| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.
BADWRONGFUN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.
BADWRONGFUN.
I have to agree with this position. Remember that everyone plays the game differently. Just because something doesn't work for you or your group doesn't mean there isn't another person or group out there who loves it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One man's trap feat is another's obvious choice for flavor reasons.
BADWRONGFUN.
You know... People shout "Stop saying I'm having badwrong fun!" waaaaaaaaay more often than anyone accuses other of having it.
Nowadays it sounds like people trying to be seen as poor oppressed victims, rather than just posters with differing opinions.
In any case...
Most of those trap feats are not flavorful at all. And even if they are... Why should flavorful choices be underpowered? Shouldn't the game encourage players to take flavorful options, rather than punish them for doing so? Why should anyone have to choose between flavor and functionality?
Flavor is not an excuse for bad mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a victim statement. It's a critique of the idea represented.
You basically said Paizo publishes things you consider crappy feats on purpose. Other players may or may not consider them crappy feats, for flavor reasons.
The way the game is set up, if you specialize (for mechanical or flavor reasons) you take a hit in other areas to make up for it. This is no different.
|
Other players may or may not consider them crappy feats, for flavor reasons.
Being a crappy feat and having cool flavor are not mutually exclusive. Just because a feat has cool flavor doesn't inherently keep it from being crappy mechanically.
The way the game is set us, if you specialize (for mechanical or flavor reasons) you take a hit in other areas to make up for it. This is no different.
I totally disagree that a character should be expected to be forced to take mechanically crappy feats in order to be flavorful. I'm not saying they can't - but you're basically saying that mechanically effective and flavorful options are at least somewhat mutually exclusive. There is no reason that they should be.
The only thing I can think is that someone would intentially take a subpar feat is for hipster reasons - picking it intentionally because it's not cool etc.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a victim statement. It's a critique of the idea represented.
What idea? That flavorful choices shouldn't have awful mechanics just because they are flavorful?
You basically said Paizo publishes things you consider crappy feats on purpose. Other players may or may not consider them crappy feats, for flavor reasons.
They do publish crappy feats. And archetypes. And spells. Most of those crappy options are not flavorful. And the ones that are flavorful shouldn't be crappy. In fact, none of them should be crappy.
And it is on purpose too. The text didn't magically type itself and then flew into the printer.
The way the game is set us, if you specialize (for mechanical or flavor reasons) you take a hit in other areas to make up for it. This is no different.
Ah... And what area are you specializing? Flavor? Because I didn't mention any particular area. Again, why should flavor be punished with bad mechanics?
If I want Water Skinned because I like its flavor, why can't it be a good feat as well? It doesn't have to be Leadership or Craft Wondrous Items. It doesn't even have to be Power Attack... But it could be, you know, something that's actually useful in ways other than "Now i can pretend this feat is not completely useless and that the game is not punishing me for taking a flavorful option".
Yeah... Timmy Cards are one of the design flaws of 3.5 that continue to haunt Pathfinder. -.-'
Anyway, my break is over. Gotta go back to work. I might come back to annoy you guys again during lunch! ^^
Cheers!
I'm not seeing the constant flavorful=mechanically crappy. I will not acknowledge that premise, as that's not what I am saying.
The premise I'm following is, just because one person considers a feat or class option "mechanically crappy" doesn't mean others must do so as well.
To suggest there is only one "true" way to build a character, or only one "true" sets of feats to use, etc. is pompous.
People confuse a game rewarding system mastery as having junk feats or options on purpose, when the reality is there's no one way to skin a cat in Pathfinder. There is no one set way to turn a character concept into a character in this game. Multiple people will have different ways they would build such a character. It could involve multiple levels, archetypes, feat chains, etc. When you KNOW this is the case, how can you honestly keep repeating the mantra about junk options, like it's some kind of universal constant?
There may be certain feats or builds YOU would avoid, but that's your game, your experience. It's not a law of physics.
TL;DR: That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Tsc, failed my last will save for today...
To suggest there is only one "true" way to build a character, or only one "true" sets of feats to use, etc. is pompous.
Might be pompous, but it's not even close to what I said.
When you KNOW this is the case, how can you honestly keep repeating the mantra about junk options, like it's some kind of universal constant?
Because some options are so weak that they effectively punish the character for taking them by giving them little to no real benefit in exchange for a (often scarce) resource spent.
