Ability Score Minimums for Classes

[DM Under The Bridge]

rainzax wrote:

In as far as using old school ability score requirements to give guidance to newer players so's that they wind up with decent characters, I think the OPs idea isn't entirely meritless. Also this needn't be a polarizing discussion. If I were to adopt this, I would reduce the math, looking towards older editions to draw inspiration. Consider:

Fighter - ST 9
Rogue - DX 9
Wizard - INT 11
Cleric - WIS 11

Barbarian - ST 9, CON 9
Ranger - ST 9, WIS 11
Paladin - ST 9, CHA 11
Bard - DX 9, CHA 11
Monk - ST 9, DX 9, WIS 11
Sorcerer - CHA 11
Druid - WIS 11

You could also limit Favored Class Bonuses to those who have 4 points higher than these metrics, (so, 13+ for physical stats, 15+ for mental stats), thus enabling "fairer" multi-classing practices in both directions: at once discouraging dips into classes with unmet ability score pre-reqs while enabling ability score synergy dual classing.

Keeping the spirit of your proposal but being far less punitive about it?

I quite like this. Seems to follow, for those that like their low str high dex fighters, they should have at least had the strength to wear and bear the armour upon their bodies, or they wouldn't be able to get their armour proficiencies. :)

Ranger I might swap out st for dex, druid I entirely agree with.

[Lemmy]

This is a terrible idea. And it goes against the stated goal of encouraging roleplay. These rules greatly restrict the number of viable character concepts for no discernible reason. Players are therefore forced to roleplay classes, instead of characters.

Some of the suggested attribute requirements don't even make sense and are very unbalanced (Why do Sorcerers need Int 13? Why do witches need Cha? Why do those classes have steeper requirements than Wizards, a much more powerful class?)

I'm sorry, but this idea sounds dangerously close to "You're not allowed to roleplay a character concept, only a character class. And you will play your class they way I like to play that class."

If you want to encourage the role-playing aspect of the game, why are you so hung up on class names instead of character concepts?

[thejeff]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Or is some multiclassing okay while other times it isn't?

Multiclassing in support of a well-defined character concept is fine. If you're building Gandalf, remember he's a wizard who wields a legendary sword; if you're building the Grey Mouser, remember he's a rogue who can go toe-to-toe with the finest swordsmen in the world (and who thinks he can cast spells).

Multiclassing in support of an ill-defined collection of Phenomenal Kozmic Powers!!!!1!1one!!!eleven!! is ... also fine. But it grinds the gears of certain frustrated novelists and film directors who think that you're having badwrongfun and therefore must be stopped.

Ah yes. That stereotype. Anyone who doesn't like powergaming of whatever type is a "frustrated novelist or film director".

Nope. But anyone who tries to stop powergaming to enforce their view of correct play ,... which is what this is explicitly about, make no mistake,... is a "frustrated novelist or film director." Because they're not interested in a cooperative game.

But we're still on the "any attempt to stop powergaming" is a "frustrated novelist or film director" kick, which is just nonsense. Maybe he's actually a gamist type, but can't provide a good challenge for mixed power gamers and more casual types. Maybe it's the other players frustrated with power gamers.

Quote:

How about "Finds their preferred playstyle not to match with yours."

How about not. Because they're not enforcing their playstyle.

They're not? They're making you play with it. I guess they're not actually making you powergame yourself. You just have to deal with the "ill-defined collection of Phenomenal Kozmic Powers!" and everything that does to the game.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

My main criterion for a good GM is "wants the entire table to have fun." Which the opening poster clearly does not meet.

Oddly, and perhaps counter intuitively, letting everyone do whatever they want isn't always the best way to make sure everyone has fun.

Maybe other players aren't having fun. Maybe the GM isn't having fun, which is going to kill the game.
You're right that it's a cooperative game. That doesn't mean each player does their own thing with no effect on the others and the GM caters to each of their wishes without affecting any of the others.

