Is 3.5e bloat coming back?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Don't forget your type F or E poison on your darts. Goodbye wizards.
Its funnier to not use any poison, and just watch them vet more and more frustrated as they burn off all their spells as you disrupt them with 1 point of damage each.

Never heard of a spell called stone skin?

Pretty sure stone skin while protected from damage did not protect from spell disruption. 2e never stated that damage was the cut off point for losing a spell. A wobbly ship deck was enough.

I do know of some groups that did play the Stoneskin was the ultimate in Mage-wear, but we never believed that was the intent.

S.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Fair enough. I'll simply note that my own experiences with 2E were never balanced - ever - regardless of the classes.

Thus my uncertainty of your comment. I recognize that you generally feel d20-based games are heartily inferior to the old ones, and disagree with that assessment, so sometimes it's very difficult to tell whether you're just disliking the system or have a specific point, especially when it's so divergent from my own experiences.

As I see it, some people was routinely disregarding the balancing factors in the 1st and 2nd edition of AD&D and then complaining that the game was unbalanced.

At least, that is how I read in several of the posts by people that think that the older versions were unbalanced.
I don't have played enough of the Basic version to comment on how balanced it was.

It's quite possible. At the time I was hardly a gaming expert*, owned exactly zero of the books (we shared), and was entirely reliant on my local peerage of more experienced players for the actual running of the actual games.

Still - having a mage that can be one-shot who has the ability to effectively one-shot (i.e. a 1st level mage with sleep) sounds - and played - more like balance on a knife edge more than "class balance" in general.

From my memories - which, gosh, are at least more than a decade old, now (we switched immediately upon finding 3rd Edition and never regretted it) - it played out that way, too. Many complain of rocket tag now... but it never felt otherwise during that era.

I mean, just glancing at fireball reveals there's no save for half damage - at that time it just was and may all that's holy help you. Scare was simply horrid (unless you're an elf or priest) - we fell to that one so often. Pyrotechnics was a favorite for us with a bow and fiery arrow (not the flaming property - just an arrow that was on fire). Melf's Acid Arrow was pretty brutal. At first and second level Sleep was a guaranteed killer - no save, decent range, and so on. It averaged rather well for 3rd and 4th level, as I recall (and it seems to just looking at it), at which point you had a number of other options. Gaze Reflection was a straight-up immunity to gaze attacks.

The differing experience levels, in general, were exceedingly onerous, too - to the point that mages either quickly became relatively irrelevant in a party (due to the fore-mentioned saving throws), or they became supreme godlike beings too rapidly. Rogues were... special... in that they could acquire experience points by successfully stealing from their allies. We quickly earned more than one kleptomaniac who would then later return the acquired item as a method of gaining more XP and "roleplaying his character".

Yes, that's an abuse of the rules. Similarly, it often feels like, for whatever reason, many of the balance problems of d20 come from mechanics abused at the expense of intent.

The fact that everyone leveled up at the same time, had access to the same equipment, and generally followed the same rules was tremendously more balanced than our way of playing. Perhaps I was simply taught wrongly. It's possible. But it certainly was an experience.

Many balance complaints are - now - about the power of magic in general. For us, it was everything - magic, yes, but also warriors, paladins, rogues... everything. It was all balanced - again, by memory and anecdotal evidence - poorly. Sure you could shut down the mage easily. "Hurray! I still can't do anything!" isn't fun to play. (Neither is inter-party conflict in general which, especially with the rules in 2nd that I had access to, seemed slightly encouraged.)

* And I'm still not! I'm just far more experienced, and I own stuff now.

Diego Rossi wrote:
andreww wrote:

Late era 2e with all of the player options splats was very different to earlier versions of the game. It was far closer to 3e than what had gone before.

Earlier versions of the game were simpler. Players had far fewer choices to make during character creation or level up meaning the opportunity for mechanical customisation was much reduced. That arguably made them more balanced, their was less power discrepancy between individual classes (although it still existed). That doesn't mean they were necessarily better games, they were simply very different.

In a large way 3e was an extremely different game from 0e/1e/Basic/early 2e.

That probably is a factor in my evaluation of the earlier editions. I have the splatbooks but used very little of them. The "do it yourself" rules for the classes were optional and not well thought, same thing for a lot of the optional rules.

The thing is that those rules were optional, not part of core rules of the game.

