|
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently there is a debate going on about why sword canes were added if they were not mechanically better than X.
There was a huge thread about the Monk vow of poverty, and how horrible it was.
To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.
Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.
Maybe, and I know I'm going to get a little nuts here but stay with me, maybe some people think flavor is more important that power because maybe they actually play the game to create a story with the DM, and they want to play an interesting character in that story.
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities, or your Svirfneblin or Dhampir may cause some interaction problems in well lit rooms.
Maybe some DM actually ask the question "What do these characters look like when they walk in a room, and how would people react to them"
Maybe a sword cane is less conspicuous and that has value. Maybe as a player you want the challenge of trying to build a monk character without significant gear.
Maybe some of us are less worried that the new splat book didn't give you the broken option you were hoping for so you could show all your friends how awesome your broken combo is in a made up world for a little while until the Devs realize a mistake and errata it.
Maybe...just maybe...some of us like having more options, while still allowing old options to have value and not be obsolete.
Crazy, I know...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently there is a debate going on about why sword canes were added if they were not mechanically better than X.
There was a huge thread about the Monk vow of poverty, and how horrible it was.
To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.
Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.
Maybe, and I know I'm going to get a little nuts here but stay with me, maybe some people think flavor is more important that power because maybe they actually play the game to create a story with the DM, and they want to play an interesting character in that story.
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities, or your Svirfneblin or Dhampir may cause some interaction problems in well lit rooms.
Maybe some DM actually ask the question "What do these characters look like when they walk in a room, and how would people react to them"
Maybe a sword cane is less conspicuous and that has value. Maybe as a player you want the challenge of trying to build a monk character without significant gear.
Maybe some of us are less worried that the new splat book didn't give you the broken option you were hoping for so you could show all your friends how awesome your broken combo is in a made up world for a little while until the Devs realize a mistake and errata it.
Maybe...just maybe...some of us like having more options, while still allowing old options to have value and not be obsolete.
Crazy, I know...
Thank you... I've been feeling this for the last few days quite a bit. Someone talking crazy talk is refreshing. I enjoyed my Barbarian/Rogue Greatblade, who fought with a large sized longsword, javelins and a cestus made from the bones of his enemies... because he was amazingly flavorful and fun. He was so far from optimal it was almost painful, but God was he fun.
Sigh. And here we go again with this silliness. Proceed.
|
In before "go play Cops and Robbers, we're having a bleeding edge tactical wargame here and we want it BALANCED*"
BALANCE = an abstract, undefined thought construct used to prove that pro-balance person is Smart and Knowledgeable while his disputants are Uninformed, Math Challenged or Deliberately Obtuse.
|
|
In before "go play Cops and Robbers, we're having a bleeding edge tactical wargame here and we want it BALANCED*"
BALANCE = an abstract, undefined thought construct used to prove that pro-balance person is Smart and Knowledgeable while his disputants are Uninformed, Math Challenged or Deliberately Obtuse.
Math is based off a faulty starting assumption that two things share perfectly equal value that can be called the quantity of "1"
How can 1+1 equal 2, if neither of the quantities being combined is actually equal to the assigned value "1"
I figure if we are going to start from an attack on one concept, we might as well extend it out...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In before "go play Cops and Robbers, we're having a bleeding edge tactical wargame here and we want it BALANCED*"
BALANCE = an abstract, undefined thought construct used to prove that pro-balance person is Smart and Knowledgeable while his disputants are Uninformed, Math Challenged or Deliberately Obtuse.
Math is based off a faulty starting assumption that two things share perfectly equal value that can be called the quantity of "1"
How can 1+1 equal 2, if neither of the quantities being combines is actually equal to the assigned value "1"
I figure if we are going to start from an attack on one concept, we might as well extend it out...
1+1=3, for a large value of 1 and a small value of 3.
|
|
In before "go play Cops and Robbers, we're having a bleeding edge tactical wargame here and we want it BALANCED*"
BALANCE = an abstract, undefined thought construct used to prove that pro-balance person is Smart and Knowledgeable while his disputants are Uninformed, Math Challenged or Deliberately Obtuse.
Math is based off a faulty starting assumption that two things share perfectly equal value that can be called the quantity of "1"
How can 1+1 equal 2, if neither of the quantities being combines is actually equal to the assigned value "1"
I figure if we are going to start from an attack on one concept, we might as well extend it out...
And that's why "balance" is purely objective in RPGs.
It's just that many people want to enforce their idea of balance as the backdrop for discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you can have fun role playing and tell an engaging story with balanced mechanics behind the system.
Maybe an optimized build for a character is just that a build and the role playing aspect can not be represented by numbers on paper but by the words and actions the character does in the setting.
