| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grod is the common Orc's Orc.
He's not fancy, he's a murder-toolbox on legs.
Though his simple-minded approach to philosophy has the subtle elegance of truth "from the mouth of babes".
Brad the Bard: Okay, so this is the plan...
Grod: No!
Brad: What is it Grod?
Grod: Grod makes plan! Brad always makes plan. Brad's plans always go wrong.
Brad: My plans go wrong because YOU keep hitting people...
Grod: Exactly as Grod thinks. Your plan fail because Grod hits things before Brad speaks to things. Hence Grod believe that better plan would be to just hit things and let Brad take a break from talking.
Brad: That was... surprisingly insightful.
Grod: Grod is much smarter then Brad give Grod credit. Now if Brad will excuse Grod.
Grod charges his foes screaming "IT IS TIME GROD DID TALKING!"
I agree Grod sounds fun... As long as Brad's player has a sense of humor about it. The scenes you described could be really frustrating for a player who built a clever, socially skilled bard, in hopes of having a game full of political intrigue, complex social networks, and in-depth interaction with NPCs, only to be paired up with an orc who approaches all problems with an axe. Or for a GM who had spent hours making notes on the background and motivations of the NPCs that Grod slaughtered a few seconds after the party encountered them, without even learning their names. Extra frustration if the same thing happens campaign after campaign.
I don't mean to imply that's what you would do. I'm just pointing out that Grod is not appropriate for all campaigns or all groups, and that he could very easily end up stealing the spotlight from the other characters in the party, as you illustrated in your examples. Just because it is done convincingly, humorously, and in character doesn't mean it's not a jerk move.
Again, not pointing fingers at anyone in specific.
Yeah, Grod would have to be made specifically as a straight man for the bard to play off.
And the Grod player would have to try and restrict his "sabotage" of social situations to when Brad is likely to fail anyway.
Like if Brad's trying to Diplomacy some particularly angry Bugbears that just caught the PCs rummaging through their camp.
PS I absolutely hate animeOh snap! Now I KNOW you're a troll.
Is here an "Ignore Button" somewhere? Because I'm terrible in dealing with trolls and I don't want my posts to be deleted by overzealous Mods.
This dude made one. It's fully client-side, but as long as you have FireFox or Chrome you can install it easy. Once it's in, just refresh your page and an Ignore button pops up.
This dude made one. It's fully client-side, but as long as you have FireFox or Chrome you can install it easy. Once it's in, just refresh your page and an Ignore button pops up.PS I absolutely hate animeOh snap! Now I KNOW you're a troll.
Is here an "Ignore Button" somewhere? Because I'm terrible in dealing with trolls and I don't want my posts to be deleted by overzealous Mods.
If it's the same one I got, he also has a nifty script that makes any word that has a page in the D20PFSRD auto-link.
So on my screen when someone writes "grapple" it turns into a link that will take me to the D20PFSRD page on grapple.
Very nice for rules discussions.
Yep, that's the "keyword autolink" one, right under the "ignore user".
...is futile.
I can't speak for the others but I've given up on trying to convince Baal of anything.
Now I'm just here for Grod. He's the only thing keeping the thread not worth hiding.
It is kind of funny that with ignoring a single poster this entire thread become significantly shorter and far more civil.
And full of far less dubious anecdotes about every conceivable subject brought up in the thread.
It is useful to ignore obtuse people.
And +1 to the Grod love. I enjoyed reading those posts!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fearing the worse, Brad watches Grod charge forward at the enemies only to be surprised as Grod stops short of attacking and begins speaking. Brad watches for several moments just a little too far to hear. His jaw almost falls off as Grod and the other party nod at each other and they begin to walk away.
Grod returns to where Brad is standing.
Brad: I... I don't even know. What happened?
Grod: Grod talked to them.
Brad: But... but what did Grod say?
Grod: Remember when Grod come to Brad's mother's house?
Brad: Yes... for the solstice festival.
Grod: Remember how Grod and Brad eat chicken?
Brad: Yes...
Grod: Remember when Brad show Grod human custom of "wishboning"?
