| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that PF character generation is quicker if you ignore most of the possible options (or if you've done it so many times that you've discounted most of them before you even start). I don't really want to play a game with lots of options that I shouldn't consider. I'd rather play a game with less options.
What's happened to me several times in pathfinder (though ive only made half a dozen characters or so) is I just pick some stuff, then by level six I start seeing feats and things I want which I can't have because I didn't choose the right stats or the right "prerequisite" feats. That's why character creation takes me a long time - I have to keep an eye on what I'm going to choose next level, not just the things I'm choosing now.
I would like to point out that if 5th Edition character creation is substantially faster than Pathfinder, it's in no small part because you are comparing a single book (the PHB) to at least 5 books, if not many more supplemental sources.
A better comparison would be between the CRB and the PHB; how quickly would a player, completely unfamiliar with TRPGs, be able to create a character?
I do believe 5th Ed would still be faster by a good 25% (so 45 minutes to create a character in 5th vs 1 hour in Pathfinder), but this is because 5th Edition characters tend to be much more generic versions of the same classes.
However, the real test will be once new books are published. Every time you add more options for RPGs, you invariably increase the amount of time for creating characters.
5th Edition has, by default:
Stats
Race + Racial Subtype
Class
Skills
Multiple-Choice Class Abilities (including spells)
Alignment
Feats/Stat gains
Gear
Pathfinder has, by default (CRB only):
Stats
Race
Class
Skills
Favored Class Bonus (HP or Skills Points)
Multiple-Choice Class Abilities (including Spells
Feats
Alignment
Gear
Assuming determining Stats is identical for both 5th Edition and Pathfinder (4d6, drop 1; Point-buy; 3d6; etc.):
Determining Stats takes as much time as the complexity of the means, and is the same for both.
Determining Race - actually faster in Pathfinder, because 5th Edition has Racial Subtypes built into the basic rules.
Determining Class - When you build a character, you have a theme in mind, which helps you determine which class you're going to be already, usually. Pathfinder takes slightly longer because of Saving Throws, CMB & CMD, generally more abilities per Class, and Classes have varying BAB. However, many classes in 5th Edition have built-in Archetypes which means you'll take longer determining which one you want to take over the other. They tie, effectively (or 5th takes longer).
Determining Skills - You have Skills tied to your INT in Pathfinder. Int does nothing for Skills in 5th Edition; you have as many skills as everyone else of your Class. This isn't a good thing, but makes creation faster in 5th Edition.
Favored Class Bonus - takes 5 seconds to decide; do you want more HP or more skills. Not even a concern for time, really.
Determining Multiple-Choice Class Abilities (Including spells) - Pathfinder actually takes less time. I kid you not. Because you know exactly how many Spells you get of each Spell Level, per Character level, it makes determining Spells faster in PF.
Feats - Feats are entirely optional in 5th Ed, and you get your first at 4th level; they're necessary for PF, but at low-levels, it's easy to decide. 5th Ed is faster, by default, though, for not being required.
Alignment - Takes the same amount of time in both cases.
Gear - this always takes the most time in any game; The basic stats, except for Crit Range in weapons, are identical. It takes the same amount of time to choose your Gear in 5th Edition than it does in PF.
Stats: Same
Race: Pathfinder
Class: Same/5th Edition
Skills: 5th Edition
Favored Class Bonus: Same
Multiple-Choice Class Abilities: Pathfinder
Feats: 5th Edition
Alignment: Same
Gear: Same
Pathfinder is faster in 2 Categories; 5th Edition is faster in 2, maybe 3.
However, "Int doesn't determine your Skills" is considered a pretty horrible move to most players - it was not a welcome return from 4E, and nearly everyone has declared INT not just the premier Dump Stat, but either a vestigial Stat (Ze Goggles do more for you) or a Tax Stat (i.e. if it's too low, your DM can just spam "Save vs Int" spell effects, so you MUST waste Point Buy points JUST to make sure you don't die constantly). It doesn't make sense thematically OR mechanically to have INT just hanging there doing nothing; at least CHA makes some sense - there are gruff antiheroes everywhere in fiction, but very few heroic imbeciles.
So, yes, 5th Edition seems to be slightly faster for Character Gen, which can work well for times when you want to sit and play a 2-hour pre-gened Dungeon; a lot of the responses from people who were neutral between PF and 5th Ed, however, are that sacrificing diversity for marginally-faster character creation was not only NOT a strong point of the game, it actively turned them away from 5th and towards Pathfinder.
It might be "good" that INT gives you more skill points in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, but it doesn't make sense in many cases. Why does high INT give you more Acrobatics skill for instance?
INT is a dump stat as much as any. Although it has the fewest spell saves tied to it, it can be targeted like any other stat as a save though, and is tied to knowledge skills, which are an important set of skills.
I don't think spell selection is more complex in 5th edition. Firstly, you don't have to refer to another chart in another part of the book to determine if you have bonus spells per/day to cast, and therefore in the case of some classes, more to prepare. Secondly, you don't have domain spells to pick, you just get them. Thirdly, you can choose whatever spells you want equal to your casting stat + level, up to your max spell level. That isn't more complex inherently. It is sometimes a hassle to fill up lower level slots with lower level spells in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, especially when creating NPCs. In 5e, you don't have to worry about that. I would say it is a wash.
One part of gear in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder is more complex than 5th, I would say: AC. When first learning that system in particular. Calculating your AC vs. Touch AC vs. Flat-footed AC is a bit confusing and time consuming.
