I am not sure what the level 10 commoner had that allowed them to do well against CR 10s. Care to elaborate, because they don't get much as a level 10.3.5 Loyalist, most of the things I could do in 3.5, can not be done in PF, but anything I can do in PF can be replicated or surpassed in 3.5. In 3.5 a player had a commoner taking on CR 10 encounters. It is not even close.
Now Baal if you don't know the system well then why try to argue what is or is not balanced?* You don't like PF all that much. I get it, but there is difference between the system having issues, and it not fitting your preferred style of play.
*In short what I am saying is that because you don't know the system that well you can't really come up with a precise argument. You did not know about DR, and being relatively new I did not expect you to. You also don't realize that no the summoner you linked to is not impressive. At best I might have to change some feats or spells out. That is hardly as time consuming as you think it would be. At the most it is 5 minutes of work for me, and if I am building my own NPC's then somebody better help that summoner. I will just remove him from the battlefield, gate in ______ to handle him when he gets back. If I had 3.5 gate it would be worse.
PS:That was a long "in short". :)
PS2:If that 20d6+40 build is found I will be answering that also. :)
The builder use the mounted feats, and he purchased a mount.
There is a weapon enhancement(skillful) that raises your BAB to 3/4 your character level. In short it gives you the medium BAB progression. This allowed him to use the charge and do a lot of damage, normally doing enough damage to oneshot a CR 10 monster. He had some other stuff to, but the point was it was done in 3.5, and it can't be done in PF.
How are they reducing powergaming?
Were all part of 3.5e, which you confess loyalty to. Pun-pun is a 3.5 thing. Ur-priest and Abjurant Cheesecake are 3.5 things. Divine Metamagic Persist Spell with Nightsticks was a 3.5 thing. Book of Nine Swords was a 3.5 thing. CharOp boards with builds that would make you cry at night is a 3.5 thing. Frenzied Berserker was a 3.5 thing. Gating solars was a 3.5 thing.Stop saying that 3.5 was a system devoid of powergaming opportunities and Pathfinder became a gamebreaker paradise. It's simply a not-truth.
One of the few times Gorbacz and myself are in complete 1000% agreement. Powergaming was as prevalent in 3.5 as it is under PF. If anything I'm finding that Paizo is doing a better job of trying to reduce powergaming. Sometimes al ittle too much yet that is a topic for another discussion.
This thread imo is perfect example imo of the OP coming on to these boards wanting to get feedback except already has his mind set on the topic and it won't be changed. Beyond validation why even post a thread if no matter what anyone says nothing will change the mond of the OP. Might as well go on rpg.net and other rpg forums and post a similar thread and hope the laws of avergaes will eventually work in his favor.
By not allowing you to do the things you can do in PF that can be done in 3.5, and the things that can be done are harder to do. When it comes to the martial types they were made better, and not front loaded for level dipping which was a very good strategy in 3.5.
Whether tortoises can speak? Or are you making assumptions again?
My question is whether or not you can make that tortoise cast a spell or are you not even trying? I think you can do it if you want to, but you are refusing to post the answer.
Wriath, that sounds very fringe. Are you going to try and use anything you can from any off the side book to try and say 3.5 is powergaming, and has always been? First you tried the 9th level spells, reached by spellcasters a little before becoming gods, a truly rare outlier unlikely in any but the highest level games, and now you want to bring up an obscure weapon enhancement that seems pretty far from 3.5 in the players the dms and books of near expansion. And what is the bonus of this bab altering sword? Is it accurate, or poorly conceived? Should the level 10 even have had access to it? It is not the dm allowing such powergaming for this bab-sword to even come up?
Wraith, this is getting silly. You are trying to take this very far away from looking at pathfinder and comparing what it gives to 3.5. The way it pushes power and abilities up, and makes the game more about crunch.
There is also another problem with the power-game push, monsters get made more gnarly in response. This might seem a good thing, a greater challenge is excellent. However increasingly monsters have few weaknesses, DR becomes truly common (wasn't the case in 3.5, where some things just managed with massive hp) and the ability scores of monsters goes up to match the party fighting under the cheese mon.
