If that's really true, then we can move even farther from build balance. If we define "shining" as the player feeling that they've done their job effectively, had fun doing so, and not felt slighted at the table, then they don't have to have the power to save everybody's bacon or be the center of attention. All a class needs to be able to do is contribute, not dominate or even be equal.
Not true, some of us don't care about shine. We just want to contribute, and live. You dont have to shine to contribute. Support can be a thankless job. I think balance is everyone having fun, but not everyone's fun is the same.
What I was saying is shine is not the universal equivalent of fun. I don't care if I never get spot lighted. I do like to be valuable though. As an example I had a sorcerer that buffed, and locked enemies down. I only got one kill out of over 50 enemies, but the group would have suffered if he were not there. Since he was not the one doing damage he never got any real attention though.
Not true, some of us don't care about shine. We just want to contribute, and live. You dont have to shine to contribute. Support can be a thankless job. I think balance is everyone having fun, but not everyone's fun is the same.and let the GM worry about balance.There are quite a lot of things that DM must be worried about while running a game, and I would love not having to worry if my players are breaking the game.Balance is making sure every character has a chance to shine.
If you aren't worried about balance, I wouldn't want to be in your game, frankly. Everything else is secondary to everyone at the table having fun.
Fair point. However, I did say *I* wouldn't want to be in yoru game.
I don't much like playing with people who don't want to shine. It turns the game into an "all about me" thing which I find boring.This is only describing my game style, not meant to denigrate anyone else'.
When I DM I give others a chance to shine, because they like it, but as a player I only care about contributing. I hate to be the XP blackhole*.
*The player that never does anything useful. Almost all of us have played with this player or seen them in action.
PS: That does not mean I never get any attention. I just don't care about it.
I know finding a good DM isn't easy. I moved to DC awhile back and all I've found, so far, are the kind of players we all know and fear.
However, I keep going back to a simple irrefutable fact. "Balance" is determined by GM style, not game mechanics. So, ultimately, if a GM doesn't know how to balance a game (more likely, he thinks he does know how, but thinks his game is balanced already), there's nothing you can do about it other than a little social persuasion.
I disagree, but only insofar as I think it is also a matter of play style as well as GM style.
I think there are many definitions of balance; I think that in general for me it is all about being able to contribute usefully to the party's success. This can be in buffing, it can be in combat, in can be in other areas, the important thing is that the character is contributing. However, this depends on a lot of factors: if the DM is running a game focussed purely on dungeon crawls, a well built 'face' character who specialises in social interactions is going to feel sidelined. In an intrigue and politics based game, a barbarian is going to feel sidelined.
There is combat balance, role balance, and many other forms of balance. A lot depends on the style of game that the DM and the players have in mind, and how they like to play.
And what I'm saying is that, while Paizo can come up with new feats, spells, etc., they can't balance them against their own product without making certain assumptions about how every GM is going to run their game - such assumptions which are inevitably false.I don't know if we are really talking about the same thing here, but what I meant was that I really trust Paizo more to come up with new feats, spells, etc. which are balanced against their own product, rather than allowing back 3.5 stuff which was pretty broken even back then.Paizo -can't- rebalance your game. The reason is that "balance" has everything to do with play style. For example, assume a character who, due to feat selection and so forth, is absolutely unbeatable at sneaking around.
Well, if you've got 6 players at your table and 5 of them don't want to take any time to sneak around, then the 6th who is the sneak expert has gone from being a superstar to being er not a superstar.
That's not really true, IMO. There are certain things which Paizo can balance very well without knowing an individual game, like not making new blaster spells clearly better than other blaster spells of their level or not having PrCs and base classes being always the better choice than other base classes.
That's not really true, IMO. There are certain things which Paizo can balance very well without knowing an individual game, like not making new blaster spells clearly better than other blaster spells of their level or not having PrCs and base classes being always the better choice than other base classes.
