That's always been part of the game for us. Even our newer players accept that as simply part of the game - not everyone is going to get equal spotlight time in every game session. it would be downright boring if they did. Yes, that means many times people end up being sidekicks. I don't personally think that's such a bad thing.Would your opinion change at all if it's always the same players being the sidekicks?
If that's not what happens, I submit to you that the gulf between your "good" players and "bad" players may not be that big.
I know many people who enjoy being sidekicks more than main characters. I am one of them. I would rather watch someone else play and occasionally contribute than be the star myself. And I know I am not alone, since I have many friends who feel the same way. I've had bigger issues when no one wants to be the star than with having too many people wanting to be.
I know many people who enjoy being sidekicks more than main characters. I am one of them. I would rather watch someone else play and occasionally contribute than be the star myself. And I know I am not alone, since I have many friends who feel the same way. I've had bigger issues when no one wants to be the star than with having too many people wanting to be.
If that's not what happens, I submit to you that the gulf between your "good" players and "bad" players may not be that big.
It's a matter of phases too, i guess. A player of mine played the role of the Big Damn Hero for so much time, that now (rolled a Druid for this :P) wants just to cast few spells (summons), occasionally go melee and spending most time polymmorphed in something little doing something weird.
How describes himself doing this mess is part of the fun of being at the gaming table.
There is a difference between being the "star" of a session especially when you are playing a social heavy game. Many gamers don't care that someone else always dominates the "face" role in social situations.
It's a whole other issue if for substantial periods of the game you either aren't interacting with the scenery at all (Decker problem) or when you tend to be suboptimal when combat happens. Pathfinder/D&D is generally a combat heavy game and big complex encounters can take a pretty long time to resolve. Being mechanically inept can really lead to feelings of frustration among a large percentage of the gaming population.
Back when I was younger and I had more time to play sitting out part of a session was okay I had some books to skim, etc. When most gamers especially the older bunch struggle to find time to game among all the other crap they have to do it gets frustrating to be out of the action for an extended portion of the session.
I think the problem is that for some gamers being at wildly different levels of competency can result in people being out of the play. A hyper optimized SoD Nova caster can make a suboptimal Sword and Board fighter feel pretty redundant especially when the wizard starts consistently having summoned/called creatures every battle.
Yes a good DM can figure out ways to redress the balance and provide spotlight time to the suboptimal characters but it would be nice if the game was designed so that the difference between optimal and suboptimal wasn't so extreme. Further it would be great if there weren't trap choices that are often appealing to novice players but end up being bad in actual play.
+1 to all of that, Mr. Vuron.
Yeah.
There is a difference between being the "star" of a session especially when you are playing a social heavy game. Many gamers don't care that someone else always dominates the "face" role in social situations.
It's a whole other issue if for substantial periods of the game you either aren't interacting with the scenery at all (Decker problem) or when you tend to be suboptimal when combat happens. Pathfinder/D&D is generally a combat heavy game and big complex encounters can take a pretty long time to resolve. Being mechanically inept can really lead to feelings of frustration among a large percentage of the gaming population.
I think we must be talking past each other, because I could swear I covered this already.
We don't have problems with feelings of frustration due to being suboptimal. We have a couple of players that set out to make odd character concepts that aren't mechinically optimal, but they still have fun playing them despite how often they miss, or how much they suck at making skill checks, and so forth. I'm not worried about how the average group operates. In the event we find a new player that can deal with this kind of game, they're welcome to stick around.
Hmm. I'm not a storytime GM. I'd say I'm at Level II, by Kirth's reasoning. This is supported by the recent departure of a Level I player, for the reasons you would expect (no rules love).
And yet... I don't need to house rule to make melee viable. In fact, I play (almost) entirely by the RAW.
So... I guess my campaign sucks and I just didn't know. Somebody should tell my players.
<shrug> Somebody has to play Aquaman.
