For me it's any book which has its content on the PRD, so if I don't have it, I can look it up.
|
if it's pretty clear that the player wants the exception for mechanical advantage (or any other munchkin-like reason), the answer's gonna be no.What I find strange about this attitude is that the only reason you take a feat, or anything else, is for an advantage. Why do you take toughness? To have a hit points advantage. Why do you have Skill Focus (Craft (Baskets while underwater))? To have an advantage over others who do not. Power Attack? Yep, that's an advantage.
Well, discounting rolling against a table for choosing feats.
I should make that statement more specific: "If it's pretty clear that the only reason the player wants the exception is for mechanical advantage..." (this is easier to see in action with third-party material, since for ease of understanding between all people in the game, we did have to decide on what the standard rules and options were).
IMO, if you can't explain a good, in-character/character-background/role-playing reason why your character should have that feat/spell/power/whatever-it-is you're trying to bring in from a 3rd party product or adapt from 3.5 to PF, the answer's still "no". IMO, yes, this principle should apply to everything from the official rules as well (it's not as easy to prove though, with official material).
And frankly, if the only reason you take a feat, or anything else, is for mechanical advantages (regardless of source-- "approved sources" and exceptions alike)... without thinking, "does this fit my character concept?","is this something my character would have?", that's okay if that's the kind of game you want to have; but I don't want players who fail to consider such issues in my game. I don't object to optimizing characters (it's good for characters to be cool and effective), but IMO your character shouldn't just be about the numbers-- I believe you should make sure your optimizations fit the concept and personality of what you've created.
(Post edited for clarity and better statement of principles after Cheapy's reply pointed out some flaws in the way I'd said it before)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I find the distinction that taking Paizo-published feats strictly for power gain is kosher, while taking a 3rd party feat strictly for power gain is a huge sin, to be very silly.
|
|
And I find the distinction that taking Paizo-published feats strictly for power gain is kosher, while taking a 3rd party feat strictly for power gain is a huge sin, to be very silly.
Cheapy--
I find that taking any feat strictly for power gain without considering the role-playing aspects, to be a "sin". It's just easier to identify and step on the offenders when they try to use third-party material to do it, since we've established those items as requiring pre-approval (vs. Paizo products being standard rules)...The last paragraph of my previous post covers my attitude regarding everything that you take on your character, regardless of source. I'll admit, I guess I didn't phrase it that way in the first two paragraphs of the last post-- I'll go edit it.
Ok, that's more clear. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's kind of hard to justify most feats as a roleplaying aspect, aside from skills, they mostly pertain to combat, or spellcasting. None of which gels well as a "roleplaying" aspect.
|
|
It's kinda hard to justify Toughness as a role-playing aspect.
Not really... if your concept is you're playing the guy (or gal) who's really tough and shrugs off everything that gets thrown at him, is maybe a little more durable than he looks (and/or maybe the player's asking for a little help to restore a functional level of hit points when the dice haven't been good to him)-- it's enough to justify it. I will admit, for some feats (like toughness) it doesn't need a whole lot of justification IMO (even with my general views on taking feats), because it's an intangible that doesn't really show up in-character (so it's hard for that particular feat to really be "in-character" or "out-of-character", it just is).
My big objection is to snagging something that's blatantly out of place with the rest of your character's personality, background, progress, identity, etc., because it gives you a mechanical/rules advantage (as stated before, I'm not against optimizing your character for effectiveness-- just make sure it fits the character concept and role-playing aspects).
|
|
It's kind of hard to justify most feats as a roleplaying aspect, aside from skills, they mostly pertain to combat, or spellcasting. None of which gels well as a "roleplaying" aspect.
