Maybe I just can't think today... but what are these bad options you are talking about? I am not familiar with a lot of the newer feats, maybe them? As far as I know all the options are good for some build, somewhere. Heck skill focus itself has numerous uses as well like boosting stealth or diplomacy for builds that make good use of those talents. The biggest trap I have seen isn't that there are bad feats, it is that people try to spread themselves too thin with feats and end up fairly mediocre.
Pretty much. Many of the "traps" or things that are considered bad are more sub-optimal. Then again, it is what you can do with it and how you play. If your entire character is a made up construct that is spawned at 20th level to mock fight things from the monster books, then sure you want to have the "best" feats for your class.
In actual game play, where you don't always get to cherry pick things, you can make a character work with any of the "traps".
Or, the short form is: people don't like some stuff and talk about it behind its back. Feel bad for these poor abused options, feats, archetypes and more. Support your local traps.
Rogues and Monks perform very well in actual gameplay. Theorycraft is rarely a conclusive way of proving something.
My experience with rogues in actual gameplay is accidentally obsoleting the rogue in the party by rolling up an alchemist.
Monks are fantastic if you don't insist on trying to punch things. A power attacking monk is brutal.
Rogues and Monks perform very well in actual gameplay. Theorycraft is rarely a conclusive way of proving something.My experience with rogues in actual gameplay is accidentally obsoleting the rogue in the party by rolling up an alchemist.
my Experiences with rogues in actual gameplay, include accidentally obsoleting the rogue with a wizard, a bard, and a ranger, all with different foci.
My experience with Rogues is thinking repeatedly and with ever more frequency during a campaign "So, and what is the cool stuff the Rogue can do?", when compared to what other classes just had pulled off.
Poor rogues... a rogue was the first character I ever made for Pathfinder, and I loved her to pieces.
Actually unless they drastically changed Vow of Poverty from 3.5 this was an over the top must have feat in any game where you knew the GM was stingy on giving out treasure.
I have actually seen overkill monks, ok one guy who could turn the monk into every monsters worst nightmare. My monks tend to be either one trick ponies or lack luster, but then I am not a power gamer.
So some feats are sub-par... By this I assume there are feats that do the same thing as another feat but do it poorer? I doubt the system has enough of these feats to qualify as bloat. I doubt there are many at all.
Is system mastery just another name for power gaming?
I would ask differently: Is powergamer just another name for someone who thinks about the pc he builds?
Is system mastery just another name for power gaming?I would ask differently: Is powergamer just another name for someone who thinks about the pc he builds?
Nope, a pure RPer will also think about it, just in different terms :)
I know what you meant though. I'd say "Powergamer" is a name for someone that looks at the numbers and rules in relation to the PC they build, as opposed to using the flavor info (note: I refuse to use the word "fluff" as it sounds like a derogatory term, as if it's just unnecessary filler). For someone like me that focuses about 95% on the flavor, "Powergamer" and "System Mastery" pretty much mean the same thing, although those two categories may well see a difference.
And obviously both of those are extremes, many players fall somewhere inbetween.
Actually unless they drastically changed Vow of Poverty from 3.5 this was an over the top must have feat in any game where you knew the GM was stingy on giving out treasure.
Vow of poverty. You're giving up a class feature (still mind) for the privilege of being able to take that.
I have actually seen overkill monks, ok one guy who could turn the monk into every monsters worst nightmare. My monks tend to be either one trick ponies or lack luster, but then I am not a power gamer.
Okay, as I mentioned before, it's not relevant that people with sufficient system mastery can make an effective monk. A new player isn't going to have the knowledge of the system to do that. If they try to build a badass mobile martial artist who fights shirtless, they're likely to end up making an ineffectual character.
|
Have seen it (well, monk...). Remember we were going to run a game? C'mon Toz, invent a machine to give you infinite time to run games.
