.
But it does illustrate my point. I recently had a conversation with a man convinced that fighters were straight up more powerful than wizards.
Think about that. This man is out there running games with players in them.
It gives you a chilling picture of the wide variety of opinions regarding what is too much and in regards to optimization.
They are, up until level 4. Still, even in our 12th level game the Fighter is our most dangerous PC. Mind you, that’s somewhat due to the fact he’s buffed by the spellcasters. OTOH, he tanks for the spellcasters, so there’s that. D&D is a team game.
I forgot that Inquisitors get prof with the repeating bow too. That being said the weapon is still suboptimal because you can't add strength (or dex like a gunslinger) to it, you can't take multishot, and a whole host of things that makes ranged combat effective rather than a backup plan. Also the round where you reload the bolts is pretty much lost. Once you get iterative needing to reload every 2 rounds is going to seriously crimp your damage output, which was pathetic to begin with.
My idea of good choices is "fun to play and EFFECTIVELY contributes to the team" When DR2 reduces your DPR by 1/3, that isn't a great place to be. DR5 reduces this concept to .5 damage per round. That is laughable. You know what outpaces .5 damage per round? An acid splash (resist acid is less common than DR).
When you put the right Judgement on your CB, you laugh at most DR (not to mention using cold iron bolts, cause why not?). And, my Inquisitor can heal, buff, scout, and lay down some hurt with his glaive, too. Sure, he often switches to another tactic when his clip runs dry. He also only has a str of 12, so a LB would give about the same damage, at the cost of another feat. Why? Sure, no doubt if he wanted to be a dedicated archer who was a one trick pony, then he’d likely go for Comp LB, but as it is, he’s spent his feats elsewhere. Skill focus Perc for one. Toughness. Combat reflexes.
It bothers me a bit when a game doesn't do anything to promote the idea of anything beyond movement, dice, and numbers. If the rulebook doesn't mention the roleplaying side of the game, chances are the next generation of players will not know anything except tactical combat. Not a worry with Pathfinder, as there's a lot of story going on in Paizo products, and a lot of encouragement to deviate from the rulebook if you feel like it.
As far as individual tables go, I'm not bothered at all by anything anyone else does. To each their own, and enjoy your games. If you and I are playing two different variants of Pathfinder, then it's still helping Paizo to sell more Pathfinder books and thus helping to keep the game supported for us both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ghost of Tempest Stormwind has read this thread and is weeping...
When you put the right Judgement on your CB, you laugh at most DR (not to mention using cold iron bolts, cause why not?). And, my Inquisitor can heal, buff, scout, and lay down some hurt with his glaive, too. Sure, he often switches to another tactic when his clip runs dry. He also only has a str of 12, so a LB would give about the same damage, at the cost of another feat. Why? Sure, no doubt if he wanted to be a dedicated archer who was a one trick pony, then he’d likely go for Comp LB, but as it is, he’s spent his feats elsewhere. Skill focus Perc for one. Toughness. Combat reflexes.I forgot that Inquisitors get prof with the repeating bow too. That being said the weapon is still suboptimal because you can't add strength (or dex like a gunslinger) to it, you can't take multishot, and a whole host of things that makes ranged combat effective rather than a backup plan. Also the round where you reload the bolts is pretty much lost. Once you get iterative needing to reload every 2 rounds is going to seriously crimp your damage output, which was pathetic to begin with.
My idea of good choices is "fun to play and EFFECTIVELY contributes to the team" When DR2 reduces your DPR by 1/3, that isn't a great place to be. DR5 reduces this concept to .5 damage per round. That is laughable. You know what outpaces .5 damage per round? An acid splash (resist acid is less common than DR).
I have no idea what this build is even trying to accomplish then. Judgements are a limited resource aren't they? Anybody can heal, anybody can scout, and with 12 strength you aren't hurting anybody with that glaive. Toughness isn't terrible, but its more of a hedge, combat reflexes value assumes your attacks hit for something, which they don't. Skill focus perception is still skill focus, which is the poor end of the feat power curve. It's like you are TRYING to make a character who sucks at everything and is good at nothing. I can make a inquisitor (or cleric/oracle) that does ALL of that and doesn't suck (which is to say its more effective in everything your character does, and a whole lot more). Are you playing 10 point buy or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ghost of Tempest Stormwind has read this thread and is weeping...