Blue Star--
It's still entirely possible to take feats (and other stuff) that just don't fit your concept/character at all, no matter how effective they might let you be. How your character fights, how your character prepares for a fight and trains for it-- what kind of style he/she fights in, and for that matter, on spell-casters, how your character uses magic, what his/her philosophical approach to casting (and what kind of feats support that in practice) are relevant role-playing issues. Thinking about these things will also clarify what feats fit your character concept and which don't. IMO, there is no magic wall separating "combat" and "non-combat" and declaring one "role-playing" while the other is declared not to be.Now, feats that are still 'neutral' to these issues (something that is not clearly justifiable on your character, but also does not stick out as something that doesn't belong on your character-- usually because they're the sort of little mechanical advantages that may affect the dice but don't show up at all in character) are things I 'have' to live with, and actually don't object to usually (yes, I'm even guilty of using some of them myself), since they don't hit my major issue-- taking feats and powers and such that clearly don't fit.
I can't go back and edit the original posts at this point, but this is another nuance to my view that I should have made clear from the beginning-- that I didn't think about making specifically clear until I read your post and Kthulhu's. TY both for helping me clarify my own thinking on this issue.
Cheapy--
Posts clarified. :) Because you're right-- it would be silly to object only to 3rd party stuff that doesn't fit a character, and give Paizo stuff a free pass for committing the same offense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how a feat could not fit a concept if it is mechanically viable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, what you're saying is, because I'm an archer I can't take improved unarmed strike, simply because "it's not my fighting style"? Captain America would have words with you, just like he did with Hawkeye.
|
|
So basically, what you're saying is, because I'm an archer I can't take improved unarmed strike, simply because "it's not my fighting style"? Captain America would have words with you, just like he did with Hawkeye.
No, I'm saying give it a little justification that fits your character (and what your character's been doing in-game-- characters do grow and change as they gain experience and can definitely learn new things). If you're building up that you either A) are that kind of heroic guy who does both things, or B) you didn't start off that way, but your buddy the Monk has been teaching you how to get down and dirty up close and personal-- you've (IMO) successfully justified how/why your character's picked up that feat.
On the other hand, if you've always been the guy who eschews close-combat, stays away from all brawling and fist-fights, still thinks "it's the bow or nothing..." and haven't (even as an aside, "I'm working with 'other PC or NPC' because I have to protect myself if some rogue tries to mug me from behind...") been doing anything at all to show that just maybe he's been changing his mind about this and working on close combat abilities-- to then suddenly pull out 'Unarmed Strike' on your character is IMO a "no-go".
|
|
I don't see how a feat could not fit a concept if it is mechanically viable.
Haven't had it come up in a PF game (yet), haven't seen it in a long while in 3.5 games, but it's still possible (particularly if there are still 3rd party 'splat books' that include lots of outlandish, not necessarily balanced feats like there were for 3.5).
A hypothetical example, with official Paizo feats though--
Player has a half-orc character... he's been emphasizing how much his half-orc takes after the human side, looks pretty much human, acts human, etc. If the player then wants to take the "Razortusks" feat, the answer (in my game anyway) is going to be "no"-- because that feat cannot (IMO) possibly be reconciled with being so nearly human in appearance. The two things (the character's description, or the character's having long nasty orc-tusks and a biting ability that many carnivorous animals would be envious of) just don't go together.
Another hypothetical example-- if you have a half-elf or half-orc character, and you've been emphasizing how much your character is like his non-human parent, how much he takes after the elf or orc side, how he looks a lot like a pure-bred elf or orc-- I'm not okay with you then taking the 'pass for human' feat.
I'm pretty sure I could come up with more hypotheticals given time, but they are in there-- however, it is situational. At least with the Paizo feats, I'm pretty sure you could make a concept that would easily fit any particular feat in the books. I don't think, however, that all feats will necessarily fit any concept you can imagine. And there are feats (like 'Razortusks' and 'Pass for Human' for half-orcs that IMO do not belong on the same character-- although the rules don't say you can't, the flavor-text + common sense sure implies that you shouldn't be able to).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm taking the feat because I want to punch people in the face, how's that for justification?
My games are CRB, APG, UM, UC, Inner Sea World Guide, and Inner Sea Magic.
