Successful troll and obvious troll, take a note from this guy. He's good. He is SO good.
Successful Troll would rather compliment you on your fine contribution.
Successful troll and obvious troll, take a note from this guy. He's good. He is SO good.Successful Troll would rather compliment you on your fine contribution.
LOL
Successful Troll believes that multiplying brother Obvious Troll's 6.82 times effectivenes by troll squared with a remainder of point three repeating should prove the obvious, no pun intended, result of tandem Obvious Troll and Successful Troll postings being supremely optimal.
Obvious Troll agrees. Obvious Troll forgot to reference antecdotal gameplay experience, which, when cross-indexed, points to Obvious Troll and Succesful Troll being Obviously Successful when paired together (CR 10).
In short, Obvious Troll was being blinded by teh maths.
In short, Obvious Troll was being blinded by teh maths.
Successful Troll smells a record deal in that line.
Successful troll and obvious troll, take a note from this guy. He's good. He is SO good.Successful Troll would rather compliment you on your fine contribution.
And then everyone was trolling everyone, and everyone was stupid.
Hey, you set yourself up for that one!
I'm not objecting for a reason.
Hmm...
Obvious Troll is Successful or Successful Troll is Obvious?
Trollish Success is Obvious!
Trollish Success is Obvious!
You misspelled "Inevitable".
|
The statement was made: "2e is good because you could treat the rules like guidelines and ignore what you want."
Do you realize that this literally means "2e was good because you didn't play by 2e rules?" That's what was said. That 2e is good because you could decide not to play it.
As the person that is being indirectly quoted with the 2e statement above.
This is NOT an edition war at all indirectly or directly. 2e said in the forward that the rules were meant as a guideline and if a rules does not work for you or get in the way do not use them. So do me a favor... please do not imply that the rules in their entirety could be ignored and that
"2e was good because you didn't play by 2e rules?" That's what was said. That 2e is good because you could decide not to play it."
2e had his flaws, but was indeed a system that rewarded smart play over builds and had more than few things to keep spellcasters at bay.
Said this, balance is indeed important - but in a far lesser extent, IMO, in a RPG than in most other games. I prefer by far different characters, monsters and an inspiring mechanics, as well as a flavourful gameworld than balance.
This, of course, does not mean that if something is, in my opinion, clearly out of bounds, i don't take care of point it out.
But in this case, is just to discuss with and warn fellow players and, if is the rare case, designers (without annoy them, I think they should be warned only by frequent questions, or hot topics). This does not mean that I don't consider the game unplayable, but because I care of make my experience and the one of other people more enjoyable. To make the job of GMs more easy.
Indeed, I suggest to people to open threads in this regard in a more polite manner. Instead of "ZOMG X is teh borkenn!!11!", just express your concern and discuss with other people in the board.
On the other hand, people should accept the fact that, in a game so complicated like Pathfinder, can happen that one thing can slip thoug the control or editing or such.
Just discuss politely, compare math and gaming experience, bring in examples and counter-examples. POLITELY.
Happened in the past that glaring problems has been fixed. Most times, concerns are for things less important than previously thought. For things in the middle, there is the houserule section (this does not mean that this is a justification to not playtest or well-think rules: if everyting must be houseruled, he quality of the product goes terribly down - but I don't think that this is the case of PF, quite the opposite).
|
|
As the person that is being indirectly quoted with the 2e statement above.This is NOT an edition war at all indirectly or directly. 2e said in the forward that the rules were meant as a guideline and if a rules does not work for you or get in the way do not use them. So do me a favor... please do not imply that the rules in their entirety could be ignored and that.
Except of course that rule zero is STILL in 3.x games. In fact it's in PF as the "most important rule". But using rule zero to fix badly done rules is kinda not what rule zero is for. And I don't mean just unbalanced...I mean just plain old badly written or incomplete rules.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's a difference, Cold Napalm.
"Rule Zero", in one form or another, is part of just about every game on my shelves. (Indeed, the exceptions -- AD&D First Edition, the World of Synnabar, probably Sandman -- are notorious for their crankiness in this matter.)
But AD&D 2nd Edition was more like, well, Amber. It's not just that the DM was given explicit permission to bend or modify the rules; Zeb Cook explained that the Second Edition design team expected DMs to alter or set aside the rules, a lot.