I'm guessing that's probably where a lot of the disconnect lies for me. I was mid-to-late 2E era exclusively; thus I remember mostly balance problems and what you think of as optional rules used as basic introductory ones - I don't think I ever played without some of the later rules.

Anyway, as I said, I'm more than willing to chalk my experiences up to anecdotal evidence and just go with what the more experienced folk are saying. I'm simply explaining how it susses out in my own memories. :)


Tacticslion wrote:
I mean, just glancing at fireball reveals there's no save for half damage - at that time it just was and may all that's holy help you.

As I recall and as near as I can tell by checking online without my original books at hand, fireball had a save for half damage in both versions of AD&D and every version of Basic I looked at.

Chainmail and OD&D rules were different, but that's not what we're talking about here.


Looks like you're right. Probably a house-rule we used then. As I never owned the books (I now own a really terrible, if comprehensive pdf sent by a friend of mine via email, it notes:

copy/paste wrote:

Fireball (Evocation)

Range: 10 yds. + 10 yds./level Components: V, S, M
Duration: Instantaneous Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: 20-ft. radius Saving Throw: _

(bold mine)

However, it goes on to say,

more copy/paste plus minor 'pargaraph eyesore' editing wrote:

A fireball is an explosive burst of flame, which detonates with a low roar and delivers damage proportional to the level of the wizard who cast it--1d6 points of damage for each level of experience of the spellcaster (up to a maximum of 10d6). The burst of the fireball creates little pressure and generally conforms to the shape of the area in which it occurs. The fireball fills an area equal to its normal spherical volume (roughly 33,000 cubic feet--thirty-three 10-foot x 10-foot x 10-foot cubes). Besides causing damage to creatures, the fireball ignites all combustible materials within its burst radius, and the heat of the fireball melts soft metals such as gold, copper, silver, etc. Exposed items require saving throws vs. magical fire to determine if they are affected, but items in the possession of a creature that rolls a successful saving throw are unaffected by the fireball.

The wizard points his finger and speaks the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A streak flashes from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball (an early impact results in an early detonation). Creatures failing their saving throws each suffer full damage from the blast. Those who roll successful saving throws manage to dodge, fall flat, or roll aside, each receiving half damage (the DM rolls the damage and each affected creature suffers either full damage or half damage [round fractions down], depending on whether the creature saved or not).

The material component of this spell is a tiny ball of bat guano and sulphur.

(bold again mine)

So yeah, again, I'm wrong: cool. :)
(At the same time, however, I did say that my memories are pretty far back there! :D)


John Kretzer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Don't forget your type F or E poison on your darts. Goodbye wizards.
Its funnier to not use any poison, and just watch them vet more and more frustrated as they burn off all their spells as you disrupt them with 1 point of damage each.
Never heard of a spell called stone skin?

Unless memory is not serving me well, I don't think Stoneskin existed prior to 3x. So OD&D/1e - 2e wizards were very much susceptable to dart strikes.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Don't forget your type F or E poison on your darts. Goodbye wizards.
Its funnier to not use any poison, and just watch them vet more and more frustrated as they burn off all their spells as you disrupt them with 1 point of damage each.
Never heard of a spell called stone skin?
Unless memory is not serving me well, I don't think Stoneskin existed prior to 3x. So OD&D/1e - 2e wizards were very much susceptable to dart strikes.

Stoneskin first appeared in 2e. The spell stated that for each stoneskin charge used no damage was taken. This was, and I think wrongly, taken to be that it made the mage immune to loosing any spell currently being cast. Nowhere in the spell description does it say this. All the spells description says is hit or miss a stoneskin charge is used up. So if a claw/claw/bite attack occured then 3 stoneskin charges would be used irrespective of the attack rolls. This meant in most cases actually rolling to hit did not matter. However for a caster to lose a spell they are currently casting all that was required was for them to be hit. It isn't stated (from memory) that a point or more of damage is required.

In short even with a stoneskin spell running if a mage was casting a spell to hit rolls were still made to check for spell disruption even if ultimately zero hit point damage would be inflicted. I say this because no where in the stoneskin spell discription does it state you do not follow normal combat produres, i.e. roll to hit etc.

S.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
John Kretzer wrote:


Another issue I want to take a moment to address...organized play. And it is a question really...why should Pazio give much thought to what is a minority of players? 1) I am sure the PfS will migrate the rules to keeps things close to balance...and 2) I really don't think abook like this with all of it's great gateways into RPing is really meant for the PFS in the first place.

