While reading through a thread on PrCs, another poster (artemis moonstar) mentioned annoyance about when archetypes "fluff" (ie, descriptive text) didnt at all match the actual abilities they had. I was curious if anybody else had noticed this, and I wanted to give my own example:
The Horizon Walker PRC. An awesome sounding class. Described as wanderers and explorers. And yet, in every guide/comment about how to make them work, 1 comment has appeared:
-They are only useful if you stay in 1/2 places.
And when you look at their abilities, you see that's well the case. You can gain some d*mned cool powers, but the biggest advantages are in SPECIFIC TERRAINS. Other than the 10th level "master of all lands", unless you know where you're going, the horizon walker abilities become useless.
Anybody else have any good examples?
That's true! Ranger is rather weird. Although I guess they might be thinking of a weird combination of Drizzt+Aragorn+??? (halfdruid)
I always found the animal companion inapropriate too; to me, a ranger should be solitary. I always saw the ranger as a fighter with high levels of survival and stealth.
P.S.: To the readers: sorry for the confusing title.
Also: I've thought of an alternate name for the horizon walker: the homesteader. Everything is the same except for the last level ability. The homesteader would basically get advantage for his "native" terrains, and would give real advantages to those who restrain themselves to 2-3 terrains. That could be really useful in kingmaker games.
Bump
I think you guys are forgetting the most obvious examples: Monks.
Try and build a Monk like most people would imagine one (decent Str & Con, hig Dex and Wis, average Int & Cha, using very few items and relying on unarmed strikes) nad you'll see how they fail at living up to their class descriptions.
Rangers I think are fine, although Combat Styles don't really make much sense. I suppose they're there to make Rangers more viable, since they are the full-BAB class with lowest damage output.
Quite true. Monks survive poorly when not ripped. There's also the Christian Monk (That, for the few fighting orders, was closer to a traditional fighter) vs Buddhist monk (Many of which showed considerably more physical discipline. I can understand the choice of the Buddhist monk (much cooler) but it'll always bug me. Then again, the monk mechanics (except for stats) represent very well the stereotypical image of a Buddhist monk.
Oh, good, this is about actual discontinuities between rules and that which they are meant to simulate, rather than debating the merits of the two.
Heh, I had a similar thought when I opened this thread. I was expecting to once again fight hordes of ravening rollplayers, then realized I was on the wrong forum for that :)
The foremost conflict I see has to do with the 'ranger'. Somehow the notion of somebody who uses stealth and woodlore rather than brute force or magic got drowned in a wave of features borrowed from other classes. He's got semi-druidic spellcasting, can ignore feat restrictions that all other classes have to obey as long as they're in his combat "theme", and has better overall saving throws than the fighter or barbarian (though I'd rather raise their saves to match rather than lower the ranger's.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on the ranger class; I just feel like the "fluff" is an iconic woodsman-warrior and the "crunch" is an almost random grab-bag of abilities, only some of which are thematic.
Yeah. Sometimes I get the feeling that flavor material (I can't stand the world "fluff" as it always feels somewhat derogatory to me as if it isn't actually necessary to be in the book in the first place) has been written and then someone else came along and wrote some rules without really reading further than the heading. I'm firmly of the opinion that the rules are supposed to simulate the "world physics" of what is being described, so when they don't I tend to mess with them until they do. I think that's probably why I don't tend to use rangers much, too, tending more towards warriors with a wilderness survival focus.
And as for monks... yeeeaaahhhh...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sup William. Glad to see other folks are as perturbed by this phenomena as I am.
Here are some examples that made me do a double take, then go '... So, why?'.
Rogues:
Flavor: The best spies are like chameleons, but not only can they
change their appearances to fit the situation, they can also
change their personalities, allegiances, and even loves
if that’s what it takes to achieve their clandestine goals.
Spies are the ultimate manipulators, and even those who
commission their services sometimes find that they’ve
merely served the spies’ own interests.
Mechanics: 1/2 level on bluff checks to deceive someone, and poison use.... Yes, rogue talents for fulfilling everything else, but there's nothing specifically in the archetype fitting the 'change appearance, personalities, etc'. Would've been better with the bonus to disguise IMO.
