| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The tone of this thread is unnecessarily petulant, whiney, and childish. If someone disagrees with the game's design that they have to malign everyone involved, they really ought to find another game (or hobby).-SkeldIt was very effective though. People who complain the loudest usually get the most attention.
"Squeaky wheel, my friend, squeaky wheel." -- Booster Gold, The Greatest Story Never Told
This messes with the CR system. A goblin with this archetype and alchemist discovery has the same CR as a goblin who picked up an option for PCs---i.e. an option that is not horribly nerfed. If abilities for NPCs are going to be intentionally weak so that the PCs can win, the CR system should reflect this. Already, NPC classes are treated this way by the CR system. A level 4 adept has a lower CR than a level 4 cleric. The same should be applied to intentionally subpar options for NPCs.
It's unlikely to significantly affect the CR system. How long is the NPC expected to survive his encounter with the PCs? Is he really going to have a chance to unlimber all of his abilities? Probably not. Having one or two be under performing but flavorful won't significantly drag his challenge down.
Plus, it's not like the rocket bomb is a complete dog either. It would come in pretty handy for a Skull and Shackles campaign since it's range increment is 2.5x a regular thrown bomb, it affects 44 squares at the target rather than 4 to 9, and opposition sailors usually aren't hit point brutes. It has some utility - maybe not with as much power as a fireball, but then by choosing to play an alchemist you decided that fireballs weren't what you wanted to lob around anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was very effective though. People who complain the loudest usually get the most attention.
Not all of it positive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo wants to make NPC content, I'm not too worried about that. What I would like is for such content to be clearly labeled. Saying that something is 'for players' and then expecting a vague phrase like 'with GM permission' to indicate that the content is less useful, less powerful, or harder to use is...not good. Especially since most groups will see such a tag and assume that it means the content is more powerful and thus requires GM oversight to prevent abuse.Sounds to me like you don't want to spend time planning out a character concept and would rather Paizo go through and label everything WARNING: THIS IS A SUB-OPTIMAL CHOICE FOR PCs. Choosing this option will seriously make your game experience unfun and is only intended to be used by the GM as a gimmick.
I'm guessing that five minutes looking over the options and a bit of prep work would have been enough to get this information. But it's much easier to have someone else spoon-feed the information, reading is hard.
Actually, that would be great. And the next step would be that before they print the book to go back in and remove all those options and replace them with ones that don't require that tag.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, that would be great. And the next step would be that before they print the book to go back in and remove all those options and replace them with ones that don't require that tag.
Sure, because it's BADWRONGFUN to take any option that isn't optimized. Look at the Op's reaction to my taking a level of Aristocrat- it wasn't optimum! Oh noes!
And if you listen to the optimizers the PHB is gonna be a little thin as it will only have one class in it. But you WILL have FUN playing The Wizard. We have told you it is the best. Thus it is the most fun. You WILL comply with our concept of FUN otherwise you are having BADWRONGFUN.
Sure, because it's BADWRONGFUN to take any option that isn't optimized. Look at the Op's reaction to my taking a level of Aristocrat- it wasn't optimum! Oh noes!
And if you listen to the optimizers the PHB is gonna be a little thin as it will only have one class in it. But you WILL have FUN playing The Wizard. We have told you it is the best. Thus it is the most fun. You WILL comply with our concept of FUN otherwise you are having BADWRONGFUN.
That's certainly one extreme. The other would have a book chock full of clearly terrible options, which hardly seems ideal either.
I suspect these discussions would be more productive if we didn't treat others like caricatures quite so often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What qualifies as "clearly terrible"? If combat efficiency isn't as important as thematics then a weak rocket ability might be an awesome option.
I think a point the Dr was making (at least what I was getting from it) was that it might be hasty to assume that the only measure for a class/ability/trait/etc. is weather it is comparable in raw power to another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What qualifies as "clearly terrible"? If combat efficiency isn't as important as thematics then a weak rocket ability might be an awesome option.
I think a point the Dr was making (at least what I was getting from it) was that it might be hasty to assume that the only measure for a class/ability/trait/etc. is weather it is comparable in raw power to another.