Sort of. It largely depends on what you consider to be "very well". There are a lot of caveats that you need to apply. Suppose, for example, Paizo were to come up with a sonic variation on the fireball - Thunderball. Given that there are few monsters with sonic resistance, d6/level is too good. So they step it down to d4/level, cap of 10 dice still in effect. That may balance it for a lot of game tables.
For a game set in Limbo, with a lot of slaadi running around with their sonic immunity, the spell is now weak.
It's because of similar factors that Paizo can probably only ballpark it and, even then, with further developments in the system (like the addition of lots of sonic-resistant creatures) the balance is likely to drift. That's a significant part of the problem with polymorph and wideshape. It was difficult, once the powers were developed, to keep further developments of monsters from making balance problems with polymorph worse.
I compare the issue to GMing a game like Champions or Mutants and Masterminds. Limitations on powers can be a good way of reducing costs, but they're all based on certain assumptions on how frequently will the limitation come into play. It's up to the GM to make that limitation come up in correct proportion to the cost savings. If the limitation becomes too common, the character gets the nerf bat. If it doesn't come up enough, the character is too good. The same is true with D&D and build balance issues.
I think being in the ballpark for build balance is still a good thing because it makes the DM's job a bit easier. But there's no way to completely remove the DM's impact, nor should the build rules try to do so.
That's not really true, IMO. There are certain things which Paizo can balance very well without knowing an individual game, like not making new blaster spells clearly better than other blaster spells of their level or not having PrCs and base classes being always the better choice than other base classes.And what I'm saying is that, while Paizo can come up with new feats, spells, etc., they can't balance them against their own product without making certain assumptions about how every GM is going to run their game - such assumptions which are inevitably false.I don't know if we are really talking about the same thing here, but what I meant was that I really trust Paizo more to come up with new feats, spells, etc. which are balanced against their own product, rather than allowing back 3.5 stuff which was pretty broken even back then.Paizo -can't- rebalance your game. The reason is that "balance" has everything to do with play style. For example, assume a character who, due to feat selection and so forth, is absolutely unbeatable at sneaking around.
Well, if you've got 6 players at your table and 5 of them don't want to take any time to sneak around, then the 6th who is the sneak expert has gone from being a superstar to being er not a superstar.
Well, what they can do is "balance" new content against the Core Rulebook, which is all that I expect from them regarding balance.
That's not really true, IMO. There are certain things which Paizo can balance very well without knowing an individual game, like not making new blaster spells clearly better than other blaster spells of their level or not having PrCs and base classes being always the better choice than other base classes.Sort of. It largely depends on what you consider to be "very well". There are a lot of caveats that you need to apply. Suppose, for example, Paizo were to come up with a sonic variation on the fireball - Thunderball. Given that there are few monsters with sonic resistance, d6/level is too good. So they step it down to d4/level, cap of 10 dice still in effect. That may balance it for a lot of game tables.
For a game set in Limbo, with a lot of slaadi running around with their sonic immunity, the spell is now weak.
Yeah, but nobody forces a mage to use sonic spells against sonic-immune monsters.
The spell, however, is balanced against all other types of monsters and therefore not strictly better as a "d6" version of it would have been. That's balance. Unless you play a Sorcerer and got an insane DM who chooses your spells for you. :p
Well, what they can do is "balance" new content against the Core Rulebook, which is all that I expect from them regarding balance.
That's exactly what I meant. :)
That's not really true, IMO. There are certain things which Paizo can balance very well without knowing an individual game, like not making new blaster spells clearly better than other blaster spells of their level or not having PrCs and base classes being always the better choice than other base classes.Sort of. It largely depends on what you consider to be "very well". There are a lot of caveats that you need to apply. Suppose, for example, Paizo were to come up with a sonic variation on the fireball - Thunderball. Given that there are few monsters with sonic resistance, d6/level is too good. So they step it down to d4/level, cap of 10 dice still in effect. That may balance it for a lot of game tables.
For a game set in Limbo, with a lot of slaadi running around with their sonic immunity, the spell is now weak.
Yeah, but nobody forces a mage to use sonic spells against sonic-immune monsters.
