| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The book says Advanced Player's Guide for a reason.
Yeah, great reasoning there. You say that to your players too, that they need to be "advanced" to use any books beyond core? Very charming.
Yeah, but casting a spell that causes black sticky tentacles to have a hentai moment with somebody is a-ok.
Hey, I personally find the Eidolon creepy and I don't much like the concept of it. If you are now offended that I have personal opinions, that's your problem.
Bard called, asked to tell you that he can still make wands of hold monster and you didn't tell him it's badwrong.
Bards don't make Boots of Speed cheaper, though.
The summoner's role is "what if I were a spellcaster with a pet, and rather than me being the more powerful member of the team, my pet is the more powerful member."
BTW, I'd be curious to know if you also dislike more monsters, spells, magic items, and feats, or if it's just more classes you don't like.
I am not a big fan of all the new character races.
I am not a big fan of all the new character races.
Okay, so should Paizo (and 3PP) stop publishing things just because you don't want to use them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean Reynolds, I realize why you might feel that way, but I don't think Lord Fyre or anyone else mentioning their preferences is a personal slight toward you or Paizo.
I didn't see him or anyone say that Paizo should stop publishing anything. This doesn't have to become a fan/developer argument.
Paizo will publish what sells as best they can, but they will never ever ever please 100% of gamerdom--that ain't ever gonna happen. But that people feel this is a safe place to express what they personally want to see in an RPG, even if it doesn't always mesh with Paizo's own vision of good game design, is a GOOD thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I don't feel slighted, and I don't think this is an argument. But he's said things like
* This raises an interesting question. Do we need more than the 11 core classes and the 7 core races?
* Of course, those other mechanics can also lead to balance issues.
* Also, all those "new" mechanical" gizmos of the new classes are more things that a writer/game master has to account for.
So it makes me wonder, "Does this mean you think people should stop publishing additional classes/races/feats/spells/whatever? Just because you think we don't need more?"
It's an honest question.
And lemme point out that I could probably do without the cavalier and inquisitor classes... :)
And lemme point out that I could probably do without the cavalier and inquisitor classes... :)
That's funny, those are the only two non-core classes I allow in my gameworld. :)
((Eta: god I cannot type tonight...))
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not a big fan of all the new character races.Okay, so should Paizo (and 3PP) stop publishing things just because you don't want to use them?
At what point did I claim to be Paizo's only customer?
At what point did it become a TOS violation to express a negative opinion about the direction of the game's development?
1) I don't recall anyone saying you're violating TOS.
2) You actually haven't expressed a negative opinion about the game's development.
3) I guess you don't want a developer to be involved in this discussion. Okay.
We dont generally use many character options since our group doesnt really have the time to learn a complicated/large ruleset like PF properly. However, one of the things I like is that Paizo include lots of those whizz-bang options which they then utilise when they write adventures.
Our parties are nearly always a fighter, wizard, thief and a cleric - nonetheless, we can bump into weirdo things like witches, alchemists, ninjas or whatever else when we run APs or modules and they generally make memorable villains/encounters.
It's a fine line, but speaking as a minimalist when it comes to rules preferences, I think Paizo do a pretty good job of providing extensive options without actually requiring that you master them all in order to play.
I'd say that PF has done a great deal better than 3.5--in 3.5, there were dozens of near-identical classes, some of which were just normal classes minus some skills, without getting much to compensate. In PF, anything that's fairly similar is an archetype, and the new classes have nice mechanical additions.
And Sean, I appreciate seeing your posts; it's nice to hear from the developers, see their viewpoint and explanation.
I dont mind more classes. I really like archetypes though! I always wished WotC had done more with substitution levels and less with prestige classes.
Ive used the fighter class and the free hand fighter archetype to come as close as Ive ever been able to get a light/no armor one handed weapon fighter going! (I wouldnt mind a rogue archetype in the flavor of the Divine Seeker PrC from the Forgotten Realms 3.x books).