The 2nd Edition character stats really didn't tell you much about a character's abilities at all. Can the PC swim, and for how long? How quiet is the non-thief PC? How persuasive is she? How quickly does he analyze the puzzle and find the solution? That's entirely up to the DM, and, as Kaiyanwang notes, good play is intended to be the key.
Third Edition issued in a paradigm shift, from players-following-a-DM-who-was-being-guided-by-the-rules to players-AND-DM-following-the-rules. More than ever before, the rules applied to the DMs as well.
|
|
So it's a playstyle difference Chris? The DM is the law versus the rules are the law.
The game has always been about play style. There are so many different styles as there are house rules for each table top game being played in today's world. I for one have never agreed though that the DM IS the law but I always thought that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and how they are interpreted should there be a disagreement.
(editted to number questions)
1. Do you find that doing the math makes you more likely to want to optimize a character?
2. Do you ever find yourself giving up on a cool character concept or choice of weapon or feat, because the math just doesn't support it as an optimal choice?
3. Does it bother you when others ignore the math in the game and build sub-optimal characters?
4. Does it annoy you when something the DM does doesn't make sense to you mathematically (which could be because there are factors you aren't aware of, or because of streaky die-rolling, or just the obvious roll/rule-fudging)?These are the dangers I see in trying to overly analyze the math in the game and part of why I shy away from it and discourage my players from getting too caught up in it.
1. No - but that's because I can't really see not optimizing your character - whether you do the math or not. Optimizing is a part of the fun of tabletop roleplaying. What's important is how you optimize the character. Sometimes I optimize a character for combat. Sometimes I optimize a character for skills. Or buffing the party.
Some examples: In 3.5 I built a paladin/bard (heavy on the bard) that used 3.5's power attack and bard buffs to greatly increase her attack bonuses - 3.5 power attack allowed this attack bonus to be translated into damage. 3.5 paladins and bards were hardly optimal character classes...but I found a fun way to make them work together to allow melee relevance even at mid to the lower tier of high levels. Most of the time this character would buff and support the party...but when it hit the fan, she could go ahead and unload pretty impressive damage. In an Eberron game that was going to be on ships, I built a scount/thief acrobat. This character sacrificed a lot of combat utility for good shipboard maneuverability and skills. I saw her as climbing around in the ships riggings with a bow, harrying and annoying attackers trying to attack her ship.
I find playing a...
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this thread. I appreciate your responses, even if I don't agree with all of them. It also was not my intent to set you up for slams from others. I would say that your group has a different playstyle than mine. I agree with you that most (not all) players try to optimize to some extent. Everybody wants to be effective. And most players also get a bit irritated with unskillful play, although I'm more irritated when players make stupid or cowardly tactical decisions than I am with poor builds. My group is really heavily into the cooperative play element. We aren't playing as individuals. We're playing as a team, and we all cover and adjust for each others' weaknesses. So there's really never any thought that someone might not be carrying their weight. The important thing is the group succeeds, not how any one individual performs. Yes, poor performance by any one individual can undermine group success, but we don't find it happens that often. We have a a few players who just don't want to do the math or even spend much time reading the rules. That isn't fun for them. We have others who have specific types of characters they want to play, whether those characters are mechanically excellent or not, and that's what's fun for them. So we don't expect them to produce optimal characters. We do expect them, no matter what character they build, to try their best.
I'm awed, by the way, with your ability to actually enjoy the math. I can do it, and I'm reasonably good at it, but can't pretend it is anything other than a chore. I took the path of least resistance through the math and science requirements in college for a reason. :)
So you think those antagonistic and insulting opinions are reasonable and acceptable?
Nope, but then no one actually made those statements except the Doc. I understand he was trying to keep this from degenerating into an "I'm doing it better than you are" flamewar. However, I don't think it had devolved that far, and I think the degree to which the math is important to different gamers is a valid topic of discussion, so long as we all recognize it is a matter of preference.