Brad:... Yes. Where you grab each side of the wishbone and pull and whoever gets the biggest side of the bone gets a wish. What about it?
Grod: Grod explain to people that Grod LOVES to play wishbone. But Grod prefer to use human legs.
Brad: I don't understand.
Grod: Grod tell them that if they try to hurt Brad, that Grod will play wishbone with them. They will be Grod's bone.
((Grod rolled a natural 20 on Intimidate))
Brad: ... Why have you never tried this before!?
Grod: Because before, Brad not shut up long enough for Grod to speak.
Grod smiles and walks away whistling.
That is glorious.
Grod is the best thing.
This dude made one. It's fully client-side, but as long as you have FireFox or Chrome you can install it easy. Once it's in, just refresh your page and an Ignore button pops up.Ah, poop. I'm using Opera. That's unfortunate. :(
Yeah, sorry. You might be able to PM him and see if there's a way to get those scripts to work in Opera, or play around with websearch to see if you can find the way yourself, otherwise not much I can recommend.
MaxX- I dont remember writing that, where did it come from?
btw I was looking over some postings about OP characters again last night read up on the witches hex slumber grossness, so with two feats, you can effectively make a save or die ability, add a another feat and if they do save you can make em save again,add some more feats and it can take out more than one target. no limit on the number of times per day this can be done.
everyone went on and on about how disgusting of an ability this was and their innability as DMs to be able to control it unless they did nothing but throw undead, constructs etc, at the witch characters.
how many more things am I gonna read about like this, and still have to hear arguements that pathfinder is completely balanced?
Just because some people can't handle it that does not mean it can't be dealt with without using undead or constructs. There are posts that detail why it is not a problem. Did you conveniently skip those. Like I said, what is powergaming is subjective. One GM's inability to handle something does not make it a problem for the rest of us.
Let's be fair. Not only is the definition of "powergaming" subjective, most definitions and labels in our hobby are.
Heck, most definitions and labels in real life have 1000 little different meanings.
I could tell you I'm politically right or left, and that tells you very little about my actual political views, since even right and left politically even have different definitions in different countries.
The "New Democrats" are a right wing party in Greece.
The same name, the "New Democrats", are a left wing party in Canada.
It's why, often, trying to define people with labels leads to nothing of value unless we can first come to a common definition of each label.
Edit: And those were only examples, please no political discussion.
Yeah, but for gaming many of us agree on the definition of commonly used things. Powergaming, optimising, and its cousins some of the few things that don't have an agreed on standard yet.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Memorax- "That's the problem. Players want to make different character concepts that encourage roleplaying yet the system penalizes you if you do" my issue with PF is the penalty is HUGE, the difference between just putting one higher stat in a non class benifiting stat, spend a feat as general feat, and a few non-survival/ks based skills, and suddenly your whimpy mc whimpmyre the mayor of wimpsville, when compaired with captn kills'alot min/maxer. so do I make every character spend feats, skills, and put stats into non-class/combat optimizing areas, or do I let poor whimpy get dominated every gaming session and tell him "it was your own damn fault for not making a combat monster like everyone else!"
The penalty was there even with 3.5. It transfered over woth PF. Almost every if not all fantasy rpgs are similair in that regard. Take a Soldier class in Palladium Fantasy and while you cna build the attributes and skills to be less combat and more roleplaying he is still going to suffer in a fight than a similar player who optimized him for combat. For me there is nothing wrong wanting to think outside the box. It's when a player attempts to do it all with a set of rules that imo do not support it and with a build that also does not support it that it bothers me as both a DM and player. If a Cleric refuses to take heling spells to be more combat oreinted he can't very well get angry at the DM whne his charatcer comes close or does die. The player made a concious decision to create a character a certain way and for better or worse that player must accept the outcome good or bad.
