Creative Director
|
So basically you are saying that there was a product demand from your customers, so you decided to fill that demand. But you (and I mean Pazio in general, not you in particular) didn't feel the need to actually create a quality product (meaning the stats for the iconic characters) by putting any actual effort into it. It was just slapped together at the last minute, with choices made to generally match the artwork, but otherwise just to fit the space you had left over from the more important stuff.
I am not trying to be snide here. What I am trying to point out is that I like seeing the stats for the iconic characters. They don't need to be perfectly optimized, but they should at least be good enough to be considered at least mostly effective. And your comments came off as saying that what I (and others like me) want really wasn't important to Pazio at all.
You really should be careful about how you describe your content. Saying, "Well this wasn't good because we didn't put any time or effort into it" really isn't going to sit well with your customers that actually wanted that content.
What I'm saying is that we underestimated how folks would, in the long run, react to those stats. When we first started doing them, we were under the assumption that it was a casual interest in knowing what Seoni's favorite spells were, what class Merisiel was, what kind of feats Valeros preferred, and the like. At the time, we were NOT in the business of publishing our own rules set, remember; we were publishing 3.5 material and as such, the brunt of the optimization crowd's focus was leveled against D&D and Wizards of the Coast.
When we switched over to our own rules system 2 years later, it took some time for the optimization mindset to start shifting over to us. It certainly took us a bit longer to realize that the eye of scrutiny folks would be bringing to the PCs would be MUCH greater, and by the time we did realize it, we were already committed to publishing them in Serpent's Skull. We ceased in Carrion Crown... a nice object lesson in how long it takes from concept to publication to feedback to reaction. Pathfinder Adventure Path is like an aircraft carrier; it's big, but it doesn't turn that well.
Anyway, all of that is my way of saying that the demand from our customers changed over the course of the years, and as such, you're seeing the reaction in the cancellation of publishing stat blocks—we made the decision that we couldn't afford the significant extra time it would take to numbercrunch each and every PC to the extent that would be necessary because it would take away resources from the rest of the book that were more important to it filling its role as an adventure path, and so we removed those pages from print. I certainly wasn't trying to say "it wasn't good because we didn't put any time or effort into it" but more like "what folks wanted changed faster than we could change what we were doing."
Honestly... showing off our optimization chops in building super PCs who are number crunched to the hilt is ABSOLUTELY NOT something that's important to Paizo.
It's important that we create a game that's fun for all sorts of players, be they optimizers or not, but we'd rather focus our efforts and attentions on providing not only those rules, but more to the point, providing adventures and supplements you can use to play the game.
You'll never see an official "how to maximize your PC" type article or book or document from Paizo, because we aren't interested in telling you or even implying that there's one "right way" to play the game.
Now... all that said, there will be points in the future where we print stats for the iconics. We periodically do so in our free RPG day adventures, for example. And the upcoming NPC Codex will have the core 11 classes presented at numerous levels in PFS legal incarnations that, I hope, we'll do our best to make effective and fun to play. Hopefully that'll serve folks who want to see the stats... I'm really not sure how many more times we'll need to print them beyond that book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said no such thing. If you want, you can play a fighter without a single magic item. You aren't going to get very far, and the game assumptions are that you are a christmas tree of magic items as you rise in level.
Ah, I see the problem here. I was using "that" to refer to a specific piece of equipment as a singular object, since that was what we were discussing, but it was easily interpretted as me refering to all equipment. Damn pronouns.
LOL. So you say that<was refering to GoD> equipment is mandatory for a fighter to get through an encounter for which that equiment (and the fighter even) wasn't written yet.Let's do this a different way Caineach.
Look at the fighter builds on this board. They aren't all dpr olympics builds.
Tell me how many don't have Gloves of Dueling? The item is so ubiquitous you aren't going to find many without them.
Do you remember natural spell and druids in 3.5? It's the same thing in this edition with the fighters and the Gloves.
