i always play a rogue, and never once in any adventure have i felt like i was sitting around twiddling my thumbs or not contributing, i find the game fun and immersive. perhaps instead of focusing on negative comments, try looking at the positives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
Firstly it's important to look at the context from a whole. If you think about it there's probably about 10 major rule complaints found on the Paizo boards ever. The major ones involve 3/11 underpowered core classes (I'll count this as 3), 1-2 overpowered or messed up expansion classes (usually summoner/gunslinger), that's 5 total. Alignment and its effects makes 6. I can't actually think of any more at the moment but maybe some complaints about non-core material can fill 7-10.
Looking at just the core rules there are literally thousands of rules concerning this game, a robust skill system, so many spells of so many kinds that hundreds of wonderful story elements can be included on a regular basis not only without outstepping the rules but often inspired by them.
You don't throw away a car because it got scratched but the rest is purring like a kitten. A scratch can be fixed or patched yourself (with modding).
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
My guess is they haven't got time. At least I hope to god that's the reason.
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
I'd recommend the system. I've been playing this system in some form or other since 2000 when 3.0 came out. Pathfinder is ultimately a great improvement in most respects to that system. If you are concerned about balance of the classes then you should take perhaps a little time and check some of the general complaints and/or conversations on the board. The majority of those who report a problem with classes report reasons for those problems rather than just posting stuff like "class X suckzors, lolz".
Armed with newfound knowledge you can make adjustments to your campaign or at least let players know what they are getting into during character creation. You can use it as a springboard for knowing which classes can fill archetypal roles with fewer mechanical uncertainties.
|
I'd like to take a moment...and a post...to let the devs know...'Hey, great job!'. I really DO think the PF rogue is fine...and the fighter...and even the monk. The monk's biggest problem is mad like mad, and there's just no way to escape that. They work well for what they have.
I'm fine with things the way they are...and I see good evidence that those just playing are, too.
1) People complain about the problems. Generally people don't come to an internet forum to say "man, X class is very well balanced and fun to play."
2) See #1. If the game is incredibly successful, you don't redesign 3 of the basic, core classes, because a vocal minority of your fan base has issues with them. For every thread you see bashing a class, there are people who deny the numbers, or who don't care about them and enjoy playing the class anyway.
I'd like to take a moment...and a post...to let the devs know...'Hey, great job!'. I really DO think the PF rogue is fine...and the fighter...and even the monk. The monk's biggest problem is mad like mad, and there's just no way to escape that. They work well for what they have.
I'm fine with things the way they are...and I see good evidence that those just playing are, too.
Just playing? I'm pretty sure the majority of people on the boards are players in campaigns as well. Probably have been for a while. Or are you remarking that the ability to use mathematics, care about the game, and experience the game through play means that you're no longer fit to discuss the game?
|
|
Just playing? I'm pretty sure the majority of people on the boards are players in campaigns as well. Probably have been for a while. Or are you remarking that the ability to use mathematics, care about the game, and experience the game through play means that you're no longer fit to discuss the game?I'd like to take a moment...and a post...to let the devs know...'Hey, great job!'. I really DO think the PF rogue is fine...and the fighter...and even the monk. The monk's biggest problem is mad like mad, and there's just no way to escape that. They work well for what they have.
I'm fine with things the way they are...and I see good evidence that those just playing are, too.
I'm saying that those that are less vocal, but post every once in a while more often seem to post positive experiences with the classes that math might claim don't add up.
It's not a game about math. I think that needs to be said. And repeated. Maybe in bold.
I'm not sure if Ashiel is actually doing anything in his life apart from posting on the forun ;-)
I'd like to think I'm at least fair at multitasking. :-)
Contrary to what the forums say, in my group there's always a scramble to play a fighter or to play a rogue. They are perceived to action oriented, fun characters, whose contributions are undeniable. INCLUDING THE MONK.
After that are the arcanists...
And the bottom of the heap is the cleric.
I'm quite serious. The cleric is seen as the necessary evil "take one for the team" character despite everything done to give them more options. When I finally decided to take a break and actually play, I played a cleric to show how I wrong I felt they are.
Really, I think its the player's mindset most of the time.
EDIT: I know where it stems from in my group. They think if they fail to hit something the first time they try, they built a crappy character. My group likes fighters because with a full BAB and a good strength bonus, they hit the AC of their opponents more often.