So I say yes to more options. Classes, archetypes, feats, everything!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it makes me wonder, "Does this mean you think people should stop publishing additional classes/races/feats/spells/whatever? Just because you think we don't need more?"
It's an honest question.
I know the question was asked of someone else, but since it's a public forum, I'm going to answer too:)
I've played, run, and sold a lot of versions of a lot of games, and I've seen games (and game companies) suffer from both under and over publication. In my unsolicited opinion, Pathfinder's rate of publication and expansion has been very good. They've neither flooded us with too many books to keep up with, nor ceased moving forward such that players move on to other systems in order to find more material.
By publishing not just rules, but adventure paths, PFS material, and other products, Paizo has avoided putting themselves in the position of needing to over publish rules in order to maintain ongoing sales. That diversification may save us all from rules-glut, and from rapid version turnover.
By keeping Pathfinder divided into "Core" and "Non-Core" new players and new GMs have an easy way to limit options to those a new group can manage. The Beginner Box takes this a step farther, which I think is excellent, and the inclusion of the word "Advanced" in the title of the APG signals Paizo's attitude toward added rules. That attitude seems to be a healthy, "This stuff is great, but the game works without it too."
Now, while keeping what I believe to be an excellent rate of expansion and publication, not every item in every book will be a smash hit. But, I think most of the customers like most of the material, and that's important. If we, Paizo's customers, come on this forum and have healthy discussions about what material we like most, what we like least, what we'd like to see more of, and what we've had enough of, and people like SKR & JJ read our discussions, we all stand to benefit from a healthy feedback loop.
I have plenty of nit-picks and critiques to offer, most of which have probably been brought up by posters or insiders many times. But, if I didn't think Pathfinder was the best game available for my group, we'd be playing something else, and I wouldn't be on this forum at all. So, the very fact that I'm here, airing my occasional discontent with this game rather than somewhere else picking on another game is an endorsement in itself - an endorsement we all give.
My only issue with all of the new base classes is that the Magus made the archtype Eldritch Knight next to useless.
My take on it is that the Magus made the "warrior-mage" concept viable, and which the Eldritch Knight Prestige Class started, but couldn't finish. The PRC took too long to realize the concept of an effective warrior-mage, and was too cautious in offering benefits that were commensurate with another character of equivalent level who had persevered that long.
With Magus, at least, he feels like a practitioner of sword and spell from level 1 onward in my opinion; with the EK, you wade through 6 levels of mediocrity to get to powers at 16th level that he should have had at 10th. I always wanted to like the Eldritch Knight, but it was a "too little too late" sort of thing.
3) I guess you don't want a developer to be involved in this discussion. Okay.
Sean, come back! We need you, oh great O.B.M.! :)
More seriously, I do like experiments with new mechanics now and again -- it makes for more spice to the game. Not necessarily "every month", but "every year" is pretty cool -- something Paizo seems to have learned already through slowing down on new rule systems with every Adventure Path.
Do we need them? No. But then, we don't NEED more than "Fighter, Spellcaster, and Skill-person," either. But we have Monks, Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, etc. and they apparently aren't in question in this thread. In my opinion, it wasn't until the Advanced Player's Guide that Paizo proved that Pathfinder was more than just "tweaked D&D" -- they made it distinct enough to be their own thing at that point.
|
I'd like to think I'm a fairly oldschool gamer, but with how well all the added base classes turned out, I'd actually say I could go for another one or two of them over the next year or two, if they maintain the same quality and flavor.
I'm not sure what I'd want to see, but I can easily say that all of our tabletop gaming and PbPs have been improved and more entertaining due to the addition of inquisitors, witches, alchemists, cavaliers and oracles. And all of those PCs wouldn't have felt nearly the same and as iconic in their own way if they were a heavily modified version of the nearest similar class.
