The Great M. Green / E. Elswyr Debate, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Monk

[Ederin Elswyr]

Hello? Testing, testing. . .

Ahem. . .

On August 13, 1961, a wall was erected down the middle of the city of Berlin. The world was divided by a Cold War, and the Berlin Wall was the most hated symbol of that divide. Reviled, graffitied, spit upon, we thought the wall would stand forever. And now that it's gone, we don't know who we are anymore.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this thread is like that Wall. Standing before you in a divide between East and West, slavery and freedom, gamism and narrativism, crunch and fluff. And you can try to tear it down. But before you do, remember one thing. . .

Ain't much of a difference between a bridge and a wall.

So, where were we, Herr Green? You felt I had attributed to you something you hadn't said. It was certainly not my intention. Could you elaborate on precisely where you felt I represented you inaccurately, so that I may either clarify my own statement or explain why I feel that my reading of your position is accurate?

[Talynonyx]

Dotting. Very interested in the outcome of this. Hope you don't mind if I lurk?

[Kilbourne]

Please link to the previous discussion, I would like to read in to the background, if you don't mind.

[GeraintElberion]

I'm going to quote Ross Byers now: "Flag it and move on."

[LilithsThrall]

I think the discussion is dead.

At best, Green misunderstood what "backwards compatibility" means for Pathfinder. He thought it meant a claim that you can add a bunch of broken crap to Pathfinder and Pathfinder will magically make it balanced again (at the same time, you can not add all that broken crap and Pathfinder will still be balanced). Then, he was too embarrassed to acknowledge that he had made a mistake.
Once Ross killed the thread, it gave Green a chance to back out without losing any more face. I don't think you're going to see him wanting to pursue the discussion further.

[Ederin Elswyr]

Kilbourne wrote:

Please link to the previous discussion, I would like to read in to the background, if you don't mind.

Happily.

You'll have to wade through a bit to get to the part where we derail the thread, but it should give you the background you need.

Now if only Monsieur Green would get in here, we can get this civil bloodbath started!

[Ederin Elswyr]

LilithsThrall wrote:

I think the discussion is dead.

At best, Green misunderstood what "backwards compatibility" means for Pathfinder. He thought it meant a claim that you can add a bunch of broken crap to Pathfinder and Pathfinder will magically make it balanced again (at the same time, you can not add all that broken crap and Pathfinder will still be balanced). Then, he was too embarrassed to acknowledge that he had made a mistake.
Once Ross killed the thread, it gave Green a chance to back out without losing any more face. I don't think you're going to see him wanting to pursue the discussion further.

Maybe. Maybe not. In any event, I was having a wonderful time, so I extended the invitation and have created a thread to host. I've poured myself a snifter of brandy and have a decanter on hand for him to pour one of his own. Cigars and pipe tobacco will be on hand, in case he wishes to indulge. The fire is roaring and we are set to have a vigourous discussion until all odd hours of the night.

All I need now is my guest of honor.

[Mistah Green]

Ederin Elswyr wrote:

So, where were we, Herr Green? You felt I had attributed to you something you hadn't said. It was certainly not my intention. Could you elaborate on precisely where you felt I represented you inaccurately, so that I may either clarify my own statement or explain why I feel that my reading of your position is accurate?

This.

Quote:

Rephrased, my larger point is that our reasons for picking up the dice in the first place are going to inform our priorities. For you, a thinking man's game that transcends mere equation. For me, a living breathing world and tales of fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles...

And also this.

Quote:

In your version, the primary draw is the opportunity to pit yourself against an obstacle and overcome it. In that context, it's absolutely ludicrous not to play the character with the greatest possible toolbox for success, because the character is an extension of your tactical mind. This is in no way meant to insinuate that you do not enjoy or excel in the roleplaying aspects. Those aspects are not, however, the primary reason you picked up the hobby in the first place, by your own admission. By the way, if I played at a table that operated within your paradigm, I'd adjust my expectations and my character design choices appropriately. And I'd have a good time. My primary roleplaying itch, however, would remain largely unscratched.

And especially the bolded part.

Now it is absolutely true that the tactical and optimization aspects of the game appeal to me. And I did say that was the sole appeal... for video games.

But we're not talking about video games, we are talking about tabletop games. And in tabletop games I said the appeal was both. Dead characters cannot roleplay after all, but living ones can do most of the stuff you mention. I say most because fencing doesn't work in D&D (friends don't let friends play finesse builds). D&D also doesn't do chase scenes. It's a stat contest of your movement vs theirs. Yawn.

My bad experiences with a first character aside, what this means is that optimization is required for roleplaying, as otherwise you won't live to do it. Now I'm not assuming some hard mode, optimize or die type game when I say that... I'm assuming a normal game with normal enemies. While it is indeed true optimize or die games will do the latter if you don't do the former, there is still a minimum baseline of competence in a normal game. It's lower than in the power game, but it's there. And it says in clear and no uncertain terms that you must be this tall to play.