For me I am always upfront about the type of game I'm running. If it's a more social interaction less fighting I let them know. And vice versa. If a player say in the more combat oriented game insists on making a more social interaction character well he takes it on himself to be wekaer and less effective. I don't stop a player from making a character he wants. I also don't pu;; any punches either. Espcially after giving fair warning. Not should a DM go around telling a player "you should take this feat or that skill". Players need to learn that sometimes playing a monk with levels of Bard maybe a mistake espcially if said monk insists on trying to do the same as a regular monk. While also learnig the hard way that sometimes the system does not allow or encourage certain concepts or types of playstyles. When I was youger I used to be the kick in the door charge the nearest monster type of player. Many character deaths later I still sometimes charge the nearest monster. Ezcept I do it more smartly and make sure to not outdistance the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but for gaming many of us agree on the definition of commonly used things. Powergaming, optimising, and its cousins some of the few things that don't have an agreed on standard yet.
Most definitely, plenty of the words we use have standardized meanings that fit in most circumstances, but I find when you start using words to label people is when the problem arises.
No label applies to anyone perfectly other than our species.
We'd be a lot better off if we avoiding labeling people and even ourselves.
Baal labeled me a powergamer, but I also RP. I'm not saying I don't powergame, but it doesn't negate me being an RPer at the same time.
Instead of labeling each other as "this" or "that", we should be trying to describe what each other do.
Instead of calling me a powergamer, it would be more accurate to say "Flehgrinder is the type of player who believes having a mechanically strong character is important, but he also believes a strong backstory and entertaining personality is important for the character."
With that, there would be less misconception. It describes me beautifully. Sure, it took a whole sentence as opposed to a word, but I wouldn't get defensive if that was how someone described me.
When someone just throws out a label, even one that is positive, it carries a buttload of baggage.
Yeah, but for gaming many of us agree on the definition of commonly used things. Powergaming, optimising, and its cousins some of the few things that don't have an agreed on standard yet.Most definitely, plenty of the words we use have standardized meanings that fit in most circumstances, but I find when you start using words to label people is when the problem arises.
No label applies to anyone perfectly other than our species.
We'd be a lot better off if we avoiding labeling people and even ourselves.
Baal labeled me a powergamer, but I also RP. I'm not saying I don't powergame, but it doesn't negate me being an RPer at the same time.
Instead of labeling each other as "this" or "that", we should be trying to describe what each other do.
Instead of calling me a powergamer, it would be more accurate to say "Flehgrinder is the type of player who believes having a mechanically strong character is important, but he also believes a strong backstory and entertaining personality is important for the character."
With that, there would be less misconception. It describes me beautifully. Sure, it took a whole sentence as opposed to a word, but I wouldn't get defensive if that was how someone described me.
When someone just throws out a label, even one that is positive, it carries a buttload of baggage.
I don't have an issue with labeling as long as the label is correct, and we all know what that label means.
Sometimes powergamer is used a dirty word, and sometimes it is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't really believe your story, you have the typing mannerisms of someone with a tendency to invent anecdotes to give yourself "personal experience." on any possible subject that comes up.
Sure, people can have a large breadth of experience, but not that large.
"Well, if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Hahahahahaha!"
This whole argument is kind of silly/offensive after reading the first page or two (sorry I just don't want to sift through 12 pages of this so shoot me) I only really have this to say:
1. 3.5 was WAY WAY WAY more imbalanced so cut PF some slack man if you want a perfectly balanced game play core only DnD 4e (cause that was so popular)
It starts getting funnier around page 10 or so when Grod is introduced. If you don't read the whole thing, at least go back and read those =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Grod. I want to stick him in my campaign (ironically, as an NPC), that's how awesome I think he is. XD
Anyways, Baal has yet to really dispute the point that characters with optimized stats can make great roleplaying. Instead, he focuses on depressing examples of the horrid roleplayers he's had to deal with. I think there's a simple communication issue.
A character with maximized combat statistics can still be a fun character to roleplay. Grod just proved that point. His player is not averse to roleplaying, Grod just happens to be a very powerful thug. Maybe he's afraid of spiders, maybe he has a stuffed owlbear. There are plenty of ways to round out an optimized character without messing with those stats.