And thanks to the "down with XP squad". Would anyone be interested in a thread to discuss how to translate AP's & other XP-based adventures into DM-based leveling? I would be interested to hear of experiences.
Love to old boy!
On the 'Levels' game, I wouldn't call it that although I had an idea that they were style-types.
There are player styles:
I) Heavy RP, who cares about the rules
II) Heavy RP, does care about the rules
III) Heavy RP, Heavy optimiser (I am told they exist, but have never met one)
IV) Light RP, what rules? (also called the SO of a player/DM)
V) Light RP, I know all the rules (but usually doesn't)
VI) Light RP, uber-optimiser
There are DM styles:
I) Story > Rules (also known as the 'Jackanorey DM' {points awarded for getting the reference})
II) Story + Rules (Best kind)
III) Story < Rules (Boring by my standards but it floats some boats)
IV) Challenger (goes all out to 'optimise' monsters)
V) Killer ("My 5th TPK this week!" - also called Mr Pointless)
You can have any combination of player and DM styles - some work, some don't. I would rate myself as a aspiring to be a type II DM and a type II Player. CoD is a type III or VI player, with a type IV DM.
So... I guess my campaign sucks and I just didn't know. Somebody should tell my players.
It's not a matter of sucks or doesn't sucks or fun or isn't fun. It's just a matter of where the players are in terms of taking the mechanics seriously and/or system mastery. Basically, it's fun when everyone (DM and players) is roughly on the same page.
Ok. The party now has small AC and save bonuses against the CR 19 demon. Just like the CR 20 one.
"Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by evil summoned creatures"
The CR 19 demon casts spells just fine, and uses normal weapons just fine. And if a PC attacks him, he can attack that person just fine. Which means it really doesn't do a whole lot, even if you have that spell active.
Which spells? Decide if go melee is worthy or not and we can discuss. My point was that if there are spellcaster only and they are pratically immune to the balor's spell likes, he should consider go melee. If you think that melee is viable for both sides, it's fine for me.
Spells, of course. The Balor is absolutely terrible at melee. It does 14-24 damage a hit, which might, might take off 10% of the HP of the lowest HP guy in the party. That means if the party nicely allowed him to full attack, he might kill someone 4 rounds from now. If they actually fought back, at all that doesn't happen.
Er.. 15-25 becomes 27-37 with PA. You do not consider Vorpal. You are not considering drag + quickened telekinesis + whip.
And more damage output. Getting full attacked by 6 Frost Giants and 6 Winter Wolves does more damage than being full attacked by one CR 15 white dragon.
You assume all the frost attacking around the same target? What is the terrain conformation? Did the PCs ambushed the giants or is the opposite? The way they are positioned at the start of the fight matters a lot. As an example, on a difficult terrain the white dragon has an edge because of fly. If a monster is lower CR, there is an explanation.
|
Vuron, I still get teh feeling that you're talking about different experience in players rather than anything in the game design.
A group of all new players are goinf to make characters about teh same power level (because the melees and teh casters will make "sub optimal" choices - note, not my term, just using the language of the thread)
A group of all experienced players will create great chaacters no matter what, because theuy know the system and understand how to work things to better advantage them.
In both of those cases you get very little discrepancy between the classes (I've DM'd for both situations plenty of times.)
The disconnect comes when you get someone with little experience who plays with folks who have lots of experience. Then you get the disconnect, mostly because folk new to the game get thrown the fighting types "because they're easy".
All these people whio keep telling folk they're plying a "Lower level difficulty game" is really quite insulting. What ana mazingly arrogant stance to take when you place your game above others and then use that as the basis for your argument on a system.