Now in a balanced game, 'this tall' would simply be a factor of level. So while the Illithid would make dancing monkeys of a level 4 party, a level 6 party could take out squid face with some difficulty and a level 8 party could win like it's not even a thing.

However, D&D is not a balanced game. Far from it. This is part due to poor testing abilities and part by deliberate design. For you see, Monte Cook has a big thing for what he calls Ivory Tower Design. In ITD, options are deliberately made weak and the reward for system mastery, in essence is 'You don't make a fail character, enjoy getting to play D&D without getting slaughtered over and over'. My snark aside, this might be offending you, the reader. If so, good. It should be getting you mad. But not at me, at the guy who made the system that way in the first place. And as Monte Cook had a hand in 3rd, 3.5, and PF it doesn't matter what 3.x variant you play, it's the same system. Dodge the traps ala Minesweeper, find the safe options. Run through an obstacle course of mechanics just to play the character you want and have them not suck. Not all archetypes are supported. The fencer for example is something that will still fail to do anything that matters even with every book under the sun.

And this is where optimization as a prerequisite comes in.

Want to be a Fighter? Ok, you have two options. Charging and tripping. Choose one. You don't get to do both. PF nerfed both of these out of existence, which forms part of the argument about how PF is Caster Edition.

You mentioned Monks in the title for some reason. I have no idea what they have to do with the subject at hand and have no interest in this thread being cluttered with drivel about how the weakest class in the game can take the strongest and be anything more than easy experience for them. But in the context of required optimization...

The Fighter is a one trick pony who picks from a pool of two tricks in 3.5 and is a no trick pony in PF.

The Monk was already a no trick pony, and PF did nothing to better their lot. There is a lot to be said about someone who could not improve a class who has nowhere to go but up, however it would accomplish nothing useful to go off on that side tangent.

The key difference here is that if a character has at least one trick, you can do SOMETHING with them. It might be unsatisifying, narrow, or limited but it's something. No trick ponies are unplayable. Of course the trick has to be good, else they're still unplayable.

Now in one of those quotes you said that I would always go for what has the most options. Not true. I would go for anything that has enough options to work, and that is currently what I want. Spellcasters do indeed have the most options, as their options are a blank check. Anything in the game that can be done, can be done by a Wizard (or Cleric, or Druid). As such there's no truly shutting them down without turning the entire game off. But believe it or not, I don't like casters that much.

Oh, I don't hate them, don't get me wrong. But despite how often, and how strongly I advocate them as the right choice they are still not my favorite choice. In short, I advocate them so often in spite of any personal, subjective, and easily handwaved away opinions and not because of them which is why I take such offense to those who are flippantly dismissive about the same. If given half a chance to play a melee character who isn't made of fail, I'll take it. PF is a disappointment because for various reasons it is Caster Edition - one of those reasons being blanket nerfs to melees. So if I'm playing PF, I have the Cleric, the Druid, and the Wizard and that's it. No real middle ground between god tier and fail tier. Just like core 3rd and 3.5 actually, except splatbooks add more decent options.

While I didn't know this at first and just played PF as I would a 3.5 core game (and it WAS pure core for a while, despite what some people claim falsely about me) I eventually came to realize it was too narrow of a game, with over 75% of classes invalid as they are which led to our group dropping it entirely after sessions became progressively less frequent for a while. The 3.5 game is still going strong. Part of the reason for this is that there are more options. Yeah, there's full casters in the party and they're awesome. But there's also melee characters, who aren't just along for the ride. They actually are helpful. And this is only possible due to a lot of rules. A lot of published 3.5 rules, and a lot of house rules. Not to mention a lot of people that know the rules. Someone new to 3.5 joining our group would quickly be directed to a full caster, as we all know anything else would fall flat on its face without a black belt in opt fu.

Now you might be asking yourself 'Well, what about the APG classes Mr. Green?' In short, I haven't looked at them and after seeing the trainwreck that is the Magus I have no expectation they will do anything but disappointment me. That and there's no point in picking up new books for a system I'm not interested in anymore.

However, and this is what you and many others are missing it's not just a mechanics thing. Sure I'm talking about those a lot, because you actually can talk about those with people outside your group and have common ground for understanding. But the 3.5 game is also still going strong because it gives a lot more room to tell interesting stories.

Now I already know what you're thinking when you read that. If you aren't thinking what I think you are I'd be surprised, but if you are you are wrong. It isn't a DM dependent thing, as we have a good DM and if the same DM were to run a 3.5 game it would still come out better. Why? More room for interesting stories.