I am one of the biggest advocates of the fighter class. I have thrown so many builds around to show various types of fighters. I have never used the gloves of dueling in any of the builds. Not once. Every one of the builds I have thrown out there was viable. They were all designed with different goals in mind and still I haven't found the need to give them all Iron Will or gloves of dueling. While some share similar gear (cloak of resistance and belts of perfection) not all do.
I am one of the biggest advocates of the fighter class. I have thrown so many builds around to show various types of fighters. I have never used the gloves of dueling in any of the builds. Not once. Every one of the builds I have thrown out there was viable. They were all designed with different goals in mind and still I haven't found the need to give them all Iron Will or gloves of dueling. While some share similar gear (cloak of resistance and belts of perfection) not all do.I said no such thing. If you want, you can play a fighter without a single magic item. You aren't going to get very far, and the game assumptions are that you are a christmas tree of magic items as you rise in level.
Ah, I see the problem here. I was using "that" to refer to a specific piece of equipment as a singular object, since that was what we were discussing, but it was easily interpretted as me refering to all equipment. Damn pronouns.
LOL. So you say that<was refering to GoD> equipment is mandatory for a fighter to get through an encounter for which that equiment (and the fighter even) wasn't written yet.Let's do this a different way Caineach.
Look at the fighter builds on this board. They aren't all dpr olympics builds.
Tell me how many don't have Gloves of Dueling? The item is so ubiquitous you aren't going to find many without them.
Do you remember natural spell and druids in 3.5? It's the same thing in this edition with the fighters and the Gloves.
In fact, I don't think any of the fighter vs Balor builds were done post APG. With the ability to solo a Balor not requiring them (though they certainly wouldn't have hurt), I don't really see how you could argue that they are manditory gear.
I had a character who didn't take Power Attack until 6th level. Am I a bad person?
I am with you TOZ. I am also trying figure out why it matter if NPC's that are not designed to be in the book, have good builds or not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal philsophy on optimization: Take a concept, build it. Then optimize it in any ways that don't detract from said concept.
I think that's a happy middle-ground for people to work with.
And for people who want stats for the iconics (specifically some that have had a lot more time put into them, I'd suspect) they are coming in the NPC Guide. So people will get a good look at them there. We can all argue about it then (if we want to...I'd rather not).
I'm really late to this argument, but I have one question: what does "sandbagging" mean? From context, it seems to be something a GM does to make an encounter more survivable by PCs, but I'm curious if it refers to a specific sort of action (fudged rolls, handwaving, etc).
Oh, and I hadn't heard of gloves of dueling before this thread either.
In fact, I don't think any of the fighter vs Balor builds were done post APG. With the ability to solo a Balor not requiring them (though they certainly wouldn't have hurt), I don't really see how you could argue that they are manditory gear.I am one of the biggest advocates of the fighter class. I have thrown so many builds around to show various types of fighters. I have never used the gloves of dueling in any of the builds. Not once. Every one of the builds I have thrown out there was viable. They were all designed with different goals in mind and still I haven't found the need to give them all Iron Will or gloves of dueling. While some share similar gear (cloak of resistance and belts of perfection) not all do.I said no such thing. If you want, you can play a fighter without a single magic item. You aren't going to get very far, and the game assumptions are that you are a christmas tree of magic items as you rise in level.
Ah, I see the problem here. I was using "that" to refer to a specific piece of equipment as a singular object, since that was what we were discussing, but it was easily interpretted as me refering to all equipment. Damn pronouns.
LOL. So you say that<was refering to GoD> equipment is mandatory for a fighter to get through an encounter for which that equiment (and the fighter even) wasn't written yet.Let's do this a different way Caineach.
Look at the fighter builds on this board. They aren't all dpr olympics builds.
Tell me how many don't have Gloves of Dueling? The item is so ubiquitous you aren't going to find many without them.
Do you remember natural spell and druids in 3.5? It's the same thing in this edition with the fighters and the Gloves.
