Because (again) those are stories, not games. The reasons Frodo doesn't start with the Ring in a game of D&D is because nobody is worried about whether it'll read well in print. If people were worried about how Roleplaying games played out in print, then SoD's wouldn't be a thing. To wit:
The Archduke Urgalis smashed his heavy gauntlet across the cursed suit of infernal mail that coated his chest. "You have interfered for the last time!"
Staring at the Archduke and his Pale Knights, Vendus said simply, "Dazing Chain Lightning." Blinding light streaked across the room striking Vendus' foes where they stood.
The spell effortlessly dazed all the enemies for several seconds during which Tyrin and Lorasa calmly slid blades between the enemies chests unopposed. Thus, the brutal reign of Archduke Urgalis ended.
/end.
The above can happen because games are different and there is no need to worry about pacing, drama, or tension.
How cool your stuff is, *is* a reflection of how awesome you are. Seriously, why would it not be? Compare a guy with an iron sword and the same guy with Excalibur. Obviously the guy with Excalibur is stronger/cooler/more awesome.
It's good, actually that you bring up Excalibur (and Mjolnir, actually) because it is a weapon that is central to the identity of the character. In fact, nobody but Arthur (or Thor) can wield the weapon. It is literally only theirs. That is NOT the same as magic gear in D&D, not by a long shot.
In fact, it perfectly describes what I mentioned next--their gear is part of them. In most non-D&D RPGs, it would be purchased with the same pool of points that everyone else bought their stats, skills, and whatever with.
You do pay for them in 3.5/PF. Not out of your XP, but out or you WBL. This doesn't help your argument as both systems charge resources for them, just different ones.Kind of a huge number of RPGs--practically all of them that aren't D&D--have no magic items, or if they do, they are integral to your character. Examples: in most free form point buy games, you pay for exceptional gear out of the same pool of points you use to buy magic, super powers, and regular skills. In Exalted, your magic items are purchased with XP via "backgrounds." I honestly cannot think of any game other than D&D that has loot provide power without paying for it in character points/xp/whatever.
Even if you want to pretend that WBL was a real resource characters had access to, you missed an important aspect of my statements above: the special items in other games are purchased with the same resources you use to buy, well, the rest of your character. In most other games, you just get "XP" or "Character Points" or something like that, and, raising your attributes costs X points of XP/CP/whatever, raising your skills costs Y, picking up a new spell might cost Z, and buffing that badass magic hammer costs A.
You're actually making my points for me--characters in D&D (sort of) have this separate pool of "WBL" they all must buy gear from. Characters in other games have to lose points in other areas to get gear--the guy with Excalibur has worse stats and skills than the guy with the iron sword, but both end up relatively equal in the end because they have the same total XP/CP/whatever despite what they individually spent it on.
The rules of the game exist to facilitate the telling of whatever story the players are telling. Whether they're trying to be a reality simulator or a storytelling system, the game designers put them there to model the world. Sometimes they can be combined in ways unintended and break the game or cause the game to no longer serve the story being told. That is not a failing on the part of the players for wanting to tell that story but on the part of the game design for falling short. They're made by falliable people; of course they'll fall short at times. It happens. That doesn't mean "Accept the status quo".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
13th Age is pretty awesome; think 1/3 D&D 3, 1/3 D&D 4, and 1/3 FATE.
If you're looking for a more traditional, less narrative D&D experience, Pathfinder is very well supported. On the downside, it can be overly complex. As for Christmas Tree Syndrome, the GM could factor the "big 6" into the level progression without too much trouble, which would preserve the CR system and leave magic items to have more interesting powers.
One thing I keenly miss for all systems is something like Dungeon Magazine -- a series of short, drop-in adventures for various levels. This is a fantastically useful product, and I don't see why someone doesn't de-couple it from the magazine publishing model and run with it (13th Age looks like it *might* try, depending upon what content shows up in their new monthly PDF).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, everybody forgets the one major thing about "But... but Pathfinder has OPTIONS compared to Fifth Edition!!"
Pathfinder has been around since 2009. You have, in the official SRD alone, 29 classes [I'm excluding the six classes from the Occult Adventures book, as well as the antipaladin, ninja, and samurai, as those are alternatives to the paladin, rogue, and cavalier, respectively] and 37 races, all of whom are featured in the Advanced Race Guide. I'm deliberately leaving out the alternate racial traits and class archetypes as well, because 29 classes and 37 races is still a wealth of options. There are 1073 ways to combine a race and a class in Pathfinder, and that's before you get into ability score distribution, racial trait replacement, class archetypes, feats, spells, and equipment.