While personally I to agree that it's not an inherent mutual exclusion, it's certainly the case that some of my characters wouldn't be welcome at some of the tables here, due to their lack of combat effectiveness (just as a player who only wanted to kill things probably wouldn't have a good time at one of my games, while an optimizing RPer would have an equally good time at either game).
It isn't that RP and optimization are at odds with one another (because, as you've argued before and won me over on, it's certainly possible to have both), it's more when an individual player doesn't bring one of those to a game that's expecting it.
I used to view the scale as
RP Optimization
<------------->
So that increasing one would decrease the other.
However, now I know it is two non-dependent values,
RP
-------------->
Optimization
-------------->
And it's possible to have any "rating" in one, the other, or both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but don't you think that optimization can narrow the options of roleplaying?
Yeeess.. but also kinda no :)
Minmaxing for combat certainly reduces the options, as you're left having to RP the stats you've left yourself with no wiggle room to make the character the way you may want them to be.
On the other hand, system mastery can be used to more effectively model the character you wanted, through better knowledge of all the in-game options available to give that character.
Either way though, even optimizing the character for combat doesn't end up reducing roleplaying ability, just the options available. That player is only limiting their own options for what characters they can bring, in that they may not have the stats, skills, or feats available after optimization to represent their ideal character. But, they can still RP that character well. If the end result is a player that is RPing well at my table then I'm happy no matter how optimized their character is.
|
I am not terribly happy with a 8, either. But a 7 does put one below one in a million human type NPCs, whereas almost every NPC has a 8, so yes, there's a difference.How can this be ?
I build NPCs just like I build PCs. Many of them will have 7 in an ability or another. That is VERY far from one in a million
EDIT - Come to think of it, I feel that I have hit the nail on the head here.
If, in your game, a 7 value is one in a million, then the PCs having them (or worse several) is indeed cheesy to the max.
However, if it is rather commonplace for NPCs, then there is nothing special about PCs with values of 7.
Not “my game” games set in Golarion. “standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), “. Jams Jacob has confirmed that this makes up the vast majority of NPCs, with elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) filling in another 10% or so. Anyone coming with a different array is one in a million or so (they have some examples in the NPC codex). Golarion doesn’t roll for stats.
Then I agree that the rules should not allow 7 as part of a point-buy.
Come to think of it, is the standard array a PFRPG thing or was it already in 3.5, where PCs indeed could not be point-built with 7s ?
If the latter, then there lies the crux of the matter, as this array is not at all consistent with PFRPG PC creation rules.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then I agree that the rules should not allow 7 as part of a point-buy.
Or 16+, right?
Come to think of it, is the standard array a PFRPG thing or was it already in 3.5, where PCs indeed could not be point-built with 7s ?
If the latter, then there lies the crux of the matter, as this array is not at all consistent with PFRPG PC creation rules.
As I understand it, 3.5's baseline was 11/11/11/10/10/10, and the aforementioned basic/heroic arrays are new to Pathfinder. This would explain the contingent of veterans who think any single-digit stat at all is munchkinism.
pathfinder fights are different from the combat systems of most console RPGs, there are no such things as boss fights in pathfinder
I beg to differ, in plenty of APs there are big bad evil guys that you have to fight at the end, party vs individual. Sometimes this happens every module, sometimes not, but there are seldom adventures completely lacking in some kind of ultimate bad guy you have to square off with, with or without his minions.
but don't you think that optimization can narrow the options of roleplaying?
Yes and no. Yes it can limit options if you pursue standard ideas. No, optimizing can allow roleplay by taking a sub-optimal choice and bringing out the best in it.
Then I agree that the rules should not allow 7 as part of a point-buy.
I wouldn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I just think people should remember what it means to have a score that low, and play for it. Too many times I have seen characters with dump-mental stats use sophisticated tactics and strategies their character could never have conceived of. If you have a 7 Int, you are dumber than Forrest Gump. 7 charisma and you are practically autistic, or else horribly obnoxious. 7 wisdom and you may as well be blind and deaf, with the willpower and drive of a concussed slug. To reduce one score that low is bad...two, and you have a seriously mentally defective character. Not that they couldn't be fun to play, but I'd prefer to pass most of the time.