The spell, however, is balanced against all other types of monsters and therefore not strictly better as a "d6" version of it would have been. That's balance. Unless you play a Sorcerer and got an insane DM who chooses your spells for you. :p
Well, what they can do is "balance" new content against the Core Rulebook, which is all that I expect from them regarding balance.That's exactly what I meant. :)
I was agreeing with you. Sorry, I was using your post as the sum-up, I should have said so.
One thing people may (or may not) be aware of is that Spelllike Abilities are very different than 3.5 now, see this thread below and you'll see why.
Spell-like Abilities & Counterspelling/Identifying
Spellcraft no longer requires you to 'see' somantic or 'hear' verbal components to spells being cast, it just requires you to 'see' the character period much like a Perception check with Perception based modifiers.
That being said, Spell-like Abilities can be counterspelled normally, and you need Spellcraft, not Knowledge (Arcana) to do that.
I personally think they bracketed spells/spelllike abilities for ease of play in this manner by having both as easy to identify as the other.
One thing people may (or may not) be aware of is that Spelllike Abilities are very different than 3.5 now, see this thread below and you'll see why.
Spell-like Abilities & Counterspelling/Identifying
Spellcraft no longer requires you to 'see' somantic or 'hear' verbal components to spells being cast, it just requires you to 'see' the character period much like a Perception check with Perception based modifiers.
That being said, Spell-like Abilities can be counterspelled normally, and you need Spellcraft, not Knowledge (Arcana) to do that.I personally think they bracketed spells/spelllike abilities for ease of play in this manner by having both as easy to identify as the other.
Not true. I see an assumption based on silent and still spells, but an SLA is not a silent, stilled spell.
Not true. I see an assumption based on silent and still spells, but an SLA is not a silent, stilled spell.One thing people may (or may not) be aware of is that Spelllike Abilities are very different than 3.5 now, see this thread below and you'll see why.
Spell-like Abilities & Counterspelling/Identifying
Spellcraft no longer requires you to 'see' somantic or 'hear' verbal components to spells being cast, it just requires you to 'see' the character period much like a Perception check with Perception based modifiers.
That being said, Spell-like Abilities can be counterspelled normally, and you need Spellcraft, not Knowledge (Arcana) to do that.I personally think they bracketed spells/spelllike abilities for ease of play in this manner by having both as easy to identify as the other.
Your right to some extent...but read the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder in regards to Spelllike Abilities.
3.5 says they cant be counterspelled and cant be used to counterspell.
In Pathfinder there is no such distinction.
Spellcraft says all you have to do is 'see' the person who is casting the spell in the act, it doesnt matter HOW its done, you get the roll. Read the Pathfinder writeup on Spellcraft and compare it to 3.5 as well as the Spellike Ability writeups, theyre TOTALLY different. Pathfinder overrules 3.5 in any related/similar areas and unfortunately this is one of them.
I guess they did it to simplify the magic system to some degree.
Not true. I see an assumption based on silent and still spells, but an SLA is not a silent, stilled spell.One thing people may (or may not) be aware of is that Spelllike Abilities are very different than 3.5 now, see this thread below and you'll see why.
Spell-like Abilities & Counterspelling/Identifying
Spellcraft no longer requires you to 'see' somantic or 'hear' verbal components to spells being cast, it just requires you to 'see' the character period much like a Perception check with Perception based modifiers.
That being said, Spell-like Abilities can be counterspelled normally, and you need Spellcraft, not Knowledge (Arcana) to do that.I personally think they bracketed spells/spelllike abilities for ease of play in this manner by having both as easy to identify as the other.
Your right to some extent...but read the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder in regards to Spelllike Abilities.
3.5 says they cant be counterspelled and cant be used to counterspell.
In Pathfinder there is no such distinction.
Spellcraft says all you have to do is 'see' the person who is casting the spell in the act, it doesnt matter HOW its done, you get the roll. Read the Pathfinder writeup on Spellcraft and compare it to 3.5 as well as the Spellike Ability writeups, theyre TOTALLY different. Pathfinder overrules 3.5 in any related/similar areas and unfortunately this is one of them.
