?
I've said this before.... The ability to exploit grey areas or gaps in the rules or optimize a character to the point that even the GM doesn't have the time to analyze all the complex ways you did so, doesn't make you a good player, it just demonstrates you don't "get it".
Now, if "character optimization" if that is what we're talking about is something different that this, please explain. I'm actually pretty open minded and would love to learn.
Good post P.V. - I would be glad to elaborate!
What is this thread all about.
I make "Handbooks" which is a form of optimization where you take a character type and go through the different options to help someone make an "optimized" build (I'll better explain "optimized" soon). I want to make handbooks for Pathfinder (which I now play), and was not sure where they could be posted. That question has been answered. Now I'm just responding to posts in the thread.
I go over race options, feat options, spell options and go over tactical advice. There is a lot of information, and the hope is that it will make character building easier for those who use it, as well as promote discussion, where I can get the aid of the various readers who may find any mistakes I've made, offer differring opinions, or different ideas.
Then selfishly, I can use the handbook as a quick reference guide for my own characters. (Which is why I tend to make handbooks for the character types I'm currently playing).
For example - when my Wizard gains a level and gets to add 2 spells to his spellbook, I sometimes forget what I thought of one spell or another, so I can reference my handbook for a quick overview of what the spell does, and whether in my own opinion it does what was advertised. Then I can make my selections much easier than if I had to pour over all the (overwhelmingly large) spell options avaiable.
Edit: I do not even comprehend why anyone would want a so-called character optimization board? Sounds like a throw-back to the munchkin training grounds of 2002-2005. Haven't we determined already that the spirit of the game lives on, and those who do extreme optimal builds tend to cause discomfort for most players looking to have fun and don't wish to watch the one person who seeks loopholes in the rules continue to botch every potentially balanced scenario?
Using a character that exploits rule gaps or infinite loops or badly worded rules in order to achieve power to overshadow the rest of the group is power-gaming, and I don't support it at all.
Finding these rule gaps, infinite loops or badly worded rules to see who can make the character with the highest charge damage, or spell damage, or diplomacy score isn't negative in itself IMO (although I'm not good at that kind of optimization) and is called "Theoretical Optimization" primarily because it is just for the fun of seeing how far you can take the rules, and is not intended for gameplay. Personally, this isn't my style of optimization, but again, theoretical optimization is not intended to see life past the discussion boards.
I've said this before.... The ability to exploit grey areas or gaps in the rules or optimize a character to the point that even the GM doesn't have the time to analyze all the complex ways you did so, doesn't make you a good player, it just demonstrates you don't "get it".
The kind of optimization I do is called "Practical optimization" and is the kind of optimization that you are going to see in handbooks.
An example of practical optimization would be to let you know that "Empower" metamagic is more efficient than "Maximize" in most cases, or to let you know that Elf has become a really good race for Wizards in Pathfinder because the attribute bonuses hit the right stats and the +2 to overcome spell resistance.
In my Wizards handbook, I recommend using spells that control the battlefield, like fogs, walls or positioning spells over "blasts" like fireball, since a Wizard is better at controlling the battlefield then other classes, but worse at doing damage. I point out that if you can use your spell to put the fighter and rogue in a position to flank attack an enemy, they will be able to do more damage than you could have if you had used an offensive spell instead.
In my Bard Handbook, I will be discussing 3 styles of Bard that are tactically effective in your group (an archer/bard, melee bard and controller bard depending on the makeup of the rest of the party), and discuss how to make these bards work effectively with a mix of martial and spellcasting, and which roles in the party they can effectively fill, and which they can't.
Now, if "character optimization" if that is what we're talking about is something different that this, please explain. I'm actually pretty open minded and would love to learn.
I'm hoping my first handbook up here (will be in the "general discussion" forum), will get lots of replies, either positive or constructive. Hopefully you will check it out, judge for yourself, and let me know if it is the type of project you support or not.
|
|
Okay - sounds reasonable. And, you've appealed to my need for learning how your material is different. If it is in-step with the kind of thing you would find in a PAIZO book, or like kind, I will have a look at your item with the caveat: please avoid the word "controller" and like kind such as "artillery", "battery" etc.