Anything else by Paizo is on a case-by-case basis.
3rd party material is automatic no.
Anything that turns out to be too powerful, will get 'dealt with' in game....
AKA: Make something broken-> FEAR the GM :D
Keeps things nicely balanced.
I allow CRB, APG, UM, and UC (No gunslingers or firearms unless the campaign is specifically designed for them) and the third party supplement Psionics Unleashed. I also allow converted 3E/3.5 materiel from books I own on a case by case basis. 3rd party is on a case by case basis. Homebrew is on a case by case basis.
I don't think I could GM without 3PP, 3E/3.5 conversions, and homebrew. I've grown reliant. Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary is too useful not to use, Libris Mortis is too cool, and this can't be disallowed.
Unearthed Arcana is also just plain way too useful.
|
|
I'm taking the feat because I want to punch people in the face, how's that for justification?
Well, yes, that's good enough-- just tell me where/how your character's been learning 'Unarmed Strike' and you're good to go in my campaign.
(You did read my post didn't you? Your character wants to punch people in the face, and is learning how to do it-- is an "in-character" decision that makes sense... I don't ask for unreasonably detailed and-or over-the-top explanations just to cover why you're taking a feat-- just don't do it with no reason at all)
I'm taking the feat because I want to punch people in the face, how's that for justification?Well, yes, that's good enough-- just tell me where/how your character's been learning 'Unarmed Strike' and you're good to go in my campaign.
(You did read my post didn't you? Your character wants to punch people in the face, and is learning how to do it-- is an "in-character" decision that makes sense... I don't ask for unreasonably detailed and-or over-the-top explanations just to cover why you're taking a feat-- just don't do it with no reason at all)
Now if I'd said: Because I want to be able to take attacks of opportunity when someone gets close to me, what would you have said?
Making the player think up an in-character reason to have the feat is basically asking them to lie to you, if they want to use that feat bad enough, they will just make some nonsense up (possibly on the spot) that sounds vaguely plausible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking time to justify feats in a roleplaying aspect is a waste of time. That's like asking how they're training their climb skill. It's no fun and shouldn't detract from the game. Roleplay things that matter, not why your character has power attack or why they have a collapsible ten foot pole.
Taking time to justify feats in a roleplaying aspect is a waste of time. That's like asking how they're training their climb skill. It's no fun and shouldn't detract from the game. Roleplay things that matter, not why your character has power attack or why they have a collapsible ten foot pole.
This. I'm sorry, Finn, but I could never play under that sort of rule.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm as much for roleplaying as anyone, but I think it's asking too much for us to justify everything we do with something other than "I wanted to".
|
|
Making the player think up an in-character reason to have the feat is basically asking them to lie to you, if they want to use that feat bad enough, they will just make some nonsense up (possibly on the spot) that sounds vaguely plausible.
Actually, I don't want the players to lie to me. I admit that one has to have some trust in the people one games with, and at least a little bit of presumption that there's common ground in the philosophies/theories of game-play amongst all the players. Yeah, you can lie about it-- or maybe you can decide that my thoughts on this matter make sense.
Does NOT change my opinion that what you put on your character-- feats, powers, skills, and everything else-- should fit your character concept/personality/background, and as you gain experience, what your character's been doing in the game. Since I'm not a mind-reader, I do have to trust my players to buy into this approach. I was, and am, okay with your justification examples for why your character is learning 'unarmed strike' because it is a reasonable motivation (doesn't take any more than that for some people to take up boxing or martial arts, so it works in RL too). I do not see it as detrimental to role-playing to actually have characters be consistent in their personality, approach to life, and all that jazz-- then again, I like reading fiction (even fantasy fiction) where the personalities (and etc.) of the characters in the book 'feel real' and make sense within the situation and world that the characters are in. I don't expect less of characters in the game.