They get real sulky when they miss and often it is a just a string of bad dice rolls. Then I have to hit the breaks on their inevitable urge to minmax. The emotion that comes through when they, as an individual player, don't contribute as much because of bad dice rolls is loud and clear.
I often counsel, "Mathematically you will miss sometimes and occasionally fail a saving throw. That does not mean you made a bad character."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a game about math. I think that needs to be said. And repeated. Maybe in bold.
But it is a game OF math which is to be bolded just as frequently. Virtually everything beyond dialog that goes on in the game is governed and influenced by numbers, modifiers, penalties, conditions, and variables. If you get cold there is math that determines the effects on your character. If you feel heat, there is math explaining if it affects you or not. When you lock blades with an orc marauder, players are matching their numbers against those of the orc's. When a warrior gains a level and becomes better at fighting he does so because his numbers rise which give him a higher mathematical chance to succeed at tasks (including the task of "not die"). When a wizard conjures fire and hurls it at a swarm of angry wasps, he is hurling math at them against their math.
Mathematics permeates every facet of this game in some form or another (much as it does our own reality). It also serves as a tool for testing and describing things we see in our own games other than just giving anecdotal information.
Is the game solely about the math? Nope. But everything that is done is done through math (and if it's not it sticks out like a rotting thumb). But back when I watched a 20th level fighter in 3.0 get torn to pieces in a single round by a monster much lower on the CR scale than himself, I might have known what was going to happen if I had acknowledged the math for it.
Contrary to what the forums say, in my group there's always a scramble to play a fighter or to play a rogue. They are perceived to action oriented, fun characters, whose contributions are undeniable. INCLUDING THE MONK.
After that are the arcanists...
And the bottom of the heap is the cleric.
I'm quite serious. The cleric is seen as the necessary evil "take one for the team" character despite everything done to give them more options. When I finally decided to take a break and actually play, I played a cleric to show how I wrong I felt they are.
Really, I think its the player's mindset most of the time.
Jim, please don't pollute this pristine theorycraft discussion with your so-called practical experience. ;)
I edited in some abstract psychoanalysis to stay kosher with the assumptions and rampant speculation. ;)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
I don't have the problems that so many on the forums complain about in their games.
Those problems don't happen at my table.
I play with people who are reasonable, and we pick GMs we all trust to try to make the game as fun as possible. When things are unclear, we put the GM in charge for a reason. If two people who GM disagree, we all understand that each table will be slightly different.
And this doesn't make anyone's head explode.
On the rare occasion we encounter something "broken" it is usually due to misreading by the player or GM and quickly corrected.
Which is why I am so much about asking people to actually show their work, as it generally seems to be user error.
Which is why it is quite irritating that the people who seem to complain the most are also the people who tend to tell people they are doing it wrong the most.
It's like the guy who blew up his engine by adding nitrous giving you advice on how to soup up your car.
Why the hell would I listen to the person who broke their game about ways to improve mine?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a game about math. I think that needs to be said. And repeated. Maybe in bold.But it is a game OF math which is to be bolded just as frequently. Virtually everything beyond dialog that goes on in the game is governed and influenced by numbers, modifiers, penalties, conditions, and variables. If you get cold there is math that determines the effects on your character. If you feel heat, there is math explaining if it affects you or not. When you lock blades with an orc marauder, players are matching their numbers against those of the orc's. When a warrior gains a level and becomes better at fighting he does so because his numbers rise which give him a higher mathematical chance to succeed at tasks (including the task of "not die"). When a wizard conjures fire and hurls it at a swarm of angry wasps, he is hurling math at them against their math.
Mathematics permeates every facet of this game in some form or another (much as it does our own reality). It also serves as a tool for testing and describing things we see in our own games other than just giving anecdotal information.
Is the game solely about the math? Nope. But everything that is done is done through math (and if it's not it sticks out like a rotting thumb). But back when I watched a 20th level fighter in 3.0 get torn to pieces in a single round by a monster much lower on the CR scale than himself, I might have known what was going to happen if I had acknowledged the math for it.
Have fun playing math.
I like Pathfinder.
Like this?Really, I think its the player's mindset most of the time.
I absolutely love the trilogy and watch them often, but your point is lost on me. Try it without metaphors.
|
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
You know the saying "squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Well, on the forums that's not always the case, but, sure thing is, squeaky wheel makes more noise than anything else.
You look for complaints, you find a lot of them. You look for satisfacted players, you won't find so many of them: indeed there are a lot (I assume much more than the dissatisfied ones), it's just that they won't open as many thread declaring "this class works fine as it is!".