For the purpose of serving as a ridiculously extreme counter-example to "a PHB with one class it it"), how about a feat that gives you 1/every 2 levels, but is mutually exclusive with toughness. In other words, clearly and objectively inferior to other choices, better choices.
No one is going to advocate that, just like no one is going to truly advocate a PHB with a single class. We'd all be better served by leaving out the hyperbole.
What qualifies as "clearly terrible"? If combat efficiency isn't as important as thematics then a weak rocket ability might be an awesome option.
I think a point the Dr was making (at least what I was getting from it) was that it might be hasty to assume that the only measure for a class/ability/trait/etc. is weather it is comparable in raw power to another.
For the purpose of serving as a ridiculously extreme counter-example to "a PHB with one class it it"), how about a feat that gives you 1/every 2 levels, but is mutually exclusive with toughness. In other words, clearly and objectively inferior to other choices, better choices.
No one is going to advocate that, just like no one is going to truly advocate a PHB with a single class. We'd all be better served by leaving out the hyperbole.
If one of those feats gave me something very flavorful that the other did not - I would take it for the sake of theme.
If there were two goblin rocket bomb powers offered with identical descriptions but different mechanical efficacy, your example might have merit. But that isn't the case.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see these inflammatory threads it always devolves into one kind of fun or another. While I don't believe in censoring anyone's right to vent online, I think in these forums there should be a disclaimer: if you're going to vent, first qualify and quantify what your version of fun is and how much you think you deserve.
Hi, my name's Mark. I measure the fun I have at the gaming table with how engaged my players are in the action. As the GM I would say mean average is 2.3 players out of five thoroughly engaged. A good night then would be fully 3, 4 or 5 players; a bad night would be 0, 1 or only 2 players.
Then I'd get to vent about how badwrongfun the game is and people could be like "Oh, by his estimation of fun I can see where that would be a terrible option then."
By this logic, if the OP's measure of fun is DPR, then yeah this is a horrible archetype. If however the OP measures fun by utility + some damage, then there's ways to make this pretty cool and if they measure solely by interesting fluff then this is an AWESOME archetype.
Maybe it's just in choosing to look at the game in a different way and being open to other options of fun.
What qualifies as "clearly terrible"? If combat efficiency isn't as important as thematics then a weak rocket ability might be an awesome option.
I think a point the Dr was making (at least what I was getting from it) was that it might be hasty to assume that the only measure for a class/ability/trait/etc. is weather it is comparable in raw power to another.
Exactly. Sometimes a feat or dip or trait is taken for RPing reasons. This is a good example. Sure, it's sub-optimal. But it's hardly Prone shooter. Several posters have made quite solid posts as to when it could be nice to have tactically.
I had a Wizard who had Pyrotechnics- and use it to perform fireworks shows, ala Gandalf. Why not? He had the archer fire a flaming arrow up really high (over 120', natch), then cast the spell, to "ooh, aah!". There was no combat use at all... but we had fun with it. Apparently the fun, however was of the 'badwrong" sort.
Why did a take a level in aristocrat? Because I wanted to. More badwrongfun, it appears, since several guys are pointing out that the pure mechanics of the game would not require it. Yeah, so? But according to some, this would be prohibited. "All that isn't mandatory is prohibited." "We know what the best options are, you may take those and no others. "
If there were two goblin rocket bomb powers offered with identical descriptions but different mechanical efficacy, your example might have merit. But that isn't the case.
My example was (explicitly) fabricated to represent the opposite extreme of "the PHB with one class" (which also doesn't exist), in order to illustrate that building straw men isn't productive.
Given that you completely missed the point, I trust that you'll forgive me if I'm not overly concerned with your estimation of the merit of my example.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is that there may be some flavor and mechanical decisions I'm unhappy with but they sure as hell don't call for actual hate for people or dumping all over them.
I mean hot damn. Perspective. Get some.
Flameout threads don't help anyone. There are far more constructive ways to voice one's concerns. Doing it like this just sabotages your case and alienates both the people you're trying to convince and those who would otherwise agree with you.