I guess they did it to simplify the magic system to some degree.
I took my debate to the other thread so as to not derail this one.
Alright, I am officially confused now, the Core Rulebook contradicts itself. I just found a second entry in the Core Rulebook for Spellike Abilities and its confusing as hell...
Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Pathfinder Rulebook.
Spellike Abilities (Sp)Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component.
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.
NOW EVEN MORE CONFUSING... (And is found on the SRD as well)
Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Pathfinder Rulebook.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
Now I am officially confused, two entries contradict one another in Pathfinders main rulebook...theres a problem right there.
Oh s$!~, you're right.
|
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?
This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
My recommendation: if you run one of Paizo's "adventure's paths" or "Pathfinder modules" specifically written for PFRGP, go Pathfinder. If you want to use older Paizo material, or pretty much anything written specifically for 3.5, run it under the ruleset IT was written for - 3.5.
Seriously, the less time spent on converting stuff and printing out this stat block and that feat revision, and updating/retro-fitting that NPC's spell list... not worth your time. Did you enjoy the 3.0-->3.5 overhaul and the confusion that reigned at the gametable? Want to have that again? My take: steer clear of it. Make the choice of ruleset entirely depend on what you want to use it with.
I think the real problem is: Too much awesome material and not enough time to enjoy it all. I have all of the Adventure Paths, Modules, and PF Scenario's (over 100 adventures) and I doubt I will ever play half of them. Life is too short.
Agreed! The only solution is for us all to become undead so we can have plenty of time!
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
And that was frankly the biggest amount of crap I have ever read on this game and this company..Thanks for guiding me to site to avoid..I guess I'll stay here with the sheep.
Meeehhhhhhh!!!!
I was agreeing with you. Sorry, I was using your post as the sum-up, I should have said so.
No, no, I wasn't complaining or anything. I just was happy that you summarized my point succinctly. :p
I think the real problem is: Too much awesome material and not enough time to enjoy it all. I have all of the Adventure Paths, Modules, and PF Scenario's (over 100 adventures) and I doubt I will ever play half of them. Life is too short.Agreed! The only solution is for us all to become undead so we can have plenty of time!
I'd prefer a Ring of Sustenance. Most practical magical item ever, if it'd be available in the real world. :p
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
And that was frankly the biggest amount of crap I have ever read on this game and this company..Thanks for guiding me to site to avoid..I guess I'll stay here with the sheep.
Meeehhhhhhh!!!!
Hm, wasn't that Trollman dude kicked off the boards, because he was living out his name a bit too much? ^^ No wonder he sounds so bitter and angry. :p
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
And that was frankly the biggest amount of crap I have ever read on this game and this company..Thanks for guiding me to site to avoid..I guess I'll stay here with the sheep.
Meeehhhhhhh!!!!
Wow. Those people are ... dot dot dot...
EDIT: If you dig around that site, you'll find that some of their ...... are some of OUR .......
Glad to see that some of my thoughts about these people are true.
Replace dots with whatever expletives you want.
|
Windjammer wrote:
Hark wrote:
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
And that was frankly the biggest amount of crap I have ever read on this game and this company..Thanks for guiding me to site to avoid..I guess I'll stay here with the sheep.
Meeehhhhhhh!!!!
Yeah I ended up there once after a friend mentioned the site to me, and saw a Pathfinder thread. Shew! Now I know how the cops who have to dumpster dive feel when they finally come out. I mean, I know gamers have strong opinions about things, but holy hell, its supposed to be entertainment, not a debate about national security or prayers in school. The really messed up thing is that I found myself continuing to read, hoping it would get better, and having a hard time stopping. Alas, it was sort of like a trainwreck that you can't look away from...