PFS is not a "minority of players", it's a major driver of Paizo's sales. I'd say that the bulk of Pathfinder play in my region is PFS driven. I'd go far enough to say that Paizo would be out of business today if they hadn't been canny enough to set up PFS practically on day one.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
I'd go far enough to say that Paizo would be out of business today if they hadn't been canny enough to set up PFS practically on day one.

Even as a fairly regular PFS player, I think that is an overstatement.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. Let's not derail this please.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Overall, I believe the current set up that Paizo has is much better than the tail end of the T$R debacle.

The "bloat" that was released at the "end" of 3.5 was testing the waters for some things in the later release of a new edition.


thaX wrote:
The "bloat" that was released at the "end" of 3.5 was testing the waters for some things in the later release of a new edition.

Some of the content near the end was some of my favorite.

In other news,

Question wrote:
Is there bloat?

Answer:
Are there new books?

Stefan Hill wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Don't forget your type F or E poison on your darts. Goodbye wizards.
Its funnier to not use any poison, and just watch them vet more and more frustrated as they burn off all their spells as you disrupt them with 1 point of damage each.
Never heard of a spell called stone skin?
Unless memory is not serving me well, I don't think Stoneskin existed prior to 3x. So OD&D/1e - 2e wizards were very much susceptable to dart strikes.

Stoneskin first appeared in 2e. The spell stated that for each stoneskin charge used no damage was taken. This was, and I think wrongly, taken to be that it made the mage immune to loosing any spell currently being cast. Nowhere in the spell description does it say this. All the spells description says is hit or miss a stoneskin charge is used up. So if a claw/claw/bite attack occured then 3 stoneskin charges would be used irrespective of the attack rolls. This meant in most cases actually rolling to hit did not matter. However for a caster to lose a spell they are currently casting all that was required was for them to be hit. It isn't stated (from memory) that a point or more of damage is required.

In short even with a stoneskin spell running if a mage was casting a spell to hit rolls were still made to check for spell disruption even if ultimately zero hit point damage would be inflicted. I say this because no where in the stoneskin spell discription does it state you do not follow normal combat produres, i.e. roll to hit etc.

S.

I will not challenge your knowledge of 2e, I woudl only add that at least in baldurs gate/ Ice wind dale I, stone skind do protect against being disrupted by Hp damage.


Stefan Hill wrote:
Stoneskin first appeared in 2e. The spell stated that for each stoneskin charge used no damage was taken. This was, and I think wrongly, taken to be that it made the mage immune to loosing any spell currently being cast.

Stoneskin first appeared in Unearthed Arcana for 1e.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tacticslion wrote:


The differing experience levels, in general, were exceedingly onerous, too - to the point that mages either quickly became relatively irrelevant in a party (due to the fore-mentioned saving throws), or they became supreme godlike beings too rapidly. Rogues were... special... in that they could acquire experience points by successfully stealing from their allies. We quickly earned more than one kleptomaniac who would then later return the acquired item as a method of gaining more XP and "roleplaying his character".

Yes, that's an abuse of the rules. Similarly, it often feels like, for whatever reason, many of the balance problems of d20 come from mechanics abused at the expense of intent.

The 2nd edition rules about experience ..... I had deleted them from my memory. As my circle of players started playing with the first edition after a few games we reverted to the 1st edition rules.

The individual class awards were horrible. No one that I know used them as written for long.

So I must correct my statement, 1st edition was more balanced, you had to change some thing to keep the 2nd edition balanced.


We were really happy when they disappeared. :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
andreww wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Stoneskin first appeared in 2e. 1The spell stated that for each stoneskin charge used no damage was taken. This was, and I think wrongly, taken to be that it made the mage immune to loosing any spell currently being cast.
Stoneskin first appeared in Unearthed Arcana for 1e.

But from what I recall it was very different. I was an protective layer that blocked a single successful attack and then crumbled.

The rues about spellcasting were different.
You did lose your dexterity bonus to AC while spellcasting, you were unable to cast spells wile on "the back of a galloping horse" or "the deck of a ship during a storm" /but you could cast below deck, where you were protected from the elements,
You loosed your spell if struck while casting or if failed a sawing throw.
You had to see the target location of the spell o cast it.

@Stefan Hill , 2ed stoneskin protected you from the attack, so you weren't it. That is way it allowed you to complete your spell.