Flavor: Some rogues are not content with just disabling traps—
they love to build them, finding a captivating beauty in
the turning of gears and the slither of ropes over pulleys.
The trapsmith may have started out putting together traps
in order to better understand how to disable them, but for
most, it’s long since gone beyond that—they now relish the
challenge of creating the perfect combat machine.
Mechanics: It's all about not setting off traps, and bypassing them. Absolutely nothing on actually building them. (I'm a trap lover, so this one irks me to no end)
Barbarians:
Flavor:Superstitious
Many barbarians distrust magic. While most just shy
away from magic, others focus their rage on users of such
foul arts. These barbarians are naturally distrusting,
and develop keen senses to protect them from harm. A
superstitious barbarian has the following class features.
Mechanics:... So, they get a bonus to AC in the surprise round... And they get better vision as they level up... What is this.... I don't... wut? Yeah, ok, better vision for the 'develop keen senses' part. Where's the whole whole 'distrust of magic' in the archetype mechanics itself?
And that's just from the APG in 2 classes... Ok, well, yeah... Maybe I'm being picky, but in my mind, if an archetype is written a certain way... It should actually give you something concerning that, in the core mechanics of the archetype itself. Not in something selectable, for those that have Arcanas, Talents, Discoveries, etc.
Trophy Hunter Ranger.... Get no proficiencies with guns... Hrrrmmmmmmmm....
For me, one of the most disappointing fluff-crunch conflicts has existed since I learned D&D 20 years ago...and nothing has much changed in that time:
From the PF srd:
Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals. While some might choose a particular field of magical study and become masters of such powers, others embrace versatility, reveling in the unbounded wonders of all magic. In either case, wizards prove a cunning and potent lot, capable of smiting their foes, empowering their allies, and shaping the world to their every desire.
The wizard is billed as being the class with limitless versatility and potential...and yet they just can't wrap their mighty beyond-mortal minds around certain spells, such as the humble cures. Even at an increased spell level-tax.
Nope. Just can't manage some spells. Because...I dunno, I remember Dragon Lance making some shallow excuse about the gods not wanting wizards to heal. (Though if they've got the power to deny spells to wizards, I can't imagine why the gods are hunky-dorey with wizards teleporting into their divine domains and generally being free agents of chaos.)
And that's just Krynn. Other settings, including universal agnostic ones like Planescape and Spelljammer, don't even bother with excuses. Wizards are limited to an arbitrarily gamist spell list because hey, 'all magic' doesn't really mean all magic!
I think "The Fluff-Crunch Conflict" would be a great name for an Adventure Path.
I've never had a problem with the Ranger class as written (in Pathfinder, anyway. But I shall always miss my 1st Edition Ranger.) They have always been written as self-sufficient survivalists, trailblazers, spies and commandos, and they get abilities and skills to match. What is wrong with them having Druidic magic? They spend most of their time in the wilderness, it only makes sense that they would learn to use magic that is helpful in that location. Where did any description of Ranger anywhere ever say anything about shying away from magic? I wish they still had their smattering of low level utility Wizard spells as in 1E, representing their ingenuity, resourcefulness, and self-reliance, as in learning a bit of anything that would be useful to them. As for having good saving throws, well, being tough and quick and strong-willed is pretty much emblematic of the hardy, self-reliant trailblazing wilderness fighter. As is the image of the crusty outdoorsman and his wolf or bear companion.
And while I agree to a certain extent on their combat path skills, with it initially being a holdover from the abominable obligate two-weapon melee warrior of 2E, the way it is presented in Pathfinder, as allowing Rangers to choose their combat specialty, makes sense. Rangers aren't as good at all-around fighting as is the generalist Fighter, and instead concentrate on one type of combat rather than ALL types like the Fighter.
I think your problems with the Ranger class have more to do with what you want out of the class, rather than with any way it has ever been described.
|
The above instances, where the mechanics don't address the written flavour elements at all, are certainly underwhelming, but I think a far more problematic situation is where there are mechanics to address the flavour element, but they fall very short of matching the glowing terms of the description.
Flavour: "Class/Race/Arcetype X can flawlessly do effect Y, with perfect results every time..."
Mechanics: "Class/Race/Archetype X gets a +4 bonus to effect Y." (Possibly in limited situations)
The doppelganger has
Perfect Copy: When a doppelganger uses change shape, it can assume the appearance of specific individuals.