Clearly, you, Kelsey, and Robespierre have a completely different approach to character creation and advancement, one which I admit to considering "min-maxing" (no, you don't have to agree with me that that's what it is, but you're not going to convince me that that's not what you're doing), and which I do not want to see in a game. I don't think we're going to agree on this point. I would hope you still create characters with an eye towards personality, motivations, and all those other things that are not reflected in the numbers... but clearly, all those other things are not important enough for you to not make inconsistent choices when you're creating and/or advancing your character if the inconsistent choice gives you an advantage.
Now, I suppose I wouldn't ban someone for doing this occasionally here and there, but I don't approve. If someone plays their character like a tactical unit, by the numbers and combat/skill capabilities, without actually role-playing their character, I will ban them from my table (note-- it's okay with me to play characters who have superb tactical skills and for characters to be smart in battle-- it's just not okay with me to play characters like they're another unit on the field, war-game style. Also not that there's anything wrong with war-games, but IMO if you want to play a war-game, go play one instead of trying to make role-playing games into just another war-game).
Finn, I like you, but I find that post somewhat insulting. The whole Roll-Play versus Role-Play debate is a fallacy. Just because I like to have mechanically optimized characters doesn't mean I don't work with an eye towards motivation and personality, or that those things aren't important to me. Mechanical optimization and good roleplaying can exist side by side, and explaining every single build choice would be downright frustrating.
There are a lot of optional rules Paizo has published.But that's just it, they specifically list themselves as being OPTIONAL.
Which is why I don't consider them core, and therefore why I replied to the suggestion that anything Paizo is core.
I don't believe in lines. CURVES 2012
Didn't you hear the news? Optimization=bad roleplaying. -sarcasm-
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
is optimization really that much of an issue? in most tame cases, i am willing to make accomodations. even homebrewing options to accomodate those things.
i'm fine with a pistolero using one hand to wield a large pistol, i'll just imagine a desert eagle or taurus judge in my head.
petite framed female barbarian with strength far beyond what her size hints. i don't tie appearance to ability scores. and i have seen examples of petite women who have hurled men thrice thier size across a dojo floor. want to be 5 feet tall and weigh 100 pounds yet have an 18 strength? i don't see a problem.
child rogue, well, some classes, i can accomodate nonstandard ages. don't expect any bonuses or penalties from age. just allocate your points accordingly if you wish.
want to be pretty and have a low charisma? i don't tie appearance to ability scores at all. your appearance is up to you. being pretty doesn't provide any social advantage unless you actually invest resources in your social capabilities.
want a sorcerer who uses alternate damage type variants of existing evocation spells? such as a sonic or force themed fireball? i'm fine with that. just pay the research costs. i won't even penalize you a spell level or die reduction. it still takes a spell known of the same level. if you already know fireball, i will allow you to cut the research costs of an alternate typed fireball to 10% of the gold expenditure and days instead of weeks. i'll even ignore the spellcraft check.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Finn K: No, you don't want them to lie to you, but they are going to anyway, because of the arbitrations you've made. You do need trust, but when that trust is based on having to make up some reason to do anything, there's a problem with it. For example: I trust that I'm going to have to make something up (read: lie) to this feat. Trust also goes both way, you have to trust them as well, and it sounds like you don't trust them. See how this works?
You can't rely on everyone in your group being on the same wavelength. I've met people who think on the exact same wavelength before and it's actually kinda creepy. That was an example and not a particularly good one, but I picked it for simplicity. Most fiction doesn't accomplish that very well, I've found, and most player characters are about as realistic as the characters in those books. When it's a problem it's usually apparent immediately. Which makes them easily removed.
Building a character the way we do isn't min-maxing, as the people you mentioned argued about the definition of min-maxing, and I don't think they ever came to a unanimous conclusion. What we all seem to agree on here, is that we shouldn't have to play "mother may I" with the GM every time we want to do something with the creation of our characters. That's a "GM has control issues" problem.