Maybe a sword cane could just be a short sword hidden in a special scabbard.
Maybe we can agree that the game is not perfect and it is up to DM's to fix problems at the table.....like making a sword cane a valid choice.
Maybe I want the system to give me a ton of equally valid mechanical choices for characters and let me then let the story come out of that.
But mostly maybe we can all stop telling each other we are playing our game of pretend wrong and not doing it correctly. I mean come on if your table is having fun and my table is having fun that's all that really matters in the end.
|
|
In before "go play Cops and Robbers, we're having a bleeding edge tactical wargame here and we want it BALANCED*"
BALANCE = an abstract, undefined thought construct used to prove that pro-balance person is Smart and Knowledgeable while his disputants are Uninformed, Math Challenged or Deliberately Obtuse.
Math is based off a faulty starting assumption that two things share perfectly equal value that can be called the quantity of "1"
How can 1+1 equal 2, if neither of the quantities being combines is actually equal to the assigned value "1"
I figure if we are going to start from an attack on one concept, we might as well extend it out...
And that's why "balance" is purely objective in RPGs.
It's just that many people want to enforce their idea of balance as the backdrop for discussion.
It is objective, with some quantifiable variables. If a new spell came out that was a true save or die area effect from long range, it would be unbalanced relative to existing spells.
If a new first level spell does 20d6 damage, it would be easy to quantify how it is unbalanced.
The topic at hand is if their is value in a different item with similar mechanics being introduced, or a mechanically suboptimal item with flavor value (or in the case of a sword cane, actual role playing value).
There is what Kirth does, in creating a new variant to fit his play style as an entire house rule (good thing) vs the crying and whining that goes on here on the boards about how the new books don't giving them uber power and how some options are "good enough".
|
|
R-P and flavor concerns are awesome. I have no complaints about the sword-cane.
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities,There's no setting evidence for that, though. Published material indicates that magic is commonplace in Golarion, and your Eidolon while not completely ordinary, is probably only one among quite a few in a major city.
Sure, if your game is different that's fine. You shouldn't write things like that implying that it is the default for the published setting, though.
-Kle.
Really?
Your huge creature who is do big it can't fit through doors isn't going to have any effect when you come to town?
Really?
And your half orc is welcome everywhere as well I suppose?
I can agree with you on the sword cane as long as the character using it isn't someone who is supposed to do crazy amounts of damage (fighters, rangers, paladins etc.)
But the vow of poverty of monk isn't a challenge, it's suicide. Although i wouldn't (personally) have a problem with one particular player (from my table) play a VoP monk but then again this particular player almost always creates nigh useless characters anyway and i and someone else (the usual DM) in the table always have him in our minds when we create characters and/or encounters.
I think sword canes are not that good weapons but it still might be a good weapon for an npc that would catch the characters off gaurd. For example a shapeshifting enemy appears to be an old unarmed man with a cane that is actually a sword cane also has value and would trick the players and maybe then attack at night after trying to get protection from the pcs.
Discriminating against a half-orc PC is like discriminating against a female PC sure sometimes it is part of a story to let you know who the bad guys are but should not be used to punish player choices.
If you don't want players to be half-orcs don't let them. Punishing them for picking a race is kinda dickish.
I mean the race entry in the main book has no penalty to social rolls, in fact in pathfinder they can choose to have +2 charisma and be more social than elves.
Why would a town dislike my half-orc bard with a 20 charisma more then your elf ranger with a 10?
|
|
Discriminating against a half-orc PC is like discriminating against a female PC sure sometimes it is part of a story to let you know who the bad guys are but should not be used to punish player choices.
If you don't want players to be half-orcs don't let them. Punishing them for picking a race is kinda dickish.
I mean the race entry in the main book has no penalty to social rolls, in fact in pathfinder they can choose to have +2 charisma and be more social than elves.
Why would a town dislike my half-orc bard with a 20 charisma more then your elf ranger with a 10?
Same reason they would dislike the elf ranger in areas where elves aren't welcome.
Only there are a lot more places half-orcs aren't welcome than elves.
Not to unleash the Charisma treadjack, but it doesn't automatically make people like you. Sauron had a really high charisma, but wasn't liked. You just knew you didn't mess with him.
The problem is the default half-orc does not suffer social stigma. So as long as the players in your game know before they put pencil to paper that by picking half-orc they are in for a hard time socially it's ok. The only thing is that is not how the default world is written.
In a world with a thousand other things that eat you, control your mind, tranform to look like your loved ones, use magic to corrupt the souls of others, ect.... a green/greyish skinned guy with slightly pointy tusks and ears is not a big deal.