Not even there. There is the category "good enough"; just because you don't have the optimal configuration for a concept doesn't make the character unplayable. All they have to be able to do is consistently contribute in some way.You can't play a character unless you know the best option every time? I know plenty that just whip up characters, don't obsess about if they missed an extra plus somewhere ... And then have a perfectly satisfying gaming experience.It depends on how we're defining "best"
Best in terms of overall power? Probably not. I don't think there are two many players who are hurt by not knowing about Sacred Geometry.
Best in terms of realizing a concept? Yes, then it can be a problem.
The question isn't "what are the best options?" Nor is it "what are good enough options?"
The question is "what are the options?"
People making this argument are seeing the wrong angle. If you want to make any choice at all, you first need to know what choices are available. Even with just the Core book there are more options available than some people wish to deal with.
Also, stuff your condescension about people playing the game "wrong".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]
The question isn't "what are the best options?" Nor is it "what are good enough options?"
The question is "what are the options?"
People making this argument are seeing the wrong angle. If you want to make any choice at all, you first need to know what choices are available. Even with just the Core book there are more options available than some people wish to deal with.
Also, stuff your condescension about people playing the game "wrong".
When you go to the supermarket to purchase groceries do you look through the entire store before putting a single item into your cart?
Or when purchasing a new DVD or book, do you look through every single movie or book available on Amazon before choosing?
Do you also refuse to date anyone until you have met every human on the planet?
Follow the same logic with your friends? You can't choose to have someone be your friend until you've seen every possible choice of a friend there is?
To suggest that you can't make any decisions about feats without reading EVERY feat is to suggest the same thing as that-- you only need to look at feats until you find one (or more) that interests you. You don't need to be paralyzed by choices you haven't looked at.
|
When you go to the supermarket to purchase groceries do you look through the entire store before putting a single item into your cart?
Or when purchasing a new DVD or book, do you look through every single movie or book available on Amazon before choosing?
Do you also refuse to date anyone until you have met every human on the planet?
Follow the same logic with your friends? You can't choose to have someone be your friend until you've seen every possible choice of a friend there is?
Absolutely. It's not like there are categories that I can break my purchases down into to narrow the selection field. And after all, I can only choose one item each time I go shopping. And we all know you can only be allowed so many friends according to FBL.
]
The question isn't "what are the best options?" Nor is it "what are good enough options?"
The question is "what are the options?"
People making this argument are seeing the wrong angle. If you want to make any choice at all, you first need to know what choices are available. Even with just the Core book there are more options available than some people wish to deal with.
Also, stuff your condescension about people playing the game "wrong".
When you go to the supermarket to purchase groceries do you look through the entire store before putting a single item into your cart?
Or when purchasing a new DVD or book, do you look through every single movie or book available on Amazon before choosing?
Do you also refuse to date anyone until you have met every human on the planet?
Follow the same logic with your friends? You can't choose to have someone be your friend until you've seen every possible choice of a friend there is?
To suggest that you can't make any decisions about feats without reading EVERY feat is to suggest the same thing as that-- you only need to look at feats until you find one (or more) that interests you. You don't need to be paralyzed by choices you haven't looked at.
I see you're determined to continuously miss the point. OK, you're making your character and it comes time to select feats. Do you just open to the feat section and pick one or two? Just pick anything out of the book that has a neat name? You don't bother to read the feats to see what they do or if you even qualify to take them? Do you close your eyes and run your finger down the page and then stop somewhere at random and take that feat? Do you do the same then when you pick traits? Do you do the same thing when you pick a class? Do you do the same thing when you pick spells? Before you can pick anything, you need to examine it to see if it works, right? If you see something you like that has prerequisites you need to find those. If those have prerequisites you have to find those. Then you have to figure out how to build your character to meet those requirements.
Can you just pick stuff at random because you think it looks cool and get playing? Sure you can.
Can doing that end up with a character that can't actually do what you were hoping by a certain level? Absolutely.
Why do YOU. Get to decide what the 'right angle' to see this from is, eh?
Because I'm the one who asked the question you guys are misunderstanding. And if you're not answering my question, stop quoting my post. Then we can all take your comment as it stands on its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you go to the supermarket to purchase groceries do you look through the entire store before putting a single item into your cart?
First, I decide what items I need. Then I go to the appropriate isle. Then I sort through the 30 different brands that make the one item I'm looking for. I suppose I could just grab the first one I find regardless of brand and price, but how do I know I'm getting a good deal?
Or when purchasing a new DVD or book, do you look through every single movie or book available on Amazon before choosing?
First, I decide what genre I want. Then I go to the appropriate section. Then I sort through the 3,000 different titles in the genre I'm looking for. I suppose I could just grab the first title I find regardless of who's in it and the premise, but how do I know I'm getting a good deal?
Do you also refuse to date anyone until you have met every human on the planet?
Married, irrelevant.
Follow the same logic with your friends? You can't choose to have someone be your friend until you've seen every possible choice of a friend there is?
First, I meet all of the people that I have regular contact with. Then I get to know them through conversation. Then I make decisions based on whether we have things in common and would be compatible when hanging out. I suppose I could make friends with the first person I meet regardless of if we have anything in common or even can get along, but how do I know we're going to be good friends?
To suggest that you can't make any decisions about feats without reading EVERY feat is to suggest the same thing as that-- you only need to look at feats until you find one (or more) that interests you. You don't need to be paralyzed by choices you haven't looked at.
Huh, looks like I handle all of those previous decisions exactly how I would expect to handle feat selections.
{stuff}
There's a reason for Feat Tree tables, though - you can quickly look them over, get an idea of what each feat does, and then if it sounds neat you can look through.
You're sort of making it out as though Feats are handled like spells: You get the names & entries, but no short description. And Spells DO add a lot of time to selection, both for 5th Ed and for PF.
