paizo.com Recent Posts in What was paizo thinking?paizo.com Recent Posts in What was paizo thinking?2014-02-13T21:41:30Z2014-02-13T21:41:30ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Chris Lambertzhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1452014-02-13T17:40:06Z2014-02-13T17:36:28Z<p><span class=messageboard-ooc>Locking. Personal attacks don't help any conversation. I think we're done here.</span></p>Locking. Personal attacks don't help any conversation. I think we're done here.Chris Lambertz2014-02-13T17:36:28ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Prince of Kniveshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1442014-03-04T01:40:09Z2014-02-13T17:30:25Z<p>The longbow <i>was</i> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Prince of Knives2014-02-13T17:30:25ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?The Block Knighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1432014-02-13T17:26:43Z2014-02-13T17:26:43Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dennis Baker wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Sorry you didn't enjoy rocket bomb. Hopefully you enjoy the rest. </blockquote><p>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".Dennis Baker wrote: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...The Block Knight2014-02-13T17:26:43ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?DrDethhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1422014-02-13T17:22:34Z2014-02-13T17:22:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">OgreBattle wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">reika michiko wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The goblin firebomber gets a cool themed rocket... that ... fails hard.
<br />
...
<br />
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!
<br />
...
<br />
Dont get me wrong.. paizo... </blockquote><p>Reiko, what you're missing is Pathfinder's core "Waterballoon" philosophy of design.
<p>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.</p>
<p>You just happened to choose a 'waterballoon' option. If you don't believe me, then hear it from the lead designer of Pathfinder:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>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? </b>
<br />
.
<br />
.
<br />
.
<br />
Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge wrote:
<br />
Replace "water-balloon-throwing" with any of the following </p>
<p>axe-throwing
<br />
blowgun-firing
<br />
dagger-throwing
<br />
dart-throwing
<br />
javelin-throwing
<br />
sling-using
<br />
spear-throwing </p>
<p>and the complaint is no less ridiculous. </p>
<p><b>Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others</b>. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
<br />
</blockquote></blockquote><p>(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)
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>•(well Basic and OD&D were very simplistic, so there was little difference between weapons at all)</p>
<p>•• Since my GGreadMother was a Davies I can tell you it's the WELSH longbow, those rotten English pigdogs stole our wonderful invention...
<br />
;-)</p>OgreBattle wrote:reika michiko wrote:
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...DrDeth2014-02-13T17:22:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Green Smashomancerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1412014-02-13T16:52:53Z2014-02-13T16:52:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">reika michiko wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>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... </blockquote><p>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.reika michiko wrote: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,...Green Smashomancer2014-02-13T16:52:53ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Prince of Kniveshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1402014-02-13T15:32:29Z2014-02-13T15:32:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Diego Rossi wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Prince of Knives wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Simon Legrande wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Prince of Knives wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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 <b>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.</b>
<p>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. </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
</p>
the only NPC options are those for abilities that PC can't get in any form, and those are becoming fewer and fewer.</blockquote><p>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.Diego Rossi wrote:Prince of Knives wrote: Simon Legrande wrote: Prince of Knives wrote: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...Prince of Knives2014-02-13T15:32:29ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Diego Rossihttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1392014-02-13T16:55:54Z2014-02-13T15:27:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Prince of Knives wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Simon Legrande wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Prince of Knives wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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 <b>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.</b>
<p>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. </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
</p>
the only NPC options are those for abilities that PC can't get in any form, and those are becoming fewer and fewer.</p>Prince of Knives wrote:Simon Legrande wrote: Prince of Knives wrote: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...Diego Rossi2014-02-13T15:27:56ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?bugleymanhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1382014-03-01T15:40:15Z2014-02-13T14:55:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cardinal Chunder wrote:</div><blockquote>Also could you sign me up for the alpha test of your set of RPG rules. </blockquote><p>Could we <i>please</i> 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.Cardinal Chunder wrote: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...bugleyman2014-02-13T14:55:14ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?reika michikohttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1372014-02-13T14:39:45Z2014-02-13T14:39:45Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dennis Baker wrote:</div><blockquote><p> <span class=messageboard-ooc>I need to borrow Neil Spicer's muse here because I almost always come across as an A•hole on posts like this.</span></p>
<p>What was Paizo thinking? I imagine something along these lines:</p>
<p>"Goblins like big explosions and fire"</p>
<p><span class=messageboard-ooc>How do I make that into a rule?</span> <— this is the actual thinking bit.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Sorry you didn't enjoy rocket bomb. Hopefully you enjoy the rest. </blockquote><p>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).
<p>The rest of the archetype, flawless. The rocket bomb concept, genius. The implementation (imo) , failed.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I can tell you however I still hate you for teasing me with it whether intentional or not.</p>
<p>But.</p>
<p>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.</p>Dennis Baker wrote:I need to borrow Neil Spicer's muse here because I almost always come across as an A*hole on posts like this.