D&D Fifth has been around since, what? August or so? You have 12 classes in that and 9 races (again, deliberately excluding subraces for dwarves/elves/halflings/dragonborn/gnomes, and excluding the mandatory class subpath you take around 3rd level.) That's a mere 118 ways to make a character before adding the finer details. Let the game grow a bit, guys D: D:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... Why was 5e bad? Because I'm still deciding between using 5e or pathfinder for running a bunch of old 1e modules. I want to run those classic games using either a simple rule system (which I hear 5e is fairly simple as RPGs go) or a system My table is familiar with (PF).
I've heard that 5e works really well for running those old classics, as it brings back the feel of the old versions. However, I'm so well versed in pathfinder that I believe I'll be able to run them with Pf rules with no problem.
My biggest concern is player imagination and creativity for on the spot decisions. Back when I played the older editions, I used to do things like have my dwarf run between the giant's legs with rope in order to tangle him up or slide down the sail of a ship with my sword to slow me down, or grab a shield and use it as a toboggan. I'm not sure you can do that in 3.x without a feat that says you can - or at the very least I feel that my players believe this to be true. I feel that my players won't try new things unless their character sheet says they can, and I've heard that 5e helps remedy this. Is this true?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5E in my opinion, is very good for introducing people to roleplaying games. I'd argue it's the best system at the moment for this. It's pretty rules light compared to other editions/PF. If you want to get a campaign off the ground quick with little muss and fuss, 5E should probably be your game. If you are worried about the "rules heavy" nature of 3.5 (and PF), where rules determine what you can do (I really like this personally, but eh to each their own), 5E is much "lighter" in that sense, so what you have heard is true in that regard (though again I'd prefer that there were just *rules* for how to shield toboggan).
|
|
Bookrat: You're in luck! Fourth Edition, of all things, actually lists shield toboggan as handled by the Athletics skill! (At least, "ride a shield down the stairs" is listed as a DC 15 Acrobatics check, succeed and you and your shield are at the bottom of the stairs, fail and you're prone at the bottom of the stairs minus your shield.)
5E in my opinion, is very good for introducing people to roleplaying games. I'd argue it's the best system at the moment for this. It's pretty rules light compared to other editions/PF. If you want to get a campaign off the ground quick with little muss and fuss, 5E should probably be your game. If you are worried about the "rules heavy" nature of 3.5 (and PF), where rules determine what you can do (I really like this personally, but eh to each their own), 5E is much "lighter" in that sense, so what you have heard is true in that regard (though again I'd prefer that there were just *rules* for how to shield toboggan).
All my players are well versed in pathfinder and a rules heavy game doesn't bother me in the slightest. And actual rules for a shield toboggan are fine - the issue comes up when you start experiencing things like, "you can't shield tobogan because you don't have the feat for it." Now, that may not be true, but I feel that my players won't try it if they don't have the ability to do it on their character sheet. I'm hoping that by reducing the rules they'll get more creative. But then, they may just go in the opposite direct and do even fewer things than they do now.
Also, I have a ton of PF material that I still want to use. Hell, I used my 2nd Ed stuff for nearly 20 years, and moving from PF to 5e just feels like it's too soon. I need to wait another 15 years first. :)
There are official solutions, even built in solutions to the Vendor Trash / Christmas Tree issues.
Firstly, the markets in most towns are fairly weak after a few levels, and the towns themselves don't have enough economy to purchase many of the mid-level items obtained by the players. Rather than strain the local economy, the players in the group I GM try to invest those items into their downtime pursuits.
Secondly, the downtime systems are wonderful at giving ways to remove the extra magic items. Vendor Trash = supplies and gear for followers. My players routinely collect those lesser items for their own stores, guilds, temples, bandit troupes, etc. Found an X of +3? Give your X of +1 to an NPC for a boon or use it as a recruiting tool. Let the town sculptist include it in the new statue of you in the town square.
We also allow adding new abilities to magical items. It's in chapter 15 of the Core Rulebook. It allows players to grow their items with them, burning their gold and time in the process. The time to create is usually spent working downtime storylines. Many of the players keep items throughout a game. Yes, they may trade up a cloak of resistance +1 for one of +2, but you have to admit that after a few months of adventuring, that original cloak starts to look pretty tattered.
Whether the game is kill/loot/level or a story of character growth in the midst of mystery/tragedy/sword/sorcery is really up to the GM, no matter what system you play.
