|
Being without gear sucks. that is just how it is. do you play a fighter that will only use a club, sling and leather armor and complain that it is not as good as heavier armors, falcata and longbow?
1. Is that fighter with only a club, sling, and leather armor envisioned as a mystically ascetic character?
2. Ascetic character support doesn't have to be equal to a magic-geared character. It also doesn't have to be miles behind.
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.
... according to a very specific definition of "feel like monks" that goes against 20 years of game inertia where the heroes are very un-monk-like in their devotion to treasure and magic items.
Being without gear sucks. that is just how it is. do you play a fighter that will only use a club, sling and leather armor and complain that it is not as good as heavier armors, falcata and longbow?1. Is that fighter with only a club, sling, and leather armor envisioned as a mystically ascetic character?
2. Ascetic character support doesn't have to be equal to a magic-geared character. It also doesn't have to be miles behind.
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.
Give me 1 hour, and I will write something for you.
|
Being without gear sucks. that is just how it is. do you play a fighter that will only use a club, sling and leather armor and complain that it is not as good as heavier armors, falcata and longbow?1. Is that fighter with only a club, sling, and leather armor envisioned as a mystically ascetic character?
2. Ascetic character support doesn't have to be equal to a magic-geared character. It also doesn't have to be miles behind.
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.
1 doesn't have to be, maybe he is supposed to be a bad ass savage warrior.
2 nor do inferior gear choices for RP HAVE to be so far behind.....
Being without gear sucks, if your not a spellcaster that is just how it is. do you play a fighter that will only use a club, sling and leather armor and complain that it is not as good as heavier armors, falcata and longbow?Fixed that for you.
Material Components = Gear.
No gear = far less spell choices. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.... according to a very specific definition of "feel like monks" that goes against 20 years of game inertia where the heroes are very un-monk-like in their devotion to treasure and magic items.
Which is another whole bag of issues where the game has become more and more about being festooned like a christmas tree with magic items. At least in AD&D you were not absolutely required to get all the big six. Hell, there the amount of any magic items you got was on the whim of the GM. And magic item crafting in Pathfinder is another topic where RAW game balance fundamentally fails.
I certainly don't understand the recalcitrance of you guys ( the designers ) of having a good discussion about alternate ways of reaching certain power plateaus, i.e. ascetic vows, magic rituals to empower the body and mind or other stuff like that. Giving players alternatives should be, IMHO, a high priority for game design. Forcing everyone into the "must get better magic items as soon as possible" paradigm just makes many games devolve into loot drama and closes off storytelling possibilities for the GM.
The Vow(3.5) also did not say you could not have gear. You could not have gear up to a certain value. Spells with expensive components would be an issue. Ordinary spells would not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly don't understand the recalcitrance of you guys ( the designers ) of having a good discussion about alternate ways of reaching certain power plateaus, i.e. ascetic vows, magic rituals to empower the body and mind or other stuff like that.
I never, ever, ever, EVER said that alternate subsystems like that aren't a good idea, or aren't worth considering, or don't belong in the game. They are a good idea. They are worth considering. They do belong in the game.
I HAVE said that a one-paragraph entry on monks in a book called Ultimate Magic is NOT the right place to cram such a "you don't use magic items" subsystem. Especially as it challenges the premise of magic gear for all characters, not just for monks... any more than a pacifist paladin archetype in Ultimate Combat is the right place to present an alternate system for leveling PCs without combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I HAVE said that a one-paragraph entry on monks in a book called Ultimate Magic is NOT the right place to cram such a "you don't use magic items" subsystem. Especially as it challenges the premise of magic gear for all characters, not just for monks... any more than a pacifist paladin archetype in Ultimate Combat is the right place to present an alternate system for leveling PCs without combat.
I think the issue is that you did include an option to go without magical items in that book. It is just that mechanical effects of it are, in most cases, utterly crippling. To continue your example, people would also be upset if there was a pacifist paladin archetype that simply wasn't allowed to attack anyone ever, without any additional mechanics to make it a viable choice. Such an option would be a waste of space at best, and a trap at worst. If there is not enough space to make such a thing work at all, then I believe many are of the opinion that it simply shouldn't be included to begin with.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry that it took so long Mikazi. I had to get up and do some other stuff instead of writing. Anyway, I wanted to write this for you since you love monks and I genuinely enjoy reading your posts (particularly on undead stuff).
Ascetic Characters in Pathfinder.
Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.
Wow! Very impressive. Still reading, but again... wow!
...Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.Wow! Very impressive. Still reading, but again... wow!
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy it. I'll be here all week. (^_^)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is that you did include an option to go without magical items in that book. It is just that mechanical effects of it are, in most cases, utterly crippling... If there is not enough space to make such a thing work at all, then I believe many are of the opinion that it simply shouldn't be included to begin with.
We've learned our lesson; if the option is to present something that we know is a weaker choice, just don't include it at all. People will complain if you include a poor choice, and other people will complain if you don't include it as an option at all, but at least with the latter group you won't have people second-guessing you on the design decisions. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also: don't name things the same as highly controversial 3.5 things that will inevitably draw moths to the flame. If Pathfinder VoP was called, errr, Vow of Not Being Rich, it would get barely noticed and nobody would start threads like this one.
Dragon Shaman is also a bit guilty of that.
I'm happy to hear that the kinds of magic item substituting sub-systems are not completely off the table. Since topics for new sourcebooks will be getting scarcer, now that most of the obvious stuff ( classes, magic items, races ) has been done, I hope to see this topic being addressed soon. :)
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is that you did include an option to go without magical items in that book. It is just that mechanical effects of it are, in most cases, utterly crippling... If there is not enough space to make such a thing work at all, then I believe many are of the opinion that it simply shouldn't be included to begin with.We've learned our lesson; if the option is to present something that we know is a weaker choice, just don't include it at all. People will complain if you include a poor choice, and other people will complain if you don't include it as an option at all, but at least with the latter group you won't have people second-guessing you on the design decisions. ;)
Well you do expect people to put faith in your designs to not screw them over mechanically. If it's published as a resource, then people experienced or inexperienced should not have to wonder if it is a trap. They should be able to have faith in [Paizo's] product to be useful and on the level, like the professionals you are supposed to be.
When stuff is produced at a lower quality than people who aren't getting paid to do this sort of thing (such as many people on this boards) it shakes faith in your company. Then when you respond to concerns raised and basically openly admit that it was bad mechanics and that, essentially, you didn't care (or throw oil on the fire by committing Stormwind Fallacy) then shaking turns to shattering, and then it takes a while for people to get their faith back in your [Paizo's] willigness to give a product that is good mechanically and not simply mechanics with pretty pictures and amazing layouts.
You can't complain that people are making honest and fair criticisms about the material they are purchasing from you. This is not a lose/lose situation like you paint it. It seems like common sense that if you actually do have people complaining that there are no options for X, that throwing out a half-butted attempt would not solve their problem, and would naturally ask to get burned for putting out poor, unfinished, or otherwise bad product.
People aren't second guessing design decisions. They're asking that design decisions actually get made in the first place. Anyone who has been playing 3.x for a while can tell that Vow of Poverty was horrible. Same with Antagonize. I'm still trying to figure out how they got past...
A) The writers.
B) Whomever accepts the writing.
C) The editors.
D) Anyone at the Paizo office who plays D&D/Pathfinder.
...and then managed to make it all the way to print. Wizards of the Coast is a great example of a company that does stuff half way and then catches hell for it. Do not be Wizards of the Coast. You [Paizo] can be better than that.
EDIT: Furthermore, it should be clear by now that having exceptionally bad options is just as bad as having no options at all. At least then you know where you stand. Now if you want to actually fix the problem, then you have to deal with nonsense that has come before it, and either errata it, or pretend it never existed. In either case, it looks bad and sloppy.
I never, ever, ever, EVER said that alternate subsystems like that aren't a good idea, or aren't worth considering, or don't belong in the game. They are a good idea. They are worth considering. They do belong in the game.
I am a big fan of your alternate step level advancement. I found it on one of the other posts, and shared it with my group. We have really enjoyed it. I think it is a great example of an alternate system that doesn't work for everyone, but our group won't go back to the "normal" way again.
I would love to see rules for low magic / rare magic item characters. One thing I like about Pathfinder is that it is adaptable (at least home games...PFS is a different matter). We have brought in rules we like and eliminated others we didn't.
As a player, I understand the desire for "official rules" that fit my playstyle preference (and I feel this as a fan of unarmed monk!) but I also realize that the great diversity in Pathfinder's player base means that many different opinions on the right way to do everything will exist.
I would love some rules written up that fit our playstyle as a group, but overall we have been pleased with Pathfinder. I do think it is important to add that in our group we have several players that like "bad" character choices. They do not optimize, nor do they have interest in learning how to do so. They make sub optimal choices, and are happy with their characters.