I have yet to play in a game with a summoner, magus or gunslinger of any note. I actually kind of wish there was more variety to the magus. As it stands, it feels like it's almost always a scimitar and shocking grasp from what I can see, and there's not a big grassy field of viable, mechanically sound directions that the community embraces. I'd love to see archetypes or options for that class allow more classic thief-mage opportunities.
So it makes me wonder, "Does this mean you think people should stop publishing additional classes/races/feats/spells/whatever? Just because you think we don't need more?"
It's an honest question.
Yes, because then Paizo would go out of business, and my FRPG can become the next big game out there. Mwahahahahahaha.
Seriously keep publishing stuff.
To the OP. Need? Perhaps not.
Want? New Stuff/Ideas/Concepts including Classes? And as SKR pointed out - the extended paraphernaliamechanika of feats/spells/monsters/skills etc...
Absolutely. I refuse to accept bloat as a concept. If you do not like it/a given class or rule or mechanic or concept, either flavorwise or crunchwise then simply negate its existence from your play. And modify anything and everything else you wish to get as close to the perfect environment in which to act out all of your fantasies. The real world is grim enough, at times, to stodge around and be held back by rules and ideas you do not like or care for in your paradise of imaginative expression. Enjoy it.
I can not help myself but wonder. If the OP does realize he is not the only customer and that what he wants should not drive what the company does then why exactly did he bother with this thread?
As a side note the whole "More stuff breaks the game!" thing is so exaggerated. 3.5's problems are far larger then just to much splat and so far pathfinder has had very little that's broken. In fact the vast majority of it is still weaker then a straight wizard/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I don't feel slighted, and I don't think this is an argument. But he's said things like
* This raises an interesting question. Do we need more than the 11 core classes and the 7 core races?
* Of course, those other mechanics can also lead to balance issues.
* Also, all those "new" mechanical" gizmos of the new classes are more things that a writer/game master has to account for.
So it makes me wonder, "Does this mean you think people should stop publishing additional classes/races/feats/spells/whatever? Just because you think we don't need more?"
It's an honest question.
And lemme point out that I could probably do without the cavalier and inquisitor classes... :)
Well, we need a Swashbucker core class. <swings pocketwatch on a chain... you are getting very drowsy...>
I like the oracle and it seems a natural corollary to the sorcerer, but many of the other classes don't seem to fill a needed roll. I dislike the summoner in particular, as he seems to step all over the toes of the conjurer.
I think this just comes down to what playstyle you enjoy. I (currently) like the idea of fewer base classes with more prestige classes. I know some people hate prestige classes.
maybe you can help me with this questions about the oracle
1.- theres an archetype which makes the oracle spells aquatic... but theres no divine spells from water/ice element maybe one or two until spell level 5, so, what the oracle can do with 1-4, 6-9 spells?
-the solution we create: since we buy the fat goblin classes (pyromancer) we just took his spells and turn it with ice (dont care if they were arcane or divine, we just gave to the oracle those spells and if her was a earth oracle we will do the same but with earth and so on).
2.- in the advanced players guide, says the oracle (undead) pras to Pharasma and can create, and rise undeads as one of her abilities... so, if pharasma punish all of those who disturbs the deads, why she let the oracle rise undeads?
thats so weird to me...
i thank your response for advance
3) I guess you don't want a developer to be involved in this discussion. Okay.
Nooo! *uses SKR eidolon template to make a doppelganger*
|
I am not a big fan of all the new character races.Okay, so should Paizo (and 3PP) stop publishing things just because you don't want to use them?At what point did I claim to be Paizo's only customer?
At what point did it become a TOS violation to express a negative opinion about the direction of the game's development?
Quick question:
Do you play PFS?
the alchemist is the "buffs himself instead of others partial 'spellcaster' with skills,"
But the Alchemist is better at buffing others than most other casters. Hell the major appeal of the class is that it can buff in a way that no other spell caster really can do outside of making potions.
As an aside, I wonder what concepts cannot be easily built with the current classes/archetypes/feats present in Pathfinder (I'm thinking RPG line only).
For these concepts, if any, what would it take to fix these issues?