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
The Rogue, the Fighter, and the Monk have been updated, rebalanced, and quite often given new shiny tools to play with.
I know I'll catch a lot of flak, but from what I'm reading on the above said threads, most of them are by players expecting the class to perform differently from what it's designed to do: rogues being frontline combatants, fighters excelling at skill monkeying, monks not performing as mobile glass cannons (etcetera).
And obviously, playing just to outdo other players at damaging/oneshotting enemies in combat.
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
IMO you trust too much on bile-fueled theorycrafting and not enough on actual (read: YOURS) experience at the table.
Classes work fine. Some are so good to outshine others in specific situations. Many are so specialized to not being able to be good at everything everytime. Your class choice will have consequences.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people on these forums greatly exaggerate the problems facing those three classes. We need something to argue about, and those classes are currently in vogue.
Those classes will work just fine, despite what the doomsayers are saying.
The people on these forums greatly exaggerate the problems facing those three classes. We need something to argue about, and those classes are currently in vogue.
Those classes will work just fine, despite what the doomsayers are saying.
Amen young Cheapy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
1. It is not really that bad, and that is coming from one of the man poeple you see debating here. Don't confuse tableplay with theory crafting on the boards, and difference in playstule, which is mostly what a lot of the debates amount to.
2. They are not getting updated, and they do work fine in games. Them not working is not an issue until you get to much higher levels. People just want them to be able to do more, but that "doing more" is not an issue until you get a high level of system mastery. Before that you won't notice the problems.
PS: Some people never get to that level of system mastery, and that is not exactly a bad thing.
PS2: Many people's system mastery is nowhere near as good as they think it is. So take some of the quotes with a grain of salt, unless it is backed by hard data.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, some folks constantly need to remind themselves that they see The Real Truth while everybody else is living in the Paizo-induced Matrix.
I guess that the resulting feeling of being smarter than all those Ciretoses and Shallowsoulsl is something that makes their life happier.
|
|
Also, some folks constantly need to remind themselves that they see The Real Truth while everybody else is living in the Paizo-induced Matrix.
I guess that the resulting feeling of being smarter than all those Ciretoses and Shallowsoulsl is something that makes their life happier.
Which is a pathetically low bar in my case. :)
I absolutely love the trilogy and watch them often, but your point is lost on me. Try it without metaphors.Like this?Really, I think its the player's mindset most of the time.
Ignorance is bliss. :P
Actually the speech about the steak is pretty spot on too. The matrix - what he is looking at - is telling him that this steak is juicy and delicious, but in reality he knows the numbers behind it. He's not fooled by the description of what it is because he is aware of what it is. But sure does like the description. (Pretty much every monk thread in a nutshell. :P)
Mostly in response to your comment that made your players sound like they view a cleric as just a healbot or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have fun playing math.
I like Pathfinder.
Actually unless you're playing free-form cops & robbers style then we can safely assume you're playing Mathfinder. At least if you use any of the following:
1) Statistical values.
2) Any form of random probability generator (such as dice).
3) Any sort of modifiers to statistical values.
4) Any situation where statistical values determine an outcome to anything.
In other words. Unless you are ignoring the books and making everything up as you go, then you're playing Mathfinder. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
Because not every problem comes up in every game. A weak class does not appear weak if the adventure is playing to it's strengths. Clearly, if the game was that broken people wouldn't play it. The problems are flies in the ointment of an otherwise great game. We highlight them in the hope that they will be fixed so the game we love can be even better.
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
All three classes got a boost from their 3.5 versions when Pathfinder was created; however in that change the game mechanics also changed which eradicated some gains and emphasised others, and some classes got enhancements that took them into the domains of others. The fighter got most, the rogue got some but also lost ground, and the poor monk ended up losing as much as it had gained. I could go into greater detail, but yes these three classes have the most issues due to a combination of poor upgrades and other classes gaining more relative to them.
That said just because these classes are considered weak does not mean they cannot shine in certain circumstances, and it does not mean players cannot gain enjoyment from playing all three - I have, and I'm one of the hardcore critics.
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
Play your game. Enjoy it. Be prepared to tweak the rules if you have to. It is actually very hard for someone to end up doing nothing in the game, and everyone can still enjoy it even if the classes are unbalanced.
It's not a game about math. I think that needs to be said. And repeated. Maybe in bold.
