| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that "From a mechanical perspective" is the only perspective that matters here. Ultimately the 'rogue' in the class section of a character sheet has no meaning from a roleplaying standpoint, and if two classes accomplish the same goal and one does it clearly better, roleplaying has nothing to do with making the worse one better, because roleplaying is ultimately something you invent for yourself.Nothing is entirely separate, but yeah, we have kind of derailed a bit.
If you're looking from a purely mechanical perspective, I can see how rogue would seem obsolete
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.
Not sure that's fair to say given that both cover near ground conceptually and even where they do beat the rogue it was in areas the rogue already naturally struggled with. So even if we do take the premise "creeping up the power" to simply bring things toward baseline doesn't seem like a bad trade.
Rogue was the baseline--for rogues. I don't really look at any baseline for PCs in general because I don't believe there ever really was one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.
Personally, my character is not defined by his class. All my character's class does is define what he can do.
Using the class description as your character bio does not strike me as imaginative.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.
Wait, are we talking about the class description that puts 'rogue' as a generic moniker for anyone who solves their problems with subtlety, ingenuity and a certain disregard for conventional rules of warfare? Because that's essentially the only defining traits I found about them, and quite frankly that covers ninjas, rangers, slayers, investigators, most bards, and quite a few other ideas. "Rogue" does not have any manner of strong identity whatsoever.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing is entirely separate, but yeah, we have kind of derailed a bit.
If you're looking from a purely mechanical perspective, I can see how rogue would seem obsolete
The problem is that "From a mechanical perspective" is the only perspective that matters here. Ultimately the 'rogue' in the class section of a character sheet has no meaning from a roleplaying standpoint, and if two classes accomplish the same goal and one does it clearly better, roleplaying has nothing to do with making the worse one better, because roleplaying is ultimately something you invent for yourself.
This isn't "Wizards are better than fighters" so never play a fighter either, because we're talking about classes that cover the same niche.
For that reason, I'm not a fan of those classes, as I feel they didn't really fill a new niche and instead just crept the power up.Not sure that's fair to say given that both cover near ground conceptually and even where they do beat the rogue it was in areas the rogue already naturally struggled with. So even if we do take the premise "creeping up the power" to simply bring things toward baseline doesn't seem like a bad trade.
+1 to like, everything anlashok said.
You know what class I almost always choose if I need a character who's supposed to be the leader of a thieve's or assassin's guild? Not Rogue, Ranger. The team buffing option for Hunter's Bond to represent his leadership abilities, Favored Terrain (Urban) for his packet of city skills and he beats the hell out of the Rogue in his intended role. Skirmisher archetype even serves as one big bag of tricks that is way better at doing the kind of tricky things you'd expect than most Rogue talents. The new Vanguard archetype for the Slayer might replace the Ranger, but the Rogue was out a long time ago.
When the mechanics of a class fail to deliver adequately on what the fluff implies it should be able to do, I don't keep trudging along with subpar functionality because someone decided to put the most appropriate name for my concept on that particular block of functions. I look for the mechanics that match my concept. I don't know about anyone else, but we usually roleplay when we're playing the game, which means we don't go around the table saying "I'm Joe the Rogue" and "I'm Hank the Fighter", it's "I'm Jorielle, born on the streets of Absalom. I cut, stabbed, swindled, and cheated my way into a position as lieutenant in the largest criminal enterprise on the continent" or "I'm Handsome Hank, former soldier and current mercenary. They call me "Handsome" cause these scars I got during a skirmish in Andoran...".
It doesn't matter what that descriptive block over the mechanics says if those mechanics don't jive with what I want to do.
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.Wait, are we talking about the class description that puts 'rogue' as a generic moniker for anyone who solves their problems with subtlety, ingenuity and a certain disregard for conventional rules of warfare? Because that's essentially the only defining traits I found about them, and quite frankly that covers ninjas, rangers, slayers, investigators, most bards, and quite a few other ideas. "Rogue" does not have any manner of strong identity whatsoever.
In fact, it's intentionally vague. It's why they changed it from the old school "Thief", which was too specifically tied to a particular concept to adequately define everything they wanted to do with it. Fighter and Rogue, conceptually, are so vague and open that it's a little weird to hear someone say they want to be sure they pick the class whose description matches their concept; those classes are specifically left with very broad descriptions that can cover an array of concepts, many of which are more specifically embodied by other classes/arcehtypes/etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.Personally, my character is not defined by his class. All my character's class does is define what he can do.
Using the class description as your character bio does not strike me as imaginative.
I'm in the very same boat here. Mechanics are what define what my character can do. And who my character is often is reflected by those mechanics. Not some rather arbitrary label and description of one piece of my character.
For example
Behold,The Horse
The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is one of two extant subspecies of Equus ferus. It is an odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae. The horse has evolved over the past 45 to 55 million years from a small multi-toed creature into the large, single-toed animal of today. Humans began to domesticate horses around 4000 BC, and their domestication is believed to have been widespread by 3000 BC. Horses in the subspecies caballus are domesticated, although some domesticated populations live in the wild as feral horses. These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses that have never been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's horse, a separate subspecies, and the only remaining true wild horse.