Now if you want to insist there is no power-gaming in pathfinder, or that it was already in 3.5, what of the changes to the monsters and their stats?
Druids in metal armor....... bwahahahahahahahahaha!
The bonus of the "skillful" enhancement is +2, and it was a build presented on the WoTC messageboards at the time. The thread itself was about the usefulness of fighters. A poster said a commoner is just as good as a fighter. Long story short, someone basically said put up or shut up.
I thought you were comparing all of PF to all of 3.5. You never specified otherwise. Do wish to only compare the bestiary and the CRB to the PHB, DMG, and monster manual 1?
I am sure there are still more ways to break 3.5 core than there are to break PF.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your insults have been flagged. You also got my name wrong.
Not sure what an abjurant cheesecake is, but I did make a dispel monkey once.Dear Trevour, if thou know not what Abjurant Cheescake stands for, then thou have nary an idea about 3.5 optimization and character builds! Truly, 'tis like a scholar of history presenting a blank face and a confused stare when inquired about the Battle of Stalingrad. Oh how have the mighty fallen, I'm on the verge of fainting, where are my refreshing salts?
Henceforth I consider myself victorious in this argument, and your miserable squabbling left far behind in dust. Have heart dear wise seer, for one day you shall have thine comeuppance!
And he bites hit thumb at thee!
So it was something on a messageboard, and where did they get it? Got to say, never come across it before. Their claim is actually still proven wrong even with the sword of babcheese. 3/4 bab, commoner hit die, low fort doesn't make the commoner as good as a fighter.
Now if you want to insist there is no power-gaming in pathfinder, or that it was already in 3.5, what of the changes to the monsters and their stats?
Powergaming is not even a term we can agree on. It means different things to different people. As for what is OP that is subjective. My point for the purpose of comparing 3.5 to PF is simply that the power of characters in PF is less than it is in 3.5.
My debate with Baal is that the system is ok as is, and that he will never be able to find an issue with the system to prove his point. At best he can certain builds don't belong at certain tables, but everyone has been saying that for the entire thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The bonus of the "skillful" enhancement is +2, and it was a build presented on the WoTC messageboards at the time. The thread itself was about the usefulness of fighters. A poster said a commoner is just as good as a fighter. Long story short, someone basically said put up or shut up.
I thought you were comparing all of PF to all of 3.5. You never specified otherwise. Do wish to only compare the bestiary and the CRB to the PHB, DMG, and monster manual 1?
I am sure there are still more ways to break 3.5 core than there are to break PF.
I already pointed out how amazingly unbalanced Core was in my last post in this thread. 3.5 Core > Pathfinder core when it comes to raw power and disgustingly unfair advantages and strengths.
In Pathfinder, a 20th level martial will crush a shapeshifting druid in melee combat. Other 3/4 classes with martial emphasis will more or less be a fair fight. In 3.5, a 20th level martial will have no prayer against a druid 3 levels lower than they are in melee combat.
So it was something on a messageboard, and where did they get it? Got to say, never come across it before. Their claim is actually still proven wrong even with the sword of babcheese. 3/4 bab, commoner hit die, low fort doesn't make the commoner as good as a fighter.
The enhancement is in the complete arcane book, page 144.
I agree that the commoner is not as good as a fighter, but that was not the point I am making here today. My point here today is that you can do thing in 3.5s, that are not possible in PF. That is why I brought up the commoner.
edit:It also grants proficiency with the weapon.
Now if you want to insist there is no power-gaming in pathfinder, or that it was already in 3.5, what of the changes to the monsters and their stats?Powergaming is not even a term we can agree on. It means different things to different people. As for what is OP that is subjective. My point for the purpose of comparing 3.5 to PF is simply that the power of characters in PF is less than it is in 3.5.
