Pathfinder Bloat - are you concerned?


Product Discussion

401 to 450 of 761 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Kolokotroni wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Pathfinder has been gradually shifting towards being a tabletop miniatures wargame like GW Warhammer (momentum originally caused by 3.5) rather than a Roleplaying game. I speculate the designers are aware of this and are trying to steer it back on course evident by Mark Seitzer's great Kineticist class in Occult Adventures.
While its true that the kineticist is a great playtest class, it seems odd that you chose it as a counter balance to the "Pathfinder is trying to steer away from being a miniatures war game," as the kineticist has poor skill ranks and all of its class features revolve around one combat attack.

I made the comparison because the Kineticist's Burn mechanic has severe drawbacks (non lethal damage that can't be magically healed) just like AD&D (1e) Haste spell (age 1 year, percentage chance of dying).

Also the Burn mechanic is a simulation. It simulates the dangers of kinetic powers in a similar way how the Haste spell simulates the dangers of messing with time travel.

A major signifier of roleplaying games/tabletop wargames is associated mechanics/disassociated mechanics.

D&D 4e primarily used disassociated mechanics, D&D 3.5 used associated mechanics, Pathfinder does as well, but with the new supplements more and more disassociated mechanics are creeping in.

You realize that many tabletop war games have rather significant efforts to be associated right? Like, to the point of being VERY simulationist. 4E is not the gold standard of tabletop war games. Many of them take great pains to make sure their rules make sense in the game world and flow logically from the thing they are representing. Tables to help you adjudicate hits on different panels of armor, specific modifiers of certain types of troops against others (like pikement vs cavalry). Table top wargames are most often MORE associative then rpgs are.

Also, an ability having drawbacks or not having drawbacks has nothing...

Okay, I agree, drawbacks don't necessarily make something associative or a simulation. But the two examples I used (Burn and Haste) did in fact do that.

Pathfinder RAW, the Haste spell is a combat boon, nothing more. It doesn't help explain the mythology of the world, the history of your character or how things in the world works. All it does is provide a numerical bonus in combat.

Should Pathfinder change it's name to Pathfinder the tabletop miniatures game? Or is it still a roleplaying game?

Sticking to the OP, if new classes, feats, spells were created with more exposition, drawbacks and thematic elements, there wouldn't be this problem of exponential bloat.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm going to roll a dwarven paladin who is obsessed with the spell haste for my next Pathfinder game. He will have maxed Know(arcana) and Spellcraft and will continuosly discuss how awesome haste is, what is the history behind the spell, who was the first caster ever to cast it, what are the variants of the spell and what the finer points of difference between the version cast by Wiz/Sorc and the Summoner one.

His tragedy? Not having it on his spell list and having no ranks in UMD. There, instant roleplaying. In a tabletop miniatures wargame!


Gorbacz wrote:
finer points of difference between the version cast by Wiz/Sorc and the Summoner one

And those are what exactly? That summoners can cast it early? Other than that, there is no difference.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
finer points of difference between the version cast by Wiz/Sorc and the Summoner one
And those are what exactly? That summoners can cast it early? Other than that, there is no difference.

Man, trying to answer why do they cast it early is something you can build an entire campaign around. I mean, who made it so? The gods? The All-Father? The Old Ones? Aboleths? Elminster? Baba Yaga?


Gorbacz wrote:

I'm going to roll a dwarven paladin who is obsessed with the spell haste for my next Pathfinder game. He will have maxed Know(arcana) and Spellcraft and will continuosly discuss how awesome haste is, what is the history behind the spell, who was the first caster ever to cast it, what are the variants of the spell and what the finer points of difference between the version cast by Wiz/Sorc and the Summoner one.

His tragedy? Not having it on his spell list and having no ranks in UMD. There, instant roleplaying. In a tabletop miniatures wargame!

Gorbacz, That's great!! Except that your Dwarven Paladin's obsession with the Haste spell, and associated skills (Arcana, Spellcraft) would make it a disassociated mechanic, so you would only be talking about the Haste spell in a miniatures war game.

Definitely no roleplaying going on.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:
Definitely no roleplaying going on.

Really?