This is NOT to say you should avoid reducing combat effectiveness if it sabotages combat. Flaws build character. Combat isn't the sole point of the game, after all. If you want Grod to have five ranks in Craft (sewing) to patch up his owlbear, that's fine.
But you don't HAVE to do that to round him out.
There are plenty of munchkins who will give their characters whatever traits, skills and feats directly benefit them, and ignore all roleplaying elements. This is generally BAD (unless it's a hack and slash game, in which case, go for it). Nobody here endorses that. Baal keeps arguing about how bad this is, but everybody actually disagrees with him over it.
However, it is perfectly possible for a very, VERY powerful character to get roleplayed well. They ain't mutually exclusive.
Grod has a stuffed Goblin named Gobby.
Problem is, it's actually a stuffed goblin and the saw dust stuffing doesn't do much about the smell. Also the fact that Grod manually stuffed the Goblin with sawdust, while it was still alive, mean the craftsmanship isn't fantastic.
Brad keeps trying to convince Grod to have the thing enchanted so it doesn't smell anymore, but Grod said that Gobby would not smell like Gobby anymore.
Grod smell like Grod.
Gobby smell like Gobby.
Brad smells like whores.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brad tell Grod axe made by man to chop trees.
If axe made by man to chop trees, why it harder to chop tree than chop man?
Grod say axe made by orcs to chop mans.
Brad not smart like Grod.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does AM-Barbarian have a rival?
If you were going to run a game and wanted to give players a set of directions and/or restrictions that would stop any character created from “greatly” unbalancing the game, at any time during his/her progression… what would those directions/restrictions be?
To reduce power gaming, I'd require all players to roll their ability scores. No point buys. Scores would be rolled using 3d6 and place them in the order rolled on the character sheet. Also, any rolled score higher than 15 would be counted as a 15 and any rolled score lower than 6 would be counted as a 6.
I'd also select only a few races to allow (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and perhaps half-orc). I'd require characters to either be human or the player could roll for a random race from the remainder races.
Class selection would be limited to the basic 4 (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) unless the character had a three scores of 12 or higher.
Next, I'd use the slow XP progression and cut all XP and treasure rewards in half.
Next, I'd require characters to spend game time training to level up...
roll 1d4 for the number of weeks training required, if a competent trainer or suitable source of training is available. Doulble, if not available.
... and they could only learn feats, spells, etc... if such were available to them in the game world to learn. All feats, spells, etc... would be assigned a level of rarity. Common feats, spells, etc... would be easier to find a source of training for. Some things would be extremely rare or might require research. Only common spells, feats, etc... could be learned without the aid of a competent source of training.
... Also, training would require a suitable expenditure of resources... Depending upon class, it would require anywhere from 100gp per week to 1,000 gp per week multiplied by the level the PC was training to achieve. Basic classes without spells would require less resource expenditure than spellcasters or classes that were more rare in the gameworld (bard, druid, ranger, paladin, monk, sorcerer). Extremely rare classes (non-core base classes and prestige classes would require the higher end resource expenditure for training.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like removing fun...
Grod reminds me of a female shifter (from Eberron) barbarian in one of my current games. She has 8 intelligence and roleplays it on par with a very violent Forrest Gump, is in awe of the spirits (like certain wind spells) but hates magic as a whole, and constantly tells us about how she killed at one time or another whatever we come across with her "bare hands" (or maybe bear hands? she is a shifter). The best part is that her name is Me-Am and she always uses the third person.
If you were going to run a game and wanted to give players a set of directions and/or restrictions that would stop any character created from “greatly” unbalancing the game, at any time during his/her progression… what would those directions/restrictions be?To reduce power gaming, I'd require all players to roll their ability scores. No point buys. Scores would be rolled using 3d6 and place them in the order rolled on the character sheet. Also, any rolled score higher than 15 would be counted as a 15 and any rolled score lower than 6 would be counted as a 6.
I'd also select only a few races to allow (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and perhaps half-orc). I'd require characters to either be human or the player could roll for a random race from the remainder races.
Class selection would be limited to the basic 4 (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) unless the character had a three scores of 12 or higher.