I've been in a couple of those post-APG but I never build a fighter to take one only one specific opponent. That's a bad build because it probably isn't playable up until that point and then what happens? I also build the character assuming that there are three other characters, a skill-focused character, a divine character that brings buffs and heals, and an arcane character that brings battle-field control and blasting. I assume that my build will function without their help and will do even better with their help. There is certainly gear that can make the difference but with the right build, it may be less necessary. There are so many ways to build a character, I don't know how anyone can act like there is only one viable option.
I agree with the majority position in this thread. That said, the majority position is expressed with some degree of vitriol. Be the bigger people, non-optimizers. : )
I think the problem, as I see it, lies in the idea that intelligent, non-"sandbag" DMing must be mechanically optimal, that otherwise suspension of disbelief is required. From my perspective, the game should indeed be a coherent simulation. HOWEVER, the rules are _not_ that simulation, they are a tool or heuristic to sometimes approximate that simulation for practical purposes. The NPCs or monsters do not know which feats or class abilities they have in the same way as the DM does. They cannot do the math to determine which tactic is most effective in a given situation. They operate under imperfect information - even the INT 30 wizard likely hasn't spent her centuries of research on comparative performance evaluation from a quantitative context, she has been making owlbears and travelling the planes.
Random chance, emotion, misinformation and mechanically neutral context should be expected to affect tactics choices strongly; whereas if you assume the rules are only a tool to approximate the game world when you need quick resolutions, mechanical optimization might not affect it that much. As such, I do not feel that "playing the encounters intelligently" requires them to be played mechanically optimally. Rather, it may be just as intelligent to work out which flavour of events most fit the consistency of the story, as told in words rather than numbers, and use that.
I've been in a couple of those post-APG but I never build a fighter to take one only one specific opponent. That's a bad build because it probably isn't playable up until that point and then what happens? I also build the character assuming that there are three other characters, a skill-focused character, a divine character that brings buffs and heals, and an arcane character that brings battle-field control and blasting. I assume that my build will function without their help and will do even better with their help. There is certainly gear that can make the difference but with the right build, it may be less necessary. There are so many ways to build a character, I don't know how anyone can act like there is only one viable option.
Fighterman is a solid archer build with feats designed to be generic and no Balor-specific weapons. He isn't even fully optimised, as the designer points out. But barring a freak save, he stands a solid chance of killing the Balor in 2 rounds. The designer ignored crits, even though he spent 4 feats on them and has the lvl 20 fighter bonus.
|
I've been in a couple of those post-APG but I never build a fighter to take one only one specific opponent. That's a bad build because it probably isn't playable up until that point and then what happens? I also build the character assuming that there are three other characters, a skill-focused character, a divine character that brings buffs and heals, and an arcane character that brings battle-field control and blasting. I assume that my build will function without their help and will do even better with their help. There is certainly gear that can make the difference but with the right build, it may be less necessary. There are so many ways to build a character, I don't know how anyone can act like there is only one viable option.Fighterman is a solid archer build with feats designed to be generic and no Balor-specific weapons. He isn't even fully optimised, as the designer points out. But barring a freak save, he stands a solid chance of killing the Balor in 2 rounds. The designer ignored crits, even though he spent 4 feats on them and has the lvl 20 fighter bonus.
No Gloves of Dueling. Quick, somebody tell Zurai that his existence on this planet just lost any reasoning... ;-)
Funny how different the thread turned out from what the OP likely intended it to be :)
The best part about that is he is the one who switched topics.
I'm really late to this argument, but I have one question: what does "sandbagging" mean? From context, it seems to be something a GM does...
Performing below capacity.
I believe in the context that the OP used it, it is referring not to something the DM does, but something the wizard in question, i.e., Ezren, does. By my reading, the title of the thread is equivalent to: "High level wizards are balanced as long as they are grossly under-optimized."