My Razor Coast game has two monks and a rogue and no full BAB classes. I've put both monks in the negatives multiple times. (The last time required a breath of life spell to get him back.)
|
Have seen it (well, monk...). Remember we were going to run a game? C'mon Toz, invent a machine to give you infinite time to run games.My Razor Coast game has two monks and a rogue and no full BAB classes. I've put both monks in the negatives multiple times. (The last time required a breath of life spell to get him back.)
Like I said, run a game for me :)
Actually unless they drastically changed Vow of Poverty from 3.5 this was an over the top must have feat in any game where you knew the GM was stingy on giving out treasure.Vow of poverty. You're giving up a class feature (still mind) for the privilege of being able to take that.
Oh my... THAT is what they changed Vow of Poverty to?! Ouch.
|
Have seen it (well, monk...). Remember we were going to run a game? C'mon Toz, invent a machine to give you infinite time to run games.My Razor Coast game has two monks and a rogue and no full BAB classes. I've put both monks in the negatives multiple times. (The last time required a breath of life spell to get him back.)
I assume that you've tailored the encounters accordingly with the party and it's capabilities? I mean you being you and all.
|
|
In other news, it seems that the OP decided to resort to drastic measures to solve his problems out.
This is generally my suggestion :)
I think Tri0 is right, people play pathfinder because its popular, it has buzz, not because the game is very good. I think Paizo's marketing approach is identical to 3.5 and gamesworkshop in general... IE every few months come out with something that is more powerful than anything that came before it, and people will always buy the new supplement/minature/splatbook etc.
Over time this always leads to huge balance issues and system bloat, and of course a necessary system reset regardless of how many fanbois scream "nuh uh!" but it's an extremely effective way of sucking every last dollar out of your fan's wallets and making sure people who design games as a carreer (rather than as a hobby) are able to earn as much as possible...
I've decided that I'd rather put my money in the hands of people who arent looking to rob me for every last penny, and sell me unbalanced "time limited" gaming materials, I'd rather have a game I can play for years and years if I'm going to spend money on it, or for a single campaign or two if its free and kind of unprofessional.
meanwile I'm working on a free RPG of my own, and hopefully someday all RPGs will be free.
There is a lot wrong with most of everything you've written here. To be brief, unless Paizo is at your house with a gun, you don't need more than the Core book to play happily, and could probably do it with the information on the various supported web sites.
There is as much system bloat as you allow in your game. You can play for years and years with as little or as much as you desire of pretty much any game out there.
Best of luck with your future gaming.
"I call 'em as I see 'em, and if I don't see 'em, I make 'em up" - the credo of every noble DM (stolen from George Carlin)
In other news, it seems that the OP decided to resort to drastic measures to solve his problems out.
Good for him!
Would that more gripers just got this out of the way. They might find in a few years they actually really enjoy a Pathfinder game because they're not constantly expecting it to be something it isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. To be brief, unless Paizo is at your house with a gun, you don't need more than the Core book to play happily, and could probably do it with the information on the various supported web sites.
And lets face it, if they did turn up to player's houses with a gun, the players would just whine at them about how slow they can reload it ;)
why
is
there
wrong
stuff
?
It's less a question of there being wrong stuff as much as wrong stuff for situation X or Y, but maybe not wrong for situation Z.
Frankly, the way some people have problems with differing builds in PF, I can't imagine them playing a game like Champions or Mutants and Masterminds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
No one is saying that a DM has to allow every build. All I'm saying is that a DM be respectful and treat a player as a equal when saying no. And a player do the same to the DM when a player is refused a build. I tried Gunslingers for my recent game. Next game either a player accepts that the gunslinger now targets regular AC or plays something else as Touch ACs are way too easy to hit. No is a player someone that should not be allowed at the gaming table. So what we ask players are not allowed to ask the DM anything. By the same token a DM should not be afraid ti say no.
Too bad Hero system gets a bad rep for being too complex. It it a little more rules intensive than Savage Worlds or other rules light generic rpgs. Except unlike those rpgs I get everything I need to run any genre in the core book. Where th other rules light rpgs are pretty comprehensive yet never seem to have everything.