If the picture there was the mechanics, it doesn't matter what you called it. If you're not calling it a baby duck, it doesn't just become a baby duck.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
is basically what it is. Switching the description of Rogue and Wizard doesn't suddenly make the wizard a rogue or vice versa. It makes them mislabeled.
Then the slayer comes along, kinda like this..
The Clydesdale is a breed of draught horse derived from the farm horses of Clydesdale, Scotland, and named after that region. Although originally one of the smaller breeds of draught horses, it is now a tall breed. Often bay in colour, they show significant white markings due to the presence of sabino genetics. The breed was originally used for agriculture and haulage, and is still used for draught purposes today. The Budweiser Clydesdales are some of the most famous Clydesdales, and other members of the breed are used as drum horses by the British Household Cavalry. They have also been used to create and improve other draught breeds.
Now we've finally got a horse! Its no longer a baby duck, but an actual horse. Its a bit specific now, but at least its a horse. And that is a lot of the problem with things here. The mechanics do not back up the name, the role, the concept of things like the Rogue quite as well as they should.
The Rogue has bled out in Pathfinder. The things it gets is very subpar a bit too often. My biggest one I've got a beef with was Esoteric Scholar
Now Esoteric Scholar means basically someone who studies things that are intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
But the mechanics of the talent does not back up it up. Getting the feat, Mechanically by RAW limits you to a single knowledge check per day. RAI, we can assume that it was really meant to let you roll once per day for untrained knowledge checks. But you know, if you where someone who studied things intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest you'd probably actually put skill points in there. Just one skill point per knowledge skill,and Viola, you've got that talent beat, making you truly an Esoteric Scholar more so than taking the talent ever would.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.Wait, are we talking about the class description that puts 'rogue' as a generic moniker for anyone who solves their problems with subtlety, ingenuity and a certain disregard for conventional rules of warfare? Because that's essentially the only defining traits I found about them, and quite frankly that covers ninjas, rangers, slayers, investigators, most bards, and quite a few other ideas. "Rogue" does not have any manner of strong identity whatsoever.
Ninjas, rangers, slayers, and bards, however, do have fairly specific descriptions that simply don't apply to most rogue characters I create. A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics--unless you don't want it to be, which is a perfectly fine way of playing as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the mechanics of a class fail to deliver adequately on what the fluff implies it should be able to do, I don't keep trudging along with subpar functionality because someone decided to put the most appropriate name for my concept on that particular block of functions. I look for the mechanics that match my concept.
I don't feel that the mechanics of the rogue fail to deliver adequately, nor do I feel that the "fluff" (I hate this word; it's so dismissive) of the ranger adequately describes the rogue characters that I create.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ninjas, rangers, slayers, and bards, however, do have fairly specific descriptions that simply don't apply to most rogue characters I create. A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics--unless you don't want it to be, which is a perfectly fine way of playing as well.
The mechanics exist to promote roleplay. If there are mechanics that do a better job of promoting the character that I'm trying to roleplay, those would be the ones I would use. The paragraph of descriptive fluff over the class is meaningless. The Fighter fluff says they can "tame kingdoms and rouse the hearts of armies", but if I actually wanted to do either of those things the Fighter is the last class I should pick.
At the end of the day, a class really isn't more than a "bag-o'-mechanics"; that has nothing to do with playstyle, that just has to do with reality. Saying that you have to play a Fighter to "tame kingdoms and rouse the hearts of armies", or a Rogue to be an "agile acrobat or shadowy stalker" is the very antithesis of roleplay. It's clear that Paizo doesn't think those descriptive paragraphs mean much either since the Rogue is specifically called out as a class for investigators and they went and made an Investigator class.
I would think a character would grow from the seed of a statement like "I want to play a half-elf who's light on her feet, good with horses, killer with a bow, and knows a cool fighting style". Maybe the Ranger is the right fit for that idea. Maybe instead, I decide that the mechanics of the Sohei fit that idea better. (That actually happened with my fiancee's character in a game we played. She went 8 levels with a half-elf Sohei with the whole party assuming she was a Ranger until her bow was sundered during an ambush and she used unarmed strikes and some style moves to break free and escape on her pegasus.)
It's odd to find someone stating that they choose a class because of an inaccurate header whose sole purpose is to try and convey the intent of the mechanics instead of choosing based on what mechanics best support their character, particularly when that person is a self-professed "roleplayer". It just strikes me as odd, like a self-professed race car driver touting the racing merits of a car2go.
So how would you describe a healer? A cleric? A Oracle? A Paladin? Maybe a witch or arcanist? How is rogue better? What if the cleric was called healer instead? Would you then say that clerics ate healer that Oracle of life is not a healer in fluff?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I endorse all Ssalarn's posts on this subject in the strongest possible terms.
If you go by the descriptions literally, Rangers are some sort of social Darwinist psychopaths, Barbarians are all warmongers, and all Alchemists are reckless loonies. None of these are necessarily the case.
The purpose of the descriptions is to give an idea what the class is intended for, not pigeonhole you into using it (and only it) for that (and only that). They're supposed to be inspiring, not restrictive.
