Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I don't want to give people the wrong idea about the session I was in. I understand a lot of it was bad luck. I understand that it would have been almost as hard in normal mode (mostly due to a lack of CLW), though it is one of those things that is impossible to know. We survived and even got 1 prestige, though we still can't get any cure wands. It was Frozen Fingers of Midnight and I was helping the GM convert from 3.5 to PF on the fly during the session. I had never played it before or I would have recommended he start on something like Wounded Wisp or Confirmation.
We had fun, both new players said they intend to come back. Me, my wife and another veteran player have all volunteered to rotate GM duties so nobody gets stuck doing it all the time. I was commenting mostly on the difficulty increase. Having the experienced players with martials and the new players with the casters sure didn't help anything either. My wife spending 90% of the session unconscious because of an axe crit really didn't help anything either.
I TPK'd a party of APG/Ultimate characters in this adventure. A gunslinger, a cavalier, a dual-cursed oracle, and a cleric. It was their third adventure, even, and they did have a wand of CLW.
Meaning: run the bad guys properly and that adventure is dangerous to any 1st level group. <--This statement, I believe, fits *most* adventures, though. It's not just because of Core-only PCs.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For something that was billed as not needing to optimize to have fun I have had the opposite experience.
Season 0 scenarios are written precisely for the type of table you played at. four players using core classes.
I approach core games with the mindset of old school parties, and I've made enough core characters that I can fill any role in a party. screw "play what you want" - I say play what will keep you alive.
in your case, you needed a cleric. badly.
CLW wands are a crutch. infernal healing is even worse. players are used to going into every scrape without a scrape, and that's just not challenging.
other than perhaps your GM not being fully prepared with having the 3.5 conversions done ahead of time, it sounds like it was run properly. poor party makeup kills parties. and sometimes you just die anyway.
too many players are coddled and feel like they're invincible. it's good to remind them of their own mortality every so often. especially when it's an "*almost* TPK" situation and not an actual TPK.
|
For something that was billed as not needing to optimize to have fun I have had the opposite experience.Season 0 scenarios are written precisely for the type of table you played at. four players using core classes.
I approach core games with the mindset of old school parties, and I've made enough core characters that I can fill any role in a party. screw "play what you want" - I say play what will keep you alive.
in your case, you needed a cleric. badly.
CLW wands are a crutch. infernal healing is even worse. players are used to going into every scrape without a scrape, and that's just not challenging.
other than perhaps your GM not being fully prepared with having the 3.5 conversions done ahead of time, it sounds like it was run properly. poor party makeup kills parties. and sometimes you just die anyway.
too many players are coddled and feel like they're invincible. it's good to remind them of their own mortality every so often. especially when it's an "*almost* TPK" situation and not an actual TPK.
Ehhh. If Pathfinder's mechanics supported the idea of a dedicated healer, I'd be all for it. But the rate of damage ramps up faster than the rate of player-accessible healing, and the limited castings per day (especially in the first few levels) really make a mess of it.
I had a friend join PFS for a one off, trying to sell him on the system. He ended up playing the pregen cleric and had a pretty poor time of it. Other than healing between fights, he didn't really get to do much of anything. And a heal-focused cleric with not much else to do may fit the "Core, Iconic, Idealized" party that we often see in high fantasy, but it isn't an experience I'd wish on anyone.
Cure Light wands make it so groups don't feel obligated to either force someone to play the pregen or risk a horrific TPK to a pre-boss fight. Let the Cleric play a Reach build, or a Summon build, or something thematic and awesome to a deity other then one particular aspect of Sarenrae. (And not even one of the exciting ones) Plus, it's just plain polite when Fighter McFrontline brings his own wand so the party's heal-enabled characters can still do the things their players actually made them to do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I do play any Core games, I will be glad not to see (in addition to everything everyone else has named)-
1. oppressive boredom (the spell, anyway)
2. jingasa of the fortunate soldier
3. Ricochet Shot (though I suppose that's assumed in the general happiness at not seeing gun stuff)
|
If Pathfinder's mechanics supported the idea of a dedicated healer, I'd be all for it.
While the best healer is the non core life oracle a healing focused cleric handles the job VERY well. Channels are your friend at the low to mid levels when your spells kick in. In fact, the low point is probably around level 8 or so until you get the heal spell.
You can easily build a healer cleric who can also do some other things (buff, debuff, etc). I like my heal-bot/taxi myself. Getting the full attack combat monster to his target without him taking a move action is a VERY effective tactic.
|
|
If Pathfinder's mechanics supported the idea of a dedicated healer, I'd be all for it.While the best healer is the non core life oracle a healing focused cleric handles the job VERY well. Channels are your friend at the low to mid levels when your spells kick in. In fact, the low point is probably around level 8 or so until you get the heal spell.