At lv1 you have 1, 2, or 3 Feats to choose from (very rarely will you have 4, but that can happen because a Class gives a specific Feat as a Bonus Feat); these aren't too hard to decide, and unless someone is very meticulous, I doubt they'll usually spend more than 10 minutes delving through their Feats.
This does add more time, obviously, than a 5th Ed character, but most people aren't so impatient that they'll throw the book down and walk away - especially since Feats let their characters do cool things.
Simon-- I cannot imagine how long it must take for you to shop at the grocery store or choose a new book to read. I'm really surprised you were ever able to choose to open a pathfinder book at all.
I see your point, with that amount of time required for any choice a game that limits choices to the minimum is best.
Simon-- I cannot imagine how long it must take for you to shop at the grocery store or choose a new book to read. I'm really surprised you were ever able to choose to open a pathfinder book at all.
I see your point, with that amount of time required for any choice a game that limits choices to the minimum is best.
I know right? It takes a special kind of idiot to actually put thought into decisions. Sometimes I'm amazed I can manage to get out of bed in the morning because I'll need to figure out what clothes to wear.
{stuff}There's a reason for Feat Tree tables, though - you can quickly look them over, get an idea of what each feat does, and then if it sounds neat you can look through.
Yep, that's exactly right. And perusing the charts and then tracking down the things that look cool takes time. It's a lot faster for people that have been playing Pathfinder for a long time. It's an arduous task for first timers.
You're sort of making it out as though Feats are handled like spells: You get the names & entries, but no short description. And Spells DO add a lot of time to selection, both for 5th Ed and for PF.
Incorrect. I'm saying that making decisions takes time. The more decisions there are to make, the longer it's going to take to make them. Especially if you expect them to be informed decisions and not just off-the-cuff guesses.
At lv1 you have 1, 2, or 3 Feats to choose from (very rarely will you have 4, but that can happen because a Class gives a specific Feat as a Bonus Feat); these aren't too hard to decide, and unless someone is very meticulous, I doubt they'll usually spend more than 10 minutes delving through their Feats.
I will be running a campaign for a group of people new to Pathfinder. Last night we were making characters for said campaign. One person is making a bard, after two hours of going through the book she was almost complete. She still hadn't picked her spells yet. She wanted to make good decisions for her character so that she would be useful to the group.
This does add more time, obviously, than a 5th Ed character, but most people aren't so impatient that they'll throw the book down and walk away - especially since Feats let their characters do cool things.
I don't know who is throwing the book down and stomping off. I never said that and I never implied it. My point was, and I'm surprised anyone is arguing it, that it can take quite a long time to make a Pathfinder character. Unless you don't really care what you play.
Simon-- what other games have you played besides PF and 5th edition?
I think that if you have never played other, much more time consuming character creation style games your perception may be warped.
Even with ever book published now, PF is still one of the SIMPLEST games for character creation compared to many.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys. Eliminate the Grar. Please.
This is a needless round-and-round.
PF and 5E have similar numbers of points of decisions.
5E is probably smoother (hence, to some, much faster).
For those who have a perfectionist streak, feel the need to optimize, or are interested in a specific mechanical representation of a specific concept, Pathfinder is going to take a lot longer, but it's going to mechanically emulate most things more consistently and more comprehensibly.
For those who don't care about delving too deeply into the full weight of things, PF can easily be short and sweet, regardless of what you do.
Character generation can be swift, easy, and not painful.
Or, it can be an optimized, agonizing experience.
It's your choice.
Funny thing is, both are viable, depending on the kind of game you run.
I can bang out characters quickly if I want to - of all levels. It's not really that hard.
I can bang out viable characters quickly, if I want to, of all levels. Again, it's not too hard.
I can't bang out purposefully-optimized (even low-grade purposefully-optimized) characters of any level, unless it's on accident, or it's one of the few builds I've (more or less through osmosis) memorized. It takes some thought, research, and looking into things.
Okay, we clear? Yes? Everyone? Enough grar? Cool.
Simon-- what other games have you played besides PF and 5th edition?
I think that if you have never played other, much more time consuming character creation style games your perception may be warped.
I have played:
D&D 1e
AD&D
AD&D 2e
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
GURPS
Mage: The Ascension
World of Darkness
Shadowrun
Call of Cthulhu
Anima
Dungeon World
Rolemaster
Even with ever book published now, PF is still one of the SIMPLEST games for character creation compared to many.
Great, so that means I should be so happy that Pathfinder only has thousands of available options that I shouldn't want to play something with a lighter rule set?
I care what I play. It doesn't take me that long to make a character most of the time. Now sometimes I do go into more detail; for example in a current campaign current I play in, which we have been going at some ... four years now I believe, we decided what our next campaign would be several months before the current one was going to end. So in that one I have spent quite a bit of time tweaking the character. Yet still, the skeleton and the majority of the meat were done rather quickly, less than thirty minutes. Now the part that takes me a long time is the persona, the background, the way the character thinks ... and THAT is going to take pretty much the same time for me in any system.
Would you say that someone who has never played Pathfinder before and is not familiar with the rules can make a working character as fast as someone who's been playing for years? If no, why not? Is it incorrect to say that Pathfinder has a lot of rules and can be very intimidating for new players?
If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?
There is no math of breaking down the expenditure of a million Nuyen in pathfinder. . .
Compared to the choices involved in PF you have to decide so many more things for Shadowrun. . . priorities, attributes, skills, then equipment and cyberware with dozens of options purchasable in various levels?
If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?
There is no math of breaking down the expenditure of a million Nuyen in pathfinder. . .
Compared to the choices involved in PF you have to decide so many more things for Shadowrun. . . priorities, attributes, skills, then equipment and cyberware with dozens of options purchasable in various levels?