Even more important was the time needed to memorize the spells. 10 minutes for each level of the spell. There was not the handy rule "you spend 1 hour to memorize all your spells". Memorizing the spells of a 7th level wizard required 200 minutes. Those of a 8th level wizard 320 minutes. And you could study your spells for at most 8 hours in a day.
You were rarely burning all your spell slots.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I'd go far enough to say that Paizo would be out of business today if they hadn't been canny enough to set up PFS practically on day one.
Even as a fairly regular PFS player, I think that is an overstatement.

I wouldn't. A lot of players are introduced to the game via PFS, even if they end up playing home games later on. As far as a living campaign, PFS has gotten past some of the huddles that some other organized play has hit, like a brick wall. I have heard horrer stories about (insert brand name Living Campaign here) and what ended up being the end of it's support.

PFS also reveals the overall feel of the world for the brand as the "story" is told through the Scenarios.

I think Paizo is in the shape that it is because PFS has been the success that it is, and continuing to support it, update it, and tell the story of each season is doing more than anything else to promote the brand.


thaX wrote:

I wouldn't. A lot of players are introduced to the game via PFS, even if they end up playing home games later on. As far as a living campaign, PFS has gotten past some of the huddles that some other organized play has hit, like a brick wall. I have heard horrer stories about (insert brand name Living Campaign here) and what ended up being the end of it's support.

PFS also reveals the overall feel of the world for the brand as the "story" is told through the Scenarios.

I think Paizo is in the shape that it is because PFS has been the success that it is, and continuing to support it, update it, and tell the story of each season is doing more than anything else to promote the brand.

I get that PFS is important, but out of business? I don't see it. I guess we'll just have to disagree. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I don't personally know anyone that is playing PF who is doing so through PFS. Most people I know playing PF extensively use 3PP material, meaning they aren't playing PFS. So PFS might be a force to be reckoned with somewhere, just not where I sit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The designers have said that the main revenue stream for Paizo is the AP subscription, not the PFS scenarios. They presumably have access to global sales data, beyond just one person's gaming group. Sorry thaX and LazarX, but your gaming group is not representative.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

What's that there with all their "new material", and other newfangled doo-dads.

Back in my day, low AC was good, and we only needed one book!

Get off my lawn!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, out of Business may be a stretch. I think PFS has helped out a lot for promotional reasons. The firm placement into the setting is also a strong point for Pathfinder, as the neutral setting aspect that started with a non-mention with 3.5 and the gutting out of any setting enviroment in *ahem* what came after did not go well with a lot of the old guard.

I don't think they would be near where they are without PFS, though, so it can't be completely discounted.

I do agree that the AP's are a big part of their overall business, Rise of the Rune Lords is what brought me into the fold.


I have no knowledge of where paizos business and money omes from, so I can't really comment on if they'd be out of business or not.

What I do know is that pfs has broken 100k players. I have roughly 35 people who play at flgs,and am part of an online community of about 50 pfs players, and rthe collective which is about 600(I think), though probably only half that number are active.

I also game with people with no interest in organized play, though not in as large as numbers so my data is poorer on that side. Sol I can say the following though much is speculation.

PFS Players
Are more about pf, usually all about pf. This means all their "rpg" cash goes into pf.
They buy more stuff from paizo, because they have to. I have seen a husband/wife team own separate books in case one wasn't gaming with the other. Very few people are playing core only. That means more purchases. Not to mention all the scenarios, modules and now even aps.
More like to run published content set in golarion. I do think this is a positive thing for paizo as it keeps people lore immersed.
Less likely to buy 3rd party content.

Non-pfs player
Often system floppers. Both my live groups play a game of pf, then flop to a different system, then flop back to pf.
They buy less to no stuff from paizo. At one of my live groups I am the only one who owns anything from paizo, everyone else uses the pf sites. The other group the gm does at least have some paizo stuff, but no one else does.
Less likely to run published content. I've never played published content with anyone who wasn't into pfs. This is a big negative for paizo keeping players immersed in their world, and makes it easier to switch systems.
More likely to spend their extra cash on 3rd party content.

Anyway, that's what I've noticed, so from my experience a pfs player makes a much stronger consumer for paizo.