I will postulate that the "difficulty" of a game comes down to how the GM runs their world, and the rules are built so that you can pretty much run any world you want. Guys like CodZilla, and K when he was hanging around, talk about their GM's not pulling any punches. However, when we started talking about using the gmae world itself against them, by using rules that allow for DM judgement to actually make DM judgement, by using alignment against players, by targeting their weaknesses in their dump stats, by having NPC's respond to their actions, by having divinatiosn and enchantments and the myriad other spells that require DM interpretation differ in their effects depending on the situation in a fashion that makes sense to the game - then we get called "asshats" or some such name. In otherwords, when the DM's really take the gloves off, these casters cry foul. Because you see, I do all this AND throw the rules at the players by building and running "Intelligent" enemies. But you don't see me telling people their games are "weaksauce"
Kirth, you and I have fenced a few times around different topics here, and you know my style of play from that. The worlds I run are built from the rules, and the flavour text of the monsters and the history of DND, and the pantheon interactions. These games require far more intelligence to play in than just "knowing rules", because you have to know the rules and then understand how they work in this organic world. Players learn from mistakes and experience in game. Guys like CoD would would get laughed at in my games for the assumptions they make about caster power, because my players have learnt the folly of thinking that way. And since botht eh GM guide and the Core book have sections on world building which include rules and guidelines on how to create these types of interactions, then they are NOT house rules. It is hard wired into the rules tha GM's will do these things.
Do not judge peoples games as lower power or inferior to your style, then rank the game styles. Without playing in their games you have no idea. Far better to assume that everyone is playing the game exactly as it should be played and argue your points from there.
I'm thinking of making this my signiature, since I keep saying it in this thread. Casters are only as powerful as the GM lets them get.
Cheers.
Sorry you're going to have to show me, in the PF rules, where it says that the treasure given in a monster's stat block can be used by the monster. I know, people will make the common sense argument but ya know "I'm shooting fireballs from my hands!" and all that. It's a game, and rules are rules. You can ignore those rules in favor of more common sense, the rules are very malleable, but doing so ups the CR. You can't argue that monster X is mechanically strong because YOU have housruled giving all monsters +Y, then say they need to be allowed these things because of LOGIC. Logic has no place in the rules my friend. A balor has a +1 unholy longsword and a flaming whip. That's it. Your only argument is that when you don't follow the monster creation guidelines to determine CR then Melee are screwed. Everything else is just repetition of your...erm...misinformation.Ashiel has already done so. Your argument is invalid.
Again, DPR doesn't need to be as high as you claim, because that calculation assumes that 1-you only have 3 rounds to kill it which itself assumes there is no healing mechanic, and burst is fairly strong that 2-tactics don't come into play and 3-that the casters are doing nothing. In a realistic scenario, like the one I posited with 3 CR 7s, the arcanist will likely remove one as a threat in the first round by battlefield control, which buys the group at least 1 likely 3-infinite rounds of focus on the other targets, which in turn increases...1: You only have two rounds. That's how long it takes to full attack you into the ground.
2: There is no healing, because healing, sans Heal spell is not viable in combat. It will, at most counteract a single hit, except that there are multiple hits, and now one of the capable party members is babysitting you. Oh and you'll still die.
3: Haste is not a spell worth casting.
Your argument is invalid, without actually proving it, is not only itself invalid but it is the last recourse of a troll.
You have as many rounds as you need. You just said you can't full attack on round 1, then neither can monsters. Your argument is invalid LOLZ wow that's so much fun.
You are not familiar with Pathfinder and its burst healing. With a single standard action a Cleric can heal (at level 10) about 20 HP from each party member. It's enough to effectively turn a full attacking monster into a non full attacking monster if it can shave off one full BAB attack's worth of hits every round. Also monsters don't automatically hit.
Haste is an excellent party buff spell, at least until your melee get boots of speed.
You are not playing by PF rules. You can't arbitrarily increase a monsters's power without increasing its CR. A CR 10 fight with a creature with equipment commensurate to a level 11 NPC is no longer a CR 10 fight. Period. If you disagree, consult the RULES, which apparently play no part in your campaigns.
Do not judge people[']s games as lower power or inferior to your style, then rank the game styles.