Bottom line: they like some of the "bad" choices, they enjoy the game, and we all buy books.
Those of us on the forums can tend to lean more towards the system mastery side of the player spectrum. I think it is important to remember that some players out there have different ways of making choices for their characters.
(2nd time typing on phone... After website ate last one. So please forgive any grammar or spelling errors I'm too tired to fix :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a great post by Ashiel.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't complain that people are making honest and fair criticisms about the material they are purchasing from you.
I think we'll have to disagree that the comments about VOP have been "honest and fair," considering that some people think it's the worst thing they've ever seen and an insult, some think it's quite reasonable for low-magic games, and some think it's appropriate to make personal attacks at the designers because of it.
Anyway, like I said, if the option is to
1a) present a deliberately and significantly weaker option, even if that's because realistically it would be a weaker choice*
1b) or if space considerations mean we can only give a cursory overview of that choice**
1c) or if the option doesn't really fit the theme of the book***, so we shouldn't devote more column inches to that topic
or
2) not presenting that option at all, with the hope that we can address it properly in a later book,
we're going to go with Option 2.
You're telling us to not be a company that "does stuff half way and then catches hell for it." I don't want us to be that company. Nor does Erik, or Lisa. That's why I said I'm not dismissing your opinion or making fun of you. I'm doing exactly what you're saying we should do: learn from our mistakes by not repeating those mistakes. That's why I didn't take a vacation day for 5 months while I was working on the Beginner Box. That's why I nearly gave myself a heart attack checking things on Ultimate Equipment. That's why development on NPC Codex has taken so long. I am committed to quality, and I've heard what the fans have to say when it comes to deliberately-weak options.
So when I say "if the choice is publishing a deliberately-weak option for X or not publishing any options for X, we're doing the latter," I'm not saying it to punish anyone, I'm saying it because I want the fans of X to have our best effort and I want its power level to be our best effort at balanced.
* Frex, a series of whip feats aren't going to let you deal as much damage as a series of greatsword feats.
** Frex, like having only a two-page spread set aside for a prestige class, but the class really needs its own new rule subsystem to make it shine, and writing that subsystem eats up most of the space for the prestige class.
*** Like a no-magic-items monk option in a book about magic, or a pacifist paladin option in a book about combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
learn from our mistakes by not repeating those mistakes.
...
I personnaly like this option, as I like to make themed characters, that are often underpowered due to personal choices.
I agree this is not optimized choice, but hey, it's an option and as such I like it a lot.
so I'd conclude by:
this is not a mistake, this is a design choice. I appears that it did not satisfied a set of customer.
and I find it nice that you'll adapt your future design decision based on the feedback. you do great job Paizo guys (and ladies ;op ), keep up !
Stephane
disclaimer, I'm not a native english speaker, pls be indulgent for grammar/phrasing.
I just want to add that I personally never plan to attack the developers personally, my posts are not intended as personal attacks, but rather as constructive criticism. Of course discussions can get heated, but I have nothing but the highest respect for the people who continue to give us this great game.
Nonetheless, asking developers to keep a high standard and publish balanced options is not bad per se, but rather understandable from our ( the costumers ) side. And I am very happy that this seems to be the standard to which you guys aspire. And that our feedback means that you keep getting even better at your craft.
I just have some fears that this also means that these options will never be published/published many years in the future, since you guys have so much on your plates.
Being the one who created this thread I feel responsible for what has been or could have been considered an attack on the developers/publishers of what could be the greatest game in our time.
To Sean K Reynolds and all your cohorts, I apologize. This was never my intent. I was merely asking others opinions on an issue my group had with a new version of a vow.
Personally, my group and I have currently voted to allow either benefit of the VoP from 3.5 and/or Pathfinder we deem proper for a particular character.
We do appreciate the fact that Pathfinder is backwards compatible and not moving in a direction that makes all out previous investments completely obsolete. Thank you.
Never before has there been such dedication from a company that it would open itself so completely to allow communication between their customers and themselves to this degree.
We, as customers, need to keep this in mind and give the respect that act and bravery engenders. This doesn't mean we shouldn't speak what is on out minds, but it does mean we need to be mindful of how we say it.
Thank you again. Thank you for your dedication. Thank you for being involved in the community right beside us. Thank you for listening to what we have to say. Did I say thank you? I ask because I can't say it enough.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.... according to a very specific definition of "feel like monks" that goes against 20 years of game inertia where the heroes are very un-monk-like in their devotion to treasure and magic items.