You can easily build a healer cleric who can also do some other things (buff, debuff, etc). I like my heal-bot/taxi myself. Getting the full attack combat monster to his target without him taking a move action is a VERY effective tactic.
I have absolutely no problem playing a cleric who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in combat. some people actually enjoy support roles. I've ruined many a GM's day with some very basic spells, like dispel magic, invisibility purge, dimensional anchor, etc.
plus, if the beat stick goes down and I bring him back to consciousness, I get to take credit for all the damage he does after that.
|
|
Liberation Domain is in the CRB and can be a real gamechanger.
Add in a longspear and combat reflexes and you still got some real good cleric tricks there, while you can support.
|
|
I honestly don't know why we're still having all the same arguments over and over, even though they've been long settled by both the math and by personal experience on the part of many people. Let's establish some basic facts so that we can proceed meaningfully:
1. Martial/caster discrepancy is real. Casters are mo' betta'.
2. It does not make sense from the standpoint of pure optimization/efficiency to be a dedicated healer.
3. Rogues and Monks (or at least Core Monks) are weak.
4. The mods and the CR system present minimal challenge, as a rule of thumb, to a group of experienced players using at least fairly optimized characters. This is true even of Core only play.
5. Some spells/feats and so on are just blatantly better than others. Some spells, for instance, are so good that it makes no mathematical sense not to use them, while others are so weak that it makes no sense ever to use them.
These are the facts. Now, none of this means that therefore X, Y and Z must also be true. The math does not have to dictate our behavior, but we must acknowledge the math. For instance, I know that all the facts I listed above are true, and yet 7 of my 15 PFS characters have Monk levels, Rogue levels, or are dedicated healers. Neither my Wizard nor my Summoner know haste.
Why? Because I think we play this game for reasons other than simply "winning." I certainly do. I have no patience for people who try to shame non-optimizers (though there is a line: you do have to achieve, I think, basic competency). I have no patience for "must have" lists. In truth, I draw exactly the opposite conclusions from the above math than most optimizers seem to. I think that if we examine the above facts in toto, we see a very good argument not to use the most optimal options.
I also do not wish to take away from or demean anyone's experiences. You have a good time playing your core Monk? You feel you are competitive with the Wizard? You find the mods challenging? Great! I do not doubt you for a moment, nor begrudge you any of your enjoyment. But I do think that there are other things going on, too. You may not be a very experienced player, or you may not have a very tactically oriented mind, or you may have a very active amygdala that causes you to drastically overestimate the amount of danger your character is in.
All of this, by the way, is completely fine. All of us experienced players were once inexperienced, and we wouldn't understand the game the way we do now without going through that phase. It's a necessary step, and it's honestly more fun to live in that place. So, I mean this from the bottom of my heart: play the way you want and have fun and more power to you. That said, the math don't lie. The game is what it is, and we have to face the reality of it whether we like it or not.
Edit: And by the way, bear in mind that exceptions prove the rule. Sure, there are the odd genuinely challenging encounters in the mods. Some of them, here and there, are downright deadly, even to optimized characters. But those are few and far between, and by no means the norm.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More often than not, I find that more experienced players are the ones to make interesting, non-optimized, and well rounded characters, because they understand the game isn't about numbers, but about enjoying the experience.
Those that make the Nth reiteration of the summon wizard, the two handed barbarian, and the animal companion PC are usually people new to to the game that browse the boards or ask around and play what most people suggest as powerful. This is because there is so much information to digest, it simply takes time to develop system mastery. Once you start getting intimate with the Pathfinder system, you can have lots more fun with it. Like making a rogue or a monk in Core and still being a party asset.
But it's all fine by me. I play this game for the people, not the characters. I'd rather sit down with fun people and play any game than sit down with boring people and play Pathfinder specifically. Lucky for me, most of the people I've met playing Pathfinder are all cool folks, so it all works out in the end.
I'll have to give you guys an update when we clear Eyes with our core group. It should be a blast :)
|
|
2. It does not make sense from the standpoint of pure optimization/efficiency to be a dedicated healer.
...
4. The mods and the CR system present minimal challenge, as a rule of thumb, to a group of experienced players using at least fairly optimized characters. This is true even of Core only play.
Sorry for cutting so much but these were the only ones I wanted to comment on.