Evidently I wasn't being at all clear, so let me try a direct statement: The rankings I assigned are based on the degree of optimization that is expected and required. I am not in any way saying that higher numerals are "better" or "superior." Only that the higher numbers expect, and require, a greater degree of optimization.
Just like if I explain that blue light has a longer wavelength than red light, I'm not claiming it's "better," just that it does, indeed, have a different wavelength, and that wavelength is longer.
A group of all experienced players will create great chaacters no matter what, because theuy know the system and understand how to work things to better advantage them.
Eh. Experience doesn't equate to mechanically good at the game. I know people who have played for 20 years who still make (mechanically) terrible characters even when they're trying not to.
That being said? Honestly, if the fighters in your game seem on an even keel -- in terms of how much they bring to the team, as a sum of combat and non-combat -- with the wizard or cleric? Your experienced players are still not that good at the game. They seem good to you because they're better than the bad players you know, but there stil exists past them whole other echelons of smart play. And I know there's no inoffensive way to say that, just as there's no inoffensive way to tell someone that their kid is ugly, but the world still has its fair share of ugly kids. Spend a year playing PFS or other organized play at conventions with as many different players as you can and sooner or later you can't help but see the differences in what truly top-end players can do in a way that's wholly independent of DM or build or anything else that you think is making the difference.
Yeah, a good player will make a much better barbarian than the weak player, and a good player will make a much better sorcerer than the weak player. All true. But at some point of advancing skill even if the good player's fighter is still contributing, he's spending an awful lot of time watching the equally good player's druid do the adventure.
Which demon? As long as it isn't natural attacks, it works fine. If it is natural attacks, it works fine beginning as soon as they attack the demon.
That might be impressive against some summoned animal, who has no resource but not a demon. Except there is no protection from true neutral, so that doesn't work.
misinterpretation here. I meant: from a part or another of your posts, seems spell likes are the only viable way to attack the casters BUT summoned monsters can go melee BUT protection from evil will save the casters BUT there are meleers
O_o
1: Fine, 15%. Still no one cares.
2: Hurray, I have a 5% chance to be useful! ...Oh wait, I can cast multiple save or loses. Why do I even carry this silly sword?
3: Telekinesis is already covered, counts as a spell, and does far more damage than swinging its little sword will do.
1: I state it again: what would you do if YOU SPELL LIKE DO NOT WORK with the ubercasters party. Please don't answer "better use my spell likes". BTW, if blasting is used properly, that damage dealt could be far more than 15%.
2: the sword means potential istadeath. It's unlikely to happen but can happen, expecially in 7 attacks.Wanna full attack? Drag + telekinesis was meant to do this.
3: I said above that spell-likes are part of the challenge. But face a balor means not face a spellcaster with forbiddance and divination and such. PLEASE go reread the post. This does not mean I cannot make use of the spell likes. See above on balor options and the balor could even place himself at a "middle distance" to use combat reflexes and decide in his turn to use spells or a cleave on material components bag - holy symbols.
You assume all the frost attacking around the same target? What is the terrain conformation? Did the PCs ambushed the giants or is the opposite? The way they are positioned at the start of the fight matters a lot. As an example, on a difficult terrain the white dragon has an edge because of fly. If a monster is lower CR, there is an explanation.
Actually, after the second or third full attacks ______, ______ will be dead. But you can fit six in attack range rather easily. The rest is just obfuscation.
again, ignoring terrain (and what I said).
For reference.
...Just who the hell are all these people I keep getting called? Not just me either - I've seen some other people get called the same names.
Seems to be a simple case of confusing people as the same when they are merely remotely similar, but it's happened enough to warrant investigation.
You sure that's not the same guy?
On the 'Levels' game, I wouldn't call it that although I had an idea that they were style-types.
Thanks for explaining the levels to me.
I think I'm II and II, but I lean heavily towards I. That would explain why I run from games at the single mention of "builds"; yeah, I got to the point I don't wait for "optimization" to spring up anymore.
I like using rules and mechanics to good effect, but not to the point where I'm supposed to play a game within a game or give precedence to crunch instead of fluff and rule of cool.