My debate with Baal is that the system is ok as is, and that he will never be able to find an issue with the system to prove his point. At best he can certain builds don't belong at certain tables, but everyone has been saying that for the entire thread.
Less? What about sorcerers that used to just get spells, but now get spells and bloodline powers? Fighters got bonus feats, now get added bonuses on top. A non cleric class, the alchemist can even bring back the dead, and also bombard enemies, mix it up in melee, get off spell effects and make potions immediately with no prep. There is the barb, which used to be quite limited in rage duration, now with rage points that means rage can go longer, not limited in daily usage of rage, with new abilities that up damage, attacks, saves. The PF base classes are much stronger.
So it was something on a messageboard, and where did they get it? Got to say, never come across it before. Their claim is actually still proven wrong even with the sword of babcheese. 3/4 bab, commoner hit die, low fort doesn't make the commoner as good as a fighter.The enhancement is in the complete arcane book, page 144.
I agree that the commoner is not as good as a fighter, but that was not the point I am making here today. My point here today is that you can do thing in 3.5s, that are not possible in PF. That is why I brought up the commoner.
edit:It also grants proficiency with the weapon.
Well okay. I'll agree with that. 3.5 has a huge array of... stuff orbiting it. There is a lot of what are called splat-books, plenty that can be added on, and of course dms picks and choose and don't encounter or use everything there is.
The base classes were good, and at low to mid levels pretty balanced amongst themselves. Prestige was not needed, it just allowed sexy specialisation and in some renowned cases, power gaming cheese.
Less? What about sorcerers that used to just get spells, but now get spells and bloodline powers? Fighters got bonus feats, now get added bonuses on top. A non cleric class, the alchemist can even bring back the dead, and also bombard enemies, mix it up in melee, get off spell effects and make potions immediately with no prep. There is the barb, which used to be quite limited in rage duration, now with rage points that means rage can go longer, not limited in daily usage of rage, with new abilities that up damage, attacks, saves. The PF base classes are much stronger.
Now if you want to insist there is no power-gaming in pathfinder, or that it was already in 3.5, what of the changes to the monsters and their stats?Powergaming is not even a term we can agree on. It means different things to different people. As for what is OP that is subjective. My point for the purpose of comparing 3.5 to PF is simply that the power of characters in PF is less than it is in 3.5.
My debate with Baal is that the system is ok as is, and that he will never be able to find an issue with the system to prove his point. At best he can certain builds don't belong at certain tables, but everyone has been saying that for the entire thread.
Are we using core or is everything open. It seemed you were just complaining about me stepping outside of 3.5 core not to long ago.
PS:That turtle trick can be pulled before level 20. It comes at level 17. Well it can probably be done before that if I take the time to try.
The PF martial classes are stronger, and that is a good thing. Them being stronger is not gamebreaking though. The force missile mage, and the another class that did a crazy amount of HP damage cause GM's headaches. I think it was the anarchist.
Now just to be clear we are talking the highest levels of power right, because as Ashiel's post shows, and my example continue to show it is not even close, unless you can duplicate the same tricks in PF.
Don't forget the archivist either. It could get all divine spells, and many arcane spells.
Wait. Don't forget the wizards and sorcerers in +5 full plate and +5 towershields, dual wielding staves with their toes. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ahh, he used the example of druids doing that though.
3.5 Loyalist I don't use those builds when I played 3.5, but I did know how to make many of them. I have tried to make them in PF*, especially when it first came out. I have failed to do so. I am saying this, just so you know I am not just spouting stuff I read somewhere. I actually understand the basics of how these builds work.
*I wanted to know what I was getting into before I converted over when PF first came out, so I tried to break it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh wow it degenerated (again - this thread always degenerates. Every time I think it bottomed out, it hits a new low) into a flame war over which system is easier to break, 3.5E or PF.
I don't always forum - 'cause I become a forum addict - but when I do, I go to the CharOp boards. Because I always learn something useful even if I don't adopt any of the builds. I also look at the systems myself to see how much they can be broken.