Mind you, I think rules of this sort aren't the right approach. Asking the player you have a problem with to tone it down is better. If that doesn't work, then you have to decide whether you actually want to keep playing with them.
This would also apply to any irreconcilable style differences between players. The guy who wants to roleplay out every conversation and shopping trip in party that's just interested in getting to the next combat. The one who refuses to build even competent characters in the over-optimized party. Whatever the conflict, if it can't be resolved and people aren't having fun because of it, splitting the group is probably the only solution.

[Torger Miltenberger]

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

Power-gaming (as in "abusing the game's mechanics to the point that the game is nothing but a kind of arms race fought with 5th-grade mathematics") ruins the game. Rules like this are intended to keep the game fun by sealing off one of the biggest traps that threaten to defeat the game's raison d'etre.

This line killed me, especially the 5th grade math part. So very true.

So I get what your trying to do with the minimum attributes. I remember them from back in the day and to my mind anything that makes 1 level dips a little less appealing deserves at least a moment's consideration (unpopular sentiment though it may be). However, my concern is that it slams the door hard on some outside the box concepts that aren't power gamey but are just expectation defying. Saw a guy run a CON 7 archer fighter once. Was a fun character precisely because of his oddball stat assignment. Wouldn't be possible under this rule.

As others have suggested I'm more in favor of rewarding the stats that should be important to the class (sometimes by adding something that's a straight up buff to the class) than I am enforcing a minimum.

Sorry you got dumped on so hard, but can't say I'm surprised.

- Torger

[Torger Miltenberger]

thejeff wrote:

Oddly, and perhaps counter intuitively, letting everyone do whatever they want isn't always the best way to make sure everyone has fun.

Quoted for truth

- Torger

[TriOmegaZero]

Aux's suggestion about making classes rarer is the only redeemable part of this idea for me.

[Orfamay Quest]

thejeff wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

How about not. Because they're not enforcing their playstyle.

They're not? They're making you play with it. I guess they're not actually making you powergame yourself. You just have to deal with the "ill-defined collection of Phenomenal Kozmic Powers!" and everything that does to the game.

Nope. Not playing their game is an option.

This is not someone saying "no thanks, this is too powergamy for my taste." This is someone saying "because I don't like powergaming, this is how you have to play.

Quote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

My main criterion for a good GM is "wants the entire table to have fun." Which the opening poster clearly does not meet.

Oddly, and perhaps counter intuitively, letting everyone do whatever they want isn't always the best way to make sure everyone has fun.

You actually got that right. If "let everyone do whatever they want" and "impose MY rules on everyone else's fun" were the only choices, then that would indeed be a quandary.

As it happens, those are both wrong choices. The right choices are a) discuss it among the group, or b) make a choice for yourself not to play.

[Torger Miltenberger]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

This is not someone saying "no thanks, this is too powergamy for my taste." This is someone saying "because I don't like powergaming, this is how you have to play.

"Nope this table isn't power gamey enough for my tastes" is also an option. that argument goes both ways.

You don't have to play in my house ruled toned down game, and I don't have to play in your all options are on the table regardless of power level game.

My questions is why does the existence of mine offend you?

I'm perfectly ok with the existence of yours.

- Torger

[Orfamay Quest]

Torger Miltenberger wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

This is not someone saying "no thanks, this is too powergamy for my taste." This is someone saying "because I don't like powergaming, this is how you have to play.

"Nope this table isn't power gamey enough for my tastes" is also an option. that argument goes both ways.

It does. But when the gamemaster is saying "these are the table rules that I am going to enforce to make sure the table runs to MY preferred style," the gamemaster has forgotten that there are four other people at the table.

[Auxmaulous]

kestral287 wrote:

That said, let's ask you the same thing the OP was asked: how does this make Pathfinder more fun to play?

If it makes him happy, then it makes Pathfinder more fun for him to play. And that's the only answer that matters.

Damn the people on the internets and what they think. Who cares?