Judge me if you want, I don't care.
You sure that's not the same guy?No, but making accusations about it accomplishes nothing and I would feel insulted if someone did so to me, therefore I will not do so to him.
Oh, it's not that. I'm just worried Crusader had opened a school or something...
On the 'Levels' game, I wouldn't call it that although I had an idea that they were style-types.Thanks for explaining the levels to me.
I think I'm II and II, but I lean heavily towards I. That would explain why I run from games at the single mention of "builds"; yeah, I got to the point I don't wait for "optimization" to spring up anymore.
I like using rules and mechanics to good effect, but not to the point where I'm supposed to play a game within a game or give precedence to crunch instead of fluff and rule of cool.
Judge me if you want, I don't care.
I judge you fine and worthy.
I've played 'optimised' games and they are sooooo boring for me with no real choices in the characters at all. As I've said before, once you relegate choices to being 'sub-optimal' you have removed choices from your game. Less choice = less fun as far as I am concerned.
I've played 'optimised' games and they are sooooo boring for me with no real choices in the characters at all. As I've said before, once you relegate choices to being 'sub-optimal' you have removed choices from your game. Less choice = less fun as far as I am concerned.
To be fair, understanding where the fault lines of the rules are, so to speak, doesn't mean you always have to play characters that are cranked out to the nines.
It kind of goes back to the idea of "Tiering" the classes. If you've got a group of players where if one person plays Wizard they're going to end up hogging the spotlight for the whole game, maybe everyone agrees that no one will play that class. I'm currently in one game where I intentionally am playing a much weaker character than I'm capable of making (as are a couple other players) because some of the rest of the group couldn't keep up with us if we really turned it up.
Knowledge of optimization lets you hit the power level you want; it doesn't demand that that power level is always 'as high as possible.'
|
For reference.
...Just who the hell are all these people I keep getting called? Not just me either - I've seen some other people get called the same names.
Seems to be a simple case of confusing people as the same when they are merely remotely similar, but it's happened enough to warrant investigation.
Speaking of which, quoting CrusaderOfLogic's 7th post on November 4th 2008
"CoDzilla is simply Cleric or Druid + Godzilla. By definition it is a Cleric or Druid that found out they have certain core options that really kick ass and tend to tear everything apart. Like the Druid? He gets a Fighter as a class feature. It's not even his only class feature. His beatstick is better though, because it's disposable, doesn't take the XP and loot, and probably smells better."
Coincidence?
Edit: Actually, just put CoDzilla in a search on that page and look how many come up.
Is that confirmation or what?
I've played 'optimised' games and they are sooooo boring for me with no real choices in the characters at all. As I've said before, once you relegate choices to being 'sub-optimal' you have removed choices from your game. Less choice = less fun as far as I am concerned.To be fair, understanding where the fault lines of the rules are, so to speak, doesn't mean you always have to play characters that are cranked out to the nines.
It kind of goes back to the idea of "Tiering" the classes. If you've got a group of players where if one person plays Wizard they're going to end up hogging the spotlight for the whole game, maybe everyone agrees that no one will play that class. I'm currently in one game where I intentionally am playing a much weaker character than I'm capable of making (as are a couple other players) because some of the rest of the group couldn't keep up with us if we really turned it up.
Knowledge of optimization lets you hit the power level you want; it doesn't demand that that power level is always 'as high as possible.'
Exactly! Now we're on a wavelength.
I don't care of dex fighters are 'sub-optimal' - I like Zoro, the Three Musketeers and the Princess bride! Making an effective dex fighter is a challenge. Any idiot can min-max a caster and spam spells for a 15 minute adventuring day ... I want more variety than that.
Is that confirmation or what?
It's confirmation you don't get out much. "Codzilla" is common 3.X slang. Assuming any two people using it are the same person is like assuming I'm Lady Gaga because she and I have both used the word "cool" to mean "hip" rather than "not warm."