This is a game of imagination, you start with a concept of what you want the character to be able to accomplish, and who you want them to be, and then you pick a Class and Race and Feats and skills and weapons to enable that concept. You can certainly draw inspiration from the description of classes, but if you find something that more accurately reflects who and what you want the character to be, you use it, because the important thing is for what the character can actually do in game to synch up with your vision for that character, not that the character have a specific word written on their character sheet.
...A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics...
Except it's not...
Anything you apply to a class comes from its mechanics. The descriptions are what the devs thought the mechanics convey. The name of the class is a reflection of its mechanics. Fore and foremost a class is its mechanics, everything else is secondary (as in drawn from those mechanics).One question: How do you flavor multiclass characters? Or do they just not exist?
The Rogue has bled out in Pathfinder. The things it gets is very subpar a bit too often. My biggest one I've got a beef with was Esoteric ScholarNow Esoteric Scholar means basically someone who studies things that are intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
But the mechanics of the talent does not back up it up. Getting the feat, Mechanically by RAW limits you to a single knowledge check per day.
Yeah so? Maybe it's a bad talent. Maybe it's poorly written talent where the RAI doesn't match the RAW.
1. No Rogue is required to take it.
2. There are several class archetypes (archaeologist bard) where they get Talents also. Since they also can choose this talent does that make the Bard a terrible class?
3. The Ninja (a rogue archetype)doesn't even get Rogue talents, so how does a cruddy talent make the Ninja bad?
4. There are some pretty bad metamagic feats. This, then would make the Wizard a bad class?
...A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics...Except it's not...
Anything you apply to a class comes from its mechanics. The descriptions are what the devs thought the mechanics convey. The name of the class is a reflection of its mechanics. Fore and foremost a class is its mechanics, everything else is secondary (as in drawn from those mechanics).One question: How do you flavor multiclass characters? Or do they just not exist?
Except that they are. How would you build a healer? Clerics are not spelt out as healers and by their class fluff they are all battle priests... but a pacifist healer goes against allot of the class... so by your logic you can't make a healer cleric... but mechanics say they can...
The Rogue has bled out in Pathfinder. The things it gets is very subpar a bit too often. My biggest one I've got a beef with was Esoteric Scholar
Now Esoteric Scholar means basically someone who studies things that are intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
But the mechanics of the talent does not back up it up. Getting the feat, Mechanically by RAW limits you to a single knowledge check per day.
Yeah so? Maybe it's a bad talent. Maybe it's poorly written talent where the RAI doesn't match the RAW.
1. No Rogue is required to take it.
2. There are several class archetypes (archaeologist bard) where they get Talents also. Since they also can choose this talent does that make the Bard a terrible class?
3. The Ninja (a rogue archetype)doesn't even get Rogue talents, so how does a cruddy talent make the Ninja bad?
4. There are some pretty bad metamagic feats. This, then would make the Wizard a bad class?
And if it was the only talent like that it wouldn't be an issue.
Rogue talents seem to range from broken bad to ok, with like 6 that are good (depending on interpretation of the rules, for example skillmastery is a lot less useful with SKR take 10 guidelines).
Yeah... rogue talents add a whole are kinda bad...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that they are. How would you build a healer? Clerics are not spelt out as healers and by their class fluff they are all battle priests... but a pacifist healer goes against allot of the class... so by your logic you can't make a healer cleric... but mechanics say they can......A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics...Except it's not...
Anything you apply to a class comes from its mechanics. The descriptions are what the devs thought the mechanics convey. The name of the class is a reflection of its mechanics. Fore and foremost a class is its mechanics, everything else is secondary (as in drawn from those mechanics).One question: How do you flavor multiclass characters? Or do they just not exist?
You mistakenly think we disagree.
Yeah so? Maybe it's a bad talent. Maybe it's poorly written talent where the RAI doesn't match the RAW.
1. No Rogue is required to take it.
2. There are several class archetypes (archaeologist bard) where they get Talents also. Since they also can choose this talent does that make the Bard a terrible class?
3. The Ninja (a rogue archetype)doesn't even get Rogue talents, so how does a cruddy talent make the Ninja bad?
4. There are some pretty bad metamagic feats. This, then would make the Wizard a bad class?
1) The problem is that many of their talents are written in this same vein: sounds cool, very underwhelming functionally. They don't get to trade these out at higher level automatically like fighters do combat feats or sorcerers do known spells. They can't change them up from day-to-day either like all prepared casters do. They can't get more uses of these things per day either. Yes, there are some very nice rogue talents, but they're in the minority.
2) No, because the bard has about a dozen other things they get by default that are pretty darned good. That archetype keeps most of them, too, including full 0-6 level spellcasting, jack of all trades, and bardic knowledge / lore master. In return for losing bardic performance, they keep their self-buff combat performance, gain 5 rogue talents, evasion, uncanny dodge, trap-sense, and a better version of trap-finding. That's an awesome trade-out, especially if someone else in the party can assist with party support, like a sensei monk.
3) Alternate class, actually, and they do get full access to both their normal tricks AND all the normal rogue talents, plus one advanced rogue talent. Most ninjas would end up taking ninja tricks over rogue talents, though, because they work better both in and out of combat. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer Vanishing Trick over Camoflage any day of the week.
4) Bad example on your part. Meta-magic feats are supplemental options that can be taken by any spellcasting class, which is easily 2/3s of them at this point. No class is required to take them as part of their class features, the sum total of which is used to weigh the classes potential against all others 1-20 classes.