PF, as far as I can see, is less easily breakable than 3.5E.
Restricting things to "core only" is an artificial debating ploy intended to win debating points by getting people to accept a faulty premise that excludes from discussion things that are so obviously breakable that the people on the other side would have to concede they are wrong. So by constricting the debate parameters artificially, they actually tacitly concede the point that, overall, the system they're defending is more breakable than the one they're comparing it unfavorably too.
That said, even just looking at core only, PF is less breakable than 3.5E because of how transformations were handled in 3.5E.
One can look at other classes and say that because PF adds additional meaningful creative options to combat classes, it's easier to make optimized builds with those than was possible with the same classes in 3.5E - that's a given. But a powergamer playing 3.5E is less likely to choose, say, a Fighter in the first place and more likely to build a wizard (and in 3.5E, it's possible at high levels, using only the spells and abilities in the Player's Handbook, to "legitimately" get ability scores in the 40s, at least for physical attributes, by using the right transformation spells & feats and transforming into the right kind of critter).
None of this means it's impossible to create a broken build in PF - that's a straw-man ("So and so is defending PF compared to 3.5E, that means he thinks one cannot create a broken build at all in PF core, but of course this is obviously wrong"). It's just less easy to break it in some of the ways that were very common in 3.xE core, so easy in fact that with certain caster classes you'd have to intentionally choose less potent transformations to avoid "breaking" it. Plus it was also almost trivial to build any caster - even an arcane caster - into a better melee combatant than any melee class (of course, "why would you want to" then comes to mind for a lot of people "because you can do so much more with other spells" - well, certainly. . .)
Now where I'm coming from isn't some fanboy of the PF system: I reluctantly dropped 3.5E for 4E when they stopped publishing 3.5E stuff (and, early on when I looked at Paizo's independent stuff - I bought the first two volumes of "Rise of the Runelords" - it had too much of a "3rd party vendor" feel to me, which turned me off - entirely superficial reasons, I admit). 4E was also an attempt to give non-caster classes meaningful options at every level while also attempting to create a system that would be more difficult to "break" by caster and non-caster alike (and we see from the Gleemax CharOp boards how long that lasted). Anyhow when they decided to drop 4E for "D&D NeXt" recently, and after seeing some snippets of PF stuff, I decided at long last to give PF/Paizo a second look this spring. I was a reluctant late-adapter to PF. So far I haven't seen builds as broken as were common in 3.5E, and I have seen in experimenting with how far I can "push" the engine within the rules that I couldn't make a build half as "OP" as the "ultimate" build I could construct in 3.5E.
I'd be a natural ally of baal & 3.5E Loyalist, except that I don't see the facts as supporting their position.
PF isn't perfect - it certainly is possible to create broken builds within the rules, and then critics will point to this selective anecdotal evidence as if it were a proof that PF as a whole (or core only as a whole) is more broken than 3.5E (or 2E, or AD&D, or OD&D) as a whole (or core), but this isn't the case, because a lot of the perfectly legal ways you could break things in those versions were fixed, or at least improved to be less OP than before, and while, yes, combat classes were finally given some real meaningful options that put them closer to par with casters (something Feats were an effort to accomplish, but didn't quite do), and so in the "just so" circumstances for any given damage-dealing build, those builds can shine - but in point of fact it's far easier to see the constraints of such a build than it is a caster who can transform into whatever critter gives them the options/powers they need at any given moment to be able to simply stomp any opponent under virtually any condition and circumstance you can imagine.
Don't forget the ninjas in adamantine full plate, wielding greataxes.
Good stuff, but not all wizards have shapechange or will be near the level to use it. Any that have transmutation as a prohibited school or who have not learned it will be out of luck.
Por, think you are looking down on 3.5 martial classes though. My groups have found them strong and capable, especially if they go into maneuvres and use team-work well. Drow spellcasters got slain badly in that Drow pathfinder AP with a 3.5 knight. Prob getting off topic again.
Don't forget the ninjas in adamantine full plate, wielding greataxes.