Pathfinder is not a game about math in the same way that real life is not about money. However, just it is very hard to get by in the real world without money, in Pathfinder if the math of a class does not add up it can make it harder to enjoy the game. Not impossible, but harder. If the math was fixed, then we could all get on with enjoying the game unhindered. The reason we come here and highlight problems and offer solutions is to achieve this.
|
|
Have fun playing math.
I like Pathfinder.
Looking at the math is completely valid.
Looking at the math outside of context is like the old saying about statistics.
There are lies, damn lies, and theorycraft.
The numbers matter. But they matter in context. The monk shouldn't be in the same damage range as a martial class, because they have higher saves, more mobility, etc...
The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.
It isn't that looking at the math is wrong. It is that you can manipulate the math when you remove it from context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you see 10 different posts from 10 different people, each saying "thing X is broken!", and X is a different thing in each of the 10 cases...
... then what you're seeing is 10 different people saying "My group thinks Pathfinder is fine, except for this one thing, which is broken!"
So when YOUR group plays, you might well find one thing that feels broken, or actually, in fact, does not work for your group.
You can then fix or remove that one thing, and move on to using the rest of the non-broken game.
(If you saw EVERYONE saying "thing X is broken!", and they're all talking about the same X, then you would be right to think that something is up.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then the next step would be to test it.
And frankly (and this isn't to you), if you have a problem with balance in your game, you should fix it rather than coming to the boards to tell everyone who doesn't have a problem they are doing it wrong.
Yeah.
That said, there's basically two reasons why coming to the boards and talking about a thing that's broken could be useful:
1. It could be useful to the complainer because other forum posters might be like "Ah yes, indeed this is a thing that could be problematic. Here is how I fixed it" (i.e. practical advice on dealing with the matter).
2. Conversely, the complainer could post saying "I found a problem with balance in my game, and here is how I then fixed it" (i.e. reporting your own experience for the edification of anyone who has similar issues in the future and can then search the forums for how it's been handled by others).
(Also, on a less practical note, some people just like discussing game mechanics and game design in theoretical terms, and what people find to be "broken" can be interesting data for such conversations.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.
Theorycrafting can look at things out of context, but that doesn't mean it's always out of context and always worthless. Theorycrafting is perfectly valid if it is kept IN context.
|
|
The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.Theorycrafting can look at things out of context, but that doesn't mean it's always out of context and always worthless. Theorycrafting is perfectly valid if it is kept IN context.
And Unicorns could exist given the proper genetic mutation...:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
There are few significant problems. You are just reading the rantings by a vocal minority, most of whom complain just as loudly about any game system- or who don;t even play PF.
Martial classes have had problems keeping up at high levels since the start. Just part of how D&D is designed. The fighter is fine, and has no real problems- other than the fact he's not a full spellcaster.
But this is not a "bug" it's a "feature". The fact that at the highest level Wizards are more powerful than fighters is part of D&D*. Note at the lower levels the opposite is true. And of course, far more table time is done at lower levels than 20th.
The monk has received pages of minor fixes and tweaks. However, the "1st level monk needs to do everything Bruce Lee did in his films" crowd will not be happy until the monk is far and away the best class. I am not saying there aren't some issues, sure.
Rogue is a really fun class. But the problem here is two fold:
It's niche (trap finder) has been de-emphasized with less Gygaxian dungeon crawls full of diabolic traps .
And in order to make it so no one class has a niche exclusive to it, the niche of the rogue can now be filled by several other classes- Bard & Ranger for example. True, they are not QUITE as good with trap finding- but like I said traps have been de-emphasized. And outside of trapfinding, the ranger fights a lot better and the Bard has spells.
So the problem with the rogue is that other classes can now do what the rogue used to do, and maybe better.
Still, the Rogue is one of the most played classes and loads of fun.
Why haven't these things been "fixed"? Well, The Devs have said they want to wait as long as possible before they put out a new Edition, and for that I say "KUDOS!". One major thing that does need to be "fixed" is the stealth rules. Well- they did a Blog, the blog opened a huge can of worms, the Devs realized in order to "fix" it it would take a new ED, so they aid that wasn't coming soon, but that the Blog was the RAI and everyone was welcome to houserule it in.
As far as minor fixes- the Devs are constantly writing FAQ and such like.
* note that the only "D&D" game with nigh perfect class balance was unsuccessful, and will be replaced by the "Next" game after a run of merely 5 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Unicorns could exist given the proper genetic mutation...:)The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.Theorycrafting can look at things out of context, but that doesn't mean it's always out of context and always worthless. Theorycrafting is perfectly valid if it is kept IN context.