Exactly. Sometimes a feat or dip or trait is taken for RPing reasons. This is a good example. Sure, it's sub-optimal. But it's hardly Prone shooter. Several posters have made quite solid posts as to when it could be nice to have tactically.
I had a Wizard who had Pyrotechnics- and use it to perform fireworks shows, ala Gandalf. Why not? He had the archer fire a flaming arrow up really high (over 120', natch), then cast the spell, to "ooh, aah!". There was no combat use at all... but we had fun with it. Apparently the fun, however was of the 'badwrong" sort.
Why did a take a level in aristocrat? Because I wanted to. More badwrongfun, it appears, since several guys are pointing out that the pure mechanics of the game would not require it. Yeah, so? But according to some, this would be prohibited. "All that isn't mandatory is prohibited." "We know what the best options are, you may take those and no others. "
The funny part is...I agree with you. I just don't see how building straw men about "PHBs with one class" has helped you main your point. In fact, it rather seems a distraction...
Every time I see these inflammatory threads it always devolves into one kind of fun or another. While I don't believe in censoring anyone's right to vent online, I think in these forums there should be a disclaimer: if you're going to vent, first qualify and quantify what your version of fun is and how much you think you deserve.
Hi, my name's Mark. I measure the fun I have at the gaming table with how engaged my players are in the action. As the GM I would say mean average is 2.3 players out of five thoroughly engaged. A good night then would be fully 3, 4 or 5 players; a bad night would be 0, 1 or only 2 players.
Then I'd get to vent about how badwrongfun the game is and people could be like "Oh, by his estimation of fun I can see where that would be a terrible option then."
By this logic, if the OP's measure of fun is DPR, then yeah this is a horrible archetype. If however the OP measures fun by utility + some damage, then there's ways to make this pretty cool and if they measure solely by interesting fluff then this is an AWESOME archetype.
Maybe it's just in choosing to look at the game in a different way and being open to other options of fun.
Hi, my name's (not really) Thymus Vulgaris. I like my fighter to deal crazy high damage, my bard to sing better than anyone and make others deal crazy high damage, my aasimar cleric to spend half her time yelling at the tiefling witch, and the bolded part above is what goblins are all about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why did a take a level in aristocrat? Because I wanted to. More badwrongfun, it appears, since several guys are pointing out that the pure mechanics of the game would not require it. Yeah, so? But according to some, this would be prohibited. "All that isn't mandatory is prohibited." "We know what the best options are, you may take those and no others. "
Y'know what, no. You're gonna stop right here.
I did not make a value judgment on your decision. I did not tell you that you're playing the game wrong. I asked a question, under the evidently mistaken impression that we were having a polite conversation and that said question would be answered with followup information.
For all the complaining I see on these forums, I'd think that there'd be less snide condescension about how other people play. Instead what I've seen is that someone with system mastery asks a reasonable question, makes a complaint (sometimes politely, sometimes not) or asks for help and then gets dog piled by people who seem shocked or offended that they exist.
I'm not telling you how to play. Stop telling me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did not make a value judgment on your decision. I did not tell you that you're playing the game wrong. I asked a question, under the evidently mistaken impression that we were having a polite conversation and that said question would be answered with followup information.
Here's your question: "Why? What is it about the Aristocrat class that you needed to fulfill that concept? Leadership skills? Bard has all the relevant socials. Knowledge of high society? It's on the class skill list (plus bardic knowledge, of course). Frankly keeping straight-classed bard woulda given more tools with which to move through high society, navigate etiquette, and handle political and social rivals than the level of Aristocrat ever could. Was it the name? Is there something in Bard's fluff that makes it mystically incapable of being ennobled?"
Now, it's true that it's hard to tell tone from a post- but to me, all those 'questions" along the lines of "you didn't need to take a level of bard, and here's why, since obviously you didn't know this" pretty well sounds like a "value judgement".
"Why" would have been a question. Telling me that: "Bard has all the relevant socials. Knowledge of high society? It's on the class skill list" isn't much of a question.
