I've started a couple of threads asking for character build advice, and I've seen other people start more threads, and even when we say 'no spellcasting', people still suggest we play spellcasters.
Maybe when we say 'no spellcasters' we should be saying 'NO SPELLCASTERS AND WE FREAKIN' MEAN IT!!!'
What gives with all the pushing towards casters? I for one don't like playing them. I loathe the Vancian spell system for D&D and Pathfinder; I think that when 4e dropped that system, it was one of the best things to happen to a roleplaying game. As a caster, I hate having only a limited number of spells per day. Eventually you RUN OUT. Then you're hosed.
When people suggest spellcasting even after you've said there's to be none it's most-likely because they didn't bother to read even the entirety of the first post before responding. At best, they skimmed.
I`ve seen a similar problem in the Advice forum. I often post on behalf of my players, who lack accounts here, saying "My player is set on building a ____, how can I help them do so?" The responses are fairly frequently people who didn't pay attention, think I'm the player, and suggest something else entirely.
But people suggest spellcasters because at higher levels, they the most powerful characters in the game, and a lot of people care about power above all else.
archer
win
I think its because spellcasters are the easiest way to accomplish most concepts. I too, prefer no (or ranger) spellcasting. I like being the underdog, and being creative with mundane abilities.
In any case, most people just see "optimized" or "best way" or whatever... and say spellcaster, because its true: Spellcasters are the best at doing soemthing. Being a detective, being an assassin, surviving any encounter, etc.
Whenever you ask to accomplish "X" on a gaming forum, you are going to get answers that include A-Z.
4E plays like WoW, and some don't like that.
A lot of Pathfinder is resource management.
You run out of arrows, food, spells, and that's part of the game.
If you are looking for an "endless resources" game, this is not it.
Try Marvel Heroic Fantasy.
If your GM is less strict about resources like food then some builds actually prove fairly difficult to make them run out of things (and eventually someone in the party's likely to get their survival high enough to be able to feed everyone anyways).
|
It is still about Resource Management.
What would be nice, is something like the 3.5 Magus, for those players who want to "blast it with magic", and very little else.
What would be nice, if we had people who ask for advice, without a "f*ck you stupid advice!" when someone gives them advice they don't like.
Sorry, went on a little rant there.
It is still about Resource Management.
What would be nice, is something like the 3.5 Magus, for those players who want to "blast it with magic", and very little else.
What would be nice, if we had people who ask for advice, without a "f*ck you stupid advice!" when someone gives them advice they don't like.
Sorry, went on a little rant there.
Does it still count though, if the one complaining about the advice given is complaining about advice that they outright stated was not what they were looking for, but was given to them anyways? I'd call it a legitimate complaint.
What gives with all the pushing towards casters?
Probably because it's still nicer than saying "you're playing the wrong game", even if it's not as true.
Having read your other thread seeking advise for the "accidental idiot archtype" I know that I was put off by both the attitude and assumptions you seemed to have brought with your request. Your rant and vitriol towards Vancian spellcasting in this thread only reinforced my initial impression.
When you ask for something spectacular in a fantasy game you should consider not being angered when others recommend magic.
-TimD
What gives with all the pushing towards casters?Probably because it's still nicer than saying "you're playing the wrong game", even if it's not as true.
Having read your other thread seeking advise for the "accidental idiot archtype" I know that I was put off by both the attitude and assumptions you seemed to have brought with your request. Your rant and vitriol towards Vancian spellcasting in this thread only reinforced my initial impression.
When you ask for something spectacular in a fantasy game you should consider not being angered when others recommend magic.
-TimD
The thing is, if someone is asking for assistance with a specific build and has firmly asked that spellcasting classes not be offered, when people turn around and completely ignore the original poster's request and say 'you should play a wizard/sorcerer/bard/favored soul/mageblade/warlock', this gets annoying. If this were a game where the only classes that mattered were spellcasters, then not only would everyone just play spellcasters, but there wouldn't be any other classes, really.
I don't like spellcasters -- as a class for myself to play. They have their place, but it's not something I want to pursue. If I ask for assistance on a class build and people start offering me options that I'm not going to pursue, well, they're wasting their time for posting it, and my time for reading their post.
Besides which, go ahead and build a table of all spellcasters, no mundanes. I'm betting that it'll be a disaster. Tanks, stealthers, maneuver masters, archers, skill monkeys and faces all have their place in the game alongside the casters. Don't say that this game is only for the spellcasters.
|
Besides which, go ahead and build a table of all spellcasters, no mundanes. I'm betting that it'll be a TPK in a matter of a few rounds of combat. Tanks, stealthers, maneuver masters and archers all have their place in the game alongside the casters. Don't say that this game is only for the spellcasters.