If the Sears Tower is taller than the Empire State Building does that mean the Empire State Building isn't a tall building? The fact that a different system takes longer to build characters than Pathfinder does not mean that it can't take a long time to build Pathfinder characters.
For those who don't care about delving too deeply into the full weight of things, PF can easily be short and sweet, regardless of what you do.
Character generation can be swift, easy, and not painful.
I'd be curious to know how to do this. I think it might be true if you know the system well, or if you've already built dozens of characters.
When we use our usual style of character generation (ie making whatever choices seem best at the time) it really seems to fall apart a few levels later (I'm including 3.5 and pathfinder characters here as we dont have much experience at all with PF-exclusive characters). We either havent got the right stats or the right prerequisite feats to get what we want - so we end up being forced to take a broader approach rather than specialising and eventually end up dying between levels six and eight, since none of us are as good as 'the game expects'.
I'm really hoping the Strategy Guide is going to solve this problem for us. At the moment though, character generation takes ages - the trouble with the plethora of options in Pathfinder (even if there's an obvious choice as to what I 'should' take) is that I dont know which are the obvious ones and which ones to ignore.
Personally, I think the disconnect here is that those who think it's easy are undervaluing their expertise and perhaps underestimating how much effort acquiring that expertise takes for those of us with no interest in the character building side of games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those who don't care about delving too deeply into the full weight of things, PF can easily be short and sweet, regardless of what you do.
Character generation can be swift, easy, and not painful.
I'd be curious to know how to do this. I think it might be true if you know the system well, or if you've already built dozens of characters.
When we use our usual style of character generation (ie making whatever choices seem best at the time) it really seems to fall apart a few levels later. We either havent got the right stats or the right prerequisite feats to get what we want - so we end up going broader rather than specialising and eventually end up dying between levels six and eight, since none of us are as good as 'the game expects'.
I'm really hoping the Strategy Guide is going to solve this problem for us. At the moment though, character generation takes ages - the trouble with the plethora of options in Pathfinder (even if there's an obvious choice as to what I 'should' take) is that I dont know which are the obvious ones and which ones to ignore.
Personally, I think the disconnect here is that those who think it's easy are undervaluing their expertise and perhaps underestimating how much effort acquiring that expertise takes for those of us with no interest in the character building side of games.
I think you are right, this is what the Strategy Guide will hopefully fix.
And yes, people tend to forget that some things are easier for them than others. When I was playing Shadowrun hardcore (since it was mentioned) I could calculate the Essence and nuyen cost in my head for just about any piece of ware and apply it as I went; others were flipping pages back and forth at a loss.
The same thing applies for Pathfinder. Not everyone creates lots of characters for fun or interest; they may only create the one they intend to play until that game ends which could take years and not look into the myriad of feats, spells and gears otherwise. For some people character creation can be as fun or more fun that then actual playing of the character itself.
This is why we have some of the grar and yelling on the boards -- some people do this as a passion, rummaging through the numbers and various feats to decide what is "best" and "worst" (for a given value of such) while others get lost in the forest of options and pick out what they think is a good idea at the time.
If you've made dozens or hundreds of mages or fighters or whatever, you have that experience to draw on. If you haven't done that, or don't go over and over the various books looking at options and making notes of what would be good combinations it can be a harrowing experience sometimes.
Neither one of these methods or styles is better or worse than the other. This is no different than the people who play a video game and those who study it and build walkthroughs and dig through every class and combination and little traveled path to see every aspect of the game. One isn't better than the other, or more dedicated.
If the Sears Tower is taller than the Empire State Building does that mean the Empire State Building isn't a tall building? The fact that a different system takes longer to build characters than Pathfinder does not mean that it can't take a long time to build Pathfinder characters.If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?
There is no math of breaking down the expenditure of a million Nuyen in pathfinder. . .
Compared to the choices involved in PF you have to decide so many more things for Shadowrun. . . priorities, attributes, skills, then equipment and cyberware with dozens of options purchasable in various levels?
Since the CN Tower and several Japanese and Dubai towers are taller than the Sears Tower, and since the Empire State building is barely over half the height of the current tallest building, I would say that YES the Empire State building can no longer be considered a tall building.
By the same logic a 5 minute mile, once good enough for the Olympics can now be achieved by high school runners with no hopes of qualifying and the world record mile time is sub-4 minutes. Erego, a 5 minute mile can no longer be considered a fast mile time.
The land speed record features an even more pronounced scale-- what was once cutting edge is now beyond slow. Things progress, and you have to compare them to one another to achieve a concept of where one fits compared to others.
By the same logic, then yes, the fact that PF takes less time compared to other systems can mean that it can be said to "comparatively not take that long" which is what I stated.
If its still too much for you that's fine-- but you can't claim that it is inherently a problem of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's quite possible.
To me, it's relatively simple:
Stats: elite array
Race: any race that makes relative sense for you character and stats
Class: this is what you're going for
Skills: anything from your class - try not to overlap your buddies
Favored Class Bonus (HP or Skills Points): skills
Multiple-Choice Class Abilities (including Spells: depends on the class
Feats: whatever generally works for your style
Alignment: probably good
Gear: the longest time, but not really that big
Then, you play the game.
The death rate, toll, and difficulty are all in the hands of the GM, unless the players make very, very bad choices (8 CON + elf = 6 CON, for example).