And: "Frankly keeping straight-classed bard woulda given more tools with which to move through high society, navigate etiquette, and handle political and social rivals than the level of Aristocrat ever could." is a straight out value judgment. If this isn't telling me that a level of bard is better than a level of aristocrat, what would be?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im sorry im not a paizo fangirl. Apparently you can only post good things about paizo and their materials.. because criticism is overrated and unnecessary.
There is a thing called constructive criticism. If you had explained the problems you had with your example and then asked for alternatives, or even said why was this design decision made, that's constructive.
However, when you start the thread with "What was Paizo thinking" say you "hate them with a passion" and other such very hostile things... that says one thing to Paizo staff (and any company really)
This is a very hostile and rude person that we should ignore.
You make very valid points, but they are tainted by your hostile attitude and insults to the staff themselves.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, this thread seems to have served its original purpose, so I'm stepping out for now.
Does this mean I should start a separate thread enumerating my complaints of a single class feature of the Ratfolk Gulch Gunner and how that mechanical choice has ruined Pathfinder for me forever?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Prince of Knives - you may not have meant to imply a value judgement but I'm going to have to agree with DrDeth that the tone of that post did come across as such. Just a prime example of being careful on how you write. As for the actual intent of your post, I think its fair for you to have the benefit of the doubt here but the post did come across differently.
To the thread in general:
As to the original post, I think it's been handled well by James Jacobs and there isn't much left to comment on in that regard (as tempting as it is to address said original poster. . . must resist). Since the thread has now evolved more into a discussion of design styles surrounding flavor and utility and "should there even be separate PC and NPC options": I think that yes, there should be a range of options to fit all molds, some flavorful, some very good, some very niche. Granted, nothing should be completely useless (even under the auspice of "flavor") in the literal sense of the word - like a Feat that does absolutely nothing - but as long as there is even some slight margin of utility it could have a use in some scenario or another even if it is sub-optimal.
As for judging what's good for PCs versus what's more appropriate for NPC's - I would think that would be apparent given time and attention. I don't what to outright say it should be "obvious" or "common sense" as not everyone has years of experience, and the cornucopia of options for Pathfinder can easily be overwhelming for new players/GMs and even some mildly experienced ones. I understand that. But there are usually little flags or signals that can help indicate when designers design something with NPCs in mind. For example, "Player" options in books primarily aimed at the GM (Prestige classes traditionally used for villains come to mind).
Granted, even in these circumstances lines can be blurred as some people are fine taking "NPC choices" because it fits their character and for no other reason than Story. Period. For some people, the numbers don't matter, the utility may not even matter, in some cases, only the fluff matters. Now, there might be people thinking, "but if only the fluff matters, why not take a better or more useful ability and just reflavour it to be fluffy and effective?". And herein lies the major issue with the discussion at hand - there is fundamental paradigm gap between different play styles where each side (call it narrativism, gamism, simulationsim or some other grouping entirely) just isn't going to "get it". And there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes viewpoints are just so completely different that it's tough (or nigh-impossible) to see where the other side is coming from. No one's having badwrongfun here but it is important to note that different RPGs have different design goals and those those goals will interact with different play styles to varying levels of satisfaction - which is where the GM comes in to ensure that said different RPGs are adjusted as needed to suit the unique needs of their particular group.
The only thing all of us should agree on (though apparently not all of us do) is that it should not be the responsibility of the game designers to address every possible play style per product (as in, each and every product must address all possible play styles). Aside from the fact that it's pretty much impossible (though it becomes more doable if a game tries to address many possible play styles over different products throughout the game's life-cycle), it's really not desirable either. If every company did that then every single game would be GURPS and, while GURPS is great, I don't think having multiple companies making multiple variations on GURPS would be enjoyable or productive to industry creativity.
TLDR: Fundamental differences in play style paradigms indicates that a discussion on whether player option selections should always be of "greatest/average utility" will always go nowhere fast. You've as much of a chance at a deeply faithful priest converting a militant atheist or vice versa. Instead, time would be better spent discussing how GMs can best identify underlying patterns in the design philosophy that could help indicate what will or won't work for their group's playstyle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TLDR: Fundamental differences in play style paradigms indicates that a discussion on whether player option selections should always be of "greatest/average utility" will always go nowhere fast. You've as much of a chance at a deeply faithful priest converting a militant atheist or vice versa. Instead, time would be better spent discussing how GMs can best identify underlying patterns in the design philosophy that could help indicate what will or won't work for their group's playstyle.