Summoner, Druid, Wizard, Cleric. If there's a fifth slot: Inquisitor/Bard. Every front covered. Even the "but golems" argument is invalid, because the pets are gonna tear them a new one.
Besides which, go ahead and build a table of all spellcasters, no mundanes. I'm betting that it'll be a TPK in a matter of a few rounds of combat. Tanks, stealthers, maneuver masters and archers all have their place in the game alongside the casters. Don't say that this game is only for the spellcasters.Summoner, Druid, Wizard, Cleric. If there's a fifth slot: Inquisitor/Bard. Every front covered. Even the "but golems" argument is invalid, because the pets are gonna tear them a new one.
Well, shoot. I guess I've been proven wrong. Okay, everyone, stop playing your non-spellcaster classes, those no longer matter!
</sarcasm>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides which, go ahead and build a table of all spellcasters, no mundanes. I'm betting that it'll be a TPK in a matter of a few rounds of combat. Tanks, stealthers, maneuver masters and archers all have their place in the game alongside the casters. Don't say that this game is only for the spellcasters.Summoner, Druid, Wizard, Cleric. If there's a fifth slot: Inquisitor/Bard. Every front covered. Even the "but golems" argument is invalid, because the pets are gonna tear them a new one.
Well, shoot. I guess I've been proven wrong. Okay, everyone, stop playing your non-spellcaster classes, those no longer matter!
</sarcasm>
Surprise! No class is necessary.
You'll eventually run into "limited resources" problems with almost every class in Pathfinder. Classes like the Monk, Ninja and Gunslinger use some sort of extra resource mechanic to power some of their best abilities. As such, running out of spells due to Vancian mechanics is not that much an issue anymore, since it happens in some form to almost everyone, outside of Fighters and Rogues. So, basically those two classes are your options if you hate running out of resources.
I still don't know how I feel about PF heightening the "15 minute workday" aspect of the game. It has its advantages and drawbacks.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've started a couple of threads asking for character build advice, and I've seen other people start more threads, and even when we say 'no spellcasting', people still suggest we play spellcasters.
Welcome to Caster Edition.
I suggest you relax and stop worrying about it. It's just a game.
Summoner, Druid, Wizard, Cleric. If there's a fifth slot: Inquisitor/Bard. Every front covered. Even the "but golems" argument is invalid, because the pets are gonna tear them a new one.
I am clearly disappointed in you. No mention of Witches. They can spam hexes all darn day, I find that alone better than wizards. golems? Let the others do it.
Back on topic, as everyone else has said, people just skim threads usually. I even tend to do that... a lot...
I've started a couple of threads asking for character build advice, and I've seen other people start more threads, and even when we say 'no spellcasting', people still suggest we play spellcasters.
This is because of a fundamental problem all human beings have: they do not pay attention.
If you formulate a problem, or question, people will think of an answer before they finish reading it. In many cases, they won't finish reading it. Or they have already come up with their favourite solution that is so brilliant it must be an exception to the rule you stated because you will be bowled over by their cleverness, or that your rule wasn't hard or fast, or that as somebody else has already broken the rule...
In short, don't bother with provisos, or else put them in but be aware that people will invariably ignore them.
If I ask for assistance on a class build and people start offering me options that I'm not going to pursue, well, they're wasting their time for posting it, and my time for reading their post.
Just... ignore them? Disregard their advice, if you don't want to use it?
That seems like the easiest solution to your problem.
Or get an experienced GM. Many "game is broken" complaints are really expressions of "GM isn't varying the experience enough." It isn't the rule zero fallacy for the GM to change things up, it is the nature of gameplay, and it fixes many common complaints.
I certainly understand your frustration John-Andre. However, despite the fact that many people just simply skim through the posts here on the boards, I do think that most of them are still responding with the intent to help. Some of them may have even read your post completely but were responding from the angle of "Hey, I know you don't really want a spellcaster, but have you tried looking at it from this direction?".
Like a few of the other posters have mentioned, it's hard to find a class that doesn't have some sort of powers per day worked into their design, and some sort of magic has snuck in to even the long standing melee classes (like the Rogue, as was mentioned).
Anyway, try to look on the bright side. Even if they are giving you the wrong information, at least they're not ignoring you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP is being a little unfair here. In the original 'Accidental Hero' post the no spellcasting was explained as a desire to avoid 'deliberateness' (and avoid the character having training.)
Some, including myself, suggested spontaneous casters like sorcerers and oracles because these classes can justify their powers without training and their casting could be explained as accidental. They also provided suitable powers to make the character a worthwhile party member.