I'll do this now:
15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
15 STR, 14 CON, 13 DEX, 12 WIS, 10 INT, 8 CHA
dwarf: +2 con, +2 WIS, -2 CHA
slow and steady
common, dwarven
+4 dodge v. giants
+2 v. poison and spells
+4 CMD v. bullrush or trip
+2 appraise (non-magical gemstone goods)
+2 perception (stonework)
darkvison 60
+1 attack (humanoid [orc, goblinoid]
weapon familiarity (dwarf)
d12 = 12 hp
best bab
best fort, poor others
special: fast movement, rage
skills: acrobatics, climb, perception, survival; favored bonus: appraise
feat: power attack
starting gold: 105
Kortok Gutrunner, the Fury
CN
15 hp
speed 30
AC 16 (touch 12, ff 14)
- hide armor
+3 melee attack [dwarven waraxe (1d10+2)]; +2 power attack (as standard, but +2 dmg or +3 dmg if two-handed)
+2 ranged attack [shortbow (1d6)]
+5 fortitude, +1 reflex, +2 wisdom
CMB +3, CMD 16 (20 v. bullrush or trip)skills: acrobatics +5 (+2 in armor), appraise +4 (+6 non-magical gem stuff), climb +6 (+3 in armor), perception +6, survival +6
feats: power attack15 STR, 16 CON, 13 DEX, 14 WIS, 10 INT, 8 CHA
gear: dwarven war-axe, shortbow, 40 arrows; 28g
from 12 minutes ago, to... *hits preview* 19 minutes ago
Character idea: he's a dwarven berserker who's family was killed by a minor armor of orcs and giants... he watched them all die and has been a bit insane ever since. Now... he's out for revenge. And, as he finally hit adulthood, no one can stop him now. He cares for little but destroying all that is evil from ever harming the innocent again.
EDIT: one of the few characters I've made with a charisma penalty. The horror. :/
EDIT 2: Anyway, he should be fairly viable for 1st level survival. I think power attack is considered an optimal feat, but mostly it makes sense for him; it came to mind, and I just accepted it. Similarly, his gear - simple, but straightforward; it was the longest thing, by far, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys. Eliminate the Grar. Please.
Smurf it!
Okay, that's funny.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My wife mentions that going through the rules for Pathfinder and all the books (and in many other games as well) can be a little like going to TVTropes or Wikipedia. You only meant to look up one little thing and before you know it, it's 4 AM.
I love the game but it can be daunting when you start out or even if you've done it for a while if you want to check, double-check and recheck that you haven't missed that one little trait or feat or bit of gear that is going to really make this character shine or do just what you wanted.
Yep, that's exactly right. And perusing the charts and then tracking down the things that look cool takes time. It's a lot faster for people that have been playing Pathfinder for a long time. It's an arduous task for first timers.
I think you're making a serious mountain out of a mole hill. "Arduous?" Really?
The very first RPG I played was 3.5 back after it'd just come out; it was a lv4 Rogue. It took me only a few minutes to pick out my Feats without any help (TWF, Quick-Draw, and Weapon Finesse).
Admittedly, I had an idea of what I wanted my character to be, then quickly skimmed the feats to see if I could legally be made.
If I had no plan/idea, however, it would've taken a lot longer. But that's true with nearly anything, including 5th Ed.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're making a serious mountain out of a mole hill. "Arduous?" Really?Yep, that's exactly right. And perusing the charts and then tracking down the things that look cool takes time. It's a lot faster for people that have been playing Pathfinder for a long time. It's an arduous task for first timers.
Yes really. There are people that literally do not play Pathfinder because there are too many rules.
If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?
Or, for that matter, Palladium/Robotech.
Or BESM. BESM d20 was substantially faster, but absurdly more broken.
Or GURPS.
Or, heck, even 2nd Edition. Dear lord, 2nd Edition.
4E took arguably more time, as well, because everything in that game was Powers, which means you had tons of choices (albeit many were functionally-identical) you had to make for every class.
Pathfinder/3.5/FantasyCraft all take substantially less time than basically all of these games, yet retains a lot of customization and just the right amount of complexity.
RPGs just take "a lot of time" to create characters in general. The more time, the generally more complex/customized your characters; conversely, the less time, the more generic your character is and/or the more "determined by acting" the game is.
If you've played Shadowrun how can you possible claim that a PF character takes any amount of time?Or, for that matter, Palladium/Robotech.
Or BESM. BESM d20 was substantially faster, but absurdly more broken.
Or GURPS.
Or, heck, even 2nd Edition. Dear lord, 2nd Edition.
4E took arguably more time, as well, because everything in that game was Powers, which means you had tons of choices (albeit many were functionally-identical) you had to make for every class.
Pathfinder/3.5/FantasyCraft all take substantially less time than basically all of these games, yet retains a lot of customization and just the right amount of complexity.
RPGs just take "a lot of time" to create characters in general. The more time, the generally more complex/customized your characters; conversely, the less time, the more generic your character is and/or the more "determined by acting" the game is.
As I mentioned above, I'm starting a new PF campaign with people whose first PF experience was the one-shot adventure we just finished. I am not going to call them a bunch of lazy idiots because it has so far taken a couple of them 2 hours to create their characters. Just because you can create a character in 10 minutes and I can create one in 30 doesn't mean they're doing something wrong by taking so long. My job as GM is to help them with their decisions without making the decisions for them. They are their characters, not mine.
The fact that other systems are more complex therefore Pathfinder is simple is a serious logic fail, really. I have many other systems I can compare my experience to, people who have never played anything previously do not. For a person who has only ever used a simpler system, many things about Pathfinder can be needlessly complex.
Yes really. There are people that literally do not play Pathfinder because there are too many rules.I think you're making a serious mountain out of a mole hill. "Arduous?" Really?Yep, that's exactly right. And perusing the charts and then tracking down the things that look cool takes time. It's a lot faster for people that have been playing Pathfinder for a long time. It's an arduous task for first timers.
I get that coming into the game with ALL the options available will make people's heads spin; that's going to happen with any game that's been around for several years.