As far as PB and arrays are concerned I never said 15/15/17 array. I said bump some of the lower ones to a higher stat requirements. An 11/11/17 costs 15 points. The numbers are dependent on his PB allotment. 15 point standard - then the high stat should be 15. More PB, then he can tweak the numbers.

Also - he could make allowances/required stats if the player plays a specific kind of Dwarven Wizard - maybe lowering the threshold for thematic options like Dwarven Evokers, Conjurers and Transmuters. Its all very workable depending on what he wants (what classes are more common, and which ones are rare).

But again, that's why I said he should probably discard PB since it doesn't support the system well.

This rage though needs to end.

[Torger Miltenberger]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

But when the gamemaster is saying "these are the table rules that I am going to enforce to make sure the table runs to MY preferred style," the gamemaster has forgotten that there are four other people at the table.

As has a player who makes an every splat book included unstoppable rule bending monstrosity. There's a pretty good chance none of the other four people at the table want to play with that.

The GM gets to decide the rules because he's the one that has to deal with every single thing in the world. That's a lot of work.

GM: This is the game I wish to run under this framework

Players: We're really not into that framework

GM: Guess I'll take a pass for now maybe try to come up with something else.

No harm no foul. What's wrong with that scenario? or even with this one

3/4 players: Sounds great let's do it

4th player: not into it

3 players + DM: well this is what's ready you can play or not but this is what's going down.

Democracy in action

I also don't understand why whenever a house rule is posted people get up in arms assuming that they will be decreed without any discussion what so ever. Do you guys regularly get weird house rules dumped on you with no warning and discussion at all? Genuinely asking 'cause that's not how it goes at any table I've sat at.

- Torger

[kestral287]

Auxmaulous wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

That said, let's ask you the same thing the OP was asked: how does this make Pathfinder more fun to play?

If it makes him happy, then it makes Pathfinder more fun for him to play. And that's the only answer that matters.

And what his group thinks, otherwise he's going to be playing solitaire in short order. But if he and his group were already fans of it... what would be the reason for posting it here?

Maybe I just think that much differently than he does as a GM, but if I have a houserule in mind and I know my group isn't going to mind... then you're absolutely right. Screw what anybody else thinks.

If I have a houserule in mind that I and my group aren't sure about, then I would take it here. If I have a houserule in mind but I don't have a group to run it past, and I want to feel out the waters, then I would take it here.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Also - he could make allowances/required stats if the player plays a specific kind of Dwarven Wizard - maybe lowering the threshold for thematic options like Dwarven Evokers, Conjurers and Transmuters. Its all very workable depending on what he wants (what classes are more common, and which ones are rare).

So enforce the stat minimums except when you don't bother to enforce them? From experience, selective enforcement of the same rule to your players never ends well.

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Sure, we can ignore the stat requirements for that"
Player 2: "Can I run a clumsy Human Wizard?"
GM: "No, Dex is a requirement and humans can meet it easily."

Now Player 2 is annoyed. You've reduced his fun.

[thejeff]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

How about not. Because they're not enforcing their playstyle.

They're not? They're making you play with it. I guess they're not actually making you powergame yourself. You just have to deal with the "ill-defined collection of Phenomenal Kozmic Powers!" and everything that does to the game.

Nope. Not playing their game is an option.

This is not someone saying "no thanks, this is too powergamy for my taste." This is someone saying "because I don't like powergaming, this is how you have to play.

Quote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

My main criterion for a good GM is "wants the entire table to have fun." Which the opening poster clearly does not meet.

Oddly, and perhaps counter intuitively, letting everyone do whatever they want isn't always the best way to make sure everyone has fun.

You actually got that right. If "let everyone do whatever they want" and "impose MY rules on everyone else's fun" were the only choices, then that would indeed be a quandary.

As it happens, those are both wrong choices. The right choices are a) discuss it among the group, or b) make a choice for yourself not to play.

How does the gamemaster "not play their game"?

If the GM says "no thanks" and walks away, what happens to the game?

So yes, he's saying "because I don't like powergaming, this is how you have to play", but you missed the critical "In my game".