Remember, mechanics form the rules of the world. As such they manifest themselves in game, in ways the characters can perceive. In systems in which only three classes are relevant, you are limited in the scope of credible BBEGs you can construct, just to illuminate one facet of this. In systems in which there are more credible options, you can have more background types and histories for the opposition your characters will face. Sure you can use the other classes anyways, but they'll just get blown away in 1-2 actions and no one will take them seriously.

There are many other facets to this as well, but this post is already quite long enough. Suffice it to say that when I sarcastically refer to PF as mindless flash and slash, it is an attack upon PF for not doing a better job of making classes worthwhile and not an attack on any human element (myself, the other players, or the DM). And when I say 3.5 is more in depth it is in part because it allows for telling some of the precise stories you named. And many you didn't.

ITD or no ITD, most character concepts are supported. You just have to find the 'right' means of supporting them. Many of these are quite counterintuitive, such as using the Cleric or the non core Crusader to model the Holy Knight instead of the actual class modeled as a Holy Knight. Or in the effective means of playing a Rogue, a Wizard, or a Cleric, all of which involve essentially ignoring what you're told and learning what really works.

Now you can argue it's unfair to compare a full life cycle of 3.5 to a handful of PF books. You'd be right. Except for one thing. 'Backwards compatibility'. It started off as a marketing point, but if you believe what you hear around here it's actually a negative.

Going directly by what is said, you should be able to use all your books with PF and be just fine. Trouble is it doesn't quite work that way. Even ignoring those who still haven't learned the 3.5 Warlock is a weak class, the fundamentals of melee were nerfed and the fundamentals of casting were improved. So while adding more books makes casters even better, it doesn't close the gap by improving melee by a much greater margin as it does in 3.5. The fundamentals are still nerfed. In effect, even non core PF melee gets hit by the nerfbat. And it is for this reason your range of options both mechanically and story wise remain strictly limited and always will be.

/rant

[ZappoHisbane]

Wait...

If Pathfinder is "a system [you're] not interested in anymore," why, oh why, are you even here??

[Kilbourne]

You seem to really dislike Pathfinder. That's fine. It's perfectly clear to me that you think that:
- Pathfinder rules are broken
- full casting PC classes are the only option in order to prevail in battles so to advance the game's plot
- WoTC 3.5e DnD is better than Pathfinder

All of those things are perfectly valid, as there is no absolute metric of 'goodness' to work within; one game system can never be actually better than another. Everything is opinion based on varied experiences, and that's the way life is, and it's totally fine.

My confusion is: if you dislike Pathfinder rules and the system so much, why are you posting on these forums? They are for and about Pathfinder, and easily avoided -- especially by someone who doesn't like the game. Your opinions are no less valid than anyone else here, but I don't understand why you're posting on a set of forums about a game that you don't like and don't want to play.

EDIT: ninja'd by ZappoHisbane, I suppose.

[Mistah Green]

I was originally going to ignore everyone except my opponent here, but as this post does raise interesting points I will respond to it anyways.

Kilbourne wrote:

My confusion is: if you dislike Pathfinder rules and the system so much, why are you posting on these forums? They are for and about Pathfinder, and easily avoided -- especially by someone who doesn't like the game. Your opinions are no less valid than anyone else here, but I don't understand why you're posting on a set of forums about a game that you don't like and don't want to play.

Answer: Because it wasn't always that way. When I first came here I was playing it, and I had heard about the Magus, checked it out and promptly facepalmed. While that event wasn't what made me lose interest in Pathfinder, the response I got to this and other subjects by the very community here did. So while I started with the impression that Pathfinder was viable within a narrow band (all caster teams, no serious plots) I slowly came to realize, as I spoke to those here I didn't want even that much to do with it. The other players, and the DM do lurk here even though they have only collectively made a single post and the rampant hostility barely concealed by passive aggressive behavior was what broke the camel's back.

Now it's fair to ask why I am still here after coming to this conclusion. The answer? Despite claims to the contrary I do not immutably stick to my guns once set. I am hoping that someone will prove me wrong, while at the same time expecting that no one will. My money's on pragmatism, but maybe the idealistic underdog will win. In short, I haven't completely given up on the place yet.

[LilithsThrall]

Mistah Green wrote:

I was originally going to ignore everyone except my opponent here, but as this post does raise interesting points I will respond to it anyways.

Kilbourne wrote:

My confusion is: if you dislike Pathfinder rules and the system so much, why are you posting on these forums? They are for and about Pathfinder, and easily avoided -- especially by someone who doesn't like the game. Your opinions are no less valid than anyone else here, but I don't understand why you're posting on a set of forums about a game that you don't like and don't want to play.