Also, everybody forgets the one major thing about "But... but Pathfinder has OPTIONS compared to Fifth Edition!!"
Pathfinder has been around since 2009. You have, in the official SRD alone, 29 classes [I'm excluding the six classes from the Occult Adventures book, as well as the antipaladin, ninja, and samurai, as those are alternatives to the paladin, rogue, and cavalier, respectively] and 37 races, all of whom are featured in the Advanced Race Guide. I'm deliberately leaving out the alternate racial traits and class archetypes as well, because 29 classes and 37 races is still a wealth of options. There are 1073 ways to combine a race and a class in Pathfinder, and that's before you get into ability score distribution, racial trait replacement, class archetypes, feats, spells, and equipment.
D&D Fifth has been around since, what? August or so? You have 12 classes in that and 9 races (again, deliberately excluding subraces for dwarves/elves/halflings/dragonborn/gnomes, and excluding the mandatory class subpath you take around 3rd level.) That's a mere 118 ways to make a character before adding the finer details. Let the game grow a bit, guys D: D:
I think the OP's impression (which I share) is that there are plans for only limited expansion/support for 5E, even over the long run.
Wotc seem to be aiming for breadth rather than depth, this time around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, as the GM, you can tailor the encounters, so if the PCs don't have a chaotic-aligned cold iron magical piercing weapon, don't put them against the critter with DR 15/chaotic-aligned cold iron magical piercing weapon.
Or teach them how to Run. ;-)
Or Power Attack. :-P
And as the GM, you can encourage "out of the box" actions by having NPCs and monsters do stuff like that. If the NPC swashbuckler cuts a rope and get pulled up to the mezzanine by a falling chandelier, you can bet my PC is going to grab the rope of the neighboring chandelier and cut it free so I can get a ride too!
You could just put the enchantments into a small number of items rather than swapping the items out over and over, and just ignore the standard price increase modifications for doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My system for removing magic shops, crafters, loot-tracking, etc:
Between adventures, your characters reset to their Wealth by Level in magic equipment. You don't have to worry about where this equipment comes from - you could say that you have unlocked a new power in your old sword, for example.
You can also choose to use Inner Powers in place of magic items. An Inner Power costs the same as a magic item that would do the same thing. An Inner Power must have a weakness, to be negotiated with the GM, to balance out the fact that an item could be sundered or stolen. For example, I could say instead of having a belt of +4 Strength, I have an innate +4 Strength enhancement bonus that only applies if I eat as much food as ten men. The cost would be the same - the gold price is notional and comes out of your Wealth by Level.
Enemy magic items work in much the same way. You can steal an enemy's magic axe, but you'd have to empower it out of your own WBL.
You are restricted to spending no more than 20% of your budget on consumable scrolls and wands, since these can be replaced very easily. (Also, no more than 25% on AC-boosters - otherwise it's pretty easy for some characters to make themselves invincible.)
Actual treasure can then be spent on strongholds, charity, partying, etc.
|
I DM both game systems.
I can say from experience that converting pathfinder adventures into 5e rules is really easy. It does mean re skinning some monsters, but otherwise I've found it no trouble. You could quite easily keep playing 5e with all the Paizo adventures (except maybe iron gods, that ones a bit unusual).
As for options, the new campaign season in March is intoducing two new class types and a new race I believe.
I expect a new monster manual will pop out at some stage as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group is playing 5th Edition through the Rise of the Runelords AP. So far, so good. The DM just has to convert the monsters and NPCs from PF to 5th Ed.
We're also going through it VERY quickly because 5th Ed. combat is so much more elegant than PF.
One of the best parts of PF is how customizable the PCs are. You have lots of choices for alignment, traits, feats, skills, races, alternate race features, classes, class features, class archetypes, spells, and equipment.
I'd like to piggyback off this. The simpler the system you play in, the easier it is to convert stuff over from another system. Have you considered using 5e rules but Pathfinder adventures?
There are official solutions, even built in solutions to the Vendor Trash / Christmas Tree issues.
Firstly, the markets in most towns are fairly weak after a few levels, and the towns themselves don't have enough economy to purchase many of the mid-level items obtained by the players. Rather than strain the local economy, the players in the group I GM try to invest those items into their downtime pursuits.
What are you talking about? The Purchase Limit of settlements goes up so fast that you won't have a problem selling items to a settlement, buying stuff can become a problem at mid+ levels because of how Base Value scales up.