Issues I am aware of:
Being able to effectively from level 1 build a Dex-based skirmisher type warrior, where the focus is on agility AND damage dealing. While you can fudge it with combinations of fighter, rogue, ranger, and the duelist PrC, there's been a lot of dissatisfaction expressed for how well these characters perform, or in particular how long it takes to get the concept to work the way it's intended because of building up feats. My understanding is the main issue is particularly at low levels not enough damage is dealt and at high levels the character's AC cannot get high enough. My understanding is for the most part people wanting to play a character like this would be willing to sacrifice skills and other class features of existing classes. I think the closest gotten is maybe the mobile fighter archetype, or optimized melee rogues or fighter/rogues (who only get there after a few levels).
Some issues of caster-warrior or caster-skillmonkey multiclass. While we have "half-caster classes" -- paladin, ranger, bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist -- those don't seem to satisfy certain concepts of dual caster-something else characters. What concepts are these? I know caster level is an issue here. What could be done about it? Do half-caster prestige classes help? Can you design an archetype that would modify caster level progression in some way -- I don't know if I've seen one that does that but would it be possible/doable? Say for example, if a wizard sacrificed school abilities for the ability to advance spell progression when multiclassing within a certain limit, would that work or would it be broken?
What else?
As an aside, I wonder what concepts cannot be easily built with the current classes/archetypes/feats present in Pathfinder (I'm thinking RPG line only).
[...]
What else?
The one I've been waiting for is a class that has shapeshifting as a primary schtick starting at level 1. (The rules for a summoner's eidolon would make a decent starting point, for instance.)
|
|
Has anyone done a well built classless system for fantasy d20? Not counting BESM or M&M that is.
Also I was a big fan of the d20 modern six basic classes followed by advanced and then prestige class. I dont mind the new base classes in PF at all, there are still a few roles that could be filled I think (non-magical healer/doctor comes to mind)
The one I've been waiting for is a class that has shapeshifting as a primary schtick starting at level 1. (The rules for a summoner's eidolon would make a decent starting point, for instance.)As an aside, I wonder what concepts cannot be easily built with the current classes/archetypes/feats present in Pathfinder (I'm thinking RPG line only).
[...]
What else?
Ooh, good one. I'd think of starting with the druid's wild shape but looking at how eidolon works would be interesting too. My only hesitation is that the eidolon mechanic seems like it's so easy to screw up/break but it would allow for more variance.
Has anyone done a well built classless system for fantasy d20? Not counting BESM or M&M that is.
No--I think Animed20 and M&M are your only options. Mind, you could probably do a neat fantasy game with M&M rules.
Now, related to M&M there's Trued20. That's still a class system, but it's very bare bones--3 classes (adept, expert, warrior, IIRC) and you flesh out from there what your build is.
Also I was a big fan of the d20 modern six basic classes followed by advanced and then prestige class. I dont mind the new base classes in PF at all, there are still a few roles that could be filled I think (non-magical healer/doctor comes to mind)
The problem with d20 Modern base and advanced classes is that BAB and saves and such ended up stacking weird, and prestige classes just made it even worse. Now, PF fixed the prestige classes when it came to some of those stacking issues, but still. If you multiclass at all things get worse. A lot of times, even with most of the classes giving you bonus feats and such and a fair amount of optimization, you ended up with a character that felt underpowered--or at least, that you couldn't properly build/flesh out your concept until you were 5th level or so.
I liked d20 Modern's modularity but its application in my personal experience was lacking. I think archetypes and other ideas work better for that kind of flexibility. (When I'm feeling insane I work on my own version of a Pathfinderized d20 modern, and replaced the advanced classes more or less with sort of "class templates" that you apply later that allow extra options without borking leveling.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one I've been waiting for is a class that has shapeshifting as a primary schtick starting at level 1. (The rules for a summoner's eidolon would make a decent starting point, for instance.)As an aside, I wonder what concepts cannot be easily built with the current classes/archetypes/feats present in Pathfinder (I'm thinking RPG line only).