Actual Effect: +20 to Disguise. Good enough to fool casual acquantances, but certainly not 'perfect'.
It just sets up a conflict, between the expectations of player and GM.
I just checked the Tengu, since they're on my mind lately, being mentioned in all the 'stupid races people expect me to fit in my world' threads.
The race has always been notable for its ability to pick up languages, by copying the people they hear.
This has been fixed in its PF incarnation, to now read
Gifted Linguist: Tengus gain a +4 racial bonus on Linguistics checks, and learn 2 languages each time they gain a rank in Linguistics rather than 1 language.
Previously, in their 'kenku' D&D incarnation, they had the following:
Mimicry (Ex) A kenku can perfectly mimic familiar sounds, voices and accents. This ability does not enable the kenku to speak languages it can’t normally speak. To duplicate a specific individual’s voice, a kenku makes a Bluff check; a listener familiar with the voice being imitated must succeed on an opposed Sense Motive check to discern that the voice isn’t genuine.
So, is it perfect, or isn't it?
A perfect imitation should surely auto-pass all Bluff checks, wouldn't it?
So, are they better at Bluffing than other races?
Apparently not; they gain absolutely no bonus to the skill, for having this amazing power of 'perfect' mimicry, at all.
They have to invest the same number of ranks as everybody else, and make the same check, as everybody else.
When it comes to impersonating another person's voice, the use most people would intuitively expect to use this ability for, it does absolutely nothing.
Now, some may say that it does at least allow the kenku to impersonate other sounds, that the human throat was not designed to form, and that could be a compensation. But that is not the ability being advertised; it provides nothing toward the role that this race would be picked for, being the perfect spy or infiltrator.
It limits them to playing 'Gerald McBoingBoing'.
They can fool someone that they have left a kettle whistling, but if they try to put on an accent, they are as convincing as that guy in your group who does the 'Sean Connery' impression.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The above instances, where the mechanics don't address the written flavour elements at all, are certainly underwhelming, but I think a far more problematic situation is where there are mechanics to address the flavour element, but they fall very short of matching the glowing terms of the description.
Flavour: "Class/Race/Arcetype X can flawlessly do effect Y, with perfect results every time..."
Mechanics: "Class/Race/Archetype X gets a +4 bonus to effect Y." (Possibly in limited situations)
The doppelganger has
Perfect Copy: When a doppelganger uses change shape, it can assume the appearance of specific individuals.
Actual Effect: +20 to Disguise. Good enough to fool casual acquantances, but certainly not 'perfect'.It just sets up a conflict, between the expectations of player and GM.
To be fair, I don't think this is a good example. A +20 is the equivalent of 20 ranks in Disguise. Considering even the most effective spy ever would have say... a +17 to disguise, including Skill Focus, Cha and masterwork tool (realistically, it'd be mroe like a +10~12), a +20 is as perfect as it gets, considering the doppelganger gets that just by virtue of existing.
Imagine those amazing real-life disguises/make-up we see in high production spy movies. The doppelganger is better than that before he adds his Cha, skill ranks, skill focus, etc...
It's jut not infallible, because that'd be rather boring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fluff-crunch conflict occurs when the kitten's been sleeping in your cereal bowl.
Eat your breakfast Kalibos. I eat my kitten every morning. It's filled with fiber.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No game has as much disappointing fluff as Pokemon. Every Pokemon is so hyperbolically powerful in it's Pokemon description it's just dumb.
For me, one of the most disappointing fluff-crunch conflicts has existed since I learned D&D 20 years ago...and nothing has much changed in that time:
From the PF srd:
Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals. While some might choose a particular field of magical study and become masters of such powers, others embrace versatility, reveling in the unbounded wonders of all magic. In either case, wizards prove a cunning and potent lot, capable of smiting their foes, empowering their allies, and shaping the world to their every desire.
The wizard is billed as being the class with limitless versatility and potential...and yet they just can't wrap their mighty beyond-mortal minds around certain spells, such as the humble cures. Even at an increased spell level-tax.
Nope. Just can't manage some spells. Because...I dunno, I remember Dragon Lance making some shallow excuse about the gods not wanting wizards to heal. (Though if they've got the power to deny spells to wizards, I can't imagine why the gods are hunky-dorey with wizards teleporting into their divine domains and generally being free agents of chaos.)