Gorbacz wrote:

I'm going to roll a dwarven paladin who is obsessed with the spell haste for my next Pathfinder game. He will have maxed Know(arcana) and Spellcraft and will continuosly discuss how awesome haste is, what is the history behind the spell, who was the first caster ever to cast it, what are the variants of the spell and what the finer points of difference between the version cast by Wiz/Sorc and the Summoner one.

His tragedy? Not having it on his spell list and having no ranks in UMD. There, instant roleplaying. In a tabletop miniatures wargame!

looooool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
This is the first time I have seen bloat = "too many weak options". Many people complaining of bloat just say that causes power creep, option paralysis, and so on. So it might be a good idea to for anyone using the term bloat to give their definition so they are not put in the wrong group. With that said bloat is not the problem if the complaint is about trap option. We as a community need to let the devs know that "floor" of power for feats needs to be higher.
perhaps Bloat= Options that overshadow previously balanced options or are just so horrible that nobody take them and are basically page filler.

Maybe. I am starting to think it is one of those words like powergamer and munchkin that we as a whole can't agree on with regard to the meaning.


Lemmy wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
Humans being overpowered is a note problem just like childlike being underpowered for how situational it is.

Honestly... I don't think Humans are all that powerful... IMHO, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs are usually a better choice, unless your class is both feat-starved and skill-starved... Like Paladins or Clerics.

Dwarves are also a very strong Race. Not to mention Aasimars and Tielfings.

I agree. Humans are the best being good with any class but other races can be better matched up with certain classes


Otherwhere wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
This!

I dont think "being created first" should offer any option protection. That is why I dont mind other classes replacing the rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do options need to tell the history of the world?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Why do options need to tell the history of the world?

Agreed. And every world of pathfinder is going to be different. You can't have open ended content explain the homebrew worlds.

I personally came over to pathfinder to continue to expand my third edition. There will never be enough released books for my taste. Yes, I can make most concepts from older material, but the newer material inspires the imagination. Which is far more important than game balance to me.


wraithstrike wrote:
Why do options need to tell the history of the world?

Not just options, everything should tell you how things in the world works.

For example: The Shield spell, it's a spell that facilitates the concept of an invincible, invisible tower shield (+4 AC, can't be sundered) that blocks magic missile spells.

Why only magic missile spells? No reason (disassociated mechanic). When the Shield spell was first created there was no such thing as descriptors but now there is. So the Shield spell should be able to block any force spell equal to it's level (associated mechanic). So if you cast the Shield spell at 2nd level it would block the Spiritual Weapon spell.

With this change it would explain how the world works. Defensive force spells cancels out offensive Force spells.

And Yes, beginning players to Pathfinder would actually know what's going on because things would actually make sense.

Digging deeper, you will see very little interaction within the rules.

Another example: the Fighter Archetype Free Hand Fighter has a class ability called Timely Tip, giving a fighter the ability to push aside an opponent's shield. Is a force effect like the Shield spell that powerful that a Fighter with 22 Strength can't move it. Rational logic says it's not, although the rules say it can't be moved, makes no sense whatsoever.

*These are pertinent examples of Sloppy Codification


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a bunch of pedantry typed up about why by RAW timely tip does work on the Shield spell, but your point about dissociated vs associated mechanics is good enough that I wouldn't want to obfuscate it.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
I had a bunch of pedantry typed up about why by RAW timely tip does work on the Shield spell, but your point about dissociated vs associated mechanics is good enough that I wouldn't want to obfuscate it.

Alex Smith 908, can you PM or link me your idea about timely tip vs. the Shield spell, I'm interested in how you handled it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
This!
I dont think "being created first" should offer any option protection. That is why I dont mind other classes replacing the rogue.

I don't either. My problem is power creep. If new classes are 30% more damaging in combat that the original classes, then adventure paths written when only the original classes existed are going to be a walk in the park for the new classes. Likewise, APs written after the new classes might be too hard for average original classes to effectively fight. Or, they'll be geared for the original classes, and the new ones still have a walk in the park ahead of them.


Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
This!
I dont think "being created first" should offer any option protection. That is why I dont mind other classes replacing the rogue.
I don't either. My problem is power creep. If new classes are 30% more damaging in combat that the original classes, then adventure paths written when only the original classes existed are going to be a walk in the park for the new classes. Likewise, APs written after the new classes might be too hard for average original classes to effectively fight. Or, they'll be geared for the original classes, and the new ones still have a walk in the park ahead of them.