I don't think it's all that overly specific, but rather a large range of characters and what a large portion of players envision when they learn about the monk. Speaking personally, that's how the vast majority of monk concepts I imagine as well as their inspirations look and feel: People that aren't jangling with jewelry and doodads that make them good at being a monk, but rather do rise above that and look more like Irori's portrait in Gods and Magic.
For the truly exemplary, martial skill transcends the battlefield—it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind. These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade. These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers. Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be.
I have said this before, but I would rephrase much of the monk's issues (besides MAD) to be that the monk is intended to be a, in the words of the core rulebook, "battle-minded ascetic," but Pathfinder is designed to make its PCs reliant upon gear, and specifically upon items which enhance to-hit and allow you to bypass DR.
There's also a broad issue that I think the monk concept is not clear, its purpose and role nowhere near as easy to determine as, say, a fighter or barbarian or cleric or wizard or even rogue. It's easy to say "people who don't like the monk don't get what the monk is about," but if so very many people "don't get it," maybe the problem isn't their abilities to comprehend the issue, but a lack of clarity in the concept itself.
Is the monk an unarmed specialist who can deal amazing amounts of damage with his fists? If so, why does he require external magical support to get spells to enhance his attacks, or is he forced otherwise to fight with weapons that goes against this unarmed specialist concept?
And actually, I agree that the insults have got to stop, but it's been going both ways between two imagined camps for some time now, and it's hard not to get embittered whne certain individuals insist that the only reason people were disappointed or are frustrated with the VoP is because they must be an "optimizer/min-maxer/whatever-other-label" to dismiss them. That's what my post you quoted was complaining about, not you, but rather divisive stuff like this that continues to muddy the situation and the actual perspectives your fans and customer have. That's what frustrates me, the continued insistance from some corners that that's the only reason fans could not like the VoP. Personally, I hate being forced to tweak out a character as much as possible. I don't like the idea that if you're playing a monk you're expected to dump-stat. Heck, I'd love to be able to just relax and actually make a positive-CHA plain monk work. I'm not looking for Real Ultimate Power, I'm just looking for a monk that will live up the roleplaying concept so that it doesn't make my character come across as a delusinal sap or a hypocrite, all so I can concentrate on the actual roleplaying. But that gets lost when the people parroting the "only optimizers have aq problem with it" sentiment go on and on.
That said, I'm relieved to hear that support for such characters sounds not only possible but even inevitible. Inevitable. And I'm extremely happy that Paizo's going to give such an effort their all. I'm really eager to see what it is. I've been yearning for that sort of thing for a long time now to get official support.
To be clear again, I actually am a fan of Paizo's work. Do some specific things frustrate me? Sure. But by and large they make a game I really love. It's when what complaints you have get distorted and dismissed by others in the community that it leaves a real sour mood. If any of my posts came across as insulting to anyone up there, then I do apologize. That's not the kind of scene I want for the community.
|
|
Sorry that it took so long Mikazi. I had to get up and do some other stuff instead of writing. Anyway, I wanted to write this for you since you love monks and I genuinely enjoy reading your posts (particularly on undead stuff).
Ascetic Characters in Pathfinder.Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.
I really want to see this. I'm having trouble loading it up now, but I really want to read this. Going to continue trying to download it through the day!
And thanks, big time! :)
Fergie, reading over your version as well!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those are very nice rules Ashiel! Shame Mikaze is having trouble getting it considering it's dedicated to them. :(
I feel that, similar to Streams rule that he posted on ENWorld, it does a good job giving an option that doesn't break too far from the existing system.
It uses the values of magic items, and their effects, to reproduce what's desired, and at first glance, has a decent balance to it.
I still feel that there should be room for Vow of Poverty that gave you a set of enhanced stats, keeping you effective for your level, with a smaller set of variable effects that keeps things interesting and able to respond to unique situations.
Sorry that it took so long Mikazi. I had to get up and do some other stuff instead of writing. Anyway, I wanted to write this for you since you love monks and I genuinely enjoy reading your posts (particularly on undead stuff).
Ascetic Characters in Pathfinder.Hope you like it. If you're looking for anything in particular, let me know.
I really want to see this. I'm having trouble loading it up now, but I really want to read this. Going to continue trying to download it through the day!
And thanks, big time! :)
Fergie, reading over your version as well!
Well I could e-mail it to you if you'd like.