What was Paizo thinking? I imagine something along these lines:
"Goblins like big explosions and fire"
How do I make that into a rule? 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....reika michiko2014-02-13T14:39:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Coriathttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1362014-02-13T13:20:11Z2014-02-13T13:20:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">bugleyman wrote:</div><blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">DrDeth wrote:</div><blockquote>And if you listen to the optimizers the PHB is gonna be a little thin as it will only have one class in it.</blockquote><p>That's certainly one extreme. The other would have a book chock full of clearly terrible options, which hardly seems ideal either.
<p>I suspect these discussions would be more productive if we didn't treat others like caricatures quite so often. </blockquote><p>They might be more fun too.
<p>I kind of regret reading this thread, I think.</p>bugleyman wrote:DrDeth wrote: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.Coriat2014-02-13T13:20:11ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Prince of Kniveshttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1352014-02-13T11:45:33Z2014-02-13T11:45:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cardinal Chunder wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.
</p>
</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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 <i>nice</i> 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?</p>
<p>Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Baker have responded to this critique very professionally, which is nice to see. That's kinda what you <i>have</i> 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.</p>Cardinal Chunder wrote: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...Prince of Knives2014-02-13T11:45:33ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Cardinal Chunder (alias of Spacelard)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1342014-02-24T17:05:08Z2014-02-13T11:32:45Z<p>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.</p>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.Cardinal Chunder (alias of Spacelard)2014-02-13T11:32:45ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?A Man In Black (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1332014-02-13T19:19:51Z2014-02-13T10:55:12Z<p>It's not your fault that most archetypes are page-chewing low-content filler. Freelancers write to spec.</p>It's not your fault that most archetypes are page-chewing low-content filler. Freelancers write to spec.A Man In Black (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32)2014-02-13T10:55:12ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Dennis Baker (Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1322014-02-13T18:18:56Z2014-02-13T10:50:52Z<p><span class=messageboard-ooc>I need to borrow Neil Spicer's muse here because I almost always come across as an A•hole on posts like this.</span></p>
<p>What was Paizo thinking? I imagine something along these lines:</p>
<p>"Goblins like big explosions and fire"</p>
<p><span class=messageboard-ooc>How do I make that into a rule?</span> <— this is the actual thinking bit.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Sorry you didn't enjoy rocket bomb. Hopefully you enjoy the rest.</p>I need to borrow Neil Spicer's muse here because I almost always come across as an A*hole on posts like this.
What was Paizo thinking? I imagine something along these lines:
"Goblins like big explosions and fire"
How do I make that into a rule? <-- 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...Dennis Baker (Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16)2014-02-13T10:50:52ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?A Man In Black (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1312014-02-13T19:18:37Z2014-02-13T09:59:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Gorbacz wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Your argument is that the people you're attacking, the way you see it, are jerky jerks who are jerks who do jerky things and say jerky things because they are jerks.
<p>Yeah okay whatever man.</p>Gorbacz wrote: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.
Your argument is that the people you're attacking, the way you see it, are jerky jerks who are jerks who do jerky things and say jerky things because they are jerks. Yeah okay whatever man.A Man In Black (RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32)2014-02-13T09:59:03ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Gorbaczhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1302014-02-20T23:09:26Z2014-02-13T09:37:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Prince of Knives wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.
</p>
</blockquote><p>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.Prince of Knives wrote: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...Gorbacz2014-02-13T09:37:15ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?TheNinehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1292014-02-13T06:44:38Z2014-02-13T06:44:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Block Knight wrote:</div><blockquote><p> <b>@Prince of Knives</b> - 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. </p>
<p><b>To the thread in general</b>:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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... </blockquote><p>What he said +1The Block Knight wrote:@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...TheNine2014-02-13T06:44:38ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?OgreBattlehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1282019-01-30T19:10:42Z2014-02-13T05:08:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">reika michiko wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The goblin firebomber gets a cool themed rocket... that ... fails hard.
<br />
...
<br />
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!
<br />
...
<br />
Dont get me wrong.. paizo... </blockquote><p>Reiko, what you're missing is Pathfinder's core "Waterballoon" philosophy of design.
<p>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.</p>
<p>You just happened to choose a 'waterballoon' option. If you don't believe me, then hear it from the lead designer of Pathfinder:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<b>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? </b>
<br />
.
<br />
.
<br />
.
<br />
Sean K Reynolds Designer, RPG Superstar Judge wrote:
<br />
Replace "water-balloon-throwing" with any of the following </p>
<p>axe-throwing
<br />
blowgun-firing
<br />
dagger-throwing
<br />
dart-throwing
<br />
javelin-throwing
<br />
sling-using
<br />
spear-throwing </p>
<p>and the complaint is no less ridiculous. </p>
<p><b>Some options are worse than others because the game actually tries to model that some options in life are worse than others</b>. And by "worse" I mean "does less damage per round."