That would also make mixing old and new classes in the same party a bit problematic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
This!
I dont think "being created first" should offer any option protection. That is why I dont mind other classes replacing the rogue.
I don't either. My problem is power creep. If new classes are 30% more damaging in combat that the original classes, then adventure paths written when only the original classes existed are going to be a walk in the park for the new classes. Likewise, APs written after the new classes might be too hard for average original classes to effectively fight. Or, they'll be geared for the original classes, and the new ones still have a walk in the park ahead of them.

That would also make mixing old and new classes in the same party a bit problematic.

Except the level of powercreep in Pathfinder is nearly nonexistant. The Wizard and Cleric are still arguably the best classes in the game, and other classes have simply gained more use.

The Sacred Fist didn't completely replace the Monk (well, maybe the BASE monk, but other Monk Archetypes are still fantastic). The Inquisitor didn't replace the Cleric or Paladin. The Arcanist didn't replace either the Wizard or Sorcerer.

The only way new classes "Replace" older classes & archetypes is that they allow players to bring a character concept to life better than before.

Also, in order for "Power creep" to truly be problematic, old classes would need to get less and less support. Instead, CRB classes get lots of love and support with every new player-based Big Book. The 8 other Base Classes also get love with every new Big Book to some degree or another.

Then again, as someone pointed out either earlier or in another thread, 90% of all these "BLOAT!" arguments aren't concerning "Pathfinder;" they're concerning "Pathfinder Society" which is a wholly different beast that isn't indicative of the game most people play at home.

I'm going to say this concisely: If you're so worried about "Bloat" from PFS material, then Stop. Playing. PFS.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No one claimed sloppy codification was a pathfinder only problem -- only that it was a problem for pathfinder.

And to an extent I also agree with Morzadian that 'extreme' codification plays a part in this as it pertains to pathfinder.

IF you are going to sit down and codified the entirety of something then you have to make sure your code agrees and that you call the function the same thing each time it is called and that the function operates the same way each time it is called (otherwise it's technically not a function...).

So if you go about codifying everything but you are sloppy with it then we see the sort of problems that we get with "can I two weapon fight with a two handed weapon and another weapon?"

And the answers we get for it.

This is not to say pathfinder is horrible terrible bad or anything stupid like that. However if you want to improve on a system you have to recognize the problems in the system in the first place.

Pathfinder could easily go three different ways in its next iteration. It could go with less overall codification, having discreet structures with fuzzy parameters (basically vector programming) or it can straight up its current codification, get everything running in sync and continue on, or it can straighten up it's current codification and add a system level implementation for introducing new features.

Ultimately any of the three can and should work. It's just a matter of how Paizo decides to address its current state.


Morzadian wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Why do options need to tell the history of the world?
Not just options, everything should tell you how things in the world works.

There is no need. I don't need world flavor attached to everything especially with so many different worlds(yes I am including homebrew).

Quote:


For example: The Shield spell, it's a spell that facilitates the concept of an invincible, invisible tower shield (+4 AC, can't be sundered) that blocks magic missile spells.

Why only magic missile spells? No reason (disassociated mechanic).

Balance is why, and the earlier D&D games were different games despite having the same name as 3rd edition. I see no logic behind "the first author had it this way so it should stay this way". Maybe the question should be "Why is it blocking all of the force spells?"

Quote:

And Yes, beginning players to Pathfinder would actually know what's going on because things would actually make sense.

That is a big assumption, and it is another one to assume your ideas make the game better. I for one disagree with your shield proposal, even if it is explained "in world".

Quote:


Digging deeper, you will see very little interaction within the rules.

Another example: the Fighter Archetype Free Hand Fighter has a class ability called Timely Tip, giving a fighter the ability to push aside an opponent's shield. Is a force effect like the Shield spell that powerful that a Fighter with 22 Strength can't move it. Rational logic says it's not, although the rules say it can't be moved, makes no sense whatsoever.

*These are pertinent examples of Sloppy Codification

The game has poor codification in areas, but not where you think it does. There is no rational way to say how hard it is to bypass that shield affect so I am questioning your "rational logic" statement.