Have you not seen a rhinoceros?
The monk's biggest problem is mad like madwhats mad?
Multiple Attribute Deficiency. In other words, the Monk needs high STR, Con, Dex & WIs (and dumping INT can hurt). Most martial types need only the first three, and can sometimes get away with just two.
Many spellcasters need only two stats, and even so, one of them can be only a 14 or something (CON or DEX).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you not seen a rhinoceros?And Unicorns could exist given the proper genetic mutation...:)The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.Theorycrafting can look at things out of context, but that doesn't mean it's always out of context and always worthless. Theorycrafting is perfectly valid if it is kept IN context.
So what you are saying is we just need a Rhino, a horse, a little mood music and suddenly pooping rainbows?
Like Paladins? Ive always had that problem with paladins, where you need str con wis and cha, especially if you want to fight at all
Yes, right. But the monk boosters think monk has it worse . That being said, a PF pally doesn't need a lot of Wis.
|
|
It's not a game about math. I think that needs to be said. And repeated. Maybe in bold.But it is a game OF math which is to be bolded just as frequently. Virtually everything beyond dialog that goes on in the game is governed and influenced by numbers, modifiers, penalties, conditions, and variables. If you get cold there is math that determines the effects on your character. If you feel heat, there is math explaining if it affects you or not. When you lock blades with an orc marauder, players are matching their numbers against those of the orc's. When a warrior gains a level and becomes better at fighting he does so because his numbers rise which give him a higher mathematical chance to succeed at tasks (including the task of "not die"). When a wizard conjures fire and hurls it at a swarm of angry wasps, he is hurling math at them against their math.
Mathematics permeates every facet of this game in some form or another (much as it does our own reality). It also serves as a tool for testing and describing things we see in our own games other than just giving anecdotal information.
Is the game solely about the math? Nope. But everything that is done is done through math (and if it's not it sticks out like a rotting thumb). But back when I watched a 20th level fighter in 3.0 get torn to pieces in a single round by a monster much lower on the CR scale than himself, I might have known what was going to happen if I had acknowledged the math for it.
Have fun playing math.
I like Pathfinder.
What does this contribute to the discussion? I can just as easily say
"Have fun playing Mother-May-I?
I like Pathfinder."
If you don't agree with the poster's argument, then address it. Don't just throw tautologies and invective around. I understand from your posting that you believe the math part of the game to be relatively minor, and I'm interested in your reasons why.
There are 2 fairly prevalent sides of gaming...one is hardcore by the numbers...that's wargaming, one-for-one. The other is roleplaying. The numbers help work out things that roleplaying doesn't.
Now...I'm not here to debate that one is inherently better...I happen to be a wargamer, too, when the moment strikes me...but that's not my preference, nor my forte. I was also huge into math, as a kid...fascinated by topology when I was still in grade school.
It's not what I play Pathfinder for. I like the characters...the story...yes, I optimize, but only to a point...and I can happily play characters that you people assume are losers, automatically.
...I can play them, and have major accomplishments, like robbing from the treasures of sleeping dragons...with a character that would die to every front-liner in the game.
...and I don't give a rat's butt that the bard could do it better.
He didn't. That's not the story as it went down.
Class dismissed.
So what you are saying is we just need a Rhino, a horse, a little mood music and suddenly pooping rainbows?Have you not seen a rhinoceros?And Unicorns could exist given the proper genetic mutation...:)The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.Theorycrafting can look at things out of context, but that doesn't mean it's always out of context and always worthless. Theorycrafting is perfectly valid if it is kept IN context.
You know sometimes it is impossible to have a serious debate with you around, Ciretose.
Like Paladins? Ive always had that problem with paladins, where you need str con wis and cha, especially if you want to fight at all
Paladins need two good stats: Strength (or dexterity for an archer) and charisma. The don't need dexterity if they are in heavy armour, they don't need that much constitution because you can self-heal as a swift action. They don't need wisdom or intelligence much either, they cast off charisma now. They get their charisma bonus onto saves, so they don't need the stats that boost those saves, and your immunities are very effective.
For a monk he has d8 hit dice, his self-healing doesn't kick in until level 5 and takes a standard action so it's useless in combat. He needs Con. He gets no armour, so he needs Dex. All his abilities hinge off Wis, so he needs that. And he needs to hit and do damage because he has no other boost to combat, so he needs strength.