Yeah I ended up there once after a friend mentioned the site to me, and saw a Pathfinder thread. Shew! Now I know how the cops who have to dumpster dive feel when they finally come out. I mean, I know gamers have strong opinions about things, but holy hell, its supposed to be entertainment, not a debate about national security or prayers in school. The really messed up thing is that I found myself continuing to read, hoping it would get better, and having a hard time stopping. Alas, it was sort of like a trainwreck that you can't look away from...
The freedom of speech can be really f*@~ed up sometimes.
The site is good for one thing... learning CUSS WORDS! They LOVE CUSSING!
Yeah I ended up there once after a friend mentioned the site to me, and saw a Pathfinder thread. Shew! Now I know how the cops who have to dumpster dive feel when they finally come out. I mean, I know gamers have strong opinions about things, but holy hell, its supposed to be entertainment, not a debate about national security or prayers in school. The really messed up thing is that I found myself continuing to read, hoping it would get better, and having a hard time stopping. Alas, it was sort of like a trainwreck that you can't look away from...
Wow, yeah. They sound so bitter and angry. But I stopped reading after the first page, I guess I am not in the mood for sifting through angry peoples exposition today.
Wow, yeah. They sound so bitter and angry. But I stopped reading after the first page, I guess I am not in the mood for sifting through angry peoples exposition today.
I can't stop reading! It's like a message board comprised completely of trolls! I've never seen the like.
Wow, yeah. They sound so bitter and angry. But I stopped reading after the first page, I guess I am not in the mood for sifting through angry peoples exposition today.I can't stop reading! It's like a message board comprised completely of trolls! I've never seen the like.
Gah, couldn't help myself and I read the last three pages. Asides from Trollmans propensity to excessively refer to genitals, I am amused to see that at least one or two regulars from here are over there, too. ^^
|
*salutes*
Edit: Before the bashing goes much further, just a reminder that we're not here to bash other posters or other forums. We can all have our opinions of each other. The Den policed itself about commenting on the Paizo forums, and I'm sure the staff here don't want to see a bog of Den-hate threads.
...
Sorry, it's like a shock thing. I'll get over it.
I too gave up after a page..from the mistruths and downright lies on the first post..(was anyone banned by Paizo for offering a proper deconstruction of the rules?..I think not)to the vitriolic comments directed at the designers and the playtesters the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth..
I have now come to accept that the hobby is hopelessly fragmented..ah well so be it
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
My recommendation: if you run one of Paizo's "adventure's paths" or "Pathfinder modules" specifically written for PFRGP, go Pathfinder. If you want to use older Paizo material, or pretty much anything written specifically for 3.5, run it under the ruleset IT was written for - 3.5.
Seriously, the less time spent on converting stuff and printing out this stat block and that feat revision, and updating/retro-fitting that NPC's spell list... not worth your time. Did you enjoy the 3.0-->3.5 overhaul and the confusion that reigned at the gametable? Want to have that again? My take: steer clear of it. Make the choice of ruleset entirely depend on what you want to use it with.
Wow! What a bunch of good 'ol fashioned malarkey! This reads like one of those mysterious emails that tells all the deep dark secrets of ObamaCare and how the gummint is gonna come and hall yer granny away to the "death panel". BS
Most of these claims are inaccurate, over simplified, overstated, or just plain lies!
What do its detractors say they don't like about it?This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
My recommendation: if you run one of Paizo's "adventure's paths" or "Pathfinder modules" specifically written for PFRGP, go Pathfinder. If you want to use older Paizo material, or pretty much anything written specifically for 3.5, run it under the ruleset IT was written for - 3.5.
Seriously, the less time spent on converting stuff and printing out this stat block and that feat revision, and updating/retro-fitting that NPC's spell list... not worth your time. Did you enjoy the 3.0-->3.5 overhaul and the confusion that reigned at the gametable? Want to have that again? My take: steer clear of it. Make the choice of ruleset entirely depend on what you want to use it with.
Wow! What a bunch of good 'ol fashioned malarkey! This reads like one of those mysterious emails that tells all the deep dark secrets of ObamaCare and how the gummint is gonna come and hall yer granny away to the "death panel". BS
Most of these claims are inaccurate, over simplified, overstated, or just plain lies!