Now... You can pretend all feats are balanced and that no option is awfully weak or awfully overpowered, if you want... I prefer to accept the fact that Pathfinder, much like any other game, is flawed. And balance is at most a secondary concern for the devs. Probably a tertiary one, actually... Either that or they are pretty bad at it. I'd bet it's a little of column A and a little of column B.
TL;DR: That's just, like, your opinion, man.
As opposed to your post, of course... Which surely contains nothing but objective truths and cold, hard facts.
Never mind.
I'm not seeing the constant flavorful=mechanically crappy. I will not acknowledge that premise, as that's not what I am saying.
The premise I'm following is, just because one person considers a feat or class option "mechanically crappy" doesn't mean others must do so as well.
To suggest there is only one "true" way to build a character, or only one "true" sets of feats to use, etc. is pompous.
People confuse a game rewarding system mastery as having junk feats or options on purpose, when the reality is there's no one way to skin a cat in Pathfinder. There is no one set way to turn a character concept into a character in this game. Multiple people will have different ways they would build such a character. It could involve multiple levels, archetypes, feat chains, etc. When you KNOW this is the case, how can you honestly keep repeating the mantra about junk options, like it's some kind of universal constant?There may be certain feats or builds YOU would avoid, but that's your game, your experience. It's not a law of physics.
TL;DR: That's just, like, your opinion, man.
That argument leads to the idea that no feats, spells, classes or any options are or can be considered bad and there's no point in even trying for any rough level of balance.
That is really not a good design space to be in.
Building a game that can be played multiple ways isn't a bad thing.
I totally disagree that a character should be expected to be forced to take mechanically crappy feats in order to be flavorful. I'm not saying they can't - but you're basically saying that mechanically effective and flavorful options are at least somewhat mutually exclusive. There is no reason that they should be
I've never seen a player forced to take a crappy feat (in fact I've never seen a GM forcing players to take any feat). Almost always a "crappy feat" is chosen by the PC for flavor reasons in a particular class build.
I'm apparently having a hard time articulating my point.
It is not either or. It is not "there are no bad options".
I'm done for now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There may be certain feats or builds YOU would avoid, but that's your game, your experience. It's not a law of physics.Is there anyone who would take an option that gives a +1 to something when there is another option that gives +2 to that thing?
Traits. One may give you a +2 to initiative, but it's in a category you'd rather pick another trait in. So, you go with the +1 in a different category to still get a bonus to initiative. If that crappier +1 option did not exist, it wouldn't be an option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even if a player is willing to weaken their character for flavor reasons, it would be better if there were mechanical options that were up to par for that flavor.
This, I will concede, would be ideal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traits. One may give you a +2 to initiative, but it's in a category you'd rather pick another trait in. So, you go with the +1 in a different category to still get a bonus to initiative. If that crappier +1 option did not exist, it wouldn't be an option.
You've added a third factor to the question. Devoid of that factor, does your answer remain the same?
OK, I guess I've never seen a player deliberately taking a suboptimal feat, even for flavor reasons. Very often the player does not realize that a given feat is considered suboptimal. I can see where a player might want a particular feat at the end of a feat tree so might be forced to take a "crappy" feat in its feat progression. Otherwise I never see players taking a lone feat that is also "crappy" as a deliberate choice to achieve some flavor reason.
Its sounds more like a hypothetical problem of "what if", not something that actually occurs in played games. I've never witnessed such occurring on any table.
|
|
Traits. One may give you a +2 to initiative, but it's in a category you'd rather pick another trait in. So, you go with the +1 in a different category to still get a bonus to initiative. If that crappier +1 option did not exist, it wouldn't be an option.There may be certain feats or builds YOU would avoid, but that's your game, your experience. It's not a law of physics.Is there anyone who would take an option that gives a +1 to something when there is another option that gives +2 to that thing?
In your theoretical case - the +2 isn't an option for that character as they've already chosen a trait from that category - so the initial point stands.
(And you can always get the +2 initiative since you can take either Reactionary or Elven Initiative through the adopted trait.)
Kryzbyn - you keep not getting your point across because you keep staw-manning rather awkwardly. (I don't think intentional - but I can't tell.)
|
|
OK, I guess I've never seen a player deliberately taking a suboptimal feat, even for flavor reasons. Very often the player does not realize that a given feat is considered suboptimal. I can see where a player might want a particular feat at the end of a feat tree so might be forced to take a "crappy" feat in its feat progression. Otherwise I never see players taking a lone feat that is also "crappy" as a deliberate choice to achieve some flavor reason.