The fact that you would ban someone at all, for doing what they want with their character, within reason, is (in my opinion) bad GMing. This is their character, they're adults, or nearly adults, and they should be allowed to make choices without having to beg the GM. This has almost nothing to do with role-playing, feats that you would object to are mostly combat-oriented, and don't affect roleplay. There aren't that many non-combat oriented feats. Not until the Ultimate Social Combat book comes out. No one is talking about not role-playing their character, or running around like a war-robot. Except you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finn, I like you, but I find that post somewhat insulting. The whole Roll-Play versus Role-Play debate is a fallacy. Just because I like to have mechanically optimized characters doesn't mean I don't work with an eye towards motivation and personality, or that those things aren't important to me. Mechanical optimization and good roleplaying can exist side by side, and explaining every single build choice would be downright frustrating.
+42, Kelsey. Nice post.
I second her on all these counts. including the part about liking you. Never addressed you directly, Finn, but I've seen you around, and most of the time I agree with what you say. Regardless of if I agree, you are clearly thoughtful and open-minded (though maybe a little less so here, but overall better than most, and probably myself, too). And I appreciate those traits.
But I also have to say - I enjoy creating character backgrounds and personalities for my PCs (and love to see them change over time in game even more), but I keep an eye on optimization because playing a sucky PC is boring.
My 3.5 wizard had 18 INT. This was for optimization. To get that 18 INT, I dropped her CHA to 8, the only dump stat I had (should be noted, point-buy started at 8, not 10, in 3.5). But I played her like 8 Charisma - she was short, blunt, and grating with people. She irritated NPCs and Party members alike (but never players, only characters), but ultimately, the 8 CHA was for optimization.
My first level feats were Collegiate Wizard (she had been trained in a formal college, included in Background - I included that because it's both wizard fluff, and explanation for the feat), and Skill Focus: Spellcraft (because it was one of three prerequisite feats for a prestige class I wanted, and the most useful one at level one). If you ask me why I took the feat, the explanation is: "I need it for this PrC".
I mean, you say it works for you and your group, but I have so few players in my area that I can't be picky about who I play with. Some of us munchkin and some of us don't (me, anymore - used to power game 100%). Some of us like extremely serious games (me), and some of us like games that get wacky and ridiculous. We have struggled to find a way to balance all these tastes to make the game fun for all of us. I guess - I dunno. Make sure you're not grating your players, I guess. I've accidentally grated mine when I thought I was pleasing them.
Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to be clear.
|
|
Finn, I like you, but I find that post somewhat insulting. The whole Roll-Play versus Role-Play debate is a fallacy. Just because I like to have mechanically optimized characters doesn't mean I don't work with an eye towards motivation and personality, or that those things aren't important to me. Mechanical optimization and good roleplaying can exist side by side, and explaining every single build choice would be downright frustrating.
I should add, because I snapped off at you and Blue Star a little bit fast, that no-one I know, myself included, is going to check or ask for reasons for every last little choice you make in advancing your character. The point I make about things fitting your character, we (or certainly I) usually do leave up to the player. The only time this really comes up (and in my opinion should come up) is when someone decides to take a feat, or power, or class or other ability that really doesn't fit with the character that they've been playing all the way up to that point (and/or in beginning characters-- you give me a detailed background, and then throw something in that really doesn't fit the background you've given). At that point, there's gonna be an issue.
Blue Star- most of the combat feats you probably mean, are going to be the things that either get passed by without a glance, because they rationally fit, or just don't have a 'character' effect that seems out of place. There's things that I might consider issues-- one example I do think of, and I wasn't the person who pointed out the issue, though I agreed with it... is one character suddenly picking up proficiency with an exotic weapon, and THEN going out and buying one-- when the character had never touched such a weapon or expressed any interest or activity involving it all the way up to that point. I don't know if you expect that a character who wants to develop an exotic weapon proficiency might, a level or two before picking up the feat, maybe pick up the weapon and the player mentions something about the character starting to mess around with it in his spare time (or working with another character who's already proficient). Now if there's an extended 'break' for the characters while they're leveling up, I guess that's what the character was doing in that period of down-time. I'm not the only one I game with, who'd kind'a like to know that somewhere in the background, a character who is about to gain abilities that represent particular, notable expertise at something, has been working at it a little bit, instead of in-game suddenly sprouting mysterious new methods of combat (of the sort that one would think required practice or training to pick up). Blue Star, I do get where you're coming from on not wanting to have to justify everything, and I think I do agree with you that you shouldn't have to. However, I don't agree that when you make completely odd-ball, apparently non-sensical, not-fitting choices, that you should never have to explain anything (if that's also part of what you were getting at).