I usually hear the term in the context of the card game spades, where it has a different meaning, but I think it is originally a running/swimming metaphor; you wear sand bags to weigh, and thus slow, you down, so that slower competitors stand a chance.
I have nothing to say about whether the claim made by OP is correct that hasn't already been said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm trying to wrap my head around how you play Int 2 wolves "to the hilt" in Kingmaker hard enough to TPK every non-optimized party you run.
There's a small disconnect there-- the AP wants you to run the tactics stat block, not play the game like it's double speed chess. Most AP books won't have TPK encounters in them until the 4th book or so, where it's just written in-- I can think of a few that open up with "Save or AP Gameover" moves before then, though. It's just strange to claim that there are five to six more TPK encounters in each book if you play the NPCs right-- implying that any GM who doesn't TPK their party with those other five encounters is playing the game wrong.
Part of the reason we quit putting the pregenerated iconics in there is precisely because of this reaction.
I'm actually not at all interested in trying to make the most over-the-top numbercrunched optimized characters... be it in a game I'm running or as sample PCs. Partially because it's kind of soul-numbing, but also because it's pretty hard to sift through every possible spell option and try to perfect a stat block that, in the case of those sample PCs, is being done at the last minute anyway.
In fact, we often picked spells for the PCs based ENTIRELY on the length of the spell, since too many long-named spells would make the spells prepared not fit in the space we had available. In other cases, we'd pick spells (and feats and the like) that might not be "optimized" for a specific build, but are the perfect feats for that particular character.
For example as well... Merisiel is wearing studded leather armor because that's what she's wearing in her artwork.
The iconic stat blocks had FAR more masters to serve than the "Optimization Master." to the extent that serving the "Optimization Master" was never on the to-do list in the first place.
AKA: Those pregenerated characters are NOT intended to be optimized, but folks who want or expect them to be get worked up and therefore threads like these start up. So we quit doing it.
If you're looking for a better representation to how we build high-level wizards, a better place to look than the prebuilt PCs is to any high-level wizard NPCs in the adventure. Of course... those are built as NPCs with specific story goals and requirements their stats must serve first before any other master... and they've got worse stats than most PCs most of the time, so maybe not.
It must be tough writing for a system when you don't understand how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Must we resort to personal attacks? There is no need to actively try to get a thread locked. If the only thing you can add is an attack, then maybe it's best to not add at all.
Must we resort to personal attacks? There is no need to actively try to get a thread locked. If the only thing you can add is an attack, then maybe it's best to not add at all.
It was an observation.
I'm trying to wrap my head around how you play Int 2 wolves "to the hilt" in Kingmaker hard enough to TPK every non-optimized party you run.
There's a small disconnect there-- the AP wants you to run the tactics stat block, not play the game like it's double speed chess. Most AP books won't have TPK encounters in them until the 4th book or so, where it's just written in-- I can think of a few that open up with "Save or AP Gameover" moves before then, though. It's just strange to claim that there are five to six more TPK encounters in each book if you play the NPCs right-- implying that any GM who doesn't TPK their party with those other five encounters is playing the game wrong.
I agree with you. I don't know who you are quoting, but I have never seen 5 or 6 TPK's in a book. There might be 2 or 3 TPK-worthy combats throughout the entire AP, and maybe 2 or 3 more dangerous(likely to drop a party member or 2) encounters, but to say there are 5 or 6 in one book is not even possible barring really high dice rolls.
PS:The only "to the hilt" quote I could find was from James, and if that is who you are responding to I read his post as something completely different.
It must be tough writing for a system when you don't understand how it works.Part of the reason we quit putting the pregenerated iconics in there is precisely because of this reaction.
I'm actually not at all interested in trying to make the most over-the-top numbercrunched optimized characters... be it in a game I'm running or as sample PCs. Partially because it's kind of soul-numbing, but also because it's pretty hard to sift through every possible spell option and try to perfect a stat block that, in the case of those sample PCs, is being done at the last minute anyway.