...A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics...Except it's not...
Anything you apply to a class comes from its mechanics. The descriptions are what the devs thought the mechanics convey. The name of the class is a reflection of its mechanics. Fore and foremost a class is its mechanics, everything else is secondary (as in drawn from those mechanics).
We'll just have to disagree here, unless the forum would like a reenactment of that one Monty Python sketch.
One question: How do you flavor multiclass characters? Or do they just not exist?
I'm not sure what you mean. How do multiclass characters work any differently?
We'll just have to disagree here, unless the forum would like a reenactment of that one Monty Python sketch....A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics...Except it's not...
Anything you apply to a class comes from its mechanics. The descriptions are what the devs thought the mechanics convey. The name of the class is a reflection of its mechanics. Fore and foremost a class is its mechanics, everything else is secondary (as in drawn from those mechanics).
Hard to disagree with either of you here. "A class is more than just a bag-o'-mechanics" certainly describes what an RPG "class" should be, for me. The flavor (a.k.a. "fluff") is of primary importance to me, because that is what we use to create a fantasy world. And that's why I play.
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.
Pathfinder (in my view unfortunately) does subscribe to the class-as-mechanics paradigm, and as such departs from what a "class" really is. So sure, when discussing "Pathfinder classes", I can buy the class-as-mechanics claim. If we expand the notion of "class" to be more general, then not so much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a matter of philosophy. There's a nice big section above the rogue class description that has no mechanics in it at all. There's also all of the context the rogue carries from previous editions. These things matter as much as a player believes that they matter, and I happen to think that they matter a lot. If I'm making a rogue, I won't make a "slayer" even if it is mechanically superior because the class description and moniker do not fit the sort of character I'm making.
So... What you're saying is that players can't/shouldn't roleplay their characters as anything other than what' dictated by the class description?
That's... absurdly limiting and very unimaginative, to say the least. Such notion goes against the greatest strength of tabletop RPGs: freedom of choice and limitless possibilities of character development.
If fluff is all that a class has going for it, then that class is a failure and the game is better off forgetting it exists. Luckily, my imagination is not so lacking that I allow my characters to be restricted by the "official" fluff of their classes.
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.
Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"
We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.
Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"
We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.
Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.
Agreed. I just think Pathfinder fails in this regard, which in turn is why these discussions come up over and again. Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion. I would personally be completely turned off by a "fantasy" story that included a cast of "characters" as zoo-like as those in most Pathfinder games I've seen. For me, that's the relevant test.
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"
We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.
Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.
Agreed. I just think Pathfinder fails in this regard, which in turn is why these discussions come up over and again. Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion. I would personally be completely turned off by a "fantasy" story that included a cast of "characters" as zoo-like as those in most Pathfinder games I've seen. For me, that's the relevant test.
Would the player have come up with such a character concept otherwise?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"
We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.
Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.
Agreed. I just think Pathfinder fails in this regard, which in turn is why these discussions come up over and again. Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion. I would personally be completely turned off by a "fantasy" story that included a cast of "characters" as zoo-like as those in most Pathfinder games I've seen. For me, that's the relevant test.
Thrown improvised weapons? This character is terribly suboptimal. Your player is clearly sacrificing mechanics for flavor.
Believe it or not, the most optimal approaches are usually the most obvious. It doesn't take much to know that Color Spray is a really good low level spell; it doesn't take much to know that full attacking on a charge is a pretty powerful thing for a Barbarian to be doing.
I've never really understood why "everyone plays a Human" is a preferable state of being to "some people play Tieflings instead".
Would the player have come up with such a character concept otherwise?If classes are nothing but their mechanics, then we have little more than a video game without the benefits of video. That's certainly another way to play as well, but not one I enjoy myself.Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between "classes are just a collection of mechanics" and "characters are just a collection of mechanics"
We all enjoy flavorful characters and worlds. What some of us don't like is having flavor being dictated by game mechanics.
Mechanics should allow and enhance flavor, not limit it.
Agreed. I just think Pathfinder fails in this regard, which in turn is why these discussions come up over and again. Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion. I would personally be completely turned off by a "fantasy" story that included a cast of "characters" as zoo-like as those in most Pathfinder games I've seen. For me, that's the relevant test.
Some do, because that's just how they roll. Other do because it's mechanically superior at the thing they want their character to be good at. They're different ways of deciding on a character concept, and I can't fault either method.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.
I disagree. For me, in order to serve its purpose, the game needs clear and balanced rules. That gives the GM more time to spend creating a world and telling a story with his friend instead of worrying about poorly written and/or game disrupting rules.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion. I would personally be completely turned off by a "fantasy" story that included a cast of "characters" as zoo-like as those in most Pathfinder games I've seen. For me, that's the relevant test.
Not really... Maybe someone likes the fluff of a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist. No one will like every option in the game... But that doesn't mean that more exotic options are any less valid than the "classical" ones. In fact, a creature that bizarre is closer to the definition of "fantasy" than a slightly-different-from-humans race.
Some people will only enjoy are "Tolkien-ish" setting, while others enjoy Golarion-styled kitchen sink. Personally, I despise Tolkien elves. I think they are a bland, boring race of holier-than-thou mary sues.