Because (again) those are stories, not games. The reasons Frodo doesn't start with the Ring in a game of D&D is because nobody is worried about whether it'll read well in print. If people were worried about how Roleplaying games played out in print, then SoD's wouldn't be a thing. To wit:
The Archduke Urgalis smashed his heavy gauntlet across the cursed suit of infernal mail that coated his chest. "You have interfered for the last time!"
Staring at the Archduke and his Pale Knights, Vendus said simply, "Dazing Chain Lightning." Blinding light streaked across the room striking Vendus' foes where they stood.
The spell effortlessly dazed all the enemies for several seconds during which Tyrin and Lorasa calmly slid blades between the enemies chests unopposed. Thus, the brutal reign of Archduke Urgalis ended.
/end.
The above can happen because games are different and there is no need to worry about pacing, drama, or tension.
Oddly enough I played Academy of Secrets at the weekend and this is exactly how the final encounter with the ** spoiler omitted ** ended. We didnt event bother rolling it out as every one of them failed their saves and standing there for 6 rounds while several martial characters beat you to death isn't actually very interesting.
It made everything really very anticlimactic and has convinced me to train out of Dazing Spell, at least for PFS games, as the GM has no real tools to deal with it. Home games are different but it actually made me seriously consider playing the Core campaign. Yes I know Core contains numerous crazily good stuff but not quite to the same extent as including everything in additional resources.
Ya, Dazing Spell is the big problem, but the situation would have been the same if I'd used a different SoL/D. Sure those have better counter play then Dazing Spell, but they can be equally anticlimactic. But hey! At least it's not Persona Q Naoto with Impure Reach levels of unfair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@MAJT69:
First, I have to admit I just skimmed through the posts here. But I would like to say what I personally like about PF.
The main thing I like is the variety of options. I remember from AD&D years and years and years ago, that there was very little of that. Humans were the only race with unlimited advancement in all classes, Half-Orcs were all big and tough and dumb, Gnomes were just there, etc. And a fighter was a fighter, a Cleric was a Cleric. Blah, blah, blah.
But Pathfinder has so many racial variations and so many class archetypes, you can have all sorts of different things just with the core races and core classes alone.
As far as magic items go, the main campaign I'm in (my brother is the GM) is not awash in magic items. Some of our fifth level characters have a few +1 items, but that's about it. The +1 items are still pretty expensive, but then +2 gets really expensive, and none of us have been able to buy anything like that as yet. We've chanced on some really cool situational items, but we inevitably have to sell them off. We've all been getting by more on our characters' abilities than magic toys.
The other thing my brother does to liven things up a bit is his campaign has arcane magic "problems." arcane spells have a 10% chance of failing, with random results. Usually spells just fizzle, but often there's an amusing backfire. As per Murphy's Law, these backfires usually happen at the worst possible time.
The problems are these: wealth-by-level, and the adventure paths. I’ll try and cover them separately as they really are two different things.
Then don't use either. Write your own campaign and keep it with whatever equipment you want them to have and scale challenges against them as you see fit.
I don't know of any items that are "required to function at given levels". Just use lower CR enemies if the characters are having trouble.
Also, with the craft feats you can add to existing items. If you want the one sword that is super awesome all the time, let them keep their sword and use the craft feat to add to it as they go.
Alternately, Swords and Wizardry might be up your ally: http://www.d20swsrd.com/
The problems are these: wealth-by-level, and the adventure paths. I’ll try and cover them separately as they really are two different things.Then don't use either. Write your own campaign and keep it with whatever equipment you want them to have and scale challenges against them as you see fit.
I don't know of any items that are "required to function at given levels". Just use lower CR enemies if the characters are having trouble.
Also, with the craft feats you can add to existing items. If you want the one sword that is super awesome all the time, let them keep their sword and use the craft feat to add to it as they go.
Alternately, Swords and Wizardry might be up your ally: http://www.d20swsrd.com/
Magic items are required to make martials function *at all* at levels past 9 at the latest. Casters can provide their own buffs so when you take out the proper magic item distribution you encourage casters particularly crafters. Druids for example will excel because thanks to wildshape and spells they have little need for magic items.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here, I want to ask about the ‘Christmas Tree Syndrome’. One of the things that turned many of us off 3rd edition was the laundry-lists of magic items,
This has not been addressed in PF nor will it get addressed in the future. The core PF game has several built-in mathematical assumptions that makes the Xmass tree part of the game unless you revise it on your own - which is a product supplement/rules re-write all on its own (new bestiary also).