Keep in mind, though, that the argument "too many rules" has been thrown around for each and every RPG game ever.
There are plenty of people who think that, for as bare-bones as 5th Edition is, there're still "too many rules".
I've seen RPGs go so far into "as few rules as possible" range that they use just 3 stats and 2-3 skills, and everything else is done by roleplay.
Personally, I loathe those kinds of games. I prefer games like PF where neither the DM nor Players have to make judgment calls / fiats constantly to determine combat/conflicts, and have hard-coded rules that can be applied quickly & easily. A large portion of this comes from being a writer for a living; I'm constantly in characters' heads all day every day, so I look to things like D&D/Pathfinder to be less venues for more "roleplaying" and more as complex "games" - I'd play video games more, but I much prefer the "mimics real physics" aspect of TRPGs over the limited physics offered by video games.
Anyway, that's my personal opinion. If you like heavy-roleplay, that's fine - not my preference at all, but if you like it, good on ya.
However, as I said, the argument of "there's too many rules!" isn't a tremendously strong one; no matter how simple you make a game, there will be people who say it's too complex.
Pathfinder's sales seem to indicate that, for the most part, there is a happy medium of efficiency and complexity that people are okay with in the game. If there wasn't, you wouldn't hear as many people saying "5th Edition's too simple." You'd also see a radical drop in sales, which we know there hasn't been. Finally, you wouldn't have seen so many people converting to Pathfinder when 4E came around if the vast majority of people really did believe 3.5 was "too complex" as far as the base system is concerned.
There may well be rules for simplifying the system/character generation in your home games in Pathfinder Unchained or in the Strategy Guide, but I feel like most people will stick with the basic game design. And the most important thing to remember is, if you don't want to worry about supplemental rules like Mythic Tiers, Fame, etc., just don't use them - no-one from Paizo is going to come to your house and force you to choose a Mythic Path.
I get that coming into the game with ALL the options available will make people's heads spin; that's going to happen with any game that's been around for several years.
Keep in mind, though, that the argument "too many rules" has been thrown around for each and every RPG game ever.
There are plenty of people who think that, for as bare-bones as 5th Edition is, there're still "too many rules".
I've seen RPGs go so far into "as few rules as possible" range that they use just 3 stats and 2-3 skills, and everything else is done by roleplay.
Personally, I loathe those kinds of games. I prefer games like PF where neither the DM nor Players have to make judgment calls / fiats constantly to determine combat/conflicts, and have hard-coded rules that can be applied quickly & easily. A large portion of this comes from being a writer for a living; I'm constantly in characters' heads all day every day, so I look to things like D&D/Pathfinder to be less venues for more "roleplaying" and more as complex "games" - I'd play video games more, but I much prefer the "mimics real physics" aspect of TRPGs over the limited physics offered by video games.
Anyway, that's my personal opinion. If you like heavy-roleplay, that's fine - not my preference at all, but if you like it, good on ya.
However, as I said, the argument of "there's too many rules!" isn't a tremendously strong one; no matter how simple you make a game, there will be people who say it's too complex.
Pathfinder's sales seem to indicate that, for the most part, there is a happy medium of efficiency and complexity that people are okay with in the game. If there wasn't, you wouldn't hear as many people saying "5th Edition's too simple." You'd also see a radical drop in sales, which we know there hasn't been. Finally, you wouldn't have seen so many people converting to Pathfinder when 4E came around if the vast majority of people really did believe 3.5 was "too complex" as far as the base system is concerned.
There may well be rules for simplifying the system/character generation in your home games in Pathfinder Unchained or in the Strategy Guide, but I feel like most people will stick with the basic game design. And the most important thing to remember is, if you don't want to worry about supplemental rules like Mythic Tiers, Fame, etc., just don't use them - no-one from Paizo is going to come to your house and force you to choose a Mythic Path.
Try this on for size, if Pathfinder is not complex why did they make a Beginner's Box (several years after the game came out, no less) with a stripped down rule set to get new players interested?
Regarding sales, the TTRPG market is not a zero-sum game. People are allowed to buy Pathfinder AND GURPS AND Dungeon World AND 5e, etc. As many other have mentioned, sometimes they want quick and easy chargen, sometimes they want super in-depth chargen.
As I mentioned above, I'm starting a new PF campaign with people whose first PF experience was the one-shot adventure we just finished. I am not going to call them a bunch of lazy idiots because it has so far taken a couple of them 2 hours to create their characters. Just because you can create a character in 10 minutes and I can create one in 30 doesn't mean they're doing something wrong by taking so long. My job as GM is to help them with their decisions without making the decisions for them. They are their characters, not mine.
Did I EVER say they had to do it as fast as I did? No. And I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT use the word "idiot."
I AM saying that you're making the amount of time it takes people to choose options way more monolithic than it actually is; in fact, I'm assuming your players are more adept at designing characters than you're giving them credit for.
As I said - my FIRST TRPG EVER was 3.5; I assumed you rolled d% for everything, not a d20. And it still didn't take me long to create a character. I'd imagine your players will surprise you at how quickly they can catch on to the premise.
I don't think a player MUST create a character in 20 minutes or less; I don't even think it's bad if a player takes 2 HOURS to create a character, as long as the other players don't become bored waiting for him to finish.
If you're THAT concerned that your players will be so overwhelmed with a fairly-simple character-gen process - speaking from experience as a DM - you should have simple-yet-balanced pre-gened characters available, then take your players step-by-step through the character creation process later (or let them level up the default character if they choose).
Did I EVER say they had to do it as fast as I did? No. And I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT use the word "idiot."
It was implied by a certain OTHER poster, not you.