Kelsey (and others)-- I've said repeatedly that I think optimizing a character is good, I'd just like to see it fit the character while you're at it. In particular, this is getting at the thought that if you give your character a particular background, you don't turn around and give your character feats and traits that the 'fluff' text shows clearly do NOT match your background. I think all of us (me included) like to have effective characters. I also think the 'fluff' text matters. I've already used the example that playing a half-orc who has both 'pass for human' and 'razortusks' feats is allowed under RAW, but does not fit RAI (at least in my opinion) at all. Playing a character who's been impious and a total atheist throughout the campaign, and so far has shown no signs of change in a universe where clerics are required to have patron deities: if the player of that character suddenly wants to drop in a level of cleric-- no explanations why the character suddenly believes in and is sufficiently dedicated to a god/goddess to become a cleric at all-- now I see that as a problem.
Now, I don't know if I'm not explaining myself well at all, or if I'm just entirely a minority of one, but...
What I see as an issue, is the things that pop out as you look at a character, as things that just obviously do not fit that character (background in new characters, the way the character's being played as the campaign begins, things that pop up on a character that are completely out of line from the way that character's been played all along). Things that are just plain jarring because they do NOT go together with other things on that character, or just feel wrong to everyone at the table. Stuff that, yeah, that may be mechanically really effective, but if you actually try thinking about it logically and think about what that ability represents (and the story/flavor-text and such underlying the ability), and you just have to wonder "where the f*** could that character have possibly learned that?! and why?", and the player has no reasonable explanation. Stuff that represents a 180 turn in everything about that character (like, chaotic good character suddenly goes lawful good and becomes a paladin-- instantly, on gaining his next level, with no prior indicators that the character was even leaning that way... of course, that's got some RAW violations within it too....).
I'm not worried about, not going to check for reasons, not going to give anyone crap for stuff they put on a character that is all that generic feat and other ability stuff that could be on any character. No problems with stuff that doesn't particularly fit or not fit (because it's not relevant to particular societies or attitudes or learning experiences). Not asking for explanations for anything that generally looks like it fits as well as anything else you throw around. Not going to question choices that are highly effective, so long as they don't give the 'WTF?!' impressions in the paragraph above this one-- it's okay, so long as you're not throwing stuff around that just doesn't fit the character or campaign.
It's the stuff that really looks like it shouldn't/doesn't fit that I want to hear explanations for, before I'd allow it. I am reasonable enough that I might still allow the stuff that gives me a 'wtf?' reaction on first glance, if the player can reasonably explain to me why it does (or can) fit. BTW, Blue Star-- the player can come up with that on the spot-- so long as it not only sounds good, but the player's actually going to show it in the way he/she continues to play the character, it's not a lie (or at least not one I'm going to have a problem with-- a hell of a lot of movie and tv scriptwriters and story authors have used that trick to cover a new ability on an existing character that was needed by the script-- what it does is save story continuity and suspension of disbelief, and keeps things making sense from a story-telling point of view).
|
|
Finn, I like you, but I find that post somewhat insulting. The whole Roll-Play versus Role-Play debate is a fallacy. Just because I like to have mechanically optimized characters doesn't mean I don't work with an eye towards motivation and personality, or that those things aren't important to me. Mechanical optimization and good roleplaying can exist side by side, and explaining every single build choice would be downright frustrating.