Dedicated healers make a LOT of sense in PFS. They act as insurance. Most of the time the twinked out murder hoboes will end the fight but sometimes the bad guy wins initiative and you need to remove status conditions or just heal. Lots of the time another damage dealer is just redundant overkill.
As to whether the scenarios will be easy in Core definitely remains to be seen. Oh, most probably are if a group of 6 optimized core characters using the better classes shows up. But people ARE going to play rogues and monks etc. And even the better classes have been significantly weakened
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
More often than not, I find that more experienced players are the ones to make interesting, non-optimized, and well rounded characters, because they understand the game isn't about numbers, but about enjoying the experience.
Those that make the Nth reiteration of the summon wizard, the two handed barbarian, and the animal companion PC are usually people new to to the game that browse the boards or ask around and play what most people suggest as powerful. This is because there is so much information to digest, it simply takes time to develop system mastery. Once you start getting intimate with the Pathfinder system, you can have lots more fun with it. Like making a rogue or a monk in Core and still being a party asset.
But it's all fine by me. I play this game for the people, not the characters. I'd rather sit down with fun people and play any game than sit down with boring people and play Pathfinder specifically. Lucky for me, most of the people I've met playing Pathfinder are all cool folks, so it all works out in the end.
I'll have to give you guys an update when we clear Eyes with our core group. It should be a blast :)
More often than not, I find that less-experienced players are the ones to make interesting, original, and memorable characters, because they understand the game isn't about nostalgia, but about enjoying the experience.
Those that make the Nth reiteration of the sleazy/untrustworthy Rogue, the Axedwarf (divine casting optional), and the King-James-English paladin are usually people with 30 years of history who don't follow the boards much and play what the guys who first taught them the game suggested was powerful. This is because there is simply so much information to digest, it takes time to invent new concepts. Once you start getting intimate with the Pathfinder system, you can have lots more fun with it. Like making a character that doesn't fit the LotR cliches.
But it's all fine by me. I play this game to make memories, not revisit them. I'd rather sit down with fun people and play any game than sit down with boring people and play Pathfinder specifically. Lucky for me, most of the people I've met playing Pathfinder are all cool folks, so it all works out in the end.
I'll have to give you guys an update when I clear Eyes with my non-melee, genuinely-wise, alcohol-indifferent Core dwarf. It should be a blast. :)
|
|
Dedicated healers make a LOT of sense in PFS. They act as insurance. Most of the time the twinked out murder hoboes will end the fight but sometimes the bad guy wins initiative and you need to remove status conditions or just heal. Lots of the time another damage dealer is just redundant overkill.As to whether the scenarios will be easy in Core definitely remains to be seen. Oh, most probably are if a group of 6 optimized core characters using the better classes shows up. But people ARE going to play rogues and monks etc. And even the better classes have been significantly weakened
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to put any resources whatever toward in-combat healing. But you approach the point of diminishing returns very rapidly when you do.
And as for the second thing, sure, but my points were about what happens when experienced players play optimized versions of the better classes. A truly optimized Core Wizard needs remarkably little help to shred most scenarios. He probably can't solo them, but just barely.
In non-core, I ran my girlfriend (a smart, experienced player and a good optimizer)a while back through one of the more difficult season four mods with her bard/paladin, just to see what would happen. She soloed it (not without difficulty, but she did it). If that is even possible, then obviously we can work backwards and we see where we stand.
|
|
I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to put any resources whatever toward in-combat healing. But you approach the point of diminishing returns very rapidly when you do.
And as for the second thing, sure, but my points were about what happens when experienced players play optimized versions of the better classes. A truly optimized Core Wizard needs remarkably little help to shred most scenarios. He probably can't solo them, but just barely.
In non-core, I ran my girlfriend (a smart, experienced player and a good optimizer)a while back through one of the more difficult season four mods with her bard/paladin, just to see what would happen. She soloed it (not without difficulty, but she did it). If that is even possible, then obviously we can work backwards and we see where we stand.
My healer cleric has a four feats and a trait invested, stat points in charisma, a fair bit of coin and his neckband head slot. Ask the people that he saved with his channeled revival when he was L7 playing up whether or not that was overkill.
Bottom line, people seem to be quite happy when I bring him to the table, even in the scenarios where his healing turns out to be pretty irrelevant. Having other things to do as well as healing certainly helps with that a lot, admittedly. But people LIKE insurance.
Soloing a scenario can sometimes be easier than helping the party to succeed :-). A character on their own approaches problems differently. As does a GM running for a single character. And sometimes the biggest challenge is keeping your party members alive or in line.