I mainly run PFS and Adventure Paths. My day/night job doesn't allow much time to create my own adventures. I run into the problem while running these that the game does not present a challenge for a group of optimized individuals (a problem I especially find at PFS with a table of 7 PC's). In a game I ran this last weekend the group did the final encounter for book 2 of Skull & Shackles. They encountered everything. The big-baddies all pulled off their attacks and most landed. However, they didn't ever feel afraid for their characters (I had one player make it near 0, but never really feel threatened). Now, I'm not talking maniacal GM everyone must die playing, but feeling enough anxiety to make a battle exciting and not knowing which way it could go.
Any tips, especially on these pre-written scenarios, on how to make them more threatening? I've tried using the Advanced templates, and I try to fudge rolls as rarely as possible. I just want to ensure that there is excitement in the game.
My suggestion is don't be tied to the actual encounter. Templates are fine, but they may simply make the BBG slightly stronger. Instead I'd alter the encounter to play against the parties strength's.
First probably add minions, having to fight through some screening critters allows the BBG to really actively attack the party instead of fighting them where the party gets X attacks to the BBG's one.
Second I'd give the BBG options that hit the parties weaknesses, or overcome their strengths. Basically make sure the BBG can hit and hurt them. You know their armor classes, their immunities, work with it. Also, with this make sure that the BBG can in one melee attack hurt a party member severly. So once they're isolated and in a one on one situation even if it only lasts one round a hit by the BBG causes the party concern.
Third buff their defenses. Again give them options that counter the parties normal mode of attack. Make them do something other than the SOP for the encounter. If they rely on fire attacks make the BBG fire resistant.
The one word of warning in this is if you rely on an item or items to accomplish these points the party will wind up with them. So use items judiciously. I prefer to just give them a special power for the offense and defense buffs, with maybe the melee weapon being present. The weapon can be something odd like the war razors or scythes seen in RotRL. Players typically sale those off.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a 7 Int, you are dumber than Forrest Gump. 7 charisma and you are practically autistic, or else horribly obnoxious. 7 wisdom and you may as well be blind and deaf, with the willpower and drive of a concussed slug.
This is incorrect, at least as far as "default Pathfinder" is concerned.
In Pathfinder (barring houserules to the contrary, of course), the standard pre-racial array for the teeming masses is 13/12/11/10/9/8. Assuming random distribution, that means that fully one-third of the dwarven race has CHA of 7 or lower. You call it "practically autistic", but the Core Rulebook calls it "a bit gruff".
As far as INT goes, the GMG presents the "village idiot" as having 4 INT, and says it could cover any simple villager, from a lunatic to a stableboy. An INT of 7 is 3 points higher than that.
Now, maybe in your games the global norm is a bit higher, but that's your own creation, not a standard to apply to everyone by default. In standard Pathfinder, the dwarven population's CHA ranges from 6-11 and they are "a bit gruff".
|
|
Then I agree that the rules should not allow 7 as part of a point-buy.I wouldn't say it shouldn't be allowed, I just think people should remember what it means to have a score that low, and play for it. Too many times I have seen characters with dump-mental stats use sophisticated tactics and strategies their character could never have conceived of. If you have a 7 Int, you are dumber than Forrest Gump. 7 charisma and you are practically autistic, or else horribly obnoxious. 7 wisdom and you may as well be blind and deaf, with the willpower and drive of a concussed slug. To reduce one score that low is bad...two, and you have a seriously mentally defective character. Not that they couldn't be fun to play, but I'd prefer to pass most of the time.
I am on the side of "no extra non-RAW penalties for low ability scores", but that is quite another topic with already many threads under its belt ;-)
But really, if one in a million person has a single score as low as 7, the point-buy system really should not allow PCs to get several of them. That becomes a statistical non-existence.
I am not terribly happy with a 8, either. But a 7 does put one below one in a million human type NPCs, whereas almost every NPC has a 8, so yes, there's a difference.How can this be ?
I build NPCs just like I build PCs. Many of them will have 7 in an ability or another. That is VERY far from one in a million
EDIT - Come to think of it, I feel that I have hit the nail on the head here.