On the subject of math which is also plaguing this thread, I just have one question for my more mathematically inclined brethren (I'd be more politically correct and gender neutral here, but sistren just doesn't sounds right):"Brother and Sisters" / "Comrades" / "Siblings-in-dice"
Is doing all this mathematical analysis really that much fun for you? ... None of the mathematical analysis I've seen on these boards is more than a decent high school student could manage, if they wanted to. The question for me is: why do you want to?Some of the mathematical questions (how likely is a roll of {16,17, 14, 16, 17, 18} on 4d6, keep 3?) are interesting, and the others are pleasant. I enjoy a diversion of Sudoku once every so often, too.
There we part, my friend. I confess to just being puzzled why anyone finds Sudoku entertaining. And this from someone who used to play Minesweeper obsessively.
(editted to number questions)
1. Do you find that doing the math makes you more likely to want to optimize a character?
2. Do you ever find yourself giving up on a cool character concept or choice of weapon or feat, because the math just doesn't support it as an optimal choice?
3. Does it bother you when others ignore the math in the game and build sub-optimal characters?
4. Does it annoy you when something the DM does doesn't make sense to you mathematically (which could be because there are factors you aren't aware of, or because of streaky die-rolling, or just the obvious roll/rule-fudging)?These are the dangers I see in trying to overly analyze the math in the game and part of why I shy away from it and discourage my players from getting too caught up in it.
1. No. Either I was interested in optimizing and so paid more attention to those details while analyzing the rules or I wasn't. My two favorite classes in 3.5 are the bard and ranger, if that tells you anything about my optimizing choices. Analyzing the rules and actually picking the mechanicly best options are not necessarily related. One can be a mental exercise like pun-pun and one can be a fun diversion.
2. Sometimes, if I am in the mood to optimize for that detail I would. So I might chose the greatsword over the greataxe if I wanted to do more damage in the long run. On the other hand, I might be in the mood to play a wildly swinging half-orc barbarian, and the inconsistent damage of the greataxe is more enjoyable for that character, even if overall it is slightly weaker of a choice.
3. It can possibly. It really depends on how "sub-optimal" their choices are, when it starts to effect the ability of the group as a whole, it can pretty disappointing.
Let me give you an extreme example, let's say I am interested in playing an arcane caster, but I am willing to fill whatever role the party needs. Another player says they want to play a wizard, so I say ok, I'll...
Thanks for the responses. True confession time - when I'm playing rather than DMing I find myself having to bite my tongue all the time when I suspect something is being fudged. Like you I prefer to raise these issues outside the game, but I'm weak and occasionally do blurt something out in game. I always feel dirty and ashamed when I do, though. I do really, really try to not push it too far and accept any reasonable explanation the DM might have. One of the strengths of our group is that the various DM's tend to back each other up and keep player dissent and rules lawyering to a minimum. We also aren't afraid to admit it when we make an honest mistake, which helps our credibility. I wish I made less honest mistakes, but it definitely happens, particularly as 3.X and PF have introduced new (and generally good) rules on situations where I used to just wing it.
|
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this thread. I appreciate your responses, even if I don't agree with all of them. It also was not my intent to set you up for slams from others.
S'Okay. I'm a big girl. :)
I would say that your group has a different playstyle than mine. I agree with you that most (not all) players try to optimize to some extent. Everybody wants to be effective. And most players also get a bit irritated with unskillful play, although I'm more irritated when players make stupid or cowardly tactical decisions than I am with poor builds.
Both can drive me nuts. But I generally find that those that make repeated poor tactical decisions generally also have poor builds. I'm sure it comes from not understanding the rules. Few can keep track of everything - I know I can't - but a basic grasp of your character's capabilities is usually not that difficult if you're paying attention.
Often it's not even not understanding the rules - it seems to be more about not understanding the cascade effects that one rule has on another throughout the system. Or not understanding how one action can cascade logically into another. YOu may understand that people get to save against spells and that a particular spell has a save - but if you don't follow through to the logical conclusion that while your spell will stop enemies from being able to attack you if successful, the spell is not guarnateed to be successful against all your targetted enemies and thus further actions to defend / protect yourself may be wise, you'll make bad decisions that cause problems for you and the party that depends on you.
The most annoying people I've gamed with (that aren't jerks, anyway) are those that always assume their wildest actions will go off without a hitch, and act accordingly. That kills everyone quickly if you're counting on that character in any way.