Besides, choosing a class for its mechanics doesn't mean the player will put any less effort in his/her role play. I've adapted characters to mechanics before, because I thought those mechanics were fun, and then developed said character just as much as I would've done to any other.
There is no "standard" fantasy. Just different tastes.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls***
I feel like I accidentally saw part of that anime after digging through my cousin's dvds looking for something to watch.....
The thing I always wonder about when people are real strict about enforcing class fluff is just what exactly a class is supposed to represent in-universe. What organization is standardizing training and selection so that all rogues fit the criteria outlined by the fluff, and nobody nobody who matches that fluff is not a rogue. Who says "You're sneaky and underhanded, report to the Rogue Academy for standardized training in the approved set of rogue skills. Be sure to report to behavioral alteration so we can brainwash you into being a kleptomaniac, as required by the Rogue Standardization Act."
Honestly, the only time classes as an in-universe concept have ever made sense to me is in military/wargame RPGs like Iron Kingdoms and Deathwatch. There, your class represents specific specialized training the military put you through. For something like Pathfinder, where your characters skills can from any random life experience, classes only make sense as a broad metagame designation.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls***I feel like I accidentally saw part of that anime after digging through my cousin's dvds looking for something to watch.....
I think I might own that anime...
..
.
What? It was a gift.
The thing I always wonder about when people are real strict about enforcing class fluff is just what exactly a class is supposed to represent in-universe. What organization is standardizing training and selection so that all rogues fit the criteria outlined by the fluff, and nobody nobody who matches that fluff is not a rogue. Who says "You're sneaky and underhanded, report to the Rogue Academy for standardized training in the approved set of rogue skills. Be sure to report to behavioral alteration so we can brainwash you into being a kleptomaniac, as required by the Rogue Standardization Act."
Honestly, the only time classes as an in-universe concept have ever made sense to me is in military/wargame RPGs like Iron Kingdoms and Deathwatch. There, your class represents specific specialized training the military put you through. For something like Pathfinder, where your characters skills can from any random life experience, classes only make sense as a broad metagame designation.
Classes do not have to exist in-universe (much less some sort of enforcement) in order to have flavor associated with them.
Not really... Maybe someone likes the fluff of a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist. No one will like every option in the game... But that doesn't mean that more exotic options are any less valid than the "classical" ones. In fact, a creature that bizarre is closer to the definition of "fantasy" than a slightly-different-from-humans race.
Some people will only enjoy are "Tolkien-ish" setting, while others enjoy Golarion-styled kitchen sink. Personally, I despise Tolkien elves. I think they are a bland, boring race of holier-than-thou mary sues.
Besides, choosing a class for its mechanics doesn't mean the player will put any less effort in his/her role play. I've adapted characters to mechanics before, because I thought those mechanics were fun, and then developed said character just as much as I would've done to any other.
There is no "standard" fantasy. Just different tastes.
Sure, different fantasy for different folks. Still, I'm not buying for an instant that all the silly builds are created for "fantasy story concept" rather than pure video-game-like number-crunching. If you're very very lucky, a character concept will be retroactively fitted onto the mechanic, but either way the game suffers horribly in my experience from such "characters".
Again, I blame Pathfinder for stressing mechanics in the first place. I'm not saying it's not stimulating -- I'm sure video games can be stimulating for similar reasons -- just not my cup of tea, and not what I consider the real value of tabletop RPGs.
Without that focus on mechanics-as-class, the "older melee classes" becoming obsolete would never be an issue, because creating a really cool warrior wouldn't be dependent on first having a really cool published warrior-mechanic. Rather, the character concept -- as conceived in the mind of the player -- would force a mechanic to be created, within the context of the character being, simply, a "fighter". Interestingly, this is how the published mechanics are generally created in the first place. In Pathfinder, we're trained to look for the cool mechanic, and derive character concept from it, and that paradigm creates all sorts of threads, like this one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really... Maybe someone likes the fluff of a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist. No one will like every option in the game... But that doesn't mean that more exotic options are any less valid than the "classical" ones. In fact, a creature that bizarre is closer to the definition of "fantasy" than a slightly-different-from-humans race.
Some people will only enjoy are "Tolkien-ish" setting, while others enjoy Golarion-styled kitchen sink. Personally, I despise Tolkien elves. I think they are a bland, boring race of holier-than-thou mary sues.
Besides, choosing a class for its mechanics doesn't mean the player will put any less effort in his/her role play. I've adapted characters to mechanics before, because I thought those mechanics were fun, and then developed said character just as much as I would've done to any other.
There is no "standard" fantasy. Just different tastes.
Sure, different fantasy for different folks. Still, I'm not buying for an instant that all the silly builds are created for "fantasy story concept" rather than pure video-game-like number-crunching. If you're very very lucky, a character concept will be retroactively fitted onto the mechanic, but either way the game suffers horribly in my experience from such "characters".
Again, I blame Pathfinder for stressing mechanics in the first place. I'm not saying it's not stimulating -- I'm sure video games can be stimulating for similar reasons -- just not my cup of tea, and not what I consider the real value of tabletop RPGs.