And that's just Krynn. Other settings, including universal agnostic ones like Planescape and Spelljammer, don't even bother with excuses. Wizards are limited to an arbitrarily gamist spell list because hey, 'all magic' doesn't really mean all magic!
the game would end very, very quickly if this happened. I tried it out in the second ed days and the game went down screaming in flames the instant we had to actually fight a handful of wizards. Its better to just fluff it up to healing magic as gifts from the gods, ime.
the game would end very, very quickly if this happened. I tried it out in the second ed days and the game went down screaming in flames the instant we had to actually fight a handful of wizards. Its better to just fluff it up to healing magic as gifts from the gods, ime.
Well now I'm curious: What did the cadre of wizards do that RAW wizards couldn't do that led to the campaign's explosion?
I'm not above DMing a PF one-shot where wizards can learn any spell, and telling our little group to do your worst, just to personally experience what difference it makes. (My wizards will stick to RAW, yours get any spells they want.)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[wizard healing tangent]
From my experience with game systems that don't prune healing magic from 'wizard' spell lists, such as GURPS, the end result of allowing 'wizards' to have heal spells is that wizards are expected to have heal spells, and end up using resources on heal spells that they would have otherwise spent on something else. At the end of the day, the wizard has done the same amount of stuff (since he didn't get a bunch of extra spell slots or mana points or whatever to heal with, over and above his usual wizardly tricks), and balance is no different than it was when healing effects were oh-so-carefully restricted to clerics, druids, bards, adepts, paladins, rangers, alchemists, witches, oracles, inquisitors, psions, etc. It's not like the gods seem to give a rat's butt whether or not non-divine casters (or divine casters who don't necessarily worship, or even *like* the gods, like adepts, oracles, druids, etc.), such as alchemists, bards and witches cast cure spells. It's just sorcerers and wizards who are inexplicably cut out of the cure spell business.
[/wizard healing tangent]
As for the actual topic, racial modifiers are often, to me, a fluff-crunch conflict.
Dwarves -2 Cha penalty, for instance, seems cheesy, but also weird. Nothing about dwarves suggest that they lack forceful personalities, or that their leaders and champions are somehow less compelling and leaderly and inspiring than those of humans or elves. Thematically, a -2 Dex penalty, would fit pretty darn well (and not have any effect on their legendary crafting abilities, since that's an Int based skill), and be a stat penalty that actually has some *teeth* to it, instead of '-2 to my dump stat.' Being often portrayed as bull-headed and occasionally drunken louts, overly concerned with wealth and yet also the finest craftsmen and most innovative engineers, architects and builders the lands have known (and, in Norse myth, some of the most legendary crafters of magical artifacts), an Intelligence bonus seems more thematic than a Wisdom bonus.
Elves Con penalty also seems weird. A race that lives in the woods, more exposed to the elements than humans generally are, and lives a freakish long time, and yet they are more likely to die in childbirth, fail to survive childhood, get sick, get infections, die of food poisoning, etc., etc. Given their slender build, I'd sooner give them a Str penalty. An Int bonus also doesn't really fit them as well as a Charisma bonus (and, back in 3.X, Sorcerer or Bard as a favored class). Elves being associated with magic-users is a 1st edition legacy, and, as of 3rd edition and the introduction of the sorcerer class (and the bard core class), either of them would have, IMO, been *far* more thematic and appropriate than the spellbook toting wizard class.
Golarion Goblins are some of the worst. As charming and lovable as the little biters are, there's a chart of all the idiotic things they might do in combat, and they are terrified of reading and writing, and yet they have the same potential range of Intelligence and Wisdom as Humans? Given their fluff, Int and Wisdom scores of around six to eight might seem *generous.* And yet, they are Confucius and Einstein, compared to Orcs, who have somehow risen above their mechanical Int and Wis penalties to form their own kingdom. Based on the mechanics, Goblins should be significantly more likely to have their own kingdom, than Orcs, and yet, the fluff and the crunch do not seem to align on this subject.