There really isn't a difference here. Except that when it's the GM, it looks a little different than when it's a player. One player can decide not to play and the same game can go on. The GM decides not to play and it's more complicated.

Obviously, as I said in the previous post,

Quote:

Mind you, I think rules of this sort aren't the right approach. Asking the player you have a problem with to tone it down is better. If that doesn't work, then you have to decide whether you actually want to keep playing with them.

[Ms. Pleiades]

Stat requirements for classes, because apparently 13 INT for Combat Expertise wasn't enough.

And god help you if you're rolling for stats and miss a pre-requisite by 1.

[Sissyl]

Honestly, this is not just a forum to bring up house rules you aren't sure about. It is a forum where you can discuss what changes to the ruleset would mean. The OP never said that "I just bought up Paizo and made a deal with the UN peacekeeping forces, so this is how you have to play from now on", did he? No. He brought it up as a suggestion. The amount of flak he got from it is really quite astounding. It was even suggested he find another forum to hang out since he started this thread.

Ability score minimums are certainly not for everyone. They do push the game into a certain direction, which has its points if you are trying to do certain things. I don't really enjoy that style, but that doesn't mean he is a traitor for bringing them up.

It is also a neat observation that there ARE ability score minimums in the game already, only now they go for feats instead... And should reasonably block cocepts just as well. So, should I whine about how unfair it is that I can't make my character who has learned not to get hit through combat expertise without 13 Int?

[DominusMegadeus]

Sissyl wrote:

Honestly, this is not just a forum to bring up house rules you aren't sure about. It is a forum where you can discuss what changes to the ruleset would mean. The OP never said that "I just bought up Paizo and made a deal with the UN peacekeeping forces, so this is how you have to play from now on", did he? No. He brought it up as a suggestion. The amount of flak he got from it is really quite astounding. It was even suggested he find another forum to hang out since he started this thread.

Ability score minimums are certainly not for everyone. They do push the game into a certain direction, which has its points if you are trying to do certain things. I don't really enjoy that style, but that doesn't mean he is a traitor for bringing them up.

It is also a neat observation that there ARE ability score minimums in the game already, only now they go for feats instead... And should reasonably block cocepts just as well. So, should I whine about how unfair it is that I can't make my character who has learned not to get hit through combat expertise without 13 Int?

Yes, whining about combat expertise and TWF dex prereqs is a very common and accepted practice. That's why Brawlers and Rangers/Slayers laughing at such restrictions is welcomed with open arms and considered a very convenient if not powerful ability.

[StabbittyDoom]

Honestly, I feel that ability score pre-requisites shouldn't exist at all. Abilities should instead be designed to be sub-par if you don't have good ability scores for them. (Well, maybe have prerequisites if the math just gets weird below a certain point, or require Int 3 as a way to require sentience.)

So I would be perfectly okay with Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Two-Weapon Fighting having no ability score pre-requisites, for example. And for those I don't think any modification is necessary.

I suppose that makes me OP's opposite.

[Sissyl]

And anyone who thinks those minimums are okay (they ARE in the rules, you know) should seriously consider finding a forum that is more to their tastes than this one?

[kestral287]

Sissyl wrote:

And anyone who thinks those minimums are okay (they ARE in the rules, you know) should seriously consider finding a forum that is more to their tastes than this one?

No, they should accept that there are differences in opinion. They should also accept that they hold the minority opinion. That doesn't make them wrong on a subjective subject, it just means people disagree.

If they get fighty about their disagreement, like the OP came off as (to me at least), then they should realize the natural conclusion of these facts.

[Sissyl]

So, ability score minimums for feats are a minority opinion? That is... Odd, to my ears. YMMV.

And if the OP got a tad bit defensive, that is quite understandable considering the hostility he got.

[Torger Miltenberger]

kestral287 wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

And anyone who thinks those minimums are okay (they ARE in the rules, you know) should seriously consider finding a forum that is more to their tastes than this one?