And sometimes "Not being a jerk and dominating the table" means significantly underplaying your character. I suspect my Lion Shaman could have soloed more than one scenario she played through between aggressive summons and buffing the puddy tat.
I'm not saying her soloing it wasn't impressive. It was. But it doesn't mean that the scenarios were necessarily incredibly easy.
|
I have absolutely no problem playing a cleric who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in combat. some people actually enjoy support roles. I've ruined many a GM's day with some very basic spells, like dispel magic, invisibility purge, dimensional anchor, etc.
+1. I'm one of those who loves playing support roles. Sometimes, new and fancy spells, feats, etc., are no substitute for playing the fundamentals, and playing them well.
|
|
Ask the people that he saved with his channeled revival when he was L7 playing up whether or not that was overkill...
Bottom line, people seem to be quite happy when I bring him to the table, even in the scenarios where his healing turns out to be pretty irrelevant. Having other things to do as well as healing certainly helps with that a lot, admittedly. But people LIKE insurance.
Yeah, I play healers too. I have a dedicated Hedge Witch healer (who will never have slumber) and a dedicated healer Hospitaler/Oath of Charity Paladin. I enjoy playing them too, not least of all because they make people happy, as you correctly note.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the math, and the math's been done, and from an optimization standpoint you would have better served your party's encounter success rate by just making something that would take out the monsters faster so you wouldn't need to heal anybody.
What I've been saying is that everyone should play whatever they want, but they should also acknowledge the realities of the system. But a lot of the time people will come and say "I don't know what you're talking about! I play an X and I do just fine thank you very much!" as though that in any way diminishes the point being made by the folks who are running the math and discussing things from an optimization/mathematical standpoint.
I'm not saying her soloing it wasn't impressive. It was. But it doesn't mean that the scenarios were necessarily incredibly easy.
It does. It means that.
|
|
But that's not what we're talkying about. We're talking about the math, and the math's been done, and from an optimization standpoint you would have better served your party's encounter success rate by just making something that would take out the monsters faster so you wouldn't need to heal anybody.
I disagree that the math has been done to prove this, at least in the context of PFS.
The question isn't "is killing the opponents faster, in general, better than healing?" The question is "given a group that can kill the opponents in 1 or two rounds, is it better to add a healer or another character dedicated to killing the opponents?"
|
|
But that's not what we're talkying about. We're talking about the math, and the math's been done, and from an optimization standpoint you would have better served your party's encounter success rate by just making something that would take out the monsters faster so you wouldn't need to heal anybody.
I disagree that the math has been done to prove this, at least in the context of PFS.
The question isn't "is killing the opponents faster, in general, better than healing?" The question is "given a group that can kill the opponents in 1 or two rounds, is it better to add a healer or another character dedicated to killing the opponents?"
There´s a very simple answer:
Many PFS Szenarios and also AP´s and modules offer various solutions for encounters. Killing is not always the best nor always leads to success. Depending on your alignment, you should also consider different options, like disabling, etc.On top of that, there are more then enough complaints out there about characters that are able to solo most encounters. Many players feel that is no fun and makes others useless, as well is not sociable. Whatever the math supposedly says, the goal should be something else. Game Theory or other such fun doesn´t apply to this game. Having a fun group experience and winning/meeting friends and having a good time with them does though.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What am I glad not to see in core games?
Myself - I like playing with all the options turned on. But I might GM them when our store runs out of real games to play.
If I do wind up in a core game, I'll be glad to not have the monk STYLE FEATS around. Hate those things. Glad to see summoners gone too.
Sad to see the loss of Oracles, Inquisitors, and Gunslingers.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Isn't the point of this whole thread to grouse about stuff?
In theory, the thread is about "grousing" about game options. The deleted post was "good riddance to [peoplegroup]". In fact, it was pretty much exactly the same as the post Mike Brock deleted on page 1, with the only difference being which group of people was targeted (well, and the fact that Liz didn't call the author a troll).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well, and the fact that Liz didn't call the author a trollIf it walks like a duck...
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that name-calling is fine as long as it's accurate.
I'm really hoping that's not what you're saying, though, so please explain what you really meant.
|
|
What will I not miss about playing Core PFS? Easy everything from the APG, ACG, UM, UC, and UE to include all of the Archtypes. All that and a happy return to sanity. And the new book coming out bringing back the "Warlock" not a fan of that one either.
No more: I spend a point to...
No more: I cast this spell.. Ok do you have the book or PDF watermarked with your name on it? No... I dont care if you have it on your smartphone, you dont have the book or PDF and you cant find it, you cant cast that spell. (whining ensues)
No more: I have X style which lets me do this and completely negate rules in the Core Rulebook.