Answer: Because it wasn't always that way. When I first came here I was playing it, and I had heard about the Magus, checked it out and promptly facepalmed. While that event wasn't what made me lose interest in Pathfinder, the response I got to this and other subjects by the very community here did. So while I started with the impression that Pathfinder was viable within a narrow band (all caster teams, no serious plots) I slowly came to realize, as I spoke to those here I didn't want even that much to do with it. The other players, and the DM do lurk here even though they have only collectively made a single post and the rampant hostility barely concealed by passive aggressive behavior was what broke the camel's back.

Now it's fair to ask why I am still here after coming to this conclusion. The answer? Despite claims to the contrary I do not immutably stick to my guns once set. I am hoping that someone will prove me wrong, while at the same time expecting that no one will. My money's on pragmatism, but maybe the idealistic underdog will win. In short, I haven't completely given up on the place yet.

I think, perhaps, if you familiarize yourself with the rules, you might like Pathfinder more than you do.

Then again, maybe not.
It's up to you.

[wraithstrike]

Mistah Green wrote:

I was originally going to ignore everyone except my opponent here, but as this post does raise interesting points I will respond to it anyways.

Kilbourne wrote:

My confusion is: if you dislike Pathfinder rules and the system so much, why are you posting on these forums? They are for and about Pathfinder, and easily avoided -- especially by someone who doesn't like the game. Your opinions are no less valid than anyone else here, but I don't understand why you're posting on a set of forums about a game that you don't like and don't want to play.

Answer: Because it wasn't always that way. When I first came here I was playing it, and I had heard about the Magus, checked it out and promptly facepalmed. While that event wasn't what made me lose interest in Pathfinder, the response I got to this and other subjects by the very community here did. So while I started with the impression that Pathfinder was viable within a narrow band (all caster teams, no serious plots) I slowly came to realize, as I spoke to those here I didn't want even that much to do with it. The other players, and the DM do lurk here even though they have only collectively made a single post and the rampant hostility barely concealed by passive aggressive behavior was what broke the camel's back.

Now it's fair to ask why I am still here after coming to this conclusion. The answer? Despite claims to the contrary I do not immutably stick to my guns once set. I am hoping that someone will prove me wrong, while at the same time expecting that no one will. My money's on pragmatism, but maybe the idealistic underdog will win. In short, I haven't completely given up on the place yet.

You don't like pathfinder because some of the people are hostile towards you?<--I will admit this is very very simplified, and does not tell the whole tale, but it did break the camel's back.

Yeah the game is not balanced, and it accounts for a wide variety of play. Is the issue that the floor(non optomized characters, and the ceiling(optomized characters) are too far apart.
4E tried to fix that, but many people felt like the classes were "cookie cutter", and had no real options. How do you propose to make classes balanced while different? I understand the game is written now, and it can't be changed, but just saying how everything is wrong won't really help, and you may have mentioned in other posts how to fix things, but I have not seen them. I do admit I have not read all of your post either.

[Machaeus]

Mistah Green wrote:

Despite claims to the contrary I do not immutably stick to my guns once set. I am hoping that someone will prove me wrong, while at the same time expecting that no one will. My money's on pragmatism, but maybe the idealistic underdog will win. In short, I haven't completely given up on the place yet.

That's a lie and you know it.

The mere fact that you bet on PRAGMATISM of all things shows you've closed your mind off to anything but yourself being the only "right" person. One could argue that "open-minded = brains falling out" but considering A: You've been saying nothing but negative stuff that's as subjective as it comes since I saw you arrive, and B: you apparently forgot what you said two seconds ago (check the bold above), I have no reason to believe a single word you say. No one does. No one here has to even listen to a word you say, and no one will, because your tongue is made of acid and your words of venom.

Are you going to listen to a single argument that I say after reading this post? Of course not. I insulted you. Just like you've been doing to everyone else. Oh, sure, you're more subtle about it, but you're still doing it. Subtler does not mean smarter, it just means more loathed. Think of this: you're tasked with facing a barbarian horde or a group of scheming nobles who can turn every action you make into a farce or worse by means of money, manipulation, and honeyed lies. Who are you going to hate more, the guys who are slashing and burning the countryside and killing people you really don't care about, or the guys who want you broken, not dead, and force you to defend yourself against mobs?

The thing is, I have a different definition of a "power gamer" than you. Because I like my games fairly low-powered. If I wanted to play DBZ d20, I'd play that, not any other game. I won't argue that the game isn't broken. That's stupid. Of course it's broken - it's a roleplaying game, one enjoyed by many people. You give snark about Monte Cook, while I give you something he actually said: "You can't expect a game writer to out-think the entirety of his audience." He also said: "I suppose it's like going to a special effects-laden movie to look for the wires, or reading historical fiction just to find the anachronisms. It's a strangely cynical and negative pursuit. It's also entirely missing the point." And of course, "Find a loophole that you can exploit within the rules...and you win. After more than 30 years of gaming, and more than 20 years of professional game design, I've got to say, I find that approach ultimately pointless." (Last quote shortened at the ellipse.)