Disclaimer: I'm not Lady Gaga.
Disclaimer: I'm not Lady Gaga.
Your posts are now 50% less awesome.
Undead shafts your HP, and creates other problems. Which is why I said Warforged. No crippling drawback.
Pathfinder undead gets Charisma to HP/Fortitude saves, making undead an excellent option for players. Most intelligent undead receive +charisma racial modifiers as well, so if you have create undead cast on you when you die (a popular tactic at our table when someone dies, turn them into an intelligent undead and get 'em back into play).
YMMV, but I've found Pathfinder undead to have little trouble keeping their HP up.
Sword of True Striking. Your argument is invalid.
Sword of True Striking. Your argument is stupid.
I assume you're suggesting a continuous +20 insight bonus to hit and ignore concealment, 24/7. Sorry, but you can't legally do that within the rules because of the way true-strike is written. It cannot be made into a continuous magic item because it has an unusual duration, and functions on your next attack. This means while you can have an item (say a sword) that allows you to gain the benefits of true-strike at-will, you still gotta pop a standard action and it still wears off if you don't use it within 1 round.
Swords of true-strike are so far from unbalanced it's amazing. They're fun though, I'll say that much. I've had some in my games. A 1/day true-strike item is only +360 gp. A 5/day true-strike item is 1,800 gp. Now a more powerful version would definitely be the swift-action version (quickened true-strike) but that's a 5th level spell, so it costs +18,000 gp for a 1/day, or 90,000 gp for an at-will version. Even then, you're still limited to one swift-action per round, so if you're making a full-attack, you only get it on 1 hit.
If you're going to make comments like that, at least know your stuff.
And quicken greater dispel? In PF?
No caster is using a 9th level slot to cast a heavily nerfed spell, to remove things that in no way impede their own effectiveness.
For someone talking about how godly wizards are, you sure don't know much about them. It's called a metamagic rod of quicken, and it's only 37,750 gp for a normal one. It lets the wizard/sorcerer/whatever spontaneously convert any 6th level or lower spell into a quickened version of itself at no level cost, 3/day.
Basically, our wizard spots Mr. Pit-Fiend, has arcane-sight - permanent up, auto-succeeds the spellcraft DC to recognize all the spells the pit-fiend has, drops a quickened greater dispel magic to break the pit-fiend's unholy aura, as well as the other four potion/wand buffs (these go down automatically due to getting thrashed by the wizard's caster level). Wizard didn't even use anything higher than a 6th level slot, and can do that a few more times.
If you really just want to strip someone of buffs like you mean it, without blowing your 9th level spells on mage's disjunction, double up on 'em (quickened greater dispel + greater dispel = 10 anti-buffs). This is a fairly good tactic when you don't want to waste your good spells on enemies who are merely weenies buffed out of their britches.
If you have an issue with another member of the messageboards, please flag it and move on. If you have a concern about a post that you feel isn't obvious from the post itself (such as sockpuppetry), please send an email to webmaster@paizo.com to explain what the issue is, and it will be looked into.
There is little point in accusing anyone of being a sock puppet publicly. You can't prove it, so even if you are correct, your target can simply deny it. Do you expect them to admit it? Or give up and go home, fearing recognition? And if you're wrong, you're just being a jerk.
There is little point in accusing anyone of being a sock puppet publicly. You can't prove it, so even if you are correct, your target can simply deny it. Do you expect them to admit it? Or give up and go home, fearing recognition? And if you're wrong, you're just being a jerk.
What if we just call them a "spiritual successor?"
Ross, we all owe you a case of diet coke. I'm taking up a collection.
|
|
That being said? Honestly, if the fighters in your game seem on an even keel -- in terms of how much they bring to the team, as a sum of combat and non-combat -- with the wizard or cleric? Your experienced players are still not that good at the game. They seem good to you because they're better than the bad players you know, but there stil exists past them whole other echelons of smart play. And I know there's no inoffensive way to say that, just as there's no inoffensive way to tell someone that their kid is ugly, but the world still has its fair share of ugly kids. Spend a year playing PFS or other organized play at conventions with as many different players as you can and sooner or later you can't help but see the differences in what truly top-end players can do in a way that's wholly independent of DM or build or anything else that you think is making the difference.