Next, I'd use the slow XP progression and cut all XP and treasure rewards in half.
Next, I'd require characters to spend game time training to level up...
roll 1d4 for the number of weeks training required, if a competent trainer or suitable source of training is available. Doulble, if not available.... and they could only learn feats, spells, etc... if such were available to them in the game world to learn. All feats, spells, etc... would be assigned a level of rarity. Common feats, spells, etc... would be easier to find a source of training for. Some things would be extremely rare or might require research. Only common spells, feats, etc... could be learned without the aid of a competent source of training.
... Also, training would require a suitable expenditure of resources... Depending upon class, it would require anywhere from 100gp per week to 1,000 gp per week multiplied by the level the PC was training to achieve. Basic classes without spells would require less resource expenditure than spellcasters or classes that were more rare in the...
None of this really helps. It just takes longer to level up, and it means instead of giving you a headache with class A I have to do it with class B since the stats might now allow me to play class A.
It also says "play a caster" if someone is only cares about power.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To reduce power gaming, I'd require all players to roll their ability scores. No point buys. Scores would be rolled using 3d6 and place them in the order rolled on the character sheet. Also, any rolled score higher than 15 would be counted as a 15 and any rolled score lower than 6 would be counted as a 6.
Removing the opportunity to get really high or low scores takes a good part of the interest in rolling stats for randomness's sake. Whether it is by rolling or point-buying, a munchkin will munchkin.
Rolling is hardly a way to reduce powergaming ; instead you just bring frustration over low stats and impossibility for randomness to actually benefit you in any way. Stats should reflect your character, not determine or gimp it.I'd also select only a few races to allow (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and perhaps half-orc). I'd require characters to either be human or the player could roll for a random race from the remainder races.
Wait, so you can't even choose the race you want to play among the base ones, and the only core race you automatically grant is also the best for optimizers thanks to the bonus feat ? Where is the logic ?
Class selection would be limited to the basic 4 (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) unless the character had a three scores of 12 or higher.
Again, if you want to reduce powergaming, what are doing the wizard and cleric in your list ?
Next, I'd use the slow XP progression and cut all XP and treasure rewards in half.
... or dump XP altogether and grant level ups at the end of major story arcs, with some palpables rewards for those who make the game better in between levels. Wanna level up ? You'd better roleplay, give story opportunities through you character, and make the game enjoyable for everyone.
Next, I'd require characters to spend game time training to level up...
roll 1d4 for the number of weeks training required, if a competent trainer or suitable source of training is available. Doulble, if not available.
I'd rather go adventuring, thanks. It's not "Training Camp and Underdogs", it's "Dungeons and Dragons".
... and they could only learn feats, spells, etc... if such were available in to them in the game world to learn. All feats, spells, etc... would be assigned a level of rarity. Common feats, spells, etc... would be easier to find a source of training for. Some things would be extremely rare or might require research. Only common spells, feats, etc... could be learned without the aid of a competent source of training.
Because nerfing the combat classes is such a good idea. There is already a rarity mechanic included for the wizard since the DM can basically fiat any spell outside of those learnt by leveling up.
... Also, training would require a suitable expenditure of resources... Depending upon class, it would require anywhere from 100gp per week to 1,000 gp per week multiplied by the level the PC was training to achieve.
You mean, like the expenditure I could spend to have fun adventures and survive through them ? Like the gold spent in potions keeping me alive, boat travelling to new countries ?
I would never play in such a game even for a GP/day. And I consider myself to be a good roleplayer ; even if equally optimizer.
Sounds more like removing fun...
It's not for everybody. That's for sure.
It also says "play a caster" if someone is only cares about power.
Yes... That's probably true, but with restricted spell access, it is workable. Even clerics, for example, would have to maintain the favor of their deities in order to get their desired spells. It also might be dependent on the worshippers in the area, too (depending on the deity's goals).
When Grod play, Grod always Powergame.
Grod even have Powergame feat!
Brad stands on his tippy toes and whispers in Grod's ear
Grod not have Powergame feat.