So I challenge you. Get a team together and create a perfectly balanced RPG. You have 3 years, and you can use any dice system you want. Let's see you out-think your whole audience. If you can do that, I'll actually have respect for you. Until then, you're a smokestack and nothing more.

[Kilbourne]

Mistah Green wrote:

I was originally going to ignore everyone except my opponent here, but as this post does raise interesting points I will respond to it anyways.

Kilbourne wrote:

My confusion is: if you dislike Pathfinder rules and the system so much, why are you posting on these forums? They are for and about Pathfinder, and easily avoided -- especially by someone who doesn't like the game. Your opinions are no less valid than anyone else here, but I don't understand why you're posting on a set of forums about a game that you don't like and don't want to play.

Answer: Because it wasn't always that way. When I first came here I was playing it, and I had heard about the Magus, checked it out and promptly facepalmed. While that event wasn't what made me lose interest in Pathfinder, the response I got to this and other subjects by the very community here did. So while I started with the impression that Pathfinder was viable within a narrow band (all caster teams, no serious plots) I slowly came to realize, as I spoke to those here I didn't want even that much to do with it.

--italics mine, for emphasis.

"You were enjoying the game, in the way that you played it, and then you came here to discuss the game. Upon your arrival and dialogue with the posters here, (specifically concerning the Magus testing) you no longer enjoy the game." --Am I para-phrasing this correctly? Please correct my statement if not. I'm going to break down your statements in order to analyze your position, if you don't mind.

Quote:

The other players, and the DM do lurk here even though they have only collectively made a single post and the rampant hostility barely concealed by passive aggressive behavior was what broke the camel's back.Now it's fair to ask why I am still here after coming to this conclusion. The answer? Despite claims to the contrary I do not immutably stick to my guns once set. I am hoping that someone will prove me wrong, while at the same time expecting that no one will. My money's on pragmatism, but maybe the idealistic underdog will win. In short, I haven't completely given up on the place yet.

--Again, italics and emphasis mine

"I have a position concerning this game; generally, that it is poorly ruled, and that I wish it to be better in my own eyes, from a mechanical standpoint. I wish this position to be improved from dialogue with other posters so that I may enjoy this game once again."

As for the second italicized line: Thank you. Your expressed willingness to enter discussion is very fair.

My next question is: What, specifically, are the issues you have with the game? (Please include cited or linked examples to the Core Rulebook or online SRD, for clarity.)

Also: Why is it that you let the opinions of the posters on this board influence your enjoyment of a game (within the spectrum of your playstyle, "all caster teams, no serious plots")?

POINTS-
1. Am I paraphrasing you in a satisfactory manner?
2. What are the (cited) issues you have with the Pathfinder system?
3. Why does the opinion of other board members dictate your enjoyment of the system? (Note: this question is dependent of my paraphrasing and understanding of your statements.

NOTES-
1. Mr. Elswyr, feel free to comment on my posts as well.

[Tessius]

This is Ederin's chat with Mistah everybody. Try not to throw up a wall of text or start a flame-pocolypse before there is some back and forth between them, please.

[Kilbourne]

Tessius wrote:

This is Ederin's chat with Mistah everybody. Try not to throw up a wall of text or start a flame-pocolypse before there is some back and forth between them, please.

You're right. Excuse me please.

[Mistah Green]

The hostility caused us to go from being somewhat associated with PF to breaking off ties. If people here had responded better, we would have not reacted in this way, and would have perhaps even gave PF another chance at being broad.

wraithstrike wrote:

Yeah the game is not balanced, and it accounts for a wide variety of play. Is the issue that the floor(non optomized characters, and the ceiling(optomized characters) are too far apart.

I assume this was meant to be a question. That is the result, but it's not the problem. After all core 3.5 is also 3 classes long. The difference is non core adds more than that, and those other 8 classes were not nerfed in later revisions. It's also not a straight comparison of optimized vs not optimized. Not all optimization is created equal after all. A core only game, that contains both a Druid and a Monk contains both one of the best classes in the entire game and one of the worst at the same time. Other comparisons are a little less drastic, but it needs more Goldilocks. If you're familiar with JaronK's tier system (which is flawed, but about 80% accurate) look at everything listed as Tier 1, 2, and 3. Consider why that is. Then make everything fit one of those categories. 2 and 3 for normal games, 1 and 2 for high powered games. Low powered games aren't supposed, despite the author's claims to the contrary he even admits as much if you read between the lines. Anything 4 or lower is primarily defined by what they can do relative to what they should be doing. Which means trying to play them is an exercise in frustration.