My group is really heavily into the cooperative play element. We aren't playing as individuals. We're playing as a team, and we all cover and adjust for each others' weaknesses.
Up to a point. Every class has strengths and weaknesses. Bards don't have a lot of damage or battlefield control, but their ability to buff and deal with diplomatic situations are awesome. Fighters can cover them in the damage department, but generally aren't expected to handle out of combat diplomatic situations beyond a threatening scowl as an intimidate assist.
But I have had a player create a dwarven rogue that had high wisdom and constitution, low strength, tanked charisma and low/medium dexterity. His skills were generally in craft and heal, though I believe he could stealth. Disable Device wasn't maxed out, and I don't think he put rnaks in perception. He understood the rules of the game...but didn't inform the party that his rogue was: ineffective in combat, ineffective at trap finding, ineffective at intercharacter interaction. The only roguelike thing he was good at was...sneaking. He might have made a good scout, being able as a dwarf to sneak around in the dark without light - but he didn't want to do that, his character was supposed to be a "healer".
sure, you can cover for that character. And if everyone understands what he is, then you can build around him...but I don't like being that ineffective with my own characters, and there's a lot of resentment when that character doesn't contribute to the party's ability to survive or meet its goals, but he demands extra treasure shares because his character's no good...
So there's really never any thought that someone might not be carrying their weight. The important thing is the group succeeds, not how any one individual performs. Yes, poor performance by any one individual can undermine group success, but we don't find it happens that often. We have a a few players who just don't want to do the math or even spend much time reading the rules. That isn't fun for them. We have others who have specific types of characters they want to play, whether those characters are mechanically excellent or not, and that's what's fun for them. So we don't expect them to produce optimal characters. We do expect them, no matter what character they build, to try their best.
Having a character concept you desperately want to try, even if you pull it off poorly mechanically, can be fun. But you have to understand that:
- some character concepts can't be reliably represented by a given rule system
- sometimes useful/effective mechanics can be reflavored to give you the characterization you're looking for
- sometimes the concept is so detrimental to you ability to be effective that you may have to find another concept or talk to your DM about finding another mechanical solution (home made class?) to keep you from being an incredible burden on the other players.
I'm awed, by the way, with your ability to actually enjoy the math. I can do it, and I'm reasonably good at it, but can't pretend it is anything other than a chore. I took the path of least resistance through the math and science requirements in college for a reason. :)
Ah, well, I had no idea what to study in college. I like math, science, art, writing, history, literature, music...I went into software engineering more out of the practical consideration that computers are everywhere and I'd have an easier time finding a job than anything.
Boringly practical!
Math is for nerds.
*Goes off to play Dungeons and Dragons, a game made by nerds, for nerds, which as long been seen as the nerdiest thing imaginable.*
I'm going to start a thread entitled "No more threads about no more threads about" complaining about how people keep starting threads telling other posters what threads they should or should not start on the boards.
The internet (and the Paizo messageboards) has given us all a voice. Many have decided to use it to complain. In this thread, many have chosen to use that voice to complain about the complainers. My new thread will be the natural extension to that; I shall complain about those who complain about complainers.[END_JEST]
OK, so some people don't think Pathfinder has done everything "right", or at least, that's the way they choose to approach their arguments. Perhaps instead of calling the issues they take with the rules "wrong", or "broken", or "ridiculously game breaking I can't believe anyone would shell out good money for this OMG seriously I think I'm going to gouge my own eyes out if I read one more page...", these posters could instead say something to the effect of "I have a bit of a problem with rule X for reasons Y and Z. Is anyone else finding this a problem, and if so, how are you addressing it in your game?". Maybe this would be a better approach, but let's face it, we aren't all diplomats, and many may lack the tact to make sure no one takes issue with HOW they say what they take issue with. What most of use are, is enthusiasts.
An enthusiast gets emotional. He gets annoyed. She gets angry and frustrated. He throws his dice across the table and curses when he rolls a 1 for hit points. She rolls her eyes and says, "You aren't playing next weekend, too, are you?" (Oops.. that's not an enthusiast, that's the reaction of a wife who is NOT an enthusiast)
What I'm coming to (the long way; the only way I know how) is that the gaming community is going to complain. They're going to gripe endlessly, and throw out words like "broken", "unbalanced", and "desperately needs a fix". You can't stop it, no matter how many times you beg and plead for it to stop. It's silly to try (says the guy who is trying to convince people they shouldn't bother to ask people to stop, knowing people are still going to try it...)
