Is 3.5e bloat coming back?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 592 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others? It seems to me that Pathfinder is designed as a simulation (not of actual reality but of some fantasy reality which is a bit like ours) and that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.

If I choose to fight with a dagger, wont I necessarily be worse off in battle than if I choose a longsword (except for some specific situations) and isnt it right for the mechanics to reflect that? Similarly, if I choose to specialise in obscure, not-terribly-common situations shouldnt I expect to be worse overall?

Ashiel's Fierce Retaliation feat seems like a very good example - I can see that, if one is focussed on being the most effective, this is not a very good choice. But what's the reason against having less effective options?

FWIW, I think there should be some kind of "flavor" tag to clearly identify which feats have been deliberately designed to be suboptimal - at least that way people would be less likely to be seduced into taking a weaker option. Nonetheless, I dont see anything wrong with having some choice being worse than others.

Scarab Sages

Ipslore the Red wrote:
Specifically, PrCs being the best options forever, 100 base classes and 500 PrCs, a zillion special materials, and so on.

Prestige Classes are very rarely used in Pathfinder.

I have six characters, only one of which (who just hit 11th level) just took his first level in a prestige class. And I really could have done without it.

That said, Evangelist is indeed OP. 9/10 class progression for *everything* in a class, plus three boons and an obedience, plus great skills, plus +2 to AC.

There's too little downside for all the upside.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others?

Of course! Some have to be worse. You can't actually make all options 100% even, but you can try to.

Steve Geddes wrote:
that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.

Sort of, but there's no way to tell what is good and bad beyond system mastery, and the fact there isn't a high expectation for them to be used is kind of bleh. You could just as easily role play your bad decisions. "heavily armed front door... or back." Its a lot easier to make something suboptimal through your own choice than to try and shift through what is and isn't. Some things are so suboptimal they're just awful choices, and some are so optimal nearly everyone takes them. Could probably be a little better.

Deliberately making something suboptimal is a little bleh imo. There was once a discussion about this and it went to realism, but then you wonder how realistic pathfinder is, and somehow crossbows were compared to waterballoons even though crossbows aren't waterballoons, which is why we know sometimes see references to water balloons.

On a more meta note, There has to be bloat to grow, but I think the quality of those new options can always be called into question. I'd hope the game is always doing better. A lot of books still have material I may as well cross off with a marker.

Liberty's Edge

ShakaUVM wrote:

That said, Evangelist is indeed OP. 9/10 class progression for *everything* in a class, plus three boons and an obedience, plus great skills, plus +2 to AC.

There's too little downside for all the upside.

Rogue BAB, Saves, and Hit Dice, plus the loss of Favored Class bonuses, plus that lost level make it...not as good as you're implying.

The Rogue chassis makes full BAB class characters not want it, and the lost caster level makes it suboptimal for full casters most of the time...even Rogues lose skill points and Favored Class.

It's very nice for Monks and especially Warpriests, and solid for a number of other speific builds, but far from being overpowering for the most part.


ShakaUVM wrote:
Prestige Classes are very rarely used in Pathfinder.

That's probably not a good thing. You want people to use things right? Or at least be things they'd want to use. Otherwise what's the point?


Crossbows were compared to water balloons because it was found that by level 11 (Or was it level 3?) you would be more effective throwing water balloons (or rocks) than using a crossbow.

Crossbows in Pathfinder should be using the Gun rules honestly. Targeting touch AC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others? It seems to me that Pathfinder is designed as a simulation (not of actual reality but of some fantasy reality which is a bit like ours) and that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.

If I choose to fight with a dagger, wont I necessarily be worse off in battle than if I choose a longsword (except for some specific situations) and isnt it right for the mechanics to reflect that? Similarly, if I choose to specialise in obscure, not-terribly-common situations shouldnt I expect to be worse overall?

This tends to be my view on it too. IRL, if I decide to spend time playing games rather than studying, I'm going to be somewhat less optimal than if I studied more. I can also study more, but choose classes that are pretty much useless to my future but are more interesting.