Personally I try to avoid claiming someone is lying until I am sure they are deliberately trying to mislead others. A person can make a statement that is in error, that doesn't mean they are lying, they could just be wrong. A child that says 2+3 is 6 isn't necessarily lying, they are probably just wrong.
|
|
Also, I'd recommend checking out the It's My Creation section for some very interesting homebrew classes. I particularly like material by Koumei, and Frank has some good stuff as well. The aWoD material is also interesting to look at, and appears to provide a more coherent and completely thought out take on the WoD material.
I agree, I got some great build and concept info for 3.5 there, so there are useful areas/threads there... just have to steer around the volatile ones... guess I got spoiled here by the low tolerance for heated arguments that turned ugly, probably due to so many Paizo staff on the boards keeping things down to a low simmer :)
It's Frank Trollman. What do you expect?
The guy is like an internet aspergers elemental.
I agree, I got some great build and concept info for 3.5 there, so there are useful areas/threads there... just have to steer around the volatile ones... guess I got spoiled here by the low tolerance for heated arguments that turned ugly, probably due to so many Paizo staff on the boards keeping things down to a low simmer :)Also, I'd recommend checking out the It's My Creation section for some very interesting homebrew classes. I particularly like material by Koumei, and Frank has some good stuff as well. The aWoD material is also interesting to look at, and appears to provide a more coherent and completely thought out take on the WoD material.
One of the advantages of moderated forums, with good moderators who know how to treat the users, of course, is that on them there is seldomly a guy who comes to view such a forum as his personal fiefdom, where he can do whatever he likes.
|
|
I have to agree with TOZ. While there are definitely some people with strongly held opinions and a propensity of dogpiling, there's also some great stuff and insights available there as well.
+1. The breakdown on combat maneuver DCs in that thread still strikes me as very accurate, and if I were DMing Pathfinder at the moment (which I'm not) I'd give players a choice to base CMD on either STR or DEX, but certainly not both - and obviously apply the same to monster stats.
And that's not an isolated instance. Trollman wrote up an alternate sorcerer class for the Pathfinder RPG which I personally find both more flavourful and mechanically more versatile than the one in the book. I'm also looking to his work when getting my mind round on how to fix bards while staying very loyal to 3.5 (see the PDF I created here). I'm sorry, but that Pathfinder bard class is just too much book keeping for me - tracking perform tricks by rounds? why? - and the payoff for that book keeping is too little.
Beyond mechanics, Trollman is capable of writing profound, inspiring material on the background world of D&D. This post, in a nutshell, put all the D&D races into perspective for me in one glance. Which is odd, considering how many years I've been accustomed to them. E.g., I've always loved Eberron but hated warforged - thanks to that post I do so no longer. Warforged are golems, in the Prague'ian sense!
That said, the ratio of insight to vitriol is extremely low on the Den, I understand if people think it's not worth digging through, but the OP asked a simple question and that thread at the Den answers it: this is what Pathfinder's detractors got to say about it as a system.
|
|
That said, the ratio of insight to vitriol is extremely low on the Den, I understand if people think it's not worth digging through, but the OP asked a simple question and that thread at the Den answers it: this is what Pathfinder's detractors got to say about it as a system.
That thread you linked ended up alot like the one in the GitP forums. FatR spouting how the game wasn't what he wanted, and people basically bashing Paizo for not coming up with their ideas for the perfect fix.
In short they were player's telling the GM he's wrong and that the GM should die in a fire for thinking he could do something right.
I think I can easily show some of the larger issues I had with the thread;
This is quite true. However, I think the problem is that they initially began using Pathfinder to refer solely to their own campaign setting, with a series of adventures for 3.5. They then hit upon the idea to make a "just different enough to avoid copyright infringement" version of 3.5 as their own system, and whether through idiocy blinding them to the fact that it's not 3.5 anymore, or possibly legally having to make greater differences, they don't see it as different from 3.5. Soon, I believe, Pathfinder will refer solely to their own campaign setting, but still be proclaimed as being Backwards Compatible with 3.5.