If, in your game, a 7 value is one in a million, then the PCs having them (or worse several) is indeed cheesy to the max.
However, if it is rather commonplace for NPCs, then there is nothing special about PCs with values of 7.
Not “my game” games set in Golarion. “standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8), “. Jams Jacob has confirmed that this makes up the vast majority of NPCs, with elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) filling in another 10% or so. Anyone coming with a different array is one in a million or so (they have some examples in the NPC codex). Golarion doesn’t roll for stats.
If the racial penalty such as the -2 in charisma for a dwarf is applied to the 8, then you get a 6. That is a 1 in 6 chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but don't you think that optimization can narrow the options of roleplaying?
If every single inquisitor has the exact same build and stat array (complete with a 7 dump stat)- that is pretty heavily restricting the variance of what type of inquisitor you will see.
There are many ways to build characters without the cookie cutter designs and still be powerful, so no. You can even use a cookie cutter, and RP well, so still the answer is no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a 7 Int, you are dumber than Forrest Gump. 7 charisma and you are practically autistic, or else horribly obnoxious. 7 wisdom and you may as well be blind and deaf, with the willpower and drive of a concussed slug.This is incorrect, at least as far as "default Pathfinder" is concerned.
In Pathfinder (barring houserules to the contrary, of course), the standard pre-racial array for the teeming masses is 13/12/11/10/9/8. Assuming random distribution, that means that fully one-third of the dwarven race has CHA of 7 or lower. You call it "practically autistic", but the Core Rulebook calls it "a bit gruff".
The rulebook perhaps refers to the "average" dwarf and not the lower end of the scale?
As far as INT goes, the GMG presents the "village idiot" as having 4 INT, and says it could cover any simple villager, from a lunatic to a stableboy. An INT of 7 is 3 points higher than that.
In original D&D, IQ was 10x INT score, giving a score of 7 an IQ of 70, while Forrest Gump scored 75. My point remains, you are dumber than Forrest Gump - who was alert, able to talk normally (if a bit slow), and able to deal with immediate problems if he wasn't very good at abstract thought. In other words, Gump had a decent Wisdom score and charisma. He was a long way from the village idiot.
Now, maybe in your games the global norm is a bit higher, but that's your own creation, not a standard to apply to everyone by default. In standard Pathfinder, the dwarven population's CHA ranges from 6-11 and they are "a bit gruff".
Hardly, the average of 6-11 is 8.5 for the "a bit gruff" rating, not 7. A 7 is a lot worse than "a bit gruff" and probably falls into "obnoxious" as I stated.
I am on the side of "no extra non-RAW penalties for low ability scores", but that is quite another topic with already many threads under its belt ;-)
They aren't penalties. They are how the character is.
But really, if one in a million person has a single score as low as 7, the point-buy system really should not allow PCs to get several of them. That becomes a statistical non-existence.
Like a character having two scores of 16+? PCs are unusual and stand out from the crowd, it's why they are adventurers.
I have no idea what this build is even trying to accomplish then. It's like you are TRYING to make a character who sucks at everything and is good at nothing.
Obviously you have no idea. And yet I have fun and contribute greatly to my party. Clearly we just have different ideas on play style.
Optimization is a enemy of roleplaying, but one does not exclude the other, just like you *CAN* swim laps with a weight belt. But a tactics heavy game is also a foe of roleplaying but doesn’t mean you can’t do it. This is one reason why AD&D is/was superior to D20 for roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of like the back-of-the-napkin tactic of using (Int + Wis)/2 X 100 = character IQ, myself. Most modern IQ tests and theories of intelligence assess both formal, learned knowledge (Int) and the speed in which information is processed and acquired, as well as creative problem-solving (Wis). So just dumping one or the other doesn't make a character intellectually deficient in and of itself. But I digress.
Topics like this kind of crack me up. For sure, bloodless power gaming can certainly be irritating. But I've also played with players who over-RP and want all of the attention and spotlight, take 10 minutes to go over every encounter, make overbearing alignment decisions, and derail the game by backstabbing the other PCs and then declaring "it's just what my character would do". Then they think they're awesome because look at how complex and deep their character is!