Also, Kelsey-- You're right, it's a fallacy to say that you can't be "role-playing" if you optimize your characters. Yes, mechanical optimization and good role-playing can exist side by side.
However, I have run into more than a few people who "roll-play" instead of "role-play" and I don't like playing games with them. They are out there, they do exist, they're not just a myth. Of course, and I suppose this is a touch of irony-- most of the "roll-players" I've seen in action actually suck at character optimization. I do lump "tactical war-gamers" (who usually are pretty good at optimization and excellent at combat/tactics, but who don't play out their characters as personalities) into a somewhat separate category, whom I don't like playing with either (though I consider them preferable to the 'roll-players'). They also exist, and are not just a myth.
However, excellent tactical play can and does also usually co-exist with good 'role-playing' too-- good tactical play and good role-playing can also exist side-by-side (although I know a few people who are good at 'role-playing' who are utter boneheads, tactically speaking). If what you mean is there isn't a required either/or dichotomy between having optimized/effective characters and good personalities on characters, I agree with you.
But, alas, my players are quite conservative when it comes to class & race selection. I had an Eberron campaign before and it took nearly 4 years before anyone created an Eberron-specific character - Warforged-Fighter, if I remember correctly...I played in an Eberron campaign for years in 3.5-- too bad your players didn't appreciate as much; but my first Eberron character picked up on dragonmarks, and my 2nd Eberron character was an artificer.... I really don't like the way Eberron was done in 4E (I don't play 4E anyway though), but Eberron (in 3.5) was my favorite D&D setting. I really enjoyed the "magic is common" + "magic as technology" combo that Eberron had going.
Oh, my players liked the campaign. It's just that they didn't pick up the goodies very eagerly... The Warforged fighter was just that - a battle machine. But near the end of the campaign I had a changeling who stayed in human form nearly all the time, and an artificer whose most noted accomplishment was the creation of half a dozen scrolls.
Once I sent them an enemy group led by a gnome artificer (dual wand wielder), and it was all like "oh well, I could have done that too, if I had had the time..."
Which is why I don't consider them core, and therefore why I replied to the suggestion that anything Paizo is core.There are a lot of optional rules Paizo has published.But that's just it, they specifically list themselves as being OPTIONAL.
Well that's the point of Anguish's post. It's optional, meaning it is not Core.
Myself, Core is all the non-Golarion specific Paizo books, and those 3pp books that specifically apply to the setting I play in. Most of Rite Publishing's content applies to my setting (not all). Some of SGG's content applies to my setting (not all.) Other 3pp content has been accepted, but on a case by case basis.
Words of Magic, and other optional rules from the Core - not in my game!
I'm old-fashioned. Core to me is the fewest books you need to play the game. PHB, DMG, MM, that's it.
I read in an interview that Owen K.C. Stephens started playing with just the DMG. Hardcore.
So did I, TOZ. I had to borrow my GM's PHB at first, and we never used any dice.
Strictly the Core Rulebook - PHB, GMG, Bestiary. Everything else is suspect. This is due to a perception that within every single extra source, some 'new' rule(s) are dropped that contradicts or throws into question the foundation of the base rules and mechanics. Also, the perception that every additional source also includes things that were not taken into account to be balanced with the base mechanics and rules. Star Wars Saga is rife with it. I had a player make some savvy selections and through a combination of feats and talents and prestige classes, created a character able to make a full attack action (a full round action) with a standard action - broken due to additional supplements that I mistakenly allowed without fully considering the implications of what I allowed into the game as a GM. Never again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Min-maxers frequently duck issues by claiming that there is no interplay between mechanical choices and roleplay. But the first does define the second. And after awhile one gets suspicious of the ubiquity of certain combinations such as the infamous ex-monk/barbarian, the Arcane Mark exploit of the magus, or that every charoper of a certain class cranks out a cookie cutter version.