Making those choices are part of who I am. The choices my characters make are part of who they are. I tend to consider their own interests and personality when I make those choices (bearing in mind some of those choices may have been made years previously and could reflect decisions made in reaction to past events), rather than how well they'll serve them as an adventurer. Some of my characters don't use the best available weapon, because the best available weapon doesn't fit the character in my mind. Some don't have the best possible spells, because I see the character preferring different spells.

However, that isn't to say some choices couldn't use beefing up mechanically to bring them on a par with others. Some certainly could. It's important to differentiate between "suboptimal choices" and "mechanics that could be improved" - the former is a valid player choice, the latter is something that could be improved in game design. I accept that both exist, but only the latter could use "fixing" (the idea of some kind of hint in the book is a good one, though!)

Liberty's Edge

MrSin wrote:
ShakaUVM wrote:
Prestige Classes are very rarely used in Pathfinder.
That's probably not a good thing. You want people to use things right? Or at least be things they'd want to use. Otherwise what's the point?

I've actually seen prestige classes used in play, and suggested in a bunch of building threads as well. People do, in fact, appear to be using them. They aren't really optimal, but they're not bad at all if you want to do what the particular Prestige Class aids in.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MrSin wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others?

Of course! Some have to be worse. You can't actually make all options 100% even, but you can try to.

Steve Geddes wrote:
that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.
Sort of, but there's no way to tell what is good and bad beyond system mastery, and the fact there isn't a high expectation for them to be used is kind of bleh. You could just as easily role play your bad decisions. "heavily armed front door... or back." Its a lot easier to make something suboptimal through your own choice than to try and shift through what is and isn't. Some things are so suboptimal they're just awful choices, and some are so optimal nearly everyone takes them. Could probably be a little better.

Cheers. I guess as I see it the people who are likely to want to take a suboptimal choice for flavor reasons are probably less likely to care about sifting through rulebooks trying to determine whether they're screwing themselves over, so I dont really see who the victim is (beginners, perhaps?)

I dont really know any, but my guess would be that those with decent system mastery are going to sift through the options anyway regardless of the degree of imbalance.

Quote:
Deliberately making something suboptimal is a little bleh imo. There was once a discussion about this and it went to realism, but then you wonder how realistic pathfinder is, and somehow crossbows were compared to waterballoons even though crossbows aren't waterballoons, which is why we know sometimes see references to water balloons.

Yeah, I think it's a mistake to label any RPG or subsystem of such "realistic". In my view their realism ranges along a scale from "atrociously awful" to "totally terrible".

Quote:
On a more meta note, There has to be bloat to grow, but I think the quality of those new options can always be called into question. I'd hope the game is always doing better. A lot of books still have material I may as well cross off with a marker.

I wonder if it's all down to the broad church of the PF base. My favorite example of this stuff is the separatist archetype (which, as I understand it is just strictly worse than a cleric with no deity - except in the rare instances when a DM wont allow such clerics but will allow separatists). Nonetheless, I'd prefer to take the separatist, since from my perspective a "flavor penalty" is worth more if I give something up mechanically.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
MrSin wrote:
ShakaUVM wrote:
Prestige Classes are very rarely used in Pathfinder.
That's probably not a good thing. You want people to use things right? Or at least be things they'd want to use. Otherwise what's the point?
I've actually seen prestige classes used in play, and suggested in a bunch of building threads as well. People do, in fact, appear to be using them. They aren't really optimal, but they're not bad at all if you want to do what the particular Prestige Class aids in.

I agree. I hear people say this all the time but I see multiclass and PRC's all the time in PFS, and many are very effective. And many can even good from an optimization standpoint depending on your goals.

Out of my 14 PFS characters my characters are or will be:
6 will be Single Class
2 will be multi class with Non-PRCS
6 will have PRC's - some of them more than one

And you can ask the groups I play with, I often get accused of being a "dirty optimizer", "power gamer" and having "broken" builds regardless of what I'm playing. Not one of these is taking evangelist...or they weren't planning to initially, I think one may switch that way now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

What is everyone's definition of bloat?