No, they should accept that there are differences in opinion. They should also accept that they hold the minority opinion. That doesn't make them wrong on a subjective subject, it just means people disagree.

If they get fighty about their disagreement, like the OP came off as (to me at least), then they should realize the natural conclusion of these facts.

The OP posted a rule, and his first post doesn't seem particularly fighty to me. Before he made a second post he was greeted with

"This idea is dumb.

I don't have any qualms about stating it that way."

"Your idea is terrible and you should feel bad for spending the time to write it down."

"You're not wrong, you're just an #!@hole"

"And here's what I think of this." Linked to a rude dismissive meme

Can't imagine why he got fighty.

Way to stay classy internet.

- Torger

[Auxmaulous]

kestral287 wrote:

So enforce the stat minimums except when you don't bother to enforce them? From experience, selective enforcement of the same rule to your players never ends well.

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Sure, we can ignore the stat requirements for that"
Player 2: "Can I run a clumsy Human Wizard?"
GM: "No, Dex is a requirement and humans can meet it easily."

Now Player 2 is annoyed. You've reduced his fun.

No - you are not understanding what I was saying with the Dwarf Wizard

Player 1: "Can I run a Dwarf Wizard?"
GM: "Well, for my game Dwarf Wizard stat reqs are high so many choices are not practical, with the exception of Evoker, Conjurer and Transmuters"
Player 1:"So what are the stat miniumums"
GM: "Well, a Dwarven Evoker needs needs a Con of 12, Conjurer a Cha of 11 and a Transmuter a Str of 11 on top of having at least a 16 Int to start."
Player 1: "Oh, ok - let me see what I can work out (PB)/roll for my stats and I'll play around with them so I can make a Dwarven Transmuter."

Player 2 is in the background busy making a Universalist Human wizard that is slightly less restrictive in stat requirement but of course less specialized.

I never said drop requirements at random/on a whim.
What he can do is say he wants to run an old-school game with some exceptions. So he has the stat requirement for human paladins but maybe tweaks it for someone wanting to play an Elven paladin, etc. So he needs to put in that work.

In the end - the PB values are the same and add up the same - how stats are laid out in an array in his game vs. generic cookie-cutter PF characters in every other game is where the difference lies.

kestral287 wrote:

If they get fighty about their disagreement, like the OP came off as (to me at least), then they should realize the natural conclusion of these facts.

That may have happened when people (rynjin) basically said he was a bad person for posting his idea and it was stupid (because you know, he didn't like it). Or others saying he was a bad GM (Orfamy), last I checked the OP wasn't attacking anyone. Everyone else pretty much wolf-packed the guy with their best argument being "but it's unfun to me".

- And Ninja'd (with no stat min requirements) by Torger on the last point

[DominusMegadeus]

To be fair, it is a stupid idea. I can't defend it on that front.

[Torger Miltenberger]

Auxmaulous wrote:

- And Ninja'd (with no stat min requirements) by Torger on the last point

*phew* 'cause my dex is terrible ^_-

- Torger

[kestral287]

Sissyl wrote:

So, ability score minimums for feats are a minority opinion? That is... Odd, to my ears. YMMV.

And if the OP got a tad bit defensive, that is quite understandable considering the hostility he got.

Most people are okay with Power Attack, because that's something you'll pretty much have anyway, and if not you almost certainly qualify for Piranha Attack, and if you really don't qualify for either you're probably a Swashbuckler and have a class feature built in to accommodate for that.

But Combat Expertise is almost universally reviled, and people love the Ranger/Slayer more than any other class for TWF builds because they're not required to build Dex.

Torger Miltenberger wrote:

The OP posted a rule, and his first post doesn't seem particularly fighty to me.

You are free to read things differently from me. I read the inherent assumptions within "this is to preserve the integrity of the class" and immediately labeling a counterargument as "contrived" before it was even presented, as well as the argument (and assumption underlying) that "by choosing to play this game instead of GURPS you choose to play under rules that validate my opinion" as fighty.