Hey look! A circular argument. Let me fill in the other half of the circle for you.
If your fighters aren't doing as much or more than your casters in games, then you're players really aren't that good. Your casters seem good to you, but that's because you've never really seen good players, they're just better than the bad players you know. I know that sounds harsh, but there's a whole world of gamers out there that play well and truly beyond your players ability to understand.
See how that works?
Seriously, drop the arrogant assumptions about other peoples games and prove your point. Offer your builds, explain how you would play them, and then listen to the people on the other side explain how the rules can counter it, or better yet, how GM's who take the gloves off can really hurt your caster buddies. The arrogance in those kinds of posts is really designed to do nothing more than get people grumpy.
As for PFS play, you couldn't pick a more restrictive environment for your casters to play in. No crafting, restrictions on gear you can purchase based on scenarios played, limits to what you're allowed to do because they don't want to add pressure to the GM in a 4 hours slot, restrictions on your build options. I've done some PFS and seen it run. Not a years worth, but if its anything like the year I spent playing Living Greyhawk, then casters are even more shot in the foot since they get targeted early by vondictive DM's and killed. The problem being of course, this means you need to start at level 1 again or spend the gold to be raised which then puts you well behind the gear alottment.
All I've heard from the casters are great side is hyperbole and random numbers.
As the old saying goes - Build it, and they will come.
Cheers
If you have an issue with another member of the messageboards, please flag it and move on. If you have a concern about a post that you feel isn't obvious from the post itself (such as sockpuppetry), please send an email to webmaster@paizo.com to explain what the issue is, and it will be looked into.
There is little point in accusing anyone of being a sock puppet publicly. You can't prove it, so even if you are correct, your target can simply deny it. Do you expect them to admit it? Or give up and go home, fearing recognition? And if you're wrong, you're just being a jerk.
Ok, I'm sorry. Won't happen again.
|
So... I guess my campaign sucks and I just didn't know. Somebody should tell my players.It's not a matter of sucks or doesn't sucks or fun or isn't fun. It's just a matter of where the players are in terms of taking the mechanics seriously and/or system mastery. Basically, it's fun when everyone (DM and players) is roughly on the same page.
I've said this over and over and over again.
As long as everybody involved want the same thing, there's no problems. But when people don't want the same things anymore, it causes problems. Kinda like marriage :)
Within the past year, I started wanting to play more RAW because I got sick of the houserules my DM has. He doesn't, because he's spent 30 years making them. We're not on the same page anymore, and now I'm not really happy with the group. I also feel the quality of play as dropped. Before, his stories and encounters were really great. Now they are mediocre, because he's busy playing WoW instead of DMing. Since the stories aren't so interesting anymore, I wasn't willing to put up with the bad things in his style.
Question for you, what exactly are these levels? I haven't run into that terminology before.It's a shorthand system I devised specifically for discussion on this very thread, but one that Codzilla and others instincively recognized.
I. Story hour: Rules are loose, enemies do really dumb things if that makes the scenario seem more "cinematic," and plot immunity is a given unless the challenges are nerfed. Ruling by DM fiat is prevailent. Pathfinder supports this level of play splendidly -- but, then again, you don't really need a game system at all at this level.
II. Practical rules knowledge: The players know that Toughness in 3.0 was a bad feat, and why. They understand that playing a Mystic Theurge is a selfish excuse to hurt your teammates, and why. They know that melee sucks after 11th level, and why. They play intelligently, but everyone involved has a "gentleman's agreement" to keep things within a certain band -- no one too gimped, and no one too optimized. This is very difficult to pull off unless you know your players pretty well. It's even more difficult with a game like Pathfinder that's so riddled with inconsistencies and trap options. It's what my houserules are aimed to facilitate.