For me it is when tons and tons of useless options are printed for seemingly no reason except to fill up page space.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

What is everyone's definition of bloat?

For me it is when tons and tons of useless options are printed for seemingly no reason except to fill up page space.

For me it'd be either of the following:

When the table can no longer accommodate the number of books needed to play the game.

As long as a game continues to be modular enough not to require its entire printed history for every single campaign, I'm happy. I don't need all four bestiaries at the table, or every single campaign setting book, or every player companion, just the ones needed for the choices in the upcoming game. Even better, I can get PDFs and just print off the relevant pages.

... or ...

When an inordinate amount of time is spent looking things up and cross-referencing between different rules

When book W layers on top of book X's rules for book Y's addendum to book Z's revision of the core rulebook's rules for doing A, B, or C. Anything that involves this rule giving an exception to that rule in this situation when the day of the week has an "o" in it, except between the hours of 5 and 6am, other than when assisted by that player with this skill within five minutes of killing some particular creature.

For me, that is the *worst* kind of rules bloat, as it's the kind of bloat that bloats my brain mid-game. Luckily, anything approaching that I can usually deal with effectively as a GM by deciding to house rule anything that takes too long to process out of existence.

To put it another way - my definition of rules bloat is when the rules get in the way of playing the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Cheers. I guess as I see it the people who are likely to want to take a suboptimal choice for flavor reasons are probably less likely to care about sifting through rulebooks trying to determine whether they're screwing themselves over, so I dont really see who the victim is (beginners, perhaps?)

I dont really know any, but my guess would be that those with decent system mastery are going to sift through the options anyway regardless of the degree of imbalance.

Of course that's kind of the whole reason why useless options are bad. It's really not fair to people who just want to do something fun and flavorful to have to suffer because a large % of the material released is just plain bad / unusable / will make you bad at what you do. It requires system mastery just to avoid falling into these pits, and that's not fair.

You should be able to play casually without being punished for it. If this were the case, you'd see a lot less threads where people are complaining that one or two players are "such terrible power gamers" when their characters, which observed, aren't OP at all (and are often underpowered, below WBL, and/or are obviously not even trying to be OP) but the other PCs in the group have just fallen into the pits of "cool but useless".

There was a thread on the boards here just recently that described just this. A very unremarkable monk was "outshining" the rest of the party when he was buffed a little bit. But he was next to characters like a ranger/wizard who specialized in crossbows.

Quote:
Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others? It seems to me that Pathfinder is designed as a simulation (not of actual reality but of some fantasy reality which is a bit like ours) and that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.

No. Pathfinder is definitely not a reality simulation game. You mention daggers being less effective than longswords, but the fact is crossbows were not so horribly ineffective in reality. And sling shooters were horribly feared on battlefields, had long ranges, and could fire multiple slingshots very quickly. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the level of detail that the d20 system goes into, and it's close enough to simulation in the guts of the system (before classes, spells, and feats, just the basic stuff that is ported from d20 game to d20 game, such as the way object hardness, combat, etc works).

However, PF is definitely not a simulation. Hell, the "bastard sword" shouldn't even exist and is proof of both useless mechanics and a simulation fail. In reality, the sword you're thinking of when you're talking about a hand-an-a-half sword is in fact the Longsword. And the funny thing is, to a degree, this kind of shows in the fact the longsword does everything that the bastard sword is supposed to do (it has all the benefits of being both a 1-handed weapon and a 2-handed weapon).

Simulation AND rules failure. It happens.

And yes, there's a lot of material that is just very underwhelming or problematic. Bloat has nothing to do with prestige classes. It has to do with tons of mechanics that will never truly see the light of day because they aren't any good. That includes archetypes, feats, prestige classes, magic items, spells, etc.