Without that focus on mechanics-as-class, the "older melee classes" becoming obsolete would never be an issue, because creating a really cool warrior wouldn't be dependent on first having a really cool published warrior-mechanic. Rather, the character concept -- as conceived in the mind of the player -- would force a mechanic to be created, within the context of the character being, simply, a "fighter". Interestingly, this is how the...
It doesn't really sound like you know much about optimization. For most builds, either Human or Half-Elf are going to be the superior choice over any of the Advanced races. The primary exceptions are early entry prestige builds that require the spell-like from an Aasimar or a Tiefling, and even then there are plenty of spell-likes to go around in-class for these sorts of things.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls***I feel like I accidentally saw part of that anime after digging through my cousin's dvds looking for something to watch.....I think I might own that anime...
.
.
.
What? It was a gift.
I request sauce.
It feels like it's literally the exact opposite of good roleplay to approach the concept from such an unimaginative and self constrained viewpoint, as those two things are quite literally antithetical to good roleplay.
A good way to put it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, different fantasy for different folks. Still, I'm not buying for an instant that all the silly builds are created for "fantasy story concept" rather than pure video-game-like number-crunching. If you're very very lucky, a character concept will be retroactively fitted onto the mechanic, but either way the game suffers horribly in my experience from such "characters".
I think you're being unfairly condescending. Playing a half-demon tengu zen archer is not any more (or less) story-driven than playing an elf wizard or dwarf fighter.
Without that focus on mechanics-as-class, the "older melee classes" becoming obsolete would never be an issue, because creating a really cool warrior wouldn't be dependent on first having a really cool published warrior-mechanic. Rather, the character concept -- as conceived in the mind of the player -- would force a mechanic to be created, within the context of the character being, simply, a "fighter". Interestingly, this is how the...
If those classes become obsolete, that's because their mechanics are bad, not because players don't role play. I'd never play a Fighter or Rogue, but that doesn't stop me from role playing a armored warrior or backstabbing scoundrel, nor does it hamper my ability to do so.
As it's been mentioned multiple times now, having "Fighter" written on your character sheet doesn't mean you're any better or worse at roleplaying an armored warrior. It just means you have Fighter written on your character sheet.
Gandalf was an outsider with levels in fighter and druid, who ran around smoking pot and calling himself a wizard.
Aragon was a ring tampered meta-human ranger misanthrope.
Even Tolkien was full of special "nonsense" snowflakes.
I just think Pathfinder fails in this regard, which in turn is why these discussions come up over and again. Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.RPG is equal parts R and G. To dismiss one of the two is "antithetical" is nonsense and smacks of silly "badwrongfun" mentalities.
Every time someone chooses to play a half-Tengu/half-Octopus Teifling-born Alchemist/Ninja/ZenArcher/Pugilist specializing in thrown voodoo dolls, mechanics are driving character concept, and fantasy suffers, in my opinion.It's rare to feel justified in saying this but, your opinion is wrong. Divorcing mechanical nuance from roleplaying concepts is, frankly, trivial.
This is something that always struck me as a bit odd. Self-defined "purist" roleplayers tend to look down upon (arbitrarily defined) "weird" builds as "rollplaying" over "roleplaying" while simultaneously refusing to accept the idea that mechanical nuance and roleplaying nuance can't be disengaged.
It feels like it's literally the exact opposite of good roleplay to approach the concept from such an unimaginative and self constrained viewpoint, as those two things are quite literally antithetical to good roleplay.
You make some good points about "rollplay" vs "roleplay". That's not what I'm talking about at all though -- this thread is about why classes become "obsolete", and in my opinion it is because of the class-as-mechanic paradigm. This has nothing to do with how much role-playing is done with a character, that's a different issue -- and one on which I agree with you entirely (I am not the "purist" to which you refer).
Sure, RPGs are part "game". The question at hand is "what kind of game is it"? I prefer my "gaming" to happen during play, rather than during the character build, and I find that games where people have gamed the build invariably suffer during play because of it.
More to the point of this thread, the idea that someone may "roleplay" their optimized-by-the-numbers build well doesn't change the fact that the method of character creation detracts from the fantasy for me. Using mechanics to drive the build is the gaming paradigm that causes issues such as the one being discussed here. Pathfinder of course not only embraces "gaming the build", but to some extent or another demands it. It's part of the game, as you say.
What I said was "antithetical" is the idea of "RAW vs RAI". The very concept that we should use "Rules as Written" flies in the face of the original RPG concept that "all rules are only guidelines". That original concept is, IMO, what sets tabletop RPGs apart from video games, and when honored, prevents dilemmas such as the OP presents.
Sure, different fantasy for different folks. Still, I'm not buying for an instant that all the silly builds are created for "fantasy story concept" rather than pure video-game-like number-crunching. If you're very very lucky, a character concept will be retroactively fitted onto the mechanic, but either way the game suffers horribly in my experience from such "characters".I think you're being unfairly condescending. Playing a half-demon tengu zen archer is not any more (or less) story-driven than playing an elf wizard or dwarf fighter.
Hm, I don't mean to be condescending, nor am I suggesting that any particular build is more or less story-driven than another. I agree completely that any character can be mechanic-driven or story-driven.