[wizard healing tangent]
From my experience with game systems that don't prune healing magic from 'wizard' spell lists, such as GURPS, the end result of allowing 'wizards' to have heal spells is that wizards are expected to have heal spells, and end up using resources on heal spells that they would have otherwise spent on something else. At the end of the day, the wizard has done the same amount of stuff (since he didn't get a bunch of extra spell slots or mana points or whatever to heal with, over and above his usual wizardly tricks), and balance is no different than it was when healing effects were oh-so-carefully restricted to clerics, druids, bards, adepts, paladins, rangers, alchemists, witches, oracles, inquisitors, psions, etc. It's not like the gods seem to give a rat's butt whether or not non-divine casters (or divine casters who don't necessarily worship, or even *like* the gods, like adepts, oracles, druids, etc.), such as alchemists, bards and witches cast cure spells. It's just sorcerers and wizards who are inexplicably cut out of the cure spell business.
[/wizard healing tangent]
Yeah, that was my suspicion as to how it works out in play. Except of course, in D&D everyone can just buy wands of CLW so the casters don't have to blow spell slots on post-combat healing.
As for racial mods, I'm not familiar with Golarion fluff, but I've felt for a while that meager +/-2s don't do justice to the fluff. A mere 5% difference doesn't shout ELVEN GRACE or DWARVEN HARDINESS or whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with Set on racial bonuses and penalties - and I never, ever, got why gnomes and halflings were two races.
With classes, the monk is the star of crunch not living up to the fluff. Some of the archetypes are OK, and some are truly horrendous examples of fluff not being matched to the crunch by a long, long way!
Rangers have kinda become their own thing, far from their original conception, but they still work. Rogues too, do what they are meant to - however, their problem is a lot of other classes can do what rogues are meant to, and more besides.
I understand that in some cases theme has been sacrificed for playability, but in some cases playability hasn't been achieved either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a difference between the crunch being too weak for the fluff (monk) and the crunch being completely different to the fluff (trapsmith). Just wanted to note that.
Though honestly, for me, elves having a Cha bonus seems much more off than them having a Cha penalty:
"their disdain of those who have not learned to live off the scant land as they have makes such friends rare."
"Elves are prone to dismissing other races, writing them off as rash and impulsive, yet on an individual level, they are excellent judges of character."
Combined with the common trope of elves being arrogant in general, to me switching the Con penalty to a Cha penalty would make sense. Though of course that would create balance issues.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers have kinda become their own thing, far from their original conception, but they still work. Rogues too, do what they are meant to - however, their problem is a lot of other classes can do what rogues are meant to, and more besides.
I understand that in some cases theme has been sacrificed for playability, but in some cases playability hasn't been achieved either.
I feel like the entire concept of character class was a compromise whose time may be past.
Other games do fine without it, and even the inspirations of D&D don't fit neatly into those boxes. Conan was a thief, a king, a barbarian and a warrior (and probably didn't have actual rogue levels, aristocrat levels or even barbarian levels, since he didn't, as far as I recall, 'rage'). Elric was a warrior, king and wizard). The Gray Mouser had at least three 'classes.' Even attempts at writing up characters *designed with D&D in mind* like Elminster or Drizzt have occasionally multi-classed the heck out of them. (Many of the mortal heroes in the 1st edition Deities and Demigods similarly had multiple classes, and this in a system where multiclassing as a human wasn't even a rules-legal option!)
By creating a specific thief or rogue class, and locking down certain skills and roles as it's 'niche,' it automatically can't be as good in other niches, like fighting, and this affects adventure design, as the assumed presence of a rogue, whose 'niche' appears to be 'trapfinding,' for the most part, means that there now *must* be traps, so that the rogue has a place where he can shine (since he is not expected to be doing that in combat...).
By saying that 'Conan wasn't really a thief, he was just a barbarian who stole some stuff once,' and creating an actual thief class, an artificial division was created, a 'thief class' that was boxed into having to fill role X and not being particularly good at role Y, which rolled downhill to affect adventure design, and the design of other classes, even editions later (when certain 'thief skills' where locked out from other classes taking them, in a vain attempt at niche protection).
Eh. It is what it is. I think the biggest problem with ever 'fixing' the monk or the rogue is they shouldn't have ever existed as unique classes in the first place, making the struggle to 'make them relevant' sort of like trying to find an effective and practical use for horses-as-transportation in a world that is covered with super-highways.