And some of us have noticed it's heading that way. 3.5 was really bad for doing that. Probably the best example was the Complete Warrior which had just a tiny handful of actually decent material in it. The rest of it was trash. In fact, if there was a book I'd care the least about being stolen from me, it'd probably be that one because nobody uses the damn thing beyond Shock Trooper*. >_>

*:Which has fewer mechanical problems in Pathfinder due to the way Power Attack works these days.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course the other side of bloat is more and more better options, so that you need all the new books to keep up with the power creep.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Of course the other side of bloat is more and more better options, so that you need all the new books to keep up with the power creep.

Yeah I'll agree with that. I'm not really a big fan of power creep either. Power leveling, sure, but not power creep.

For example, I don't mind if new splat material helps to even out some of the weaker classes. For example, I like how well balanced the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian are post-APG. I wish Monks, Rogues, and Fighters got more in-class love. Unfortunately the monk isn't built in a way as to make new class options viable without the drudgery that is the archetype system, and Paizo just seems to hate Fighters and Rogues (since both actually DO have a modular class design functionality built in, but they just insist on publishing nothing but bad options for them).

I don't, however, like material that actually creeps up the power level of the game. Yet I keep seeing a lot of stuff that just keeps making the top-end classes even better and better and better. :\


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others? It seems to me that Pathfinder is designed as a simulation (not of actual reality but of some fantasy reality which is a bit like ours) and that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.

No. Pathfinder is definitely not a reality simulation game. You mention daggers being less effective than longswords, but the fact is crossbows were not so horribly ineffective in reality. And sling shooters were horribly feared on battlefields, had long ranges, and could fire multiple slingshots very quickly. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the level of detail that the d20 system goes into, and it's close enough to simulation in the guts of the system (before classes, spells, and feats, just the basic stuff that is ported from d20 game to d20 game, such as the way object hardness, combat, etc works).

However, PF is definitely not a simulation. Hell, the "bastard sword" shouldn't even exist and is proof of both useless mechanics and a simulation fail. In reality, the sword you're thinking of when you're talking about a hand-an-a-half sword is in fact the Longsword. And the funny thing is, to a degree, this kind of shows in the fact the longsword does everything that the bastard sword is supposed to do (it has all the benefits of being both a 1-handed weapon and a 2-handed weapon).

Was my distinction between our reality and the game world's reality clear enough? I don't think any RPG is a good simulation of reality. What I meant by simulation was that I think PF rules are like the physical laws of that universe and that universe has good and bad options.

The relative merits or otherwise of crossbows, bastard swords, etcetera in the real world isn't terribly relevant, in my view. In PF land crossbows aren't as good as longbows - isn't it right that there should be some options superior to others?

Dark Archive

Complete warrior had the frenzied berserker, occult slayer not to mention a bunch of fun feats like roundabout kick, so I'm not sure why you are dismissing it so

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think in a game where you are trying to cover as many options as possible it is impossible not to get some form of bloat.

I have finally read through the majority of this thread and I think a lot of people make the assumption that people "play like me, which is the correct way" even when paying lip service to "everyone has the right to play the way they want".

On the y axis we have

The builders and mechanical players (for them there might be one thing in each book that is actually worth anything while the rest is junk. They “min/max”, they “optimize”, they try to break the game)

The thematic optimizer players (for these people they want their characters to follow the theme of their character as close as possible, they will take less then optimal choices to stick with their theme but not at the expense of totally nerfing their character's effectiveness. These themes could be either role play or mechanical in nature)

The total thematic players (for these players sticking to the theme is the most important. These players will take options that make them rather ineffective in combat so that they can stick to their theme. These themes tend to be role playing inspired but not always)

On the x axis we have

The combat delvers (these players want to fight, they want to roll dice and there is no better place to do that then combat. These players want to see what they can kill)

The role players (these players want to role play their character, if it leads to a fight that is fine but they are also comfortable never touching a die in a game or playing for hours with only skills checks being made. These players are primarily concerned with what their character does and thinks)

The story circle player (these players want both role play and combat, they want them to flow and they want the story line to make sense. These players are less concerned with what their character “does and thinks” but is more concerned with the events taking place around their character and how their character is fitting in)