You've been playing Dark Souls again! Well the ninja description is clear on armour much like the druid is also clear if you really read close and don't house-rule it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your insults have been flagged. You also got my name wrong.
Not sure what an abjurant cheesecake is, but I did make a dispel monkey once.Dear Trevour, if thou know not what Abjurant Cheescake stands for, then thou have nary an idea about 3.5 optimization and character builds! Truly, 'tis like a scholar of history presenting a blank face and a confused stare when inquired about the Battle of Stalingrad. Oh how have the mighty fallen, I'm on the verge of fainting, where are my refreshing salts?
Henceforth I consider myself victorious in this argument, and your miserable squabbling left far behind in dust. Have heart dear wise seer, for one day you shall have thine comeuppance!
Truly I am at loss here, my friend. I was expecting some honest academic fencing - a thrust here, a dash there, a block, a swing, a refined battle of intellectuals we both are! What stories can be told when two great minds clash! Worthy of bard's song this would be, certainly!
Alas, all that I am left is with are hurt feelings and lack of substance. But I do see that good folks here led by Sir Wraithstrike and M'lady Ashiel are more than up for the good fight, so at least I am happy to see them provide some classy sport. En garde! May the best win!
Wait. Don't forget the wizards and sorcerers in +5 full plate and +5 towershields, dual wielding staves with their toes. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!
I am trying not to exaggerate. :)
Your insults have been flagged. You also got my name wrong.
Not sure what an abjurant cheesecake is, but I did make a dispel monkey once.Dear Trevour, if thou know not what Abjurant Cheescake stands for, then thou have nary an idea about 3.5 optimization and character builds! Truly, 'tis like a scholar of history presenting a blank face and a confused stare when inquired about the Battle of Stalingrad. Oh how have the mighty fallen, I'm on the verge of fainting, where are my refreshing salts?
Henceforth I consider myself victorious in this argument, and your miserable squabbling left far behind in dust. Have heart dear wise seer, for one day you shall have thine comeuppance!
Truly I am at loss here, my friend. I was expecting some honest academic fencing - a thrust here, a dash there, a block, a swing, a refined battle of intellectuals we both are! What stories can be told when two great minds clash! Worthy of bard's song this would be, certainly!
Alas, all that I am left is with are hurt feelings and lack of substance. But I do see that good folks here led by Sir Wraithstrike and M'lady Ashiel are more than up for the good fight, so at least I am happy to see them provide some classy sport. En garde! May the best win!
I will never be your friend Gorb.
Vow of poverty characters who wield the double-standard of having posessions, the impoverished do not and will never have. "I am a poor holy warrior who has sworn of all material goods. I am especially proud of my <name of magic item>. Bwahahahahahahahaha!
He even shopped for hats and designer sandals.
Wait. Don't forget the wizards and sorcerers in +5 full plate and +5 towershields, dual wielding staves with their toes. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!I am trying not to exaggerate. :)
No. Exaggerate it. Ride that Camaro. :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will never be your friend Gorb.Your insults have been flagged. You also got my name wrong.
Not sure what an abjurant cheesecake is, but I did make a dispel monkey once.Dear Trevour, if thou know not what Abjurant Cheescake stands for, then thou have nary an idea about 3.5 optimization and character builds! Truly, 'tis like a scholar of history presenting a blank face and a confused stare when inquired about the Battle of Stalingrad. Oh how have the mighty fallen, I'm on the verge of fainting, where are my refreshing salts?
Henceforth I consider myself victorious in this argument, and your miserable squabbling left far behind in dust. Have heart dear wise seer, for one day you shall have thine comeuppance!
Truly I am at loss here, my friend. I was expecting some honest academic fencing - a thrust here, a dash there, a block, a swing, a refined battle of intellectuals we both are! What stories can be told when two great minds clash! Worthy of bard's song this would be, certainly!