And more to the point: You shouldn't really want it to (but, feel free to want it to, that's your right). Sure, the approach many of these posters take is irritating, but the point is, they are getting people talking about the game(s) we all love. They may say "broken", but they sometimes point out weaknesses in the rules, places where they misunderstand the rules (possibly a sign they need clarification), or at least it brings issues others have and their solutions into the spotlight.
I don't think there is much that is strictly "right" or "wrong" in the rules, be they Pathfinder, 3.x core, splat, etc. For the most part, it comes down to what is right or wrong for your game or gaming group. One group's "broken" is another group's favorite rule. Pathfinder is really just another set of house rules. I've never played a game without. Some people just want to beg Paizo to make their houserules core, or to remove something that they feel "breaks" their game. If what they're saying makes sense, they might someday get their way. If the vast majority of us point out how flawed said houserule in, they probably won't. This is what Paizo excels at: listening to their audience and reacting appropriately. If people aren't talking (kindly or otherwise), we must not need anything more out of them. Hopefully that doesn't happen anytime soon. Guess that means I'm voting for more "let's change pathfinder" threads...
On the flip-side, to those saying, "I shouldn't need houserules to play the game." I'll say this: If Pathfinder was flawless for you, requiring not the slightest tweak to suit you, you can guarantee I will have to houserule some things to suit me. And that suits me just fine.
Just because Paizo won't fix the game in the 4e Wizard way by heaping errata on errata doesn't mean they don't fix the game in other ways. Giving both the fighter and the barbarian full attack after movement at high level in APG is clearly a fix (they make them hugely more effective at high level than pre-existing melee builds). They tried to hide it as an option, but it's clearly a fix.
Which hardly means the game shouldn't have errata. There are a number of errors that need errata. That's what errata is for; not changing the game.
Ahem, GURPS ? :)Math is for nerds.
*Goes off to play Dungeons and Dragons, a game made by nerds, for nerds, which as long been seen as the nerdiest thing imaginable.*
Most people don't know what GURPS is.
...Those lucky, lucky people ;p
|
But I generally find that those that make repeated poor tactical decisions generally also have poor builds.
I guess that is the nature of the "new" game. Rules for combat have drilled down to a micro-management level where as previously this was hand-waved by the DM. More and more combat orientated situations were codified in the rules, as some would say, the development of a combat 'tactical simulation' sub-game within D&D. Added rule complexity and interacting rules = errata required more often than not.
So the more the rules relied on stats/skills in a mechanical sense the more "builds" became important. Pluses counted more, previously the DM's interpretation counted more. Each blow is accounted for now (6 second rounds), previously, with a 1 minute round, the combat was imagined to be ebbing and flowing with the "to hit" roll indicating a combination of fatigue and actual damage against your opponent.
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game. [NOTE: Reference to computer games is NOT an attack, just a style reference]
S.
|
|
Third Edition issued in a paradigm shift, from players-following-a-DM-who-was-being-guided-by-the-rules to players-AND-DM-following-the-rules. More than ever before, the rules applied to the DMs as well.
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game.
Something I was trying to touch on before. I daresay 3rd edition is just as capable of supporting 2nd edition style play as well, even if the players who learned to play on 3.x might need some help understanding the concept.
|
|
Third Edition issued in a paradigm shift, from players-following-a-DM-who-was-being-guided-by-the-rules to players-AND-DM-following-the-rules. More than ever before, the rules applied to the DMs as well.
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game.Something I was trying to touch on before. I daresay 3rd edition is just as capable of supporting 2nd edition style play as well, even if the players who learned to play on 3.x might need some help understanding the concept.
+1
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game. [NOTE: Reference to computer games is NOT an attack, just a style reference]
S.
So earlier editions were ugly, had terrible mechanics, nonsensical controls, were un-fun in almost every aspect, and people only like them because of large breasts? ;p
Sorry! :B
|
|
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game. [NOTE: Reference to computer games is NOT an attack, just a style reference]
S.