Then of course you have the statistical outlier/ anomalies

The douche nozzles (these players do whatever they want both in game and out of game, they justify their stupid by saying “this is what my character would do” when everyone and their mother knows that isn’t true, they are just being a douche. They also get up and leave the table then get all pissy if you call them out for it)

The Hyper Meta-gamer (you found treasure? My character isn't actually three rooms back, he is right next to you getting his share!! I have a level 5 who has never encountered this creature(type) before? Let me automatically make decisions that reflect my out of player knowledge)

The Ardent undeveloped (I don’t do diplomacy, I don’t do knowledge checks, there is nothing I can do this combat. All of my character choices are poor and underdeveloped, I masquerade as another type of player but any mechanical or thematic idea I had is poorly constructed and I may have forgot what that was half way through everything I have ever done with this character. The fact that my character is amazingly ineffective in every situation ever is a reflection on how the GM sucks or the game itself doesn’t work properly and has nothing to do with me being total s~#*)

You have to consider the variety of players that enjoy this game and what they are looking for. The argument has been made “why can’t you have choices that are both thematic and mechanical applicable/valid/worthy” and the answer is “because stuff doesn’t always work that way”. You have choices that are great mechanically but poor thematically, choices that are good both thematically and mechanically, and choices that are poor mechanically but great thematically. That’s the way the cookie crumbles, you can’t always have your cake and eat it too. So what you do is you cover the gambit; you put enough choices out there that people can pick and chose what they like and don’t like.

This argument in no way, shape, or form acknowledges the inherent imbalances that exist within the core game system itself such as power disparity between classes. Nor does it acknowledge that some players may be in a group which has a play style contrary to what they find enjoyable or fun.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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?

I kinda thought that they did, sorta paralells the known qualities of Liars... Sorry, mis-spelled that, Lawyers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. I guess as I see it the people who are likely to want to take a suboptimal choice for flavor reasons are probably less likely to care about sifting through rulebooks trying to determine whether they're screwing themselves over, so I dont really see who the victim is (beginners, perhaps?)

It is not about if something is suboptimal but the amount of hte gap. FOr example Falchion are better than greatsword, heck they are much better than greataxe but you can have a falchion wielder siede to side to a greataxe wielder and axe guy would probably not feel outperformed.

Then try crossbows and bows. A ranger Switch-hitter with just a couple of feat into archery would outdamage the fighter with ALL his feats in the crossbow. It is absurd.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Quote:
Maybe it's just a question of the number of useless feats, but doesnt it make sense for some to be worse than others? It seems to me that Pathfinder is designed as a simulation (not of actual reality but of some fantasy reality which is a bit like ours) and that there are bad options and good options to take when building a character because there is the possibility of making poor decisions in that reality.

No. Pathfinder is definitely not a reality simulation game. You mention daggers being less effective than longswords, but the fact is crossbows were not so horribly ineffective in reality. And sling shooters were horribly feared on battlefields, had long ranges, and could fire multiple slingshots very quickly. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the level of detail that the d20 system goes into, and it's close enough to simulation in the guts of the system (before classes, spells, and feats, just the basic stuff that is ported from d20 game to d20 game, such as the way object hardness, combat, etc works).

However, PF is definitely not a simulation. Hell, the "bastard sword" shouldn't even exist and is proof of both useless mechanics and a simulation fail. In reality, the sword you're thinking of when you're talking about a hand-an-a-half sword is in fact the Longsword. And the funny thing is, to a degree, this kind of shows in the fact the longsword does everything that the bastard sword is supposed to do (it has all the benefits of being both a 1-handed weapon and a 2-handed weapon).

Was my distinction between our reality and the game world's reality clear enough? I don't think any RPG is a good simulation of reality. What I meant by simulation was that I think PF rules are like the physical laws of that universe and that universe has good and bad options.

The relative merits or otherwise of crossbows, bastard swords, etcetera in the real world isn't terribly relevant, in my view. In PF land crossbows aren't as good as longbows - isn't it right that there should...

Some options can and should be superior to others. But the extent to which some options are better is not representative of the deviation most would find acceptable from a professional product in any other field (ie, not TTRPG).