[...]
What else?
The only other ones I would be really interested in is a non-caster buffer and a non-magical battlefield control/AOE character.
I can get pretty close to the non-caster buffer using a human cavalier(order of the dragon) racial heritage(halfling) for blundering defense and some of the human luck feats as well as bodyguard and the swift aid, but not quite where I want to be with it yet and it's a pretty convoluted build.
Something like a marshal? I wonder if you could do that on the cavalier chassis. I think the BAB, skills, order, and banner all work; you could have an archetype that replaced the mount and riding related abilities for something buffy--and/or to enhance the banner effect into a broader buffing function.
|
|
I think there's always room for more classes, as long as they are well done, interesting and balanced. (heck, I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise, since I've had more than a few classes published myself!)
Options, as long as they bring something new and fun to the game, are good things (in my opinion, anyway)
Something like a marshal? I wonder if you could do that on the cavalier chassis. I think the BAB, skills, order, and banner all work; you could have an archetype that replaced the mount and riding related abilities for something buffy--and/or to enhance the banner effect into a broader buffing function.
Yeah something like -- I don't mind spending actions for it but I don't want to be spending standards to give a +2.
What I want could probably be an archetype off the cavalier since they already have a means of sharing teamwork feats -- if they had an inspire mechanic similar to the bard's instead of the challenge ability for example and perhaps some of those feats I mentioned above I think it would be about right, perhaps swift aid as a bonus feat specifically at say level 2.
The only other ones I would be really interested in is a non-caster buffer and a non-magical battlefield control/AOE character.
This! This is a new class I would like to see from Paizo. Kind of like the dragon shaman from 3.5, but without the ''dragon'' and the ''shaman'' fluff. His auras could be of divine origins. ;)
I'm chock full of crying about my pet peeves today.
Fixed that for you.
Inquisitor - Spontaneous divine melee character, without the alignment restrictions of a Paladin [with completely unrelated teamwork feats stapled on because, sure, why not.].
What you are looking for is the Spellbreaker archetype from Ultimate Combat. It made the Inquisitor class a lot more interesting in my perspective.
In my campaign world there are Agents that work for the divinely ranked kings. The enforcement of no weapons in most parts of a city led to a variant of barbarians called Brawlers. The beginning of a cultural renaissance led to intellectual speakers who gain power from self belief, the Philosopher.
It all depends on your game and what you need. If summoners or paladins or even alchemists don't fit in your game, then don't allow them.
|
What do we need? Well, inspiration, flexibility and fun. Also, Paizo might need us to purchase their products based on how well they can help us deliver these things at our table. So, core classes: Well, we absolutely need them because that's how the game is going to be played.
But D&D and its extensions have been around for a very long time. Most of us understand the concepts and maybe want to play something that hasn't been specifically covered before. Well, Archetypes address this adequately. But one thing the do not fully cover are complex niches and ideas that are not easily emulated with an archetype.
Archetypes merely make small trades in key places and add new, easy to insert abilities. Think of it like *plug and play*.
Yes, I can be a conjurer wizard, but what happens when I want to focus on summoning specifically..not just conjurations? And how do I do it efficiently to fit the themes I see when facing bad guys or see in movies? Sure, these specific elements can be plugged into a conjurer, but what about the summoner who has that one, impossible, HUGE creature they summoned which shouldn't even exist? And how do you simply plug in the variety of abilities it has? How do you easily trade out class features in such a way as to make the Eidolon features unique to each summoner?
This is why Summoners are not a core class. There is no suitable archetype for what they are trying to achieve AND the character concept is specific and thematic enough to be viable as its own class entirely.
The alchemist concept is, again, similar to a spellcaster. But as mentioned before, it is so incredibly specific to a concept and possessed of such variety within that very specific concept, that simply swapping out core features of an existing class to plug in equally simple new features won't cut it. This general rule applies down the list, even to cavaliers.