Baalbamoth, Champions is easy to balance IF you are an optimizer. My first time playing Champions I made an awesome super... till I got into the game and discovered that I was WAY underpowered compared to my power gamer friends. Why? because I both neglected to buy my number of actions up and didn't max out my points by buying flaws. So I got to sit there bored for 90% of the fights and even had to be rescued once... I may as well have been playing a normal human. Champions had WAY more so called trap options than Pathfinder seems to. By balance I think you mean the GM set limits placed on the game, which once I learned to optimize in Champions became easy to reach. The issue became that since everyone was at those limits it turned us into carbon copies of each other; identical attack damage, chance to hit, defenses, and more. The only thing different was our fluff.
Actually I love champions and hero games, and its very easy to balance.all the powers and combat skills come with symbols that tell you what combinations and builds should not be used together because they easily become over powered and should ONLY be approved with specific GM permission IE 99% of the time your GM should say "no" to this build and you should know that before adding this gross combo to your character, meanwhile pathfinder has nothing like that (i would have a lot more respect for the designers if it did, some how they can tell you the proper amount of magic items per level but they cant show you a power level chart where a character is doing too much or too little dpr etc?!?!) and the sky's the limit during character generation and progression.
I agree that PF could use more designer/GM notes that explain the role and utility of certain options. That, I believe, was ultimately the point of Monte Cook's ivory tower game design blog article about system mastery. The game could use more notes on where and when some feats and other options fit the situation more than others. That would make it a better toolbox than it is.
System mastery is the knowledge and skill to create supremely optimized characters.
Power gaming is the desire and willingness to create supremely optimized characters.
You don't even have to have system mastery to be a power gamer. All you need is an internet connection and a search engine. And having system mastery does not imply that power gaming will necessarily result.
Agreed. I always viewed System Mastery as having an impeccable familiarity of the game engine; knowing the ins and outs, knowing how to stat up any kind of character you can imagine, in moments. I've statted up high level NPC's(mid-teens levels) literally as my players were rolling initiative.
I had 3.5e System Mastery in spades, yet I rarely played characters that were particularly powerful at all. The ones I did play that got out of hand(were accidentally a LOT more effective than I intended), I voluntarily retired them to play something more viable, and party-friendly.
For example, in one game, I had a Shadowcaster/Warmage, with the Dark Creature template, who had a ridiculous Hide skill(mid-40's+), and several means of Maximizing spells; metamagic rods, Maximize and Sudden Maximize feats, etc. I could "nuke" the battlefield, and disappear without a trace. This caused my DM a lot of headache, so I gave the character up.
Yet, like AD said, you can break the game with a god-build and not know all that much about the fiddly bits of all the mechanics.
I agree that PF could use more designer/GM notes that explain the role and utility of certain options. That, I believe, was ultimately the point of Monte Cook's ivory tower game design blog article about system mastery. The game could use more notes on where and when some feats and other options fit the situation more than others. That would make it a better toolbox than it is.
Heh, I can actually envisage "Pathfinder: The Designer's Cut", a PDF core rulebook full of annotations explaining the thinking behind things.
Heh, I can actually envisage "Pathfinder: The Designer's Cut", a PDF core rulebook full of annotations explaining the thinking behind things.
I agree that PF could use more designer/GM notes that explain the role and utility of certain options. That, I believe, was ultimately the point of Monte Cook's ivory tower game design blog article about system mastery. The game could use more notes on where and when some feats and other options fit the situation more than others. That would make it a better toolbox than it is.
I would love to see that be part of the RPG subscription.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see that be part of the RPG subscription.Heh, I can actually envisage "Pathfinder: The Designer's Cut", a PDF core rulebook full of annotations explaining the thinking behind things.
I agree that PF could use more designer/GM notes that explain the role and utility of certain options. That, I believe, was ultimately the point of Monte Cook's ivory tower game design blog article about system mastery. The game could use more notes on where and when some feats and other options fit the situation more than others. That would make it a better toolbox than it is.
I'd love to read their reasons for some of PF's changes. Might make them make more sense to me and I can change up easier.