Some players are just annoying, regardless of whether they consider the game a number-crunching fest or a "ruining your game is just what my character would do" drama camp. It's more a function of irritating players rather than one play style being endemically "better" than another.
I am not terribly happy with a 8, either. But a 7 does put one below one in a million human type NPCs, whereas almost every NPC has a 8, so yes, there's a difference.If the racial penalty such as the -2 in charisma for a dwarf is applied to the 8, then you get a 6. That is a 1 in 6 chance.
"But a 7 does put one below one in a million human type NPCs".
Not that many dwarves in Golarion anyway, as a %.
pathfinder fights are different from the combat systems of most console RPGs, there are no such things as boss fights in pathfinderI beg to differ, in plenty of APs there are big bad evil guys that you have to fight at the end, party vs individual. Sometimes this happens every module, sometimes not, but there are seldom adventures completely lacking in some kind of ultimate bad guy you have to square off with, with or without his minions.
i meant, boss fights in pathfinder don't work the same way they do in a JRPG or MMO. if you want final fantasy style boss fights, you aren't finding them in pathfinder. one individual foe is begging to die by a single barbarian pounce, the closest thing you can get to the slow methodical JRPG boss fight in pathfinder, is to give the boss a mountain of minions of APL-2 until the encounter equals APL+6 or APL+8 and still watch the party slaughter it in a much shorter than expected time
I am not terribly happy with a 8, either. But a 7 does put one below one in a million human type NPCs, whereas almost every NPC has a 8, so yes, there's a difference.If the racial penalty such as the -2 in charisma for a dwarf is applied to the 8, then you get a 6. That is a 1 in 6 chance."But a 7 does put one below one in a million human type NPCs".
Not that many dwarves in Golarion anyway, as a %.
\
It does not matter. Either that 6 is that bad or it is not, and if it is then the dwarves have social issues, and elves are sickly, and since they have penalties to certain stats their entire races are likely to be that way on a prorated scale.The fact that there are more humans does not make that 6 any more desirable. Either it is that bad or it is not, and since the game allows for 1/6 of a race to have it, the cutoff score is likely below that.
3's and 4 would have severe issues, and probably not suitable for adventuring. A 5 might be able to overcome the deficiency if they are really strong somewhere else. As an example some pro athletes are not that bright, but their physical talents allow them to do well, or maybe they have the feat skill focus(sport X).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rulebook perhaps refers to the "average" dwarf and not the lower end of the scale?
So when the CRB was describing the race in general, it was purposely excluding an entire third of the population of that race? I think you're searching for ways to support a position you already want to hold, rather than seeing what position you end up at when you start with the information available.
In original D&D, IQ was 10x INT score, giving a score of 7 an IQ of 70, while Forrest Gump scored 75.
And in 3.5 every random commoner had nothing below a 10, making an 8 a major outlier. So what? This is Pathfinder. The rules have changed. We don't still use THAC0, and INT no longer has a linear tie to IQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know a guy at my work, I'm going to call him K. Now K is optimized for his job: he's already got a bachelors, working on his masters - both in business focusing on stats/analytics (we're sales analysts); he's also working out a lot and getting a lot of sleep for his hours of operation; finally he's often shadowing other analysts, taking little extra online courses offered here at work, etc.
K is also optimized in his gear. He has a laptop, several key reporting/analytics reports he's custom designed, and his car is kept in top form so that he can always make it to work. He even optimized where he lives moving from his old place to one 10 min away. He's done EVERYTHING in his power to be a monster at this job.
He's also extremely likable. He's a nice guy but firm, and many of our reps ask specifically to go to him for things.
There's another guy, even further up the chain, similarly optimized; I'm calling him T. Now T already HAS the MBA, is a Greenbelt and is working on his last project to qualify for Blackbelt, and is laser-focused on analytics. He's also a tool; he's mean, backstabbing and often blames others for his mistakes.
Now you COULD say "hey, they just have different Cha stats" but the point I'm trying to make above is that they've both really optimized for their job, but one has a challenging personality and the other doesn't.