A lot of what I think about this has been said before on this thread:
1) Lots of options will necessarily have to be worse than other options. Many options will have to be better than other options. If every options is identical, are there really options at all.
~~~
2) I like the comparison to MtG, a game where it is pretty common knowledge that some cards are really good, some are really bad, and most will never see competitive Constructed tournament play. Why do they print them all? Players who like mastering rules analysis get to win tournaments, players who like big creatures can smash stuff, players who only look for crazy combos can find them. If you can remember that the cards are not only made for Standard Constructed Tournaments, the existence of bad cards is fine. In fact, MtG has made formats where bad constructed cards can shine as good draft options, and where the fact that the same mediocre creatures show up with different names and pictures in different sets is welcomed by the players.

Pathfinder is no different. Some people want to be the most mechanically proficient ever. Some people want to have a great story. Some people want to have a super-specialized character. Lots of options give everyone a little of what they want.
~~~
3)GMs need and want options too. Just because a PC would never take a feat does not mean that there will not be an NPC who has a very unique flavor, a super specialized non-combat role, or might just want a sub-optimal but surprising flavor on an ability to stump the PCs.
~~~
4) Traits are repetitive because not everyone wants to have been a bullied child in order to get that +2 to their initiative. The traits are supposed to help you come up with an interesting character background, and the rewards are bribery (as JJ has said). Since a skillful GM can make a fun campaign for a poorly optimized party too, your decisions can be made for less than optimal reasons, or the GM can be sure to include the decisions as part of the campaign, giving a much more compelling reason to have interesting characters than a +1 to Reflex saves.
~~~
5) Bloat is a super-loaded term. Especially when discussing DD3.5. Does Pathfinder continue to get new rules and options, yes. Bloat is in the mind of the individual though. Is their content much less focused on crunch than DD3.5, very likely. Do they provide people with many fun but not particularly overpowered options, many under-powered but flavorful options, and a few options that can interact weirdly with past options, sure. On top of this they provide a lot of information about the setting, and make very high quality, regular adventure paths.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

I have no knowledge of where paizos business and money omes from, so I can't really comment on if they'd be out of business or not.

What I do know is that pfs has broken 100k players. I have roughly 35 people who play at flgs,and am part of an online community of about 50 pfs players, and rthe collective which is about 600(I think), though probably only half that number are active.

I also game with people with no interest in organized play, though not in as large as numbers so my data is poorer on that side. Sol I can say the following though much is speculation.

PFS Players
Are more about pf, usually all about pf. This means all their "rpg" cash goes into pf.
They buy more stuff from paizo, because they have to. I have seen a husband/wife team own separate books in case one wasn't gaming with the other. Very few people are playing core only. That means more purchases. Not to mention all the scenarios, modules and now even aps.
More like to run published content set in golarion. I do think this is a positive thing for paizo as it keeps people lore immersed.
Less likely to buy 3rd party content.

Non-pfs player
Often system floppers. Both my live groups play a game of pf, then flop to a different system, then flop back to pf.
They buy less to no stuff from paizo. At one of my live groups I am the only one who owns anything from paizo, everyone else uses the pf sites. The other group the gm does at least have some paizo stuff, but no one else does.
Less likely to run published content. I've never played published content with anyone who wasn't into pfs. This is a big negative for paizo keeping players immersed in their world, and makes it easier to switch systems.
More likely to spend their extra cash on 3rd party content.

Anyway, that's what I've noticed, so from my experience a pfs player makes a much stronger consumer for paizo.

I know its purely annequdotal but I am not a pfs player (I specifically dont like organized play). Yet I and my group have bought a TON of paizo stuff (have a whole 3 row bookshelf loaded with paizo books, adventures and setting material), another dm in our group has bought nearly as much as me, and everyone else has bought a few book each.

I dont think your statement that non-pfs players are less likely to run published content makes any sense beyond just my own experience. Adventure paths are the flagship product of paizo. Presumably most (but not all) of the adventure paths are bought with the intention of running them. Only portions of adventure paths can be run as part of pfs, and the vast majority of it will be in home games.

That leads me to believe a significant portion of non-pfs tables that play pathfinder are commited enough to at least run adventure paths. Which likely means they are invested in golarion to at least some degree.


I agree my experience is limited as there are probably hundreds of thousands of players I've never come in contact with. I just know, personally, the only people I know who run AP's and not homebrew games are PFS players. On the flip side, a very large number(not all) of the PFS players I know (I am not included in this, I prefer homebrew) won't play anything thats not paizo published AP content.

Obviously, Paizo works very hard at putting out many products that are Golarion specific. Most homebrew gamers will not buy a ton of those products, as it doesn't interest them, and they can get it off archives of nethys or the pfsrd. This leaves them out of a lot of products, and Paizo's flagship, AP's.