You, sir, are clearly outside of your mind. The Internet is no place for measured discussion and reasonable debate. The Internet was forged in flame and quenched in tears, there is no place for your fancy live-and-let-live attitude.
Unfortunately necessary disclaimer: I'm joking people. I sure hope there isn't anyone who would take such an outrageous comment as this seriously.
Not to add any fuel to a fire, but after reading this thread and the Rocket Bomb discovery, I'm actually looking to use it. Looks exciting!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The goblin firebomber gets a cool themed rocket... that ... fails hard.
...
Its stuff like this that makes me hate paizo with a passion. I love some of their stuff but they seem to have people who have never even played their own game making this stuff up!
...
Dont get me wrong.. paizo...
Reiko, what you're missing is Pathfinder's core "Waterballoon" philosophy of design.
What do you think is better for ranged combat, a longbow or a waterballoon? Some things are worse because it's realistic for them to be worse. It's realistic for a waterballoon to be inferior to a bow. It would be silly gamism for a waterballoon to be a 'balanced' option against a bow though.
You just happened to choose a 'waterballoon' option. If you don't believe me, then hear it from the lead designer of Pathfinder:
I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter. Why does Pathfinder have trap options for some ranged characters?
.
.
.
Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge wrote:
Replace "water-balloon-throwing" with any of the followingaxe-throwing
blowgun-firing
dagger-throwing
dart-throwing
javelin-throwing
sling-using
spear-throwingand the complaint is no less ridiculous.
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
|
@Prince of Knives - you may not have meant to imply a value judgement but I'm going to have to agree with DrDeth that the tone of that post did come across as such. Just a prime example of being careful on how you write. As for the actual intent of your post, I think its fair for you to have the benefit of the doubt here but the post did come across differently.
To the thread in general:
As to the original post, I think it's been handled well by James Jacobs and there isn't much left to comment on in that regard (as tempting as it is to address said original poster. . . must resist). Since the thread has now evolved more into a discussion of design styles surrounding flavor and utility and "should there even be separate PC and NPC options": I think that yes, there should be a range of options to fit all molds, some flavorful, some very good, some very niche. Granted, nothing should be completely useless (even under the auspice of "flavor") in the literal sense of the word - like a Feat that does absolutely nothing - but as long as there is even some slight margin of utility it could have a use in some scenario or another even if it is sub-optimal.
As for judging what's good for PCs versus what's more appropriate for NPC's - I would think that would be apparent given time and attention. I don't what to outright say it should be "obvious" or "common sense" as not everyone has years of experience, and the cornucopia of options for Pathfinder can easily be overwhelming for new players/GMs and even some mildly experienced ones. I understand that. But there are usually little flags or signals that can help indicate when designers design something with NPCs in mind. For example, "Player" options in books primarily aimed at the GM (Prestige classes traditionally used for villains come to mind).
Granted, even in these circumstances lines can be blurred as some people are fine taking "NPC choices" because it fits their character and for no other reason than Story. Period. For some people, the...
What he said +1
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead what I've seen is that someone with system mastery asks a reasonable question, makes a complaint (sometimes politely, sometimes not) or asks for help and then gets dog piled by people who seem shocked or offended that they exist.
Funny, the way I see it is that someone who's an entitled gamist with deficiency in social communication skills shoots his/her mouth off and right away a bunch of "Paizo fails at existing as human beings because they don't write crunch the way I would" munchkins charge to his/her defense.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What was Paizo thinking? I imagine something along these lines:
"Goblins like big explosions and fire"
<-- this is the actual thinking bit.
Everything in game design is a trade off. You give up something, you get something in return. The goal was to In this case the range and splash radius was boosted and the direct damage was nixed. Rough trade off, but the archetype also gets additional splash damage, which mitigates the low damage to some extent.