Pathfinder has loads of 'extras', but the players concerns are that any 3rd edition style game is literally unplayable unless the characters are completely optimised, that it's irredeemably broken unless it spends every last gp on the correct combat items for its wealth-by-level.
Those loads of "extras" are a mini-game. If your players are the type who like to optimize and see CharGen as a separate challenge in then PF is a good option for your group. If you actually want to focus less on CharOp and more on playing (Combat, exploring, RP) then you are better off at sticking with 5e or going with an older system, non-3rd ed based game system.
PF rewards system mastery - and you can do things "wrong". Older systems give less options and CharGen, or those features are not as relevant to actual play - and thus greater focus is on actual game play and not character building.
My advice to would be to stick with 5e.
I would look into buying and converting as much 1e and 2e material they have online for 5e content and go with that game system instead. Even converting some 3rd ed stuff for 5e - I've eyeballed it and it doesn't look too hard to do - though tbh I haven't actually tried yet.
A "well supported system" does not always equal good. Or at least good for you and what you and your group are looking for. PF is great system for most of those who loved 3.5 - if you had problems with that system then no amount of book support or adventures is going to make it different with PF. In fact, it may just frustrate you more.
I don't have anything invested in this race - I run a modified 1e/2e game when I do run AD&D, so no 5e for me.
I gave up on PF after years of frustration and basically realizing that the work/effort to get the game I wanted out of that system was not paying off vs. the time and energy invested.
In my case - more money spent on the system was not a good investment.
I'll note that for at least some people in one of my gaming groups, the lack of options in 5E is actually part of the appeal, and they'll be happier if 5E player options either grow very slowly or don't grow at all.
I'm pretty underwhelmed by 5E, myself. Playing the Lost Mine of Phandelver left me going "bleh." Maybe the campaign my group is planning to start in a month or two will change my mind, but probably not.
One man's bloat is another man's substance, I guess.
@ OP - honestly, if your group reviled 3.5 because of the magic items, they aren't going to like Pathfinder much better. Magic items are a pretty important benchmark of your character progression.
The Christmas Tree effect has been part of the game for a long, long time - just look at the 1E and 2E monsters that were outright immune to weapons under a certain +.
The scaling was slower, but it was still there.
Now, if you're worried about your players having to be cutting edge optimizers - no, no they don't. The actual APs are written to be completable by a group of four players who are new to tabletop RPGs in general, and if you browse the boards you should find a fair bit of kvetching about how easy the adventures are.
AP adventures assume 4, 15 point buy, PCs. If you have a larger group than that, and/or make the PCs themselves stronger (like 20 or 25 pt), then they'll have an easier time and you'll probably have to adjust to challenge them.
The adventures can be rough at low levels because low level characters are delicate flowers, but if your players are any good they should be fine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Christmas Tree effect has been part of the game for a long, long time - just look at the 1E and 2E monsters that were outright immune to weapons under a certain +.
The scaling was slower, but it was still there.
Disagree wholeheartedly.
There are worlds of difference between needing a +1 or +2 to hit a creature vs. the big-six level assumed: Required Stats (items), Required Save Bonuses (Cloaks), Required Natural Armor Bonuses, Required Deflection Bonuses (Rings), Required Weapon, Required Armor.
I'm just not seeing the close similarity or "its always been there". Just not true.
|
|
I gave up on PF after years of frustration and basically realizing that the work/effort to get the game I wanted out of that system was not paying off vs. the time and energy invested.
In my case - more money spent on the system was not a good investment.
Fair comment, and I appreciate your honesty. I think that's where my players seem to be.
It's been interesting for me to step in and see the 'state of the game', so to speak. Amazing how many ways we find to play our 'lets pretend' ! :)
And I express my views with some sadness tbh. I really wanted the game to work, I felt (at the time) that the Paizo staff had the best of both worlds covered - a new system with some nods to the past - it was nice.
I (as the GM) loved all the creature scaling options - that is what drew me into 3.5 from 2e. But years and years of long fights and prep, counting up small values, trying to keep the party in the right gear at level - on top of slew of other game related issues unique only to PF and 3rd ed based games made me realize that the system doesn't give me what I want.
Good luck in whatever you and your group decide to roll with.
I gave up on PF after years of frustration and basically realizing that the work/effort to get the game I wanted out of that system was not paying off vs. the time and energy invested.
In my case - more money spent on the system was not a good investment.
Fair comment, and I appreciate your honesty. I think that's where my players seem to be.