The optimizing step you're taking does seem to provide insight, yet could potentially cater to an audience who's ostensibly playing blackjack (a tactical minis game) against the dealer (the GM). In immersive tabletop games, or even light roleplaying games, I'm very much opposed (as you may have guessed) to power gamers, munchkins, min-maxers, and the like. Sometimes even the theoretical builds and power-builds you've described (and knowledge of them) can do more harm than good for any one particular aggregate cross-mix of players. That is, rarely does a good GM find a homogenous group of like-minded players. As such, tools that exploit the rules, as you already know, in the hands of even poor player are a like a nuclear weapon if misused (a bad apple can spoil the bunch). The shift from class-based teamwork toward individualistic tactical approaches to combat, such as those used in and adorated by 4e, are of zero interest to me.
However, as you have taken the time to explain, you are offering something that may actually help someone play Pathfinder. I will humbly reserve judgment until I have a look to see just how close you get to revealing the smoke and mirrors, or speak the ineffable "unspoken" rules of game play. I'm sure you can appreciate this position, and I thank you for your clear civility and positive intention.
---Pax
|
Hey Treantmonk plays PF, sweet. I loved your handbooks, they made my friend´s wizard much better accepted (nobody likes his ¨i nlow everything up¨ approach).
I will look forward to the bard handbook, and I really hope it includes info from all the PFRPG books available (even the ones I don´t have) so I know what to look for for my next purchase.
Really for those who have never seen Treantmonk´s handbooks, they are a great semi compendium of neat stuff for any given class. And even if you´re not shooting for something optimized just looking through them helps to find exactly what you need for your character to become (mechanically) what you envision.
Big welcome.
|
|
i play nuking sorcerers who use exotic damage types, angel blooded white mage clerics w/ espadas, and rogues that exploit thier youthful exterior to thier advantage. i also whipped together a Mayuri Kurotsuchi minded Unseen Seer. (at lvl 20; spell slots of a 19th lvl diviner, CL21st acid, CL25th divination CL20th everything else. 7d6 sneak attack banned enchantment) basically i had to plot to the degree of Light Yagami, Mayuri Kurotsuchi, Lelouch Lamperouge, and Bruce Wayne combined. he survived by being several steps ahead of the enemy. he always had a countermeasure for everything. he was also a paranoid scientist. scientist first, scholar second, tactician third, wizard fourth almost all else last.
i play nuking sorcerers who use exotic damage types, angel blooded white mage clerics w/ espadas, and rogues that exploit thier youthful exterior to thier advantage. i also whipped together a Mayuri Kurotsuchi minded Unseen Seer. (at lvl 20; spell slots of a 19th lvl diviner, CL21st acid, CL25th divination CL20th everything else. 7d6 sneak attack banned enchantment) basically i had to plot to the degree of Light Yagami, Mayuri Kurotsuchi, Lelouch Lamperouge, and Bruce Wayne combined. he survived by being several steps ahead of the enemy. he always had a countermeasure for everything. he was also a paranoid scientist. scientist first, scholar second, tactician third, wizard fourth almost all else last.
OK. Hard to understand much of your post. I agree that divination can be very useful as a means to prepare for a battle.
Unseen Seer is a pretty good PrC, very versatile in ability, the main drawback is the difficulty in qualifying. Great divination abilities though, and advances skills nicely.
Is this intended as a question, comment or just experience sharing?
Awesome, Treantmonk is here! Loved your 3.5 handbooks, they were a huge help when it came to Feat and Spell selection, and the manner in which you would present multiple paths to achieving certain thematic goals with a character were pretty great too. I look forward to seeing how you approach the changes in Pathfinder.
Awesome, Treantmonk is here! Loved your 3.5 handbooks, they were a huge help when it came to Feat and Spell selection, and the manner in which you would present multiple paths to achieving certain thematic goals with a character were pretty great too. I look forward to seeing how you approach the changes in Pathfinder.
Thanks! (To you and all those who have posted support that I have not personally thanked.)
I'm very pleased with the response on these boards overall, overwhelmingly positive so far.
Currently I'm going through the Bard Spells (I will evaluate them all), which is a pretty big job (takes me around 5 mins to evaluate a spell, and there are literally hundreds to go through). I'm about halfway right now.
However, once the spells are done, the handbook will just need some polish and it will be ready to post as I've already finished all the other aspects of Bard creation. Looking forward to seeing the response - especially from those to whom handbooks are a new idea.