What PF has done is give a +1 tier to the tier 1 and 2 stuff, and a -1 tier to the 4 and lower stuff. A bit oversimplified, but mostly accurate. Any errors would be under, rather than over. That is to say some classes dropped more than one tier (Rogues, I'm looking at you).

Edit: While I will continue to respond to productive posts made by others, unproductive posts by anyone but Ederin will be completely ignored. This includes Ederin discussing said unproductive aspects.

[Creepy Puppet]

Frank? Is that you?

[Virgil]

No, that is not Frank.

[IkeDoe]

Life 101: Hostile people gets hostile answers.
Boards 101: every troll and clueless poster gets what he/she deserves.

[Mr.Fishy]

Mistah Green wrote:

What PF has done is give a +1 tier to the tier 1 and 2 stuff, and a -1 tier to the 4 and lower stuff. A bit oversimplified, but mostly accurate. Any errors would be under, rather than over. That is to say some classes dropped more than one tier (Rogues, I'm looking at you).

Edit: While I will continue to respond to productive posts made by others, unproductive posts by anyone but Ederin will be completely ignored. This includes Ederin...

Mr. Fishy has the question. The rogue is weaker?

[Ross Byers]

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

[Frank the Mime]

......?

[Creepy Puppet]

Frank the Mime wrote:

......?

You're right, Frank, in theory he can visit this thread now that it appears to have been moved. Question is, will he be needed....

[Spanky the Leprechaun]

Mistah Green wrote:

The hostility caused us to go from being somewhat associated with PF to breaking off ties. If people here had responded better, we would have not reacted in this way, and would have perhaps even gave PF another chance at being broad.

Yeah....I know how that is.

I played chess for like 35 years.
Then I went to some yahoo chess or something, snotted off to three dozen people, and then everybody was mean to me.
I don't like chess no morez.

[Spanky the Leprechaun]

Please.....please. Respond to me.
I yearn for the validation.
Please.

[wraithstrike]

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

I have seen you here at opposite ends of AM and PM. Do you sleep, but then again if I saw you here that means I was here too.

Nevermind, move along folks, nothing to see here.

[Creepy Puppet]

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I yearn for the validation.

Please.

In public?

[Areswargod139]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Mr. Fishy has the question. The rogue is weaker?

Yeah, I was following his statements until that one. I'm genuinely curious how the Rogue has become crappier.

As for the melee classes, which I think really means the combat maneuver rules aren't as charge/tripperific as they were in 3.x, then I would say not to use them.

I still consider Pathfinder to be what it was said to be way back in the Beta book (paraphrasing), "Pathfinder is a series of houserules".

It's here for us to take what we like and leave out what we don't. I like the fighters new class features, they're flavorful and provide a mobility bonus to its movement among other things. I don't have too many chargers in my games, but if it comes up, we'll use the old charging rules. No biggee. I don't like the Fly skill, so I don't use it. No biggee.

As for the monk, I like some of the changes to the Monk and the only thing to add for extra playability is to make the amulet of whatevers cheaper and to allow the monk to flurry as a swift action once per turn. Instant mobile striker. If that doesn't work, swordsage. No biggee.

And although I understand that this would be considered an example of the 'ol Oberoni fallacy, I would deny this and instead state my view of Pathfinder as a series of 3.x houserules, just like was said in the original Beta book I bought a few years ago. (In other words, changing houserules isn't an infraction of the O.F.)
That is if you care about all those modified logical tropes the Pro-Psionics and Optimization forum guys made up to "insta-win" a lot of their shouting matches on the WotC 3e boards back in the day. Meh.

[Dire Mongoose]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Mr. Fishy has the question. The rogue is weaker?

Basically, his vision of the 3.5 rogue was UMD'ing for grease or blink and then spam-throwing flasks for sneak damage.

[Maerimydra]

I have to agree with Mr. Green on this : Pathfinder did nothing to close, or even narrow, the gap between classes. IMO, backward compatibility is the greatest strength and weakness of PF. For the sake of backward compatibility, PF didn't nerf the casters enough (in fact, they are now stronger than ever). PF's designers were not bold enough to make significant changes to the system. As an simple example, why does a wizard HAVE to be able to cast a 9th level spells when he reach the 17th level ? It's not written in the sky after all. It could have been a captstone ability instead, but you change that and you need to change huges part of the whole system (CR, monsters with spell-like abilities, etc.), and that would go against the ''backward compatibility''.

Like many people, I'm not here because I play Pathfinder, I'm here because I play Pathfinder + D&D 3.5 + D&D 3.0 + house rules. Backward compatibility is the only reason why I play PF, because I own a lot of 3.5 books and I was not ready to let them rot yet. I see my PF Core Rules Book as a big compendium of optionnal rules for playing D&D rather than a whole new game system. Some of them are good, others are... strange (caster's don't really need more stuff IMO). Maybe Mr. Green don't like Pathfinder because he expected something more daring, more bold, than of a bunch of optional rules that don't really change the game (the way that I see it). I like Pathfinder, but that's only because I like playing D&D. It's not perfect (hell no it's not!), but I like it anyway.