There is a big difference between writing;
"I do not want to do X because of Y"
and
"I do not want to do X"
So it's not always ignoring or skimming but sometimes it's reading exactly what poster wrote and not what they thought they wrote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did not read the specific thread that spawned this one, but for some possible answers:
1) As others have said many people just don't read much. I've seen people posting response to just the attention grabber title and obviously not reading any of the post at all.
2) If it gets very long I often won't read more than the first and last few posts. So I miss alot of the back and forth discussion.
3) When some people say no spell casters, they really mean no primary spellcasters. They would consider a ranger, paladin, or caster dip. Because to them that is not a caster, it is a martial with a few added capabilities.
4) Enthusiasm for X (also known as obsession). Some people think X is so great that there is no way everyone wouldn't love it if they would just give it a chance.
There are certainly others, but I think that covers most of it.
There are very few classes that aren't spellcasters of one sort or another. Fighter, Rogue, Bbn, monk, Cavalier. Even there, a rogue can use magic items, etc.
Or do you mean - "no FULL spellcasters?"
And of course, some sort of casting is nessesary in a party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are a sad boring panda. ¡Nuff said! Spellcasters are da bomb playboy!
Because casters are much stronger than non-casters and can accomplish pretty much anything better and with less effort than a noncaster could.
Advice is to help people. You don't help someone by recommending an inferior product/model/whatever when something plainly superior exists for the same price. To do so would be pretty mean-spirited, really.
Also, as someone above said...PF has a *LOT* of "caster" classes. They love the 6-level bard type ones. The only ones w/o spells are Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue/Ninja, Cavalier/Samurai, and Gunslinger. And monk and ninja get quasi-magical abilities, so they don't always seem to "count." On the flip side, some people don't consider paladins and rangers to be "caster classes." Some don't consider Alchemist a "caster." What "no casters" means can vary in meaning a lot.
As some have already mentioned, this is mostly due to:
1) Way too many people on the internet have ultra-poor reading comprehension. Frankly, there are a lot of people in the world who shouldn't be allowed to use a computer. Though I don't see much (if any) of this on the Paizo forums. Video game forums on the other hand. . .
2) Laziness or an unwillingness to bring 100% of themselves to the discussion. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that if you're not willing to read every single post in a discussion you shouldn't get involved. It's probably my number one internet pet peeve. It's no different than someone who gets involved in a discussion or debate in real life and half-@$$es it by not really paying attention or just giving token responses. It's annoying as hell in real life and just as annoying online.
And yes, I also dislike hypocrites immensely so I make sure to never do this. Ever. Yes, that means sometimes I have to read through 200+ posts before I post my own opinion, and it can take a long time before I'm able to post in a thread but I will not be "one of those". In cases where I just don't have the time to go through every post, then I don't post anything in the off-chance I missed something, even if I really want to throw in my opinion. I will not unless I've read everything.
I really hope this doesn't come off as too snooty. But the lack of effort sometimes put into posts really bugs me. Then again, I'm bugged by people who don't bother to read signs so maybe I'm a little too sensitive on this subject. As for signs, they're there for a reason:
"Excuse me, why aren't you open yet?"
"The sign says we're on reduced hours until renovations are finished."
"Oh, I didn't bother to read that. I didn't think it was important."
Really? How can you know the importance of something unless you actually read it?!
Apologies. Rant over.
In all fairness though, there are just as many people who make excellent effort. In some cases, with the spellcaster thing, they may have good intentions and just not have fully thought it through.
And yes, I realize the irony of my post. By making it so long, the people who should read it are the ones who will skip it the most.
Edit: As for comments regarding your specific thread on the accidental caster everyone keeps mentioning, I must withhold comment since I haven't completely caught up on that one just yet.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the lack of effort sometimes put into posts really bugs me. Then again, I'm bugged by people who don't bother to read signs so maybe I'm a little too sensitive on this subject.
My thought on the posters who don't bother to read what they are replying to.
But the lack of effort sometimes put into posts really bugs me. Then again, I'm bugged by people who don't bother to read signs so maybe I'm a little too sensitive on this subject.My thought on the posters who don't bother to read what they are replying to.
Thank you for that Set. I always enjoy your contributions.
Especially the serious ones, I've seen some great ideas out of you on the Campaign Setting threads. /Tangent
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've started a couple of threads asking for character build advice, and I've seen other people start more threads, and even when we say 'no spellcasting', people still suggest we play spellcasters.
Maybe when we say 'no spellcasters' we should be saying 'NO SPELLCASTERS AND WE FREAKIN' MEAN IT!!!'