Alas, all that I am left is with are hurt feelings and lack of substance. But I do see that good folks here led by Sir Wraithstrike and M'lady Ashiel are more than up for the good fight, so at least I am happy to see them provide some classy sport. En garde! May the best win!
These tears, they are your fault. I shall not flag that thread - no matter how much hurt did it bring to me. But know that today there's more misery on this planet and you're the culprit!
Excuse me, I need to console my trembling heart. Are there any fun 4e threads around lately?
No. Exaggerate it. Ride that Camaro. :)Wait. Don't forget the wizards and sorcerers in +5 full plate and +5 towershields, dual wielding staves with their toes. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!I am trying not to exaggerate. :)
If you wish to say something say it. Your humor is lost upon me if its intent is to deliver a message.
If what you wish to say is based in fact then state the fact, but if you wish to just tell jokes, then joke away, better yet go find Grod. He is the only barbarian with ranks in Perform(comedy). :)|
|
I will never be your friend Gorb.Your insults have been flagged. You also got my name wrong.
Not sure what an abjurant cheesecake is, but I did make a dispel monkey once.Dear Trevour, if thou know not what Abjurant Cheescake stands for, then thou have nary an idea about 3.5 optimization and character builds! Truly, 'tis like a scholar of history presenting a blank face and a confused stare when inquired about the Battle of Stalingrad. Oh how have the mighty fallen, I'm on the verge of fainting, where are my refreshing salts?
Henceforth I consider myself victorious in this argument, and your miserable squabbling left far behind in dust. Have heart dear wise seer, for one day you shall have thine comeuppance!
Truly I am at loss here, my friend. I was expecting some honest academic fencing - a thrust here, a dash there, a block, a swing, a refined battle of intellectuals we both are! What stories can be told when two great minds clash! Worthy of bard's song this would be, certainly!
Alas, all that I am left is with are hurt feelings and lack of substance. But I do see that good folks here led by Sir Wraithstrike and M'lady Ashiel are more than up for the good fight, so at least I am happy to see them provide some classy sport. En garde! May the best win!
Never say never.
Also, heads up Gorb, Ashiel is a dude..
This is a regular discussion at our table AMONG THE POWER GAMERS (PGs)... How do we keep from making it "unfun" for the non-PGs? It really has to be a self regulating thing. Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you HAVE to do it every encounter.
And as a DM, I tell the table upfront: The bad guys are BAD GUYS - they cheat! I have a ton of D&D 3.5 books that are way more useful now to make the encounters more "challenging" to the power gamers. Many more of the 3.5 "buff" spells have stacking bonuses than the PF spells so it helps the bad guys' AC... When the badass fighter says "I hit AC 50" with a smirk and you get to say "Miss!", it takes the smirk right off their faces... It works the same for number of attacks and attack bonuses.
|
|
Porp I disagree. It's not so much a thread degenerationg so much that a poster comes on a board with his mind made up about the topic. Which is fine except they will start an open ended thread where they want to hear feedback for or against the topic of the thread when in reality it's only from the those who agree wth the posters thread topic I see thse threads here and elsewhere 90-95% of the time it;s an excuse to get validation on the thread topic and for an internet version of feeling good. Not for any serious discussion at the topic at hand. If a poster is convinced that 2+2=5 while asking if it really equals 5 then gets angry and frustrated when the majority of those who respond disagree with how he feels on the subject it begs to ask why even post in the first place.
I would do two things. I would tell some of the players to play down, and help the other players to play up. Hopefully if everyone compromises things work out.
Good stuff, but not all wizards have shapechange or will be near the level to use it. Any that have transmutation as a prohibited school or who have not learned it will be out of luck..
Notice I did not say "Shapechange," I spoke of transforms. And of course power-gamers won't nerf themselves out of the most powerful options, by definition. So this again is a straw man. Saying 'yes, but if they avoid the strongest options in their build, it's not broken." But then they're not powergamers by definition; it's handwaving it away for one system, but not the other.