Its sounds more like a hypothetical problem of "what if", not something that actually occurs in played games. I've never witnessed such occurring on any table.
I agree - hence the earlier reference to trap feats - where the unsuspecting player doesn't realize it's sub-optimal.
Or potentially feat taxes - which many players hate but I think are fine as is. Some feats by their nature are OP - making players pay extra for them is fine. That's not to say that some feat taxes aren't unwarrented - but their existence is fine.
I agree - hence the earlier reference to trap feats - where the unsuspecting player doesn't realize it's sub-optimal.
Well there's a difference between knowingly choosing a suboptimal feat, and choosing a feat that you thought wasn't suboptimal, even though it is.
Since I only play at a single table with the same set of players (for over a decade), if a "trap feat" is discovered, everybody at the table knows it, so that future character builds never include those known "trap feats". Situations where a new player comes aboard choosing feats that the rest of the table would never choose - never happens.
So again, all this seems hypothetical, and not something actually seen in games - more of an armchair GM problem/discussion, not something in game reality.
Herolab allows you to toggle what it shows.Thanks guys, this is good to know. (I did say that I wasn't familiar with Herolab.) Though with this knowledge, I can safely say that it was much more willful ignorance on the part of my player(s)... Ugh, infuriating...
On a side note, another reason I'm feeling cooler and cooler towards Herolab is that I have a growing number of houserules, which players seem to forget more frequently when using herolab. (However, this may also be willful.) Of course, is not a negative reflection on herolab, but more of a "the tool doesn't necessarily work well for me".
** spoiler omitted **
As for houserules, Hero Lab allows customizable adjustments that you manually enter for whatever reason. It really is a great resource once you learn how to use it. It used to take me a couple days to cross-reference everything manually to figure out the proper build for my character. Now, I build a character with Hero Lab in an hour or so with the program doing the hard work for me and just read through the relevant source material - removing all of the guesswork.
I can't imagine playing the game without it now. I use the in-play adjustments during the game and it does all of the math for me. I love it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kryzbyn - I'd like to believe they don't purposefully publish crappy and/or broken options, but stuff like Sacred Geometry, Blood Money, extra make it hard. I find it difficult to believe that at least a fair amount of Paizo's designers don't ascribe to the philosophy of Timmy Cards.
Blood Money & Sacred Geometry were both published in settings books, where the focus of the authors was in building a fun and creative world. In the very limited context of the original RotRL campgin books, and in the 3.5e publishing context, Blood Money was fine as it was used by a creative author to make for an interesting story. (Sure, it has since been republished, but I doubt that it was given much balance thought at that point.) I have a great deal of respect for the setting team and James Jacobs in particular. I absolutely love Golarion! However, when it comes to rules text and balance, this is not their forte. This is a fact of having multiple teams with multiple focuses and is a necessary part of Paizo's current (profitable) business model. This is not to say that everything in the Core line or Rulebooks is perfect. It is, however, my opinion that when mechanics are the focus, they are gotten right a much higher amount of the time. (And for this, I greatly respect Jason Bulmahn and the rest of the rules guys.)
On the topic of "trap options", I want to point out that the designers have said a number of times that they try to avoid power creep - and they have done a relatively good job of that by most people's approximation. This means that the target for each individual feat, archetype, spell, or class is not the top end of the optimization scale, but rather the middle of the road. Thus, if you play in a game where high optimization is the normal (90% optimized or higher, for example), then it is a good guess that unless you're willing to take less optimal choices than "normal", only X% (10%) of the options in any new book will be "worthwhile" and the rest will be "trap options". If, however, you play in a more casual group of gamers where the rogue is not dead and someone actually played the core monk one time and didn't feel completely worthless, then I'm sure a lot more of the options in any new book would seem worthwhile.
|
|
I actually object to feat taxes in the sense that some of them just make getting nice feats too time-consuming and unwieldy. Whirlwind Attack is a pretty neat offensive option for players who get surrounded regularly, but 1.) That doesn't tend to come up much in my experience unless your GM is into huge trash mobs in a big way, and 2.) You have to know Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, AND Spring Attack to get it.
While arguably Whirlwind Attack has too many feat taxes - it's far too good to be a single feat. And a couple of those - Dodge & Spring Attack - are solid feats in their own right and hardly taxes at all. And Combat Expertise is already a tax for many other great feats. Though arguably Whirlwind Attack should be at the end of the Cleave/Great Cleave chain instead. Though those would be rougher taxes, as once you got Whirlwind Attack you would virtually never use Cleave/Great Cleave.