Tarantula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
I'd agree that its both. Its options which are so worthless they shouldn't have wasted the paper on them, and its options which are too far into power creep that they turn older options into worthless ones.
This!
I dont think "being created first" should offer any option protection. That is why I dont mind other classes replacing the rogue.
I don't either. My problem is power creep. If new classes are 30% more damaging in combat that the original classes, then adventure paths written when only the original classes existed are going to be a walk in the park for the new classes. Likewise, APs written after the new classes might be too hard for average original classes to effectively fight. Or, they'll be geared for the original classes, and the new ones still have a walk in the park ahead of them.

"The original classes" is kind of vague. The barbarian puts out very good damage, and while the slayer can rival the fighter and ranger to an extent, it is not by a substantial amount, and none of them can out perform a smiting paladin. What the AP's can't do is account for all of the new options. They cant even account for all of the CRB options with creative players, but that is what GM's are for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ironically other games get away with sloppy codification because the don't codify as much. The less you codify the less specific you have to be with it.

The new World of Darkness system is an excellent example of this. You have the archetype combat system and power scale overlay but beyond that most everything is open to be defined as needed on the spot.

With less things coded you have less chances of conflict allowing a smoother running program at the expense of putting more of the onus for error checking on the end user.

With more codification it is easier on the end user as he knows how things work better (this is this and that is that and this does this while that does that)... however this requires more overhead, more code and more work on the programmer's behalf.

Quite frankly what any RPG company with its own system is doing is creating a programming language for us to use.

The GM builds the Classes (programming term meaning an archetype of a thing with characteristics and attributes (basically variables and methods)) and then the players build some of the objects (a single instance of a class), and both get to have fun letting them interact.

This is exemplified in the GoblinWorks Pathfinder Online project.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The main gripe I could come up with for the ACG is the "Class Creation" section.

I have a free PDF from back in 2007 or so which described how to build a Class based on a value system. Each architectural feature - the BAB & HD, Saves, Spellcasting Progression and Type - was a certain amount, and then Class Features were broken down into different types (Bonus Feats, primary abilities, support, etc.)

A balanced, strong class was about 125 points.

I designed a set of Bender Classes using a powered-down Stances & Maneuvers engine from BO9S, and used them in an Avatar campaign I ran with my friends; the classes ended up being as balanced as Pathfinder classes.

Anyway, if a random guy can come up with a system whereby you can reliably build balanced PC classes, why didn't we get anything like that from the ACG?

We got a lot of design philosophy, which is great for navel gazing, but there was literally nothing to help mechanically create a class.

This was in stark contrast to the ARG, which has a really good Race-creation system.

I think I'd rather have seen that section go to more Traits, frankly - Traits are awesome, and the PRD could use more of 'em.


Well... the ARG has a system for race creation...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something about the racism in AD&D and that of reality. In reality...what we call races, are people of ALL THE SAME RACE...that of humans. They are the SAME race in AD&D even.

What are considered other races in AD&D or biologically different creatures. It would be as if comparing wolves, dogs, Panthers, and bears.

Sure, there can be some crossbreeding between wolves and dogs, but really nothing between panthers and bears and such. It's because, they are different species of animals.

In effect, what are called races in AD&D, are more like species. As such, most cannot interbreed, and those that do...are the exception rather than the norm.

Perhaps it would be better to call it, specism, or specieism, or some such thing.

As that races in AD&D approach that much more than what people consider races among humankind.

That said, Gygax specifically considered other races as completely non-human. They didn't think like humans, they didn't act like humans, and in many ways, were as different from man, as a wolf or bear, or dog is different than a many.

This meant that players really couldn't comprehend how these races would actually think. Those that they could comprehend were exceptional characters for their race and in many ways were emulating human cultural acts. However, to take a human thought process as their own, they were limited.

Gygax also saw AD&D as a human RPG, in otherwords, though he allowed other races that were the most like humans to be played, overall...he wanted humans to be the race that the game was about.

Of course there's the balance issues that people would disagree about, but when talking about the races in AD&D, perhaps the viewpoint of why they were as they were, is useful.

It's not the RACISM that you think about, but a different type of thing. For example, wolves were hunted nearly to extinction by men. They felt these animals were a threat to cattle, ranching, and other venues men do. Is this racism? Or is it something else? In that same light, the anger between AD&D races, would be a similar thing. You aren't talking about human to human, but humanoid like creatures of completely different species.

There could still be racism in AD&D as you see in our reality of the real world, but only if you injected it. AD&D considered ALL humans, as humans.