I can't speak for everyone, but none of the folks I know writing for Paizo deliberately write rules to irritate players or create deliberate 'trap' options. In general the folks writing Paizo's rules want every rules option to be fun and enjoyable, but not every rule is going to be great. It's not apathy, laziness, it's definitely not because they don't play the game. Simply it's because freelancers and developers are people and people goof sometimes.
I've written some stinkers in my time, and some of them have sparked lengthy flame wars, prompted FAQ entries. In case you haven't figured it out, rocket bomb was mine. To be honest though, while I see your point about damage, it's not going to make it into my stinkers pile. While most players will avoid it, others have found creative uses for it, and that's enough; because in the end not every rule is written for every player. Also, I'm much happier when people complain that a rule is too weak then have GMs cursing my name for adding out-of-balance player options. I think two of my biggest stinkers have FAQ entries clarifying how they interact with other rules... talk about embarrassing.
Sorry you didn't enjoy rocket bomb. Hopefully you enjoy the rest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those who are of the "paizo, what do you think you are doing!" camp: Can I come to your place of employment and publicly rubbish what you do for a job, please? Also could you sign me up for the alpha test of your set of RPG rules.
To those who are of the "paizo, what do you think you are doing!" camp: Can I come to your place of employment and publicly rubbish what you do for a job, please? Also could you sign me up for the alpha test of your set of RPG rules.
As to the first one I'd prefer you didn't, since the elderly folks I work with might find their tranquility a bit disturbed by it. As to the second, I'd be happy to PM you links to my work if you want 'em. They're in open beta, I could use the feedback.
And that's the thing, really. Writers, artists, filmmakers, we don't really get the luxury of being able to go, "You're being rude, I'm not listening to you." Yes, it's nice if people aren't rude, but ultimately an author - especially an RPG author - is essentially charging money for the promise that you'll enjoy their content. Paizo's got an advantage in the form of the PFSRD, which lets customers try before they buy, but in the end critique is going to happen, and some of it's going to be rude and angry. People get that way when you take their money, y'know?
Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Baker have responded to this critique very professionally, which is nice to see. That's kinda what you have to do. Even the angriest, most profanity-laden rantfest may have something you legitimately missed buried somewhere in there, and you can't just dismiss it out of hand because that particular unsatisfied customer is still mad at you.
And if you listen to the optimizers the PHB is gonna be a little thin as it will only have one class in it.That's certainly one extreme. The other would have a book chock full of clearly terrible options, which hardly seems ideal either.
I suspect these discussions would be more productive if we didn't treat others like caricatures quite so often.
They might be more fun too.
I kind of regret reading this thread, I think.
What was Paizo thinking? I imagine something along these lines:
"Goblins like big explosions and fire"
<-- this is the actual thinking bit.
Everything in game design is a trade off. You give up something, you get something in return. The goal was to In this case the range and splash radius was boosted and the direct damage was nixed. Rough trade off, but the archetype also gets additional splash damage, which mitigates the low damage to some extent.
I can't speak for everyone, but none of the folks I know writing for Paizo deliberately write rules to irritate players or create deliberate 'trap' options. In general the folks writing Paizo's rules want every rules option to be fun and enjoyable, but not every rule is going to be great. It's not apathy, laziness, it's definitely not because they don't play the game. Simply it's because freelancers and developers are people and people goof sometimes.
I've written some stinkers in my time, and some of them have sparked lengthy flame wars, prompted FAQ entries. In case you haven't figured it out, rocket bomb was mine. To be honest though, while I see your point about damage, it's not going to make it into my stinkers pile. While most players will avoid it, others have found creative uses for it, and that's enough; because in the end not every rule is written for every player. Also, I'm much happier when people complain that a rule is too weak then have GMs cursing my name for adding out-of-balance player options. I think two of my biggest stinkers have FAQ entries clarifying how they interact with other rules... talk about embarrassing.
Sorry you didn't enjoy rocket bomb. Hopefully you enjoy the rest.
You have it backwards. I enjoyed rocket bomb so much it made me go into a fit of uncontrolable rage that it was so complicated and didn't mesh at all with alchemists core ability (discoveries).