If those classes become obsolete, that's because their mechanics are bad, not because players don't role play. I'd never play a Fighter or Rogue, but that doesn't stop me from role playing a armored warrior or backstabbing scoundrel, nor does it hamper my ability to do so.
Exactly this. Classes are obsoleted by "better mechanics". This is symptom of mechanic-driven games like Pathfinder. It's not a function of the particular class, it's how it will always be, no matter what, because Paizo will keep publishing new mechanics that intentionally obsolete existing ones. That's how products are sold, after all.
Your idea that the class name doesn't make the character is spot-on. My issue is with the reverse: the mechanic does not make the character, regardless of what name the class is. Alas, Pathfinder is all about the mechanic, which is exactly why it no longer "makes sense" to play a "fighter" or a "rogue". It's also why, in my experience, players come up with way cooler characters when mechanics follow story, instead of the other way around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gandalf was an outsider with levels in fighter and druid, who ran around smoking pot and calling himself a wizard.
Aragon was a ring tampered meta-human ranger misanthrope.
Even Tolkien was full of special "nonsense" snowflakes.
This is a great example. Some players will try to build a "Gandalf", and in order to do so they will evaluate the character, and find the necessary mechanics to match it, coming up with an Aasimar Fighter/Druid, or whatever.
The opposite approach is the player that notices some Druid mechanic that, by the numbers, works really well with the Aasimar, "dips" into Fighter for an extra feat or two to make the mechanic work even better, and winds up by accident with a character that could be "Gandalf", though they have no actual interest in Gandalf, only in the Empowered Heightened Maximized Stone Entangle Attack (or whatever -- for the people who actually think I'm trying to quote some real optimization) they've created.
I've played with and GM'd for both sorts of players -- and for me, the first type brings the fun at the table to a whole new level. Your mileage may vary, though I suggest you try both (if you haven't) before deciding which is most awesome.
Hm, I don't mean to be condescending, nor am I suggesting that any particular build is more or less story-driven than another. I agree completely that any character can be mechanic-driven or story-driven.
I dont think you were condescending in any way, you make some good points.
I dont think you were condescending in any way, you make some good points.
Hm, I don't mean to be condescending, nor am I suggesting that any particular build is more or less story-driven than another. I agree completely that any character can be mechanic-driven or story-driven.
Cool, glad to hear, thank you. Text-based communication is tricky sometimes. I definitely don't mean to offend anyone!
Gandalf was an outsider with levels in fighter and druid, who ran around smoking pot and calling himself a wizard.
Aragon was a ring tampered meta-human ranger misanthrope.
Even Tolkien was full of special "nonsense" snowflakes.
This is a great example. Some players will try to build a "Gandalf", and in order to do so they will evaluate the character, and find the necessary mechanics to match it, coming up with an Aasimar Fighter/Druid, or whatever.
The opposite approach is the player that notices some Druid mechanic that, by the numbers, works really well with the Aasimar, "dips" into Fighter for an extra feat or two to make the mechanic work even better, and winds up by accident with a character that could be "Gandalf", though they have no actual interest in Gandalf, only in the Empowered Heightened Maximized Stone Entangle Attack (or whatever -- for the people who actually think I'm trying to quote some real optimization) they've created
I've played with and GM'd for both sorts of players -- and for me, the first type brings the fun at the table to a whole new level. Your mileage may vary, though I suggest you try both (if you haven't) before deciding which is most awesome.
+1
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your idea that the class name doesn't make the character is spot-on. My issue is with the reverse: the mechanic does not make the character, regardless of what name the class is. Alas, Pathfinder is all about the mechanic, which is exactly why it no longer "makes sense" to play a "fighter" or a "rogue". It's also why, in my experience, players come up with way cooler characters when mechanics follow story, instead of the other way around.
That's not exactly true. Despite what many grognards claim, IME, most players will often "I want to roleplay character concept X? How can I best do it?" and then pick their mechanics accordingly.
Mechanics are just a tool for them to fulfill their idea of the concept they want. Because of this, they'll often use the best mechanics available... Just like anyone with a modicum of common sense will always use the best tool for the job.
That doesn't mean they are favoring mechanics over concept, just that they want to best represent the concept they have in mind.
And, BTW... When you say you don't believe for an instant that all the "silly" builds are created for concept rather than pure "video-game-like number-crunching", that is being condescending. You're claiming the builds you personally define as silly as always product of "roll playing" and minmanxing with no regard to character concept, and you also insinuate vidego-game players have no creativity.
That's just as dismissive as saying that everyone who likes Tolkien-inspired characters and settings are angry grognards with no creativity that can't role play anything that isn't stamped on the class' description.
Imagine, if you will, that Fighters and Rogues had their class name and description switched around. They are exactly the same, but they got the fluff text of each other.
That would be restrictive to those who claim class is anything other than a mechanical construct... But it wouldn't hurt the role playing of anyone who chooses to ignore the "official" fluff text in favor of creating their own flavor.
In this aspect, those who see classes as nothing but mechanics are actually better at role playing than those that limit them to what's written on the book.