I AM saying that you're making the amount of time it takes people to choose options way more monolithic than it actually is; in fact, I'm assuming your players are more adept at designing characters than you're giving them credit for.
If they are, why are they taking so much time? I sat with them for two hours, literally. Two of the five party members have finished their characters, the three that haven't are making a wizard, a bard, and a fighter. They are taking their time because there are a lot of options and they want to choose good ones.
As I said - my FIRST TRPG EVER was 3.5; I assumed you rolled d% for everything, not a d20. And it still didn't take me long to create a character. I'd imagine your players will surprise you at how quickly they can catch on to the premise.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. It didn't take me long to make a character the first time either. You and I are not the new players who I will be GMing for.
I don't think a player MUST create a character in 20 minutes or less; I don't even think it's bad if a player takes 2 HOURS to create a character, as long as the other players don't become bored waiting for him to finish.
If everyone is creating characters, generally nobody will be bored waiting.
If you're THAT concerned that your players will be so overwhelmed with a fairly-simple character-gen process - speaking from experience as a DM - you should have simple-yet-balanced pre-gened characters available, then take your players step-by-step through the character creation process later (or let them level up the default character if they choose).
I am not concerned at all. I want the players to make characters that are meaningful to them and that they will be attached to. I'm happy to let them take as long as they need. I provide assistance, not characters.
Try this on for size, if Pathfinder is not complex why did they make a Beginner's Box (several years after the game came out, no less) with a stripped down rule set to get new players interested?
Again, I never said Pathfinder was extremely simple, either. I said it is simpl-ER than many other RPG systems. I also said it seems to have just the right amount of efficiency and complexity.
I can turn around and say "what does it say for 5th Edition that THEY have a "Beginner's Version" that is even simpler than the PHB?" Does that mean that 5th Edition, for being much simpler than PF, is too complex? By all rights, your argument is effectively "if there needs to be 'beginner's rules' than the game is, by default, 'too complex'"... which then means that, apparently, games like Settlers of Catan, Risk - basically anything more complex than Candy Land - are "too complex."
You're getting extremely defensive because I'm saying that the complexity of both the game and character gen are - or I suppose I should say, to be more neutral, MAY BE - less Brobdingnagian than you're making them out to be.
I didn't start off as confrontational, but I'm getting more-so every time you try to bite my head off for having an opposing view-point. I'd like for things to get back to being civil, if at all possible.
I can turn around and say "what does it say for 5th Edition that THEY have a "Beginner's Version" that is even simpler than the PHB?" Does that mean that 5th Edition, for being much simpler than PF, is too complex? By all rights, your argument is effectively "if there needs to be 'beginner's rules' than the game is, by default, 'too complex'"... which then means that, apparently, games like Settlers of Catan, Risk - basically anything more complex than Candy Land - are "too complex."
You're getting extremely defensive because I'm saying that the complexity of both the game and character gen are - or I suppose I should say, to be more neutral, MAY BE - less Brobdingnagian than you're making them out to be.
I didn't start off as confrontational, but I'm getting more-so every time you try to bite my head off for having an opposing view-point. I'd like for things to get back to being civil, if at all possible.
1. I'm not getting defensive, I'm defending my point. That's how it's supposed to work. You are defending your position, I'm defending mine.
2. I'm not biting your head off, I'm replying to your points. You may be reading malice into it where none exists because I don't agree with you.3. I didn't realize that things had become uncivil.
The 5e Starter Set came out BEFORE the 5e Player's Handbook was released, it includes simplified rules and a low level adventure to get people into the game. The Pathfinder Beginner's Box came out SEVERAL YEARS AFTER the Core Rule Book was released, it includes simplified rules and a low level adventure to get people into the game. I see a considerable difference in the timelines, but maybe that's just me.
9:06
15 CHA, 14 DEX, 13 CON, 12 INT, 10 WIS, 8 STR
gnome: +2 con, +2 cha, -2 str
small
20ft
common, gnome, sylvan
+4 dodge v. giants
+2 v. illusion
+2 perception
+2 one craft or profession
lowlight vision
gnome magic (1/day; dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, speak with animal)
+1 attack (humanoid [reptilian, goblinoid]
weapon familiarity (gnome)
d8 = 8 hp
moderate bab
best refelx and will, poor fortitude
special: Bardic knowledge, bardic performance, cantrips, countersong, distraction, fascinate, inspire courage +1
skills:
feat:
starting gold:
Bemelvarious Tronsulentatiousnarmio
LG
hp
speed 20
AC 1 (touch 1, ff 1)
- armor
+ melee attack [dwarven waraxe (1d10+2)]; +2 power attack (as standard, but +2 dmg or +3 dmg if two-handed)
+ ranged attack [shortbow (1d6)]
+ fortitude, + reflex, + wisdom
CMB +, CMD 1
skills:
feats:
spells:
8 STR, 15 CON, 14 DEX, 10 WIS, 12 INT, 17 CHA
gear:
Character idea: he's a gnome performer desperately seeking to avoid the bleaching - something that began when .
...
...
...
... and then there are times like this, where I started this, and, after about two-to-five minutes, was interrupted and came back an hour and a half later, after having forgotten I was working on this. :)
No idea why, exactly, I'm posting it. A testament to by arrogance deflated, maybe. Man: what a maroon. :D
(It's 10:38)
Things start to become uncivil when you continually accuse people of doing things they didn't do, calling you an idiot when they didn't. Being condescending when they aren't. Perhaps if you would stop ascribing Ill motives to people they would stop thinking you are being uncivil? Just answer the posts and leave off assigning 'motives' to the poster.
Point the first, please see this post from earlier in this thread:
Is faster character creation really something that's needed?
I mean, low level characters can be made in 10 minutes or less with PF as it is?