The rest of the archetype, flawless. The rocket bomb concept, genius. The implementation (imo) , failed.
Its your work and your going to be a lot tougher critic on yourself then i'll be. If you feel you hit the desired effect with it then theres no reason for me to complain, because its not oversight or poor writing, it's what it is supposed to be.
I can tell you however I still hate you for teasing me with it whether intentional or not.
But.
Thankyou for telling me it is intentional, now that I know the intent of the ability and that its worded correctly I feel comfortable having the DM houserule it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also could you sign me up for the alpha test of your set of RPG rules.
Could we please put this one to bed? First, one needn't be an RPG designer to have or express an informed opinion. There simply aren't that many RPG design jobs, and there are way too many people chasing them. Which is a big part of why the pay is lousy. Second, Paizo didn't do the heavy lifting with Pathfinder. Sorry, but they just didn't. So if your litmus test for commenting is that one needs to have designed their own set of RPG rules, pretty much everyone at Paizo fails, too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not worried about labeling sub-optimal content. I want "NPC" content labeled. The difference is profound and I'll thank you to not be snide at me, please.If Paizo wants to make NPC content, I'm not too worried about that. What I would like is for such content to be clearly labeled. Saying that something is 'for players' and then expecting a vague phrase like 'with GM permission' to indicate that the content is less useful, less powerful, or harder to use is...not good. Especially since most groups will see such a tag and assume that it means the content is more powerful and thus requires GM oversight to prevent abuse.Sounds to me like you don't want to spend time planning out a character concept and would rather Paizo go through and label everything WARNING: THIS IS A SUB-OPTIMAL CHOICE FOR PCs. Choosing this option will seriously make your game experience unfun and is only intended to be used by the GM as a gimmick.
I'm guessing that five minutes looking over the options and a bit of prep work would have been enough to get this information. But it's much easier to have someone else spoon-feed the information, reading is hard.
The difference is non existent. What you see as NPC options some other players or someone in a different campaign can see as PC options.
the only NPC options are those for abilities that PC can't get in any form, and those are becoming fewer and fewer.
I'm not worried about labeling sub-optimal content. I want "NPC" content labeled. The difference is profound and I'll thank you to not be snide at me, please.If Paizo wants to make NPC content, I'm not too worried about that. What I would like is for such content to be clearly labeled. Saying that something is 'for players' and then expecting a vague phrase like 'with GM permission' to indicate that the content is less useful, less powerful, or harder to use is...not good. Especially since most groups will see such a tag and assume that it means the content is more powerful and thus requires GM oversight to prevent abuse.Sounds to me like you don't want to spend time planning out a character concept and would rather Paizo go through and label everything WARNING: THIS IS A SUB-OPTIMAL CHOICE FOR PCs. Choosing this option will seriously make your game experience unfun and is only intended to be used by the GM as a gimmick.
I'm guessing that five minutes looking over the options and a bit of prep work would have been enough to get this information. But it's much easier to have someone else spoon-feed the information, reading is hard.
The difference is non existent. What you see as NPC options some other players or someone in a different campaign can see as PC options.
the only NPC options are those for abilities that PC can't get in any form, and those are becoming fewer and fewer.
Except that Mr. Jacobs has already spoken, above, about 'intended for NPC' game options. It was part of his responses to this thread, actually. My general point/desire is that if you're going to make content with that in mind, you should label content with that in mind.
You have it backwards. I enjoyed rocket bomb so much it made me go into a fit of uncontrolable rage that it was so complicated and didn't mesh at all...
Really? You can tell another person that you flat out HATE them, because you decided that he was trying to make a trap option? You actually hate someone for that? Even though you admit that he did not intentionally do anything short of trying to write something cool? Seriously? I'm glad I don't share a table with you, because we actually at least respect the people who work hard to bring us content, even if we don't agree with one of their design decisions, we implement what we call constructive criticism, and that doesn't make us fanboys, or fangirls, it makes us constructive. You should try it sometime.
The goblin firebomber gets a cool themed rocket... that ... fails hard.
...