Amongst all the problems of AD&D...pointing out racism...is perhaps one of the weirdest ones that come up...as racism as we understand it, didn't really even exist in the AD&D game that I know of...humans...all of them...regardless of color....were just called...humans/men.

PS: As an aside, something that's interesting, is Gygax would allow exceptions to rules. It depended on the circumstances, but he did allow exceptions for players...houseruling his own game as it were.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

The main gripe I could come up with for the ACG is the "Class Creation" section.

I have a free PDF from back in 2007 or so which described how to build a Class based on a value system. Each architectural feature - the BAB & HD, Saves, Spellcasting Progression and Type - was a certain amount, and then Class Features were broken down into different types (Bonus Feats, primary abilities, support, etc.)

A balanced, strong class was about 125 points.

I designed a set of Bender Classes using a powered-down Stances & Maneuvers engine from BO9S, and used them in an Avatar campaign I ran with my friends; the classes ended up being as balanced as Pathfinder classes.

Anyway, if a random guy can come up with a system whereby you can reliably build balanced PC classes, why didn't we get anything like that from the ACG?

We got a lot of design philosophy, which is great for navel gazing, but there was literally nothing to help mechanically create a class.

This was in stark contrast to the ARG, which has a really good Race-creation system.

I think I'd rather have seen that section go to more Traits, frankly - Traits are awesome, and the PRD could use more of 'em.

You know, this is one thing I would have LOVED in the ACG.

Unfortunately, it was not included.

Perhaps because many people reviled when they did that exact same thing in the AD&D 2e DMG.

I personally loved it, but people also loved to abuse it and found loop holes in it.

Perhaps it's for this reason, that Paizo found it wise to avoid that possible controversial move.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Well... the ARG has a system for race creation...

the ARG Race Creation system is actually quite flawed because the designers deliberately fudged prices to make core races appear balanced and make races like planetouched and most similar noncore races, appear stronger than they were, because you could build a 5 point race that was better than a 15 point race or a 15 point race that was better than a 30 point race if you knew what you were doing and what cheap advantages to buy. such as tailoring a race towards a very niche build type and avoiding obvious things like skill bonuses or energy resistances unless they were intended to serve as the prerequisite for a more powerful ability. like focused study and a free predetermined combat feat you would have chosen anyway (like power attack) being cheaper than a flexible bonus feat and being a humanoid with darkvision being cheaper than being an outsider, or hell, picking 7 racial languages that would highly benefit an adventurer


Which is why I was nice and said it was a system. :D


The powers and options set of books for 2nd ed had a decent class features swap out list (and class building list).

Unfortunately there was a different list for each class in part because different options were stronger for different classes. Which I think is one of the problems with any such system being built for pathfinder. Evasion by itself is nice... but not a biggie. But Evasion and Stalwart on a class with all good saves and a bonus stat to saves...

well that should probably be worth more than what each part of that should cost on its own.

I can think of at least three ways around that but each would either limit the system (for building classes) more, require more work on the end users behalf or make for some really obtuse formulas for putting point totals on each ability.

Probably end up something akin to the heroes system. ::Shudders::

EDIT:
I think a large part of what everything has always (and will always) come back to is the feats.

The feat system is good. As in the ability to get one every other level, allowing feat trees to develop and having some feats be prerequisites to other feats is good.

The current choices of what should be feats as opposed to system features and how feats scale in power the higher in the feat tree you get (or rather don't) is not so great.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You can't really build a solid point-based class builder, because of the way class features are interdependent and don't exist in a vacuum. Let's assume you take the "rage" class feature and price at 10 points. However, rage will have a completely different impact on a class depending on other class features and characteristics - it will have the most impact on a full-BAB class which assumes STR as the main combat stat, far less impact on a medium-BAB class where STR is a secondary attribute and will be worthless for a slow-BAB class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no argument about the wargame roots or influence on D&D and AD&D.

In fact, that's probably why many don't get AD&D's balance, because the balance is more a Wargaming element from the 70s than anything else in regards to balance. It's a view of balance no one who only was exposed to RPGs these days would probably understand...and even the number of wargamers that might get it could be limited.