I haven't seen the ex-monk/barbarian thing, but then our players don't quit one class and become another, if they want to play a different class, they play a different character - we don't have/allow players to drop one class and switch to another for mechanical nor roleplaying reasons. After all, its just as easy to roll up another character.
Regarding the Magus-Arcane Mark issue, that's not an exploit, that's a "cheat" as the Magus ability is with touch attacks. Arcane Mark is not an attack, so it is not allowed. If arcane mark allowed you to target a person, it would be an attack, but the spell doesn't say attack so you cannot target a person.
It's like casting light on a Drow. Obviously a light cast on a drow would be detrimental to the drow, thus it's an attack, but light isn't an attack spell - so you cannot use a light spell in that way. If you want to mark an opponent with a 'zorro' mark, that's a martial attack and cannot be combined with an Arcane Mark. If you want a spell or cantrip to affect a target in that way, you'd have to create an entirely new spell, as Arcane Mark cannot do that.
I guess if you let your players cheat, they can do anything.
How I wish that were true Michael :(
You can cast Arcane Mark on people, and there's even special rules in it for how if used on a living thing, the mark gradually fades.
For spellstrike, the spell doesn't need to be an attack spell, simply a touch spell.
I guess through misreading that, it's officially houseruled for our group as I stated, because that's how we read the spell. I see no useful benefit for arcane marking an unwilling person, other than getting a free attack to do it. (I won't tell our players that we read it wrong, I'll just consider it our houserule.)
Core for me is the PFRPG core book, Bestiaries, and GM Guide. APG is mostly core as well (don't like the summoner, hung jury on the alchemist). Minor gripe with the Inquisitor (I read it briefly when i first got the APG) iirc was that they seemed to get more as opposed to the Paladin. Almost like a cooler Paladin without the balancing restrictions. I'm always afraid of unbalanced classes though I love the Inquisitor.
Anything else is usually a no from me. Mostly from a balance perspective.
Yea, that's basically the whole reason why that loophole is exploited.
Touch of Fatigue doesn't reek of cheese though, and requires some resources spent (only a trait if you allow all Paizo published traits) to get that extra attack per round.
Color me silly, but why do you care if you can put an Arcane Mark on someone, or is this merely pointing out that you can deliver touch spells that weren't intended as attack spells?
==Aelryinth
Core for me is the PFRPG core book, Bestiaries, and GM Guide. APG is mostly core as well (don't like the summoner, hung jury on the alchemist). Minor gripe with the Inquisitor (I read it briefly when i first got the APG) iirc was that they seemed to get more as opposed to the Paladin. Almost like a cooler Paladin without the balancing restrictions. I'm always afraid of unbalanced classes though I love the Inquisitor.
Anything else is usually a no from me. Mostly from a balance perspective.
While I too love the Inquisitor, the Paladin is a much stronger class than inquisitor - nobody in our group wants to play one, though we have a paladin. In fact only I (playing a Magus, when I'm not GM) and one player playing a witch are the only members of our group not playing a core class.
Inquisitor is cool, but in no way is better than a paladin. It might be better than a ranger, I could agree with that, but not paladin.
Color me silly, but why do you care if you can put an Arcane Mark on someone, or is this merely pointing out that you can deliver touch spells that weren't intended as attack spells?
==Aelryinth
Cast Arcane Mark through spell combat, deliver it with that free extra attack from spellstrike.
And there. You always have an extra attack that stacks with haste, for spending absolutely no resources.
And the delivery of that resource has no in-game effect (beyond putting a mark on somebody), except for giving you an extra attack stacking with haste. This is the definition of a broken rule.
For those that want to play Zorro and mark a "Z" on somebody, do it, you don't magic to accomplish it. You don't need arcane mark to scratch a mark on someone - just waste your attacks with non-lethal strokes and you've accomplished it. Rule bending is unnecessary to accomplish this task.
Zorro is a martial class character who can accomplish this without Arcane Mark, why do you need AM to do the same thing?