<br />
</blockquote><p>reika michiko wrote: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...OgreBattle2014-02-13T05:08:44ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Zenoguhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1272014-02-13T05:04:15Z2014-02-13T05:04:15Z<p>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!</p>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!Zenogu2014-02-13T05:04:15ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Simon Legrandehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1262014-03-04T01:34:00Z2014-02-13T03:39:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">The Block Knight wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
<p>Unfortunately necessary disclaimer: I'm joking people. I sure hope there isn't anyone who would take such an outrageous comment as this seriously.</p>The Block Knight wrote: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...Simon Legrande2014-02-13T03:39:42ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?The Block Knighthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1252014-02-24T17:05:03Z2014-02-13T02:35:34Z<p><b>@Prince of Knives</b> - 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. </p>
<p><b>To the thread in general</b>:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><b>TLDR:</b> 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.</p>@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...The Block Knight2014-02-13T02:35:34ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?LoneKnavehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1242016-09-03T17:34:57Z2014-02-13T02:23:51Z<p>I love the mechanic at play in this topic.</p>
<p>"This mechanical option sucks rotten shoggoth bawls"
<br />
"Yes, but isn't it FLAVORFUL! If it DIDN'T suck rotten shoggoth bawls a lot of the favor would be lost! Mmmmm... tasty tasty Shoggoth bawls!"</p>
<p>If you want weak and incompetent goblin NPCs you don't have to go out of your way to create bad alternate class features for them. You can just arrange their stats badly, pick feats badly, and then play them stupid. For example, it'd make sense if your generic goblin alchemist would be picked more for his resilience to accidental poisoning and the uncanny ability to run away from uncontrolled explosions than any actual talent at chemistry; in other words high CON, high DEX, and just enough INT that he can use extracts of his level would be perfectly fine for a goblin alchemist, but as a characeter he'd be pretty poor; and that's not even mentioning that you can just give him a 10pt or less stat pool.</p>
<p>OP's goblin rocket for example would have worked fine as a "goblin carrier rocket" ~5-10gp item instead of a discovery. Hell, give it a high misfire chance and make it 5sp and it's comical but as useful as the price implies.</p>
<p>If someone wants to make an uber goblin that's an examplar of his race, he shouldn't be held back by racial trap options that were intentionally created to be bad.</p>I love the mechanic at play in this topic.
"This mechanical option sucks rotten shoggoth bawls"
"Yes, but isn't it FLAVORFUL! If it DIDN'T suck rotten shoggoth bawls a lot of the favor would be lost! Mmmmm... tasty tasty Shoggoth bawls!"
If you want weak and incompetent goblin NPCs you don't have to go out of your way to create bad alternate class features for them. You can just arrange their stats badly, pick feats badly, and then play them stupid. For example, it'd make sense if your...LoneKnave2014-02-13T02:23:51ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Humphrey Boggard (alias of Humphey Boggard)https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1232014-03-10T18:27:19Z2014-02-13T01:47:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote>Anyway, this thread seems to have served its original purpose, so I'm stepping out for now.</blockquote><p>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?James Jacobs wrote: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?Humphrey Boggard (alias of Humphey Boggard)2014-02-13T01:47:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?AbsolutGrndZer0https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1222014-02-13T16:33:35Z2014-02-13T01:43:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">reika michiko wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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)</p>
<p>This is a very hostile and rude person that we should ignore.</p>
<p>You make very valid points, but they are tainted by your hostile attitude and insults to the staff themselves.</p>reika michiko wrote: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...AbsolutGrndZer02014-02-13T01:43:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: What was paizo thinking?Atarlosthttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qom6&page=3?What-was-paizo-thinking#1212014-02-13T00:56:04Z2014-02-13T00:56:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">MMCJawa wrote:</div><blockquote> Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take. </blockquote><p>Correct.
<p>You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. </blockquote><p>This isn't a valid excuse.
<p>Any sort of imbalance in menu options that NPCs can have makes CR less accurate. Every time a GM chooses something thematic with a circumstantial value that diverges from the expected value the game system looks bad. If it's obvious that an option shouldn't be used (such as skill focus diplomacy on a guard) and that option has a use in another kind of encounter (skill focus diplomacy on a demagogue that the PCs are intended to engage through opposed skill checks to influence an audience) it's not a problem, but a combat feat (or rage power or rogue talent or alchemist discovery or oracle revelation or whatever) that isn't balanced for its purpose is a problem whether it's targeted at PCs or NPCs. </p>
<p>This is most obvious among NPC classes. A level 5 NPC is CR 3 whatever class, but they're not balanced for any purpose. A warrior (or adept) is always a greater combat threat. An expert is always at least as good as any other NPC at skill challenges. Aristocrats have fall in the middle. Commoners always fail to live up to their CR whether they're opposing or supporting the PCs using skill rolls or attack rolls. </p>
<p>Just because a trap option is less extreme than the difference between a commoner and a warrior does not mean it should be published. GMs don't need options that aren't fit for any purpose. They have enough decisions to wade through, especially when they've already made the decision that their story needs a complicated NPC like an alchemist.</p>James Jacobs wrote:MMCJawa wrote: Paizo's default assumption is that goblins are an NPC race, so I would guess that this was written more for use of an enemy PC than something a player would take.
Correct. You CAN use them as a PC, but as with any rules that aren't intended to be fully for PCs, they start to get weird. This isn't a valid excuse. Any sort of imbalance in menu options that NPCs can have makes CR less accurate. Every time a GM chooses something thematic with a circumstantial...Atarlost2014-02-13T00:56:04Z