Is Whirlwind Attack great with every build? No. But with an enlarged reach tripper build? It's disgustingly good, and it'd be broken without the feat taxes.
Again - I'm not arguing that every feat tax is great - I'm just saying that it's good to have in the designers' toolbox.
I actually object to feat taxes in the sense that some of them just make getting nice feats too time-consuming and unwieldy. Whirlwind Attack is a pretty neat offensive option for players who get surrounded regularly, but 1.) That doesn't tend to come up much in my experience unless your GM is into huge trash mobs in a big way, and 2.) You have to know Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, AND Spring Attack to get it.While arguably Whirlwind Attack has too many feat taxes - it's far too good to be a single feat. And a couple of those - Dodge & Spring Attack - are solid feats in their own right and hardly taxes at all. And Combat Expertise is already a tax for many other great feats. Though arguably Whirlwind Attack should be at the end of the Cleave/Great Cleave chain instead. Though those would be rougher taxes, as once you got Whirlwind Attack you would virtually never use Cleave/Great Cleave.
Is Whirlwind Attack great with every build? No. But with an enlarged reach tripper build? It's disgustingly good, and it'd be broken without the feat taxes.
Again - I'm not arguing that every feat tax is great - I'm just saying that it's good to have in the designers' toolbox.
Actually, I think Great Cleave will still get more use than you'd think if you took whirlwind attack, since you can still move and Great Cleave. And I don't think that Whirlwind Attack being one feat would be overpowered. I think it would work better if taking Cleave once, would net you Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack as your BaB increases. Basically, I think Pathfinder would be more balanced if quite a few feat chains were converted into one feat that upgrades either by BaB increases or by skill ranks (depending on the feat). Power Attack is a great example of a scaling feat.
As for Blackwaltzomega, thank you for putting forth that argument. You did it far more eloquently than I've ever tried to put it.
I think the OP's complaint does have some merit, but only if you consider that there are players on these forums who insist that if an option exists in the game, YOU MUST allow them to use it in YOUR game.
If you're the GM, you are welcome to allow whatever you want allowed. However, if you're a player dictating what must be included or not is simply not allowed at my table. I can certainly promise any potential players to my table, that at no time in no game will all the material ever be allowed. All my games are limited to a certain set of books depending on the nature of the setting and intended adventures.
And I don't think that Whirlwind Attack being one feat would be overpowered.Then you've never seen a well build reach tripper who can trip and get two AOOs on every target in a 45ft diameter. (maxing his AOOs at 10ish)
How are they getting that much reach without tanking their dexterity so low that they don't have enough AOO to do that? And also, they already put at least 4 feats into that before whirlwind attack. Not saying its not crazy (Though I can't see a way of getting big enough to have that reach without losing at least 4 dex), but that is already a lot of investment.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine a world where Power Attack doesn't scale. Instead there's Power Attack (-2/+4), Improved Power Attack (-3/+6), Greater Power Attack (-4/+8), and finally Supreme Power Attack (-5/+10).
Then look at the Vital Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting feat chains and consider what could have been. Heck, imagine Style Feats that naturally improve as the practitioner becomes more skilled at martial arts instead of when he picks up another arbitrary feat?
Avoiding Power Creep is all well and good, but using a rules system originally created fifteen years ago as a baseline can also stifle the natural evolution of your system. Imagine an author who consciously decides that he will never publish a better novel than his debut book?
I do feel like Pathfinder is gradually stepping away from this policy. It's very hard to look at the Slayer or Investigator and not say that there has been power creep in relation to their parent classes, but that power creep is also a natural and positive evolution of class design. If the slayer and investigator had been designed with the rogue and fighter as a baseline for their power level they'd just continue the power issues for yet another cycle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP's complaint does have some merit, but only if you consider that there are players on these forums who insist that if an option exists in the game, YOU MUST allow them to use it in YOUR game.If you're the GM, you are welcome to allow whatever you want allowed. However, if you're a player dictating what must be included or not is simply not allowed at my table. I can certainly promise any potential players to my table, that at no time in no game will all the material ever be allowed. All my games are limited to a certain set of books depending on the nature of the setting and intended adventures.