Its stuff like this that makes me hate paizo with a passion. I love some of their stuff but they seem to have people who have never even played their own game making this stuff up!
...
Dont get me wrong.. paizo...Reiko, what you're missing is Pathfinder's core "Waterballoon" philosophy of design.
What do you think is better for ranged combat, a longbow or a waterballoon? Some things are worse because it's realistic for them to be worse. It's realistic for a waterballoon to be inferior to a bow. It would be silly gamism for a waterballoon to be a 'balanced' option against a bow though.
You just happened to choose a 'waterballoon' option. If you don't believe me, then hear it from the lead designer of Pathfinder:
I want my water-balloon-throwing fighter to be able to deal the same damage as a longbow-shooting fighter. Why does Pathfinder have trap options for some ranged characters?
.
.
.
Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge wrote:
Replace "water-balloon-throwing" with any of the followingaxe-throwing
blowgun-firing
dagger-throwing
dart-throwing
javelin-throwing
sling-using
spear-throwingand the complaint is no less ridiculous.
Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
(Sarcasm) Yep, that was Sean all the way, he's super-duper powerful and anything he wants in Pathfinder he gets. In fact, SKR is so damn powerful that he went back in the past and made Gygax change the rules back then in AD&D...since bows were ALWAYS the best option in D&D* . Not only that, but Sean went back into the real world past and nerfed IRL slings and made the Longbow into a great weapon somehow. And, he burps fireballs and spits lightning bolts ...(/sarcasm)
Dude. Compared to the Welsh LB** the sling *IS* a waterballoon. And, puleeze don't drag out some youtube vid showing how powerful slings are.
And even setting aside IRL, the point is, ever since there was significant differences in weapons in D&D, since AD&D days, the Comb Longbow has been far & away the best. Sean had nothing to do with that. It's part of D&D. Don't like it? Go play some game where every weapon does 1d6. (And note in most other FRP's the Longbow is the best choice, certainly so in C&S).
*(well Basic and OD&D were very simplistic, so there was little difference between weapons at all)
** Since my GGreadMother was a Davies I can tell you it's the WELSH longbow, those rotten English pigdogs stole our wonderful invention...
;-)
I can't speak for everyone, but none of the folks I know writing for Paizo deliberately write rules to irritate players or create deliberate 'trap' options. In general the folks writing Paizo's rules want every rules option to be fun and enjoyable, but not every rule is going to be great. It's not apathy, laziness, it's definitely not because they don't play the game. Simply it's because freelancers and developers are people and people goof sometimes.
I've written some stinkers in my time, and some of them have sparked lengthy flame wars, prompted FAQ entries. In case you haven't figured it out, rocket bomb was mine. To be honest though, while I see your point about damage, it's not going to make it into my stinkers pile. While most players will avoid it, others have found creative uses for it, and that's enough; because in the end not every rule is written for every player. Also, I'm much happier when people complain that a rule is too weak then have GMs cursing my name for adding out-of-balance player options. I think two of my biggest stinkers have FAQ entries clarifying how they interact with other rules... talk about embarrassing.
Sorry you didn't enjoy rocket bomb. Hopefully you enjoy the rest.
Just to balance out the vitriol, Dennis, I think it's a fine ability. Fun and evocative and certainly in-tune with the Goblin "spirit". Absolutely great for NPCs. As for PCs, next time my group sits down for a gonzo standalone or mini-gonzo-campaign, "beer and pretzels" style, it's the exact sort of thing one of my players would take and then fire off with the express purpose of "accidentally" hitting our own front-line party members as well as the enemy. Y'know, for extra authenticity and "gobliny-mayhem".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The longbow was a devastating weapon - in formation. On battlefields with thousands and thousands of men, where you could get together an arrow storm. That concept, the formation of archers raining grim death across whole swaths of the battlefield, is what made it so feared and so effective.
Pathfinder is not a mass battle of that nature. Pathfinder's combats are skirmishes that emphasize small-unit tactics (to wit, an adventuring party), often indoors or in cramped corridors that a bow should, by all real life logic, really suck in. D&D and the games that share its legacy making pretensions to 'realism' is laughable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