No more: I have X feat which lets me do this and completely negate rules in the Core Rulebook.
And on a positive note:
Fighters, Clerics, and Rogues again become playable classes again. I am just wondering if I will still see groups still consisting of no dedicated tank, arcane or divine casters.
|
|
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that name-calling is fine as long as it's accurate.
Hmmm, let me see...
Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
As a forum admin, if they feel someone is doing just that, then it is not "name calling" to call a duck a duck. I guess if your intent (admittedly hard to know) is to belittle someone, then perhaps so, if I understand your perspective. If however, you are merely using a known and accepted term to describe an action then no.
If someone says or does something that would be defined by majority as "X" with "X" being a widely accepted term, it is not necessarily derogatory. If you chose to label it as "name calling" so be it, but IMO, that burden is on the reader not the OP.
If someone clearly does something that falls under the "don't be a jerk" rule, would it be wrong to tell them they are acting like a jerk? I posit no.
I'm sure we are not going to agree on this issue, nor do I intend to debate it. You are entitled to your opinion on the nature of the comment, as am I and I'm sure we are both equally at ease with our perspective.
But, I digress to the OP. I will be glad that the number of arguments at the table will be greatly diminished. While all the splat/expanded options for characters makes for great opportunities for customized characters, it also creates a lot of rules "wonkiness" on how everything interacts. The more rules, the more chances for people to have opposing thoughts on how they work. By eliminating everything but the CRB, we should have much fewer rule ambiguities to adjudicate.
|
|
I think its because the options that granted class-crossover abilities are gone. Therefore a rogue becomes more playable because no one else can disarm magical traps. Of course, there are other options such as summoning, etc. but those are ways to "survive" a trap, rather than disable it. It becomes more about play style than strategic solutions. If you have a rogue, you don't have to expend a resource (spell, etc) to bypass the trap. I'm not making a value statement, just expressing my understanding of why players think as they do.
|
|
Virtually all of the rules debates I have seen at a table, in person, concern topics covered in the Core Rulebook.
Really? huh. Not my experience. I see most of the CRB "arguments" as having sort of plateaued. Meaning that the positions are fairly well known and table variation seems to be accepted. Sure a player will still express their opinion, but it seems that these cases resolve rather quickly and we move on. Its the disagreements of how a rule from book A interacts with books B, C, & D that a larger problem occurs. We often have to spend a good amount of time referencing the original text and comparing it to existing similar rules. It just feels like limiting to the CRB diminishes that a great deal.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its because the options that granted class-crossover abilities are gone. Therefore a rogue becomes more playable because no one else can disarm magical traps.
Just because you can do X does not mean that my ability to do X is diminished.
If rogues are playable in Core, doesn't that mean that they are playable in Normal?
Contrapositively, if rogues are too terrible to play in Normal mode, how does removing options make them sufficiently unterrible to play in Core?
|
|
Virtually all of the rules debates I have seen at a table, in person, concern topics covered in the Core Rulebook.Really? huh. Not my experience. I see most of the CRB "arguments" as having sort of plateaued. Meaning that the positions are fairly well known and table variation seems to be accepted. Sure a player will still express their opinion, but it seems that these cases resolve rather quickly and we move on. Its the disagreements of how a rule from book A interacts with books B, C, & D that a larger problem occurs. We often have to spend a good amount of time referencing the original text and comparing it to existing similar rules. It just feels like limiting to the CRB diminishes that a great deal.
You're lucky, I guess. The most recent (heated) debate was regarding command words. The player (who is a 4-star GM) was arguing that he can activate a pearl of power as a free action because speaking is a free action.
Other examples: Combat Reflexes and multiple attacks of opportunity against a single enemy moving through two or more threatened squares; taking 10 on Disable Device checks; taking 20 on Perception checks; whether or not one can reroll a failed Perception check (that was my favorite—the GM claimed that if you fail to find something you cannot look again); how line-shaped effects work (and the fact that they must originate from the caster's square); etc.
The only non-Core debate I can even remember is whether arcanists may cast sorcerer/wizard spells found outside of the Core Rulebook (the 5-star GMs in my area still contend that they may not).
|
Well, I think we can all agree that core at the very least, will be a lot of fun.
No more extra heavy bags of books to snap your spine, no more leafing through five different books to find what that one spell does under that one circumstance when used with that one feat.
Plus, there is now a reason to pick rogue and run with it, because rogues alternate classes/replacements (slayer/investigator/ninja) are not around.
So yay.