That said, Gygax's reason on different species of humanoids being so different in thought that humans and them were on completely different wavelengths, I think was a good way to explain why it was so hard for other Races to be human classes (instead of their own class), as well as why they couldn't be paladins. That wasn't a Dwarf thing to do (In gygax's world at least). It would be like saying your dog was going to be a medical doctor with a degree and anything. Dogs just don't think that way.

On the otherhand, you dog might make a suitable warrior...but they might not be human enough in thought to master it as fully as a human may.

Which was Gygax's point explanation of WHY level limits existed in world...whilst the real explanations was the wargaming type of balance...

AND...of course, Gygax's intention that it was a game about humans as the main protaganists...not elves, dwarves, and other races.


Gorbacz wrote:
You can't really build a solid point-based class builder, because of the way class features are interdependent and don't exist in a vacuum. Let's assume you take the "rage" class feature and price at 10 points. However, rage will have a completely different impact on a class depending on other class features and characteristics - it will have the most impact on a full-BAB class which assumes STR as the main combat stat, far less impact on a medium-BAB class where STR is a secondary attribute and will be worthless for a slow-BAB class.

I think the ACG shows some of that...

But with what was done in the ACG (I like it still), I think a point based system, or some sort of standard system would have been nice...even if they said it could not be used for PFS and was prone to abuse...it still would have been nice.


Gorbacz wrote:
You can't really build a solid point-based class builder, because of the way class features are interdependent and don't exist in a vacuum. Let's assume you take the "rage" class feature and price at 10 points. However, rage will have a completely different impact on a class depending on other class features and characteristics - it will have the most impact on a full-BAB class which assumes STR as the main combat stat, far less impact on a medium-BAB class where STR is a secondary attribute and will be worthless for a slow-BAB class.

True, but at least it's better than the "let's wax philosophically about construction" thing we actually got.

Just like the Magic Item Creation rules for estimating GP value, I accept that there's going to be some "use your judgment" clause, but a mechanical system for building things is better than some "let's FEEL it out and hope that works" system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
You can't really build a solid point-based class builder, because of the way class features are interdependent and don't exist in a vacuum. Let's assume you take the "rage" class feature and price at 10 points. However, rage will have a completely different impact on a class depending on other class features and characteristics - it will have the most impact on a full-BAB class which assumes STR as the main combat stat, far less impact on a medium-BAB class where STR is a secondary attribute and will be worthless for a slow-BAB class.

you can try but all you will get is a system where characters can stack highly synergistic class features to boost something like how much damage you can dish out with a specific 2handed weapon by combining rage, weapon training, weapon mastery, sneak attack, favored target, studied target/studied strike, precise strike and the 2handed fighter overhand chop and backswing abilities with a Mobile Fighter's Pseudo Pounce and full bab to get like to get the ultimate hard hitting super blow


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You can't really build a solid point-based class builder, because of the way class features are interdependent and don't exist in a vacuum. Let's assume you take the "rage" class feature and price at 10 points. However, rage will have a completely different impact on a class depending on other class features and characteristics - it will have the most impact on a full-BAB class which assumes STR as the main combat stat, far less impact on a medium-BAB class where STR is a secondary attribute and will be worthless for a slow-BAB class.
you can try but all you will get is a system where characters can stack highly synergistic class features to boost something like how much damage you can dish out with a specific 2handed weapon by combining rage, weapon training, weapon mastery, sneak attack, favored target, studied target/studied strike, precise strike and the 2handed fighter overhand chop and backswing abilities with a Mobile Fighter's Pseudo Pounce and full bab to get like to get the ultimate hard hitting super blow

True, but this is why PFS doesn't allow Custom Races nor Custom Magic Items.

If a DM is crazy enough to allow players to use custom made stuff without knowing if his players are level-headed or complete cheese-mongers, then he really shouldn't be surprised if he sits down with 4 versions of Pun-Pun in front of him.

I look at a possible "Class Creation System" the same way as the Magic Item Creation and Race Creation systems - generally just for the DM and no-one else without his consent.


My idea would be to alter the points cost of different abilities based on what other abilities you have, when and how much of those abilities you have and then use something like the race builder's categories to hardcap just how much of a given thing you could have.

However I point out (again) that any such system would likely end up looking like the heroes system... which is basically a literal programming language for building role playing games in the first place... and it's not just a programming language but an object oriented class protocol one at that which most people simply are not going to understand at first, second and possibly even third blush.

401 to 450 of 761 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Bloat - are you concerned? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.