I just want to point out, this guy obviously has no clue as to what the OGL was and furthermore seems to think its perfectly okay to lambast anyone who makes use of it.
The thread is so full of trolls as to make it a horrible way to present your case Wind. I might suggest another thread with a bit more civility, especially when some of the people don't know what they are talking about. It creates two potential situations;
1) The player believes the lies sewn into that thread about PF and chooses not to play a system, knowing only half the truth because these Grognards didn't know the truth themselves...
2) The player decides not to believe anything in the thread and makes an uninformed decision based on the fact that the flagrant flaming in that thread made him disbelieve the argument being made in the first place...
I personally don't care if you wave a list of problems with the system at the OP, but making him put on hip waders to go through that flame fest in order to find a nugget or two is a disservice to your cause.
|
|
Any reference to that particular bit of history is best avoided. For everyone's peace of mind.
The site has a lot of interesting and useful stuff, particularly the guides. As for the angry vitriol, whatever. Everybody has something they care about strongly enough to get red-faced and trembly. In the words of Thomas Szasz, 'Let them scream.'
aspergers elemental.
Regardless of the context, the idea of an Asperger's Elemental is hilarious. I picture Cartman at the end of the South Park movie, as the incarnation of such a thing.
Well, looking at some other threads I found very interesting and useful information about the whole Catalyst thing and, hopefully correct, predictions that 4e is dying soon.
Yeah, I am gleefully anti-4e, what of it? :p
So the board isn't a useless waste of bandwith, that's true. Anyway, it's not as if anyone forces others or me to read it, right? :)
Slight nit-pick in terms of the labels being thrown at those people. Complaining about something isn't trolling when it's the common opinion within that forum. In many ways, the vociferous defenders of Pathfinder on that forum are trolling easily as much as someone from that forum coming here with baseless derision of Pathfinder.
This. It's not a pleasant read, and you'd have to dig through a lot of trough, but you asked for it.
Same old crap, basically. I've heard it all before, usually from people who, to put it mildly, do not have a clue what they are talking about and quickly reveal it. That, or their beef is that Paizo didn't make Pathfinder the game they would have made it if they knew how.
Slight nit-pick in terms of the labels being thrown at those people. Complaining about something isn't trolling when it's the common opinion within that forum. In many ways, the vociferous defenders of Pathfinder on that forum are trolling easily as much as someone from that forum coming here with baseless derision of Pathfinder.
The important word there is baseless. If they are perpetuating untruths or outright lying, or indeed just expressing opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, then they are essentially inviting disagreement. If someone is expressing a counter-opinion as their opinion, presenting factual evidence or anecdotal evidence that they concede is such, then they aren't trolling. Trolling may be relative to an extent, but disagreeing with an opinion in a civilised way is never that.
|
|
If they are perpetuating untruths or outright lying, or indeed just expressing opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, then they are essentially inviting disagreement.
They say what they say on their boards. Yay for them. They don't come over here and bug us (for the most part), and those that do, are usually the best of the lot, offering fun class guides and stuff for us to read.
If *they* can be courteous enough to not come over here and troll us, can't *we* exhibit the same maturity and restraint and not go piss in their pond?
|
|
The important word there is baseless. If they are perpetuating untruths or outright lying, or indeed just expressing opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, then they are essentially inviting disagreement. If someone is expressing a counter-opinion as their opinion, presenting factual evidence or anecdotal evidence that they concede is such, then they aren't trolling. Trolling may be relative to an extent, but disagreeing with an opinion in a civilised way is never that.
In light of this, and Dissinger's reference "the lies sewn into that thread about PF", I'd appreciate people to create a thread where they dissect the Den's thread in light of perceived factual errors therein. Even the short bit above where Dissinger alleges another person misunderstanding the OGL merits discussion.