Now, only having one setting (Golarion) was IMHO a wonderful move on Paizo's part from a marketing standpoint.


John Kerpan wrote:
2) I like the comparison to MtG, a game where it is pretty common knowledge that some cards are really good, some are really bad, and most will never see competitive Constructed tournament play. Why do they print them all? Players who like mastering rules analysis get to win tournaments, players who like big creatures can smash stuff, players who only look for crazy combos can find them. If you can remember that the cards are not only made for Standard Constructed Tournaments, the existence of bad cards is fine.

If I remember correctly, 3.5 was actually built on a lot of design ideas from MTG, including trap options. Pathfinder inherited a lot of things from 3.5, but I'm not sure how much from a design standpoint. So it may not be far off. Another if I remember correctly, is that they want to stay relatively the same balance as they have in core in future books. That said, I don't always remember correctly.

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Now, only having one setting (Golarion) was IMHO a wonderful move on Paizo's part from a marketing standpoint.

YMMV of course, while bloat from multiple settings has sank plenty of games, a lack of toolkit isn't very friendly and if your not a fan of golarion you can feel like your not given much to work with. Golarion also is a kitchen sink setting.


Ah...the trap options, yes, those are in pathfinder because water ballons and all that. Lets not walk this road here, IN PF more options not neccesarily ahve to be power creep nor traps.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

" Is 3.5e bloat coming back? "

Did it ever leave?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

" Is 3.5e bloat coming back? "

Did it ever leave?

Well I do still have all my 3.5 books...

:)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

While I don't like bloat, I think the biggest problem here are internet forums. Just because person X found a way to combine abilities from 10 different books to create an uber character combo on an internet forum doesn't mean a system is inherently broken or that there is too much bloat. Don't worry about what player X does in his game and posts it on a forum, just worry about your own game and if you don't want it there then don't allow it.

Too many people just want to win on the internet.


shallowsoul wrote:
While I don't like bloat, I think the biggest problem here are internet forums. Just because person X found a way to combine abilities from 10 different books to create an uber character combo on an internet forum doesn't mean a system is inherently broken or that there is too much bloat. Don't worry about what player X does in his game and posts it on a forum, just worry about your own game and if you don't want it there then don't allow it.

*sigh*

Again: PFS.

Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


shallowsoul wrote:

While I don't like bloat, I think the biggest problem here are internet forums. Just because person X found a way to combine abilities from 10 different books to create an uber character combo on an internet forum doesn't mean a system is inherently broken or that there is too much bloat. Don't worry about what player X does in his game and posts it on a forum, just worry about your own game and if you don't want it there then don't allow it.

Too many people just want to win on the internet.

What if it only needs 1 book, and it's the CRB? Can we call the game broken then?


LoneKnave wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

While I don't like bloat, I think the biggest problem here are internet forums. Just because person X found a way to combine abilities from 10 different books to create an uber character combo on an internet forum doesn't mean a system is inherently broken or that there is too much bloat. Don't worry about what player X does in his game and posts it on a forum, just worry about your own game and if you don't want it there then don't allow it.

Too many people just want to win on the internet.

What if it only needs 1 book, and it's the CRB? Can we call the game broken then?

No. You can just ban that book and it'll be fine.

</snark>

Silver Crusade

bugleyman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
While I don't like bloat, I think the biggest problem here are internet forums. Just because person X found a way to combine abilities from 10 different books to create an uber character combo on an internet forum doesn't mean a system is inherently broken or that there is too much bloat. Don't worry about what player X does in his game and posts it on a forum, just worry about your own game and if you don't want it there then don't allow it.

*sigh*

Again: PFS.

Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.


shallowsoul wrote:
I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.

Good for you. But for those of us who do, the point is that we can't "not allow it."

I repeat: Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

"Just because broken exploits exist doesn't mean the system is broken."

Kind of a neat philosophy. Can we apply that to law and finance too?


Honestly the pathfinder problem is not rules bloat. The archtypes do not result in anywhere near the same clutter as the prestige classes. Additionally, so many prestige classes existed so that NPCs could have levels in an organization or some other setting specific group and those prestige classes were usually terrible. Each archtype, however, is generally written as though somebody might actually want to play it.

The pathfinder problem is that they are both cursed and blessed to have slowly figured out ways to cover up d20s warts. Hybrid classes are better than multi-classing and usually results in more interesting characters and happier players.