However, PF's fighters are only nerfed if you don't allow backward compatibility. If you allow it (with some adjustments), I think that they are a little stronger than before. If you're going trip attack, it'll cost you only 1 more feat. Since you can now use your BAB when making a combat manoeuvre and the impact of size is now weaker, it's easier to trip big monsters whit high strength in PF than in 3.5.

Oh and by the way, as a side comment, the Magus is already in the APG. You just have to read the bard archetype called Arcane Duelist. That's weak, unless they modify the class heavily before the release. I don't see the point in reprinting something that is already out there.

[Dire Mongoose]

Mistah Green wrote:

Dead characters cannot roleplay after all, but living ones can do most of the stuff you mention.

This isn't a bad angle of argument, but it rests on an implicit assumption that is faulty. Which is:

It is necessary for characters to be fairly optimized, because a sub-optimally party will die when faced with appropriately CR'd encounters.

I'm sorry, but given even moderately skilled players, that just isn't true.

For your position to work out, it would have to be the case that the game was too hard with a suboptimal party and survivable with team all-optimized-caster, whereas in reality it's more like: the game is survivable with an only moderately well-built party, and with team all-optimized-caster, the game is too easy to be interesting or fun.

[Dire Mongoose]

Maerimydra wrote:

I'm here because I play Pathfinder + D&D 3.5 + D&D 3.0 + house rules. Backward compatibility is the only reason why I play PF, because I own a lot of 3.5 books and I was not ready to let them rot yet.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

However, I would say that if you expect the resulting melting pot to be balanced without significant further work from you, that is not a reasonable assumption.

[The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord]

ZappoHisbane wrote:

Wait...

If Pathfinder is "a system [you're] not interested in anymore," why, oh why, are you even here??

he left once, now a sock is back??

[Aberzombie]

The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

Wait...

If Pathfinder is "a system [you're] not interested in anymore," why, oh why, are you even here??

he left once, now a sock is back??

That'd be my line of reasoning as well.

[Maerimydra]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Maerimydra wrote:

I'm here because I play Pathfinder + D&D 3.5 + D&D 3.0 + house rules. Backward compatibility is the only reason why I play PF, because I own a lot of 3.5 books and I was not ready to let them rot yet.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

However, I would say that if you expect the resulting melting pot to be balanced without significant further work from you, that is not a reasonable assumption.

Well, I don't see Pathfinder as 100% balanced anyway. And that doesn't mean that I would allow everything in my game. If one of my players come to me with a feat/spell/class that I think is unbalanced, I'll modify it or won't allow it (that's were the house-rules part mostly comes into play). If you want to play a warblade because you like the mechanic of that class that's fine, but you're wrong if you think that I'll let you play the class as it's presented in ToB : let's talk about what we can do to make it more in line with mr. core fighter. :D

[The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord]

Aberzombie wrote:

The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

ZappoHisbane wrote:

Wait...

If Pathfinder is "a system [you're] not interested in anymore," why, oh why, are you even here??

he left once, now a sock is back??

That'd be my line of reasoning as well.

Well you are the one with all the brains around here. of course ,they are, in a meat locker.

[Sebastian]

Mistah Green wrote:

The hostility caused us to go from being somewhat associated with PF to breaking off ties. If people here had responded better, we would have not reacted in this way, and would have perhaps even gave PF another chance at being broad.

No...please...don't go...it'd be a travesty not to have your awesomeness associated with Pathfinder...please...stay...we all really like and respect you...all of us...really...please reconsider...please...

Oh well, I tried.

[Sebastian]

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.

Weird.

Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic shit in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.

Oh wait, there's not.

Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.

I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.

Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.

In the meantime, you might want to invest in a new lock thread button. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be used heavily in the near future.

Try fighting the fire, not the smoke.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Sebastian wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.

Weird.

Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic s~&# in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.

Oh wait, there's not.

Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.

I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.

Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.

+1 and better (and nicer) than I could of said it.

[The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord]

Sebastian wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.

Weird.

Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic s!!@ in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.

Oh wait, there's not.

Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.

I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.

Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.

In the meantime, you might want to invest in a new lock thread button. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be used heavily in the near future.

Try fighting the fire, not the smoke.

Fight fire with Fire

[The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord]

Maerimydra wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Maerimydra wrote:

I'm here because I play Pathfinder + D&D 3.5 + D&D 3.0 + house rules. Backward compatibility is the only reason why I play PF, because I own a lot of 3.5 books and I was not ready to let them rot yet.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

However, I would say that if you expect the resulting melting pot to be balanced without significant further work from you, that is not a reasonable assumption.