What gives with all the pushing towards casters? I for one don't like playing them. I loathe the Vancian spell system for D&D and Pathfinder; I think that when 4e dropped that system, it was one of the best things to happen to a roleplaying game. As a caster, I hate having only a limited number of spells per day. Eventually you RUN OUT. Then you're hosed.
If you are not satisfied with your advice, you may return the unused portion for a full refund.
The jade regent game in which I play has no "non-magical" character. (Unless you consider the ninja/monk that can use mystical powers to go invisible, mimic spell-effects and such as a "mundane" class)
There is a sorcerer, a magus, a bard and mentioned Ninja/Monk. We do fine. The magus does absurd damage. The sorcerer does control/AoE. The bard does social/knowledge/debuff/buff and makes the ninja/monk viable in combat.
When we started, we worried that there was no full-bab classes. But that worry was unfounded. A cleric would be nice, but we play the game as written, and spend money on wands of cure light for post-combat healing. Between 3 dudes casting mirror image and one dude doing crane style, we rarely are in real danger, except when the GM decides to throw Stealth 50+ dudes at us and get a ton of sneak attacks off.
Playing a game without casters: Perish the thought. What do you even do when you encounter stuff that swords and arrows do nothing against? For it to be even remotely fair, you'd have to remove half the bestiary as to not insta-TPK.
Some folks don't pay attention and read the first line maybe two and then answer the post.
Others read the post and try to give an honest answer given the underlying theme of the question rather than the exact specific question. They are trying to be helpful. (you said no X but the reason you gave was Y.. and I think this fits because of that reason, despite X).
Others think that spell casters are the shiz and that non spellcasters really can't contribute anyway and so have to toss in casters everywhere out of a feeling that you'll be disappointed if you aren't one of them.
Its just a matter of figuring out which type you are responding to so you can either ignore them, discuss why X or Y doesn't fit the reasoning, or ignore them. In that order.
-S
John-Andre, perhaps you are playing the wrong game. I don't mean that to sound offensive or insulting. Some games just don't work for some people. I know of at least a few low-magic sort of games (Iron Heroes comes to mind) in which a character may meet your criteria. Plenty of options, absolutely no Vancian spellcasting.
I love how certain people try to turn this around on me for something I did in another thread. (And Atarlost, I already figured out how to do that exact thing -- playing a monk.)
This thread wasn't just about me; it's about all the times I read someone posting 'hey, I need some advice on a character/build' and immediately people start telling them 'you should play a spellcaster instead of that class'.
Believe it or not, folks, there are people who do not like to play spellcasters. And there are GMs who can control the casters so they don't overshadow the game. We call these 'good GMs'. The next time you run up against something with Spell Resistance, or protected by an Anti-Magic Shell, or is located in an antimagical zone -- hey, guess what, those non-spellcasters get to show you what they're good for.
I've been on these boards for about a week and a half now, and the hate and vitriol is pretty typical of the internet. I suppose I should be grateful that Paizo enforces certain behavior limits.
|
|
I remember a thread on the WotC boards about how to discourage (3.5) psions from "going nova" i.e. blowing all their power points in the first encounter of the day.
The OP explained in the very first post that he was aware some people didn't think that was a problem, but the thread wasn't about whether it was a problem or not, it was designed to help those people who DID think it was a problem, so if people were just going to post "Psions going nova isn't a problem", please could they not post in the thread.
At least half a dozen people posted "Psions going nova isn't a problem." They had presumably only read the thread title, and hadn't got as far as reading the opening post (let alone the increasingly rude replies from the OP to the other people who had posted it wasn't a problem).
So its a general internet problem (actually, probably a problem with the human race in general), and not really anything to do with spellcasters.
I love how certain people try to turn this around on me for something I did in another thread. (And Atarlost, I already figured out how to do that exact thing -- playing a monk.)
This thread wasn't just about me; it's about all the times I read someone posting 'hey, I need some advice on a character/build' and immediately people start telling them 'you should play a spellcaster instead of that class'.
Case in point to what I said earlier. Though I'm sure the irony may be lost on those who don't realize this thread wasn't about you.
I've been on these boards for about a week and a half now, and the hate and vitriol is pretty typical of the internet. I suppose I should be grateful that Paizo enforces certain behavior limits.
Personally, I think it's a fair bit better than the average tone of the internet, but it can have its bad days. Today seemed to be one of them. Admittedly, I snapped twice today and posted mild rants. On the one hand, I suppose that could be seen as contributing to the hostile tone (which I feel guilty for doing). On the other hand, the hostility lately is what caused me to snap, which is not something I'm known for doing.
I'm not sure what causing all the extra harshness on the boards lately. I'm going to go ahead and blame some of it on the partially global heat wave we've been having this summer, as least for those of us in the northern hemisphere.