I guess I'm trying to say that just because someone has really zeroed in on their build, the numbers, and everything, that doesn't mean their character and RP has to suffer. If they themselves are good RP players, their RP will be good, regardless of their stats. However despite having an 18 Cha, a guy with bad RP skills can still come off with his character sounding like a tool.
I have no idea what this build is even trying to accomplish then. It's like you are TRYING to make a character who sucks at everything and is good at nothing.Obviously you have no idea. And yet I have fun and contribute greatly to my party. Clearly we just have different ideas on play style.
You have mentioned 5 feats on your character. toughness, skill focus, 2 basic archery feats, and combat reflexes. You also managed to get proficiency with a glaive somewhere too, but there are non standard ways to pick that up so I wont count that. If you are human that means you are 2 for level 1, 1 for 3, 1 for 5. 5th level at the very least. You have the option for one attack with a crossbow at that level for 1d10+1 points of damage at best per round, for 5 rounds before you skip your turn. Occasionally you can use your judgement so the attack does more, and you have a handful of potentially useful spells and domain abilities. Or you can use a glaive with two hands and deal 1d10+1 pts of damage as a reach weapon, and get some free strikes against enemies with negative wisdom/intellegence modifiers, well actually they can be smart enemies too since that sort of damage isn't going to scare a CR1 mook. You have a generous allotment of skill points, but skill monkeys aren't THAT useful, and even rogues can be built to be more effective than this, and bards blow it out of the water. Comparing your damage output even at higher levels, like when you get iterative attacks, shows that this build fails to keep up with CR appropriate encounters, encounters as presented in APs, or even from the book warrior NPCs. I can get more DPR from a CR2 kobold warrior using the non heroic NPC array than this min level 5 inquisitor has. You aren't a primary caster, so your limited magical resources cannot compensate for this deficit. You are sort of a skill class, but you don't have to focus on skills to beat level appropriate tasks or to beat DCs of common occurrences.
If your contributions are "great" in comparison to the rest of the party, you are playing an entirely different game than I am, and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm.
Heck, I have one player in my group who likes to role with concept builds that aren't particularly optimal. He still optimizes them, he is mechanically weak compared to some other PCs, but he maximizes what he can do within that concept well enough to fulfill all role requirements and as a result isn't a burden to the party. He even likes to play inquisitors, and honestly he doesn't do a huge amount of damage most of the time (he is at least within touching distance of expectations for his level), but he does enough to play clean up after a blast or the big hitters get their shots in. He doesn't give up his ability to be the skills guy or be secondary support caster to do this either. As for RP, the most power gaming person in the party also is the most RP focused person. They made a cavalier/pathfinder chronicaler character that is just brutal on the battle field while at the same time buffing the party. Spikes well past normal damage thresholds with a completely by the books build, and is extremely creative in getting her mount into dungeons (contrary to popular wisdom most dungeons in published material actually have large areas to fight in and very few pinch points where large things can't get into, especially APs with large numbers of large/huge monster NPCs). She is very good at using consumables to push past minor obstacles. She is currently role playing a Hussar, heavy drinking hard fighting men who were barely restrained and didn't let conventional wisdom tell what they could and couldn't do on the battlefield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Charles_Louis_de_Lasalle.
Last campaign she played a evangelist cleric of Calistria. Most OP support build I've seen played, and she RPed the crap out of that character while pretty much carrying the party through extremely difficult encounters.
If your contributions are "great" in comparison to the rest of the party, you are playing an entirely different game than I am, and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm.
Ooh, I could see your points as being your opinion until that paragraph. Badwrongfun, eh? Based up my conversations with the devs, my games seem fairly close to theirs. Maybe their tables are “not close to the norm”, too, but…..
Perhaps of course, you’re a more experienced player of D&D than I am…..
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ooh, I could see your points as being your opinion until that paragraph. Badwrongfun, eh? Based up my conversations with the devs, my games seem fairly close to theirs. Maybe their tables are “not close to the norm”, too, but…..If your contributions are "great" in comparison to the rest of the party, you are playing an entirely different game than I am, and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm.
Though there's plenty in notabot's post I don't like, telling you that your games aren't "standard, by-the-book Pathfinder" isn't the same as a claim of badwrongfun. You're inserting that yourself.