So earlier editions were ugly, had terrible mechanics, nonsensical controls, were un-fun in almost every aspect, and people only like them because of large breasts? ;p
Sorry! :B
Elmore wasn't a noted fantasy artist due to his kitten renditions is all I'm saying.
But I generally find that those that make repeated poor tactical decisions generally also have poor builds.I guess that is the nature of the "new" game. Rules for combat have drilled down to a micro-management level where as previously this was hand-waved by the DM. More and more combat orientated situations were codified in the rules, as some would say, the development of a combat 'tactical simulation' sub-game within D&D. Added rule complexity and interacting rules = errata required more often than not.
So the more the rules relied on stats/skills in a mechanical sense the more "builds" became important. Pluses counted more, previously the DM's interpretation counted more. Each blow is accounted for now (6 second rounds), previously, with a 1 minute round, the combat was imagined to be ebbing and flowing with the "to hit" roll indicating a combination of fatigue and actual damage against your opponent.
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game. [NOTE: Reference to computer games is NOT an attack, just a style reference]
S.
There is not doing builds and then there is using ray of frost against CR 10 opponents.
But I generally find that those that make repeated poor tactical decisions generally also have poor builds.I guess that is the nature of the "new" game. Rules for combat have drilled down to a micro-management level where as previously this was hand-waved by the DM. More and more combat orientated situations were codified in the rules, as some would say, the development of a combat 'tactical simulation' sub-game within D&D. Added rule complexity and interacting rules = errata required more often than not.
So the more the rules relied on stats/skills in a mechanical sense the more "builds" became important. Pluses counted more, previously the DM's interpretation counted more. Each blow is accounted for now (6 second rounds), previously, with a 1 minute round, the combat was imagined to be ebbing and flowing with the "to hit" roll indicating a combination of fatigue and actual damage against your opponent.
We live in different times, the challenge of role-playing isn't seen as a "Lara Croft" like game but rather as a "Warcraft" type game. [NOTE: Reference to computer games is NOT an attack, just a style reference]
S.
I hate the optimization stuff on the boards here... it makes me cringe to see folks talking about "DPR" in the context of Pathfinder. That's just me. I don't make "optimal builds", but I do make effective characters... characters who can -contribute- to an encounter. There can be a difference, but some folks don't see it.
|
|
I hate the optimization stuff on the boards here... it makes me cringe to see folks talking about "DPR" in the context of Pathfinder. That's just me. I don't make "optimal builds", but I do make effective characters... characters who can -contribute- to an encounter. There can be a difference, but some folks don't see it.
Saying "Ugh, optimization thread, yuck!" and leaving is one thing. Taking the time to post "You people that enjoy mathematical modeling of the system are terrible people that don't play the game right and ruin it for everyone!" is quite something else.
One is a perfectly polite approach to someone that enjoys something you don't enjoy, or maybe even actively dislike. The other is rude and counterproductive.
I do get a little tired of people that don't know me telling me how I don't roleplay and the fact that I enjoy systems analysis makes me a bad player.
|
|
Which hardly means the game shouldn't have errata. There are a number of errors that need errata. That's what errata is for; not changing the game.I'm not saying it shouldn't have errata, just that in PF those errata will generally only fix real errors ... and not contain rewrites for balance's sake like in 4e.
This is not 4E though. Errata is a good thing, but, I am assuming here, that what you mean by balance is that classes can fill out what other classes can do and generally be the same across the board in power, as in DPR, and equal through out the levels?
If that is the case I am SO glad that they do not fix it like you think that they should. Pathfinder is a different system and provides characters for the role of the group and not to make sure that the characters can do the same damage. Each character has a niche to fill in a group as part of a team. It is up to the player/group on what that niche is and how to fill it. But if you want to do PvP or some such then Balance and equal power and damage per round is a good thing... fortunately this is NOT pathfinder. If I wanted balance I would certainly go to play the other edition but it is not so I will stick with the game that I love and continue with Pathfinder.If you want the same type of balance that is provided by the other company I might suggest playing that game then to :) The other company would be more then happy to have you and Paizo would be sorry to see you leave if that is what you choose to do.