Systems like grit, rage powers, and the other "fiddly" elements like the magus arcane pool show that people ENJOY having a number of things to tinker with, even novice players like this stuff.

The blessing of this is that they have done a good job of giving the game the things it has needed to patch over the things that people knew were not working.

The curse is that things from the first round of fixes, the core rulebook especially, now looks like the first draft of where the game actually is now.


thejeff wrote:

"Just because broken exploits exist doesn't mean the system is broken."

Kind of a neat philosophy. Can we apply that to law and finance too?

It already does? At least according to the people in those fields...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Arriving to this discussion late...

Bloat is coming back only if you insist on using every source all the time.

Stick with the core rules and the Ultimate books and be done with it. No need to add those Pathfinder Companions or any of the fluff from the campaign setting books. Even if a player runs out and buys the new shiny doesn't mean I have to let him or her use it.

Silver Crusade

bugleyman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.

Good for you. But for those of us who do, the point is that we can't "not allow it."

I repeat: Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well how about you list the problems you are having?


14 people marked this as a favorite.

A friend of mine who is an avid Pathfinder enthusiast, buying lots of pdfs and such, scouring rules all over the place to find cool magic items and the like, expressed to me what was my feelings of 3.5 only recently.

"I feel like in most of the books there's only like 20% of content that's actually decent and usable and stands up well next to the CRB + APG + Bestiary. The other 80% is just bloat that's usually either false options, or just badly written"

I'm inclined to agree. That's not saying that I dislike Pathfinder or anything, but having seen the path 3.5 took, Paizo is definitely heading down that road. It was the same way in 3.5. I could go to my shelf right now, tear out about 20% of the pages of each book up there barring the core books, put them in a binder, and throw everything else away, and I'd essentially have everything.

I'm not ripping my books up though. *hiss*

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.

Good for you. But for those of us who do, the point is that we can't "not allow it."

I repeat: Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well how about you list the problems you are having?

Basically what they are saying is that in PFS, the problem is that as a DM and as a player, there is no option to disallow something that broken/over-powered/disruptive if it is a legal source. In home games, the DM can just say no, it's not allowed, but in PFS, if it is legal and the individual can show that they own the products it comes from on the spot, the DM and other players are powerless to do anything about it in the game, and also can not switch the adventure at all to make it more challenging or fun for everyone else. Summoners and Magus's come up a lot for this, especially the Dervish Dancing + Shocking Grasp one that one-shot the BBEG. Not saying I agree, just explaining, I think.

Silver Crusade

DM Beckett wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I'm a weekly player of PFS and we don't encounter this problem.

Good for you. But for those of us who do, the point is that we can't "not allow it."

I repeat: Just because a problem doesn't exist for you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well how about you list the problems you are having?
Basically what they are saying is that in PFS, the problem is that as a DM and as a player, there is no option to disallow something that broken/over-powered/disruptive if it is a legal source. In home games, the DM can just say no, it's not allowed, but in PFS, if it is legal and the individual can show that they own the products it comes from on the spot, the DM and other players are powerless to do anything about it in the game, and also can not switch the adventure at all to make it more challenging or fun for everyone else. Summoners and Magus's come up a lot for this, especially the Dervish Dancing + Shocking Grasp one that one-shot the BBEG. Not saying I agree, just explaining, I think.

There is actually a list of what is allowed in PFS and I can't remember seeing Summoners on that list.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:

A friend of mine who is an avid Pathfinder enthusiast, buying lots of pdfs and such, scouring rules all over the place to find cool magic items and the like, expressed to me what was my feelings of 3.5 only recently.

"I feel like in most of the books there's only like 20% of content that's actually decent and usable and stands up well next to the CRB + APG + Bestiary. The other 80% is just bloat that's usually either false options, or just badly written"

I'm inclined to agree. That's not saying that I dislike Pathfinder or anything, but having seen the path 3.5 took, Paizo is definitely heading down that road. It was the same way in 3.5. I could go to my shelf right now, tear out about 20% of the pages of each book up there barring the core books, put them in a binder, and throw everything else away, and I'd essentially have everything.

I'm not ripping my books up though. *hiss*

What is "decent" is actually subjective depending on your playstyle. I personally don't choose options just for their mechanical benefit, I choose options that go with my character's story, background, or concept.

251 to 300 of 592 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is 3.5e bloat coming back? All Messageboards