If you want to have weapons (for example) that are bad choices and some that are good choices then just do it that way on purpose. Instead of simple, martial, and exotic they should be more clearly delineated and then properly sorted. My suggestion would be "encumberance tax", "weapons", and "good weapons." And at the very least take the crossbows that made it into the "I require an extra feat if you want me" category and put them in the "encumberance tax" category where they belong.

At least that way you are being honest with people.

Although given the two options I would rather no option was so bad that it could be referred to as a game "tax."


mswbear wrote:
You have to consider the variety of players that enjoy this game and what they are looking for. The argument has been made “why can’t you have choices that are both thematic and mechanical applicable/valid/worthy” and the answer is “because stuff doesn’t always work that way”. You have choices that are great mechanically but poor thematically, choices that are good both thematically and mechanically, and choices that are poor mechanically but great thematically. That’s the way the cookie crumbles, you can’t always have your cake and eat it too. So what you do is you cover the gambit; you put enough choices out there that people can pick and chose what they like and don’t like.

Nothing you said actually explained why you can't have your cake and eat it to. Having a variety doesn't mean you should ever purposefully make things that suck in one way or another. A lot of the examples of types of people in the post are caricatures too.


MrSin wrote:
mswbear wrote:
You have to consider the variety of players that enjoy this game and what they are looking for. The argument has been made “why can’t you have choices that are both thematic and mechanical applicable/valid/worthy” and the answer is “because stuff doesn’t always work that way”. You have choices that are great mechanically but poor thematically, choices that are good both thematically and mechanically, and choices that are poor mechanically but great thematically. That’s the way the cookie crumbles, you can’t always have your cake and eat it too. So what you do is you cover the gambit; you put enough choices out there that people can pick and chose what they like and don’t like.
Nothing you said actually explained why you can't have your cake and eat it to. Having a variety doesn't mean you should ever purposefully make things that suck in one way or another. A lot of the examples of types of people in the post are caricatures too.

Well one example I can think of is race and class. I purposefully chose a changeling witch to play because all the background fluff on the changeling pushes you towards witch or sorcerer. I wanted to play a witch and the flavor of the changeling just seemed right.

Mechanically, this isn't optimal. It isn't horrible or unplayable either. If I wanted to make a great witch, I'd be an elf, a sylph, a human, or a scarred witch doctor half-orc.

Changelings get no bonus to INT and take a penalty to CON. They only get one unique racial spell but it is a pretty good one. It's called Sow Thought and it's basically Inception as a 1st level spell.

It's certainly better than being a Suli witch (they take an inherent INT penalty without anything to make up for it) but it ain't as great as being an Elf.


No such thing as "bloat". You don't have to use everything. I rather have more option and choices than less....


What about false choices that exist only to take up page space?


I think your 20% estimate is probably a little on the generous side.

Digital Products Assistant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and the posts quoting/in response. Don't be a jerk.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Alexandros Satorum wrote:


It is not about if something is suboptimal but the amount of hte gap. FOr example Falchion are better than greatsword, heck they are much better than greataxe but you can have a falchion wielder siede to side to a greataxe wielder and axe guy would probably not feel outperformed.

Then try crossbows and bows. A ranger Switch-hitter with just a couple of feat into archery would outdamage the fighter with ALL his feats in the crossbow. It is absurd.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's also the feats that genuinely don't do anything, once you parse the "Benefit" section and the existing rules. Monte Cook added in the "Timmy Cards" as an idea he got from Magic the Gathering. The difference is that MtG is a competitive game. D&D/PF is, generally speaking, a CO-OPERATIVE game. Adding trap options to it reeks of bad design. It was bad design in 3.0, it was bad design in 3.5, and it's bad design in PF. I don't excuse the Pathfinder developers for it because of the lame "backwards compatibility" excuse they generally give when someone asks why they kept obviously bad concepts from 3.x, either.