In fact, we often picked spells for the PCs based ENTIRELY on the length of the spell, since too many long-named spells would make the spells prepared not fit in the space we had available. In other cases, we'd pick spells (and feats and the like) that might not be "optimized" for a specific build, but are the perfect feats for that particular character.
For example as well... Merisiel is wearing studded leather armor because that's what she's wearing in her artwork.
The iconic stat blocks had FAR more masters to serve than the "Optimization Master." to the extent that serving the "Optimization Master" was never on the to-do list in the first place.
AKA: Those pregenerated characters are NOT intended to be optimized, but folks who want or expect them to be get worked up and therefore threads like these start up. So we quit doing it.
If you're looking for a better representation to how we build high-level wizards, a better place to look than the prebuilt PCs is to any high-level wizard NPCs in the adventure. Of course... those are built as NPCs with specific story goals and requirements their stats must serve first before any other master... and they've got worse stats than most PCs most of the time, so maybe not.
How about arguing the point, whatever that is, and not being insulting.
How about arguing the point, whatever that is, and not being insulting.
What point is there to argue? James Jacobs said he didn't put time into the characters. It shows in that the characters are terrible. I'm really less offended by the wizard's spell selection than the fighter not using weapons his class features enhance. It's clearly lazy design.
If, for instance, the fighter decided to TWF with daggers, that would be one thing. I'd say, "Okay, that's not optimal, but I can respect that the character uses daggers." But using a weapon that his Weapon Training doesn't apply to? That's an unspeakable level of incompetence.
Must we resort to personal attacks? There is no need to actively try to get a thread locked. If the only thing you can add is an attack, then maybe it's best to not add at all.
I think Tom is upset that his arguments are being shutdown. If not he would just counter any false arguments.
Tom:"Everyone knows why those NPC's in the back of the book don't matter that much except for me. I guess I have to get mad an insult people."
edit:Calling it an "observation" reminds me of the "I was just being honest" excuse, just saying.
Now how about explaining your belief in a way that does not come out as an insult?
How about arguing the point, whatever that is, and not being insulting.What point is there to argue? James Jacobs said he didn't put time into the characters. It shows in that the characters are terrible. I'm really less offended by the wizard's spell selection than the fighter not using weapons his class features enhance. It's clearly lazy design.
All he said was those characters don't matter that much so he took no time to choose abilities that meshed well together. They are not even NPC's that are meant to be used or played. That is his point, and some of ours.
He then told you to look at NPC's that are intended to be used, and your reply was an insult, but I guess you are right there is no point. At least I don't see what your point is anyway unless it is to complain about NPC's that don't matter, and ignoring ones that do.
Imagine a fighter who happens to be really good with knives since her misspent youth, so she has weapon focus etc with daggers. However, now she is a soldier, or caravan guard, and needs longer reach, so she uses swords instead, or she uses swords because she has this really cool enchanted sword that she found. Is this incompetent, or unrealistic? I don't think so. Again, character stats reflect character history, not necessarily some form of in-universe conscious tactical choice.
At least I don't see what your point is anyway unless it is to complain about NPC's that don't matter, and ignoring ones that do.
It doesn't speak well of the writers if their attitude to published material "it doesn't matter anyway."
Not taking time to do something does not mean you don't understand it either.
At least I don't see what your point is anyway unless it is to complain about NPC's that don't matter, and ignoring ones that do.It doesn't speak well of the writers if their attitude to published material "it doesn't matter anyway."
People wanted to see the stats for the iconics. Yeah it would have been nice if they had been better made, but in the end they were not made to be played so in that sense it does not matter.
I do see your point, but the way you came across initially was somewhat hostile.
I'm getting ready to be run through Serpent's Skull starting this weekend. If I didn't have my heart set on one of two different characters, I would run one of the iconics through the AP. I did run Ezren in the Beginner Box and have played him up to level 5 but there is a difference in how the BB runs and the regular game. I enjoyed Ezren but I'm the kind of player who likes his own builds.