=====================================
I arrived in the conversation late, and mostly responded to Mikaze and a comment Sean made directly. I haven't really seen much attacking going on on either side (beyond stuff like people calling optimizers crybabies, but haters gonna hate and all). But nobody should attack the developers, because they are people to. I say open fire on attacking the bad mechanics though. They need to die by fire.
|
|
Apparently it's badwrong to want support for monks that actually feel like monks.... according to a very specific definition of "feel like monks" that goes against 20 years of game inertia where the heroes are very un-monk-like in their devotion to treasure and magic items.I don't think it's all that overly specific, but rather a large range of characters and what a large portion of players envision when they learn about the monk. Speaking personally, that's how the vast majority of monk concepts I imagine as well as their inspirations look and feel: People that aren't jangling with jewelry and doodads that make them good at being a monk, but rather do rise above that and look more like Irori's portrait in Gods and Magic.
For the truly exemplary, martial skill transcends the battlefield—it is a lifestyle, a doctrine, a state of mind. These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade. These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers. Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be....I have said this before, but I would rephrase much of the monk's issues (besides MAD) to be that the monk is intended to be a, in the words of the core rulebook, "battle-minded ascetic," but Pathfinder is designed to make its PCs reliant upon gear, and specifically upon items which enhance to-hit and allow you to bypass DR.
There's also a broad issue that I think the monk concept is not clear, its purpose and role nowhere near as easy to determine as, say, a fighter or barbarian or cleric or wizard or even rogue. It's easy to say "people who don't like
Then you must have a system to give equality to every sub par choice. If someone envisions a barbarian with no more armor than a loincloth what system will make his ideal character work? Or the guy that only want to wield a walking stick as a club but doesn't think he should be penalized? The point is there are MANY more character choices based on "what i want" that would require a rewrite of the game to make them all happy. Not just you and your ideal monk.
I arrived in the conversation late, and mostly responded to Mikaze and a comment Sean made directly. I haven't really seen much attacking going on on either side (beyond stuff like people calling optimizers crybabies, but haters gonna hate and all). But nobody should attack the developers, because they are people to. I say open fire on attacking the bad mechanics though. They need to die by fire.
And I think that should be even more clear: Talking in a critical way about game mechanics is not a personal attack on the developers who wrote them. A few seem to take criticism very personally, although when some of us ( including me ) get very passionate in their criticism, I can kind of understand it. I said some unkind things about the anonymous person who wrote Antagonize, for example.
Nonetheless, in the end it is the mechanic which really is under criticism and not the person. A faster feedback cycle on the really hotly criticised rules would probably help to dampen any too emotional outbursts from us.
Then you must have a system to give equality to every sub par choice. If someone envisions a barbarian with no more armor than a loincloth what system will make his ideal character work? Or the guy that only want to wield a walking stick as a club but doesn't think he should be penalized? The point is there are MANY more character choices based on "what i want" that would require a rewrite of the game to make them all happy. Not just you and your ideal monk.
Both of your examples would fit very well under things like ascetic vows or rituals of empowerment. You don't need many different rules systems for that, one system would suffice, with a few built in variations.
|
As long as it 1.) applied to all classes fairly equally, (I honestly do not care a bit about any more Monk, Oracle, or Bard add ons personally, . . . ever), and 2.) also offered enough benefits to (at least closely) match what is given up, while 3.) does not fundmentally change the game (like allowing the poor guy to give all his money to the other players, or just sit on it until 20th level and then give up their vow).
|
|
I arrived in the conversation late, and mostly responded to Mikaze and a comment Sean made directly. I haven't really seen much attacking going on on either side (beyond stuff like people calling optimizers crybabies, but haters gonna hate and all). But nobody should attack the developers, because they are people to. I say open fire on attacking the bad mechanics though. They need to die by fire.And I think that should be even more clear: Talking in a critical way about game mechanics is not a personal attack on the developers who wrote them. A few seem to take criticism very personally, although when some of us ( including me ) get very passionate in their criticism, I can kind of understand it. I said some unkind things about the anonymous person who wrote Antagonize, for example.
Nonetheless, in the end it is the mechanic which really is under criticism and not the person. A faster feedback cycle on the really hotly criticised rules would probably help to dampen any too emotional outbursts from us.
Customer entitlement is a funny thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Customer entitlement is a funny thing.It's hilarious how people who don't feel like they got a good value for their money get irritated.
The rules are free. You're paying 40 bucks to have them in a nice book with cool drawings. Now, if you don't like the artwork, I can relate...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, Gorbacz? Asking for a better product now counts as "costumer entitlement" ( the negative kind, the way you formulate it )?