It's been interesting for me to step in and see the 'state of the game', so to speak. Amazing how many ways we find to play our 'lets pretend' ! :)
What we usually do is use my brother's PF books. He's the GM and has sunk money in all the books. We use web resources for the player information for character creation and all that. My brother has the final say, of course, being the GM. AND the owner of the books!
I'm glad you haven't lost sight of the fact RPGs are rather elaborate forms of "make believe".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP's impression (which I share) is that there are plans for only limited expansion/support for 5E, even over the long run.Yes, WotC seem to be saying this will be the first edition of D&D without extra classes and expansions. So we're shelving it for a year or two and see if anything changes there down the line.
Pathfinder has loads of 'extras', but the players concerns are that any 3rd edition style game is literally unplayable unless the characters are completely optimised, that it's irredeemably broken unless it spends every last gp on the correct combat items for its wealth-by-level.
I wanted opinions on that from those who know the game best, and they seem to be mixed... :)
Well, as a GM who runs quite a few PF games involving completely un-optimized parties, I can assure you/your players that such is neither unplayable or irredeemably broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Christmas Tree effect has been part of the game for a long, long time - just look at the 1E and 2E monsters that were outright immune to weapons under a certain +.
The scaling was slower, but it was still there.
Disagree wholeheartedly.
There are worlds of difference between needing a +1 or +2 to hit a creature vs. the big-six level assumed: Required Stats (items), Required Save Bonuses (Cloaks), Required Natural Armor Bonuses, Required Deflection Bonuses (Rings), Required Weapon, Required Armor.
I'm just not seeing the close similarity or "its always been there". Just not true.
In 1E and 2E, the ring and the cloak were the same time - a ring of protection.
At low level play it didn't mean much, but at high levels it made the difference between "I pass on a 2" or "I die on a 6 or lower" =P
Also, needing +X to even be able to fight a creature is the very definition of "required weapon" =P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I wonder where the concept that you need to optimize in PF comes from. Now if you are concerned with what the Joneses are doing, sure you can optimize the heck out of characters. But if you just want to make it through an AP as written, you surely don't need optimization at all. A cursory glance at the provided characters at the back of the APs surely shows they are not optimized at all and that's the level of opposition that the adventure was written for.
Now while it is true that a plethora of build options certainly can lead to more optimization paths. However it can also just lead to people building quirky characters, and since the expectation in the pre-made adventures is for the non-optimized, that works just fine.
Heck, PFS is a pretty clear example of this. You don't need optimized characters for that pretty much at all (except season 4).
I wanted opinions on that from those who know the game best, and they seem to be mixed... :)
Question, do you have optimizers in your group? If so, optimizers tend to outshine non-optimizers in combat. If, on the other hand, no one is optimizing, then no one is affected, and a group of all non-optimizers should have no problem in game. Of course, you should avoid being suboptimal. I run a group that has one optimizer that seldom shows up, while the rest of the table are not optimizers, but nobody is suboptimal. We all have fun though.
I won't dispute that you need to have equipment to make it (for martials in particular, a well build caster could probably squeak by). But that's a separate issue from optimization. That's the 'Xmas tree effect'. Other people have addressed suggestions on how to deal with that.
I guess in a way it has something to do with potential bad choices though. You could blow all your money on useless (but neat) stuff and not have what you need to get the job done.
I have to say I wonder where the concept that you need to optimize in PF comes from. Now if you are concerned with what the Joneses are doing, sure you can optimize the heck out of characters. But if you just want to make it through an AP as written, you surely don't need optimization at all. A cursory glance at the provided characters at the back of the APs surely shows they are not optimized at all and that's the level of opposition that the adventure was written for.
Depends on how the GM is running the monsters.
Most the GMs I play with would have eaten the Iconics alive. They simply could not finish the AP as written.
No, we actively hate the min-maxing elements and mostly just try to make cool characters.
non-sequitur
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
1. Min-maxing isn't optimization.
2. Min-maxing is not related to 'cool' characters
3. Optimization is not related to 'cool' characters
A decent cha fighter is no less roll-playing for thinking "I want this bonus to diplomacy" then a low cha fighter for thinking "I don't want a cha bonus". It's all mechanics.
It's all mechanics.And the point you are missing is that he doesn't want that kind of game - at least one that places heavy emphasis on exploiting the skill system to negate penalties from optimized stat buys. Not everyone is into that.
That has nothing to do with how cool the characters are.
What games do you play where the wizards wear heavy armor and doesn't prepare spells? Of course players play to their strengths and do not play to their penalties.