Perhaps not overtly hostile in that he never said "agree with me or you're a powergrubbing jerk!", but there were a great many things in the first post that came off as... I don't quite want to use the word arrogant, but that's the closest I can come up with off-hand.

Also his arguments made my Inner Debate Judge twitch, but that's me.

[Sissyl]

DominusMegadeus: Given the rest of the ruleset, I think it is a BAD idea. It is absolutely not a STUPID one, though. It has a very long pedigree and was the norm for ages. Many people choose systems where it applies before PF. Someone said 5th edition reinstated them, I don't know if that is true. Even in the current PF ruleset, there are very similar rules applied to feats.

[Torger Miltenberger]

kestral287 wrote:

You are free to read things differently from me.

Fair enough, I make a concerted effort to read everything online in the most neutral tone possible (preferably narrated by Morgan Freeman).

- Torger

P.S. Regardless I think the level of rudeness he encountered was unwarranted.

[Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert]

Sissyl wrote:

Honestly, this is not just a forum to bring up house rules you aren't sure about. It is a forum where you can discuss what changes to the ruleset would mean. The OP never said that "I just bought up Paizo and made a deal with the UN peacekeeping forces, so this is how you have to play from now on", did he? No. He brought it up as a suggestion. The amount of flak he got from it is really quite astounding. It was even suggested he find another forum to hang out since he started this thread.

Ability score minimums are certainly not for everyone. They do push the game into a certain direction, which has its points if you are trying to do certain things. I don't really enjoy that style, but that doesn't mean he is a traitor for bringing them up.

Agreed.

Quote:

It is also a neat observation that there ARE ability score minimums in the game already, only now they go for feats instead... And should reasonably block cocepts just as well. So, should I whine about how unfair it is that I can't make my character who has learned not to get hit through combat expertise without 13 Int?

Some of us have complained mightily on that note, and there are GMs like me who took the feat away altogether and just made it how fighting defensively works.

[DominusMegadeus]

You'll find that those stat pre-reqs on feats are also stupid.

If they are there to limit power, then they do a piss poor job of it.

If they're there solely to limit player choice, then they're just as stupid as I said.

[Sissyl]

Kelsey: Indeed. I doubt you mean that anyone who thinks ability requirements for feats are okay should go find another forum, however.

[Vanthos, the Most Powerful Mage]

StabbittyDoom wrote:

Spellcaster classes should be extra obvious, IMO. They already scale on ability score, so minimums seems redundant. If someone wants to play a horrifically untalented wizard with an int of 10 or 11, then let them.

I am not untalented!

[StabbittyDoom]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

You'll find that those stat pre-reqs on feats are also stupid.

If they are there to limit power, then they do a piss poor job of it.

If they're there solely to limit player choice, then they're just as stupid as I said.

A bit more crude than I would put it (except among friends), but agreed.

[LoneKnave]

Actually, limiting TWF to DEX is doing exactly what the designers intended, and so, you could say it was a good design choice in that regard; they justhilariously overvalued the worth of TWF, and feats in general.

[Sissyl]

Dominus: Those feats are all legacy feats from 3.0. They were intended, I think, to give different styles of fighting for people with different high stats. Strength made you bash hard at the cost of accuracy, Dex let you move around more freely, and Int gave you a better way to fight defensively. They also served as base feats for chains of feats (taken directly from Diablo II). Taken together, those feat chains got you Whirlwind Attack. Since then, Whirlwind Attack has been losing its relevance bit by bit. Oddly, however, so many new feats add in Combat Expertise as a requirement. Truth is, all those feats could be better, with the exception of Power Attack. I agree that CE does better as a general option.

[Torger Miltenberger]

I played an old system once where every weapon had minimum stat values required in order to be proficient in their use.

Given that spell casters already have minimums effectively built into their class feature and given that 99% of the time in combat most characters boil down to either spells or weapons perhaps that would be a useful way to go.