Though there's plenty in notabot's post I don't like, telling you that your games aren't "standard, by-the-book Pathfinder" isn't the same as a claim of badwrongfun. You're inserting that yourself.Ooh, I could see your points as being your opinion until that paragraph. Badwrongfun, eh? Based up my conversations with the devs, my games seem fairly close to theirs. Maybe their tables are “not close to the norm”, too, but…..If your contributions are "great" in comparison to the rest of the party, you are playing an entirely different game than I am, and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm.
Nope. "you are playing an entirely different game than I am"= taht part's fine. and I agree.
"and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm" is saying that we're wrong, rather than thinking perhaps the way he plays is "far away from standard by the book pathfinder".
I do know a little bit about the game, you know.
In original D&D, IQ was 10x INT score.
No, it wasn't. That was a suggestion from a Dragon Magazine answer column. It was never a rule, and I have no idea why people keep thinking this.
If you're wondering how I know this, I was there and used to own that magazine.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm" is saying that we're wrong, rather than thinking perhaps the way he plays is "far away from standard by the book pathfinder".
The claim that someone whose game is far from the baseline shouldn't say otherwise is not a condemnation, even if he's wrong about which one of you that is.
Or maybe what you're taking as a condemnation is his claim that it's you who's that far from the baseline? All he did was make that (correct or incorrect) claim about your game's (dis)similarity to the printed baseline. He made no moral statements about whether or not it was okay to have that dissimilarity.
That was you.
I could think of plenty of GMs who would be less offended at their games being labeled as non-standard than at having that label be considered an insult. Notabot did the former, you did the latter.
If your contributions are "great" in comparison to the rest of the party, you are playing an entirely different game than I am, and are so far away from standard by the book pathfinder that you really shouldn't be talking like your table is anywhere close to the norm.
Ooh, I could see your points as being your opinion until that paragraph. Badwrongfun, eh? Based up my conversations with the devs, my games seem fairly close to theirs. Maybe their tables are “not close to the norm”, too, but…..
Perhaps of course, you’re a more experienced player of D&D than I am…..
I'm not privy to what the devs say in private conversations, so I won't comment on that. But I have read the monsters by CR chart, monster design chart, seen and run years of paizo created encounters, understand their intended tactics, and what the players need to do to overcome those obstacles. Mostly on the GM side of the screen excluding society play. With that knowledge there is a certain baseline ability that needs to be reached without risking loss of too many resources and/or player death. The build of your inquisitor doesn't meet the minimums as far as I can see to be able to thrive in published APs or PFS. In a home setting with encounters tailored to the party and/or very few combat situations? Yeah, any build can do that by definition. I by no means mean badwrongfun, but if you are playing by houserules or heavy modification of encounter design as presented in the core rule book and/or game mastery guide, then complaining about people who build more in line with the APs and society play optimizing to a degree that you find excessive is perhaps misguided since your own baseline perceptions might be off.
On the other side the stories I hear about power gaming parties using 35+ point buy, 3rd party splats from 3.5, Gestalt characters, templates, powerful monster races ect. are also far from the baseline that I don't really consider that to be the same game either. Which is fine, people can optimize the big guns as well as the smallest knife. Not going to tell them to stop, but I will say that isn't by the books baseline expectations of pathfinder. I do find it funny to look at one of these "munchin" characters and point out that they are actually pretty bad in terms of power though. I remember one having like a PB equivalent of like 42 AND gesalt, and it wasn't as good as the 15 point versions of the iconics at similar levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are, up until level 4. Still, even in our 12th level game the Fighter is our most dangerous PC. Mind you, that’s somewhat due to the fact he’s buffed by the spellcasters. OTOH, he tanks for the spellcasters, so there’s that. D&D is a team game..
But it does illustrate my point. I recently had a conversation with a man convinced that fighters were straight up more powerful than wizards.
Think about that. This man is out there running games with players in them.
It gives you a chilling picture of the wide variety of opinions regarding what is too much and in regards to optimization.
Well to me it just sounds like the fighter is the spellcasters weapon of choice. Which is fine. He's a very effective weapon. Teamwork is scary like that. :)
Well to me it just sounds like the fighter is the spellcasters weapon of choice. Which is fine. He's a very effective weapon. Teamwork is scary like that. :)They are, up until level 4. Still, even in our 12th level game the Fighter is our most dangerous PC. Mind you, that’s somewhat due to the fact he’s buffed by the spellcasters. OTOH, he tanks for the spellcasters, so there’s that. D&D is a team game..