But back to the main topic, why make a choice any choice about your character it is so you can have fun. As long as everyone is having fun it's all cool. If one of your players knows that by picking a half-orc he will have to overcome discrimination and that is something he wants to explore in the game it is cool. But it should be a player choice with full knowledge of the consequences or it does not become fun.
|
|
The problem is the default half-orc does not suffer social stigma. So as long as the players in your game know before they put pencil to paper that by picking half-orc they are in for a hard time socially it's ok. The only thing is that is not how the default world is written.
In a world with a thousand other things that eat you, control your mind, tranform to look like your loved ones, use magic to corrupt the souls of others, ect.... a green/greyish skinned guy with slightly pointy tusks and ears is not a big deal.
But back to the main topic, why make a choice any choice about your character it is so you can have fun. As long as everyone is having fun it's all cool. If one of your players knows that by picking a half-orc he will have to overcome discrimination and that is something he wants to explore in the game it is cool. But it should be a player choice with full knowledge of the consequences or it does not become fun.
If the default world is Golarion, that depends on what country/town you are in.
And as to the second part, yes.
Yeah, Splatstorms are rough.
Eventually, the new shine will wear off, and people will stop checking the forums for new ways to torment their GMs.
Also not all ethnicities of humans are liked everywhere on Golarioin like in Ustalav they do not like kellids.
|
In a world with a thousand other things that eat you, control your mind, tranform to look like your loved ones, use magic to corrupt the souls of others, ect.... a green/greyish skinned guy with slightly pointy tusks and ears is not a big deal.
Goblins of Golarion hints that non-standard races are not always welcome everywhere. Specifically mentioning that there are a few places that do tend to welcome these races, places like the city Katapesh as the main example...
So while the RAW might not mention social stigma for this or that race, one must look to the fluff of the setting for clues as to what races might be viewed with disfavor...
Taking half orcs as an example, if the flavor test of a certain region says orcs are slain on sight, then it be a safe bet your half orc would not feel very welcome in such a place...
I can agree with you on the sword cane as long as the character using it isn't someone who is supposed to do crazy amounts of damage (fighters, rangers, paladins etc.)
But the vow of poverty of monk isn't a challenge, it's suicide. Although i wouldn't (personally) have a problem with one particular player (from my table) play a VoP monk but then again this particular player almost always creates nigh useless characters anyway and i and someone else (the usual DM) in the table always have him in our minds when we create characters and/or encounters.
I've played in campaigns where half the party had vow of poverty, and everything was fine. I'v also played an apostle of peace. It pissed off the guy who always played evil characters, so I considered myself successful. If anyone in my group ever called one of my characters useless and implied that I needed special treatment I'd probably stop playing with them.
I don't like telling anyone else that they're playing the game wrong, but calling out another player like that is not in the game's spirit of cooperation. Although I'm sure they appreciate the accommodation you make.
Exactly. There have always been elements in the game that are there for flavor. There should continue to be forever. People who ask why all the time confound me. If the thing is there in the game, and it's what you want for your character concept, just be happy someone thought to include it, and make it work somehow.
Actually one wierd note about summoners is their eidolons can be hijacked by two different methods I know of
1. Egorian academy infernal binder makes caster level check to take control of eidolon and guess what as the standard action on last round can banish it.
Assume control spell in ultimate magic forgot to post that. Eidolons are treated as summoned creatures.
-Is it the role of the DM to reward a player who says "My character is taking a less than 'optimal' build in order to create a more rounded character?"
A character spends feats to be able to improvise weapons for example. Is a DM to reward this player by putting him in many bar brawls where he is unarmed, and so are his opponents? Now a great-weapon fighter is 'rewarded' any time there is a 'normal' combat. The bar brawler requires a very certain, specialized environment to 'shine.'
-Personally I DO try to reward players who make well rounded or interesting characters. I prefer it to "Another big silent hulking barbarian with an axe".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently there is a debate going on about why sword canes were added if they were not mechanically better than X.
There was a huge thread about the Monk vow of poverty, and how horrible it was.
To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.
Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.
Maybe, and I know I'm going to get a little nuts here but stay with me, maybe some people think flavor is more important that power because maybe they actually play the game to create a story with the DM, and they want to play an interesting character in that story.
But the swordcane being crap mechanically is bloody nonsense. Picking it because it is crap mechanically is moronic. Role-players come up with this high and mighty excuse of doing incomprehensible things for "story" reasons when really they are just simply illogical nonsense. "My character has a limp and is 80 years old and is a pacifist." Well that's bloody great, but why the hell are you an adventurer? You know, someone who spends all his time climbing through dungeons and beating stuff to death. Sure, maybe it kind of works for an "intrigue game" of Dining Halls & Diplomats.