This argument amounts to: "If you exclude the strongest options in 3.5E, and focus only on the strongest options in PF, then PF is more broken than 3.xE." Sure, but that's also akin to saying "if you call a tail a 'leg,' how many legs does a dog have?" (the answer is: 3, because Grog ait one, and a tail is not a leg).
As for 3.xE martial classes, they're fine, I don't dislike them, but it is a truism that anyone who wanted to could build a better melee combantant out of a non-martial class if they wanted to than out of a martial class in 3.xE (or with Gish-type classes, and especially with multiclassing a few - only a few - levels into martial).
I will never be your friend Gorb.Your insults have been flagged. You also got my name wrong.
Not sure what an abjurant cheesecake is, but I did make a dispel monkey once.Dear Trevour, if thou know not what Abjurant Cheescake stands for, then thou have nary an idea about 3.5 optimization and character builds! Truly, 'tis like a scholar of history presenting a blank face and a confused stare when inquired about the Battle of Stalingrad. Oh how have the mighty fallen, I'm on the verge of fainting, where are my refreshing salts?
Henceforth I consider myself victorious in this argument, and your miserable squabbling left far behind in dust. Have heart dear wise seer, for one day you shall have thine comeuppance!
Truly I am at loss here, my friend. I was expecting some honest academic fencing - a thrust here, a dash there, a block, a swing, a refined battle of intellectuals we both are! What stories can be told when two great minds clash! Worthy of bard's song this would be, certainly!
Alas, all that I am left is with are hurt feelings and lack of substance. But I do see that good folks here led by Sir Wraithstrike and M'lady Ashiel are more than up for the good fight, so at least I am happy to see them provide some classy sport. En garde! May the best win!
These tears, they are your fault. I shall not flag that thread - no matter how much hurt did it bring to me. But know that today there's more misery on this planet and you're the culprit!
Excuse me, I need to console my trembling heart. Are there any fun 4e threads around lately?
He could never be your woman...
Prob getting off topic again.
Well this whole thread is off-topic and turned (fast) from "how to control powergamers" to "complain about the Pathfinder Engine, esp compared to [Insert Favorite System Here]" (a non-advice topic, btw).
If you want to go back on-topic, talk about how to control powergamers.
Otherwise, well, don't worry at all about topic drift whatsoever. We can even go back to the Glorious Everlasting Kobold Imperium, because it's as much on-topic as "complaining about the pathfinder system itself compared to [insert favorite system here]," but at least has the added benefit of being lulzy instead of flame/troll bait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Truth about PFRPG:
They did the classes right from the get go, so it pays of to not multi-class, which was not true in 3.5. The core classes are more 'powerful' than the core classes in 3.5, because they have everything those classes should have had in the first place.
There is less cheesing to do with PrCs than in 3.5, because the handful of PrCs there are in PFRPG are weak, and you would only take them for story related reasons (which is what they should be for) anyway. Archtypes allow you to play the kind of character you want from the beginning, so you don't need to level dip in 3 different classes to get a mechanical backup for your character concept.
In short, PFRPG gives you more options as a player in order to cut down on the cheese, becasue you don't have to go hunting to make what you want.
Can you still go hunting and powergame? Of course you can, it's just not as easy. Paizo realizes that there are people out there that like to game that way, and left the option there.
|
|
Beyond an occassionl high level game that has given me problems it's never been powergamers that have given me trouble in PF. What really needs a redo in both 3.5./PF and 4E is the challange rating system. If anything is busted it's the CR system. Awhile back I ran an encouter for my 3rd level group against a flesh Golem. I removed it's Damage reduction and had to give it more hit points.Yet they still defeated it. I was in a 4E group that almost had a TPK because we fought a creature that was supposed to have a CR of apporiate level. This has given me more heaches than a min-maxer/power-gamer/pure roleplayer than anything else.
Not all creatures of CR X will be equal. What the party has is also a factor A shadow, while only a CR 3 stays useful a lot longer than other CR 3 monsters for many GM's.
|
|
Not all creatures of CR X will be equal. What the party has is also a factor A shadow, while only a CR 3 stays useful a lot longer than other CR 3 monsters for many GM's.