But it does illustrate my point. I recently had a conversation with a man convinced that fighters were straight up more powerful than wizards.
Think about that. This man is out there running games with players in them.
It gives you a chilling picture of the wide variety of opinions regarding what is too much and in regards to optimization.
the main reason for a martial ally or few, whether PC, NPC, Pet or Summon, is to help the caster conserve resources. essentially, martial guy serves the purpose of soaking hits and dealing damage. they are a common weapon of choice for any caster. while more casters means more spells, more martials means more force to multiply. in a large party, i'd rather have more force to multiply than more means to multiply force. but i typically play with 8-15 players, whom usually all get cohorts and a hireling or few. so crews of 40-60 units aren't uncommon.
But I have read the monsters by CR chart, monster design chart, seen and run years of paizo created encounters, understand their intended tactics, and what the players need to do to overcome those obstacles. Mostly on the GM side of the screen excluding society play. With that knowledge there is a certain baseline ability that needs to be reached without risking loss of too many resources and/or player death. The build of your inquisitor doesn't meet the minimums as far as I can see to be able to thrive in published APs or PFS. In a home setting with encounters tailored to the party and/or very few combat situations? Yeah, any build can do that by definition. I by no means mean badwrongfun, but if you are playing by houserules or heavy modification of encounter design as presented in the core rule book and/or game mastery guide, then complaining about people who build more in line with the APs and society play optimizing to a degree that you find excessive is perhaps misguided since your own baseline perceptions might be off.
Yes, clearly you have much more experience in the FRPG field than I do. I bow to your superior knowledge and reading skills. By many standards I am a neophyte in the field. I mean, I had no hand at all in the making of the Fighting Man, Magic user or Cleric. Thief, well, yes, But hey.
But we play pretty darn standard. Almost no houserules or modifications.
Well to me it just sounds like the fighter is the spellcasters weapon of choice. Which is fine. He's a very effective weapon. Teamwork is scary like that. :)They are, up until level 4. Still, even in our 12th level game the Fighter is our most dangerous PC. Mind you, that’s somewhat due to the fact he’s buffed by the spellcasters. OTOH, he tanks for the spellcasters, so there’s that. D&D is a team game..
But it does illustrate my point. I recently had a conversation with a man convinced that fighters were straight up more powerful than wizards.
Think about that. This man is out there running games with players in them.
It gives you a chilling picture of the wide variety of opinions regarding what is too much and in regards to optimization.
Or, the wizards is the fighters monkey, kept around to buff him. Perspective.
Fights are a excellent part of a 4 man team.
Well to me it just sounds like the fighter is the spellcasters weapon of choice. Which is fine. He's a very effective weapon. Teamwork is scary like that. :)They are, up until level 4. Still, even in our 12th level game the Fighter is our most dangerous PC. Mind you, that’s somewhat due to the fact he’s buffed by the spellcasters. OTOH, he tanks for the spellcasters, so there’s that. D&D is a team game..
But it does illustrate my point. I recently had a conversation with a man convinced that fighters were straight up more powerful than wizards.
Think about that. This man is out there running games with players in them.
It gives you a chilling picture of the wide variety of opinions regarding what is too much and in regards to optimization.
Or, the wizards is the fighters monkey, kept around to buff him. Perspective.
Fights are a excellent part of a 4 man team.
the fighter deals good damage and has decent armor class. if they have a good dexterity and hyper-specialize in one specific weapon. problem is, getting what they need to be effective, either requires heavy DM coddling, handwaving of gold piece limits, fudging of item availability, or casters to provide the exact equipment and buffs you need. a fighter needs help from the casters more than casters need help from the fighter. at least a summoned monster doesn't eat up so many wand charges and most of them deal respectable damage. basically, for a fighter to keep up, they have to benefit from a caster's spells and a caster's supply of items
BMX bandit is Any Martial, especially fighters, rogues, cavaliers, samurai, ninja, and monks, Angel summoner is any caster