Options that are not as good in general, but in certain circumstances can be better - I'm mostly find with these, although I think that the wording given should make it clear that that's what the option is offering. A dagger might not cause as much damage as a sword, but it can be thrown, it can be used in tight spaces, it weighs less, and you can carry dozens of them on you.

Options that are always inferior - I don't like these, and don't think they should be a part of the game.

Options that absolutely fail to provide any benefit whatsoever - These can go burn in a fire, and take the developers who thought them up along with them. As well as the developers who OK'ed them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Options that absolutely fail to provide any benefit whatsoever - These can go burn in a fire, and take the developers who thought them up along with them. As well as the developers who OK'ed them.

There are also those rare feats that can make things worse.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Options that absolutely fail to provide any benefit whatsoever - These can go burn in a fire, and take the developers who thought them up along with them. As well as the developers who OK'ed them.
There are also those rare feats that can make things worse.

Why is this even a feat?

Why isn't this part of the function of the Bluff skill - or an expanded (overdue) version of the Bluff skill?


Auxmaulous wrote:
Why is this even a feat?

Why is Rumormonger a rogue talent? Why isn't monstrous mount scaling and instead split into two feats? Why do elves stab people with arrows to push them back five feet and only elves are able to? These are questions. All about feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Why is this even a feat?

Because bloat.


MrSin wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Why is this even a feat?
Why is Rumormonger a rogue talent? Why isn't monstrous mount scaling and instead split into two feats? Why do elves stab people with arrows to push them back five feet and only elves are able to? These are questions. All about feats.

I say unless the feat uses a racial feature, there is no reason feats should be limited by race.

Next, why is an animal companion Griffon forgets how to fly if carrying a person without Mastery Feat?

Carrying a rider should be strength based like normal mounts.

To replicate the Worg, it is smarter to just do big cat, you get pounce.

Silver Crusade

What I want to see are those supposed "ineffective" characters that have been discussed.

I would also like it if some people here would acknowledge that their way is not the one and true way to play the game, that just because they don't see a benefit for an option that others cannot. If "you" don't like a feat then don't take it, simple as that.


shallowsoul wrote:

What I want to see are those supposed "ineffective" characters that have been discussed.

Every slinger ever?


shallowsoul wrote:

What I want to see are those supposed "ineffective" characters that have been discussed.

I would also like it if some people here would acknowledge that their way is not the one and true way to play the game, that just because they don't see a benefit for an option that others cannot. If "you" don't like a feat then don't take it, simple as that.

I responded to that request last page or earlier.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
just because they don't see a benefit for an option that others cannot.

Yes, its because I can't see the benefit of helpless prisoner than I don't like it. Not because it tells me how to be a helpless prisoner and what the guy looking at me looks like instead of giving me a benefit to acting like a helpless prisoner, gives the guy who I'm talking to bonuses, and infers it takes a feat to act like a helpless prisoner. All instead of just having a quick example of rules for being a helpless prisoner. [/sarcasm]

shallowsoul wrote:
If "you" don't like a feat then don't take it, simple as that.

Likely the people who don't like the feats already aren't taking them, unless their taxes, ofc.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
What I want to see are those supposed "ineffective" characters that have been discussed.

There's a reason that you don't. Can you figure out what it is?


shallowsoul wrote:
I would also like it if some people here would acknowledge that their way is not the one and true way to play the game, that just because they don't see a benefit for an option that others cannot.

Sure, I can acknowledge that there are some options that are niche but still useful if you can acknowledge that there are options that provide practically zero benefit for anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abyssal Lord wrote:
No such thing as "bloat". You don't have to use everything. I rather have more option and choices than less....

Pretty much. The grocery store has thousands of items that I'll never use. Some provide some ideas, however,

Are there sub-optimal choices? Sure. Are there ones that the boards tend to believe are better than others. Oh Gods yes. In the end, even if Ashiel is correct and only 20 percent of the material is worthwhile, that is more than enough for me and my table. Heck, I've bought books in the past just because I liked one thing, or some art, or whatever.

351 to 400 of 592 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is 3.5e bloat coming back? All Messageboards