Same with clerics. There's plenty of arcane classes that can cast cure spells now. A feeble last-ditch attempt at niche protection is probably the only reason why wizards can't heal, at this point.
Oh, good, this is about actual discontinuities between rules and that which they are meant to simulate, rather than debating the merits of the two.
The foremost conflict I see has to do with the 'ranger'. Somehow the notion of somebody who uses stealth and woodlore rather than brute force or magic got drowned in a wave of features borrowed from other classes. He's got semi-druidic spellcasting, can ignore feat restrictions that all other classes have to obey as long as they're in his combat "theme", and has better overall saving throws than the fighter or barbarian (though I'd rather raise their saves to match rather than lower the ranger's.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on the ranger class; I just feel like the "fluff" is an iconic woodsman-warrior and the "crunch" is an almost random grab-bag of abilities, only some of which are thematic.
Yeah, less woodsman and monster hunter and more incredible pastiche with few weaknesses and therefore a very easy starting class, and safe class for the experienced.
I want the fluff and crunch to completely accord. Yes, it gets me too some days. :)
Rangers have kinda become their own thing, far from their original conception, but they still work. Rogues too, do what they are meant to - however, their problem is a lot of other classes can do what rogues are meant to, and more besides.
I understand that in some cases theme has been sacrificed for playability, but in some cases playability hasn't been achieved either.
I feel like the entire concept of character class was a compromise whose time may be past.
Other games do fine without it, and even the inspirations of D&D don't fit neatly into those boxes. Conan was a thief, a king, a barbarian and a warrior (and probably didn't have actual rogue levels, aristocrat levels or even barbarian levels, since he didn't, as far as I recall, 'rage'). Elric was a warrior, king and wizard). The Gray Mouser had at least three 'classes.' Even attempts at writing up characters *designed with D&D in mind* like Elminster or Drizzt have occasionally multi-classed the heck out of them. (Many of the mortal heroes in the 1st edition Deities and Demigods similarly had multiple classes, and this in a system where multiclassing as a human wasn't even a rules-legal option!)
By creating a specific thief or rogue class, and locking down certain skills and roles as it's 'niche,' it automatically can't be as good in other niches, like fighting, and this affects adventure design, as the assumed presence of a rogue, whose 'niche' appears to be 'trapfinding,' for the most part, means that there now *must* be traps, so that the rogue has a place where he can shine (since he is not expected to be doing that in combat...).
By saying that 'Conan wasn't really a thief, he was just a barbarian who stole some stuff once,' and creating an actual thief class, an artificial division was created, a 'thief class' that was boxed into having to fill role X and not being particularly good at role Y, which rolled downhill to affect adventure design, and the design of other classes, even editions later (when...
The closest I had to a Conan type character who could claim so much while single class was a ninja. The ninja Muunokhoi was a Keleshite nomad for a kingmaker game and this guy did a bit of everything. Yes, he became a leader of a town, but was also a thief, scout, duellist, temple robber, saboteur, mystic, student of fey and druidism, seeker of ancient ki secrets, unflinching hero of the people, negotiator/diplomat, vengeful warrior, assassin, lover, slayer and poison master.
Good point on niche restrictions.
My 2 cents: mechanics are one thing, fluff is another. Fluff helps you to stay in character, while mechanics try to meet at the best the concept. But mechanics must stay into some boundaries of system itself and balance issues. All the examples you gave seems a lot pretestuos, just as if you want in any way find some to blame. Ranger are nature warrior, wizards can shape the world, horizon Walker is a master of terrains. But if you want to matchaccurately the fluff, you better rewrite the system. It would be awesome if the Wiz could shape the world anytime he want and has 9th lev spells at 3rd lev. But the system is bounded, guys. Alter the crunch to exactly meet the fluff would raise heavy balance issue.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The dragoon is just a whole lot of wtf.
Real dragoons were light cavalry firearm wielders who would be best as a mounted gunslinger archetype.
However, poor translations mucked up the Final Fantasy dragon knight to dragoon, so we have a generation of people who think they are spear wielders who jump on their foe.
Pathfinder decided to blend the two and have a mounted spear wieoder who jumps off his horse.
and I never, ever, got why gnomes and halflings were two races.