Yes, they are just mounted fighters. But the idea is they are related to paladins, mechanically. They have an ethos or a creed, they are generally chivalrous and these things play a major role in what they do and why they do it, no less so than a Paladins deity determines his actions and class abilities (stop following the tenets, you fall). Paladins are a core class and are therefor, inherently less complex. But a Cavalier is almost an extension of such a class (of two classes) that really tries to explore the concept of 'what if specific class features were available to different members of this class, based on which concept/order/creed they followed AND I stayed true to a mounted warrior concept'. You quickly realize it's not *just* a paladin or fighter. Sure, there is a fighter archetype that tries, the Dragoon, but its not a cavalier, no matter how you interpret it. The cavalier concept involved just too many different changes to be worthy as a Core class. Sure, you could swap out a host of feats for the class abilities, but then swapping each order ability and then defining each order, while simultaneously using an entirely different class feature (challenges being similar to smites) makes the cavalier really like two entirely separate classes being carefully meshed into one. That's not something for a beginner, even if it is one of the easier base classes to archetype.
Yes, it is ENTIRELY acceptable to let players know that one book is for normal play and another book is for more advanced players and GM's. If you were new to the game and had a choice between the players guide and advanced players guide, common sense says you choose the regular players guide. That book has the games base rules, base classes, base everything. If you purchased the advanced guide, well, you still need the regular one, too because you won't have a point of reference for the material within. It's assumed that you know the mechanics, know the rules, know how most of the normal classes already work, etc.
Finally, the nature of the original question suggests that maybe you dislike the new classes (and possibly for the VERY reasons I mentioned). That's ok. But I know that I personally like Cavalier and LOVE summoner- even if I keep pretending he is a wizard. It's -exactly- the concept I would want to play in a spellcaster to give me the flavor I like, the style of play I want, and various features that interest me which are not available any other way. I'd prefer to play a cavalier over a fighter- even if I didn't have a mount. Why? Because Cavaliers are so well themed. Sure, I could play a Paladin, but it's NOT the same thing in actual game play. It's NOT the same thing mechanically. Cavalier let's me have my cake and eat it, too. Sure, I have issues with Gunslingers (mainly the super damage deed) but I admit, I want to make one one day to fit my idea of a gunslinger. Remember- this game is ABOUT ideas. So when it comes to what is needed ad not, it goes back to my original statement:
We only need to be inspired by ideas, have them be flexible enough to fulfill our interest, and most importantly, have fun with them.
If any idea presented to you is not needed for you, don't use it. That's why new ideas are published in separate, standalone books. You can buy the ones you want- entirely self contained. In the few games I have helped design, these are three things I keep in mind, always. And Sean, don't let someone else's sore feelings (or seemingly sore feelings) stop you from posting. Feedback is always appreciated.
Pro Tip: If you don't like an option (feat, spell, class, archetype, monster, etc.) that Paizo publishes, you don't have to use it.
Pro Tip: If you don't like an option (feat, spell, class, archetype, monster, etc.) that Paizo publishes, you don't have to use it.
People like to say this in discussions, and it's been said many times in this thread, but it's not entirely true.
Yes, if you don't like Wizards, or Falcatas, or Black Tentacles, and you're a player, you can simply choose not to use that game element in your character. And, if you're a GM, you can ban that element from your game. But, once something is published, people rightfully expect it to be in the game, and removing things can cause problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pro Tip: If you don't like an option (feat, spell, class, archetype, monster, etc.) that Paizo publishes, you don't have to use it.People like to say this in discussions, and it's been said many times in this thread, but it's not entirely true.
Yes, if you don't like Wizards, or Falcatas, or Black Tentacles, and you're a player, you can simply choose not to use that game element in your character. And, if you're a GM, you can ban that element from your game. But, once something is published, people rightfully expect it to be in the game, and removing things can cause problems.