Your are correct except I figured that a CR 7 creature only slightly modified would have been much more of a threat for a 3rd level party. Then again it'as not major flaw for me imo and I alter and change creatures to be weaker or stronger.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say something about power gaming in 3rd edition/Pathfinder.
I think the biggest thing that people overlook is the fact that most games do not happen the way they would on an internet forum.
On forums, the rules, from all books, become a massive bucket that you can pick and choose from. You don't have a DM sitting there telling you what to do on a forum so "all" options are available.
Now in real life games, this is different, well at least in my own experience. Anything outside of core was optional and only allowed because they DM said you could.
For example: Remember the cleric with Divine Metamagic, Persistent Spell Feat, plus Nightsticks from Libris Mortis and 24 hour Rightous Might etc..?
Well in our games this didn't happen because Libris Mortis wasn't allowed. I believe this is how 3rd edition was supposed to be handled and I see this is how Pathfinder is handled. Just because abilities ABC and D can be combined together, along with a few selective reading of the rules, into a broken combo doesn't mean that the whole thing should be removed from the game. Individually, or maybe even combined with one or cause no problems what so ever. I believe DM judgement is and has always been the deciding factor.
Now in my opinion, 4th edition did away with this. It was like Wizards created 4th edition because of people on a forum and not what really happens at a game table, it was like they didn't trust the DM to say no or to not allow certain books.
I know there are aspects of 3rd and Pathfinder that are broken but a good bit of that could be resolved with the DM actually taking a stand and saying no.
I like the fact that Pathfinder still believes that the DM's will say no.
Just my 2 quid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will never be your friend Gorb.
WHY YOU LITTLE--that's it! I've had enough of this b*ckin' idiocy!
FIRE THE ORBITAL FRIENDSHIP CANNON!*leaps for cover*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have I been so wrong as a GM to encourage these new players to indulge in a bit of min-maxing so that the the barbarian is good at what he is designed to do, as is the Elven Wizard?
I don't think it's wrong to explain what works well vs. what doesn't to new players. It's also helpful to explain to them that you can and sometimes should make choices just because you have a good character concept that will be fun to play, but to understand the tradeoffs and how far to go.
If new players don't get a basic introduction into what works well and what doesn't within the rules it's too easy to create a character that will be min-min'ed and thus potentially undercut their enjoyment, not be fun to play, and turn them off of the game.
The thing about this entire thread is that this is more of an art than a science, because you also don't want to turn new players into people who simply see the game as a number-crunching exercise in squeezing the most out of the rules, sidelining character concept. It's a matter of emphasizing the importance of both, and finding a good balance between a character that fits their concept from a RPing PoV and a build that fits the concept, will be fun to play, has a character-related flaw or two, but is not crippled in its primary role.
For that, yes, you do need to give them an introduction to "min-maxing."
Well - I thank Baal as the starter of this magnum opus as it has brought a lot of interesting debate.
However, I really disagree with the anti min-maxing argument going on.
I played D&D as a kid (started in 1984 with Basic and progressed through AD&D to 2nd ed) and then got into 3rd ed later in life and became a collector rather than player. Recent years saw me discover Pathfinder and now I find myself as a GM to a game with a GM NPC, my soon to be wife and her two children who are first time role-players at the ages of 7 and 10.
Have I been so wrong as a GM to encourage these new players to indulge in a bit of min-maxing so that the the barbarian is good at what he is designed to do, as is the Elven Wizard? Especially, as I explained the dumped stats had meaning and asked the children to think about the meaning of being not so good at something and to try and play that part of their character as much as the things they are good at? They are playing a game. They are playing a role. If they are role-playing the good and the less-good aspects of their characters accurately and with a good back-story reason, aren't they doing exactly what the system (and pretty much every system since the woodgrain) is designed to do?
It depends on how you define min-maxing, your preferred playstyle. If the bolded area is what they are doing then I think they are doing well.