Well, I don't see Pathfinder as 100% balanced anyway. And that doesn't mean that I would allow everything in my game. If one of my players come to me with a feat/spell/class that I think is unbalanced, I'll modify it or won't allow it (that's were the house-rules part mostly comes into play). If you want to play a warblade because you like the mechanic of that class that's fine, but you're wrong if you think that I'll let you play the class as it's presented in ToB : let's talk about what we can do to make it more in line with mr. core fighter. :D

Balance is not always the answer. Balance is not always conducive to good roleplaying but encourages rollplaying.

[The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord]

Sebastian wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.

Weird.

Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic s&~! in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.

Oh wait, there's not.

Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.

I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.

Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.

In the meantime, you might want to invest in a new lock thread button. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be used heavily in the near future.

Try fighting the fire, not the smoke.

I think this one deserves more then another +1

[Aberzombie]

Sebastian wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.

Weird.

Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic s%*@ in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.

Oh wait, there's not.

Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.

I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.

Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.

In the meantime, you might want to invest in a new lock thread button. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be used heavily in the near future.

Try fighting the fire, not the smoke.

That...that's just beautiful man! If my tear ducts weren't decayed and whithered, I'd be crying right now.

[The Eldritch Mr. Shiny]

Sebastian wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Folks, this thread has managed to stay pretty civil so far. Please keep it that way.

It's scary, isn't it? I mean, someone comes in, is rude and arrogant, the community responds with a resounding "please go away until you learn some manners," he can't be bothered, and things get uncivil.

Weird.

Thank god there's a "the community would be better without you flag" so we can appropriately designate someone who has come to take a toxic s#%~ in our forums and generally troll in a den-approved way.

Oh wait, there's not.

Which is why trolls like Green get so much grief.

I don't mean to tread on the moderators, cause lord knows that poor persecuted folk like Greeny the Meanie know they are all against him, but I sorta think if a poster thinks we're all inferior knuckle-draggin douchebags who play a BADFAIL game (and the wrong way at that), maybe it wouldn't be so bad to encourage them to go somewhere where douche-baggery is well appreciated.

Go ahead and delete my post, but frontier justice is all we've got. If Green wants to learn to talk like an adult, we will respond in kind. In the meantime, he deserves what he gets, and I hope he keeps getting more of it.

In the meantime, you might want to invest in a new lock thread button. I have a sneaking suspicion it will be used heavily in the near future.

Try fighting the fire, not the smoke.

I usually stay out of shit like this, mainly because I ain't smart enough to argue, but this bit here is pretty damn true. Triple +1.

[Kabump]

Cant be bothered to read the thread, just want to say I love playing monks, and in the end isn't that all that matters? I have fun playing the class. This more-than-likely off topic post is now over.

[The Eldritch Mr. Shiny]

Kabump wrote:

Cant be bothered to read the thread, just want to say I love playing monks, and in the end isn't that all that matters? I have fun playing the class. This more-than-likely off topic post is now over.

Off-topic posts are awesome. Feel free to create more of them.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Kabump wrote:

Cant be bothered to read the thread, just want to say I love playing monks, and in the end isn't that all that matters? I have fun playing the class. This more-than-likely off topic post is now over.

{offers him a blue pill} Please note that if your post continues for more than four hours, please consult a doctor. :)

[JMD031]

Interesting. Yet another reason why I don't like "theorycrafters".

So here is a little anectdote that you might find interesting. I just recently ran a group of 5th level characters through the Carrion Hill module and the party consisted of 2 Monks, 1 Fighter and 1 Cleric (specializing in Necromancy). The cleric was not very combat effective despite having various spells and abilities that would allow him to be because the Monks and Fighter were better at getting into combat and killing things than he was. The only time he was able to contribute at all was when he was channeling negative energy. The monks on the other hand were dishing out a ridiculous amount of damage, were actually able to hit stuff and did not appear to fail at much of anything because neither of them failed many saving throws. The Fighter was a Half-Elf who had EWP Bastard sword and averaged 15 points of damage every time he hit and for that module was often enough to kill some things outright.

Now, here is the kicker, none of these characters were "optimal". I mean one character was a Half-Orc monk and spent two feats to gain the scent ability and a bonus to perception checks if whatever they were looking for was frightened. Yet, all four of these players had fun. This doesn't really seem possible, but yet it did in fact happen. The only thing they had trouble with was the last creature in the module and that is because it was way overpowered for a party that level.

BTW, I'm only posting this to share my experience. I have no intentions of starting or continuing any arguments with anybody. If I had a point to make it would be that it doesn't matter what 100 thousand people on the internet tell you about how you should play your character, what matters is what you feel is the best way to play it. Some of my best characters were non-optimal, and some of my worst were optimal. Food for thought.