That is why it has to made clear before the campaign starts that "X" doesn't exist. PCs and NPCs cannot use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pro Tip: If you don't like an option (feat, spell, class, archetype, monster, etc.) that Paizo publishes, you don't have to use it.
What I find funny about a comment like this is the way it changes so quickly to negativity if someone says they ban something. Look at the crazy thread around people who do not allow Ninjas for example. People who said they ban the class were called racests. The cry of unfair was loud.
We like to pretend it is easy to just "ban" what you dislike but then watch how it goes when someone says they like to use "core only". The negativity around their choice is powerful.
Just something to think about. :-)
If the goal is to make a game system that best suits my own personal playstyle, then heck, I'd get rid of classes altogether. I really dislike the entire concept of classes. And while we're at it, I'd dump the alignment system and come up instead with some sort of moral/ethical code for different "professions" like, you know, the real world has. And then I'd totally redo the magic item system from scratch so that characters were legendary based on their actual abilities instead of because of how much shiny junk they can hang off their bodies...
But then nobody else would be playing that game I suppose.
I play this game, for like 10 years now. It's called Ars Magica.
-Ben.
Such games are lovely.
But people who talk about d20 games mostly talk about optimization. With a game where you are ready to go and have fun without spending a much thought on builds, there isn't much to talk about the system. Only about adventures and settings.
And once you found most of the loopholes and exploits, you need more splatbooks to keep the optimization game going.
Such games are lovely.
But people who talk about d20 games mostly talk about optimization. With a game where you are ready to go and have fun without spending a much thought on builds, there isn't much to talk about the system. Only about adventures and settings.
And once you found most of the loopholes and exploits, you need more splatbooks to keep the optimization game going.
I would agree that the less-mechanical approach necessarily finds players focusing more on story and ideas than the rules. But to say that most d20 fans are focusing on optimization via a mechanic fetish is not at all my experience. And personally, I am much more interested in theme, flavor, ideas and concepts than DPR, min/maxing or projected 20-level builds, though as a concept and when not projected for uber-assault optimization, I can see the dream and idea of a 20 level projection. I'm just a bit more about the journey than getting there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such games are lovely.
But people who talk about d20 games mostly talk about optimization. With a game where you are ready to go and have fun without spending a much thought on builds, there isn't much to talk about the system. Only about adventures and settings.
And once you found most of the loopholes and exploits, you need more splatbooks to keep the optimization game going.
I would amend that thought as follows:
"But people who talk about d20 games online mostly talk about mechanics. With a game where you are ready to go and the workings are more subjective, there is less to discuss in an objective medium."
I mean I could sit here and bore you with tales of my elf paladin whose parents were killed by a cleric of shelynn and how he's dating a human he met in high school that is 100 years his junior instead I guess, but most people go to fanfiction sites for that.
However if you have a character and you want help with making the concept you are chasing work in a system then I suggest coming here, as you might not get a good reception at said fanfiction site.
Heh. Good point, Abe.
Although I'd still have to say, there are quite a few "critique my character concept/AP idea/spellname/campaign focus threads on these very boards.
Then there's the tinkering by GMs wanting to houserule their games and getting critiques on how optimum that would be for their game.
And not all the "help me with mechanics" threads are about "optimization" either, though if by having a better understanding of the rules/mechanics you're saying the player is optimized, then, yeah, sure, I'd pay that.
Apart from all of that, yep, nothin' but munchkiners here from General Discussion to Homebrew and from Advice to Gamer Talk. ;p
(Yes, there is a lot of attention paid to optimizing a character mechanically. This doesn't necessarily lead to a "need" for splatbooks to chase an ever-increasingly harder to find new min/max "high". ;p)
Apart from all of that, yep, nothin' but munchkiners here from General Discussion to Homebrew and from Advice to Gamer Talk. ;p
(Yes, there is a lot of attention paid to optimizing a character mechanically. This doesn't necessarily lead to a "need" for splatbooks to chase an ever-increasingly harder to find new min/max "high". ;p)
That better be Sarcasm...