But Grod can Power Attack the game!
Even clerics, for example, would have to maintain the favor of their deities in order to get their desired spells.
In other words, it works if you throw out the rules and reduce game play to a "mother-may-I" contest with the DM? That approach works quite well for people who really like story, don't care too much about consistency, and/or are somewhat passive in their approach to the game. For me, and most of the people I play with, we'd rather have slightly more consistent and transparent guidelines on what our characters can and can't do.
To reduce power gaming, I'd require all players to roll their ability scores. No point buys. Scores would be rolled using 3d6 and place them in the order rolled on the character sheet. Also, any rolled score higher than 15 would be counted as a 15 and any rolled score lower than 6 would be counted as a 6.Removing the opportunity to get really high or low scores takes a good part of the interest in rolling stats for randomness's sake. Whether it is by rolling or point-buying, a munchkin will munchkin.
Rolling is hardly a way to reduce powergaming ; instead you just bring frustration over low stats and impossibility for randomness to actually benefit you in any way. Stats should reflect your character, not determine or gimp it.
I'm not saying mine is the only solution. But, our group has had good experiences and fun with it. And, more average scores reduces access to certain abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying mine is the only solution. But, our group has had good experiences and fun with it. And, more average scores reduces access to certain abilities.
I can't help but feel that if I'm playing a character that's bleh at everything, that the best roleplay option would be for me and the party to open a small tavern somewhere and not go out into the world to get murdered by bandits. That's why those NPC commoners do it after all ;p
On a side note, the whole campaign could essentially be medieval Cheers.
I'd also select only a few races to allow (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and perhaps half-orc). I'd require characters to either be human or the player could roll for a random race from the remainder races.Wait, so you can't even choose the race you want to play among the base ones, and the only core race you automatically grant is also the best for optimizers thanks to the bonus feat ? Where is the logic ?
The logic is for flavour. Humans are the most common race in the worlds I run. Other races are rarer. Humans are the baseline. And, I don't worry about the bonus feat breaking the game at first level. And second level isn't guaranteed.
Class selection would be limited to the basic 4 (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) unless the character had a three scores of 12 or higher.Again, if you want to reduce powergaming, what are doing the wizard and cleric in your list ?
WIth the reduced spell access that they would have, they're not as much of a power gaming problem as they would be with freedom of spell choice.
Next, I'd use the slow XP progression and cut all XP and treasure rewards in half.... or dump XP altogether and grant level ups at the end of major story arcs, with some palpables rewards for those who make the game better in between levels. Wanna level up ? You'd better roleplay, give story opportunities through you character, and make the game enjoyable for everyone.
That's also a valid option. And, one that I like.
I'd rather go adventuring, thanks. It's not "Training Camp and Underdogs", it's "Dungeons and Dragons".Next, I'd require characters to spend game time training to level up...
roll 1d4 for the number of weeks training required, if a competent trainer or suitable source of training is available. Doulble, if not available.
You'd probably have to be adventuring. Just because you have the XP to advance doesn't mean that the story will allow you the time to train or that you have the gold to pay for the training.
... and they could only learn feats, spells, etc... if such were available in to them in the game world to learn. All feats, spells, etc... would be assigned a level of rarity. Common feats, spells, etc... would be easier to find a source of training for. Some things would be extremely rare or might require research. Only common spells, feats, etc... could be learned without the aid of a competent source of training.Because nerfing the combat classes is such a good idea. There is already a rarity mechanic included for the wizard since the DM can basically fiat any spell outside of those learnt by leveling up.
And, I'd recommend restricting those spells automatically gained a level up to only the more common spells that are available to learn (from an in game perspective).
As to nerfing combat classes... They wouldn't take as big a hit as the spell casters. They'd be paying far less to train and most of their feats would be more widely availble (at least the ones usable by characters of 5th level or lower).
... Also, training would require a suitable expenditure of resources... Depending upon class, it would require anywhere from 100gp per week to 1,000 gp per week multiplied by the level the PC was training to achieve.You mean, like the expenditure I could spend to have fun adventures and survive through them ? Like the gold spent in potions keeping me alive, boat travelling to new countries ?