So basically, not like paladins at all.
|
|
So what you are saying is we just need a Rhino, a horse, a little mood music and suddenly pooping rainbows?Have you not seen a rhinoceros?And Unicorns could exist given the proper genetic mutation...:)The question you have to look at for each class is about the trade offs, with the the problem of theorycraft being it looks at things out of context, similar to how one can manipulate statistics.Theorycrafting can look at things out of context, but that doesn't mean it's always out of context and always worthless. Theorycrafting is perfectly valid if it is kept IN context.You know sometimes it is impossible to have a serious debate with you around, Ciretose.
About unicorns?
Theorycrafting is by definition removing it from the context into "theory" of what if.
Which is exactly the problem in these discussion (and many others)
It would be like me going to my boss and saying "What if children did exactly what we asked them to do, all the time."
Answer: I would have no job. But since that isn't going to happen, who cares.
I feel the same way about theorycraft.
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
One huge thing to understand about most of the "problems" with Pathfinder are things that you and your players will really only ever encounter once people start to gain system mastery and really milk characters and abilities for all they are worth. It turns out some classes and abilities can be milked a lot harder than others with careful optimization, which is what creates the unbalance.
Until everyone in your group has been playing for months or years with multiple characters through multiple campaigns none of these things should be issues. By that time you should know enough to create some of your own house rules for future campaigns that will shake things up and change the dynamics of class power if you and your players so choose.
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
I think they've tried, it just doesn't always work. The Ninja was basically meant to give the rogue a boost, since they can't feasibly alter the base class too much. The Monk had something similar with the Qinggong Monk. Whether these actually did help is up for debate, but they don't have the ability to turn on a dime. They've got schedules planned out for years long, and even if they get perfect feedback immediately, it'll still be a while before they can implement a change.
The problem with Fighters isn't so much the class, but the rest of the system, and that's a much harder thing to fix than just reworking a class. Part of the problem is the out-of-combat utility, which the simple solution is more skill points per level. The other big problem is feats. Feats are the fighters' class features. The problem is the feats aren't all worth it, and a lot of good feats require more or less worthless feats as prerequisites. So while some of these feats might be worth being a class feature, it's very much a question of "Do I get these two feats that provide negligible benefits, just so I could get one that really helps my build, or do I get 3 mediocre, but still marginally useful feats instead?" This was an intentional design decision in 3e, and it carried over to PF.
These problems are not as easy to solve, since they're not with the class, which can be given an archetype or alternate class, but instead with the system, so there's no quick fix. My personal wish is that they made another class that functions like the way the 5e playtest fighter did (before Mearls threw the baby out with the bathwater). Instead of focusing on Feats, They'd get an expertise die that they can apply to something during their turn, either a bonus to damage, a damage reduction, or a maneuver chosen from a list of options, which could include a lot of interesting options, like defending an adjacent ally, or having a more battlefield control role, without having to become the 4e fighter.
Another thing that's probably worth noting is that depending on how difficult and/or played-strait your game is can have a lot of impact on how functional the classes seem. If you're actually following the rules for things like Stealth distance penalties, making use of terrain, using the spell-like abilities creatures have, playing enemies like they have two brain-cells and a survival instinct hidden somewhere in their would-be corpses, then the game's true balance really begins to shine through. Some might call it "hardcore" but it's pretty much just the standard rules.
HOWEVER...
A lot of groups are the "beer & pizza" style group. The ones who the GM just throws stuff down, players often don't track everything, rules are ignored or forgotten, and dragons fight like giant suicidal lizards. It's the sort of game that either everyone has a +5 holy avenger lying around or nobody has managed to get to a +1 armor over 12 levels of gameplay yet. Where people think wizards are underpowered because they've yet to discover spells with names besides magic missile and fireball. The sorts of games where kobolds charge into melee with only some short swords and a fading prayer.
In these sorts of games you can still have fun, but it's a different kind of style. It's often loose and tends to ignore a lot of stuff, or run in weird ways that don't always make a lot of sense (but it's easy to not notice so much when people are laughing around the table :P).
...
And there really is no right way to play. I personally prefer the former. My younger brother enjoys doing things like tracking ammo and worrying about things like whether or not he's going to roast under a desert sun. Most of my players get great satisfaction when they do stuff worthy of being heroes. That means they like there to be danger and lots of it and they don't want me sandbagging. They want the enemies to be like they would be like. :P
But there's no wrong way to eat a Reese's.