It always struck me as bizarre that a character with an encumbrance so low as to be encumbered by his weapon can still swing it in battle.

Full disclosure I would not implement this rule. For the record I don't require minimum stats for power attack or combat expertise, I hand them out for free and have lowered the dex requirements of TWF feats.

That being said if I were bound and determined to enforce stat minimums somehow I'd probably go this route.

- Torger

[kestral287]

LoneKnave wrote:

Actually, limiting TWF to DEX is doing exactly what the designers intended, and so, you could say it was a good design choice in that regard; they justhilariously overvalued the worth of TWF, and feats in general.

Except that the Ranger exists in Core so not really.

And I would contend that if something has been "hilariously overvalued" from a design perspective, then the design is flawed, and certainly not good.

[Sissyl]

2-weapon fighting was the power style of fighting in 2nd edition. Now it isn't.

[Torger Miltenberger]

Sissyl wrote:

2-weapon fighting was the power style of fighting in 2nd edition. Now it isn't.

Indeed, hard as it may be to believe there was a time when two handed weapons were for chumps. TWF if you wanted offense, Sword and board if you wanted defense.

- Torger

[LoneKnave]

1. It was a good choice because it did what it was supposed, just turns out what it supposed to do was bad. I don't think that's hard to understand and am unsure how to explain it better.

2.Never said the Ranger did what he was supposed to do. I'm pretty sure the core ranger was supposed to be a lightly armored type with high dex (hence his abilities only working in light armor); and the feats were only made pre-req free to differentiate from the fighter.

I feel like a lot of 3rd edition boils down to "how the hell do we make these classes/characters different when we have made everyone use the same systems?" and the failure to do so.

EDIT: that's obviosuly core only, they managed to get it later

[kestral287]

LoneKnave wrote:

1. It was a good choice because it did what it was supposed, just turns out what it supposed to do was bad. I don't think that's hard to understand and am unsure how to explain it better.

I understand what you're trying to say. That the issue doesn't lie with the TWF feat line having high requirements, that's good design that happens to stem from a faulty premise-- that TWF is worthwhile. Since it's not, the rest looks bad even though there was a valid reason for the design decision.

However, to me that doesn't hold water on two fronts. The first is that such things should be designed holistically-- that is to say, the TWF rules and the feats that work with those rules should have been built together. By extension, that means blame should be placed holistically. If the base premise is faulty, everything stemming from it is going to be faulty.

The second is that, frankly, PF had time to learn from 3.5 that TWF isn't really all that great and two-handing is awesome. And yet... didn't seem to. Admittedly the obvious counterpoint is that this was intentional due to the whole backwards compatibility thing, but to me at least it seems like a really odd thing to hold dear when much more fundamental pieces were altered.

Hence, you get people complaining about those requirements. When I have to deal with it I'll probably wind up just pulling the reqs from those feats, but it hasn't come up yet.

LoneKnave wrote:

2.Never said the Ranger did what he was supposed to do. I'm pretty sure the core ranger was supposed to be a lightly armored type with high dex (hence his abilities only working in light armor); and the feats were only made pre-req free to differentiate from the fighter.

I was pointing out the Ranger for blatantly subverting those feat requirements, actually. It's hard, for me, to see "TWF is overvalued so it has requirements" when the Ranger has been ignoring those since day one.

[Bandw2]

I'm against it for one reason.

there is no advantage to any single person mechanically to be required to have these stats. (for the most part the class wants those stats anyway. GMs should give advice on people new to the game to not make poor character choices, not the game engine. and finally fluff does not make a class.)

[Orthos]

Bandw2 wrote:

finally fluff does not make a class.)

This is the big one IMO. Class mechanics are, as I've said repeatedly before, just a chassis to hang a concept on, and are best left that way.

[thejeff]

Orthos wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

finally fluff does not make a class.)

This is the big one IMO. Class mechanics are, as I've said repeatedly before, just a chassis to hang a concept on, and are best left that way.

Then they should remove all the fluff from the class descriptions.