This is a great example. Some players will try to build a "Gandalf", and in order to do so they will evaluate the character, and find the necessary mechanics to match it, coming up with an Aasimar Fighter/Druid, or whatever.The opposite approach is the player that notices some Druid mechanic that, by the numbers, works really well with the Aasimar, "dips" into Fighter for an extra feat or two to make the mechanic work even better, and winds up by accident with a character that could be "Gandalf", though they have no actual interest in Gandalf, only in the Empowered Heightened Maximized Stone Entangle Attack (or whatever -- for the people who actually think I'm trying to quote some real optimization) they've created.
I've played with and GM'd for both sorts of players -- and for me, the first type brings the fun at the table to a whole new level. Your mileage may vary, though I suggest you try both (if you haven't) before deciding which is most awesome.
It's true, but I don't think the latter option is necessarily a bad thing either. I know personally some of my most interesting characters have sprung from me looking at a book, finding a mechanic I like and building a character around it I otherwise wouldn't have had I started with the concept. Not purely most interesting from a mechanical perspective either, but characters that end up being roleplayed in a way that's outside the standard as well.
You're right that mileage may vary, but personally I find mechanics to be inspiring rather than restricting.
Gandalf was an outsider with levels in fighter and druid, who ran around smoking pot and calling himself a wizard.
Aragon was a ring tampered meta-human ranger misanthrope.
Even Tolkien was full of special "nonsense" snowflakes.
This is a great example. Some players will try to build a "Gandalf", and in order to do so they will evaluate the character, and find the necessary mechanics to match it, coming up with an Aasimar Fighter/Druid, or whatever.
The opposite approach is the player that notices some Druid mechanic that, by the numbers, works really well with the Aasimar, "dips" into Fighter for an extra feat or two to make the mechanic work even better, and winds up by accident with a character that could be "Gandalf", though they have no actual interest in Gandalf, only in the Empowered Heightened Maximized Stone Entangle Attack (or whatever -- for the people who actually think I'm trying to quote some real optimization) they've created.
I've played with and GM'd for both sorts of players -- and for me, the first type brings the fun at the table to a whole new level. Your mileage may vary, though I suggest you try both (if you haven't) before deciding which is most awesome.
Unless the player is intentionally trying to brake the game or play a different campaing than the rest, I don't see trouble with the later. I've met peolple who are fun to play with/ master for and really go for kick the door style even in intrigue campaings they manage to do it.
For me the one rule in RPGs is don't me a [madlib]........[/madlib].
Yawar,
That's not exactly true. Despite what many grognards claim, IME, most players will often "I want to roleplay character concept X? How can I best do it?" and then pick their mechanics accordingly.
Mechanics are just a tool for them to fulfill their idea of the concept they want. Because of this, they'll often use the best mechanics available... Just like anyone with a modicum of common sense will always use the best tool for the job.
That doesn't mean they are favoring mechanics over concept, just that they want to best represent the concept they have in mind.
So long as the "concept" you're referring to is a character concept, and not itself a mechanic, then that's great! My experience with most players has been different.
And, BTW... When you say you don't believe for an instant that all the "silly" builds are created for concept rather than pure "video-game-like number-crunching", that is being condescending. You're claiming the builds you personally define as silly as always product of "roll playing" and minmanxing with no regard to character concept, and you also insinuate vidego-game players have no creativity.
That's just as dismissive as saying that everyone who likes Tolkien-inspired characters and settings are angry grognards with no creativity that can't role play anything that isn't stamped on the class' description.
Fair enough, I can only speak to my own experience. My apologies.
Imagine, if you will, that Fighters and Rogues had their class name and description switched around. They are exactly the same, but they got the fluff text of each other.
That would be restrictive to those who claim class is anything other than a mechanical construct... But it wouldn't hurt the role playing of anyone who chooses to ignore the "official" fluff text in favor of creating their own flavor.
In this aspect, those who see classes as nothing but mechanics are actually better at role playing than those that limit them to what's written on the book.
Absolutely, I would never suggest that fluff limit character concept either. It makes perfect sense to me that a "rogue" could include all sorts of different concepts, and still fit the skill set of the envisioned character. In a gaming paradigm where story drives mechanic, that advantage is enhanced further, by the simple expedient of keeping the mechanics more flexible.
It's true, but I don't think the latter option is necessarily a bad thing either. I know personally some of my most interesting characters have sprung from me looking at a book, finding a mechanic I like and building a character around it I otherwise wouldn't have had I started with the concept. Not purely most interesting from a mechanical perspective either, but characters that end up being roleplayed in a way that's outside the standard as well.
You're right that mileage may vary, but personally I find mechanics to be inspiring rather than restricting.
Good point, I've done this myself and had a blast. In a sense, each mechanic is a little story in itself, and this can indeed be inspiring -- though I often feel restricted by the same mechanic, shortly after being inspired by it ;-). Pathfinder source books are a treasure trove of little ideas like this, and I have at times been equally inspired to character creation by a particular magic item, spell description, or illustration. I wish that I encountered this sort of use of mechanics more often.
It may be interesting to note that when I am inspired by a mechanic in this fashion, it is always the idea (not necessarily the specific printed fluff) of the mechanic that inspires me (e.g. "flashing blades like a Cuisinart"), rather than the numbers (e.g. "5 attacks-per-round"). Of course, just my luck, I'm generally most inspired by the least effective mechanics.
A discussion of particular mechanics that inspired roleplaying quirks and character traits could be fun.