III. Moderate optimization: Intelligent enemies are intelligent, and feats may be re-assigned. Death is quick and merciless. All characters need to pull their weight, or the party gets killed. Traps are generally eschewed unless they can be built on to achieve something more useful. Sub-optimal options frowned upon.
IV. Hard optimization (Trollman game): All sub-optimal strategies are branded as "traps" and removed. The remaining game therefore has minimal options, and eventually comes to resemble chess.
This is pretty well written. I like it.
|
|
Is that confirmation or what?It's confirmation you don't get out much. "Codzilla" is common 3.X slang. Assuming any two people using it are the same person is like assuming I'm Lady Gaga because she and I have both used the word "cool" to mean "hip" rather than "not warm."
Disclaimer: I'm not Lady Gaga.
I honestly have never heard it before, or seen in posted on here by anyone else prior. And the fact that the person we suspect is a sock puppet used it numerous times in a prior incarnation is more than a little suspicious to me.
|
|
I've played 'optimised' games and they are sooooo boring for me with no real choices in the characters at all. As I've said before, once you relegate choices to being 'sub-optimal' you have removed choices from your game. Less choice = less fun as far as I am concerned.To be fair, understanding where the fault lines of the rules are, so to speak, doesn't mean you always have to play characters that are cranked out to the nines.
It kind of goes back to the idea of "Tiering" the classes. If you've got a group of players where if one person plays Wizard they're going to end up hogging the spotlight for the whole game, maybe everyone agrees that no one will play that class. I'm currently in one game where I intentionally am playing a much weaker character than I'm capable of making (as are a couple other players) because some of the rest of the group couldn't keep up with us if we really turned it up.
Knowledge of optimization lets you hit the power level you want; it doesn't demand that that power level is always 'as high as possible.'
Exactly! Now we're on a wavelength.
I don't care of dex fighters are 'sub-optimal' - I like Zoro, the Three Musketeers and the Princess bride! Making an effective dex fighter is a challenge. Any idiot can min-max a caster and spam spells for a 15 minute adventuring day ... I want more variety than that.
The problem that I have is that the effort and work that goes into it is easily trumped by a decent player playing a much better class. The problem of that is the gap of power is so great, that making something that isn't viable in the first place is a huge waste of time.
Like trying to making the bestest, greatest, most powerfulest CW samurai is still miles away from a wizard. That itself doesn't bother me. But when it comes down to actual combat, it bugs me if I cannot contribute. For me, it might as well be as if when combat starts, I just leave, because I can't do ANYTHING to affect it.
HOWEVER, most games are not to the level 3 and 4 of optimization for NPCs, so that gap isn't fully explored, and most people like it that way. I do too, although it might not show in my postings.
I honestly have never heard it before, or seen in posted on here by anyone else prior. And the fact that the person we suspect is a sock puppet used it numerous times in a prior incarnation is more than a little suspicious to me.
Wow, really? What about grognard?
|
|
Wow, really? What about grognard?
I honestly have never heard it before, or seen in posted on here by anyone else prior. And the fact that the person we suspect is a sock puppet used it numerous times in a prior incarnation is more than a little suspicious to me.
I've seen that. It's moot because Ross asked to drop it, and we all like Ross. Sorry Ross, didn't see your post until after I posted.
I thought it was interesting that the only thing he managed to refute on my post was how bad Dispel was, promptly assuming I meant a weak PF standard dispel instead of a Greater, or the 3.5 version he'd use himself. I.e. he automatically assumes we're making stupid choices to play in HIS game, whereas he's making impossible choices to play in a PF game.
And pretending he didn't know BG = Brilliant Gameologist, that really made me laugh. Archrpwr rides again.
And the Sword of True Strike has a price. As an effective +10 weapon, I think it was around 3 million gp. If he doesn't know that, he doesn't know the game.
==Aelryinth