Unless you are filling out a 15th level Wizard or something its relatively easy, choose a handful of feats, follow a few charts, ect. . . are people really that lazy that the concept of having to make a few choices is too "complicated"?
Maybe you won't pick the perfect set of feats, but as long as you find one feat for your character that you find cool/interesting and grab the obvious ones outside alongside it.
I could power out six characters I'd be interested in playing in less than an hour, and can pump out DM NPCs in literal seconds in the middle of game play. . . I just don't understand the assertion that PF is too complicated I guess.
Admittedly, he didn't call anyone an idiot. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me that it was implied though. That being said, maybe I'm wrong and he's not really that antagonistic.
Point the second, I'm not sure where I was being condescending but if you could quote something I typed that you took to be maybe I can explain. As I quoted above, I can see quite plainly where at least one other person is.
Point the third, I am not assigning motives other than those that appear in the typed text. Honestly, I'm not quite sure why you think I'm attacking you, or anyone else, personally (if indeed you do think that). I'm defending my position by refuting your points. I probably won't change your position and you probably won't change mine. But we are doing a disservice to our positions if we don't defend them fully. And there may be others following the conversation who may be swayed one way or the other.
Maybe what is really needed in PF is a consolidation of the rules set, not a full revision (although some parts - i'm looking at you, rogue - DO need revision).
I would like a new edition at one point but I have not invested heavily into Pathfinder as I did 3rd ed. By the end of 3rd ed I was burnt out on 3.x mechanics Pathfinder was the best of an option that was worse form WoTC.
I more or less saw the game as 3.5 house rules, in some ways 3.5 is still the better system.
What I actually want to this day is a game that is easier to run. Buying adventure paths to me is a patch on a leaky boat. You are paying money to avoid having to design an adventure using the Pathfinder rules. What was annoying in 3.5 (easy access to magic items and wands) is even worse in Pathfinder.
Its not that I am opposed to PCs being able to make magic items and stuff it is just that it enables combos a bit to easily, combos that break the game. I prefer 3.5 type PC options but AD&D magic items under the DMs control not the players. Players can try and make items but success is not 100% and the DM can just say no.
So in short I want a fixed 3.5 type system. I want the game to use BAB, feats, skills, fort/ref/will but rewriting the classes, feats, skills and spells would solve most of the problem along with the combat chapter. I have tried out 5E recently and it has a lot I like in it but a lot I do not like. Overall I think it has better art than PF core book, worse layout in terms of trying to find anything and there are some sheer genius moments in that game along with WTF moments so it is a mixed bag.
I am also more realistic about these things. If I was an American or had a FLGS nearby I suspect I would have invested more heavily into Pathfinder as I just run it with around 6 books and some 3.5 material. You can use 3.5 material in my games just ask 1st what it is and no you can't use persistent metamagic or divine metamagic.
Back in 2009 Paizo said something about 10 years being ideal but I will not hold them to that if they make PF last 7 or 8 years so even if they decided on a new edition tomorrow you are still looking at 7 or 8 years before a new edition hits the shelves. It ultimately depends on how many people leave to go back to D&D I suspect. Right now they are ok but 5E is not complete yet and I think it is a good edition for the most part. Gamers can be fickle especially with RPGs and consoles.
The 5E books, Numenera and Fantasy Flight Games are also starting to beat Paizo in the presentation thing. Back in 2009 PF looked better than say 4E for the most part as the 4E PHB looked bad so there is the casual gamer thing as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Try creating a real character - in Traveller
- where you can die in creation !
:P
For my tuppence on the character creation, I have a mixed bunch of players around the table.
There's - I generated mine in 2 minutes using herolab, let's play!
And - I just used the PHB, I'm ready!
And even - I have every splat book, core book, option book, companion and setting, I generated mine, took me all day, but I'm ready to play (bellies up to the table, with just the books that supports his current character)
And then I have the Brain character (KODT reference)
I searched all the rules to Min Max and Break the game. Rawr! My pc rocks, you all sukzor!
What usually happens, early levels all four have fun, by level 3, everyone stands behind Brian, by level 5 Brian is soloing everything and level ups take the rest of the session - simply because that's what Brian does.
Usually by level 6 or 7, the Brian PC is so out of kilter with the party, he is asked by the party to roll up something else so they can actually play!
In short, rolling up your character takes only as long as you want it to. And if you are a Brian sort, spare a thought for those who want to get in the game and have fun WITH you. :)
|
|
Or BESM. BESM d20 was substantially faster, but absurdly more broken.
Or GURPS.
Or, heck, even 2nd Edition. Dear lord, 2nd Edition.
4E took arguably more time, as well, because everything in that game was Powers, which means you had tons of choices (albeit many were functionally-identical) you had to make for every class.
I'll grant you Palladium and (presumably) GURPS, but BESM and AD&D 2E? No chance in hell. And BESM d20, like every other d20 conversion I ever encountered, sucked everything out of BESM that made it feel like BESM.
Simon-- what other games have you played besides PF and 5th edition?
I think that if you have never played other, much more time consuming character creation style games your perception may be warped.
I have played:
D&D 1e
AD&D
AD&D 2e
D&D 3.0
D&D 3.5
GURPS
Mage: The Ascension
World of Darkness
Shadowrun
Call of Cthulhu
Anima
Dungeon World
RolemasterEven with ever book published now, PF is still one of the SIMPLEST games for character creation compared to many.Great, so that means I should be so happy that Pathfinder only has thousands of available options that I shouldn't want to play something with a lighter rule set?
My question and I'm not sure if it's been already answered or not so forgive me, is this: If the complicated ruleset is not what you want to play? Why arent you using something LESS complicated to intro new players?