I would never play in such a game even for a GP/day. And I consider myself to be a good roleplayer ; even if equally optimizer.
Buying potions? They'd be more expensive than in the RAW. Travelling? Could happen, depending on the story the players and DM wanted to tell.
Again, this isn't for everyone.
Even clerics, for example, would have to maintain the favor of their deities in order to get their desired spells.In other words, it works if you throw out the rules and reduce game play to a "mother-may-I" contest with the DM? That approach works quite well for people who really like story, don't care too much about consistency, and/or are somewhat passive in their approach to the game. For me, and most of the people I play with, we'd rather have slightly more consistent and transparent guidelines on what our characters can and can't do.
I've looked over your house rules and you've had some ideas that I've "borrowed." Thank you, by the way.
This approach is definitely better for folks that like to emphasize roleplaying over power gaming.
As to consistency and transparency, I'd definitely list the things that were commonly available (spells, feats, etc...) so the player's knew what was most easily available and wouldn't be flying blind.
Don't know if you're familiar with Arcana Evolved, but that system classified spells by rarity and complexity into three groups (simple, complex, and exotic). My take isn't too far removed from that. Simple spells would be commonly available. Complex would be a little more rare. Exotic would likely only be found through adventuring or research.
Feats would be handled in a similar manner. Common feats would be those available to characters of fifth level or lower (based upon the pre-reqs a 5th level PC could meet) in the core rulebook. Feats from other sources or that usually require a higher level character in order to meet the pre-requisites would be more rare. Some would be of the exotic variety.
I don't mean any offense Hrothgar I know you're attempting to help the TC but if any GM actually tried to implement any of these things I would vote with my feet and most people I know (PGs or not) told me the same when I showed then this thread. This thread feels like it's about one guy throwing a tantrum instead of communicating properly with his players and asking the community to rip the game apart to suit his needs so he doesn't have to address the issue.
I understand. Like I said, it's not for everyone. And, I wouldn't always use it. Right now, I'm running The Shackled City in 3.5 with all the characters at a 32 point buy (by 3.5 standards). Not everything is open game, but most of the 3.5 material from the "Complete" books is available (along with some things from Arcana Evolved and Pathfinder. But, I don't have an issue with power gamers in my group, either. Only one even tries to power game. And, he's mostly in it for the fun of playing.
These (presented earlier in the thread)ideas are actually similar to some of the rules in older editions of D&D. Not that every group of players used them, but we did from time to time.
As to what the thread feels like? I think it feels like someone asking for help with options for his/her game to tailor it more to their liking. He or she may not like anything I've presented. Or, maybe they'll find something useful.
Maybe house-rules/suggestions/homebrew options aren't what's being looked for. If not, other options would be focusing on just ensuring a level of rules mastery that is up to the level of power gaming presented by the group and playing RAW. Also, recognizing that characters of 5th level or higher are capable of things that most people in our world aren't capable of. And, it's often not the rules that are broken that power gamers seem to exploit. It's a misperception of what characters ought to be able to do and the stories that ought to be told at a given level, according to the RAW. Pathfinder/D&D characters are able to achieve amazing things. Some of us would classify an 8th or 9th level character as a demigod, based on what that character might be able to do. And, a sixth level character as an epic hero.
But, not every player or GM subscribes to this outlook either.
I know it was suggested in the other thread, but I highly recommend The Alexandrian's: Calibrating Your Expectations essay along with the follow up article.
to the OP-
1. 15 point buy, or roll 3d6 six times and assign those numbers in succession.
2. low-magic campaign.
3. Core Rulebook only.
4. Or, play with the players and up the CRs and add in casters using mind-controlling magic. PG an NPC for kicks. It's a game, 'controlling' the habits of others is a futile exercise, no?
The system isn't broken and it isn't perfect, when the souped-up melee is out-of-control, drop a suggestion on him. There are many ways to "combat" power-gaming, and if it's an issue with you and your group, address it at character creation.
And +1 to Grod.