Agreed. A MILLION TIMES AGREED.
I also double-agree about many other racial attribute bonus gripes, namely dwarf and elf.
After thinking about the dwarven thing a bit, I guess it's never bothered me because I cut my teeth on 2e D&D, which was before Cha became 'force of personality' and D&D's default magic stat. Dwarves were taciturn, dour, and every other anti-social adjective that the game writers could think of.
But hey, maybe this is another D&D trope that's outlived its usefulness. *shrug*
@ Eben, probably because Small is 90% bennies. (Because Frodo!) A Small race without a Str penalty could easily become the go-to melee race.
That said, a campaign overrun with terrifying axe-wielding midgets would be some kind of awesome!
Your final statement pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. :D
I feel like the entire concept of character class was a compromise whose time may be past.Rangers have kinda become their own thing, far from their original conception, but they still work. Rogues too, do what they are meant to - however, their problem is a lot of other classes can do what rogues are meant to, and more besides.
I understand that in some cases theme has been sacrificed for playability, but in some cases playability hasn't been achieved either.
Eh, you may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Classless systems have advantages, but so do classes.
I think the problem is that D&D's classes are still wrapped up in 30 years of 'Shit we wrote down 'cause we thought it was fun.' That's how we end up with some classes being really generic (fighter), while others are extremely particular (paladin). And of course, we're still stuck with the arcane/divine divide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The dragoon is just a whole lot of wtf.
Real dragoons were light cavalry firearm wielders who would be best as a mounted gunslinger archetype.
However, poor translations mucked up the Final Fantasy dragon knight to dragoon, so we have a generation of people who think they are spear wielders who jump on their foe.
Pathfinder decided to blend the two and have a mounted spear wieoder who jumps off his horse.
Wait...
Dragoons aren't magical guyver suits made from the spirits of dragons?!That game lied to me...
and I never, ever, got why gnomes and halflings were two races.Agreed. A MILLION TIMES AGREED.
I also double-agree about many other racial attribute bonus gripes, namely dwarf and elf.
** spoiler omitted **
Have a world that runs under the assumption that dwarves gnomes and halflings are actually variants of the same race, to the point where cross breeding is possible. They are mainly separated by where they live and have for a long time and other such. Of course in that one most humanoids are corrupted versions of humans which explains how there can be half orcs half ogres, etcetera. Of course, there, elves are as well. So you could technically have a half Orc half elf.
How about 3 skills, perception as a class skill and a small bonus every few levels.
Change!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Titan Mauler: can't actually lift weapons larger than themselves that others cannot. Since is still limited to 1 size larger (if one handed).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they don't need good perception
Everyone in pathfinder needs a good perception! That said, fighters say they are
skilled warriors
They aren't actually skilled and they are just as skilled as warriors. Probably being too literal though. The thing after that snip about taming kingdoms is a little over the top for a guy with no social skills.
While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
There's also this weird snip where it says their specific weapons and methods grant them a variety of tactics. Somehow using a specific weapon gives you a variety of tactics... I guess?
I always find it messed up that the sorcerer, who gets magic for free, is just as useless at anything that isn't magic as the wizard, who must study extensively. What are sorcerers doing? They're not studying. They're not learning to fight. They're not practicing skills. And everything is practicing skills.
Sorcerers are actually worse at skills than wizards due to all the bonus skill points wizards get from their high int.
I always find it messed up that the sorcerer, who gets magic for free, is just as useless at anything that isn't magic as the wizard, who must study extensively. What are sorcerers doing? They're not studying. They're not learning to fight. They're not practicing skills. And everything is practicing skills.
Apparently not social skills! Look at that skill list. Supposedly its refining something that comes innately, despite every level one sorcerer having the same number of spells day/known.(charisma may vary) They also have this goody however.
sorcerers often discover new and versatile ways of making use of magics other spellcasters might overlook.
Apparently sorcerers know how to use magic in a new way, versatile even! They don't have anything to support it, but that's what is says their role is.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always find it messed up that the sorcerer, who gets magic for free, is just as useless at anything that isn't magic as the wizard, who must study extensively. What are sorcerers doing? They're not studying. They're not learning to fight. They're not practicing skills. And everything is practicing skills.
They're getting laid.
I +1 tequila sunrise.