Maybe, and this could just be crazy talk, some people think that your huge eideolon with 15 attacks would probably not be allowed in most major cities, or your Svirfneblin or Dhampir may cause some interaction problems in well lit rooms.
But those are suboptimal choices then! What the hell is your argument?!
Maybe a sword cane is less conspicuous and that has value.
Why not hide a dagger on your person? Or use a quarterstaff?
Maybe some of us are less worried that the new splat book didn't give you the broken option you were hoping for
But you seem very worried that the splat book didn't give you your purposefully suboptimal, completely-useless-in-the-game "role-playing" option you really wanted.
"My character has a limp and is 80 years old and is a pacifist." Well that's bloody great, but why the hell are you an adventurer?
He could be a Wizard?
Seriously, IMO there is nothing wrong with a PC who is (personally) averse to combat. It is characters that are averse to plot-hooks and the call to adventure who need to be forcibly put down. Old pacifist is perfectly viable so long as he's still able to contribute, and a wizard damn well could.
"My character has a limp and is 80 years old and is a pacifist." Well that's bloody great, but why the hell are you an adventurer?He could be a Wizard?
But then he'd be useful and that's rollplaying! To be a true roleplayer your character must be the most inappropriate fit for the game possible and endeavour to be ill-equipped to deal with all situations! If you're at all meaningful to the game, clearly you have optimised something and ruined all of your roleplaying forever!
Maybe people want all that and not be penalized for it because the designers intentionally made it a Bad Choice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should just houserule it and get over it and get back to playing the game.
I am Urizen, who is not TriOmegaZero, and I approve of this thread.
But then he'd be useful and that's rollplaying! To be a true roleplayer your character must be the most inappropriate fit for the game possible and endeavour to be ill-equipped to deal with all situations! If you're at all meaningful to the game, clearly you have optimised something and ruined all of your roleplaying forever!"My character has a limp and is 80 years old and is a pacifist." Well that's bloody great, but why the hell are you an adventurer?He could be a Wizard?
I thought the gimp was another kind of roleplaying...
Depends on which book you're using.
ciretose, you made my day.
I am Urizen, who is not TriOmegaZero, and I approve of this thread.
Thanks for volunteering, I needed an avatar for this one!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree -- I don't want people punished meachnically if thet want to role-play a character. A feat chain that eventually allows a PC to wear a black cloak instead of a blue one is bad design, pure and simple. And if I'm paying $40 for a rulebook, I don't want it to be 300 pages of stuff I have to housreule and/or adjudicate on the fly in order to make it vaguely usable. I don't want a game that works only if everyone rigidly adheres to a complex social convention of massive rules violation and/or artificial restraint.
I especially don't like how outright bad game design gets a free pass because "a good DM will fix it." Well, fine, I'm a good DM -- I'll fix it from scratch, with no rulebook, and have a much easier time of it. And save $40 to boot.
Like this one:
Here's my new wizard archetype: you give up all spellcasting. In exchange you get a free pony at 1st level. It's too small to ride, and does not advance or get any special abilities, but it's friendly and cute.
Go ahead and play this archetype in the next game. It's all about RP. No one needs balance. Balance is for min-maxers.
When a rule forces you to actively hurt yourself in the name of "flavor," that's a sign of BAD DESIGN. People pay money for good design. Abandoning design altogether and "just RPing" with no numbers requires no rulebooks at all and thus no expenditure of money -- just make up a story.
I know that a large number of people don't actually care how bad the rules are. That's their prerogative. I have no problem with them, except insofar as they insist on forcing that choice on the rest of us. For the minority of us who want a coherent, well-written rule set, the constant screams of "Balance is Bad!" and "Lousy Rules are the Only Rules!" and "You're a sucky roleplayer if you want anything to be at all coherent!" get really tiresome.
--
If the rules are bad, the "no rules" crowd does what they do. If the rules are good, the "no rules" crowd can keep on doing what they do. It doesn't hurt them either way. It's only the people who want decent rules that get hurt in this kind of a deal.
|
|
There was a huge thread about the Monk vow of poverty, and how horrible it was.
To which I slam my head repeatedly into my desk.
Crazy thought here, maybe every build isn't an optimal build.
What about those of us that would find it fun to play a gearless monk that could reasonably hang with a standard party in a standard AP?
Many of us weren't asking for it to be optimal. We were asking for that theme to be functional.
But it's easier to just paint those complaining about it as rollplayers and min-maxers only, isn't it?
I should point out that I love playing with TOZ.
He has fun if the rules are bad.
But -- equally importantly -- he also has fun if the rules are tinkered with (or totally rewritten) in order to improve them.
He doesn't begrudge others the chance.