If nothing else, it would be handy to have a twin reference for people like the OP. The OP asked "what do detractors think about Pathfinder?", and I still think that the Den's thread is the authoritative source on that. A good twin question, which we'd need a handy reference for, would be "Are the detractors' opinions of Pathfinder accurate? A case by case study.".
Finally, the responses to me just linking the thread have been, to put it mildly, rather emotionally charged. Remote diagnosing an internet poster you don't agree with with "asperger" is actually a notch above the insults I have seen in the threads linked to. If you don't like vitriol (I don't) don't indulge in it yourself.
The important word there is baseless. If they are perpetuating untruths or outright lying, or indeed just expressing opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, then they are essentially inviting disagreement. If someone is expressing a counter-opinion as their opinion, presenting factual evidence or anecdotal evidence that they concede is such, then they aren't trolling. Trolling may be relative to an extent, but disagreeing with an opinion in a civilised way is never that.In light of this, and Dissinger's reference "the lies sewn into that thread about PF", I'd appreciate people to create a thread where they dissect the Den's thread in light of perceived factual errors therein. Even the short bit above where Dissinger alleges another person misunderstanding the OGL merits discussion.
If nothing else, it would be handy to have a twin reference for people like the OP. The OP asked "what do detractors think about Pathfinder?", and I still think that the Den's thread is the authoritative source on that. A good twin question, which we'd need a handy reference for, would be "Are the detractors' opinions of Pathfinder accurate? A case by case study.".
While laudable from a technical standpoint, that's *such* an obvious invitation for a flame-fest that it probably should *not* be done.
They say what they say on their boards. Yay for them. They don't come over here and bug us (for the most part), and those that do, are usually the best of the lot, offering fun class guides and stuff for us to read.
If *they* can be courteous enough to not come over here and troll us, can't *we* exhibit the same maturity and restraint and not go piss in their pond?
Who's pissing in their pond? I have no interest in doing so. But what about long term writers on their forums who happen to like Pathfinder - do they not have a right to express their opinion just because it disagrees with what someone else said? Do they have no right to point out factual errors made in the statements? I wouldn't go there, because when opinions are this strong it usually takes more than facts to change somebody's mind, but someone who did so is not trolling, IMHO.
|
|
While laudable from a technical standpoint, that's *such* an obvious invitation for a flame-fest that it probably should *not* be done.
Well, in the absence of anyone taking up the Den's points one by one I have no reason to believe that the posters alleging them of factual errors to have a case.
Note that I don't say I take the Den's pontifications on Pathfinder for pure fact either. I don't. But hey, there's this really helpful thread over there where people put in time and effort to articulate why they think what they do. I can click on that thread and read it and make up my own mind. That's exactly what I expect from anyone mounting a position.
While laudable from a technical standpoint, that's *such* an obvious invitation for a flame-fest that it probably should *not* be done.Well, in the absence of anyone taking up the Den's points one by one I have no reason to believe that the posters alleging them of factual errors to have a case.
Note that I don't say I take the Den's pontifications on Pathfinder for pure fact either. I don't. But hey, there's this really helpful thread over there where people put in time and effort to articulate why they think what they do. I can click on that thread and read it and make up my own mind. That's exactly what I expect from anyone mounting a position.
Which is why I said that it's laudable from a technical position. :)
|
|
Who's pissing in their pond? I have no interest in doing so.
The line;
"If they are perpetuating untruths or outright lying, or indeed just expressing opinions as if they are irrefutable facts, then they are essentially inviting disagreement."suggests that you are defending, even encouraging, the choice to go over there and 'set them straight' about their 'baseless lies,' whether or not you now clarify that you wouldn't do such a thing.
The fact that right after, someone uses your quoted suggestion as basis to propose posting a thread over there to do that very thing, doesn't help that perception.
Let them have their opinions. Most of them are purely subjective. Some of them are flat-out wrong. Whatever. The fact that some faceless yob on the internet says that I'm fellating Jason Buhlman because I don't agree with everything he's said, done or thought in his life is way, way, way down on the list of stuff I care about.
"Don't wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it."