Both are definitely there.

[Tectorman]

thejeff wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

finally fluff does not make a class.)

This is the big one IMO. Class mechanics are, as I've said repeatedly before, just a chassis to hang a concept on, and are best left that way.

Then they should remove all the fluff from the class descriptions.

Both are definitely there.

No, the fluff is like a gymnast's springboard. Useful to establish a concept or build one further if you don't already have a fully fleshed out idea. But other gymnast's might not need a springboard to start their routine and no one does their entire performance on that piece of equipment.

Nor does anyone start a race at the start line and then not take off running, leaving the start line behind.

Now, is it emphasized that the class fluff is just an idea to use if you don't have one of your own? Probably not enough as it should be for a game built the way Pathfinder otherwise is.

[Orthos]

thejeff wrote:

Orthos wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

finally fluff does not make a class.)

This is the big one IMO. Class mechanics are, as I've said repeatedly before, just a chassis to hang a concept on, and are best left that way.

Then they should remove all the fluff from the class descriptions.

I generally do, with a few rare exceptions like Paladins.

I am more than happy, I am straight up eager to reflavor classes at the drop of a hat nine times out of ten.

[Orfamay Quest]

Sissyl wrote:

DominusMegadeus: Given the rest of the ruleset, I think it is a BAD idea. It is absolutely not a STUPID one, though. It has a very long pedigree and was the norm for ages.

So does the four-humor theory of disease, geocentrism, the idea that the Earth is flat, and Aristotelian physics. That doesn't make those ideas not stupid by today's standards.

If you thought in 4000 BC that the Earth was flat, you were an observant person.

If you thought in 500 AD that stones fall to the ground because both are made of the element Earth, and that objects stop moving when you stop pushing them, you were a scholar of Aristotle.

If you thought in 1870 that atoms were indivisible, you were a cutting-edge scientist.

If you thought in 1977 that there was a minimum wisdom necessary to play a fighter, you were Gary Gygax.

And if you think any of those things now,...

[Conman the Bardbarian]

You might be a redneck?

[thejeff]

Orfamay Quest wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

DominusMegadeus: Given the rest of the ruleset, I think it is a BAD idea. It is absolutely not a STUPID one, though. It has a very long pedigree and was the norm for ages.

So does the four-humor theory of disease, geocentrism, the idea that the Earth is flat, and Aristotelian physics. That doesn't make those ideas not stupid by today's standards.

If you thought in 4000 BC that the Earth was flat, you were an observant person.

If you thought in 500 AD that stones fall to the ground because both are made of the element Earth, and that objects stop moving when you stop pushing them, you were a scholar of Aristotle.

If you thought in 1870 that atoms were indivisible, you were a cutting-edge scientist.

If you thought in 1977 that there was a minimum wisdom necessary to play a fighter, you were Gary Gygax.

And if you think any of those things now,...

I'd say it's not so much a matter of "stupid by today's standards", but trying to apply an old mechanic to a very different game system.

[Orfamay Quest]

thejeff wrote:

I'd say it's not so much a matter of "stupid by today's standards", but trying to apply an old mechanic to a very different game system.

Except there's a reason that the game systems today are very different. They're better, which is why they won.

And old mechanics like the one proposed are part of the reason why the newer systems are better. Getting rid of them made the game more fun. (That's not merely my judgment, but the marketplace's.)

If I think the best way to get from my house to the office is by horse and buggy, that's stupid by today's standards. If I think that the best way to get to the office is to use a Nissan Sentra,.... but to hook up a horse in front of the Sentra and use the Sentra just like a buggy, now that's "trying to apply an old mechanic to a very different [transportation] system."

And you know what? It's still "stupid by today's standards"!

[Sissyl]

None of those ideas are stupid. They are wrong, but they did not turn stupid. The people who formulated them were basing them on what they knew. A special note about the humoral theory: when you design ways to describe human personality, you almost always end up with three or four variables. Say what you will, they did get something close to the systems marketed today for the same purpose.