They don't put in quite as much work as wizards do. As a result, they have a general competency in basic weapons. And are a bit more adept in social skills. (Bluff is a class skill)
Intimidate, bluff, and... not diplomacy? I always wondered if that was a typo of some sort. Of course a level one sorcerer, no matter what he did with his life, still has the same number of spells and talent.
So, here's a few barbarian examples with quotes.
Invulnerable Rager says "These barbarians invite their enemies to attack them, and use pain to fuel their rage." but has no abilities that do any of that. CAGM invites you, but I don't know any powers that turn damage into rage(elementalkin have a class feature that turns elemental damage into rage though).
Superistitious archetype says "Many barbarians distrust magic. While most just shy away from magic, others focus their rage on users of such foul arts." however it gives not bonuses against magic. At all. I think it got mixed up with the rage power.
I feel like the entire concept of character class was a compromise whose time may be past.Rangers have kinda become their own thing, far from their original conception, but they still work. Rogues too, do what they are meant to - however, their problem is a lot of other classes can do what rogues are meant to, and more besides.
I understand that in some cases theme has been sacrificed for playability, but in some cases playability hasn't been achieved either.
Of course it's a compromise. The whole point is a compromise in favour of playability. Character class systems have advantages over classless systems, because the latter tend to have some options better than others, and they always get taken, so classless characters can sometimes be less diverse than classed ones. Classless systems have the option that 'any combination is possible', while class systems have different niches and rules.
Other games do fine without it, and even the inspirations of D&D don't fit neatly into those boxes. Conan was a thief, a king, a barbarian and a warrior (and probably didn't have actual rogue levels, aristocrat levels or even barbarian levels, since he didn't, as far as I recall, 'rage'). Elric was a warrior, king and wizard). The Gray Mouser had at least three 'classes.' Even attempts at writing up characters *designed with D&D in mind* like Elminster or Drizzt have occasionally multi-classed the heck out of them. (Many of the mortal heroes in the 1st edition Deities and Demigods similarly had multiple classes, and this in a system where multiclassing as a human wasn't even a rules-legal option!)
Conan was a one-man party who outshone those he adventured with, if he adventured with anybody at all. The same is true of many other heroes of that ilk. They are the last thing you want in an adventuring party, because they unbalance it for the rest. Conan's best represented by a gestalt mix of barbarian/fighter/rogue.
So yes, it's hard to make these guys out of a RPG system and this is deliberate so as to favour playability. If you want a mythic-gestalt game, you can make them just fine.
By creating a specific thief or rogue class, and locking down certain skills and roles as it's 'niche,' it automatically can't be as good in other niches, like fighting, and this affects adventure design, as the assumed presence of a rogue, whose 'niche' appears to be 'trapfinding,' for the most part, means that there now *must* be traps, so that the rogue has a place where he can shine (since he is not expected to be doing that in combat...).
The rogue was meant to be more than that, but the problem was that other classes intruded into those other areas and left the rogue with just trapfinding. Like the monk, the rogue has been weakened in his niche.
By saying that 'Conan wasn't really a thief, he was just a barbarian who stole some stuff once,' and creating an actual thief class, an artificial division was created, a 'thief class' that was boxed into having to fill role X and not being particularly good at role Y, which rolled downhill to affect adventure design, and the design of other classes, even editions later (when...
I do see your point. However, it's a social game, no one character could or should be doing everything. If you have four PCs all jacks of all trades, you don;t get far. If you have four specialists you get much further.
However I do like the way Paizo came up with archetypes that can do a great many things that core classes cannot by varying abilities. It gives a lot of scope to create more individualistic characters.
Fighters are billed as your generic, default guards. Need a night watchman? Fighter. How about some guys to babysit the prince day and night. Fighter. People to watch your wagons? Fighters.
Fighters are actually horrible at this, however, because they don't get Perception. Not too mention, they just aren't very skilled. Your typical fighter with a 10 Int, only has two skills.
I'd suggest bumping Fighters up to 4+ skills and giving them Perception, and anything else that would help them fill their stereotype.
I agree, fighters are awful sentries, and I'd make that change too.
Failing that, I'd make a "guardsman" archetype with Perception and better skills in return for armour training and a feat. He becomes your default "fighter guard" in many cases.