I absolutely demand that you let me play a bone-breaker kappa.
|
|
How are they getting that much reach without tanking their dexterity so low that they don't have enough AOO to do that? And also, they already put at least 4 feats into that before whirlwind attack. Not saying its not crazy (Though I can't see a way of getting big enough to have that reach without losing at least 4 dex), but that is already a lot of investment.And I don't think that Whirlwind Attack being one feat would be overpowered.Then you've never seen a well build reach tripper who can trip and get two AOOs on every target in a 45ft diameter. (maxing his AOOs at 10ish)
Currently it is a major feat investment. And that's fine as is. That's my whole point - it should be an investment.
And it's not that hard to get reach with a dex build. Just go Swash 1 / Phalanx 3. Or depending upon how your group rules them (I'd never try to use either in PFS due to table variation) - just use a kusarigama or double-kama.
Enlarge Person isn't hard to come by. It lowers your dex by 2, but a dex build's combat manuvers are unmodified since being large gives +1. You only need to be large with a reach weapon to get a 50ft diameter. (my bad on saying 45ft before - I didn't include the character's increased size) 20ft reach in every direction plus 10ft of your own square. You can make it a 60ft diameter with Lunge.
You could do the whole thing with a strength build - dex secondary - and still get 5ish AOOs. (Greater Trip & when they stand up.)
Different people require different rules.
Some like it more simple,
Some like it more complex,
Some like it Fairy Tailysh,
Some like it Kick-the-Door with your four feet and bite-isy.
All in all, a set of "Basic" and "Advanced" rules would be nice.
Until then, that's what House-rules are for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to point out that whirlwind and it's prereqs is a hold over from fairly early in 3.0 days. At that time, it was considered pretty dang powerful compared to the other possibilities of the time.
A lot of people took it because even with all those prereqs it was very often considered worthwhile. I agree that the particular feats chosen in the prereqs don't make a whole lot of sense to me. But it was very intentionally chosen that way with some sub-optimal feats required, specifically to make it difficult/expensive to get. Yet fairly often, people still took it.
It is a carry over from the days when PF was trying to maintain the sacred 'backwards compatibility' with 3.x editions. I will not swear to it; but I'm about 80% sure I've seen a statement by one of the developers that if they were doing it fresh today, they would not make some of those same design choices since they are no longer shackled to 3.x editions. I'm pretty sure whirlwind was one of the examples mentioned.
Personally, I am ok with some of the poor choice build options. I do have a problem with the ones that are so poorly written that people think it is a good option only because they misunderstood what it actually does (I'm looking at you titan mauler). But poor, situational, unique, and bizarre options really should be a part of things.
My son-in-law is becoming a rather excellent marksmen with a WWI rifle that was considered awful when issued. He is doing it simply to be different from the crowd. When he shows up with it at the firing range, he always gets a bunch of attention, questions, and I guess you would call it 'club cred' with the others at the range. (This is in no way even close to an optimal build choice. It is in fact distinctly sub-optimal. It will be very nearly impossible to score well in the competitions with that rifle.)
My son appears to be setting his career on running a campground. Even the successful ones don't usually make all that much profit. But it will get him outdoors and away from a desk, has less regulations than many businesses, and won't be reporting to a boss.
Other than those very intangible things, this is also a very suboptimal choice in many respects. It will make having, raising, and providing for a family difficult.
I have a friend that works in the newspaper business. It is all he has ever wanted to do since he was a child. he happens to be very good at it and has rapidly moved up the promotion ladder. However, he is very well aware that the news paper business is dying. He expects that his career path will vanish quite a bit before he gets to retirement age. he is pursuing it anyway because it is his dream. I doubt anyone thinks it is an optimal choice.
Not all choices are or should be great and wonderful.
I have no problem with sub-optimal choices in my game. I'm currently considering making a character that specializes in some odd weapon like star knife, club, or punching dagger. Not optimal. I don't want it to be optimal. I just want to see what I can manage to do with it anyway.
Yes, I am aware. That is just my opinion. Not everyone agrees with me. I'm also ok with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely demand that you let me play a bone-breaker kappa.
If its for Kaidan, I "demand" that you play a bone-breaker as well - all Kaidan supplements are definitely allowed material in a Kaidan homegame with me.
I've been working on a no/low magic single evenings session at least for a home game to follow the plot from Seven Samurai using Way of the Samurai (PFRPG) - samurai archetypes: kuge, nitojutsu sensei, tajiya, yabusame, ranger archetype: yojimbo, and paladin: kensei for available PC classes.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to point out that at the very height of roleplaying's popularity (AD&D 1E), TSR mostly published adventures. There were only 8 rules supplements published during 1E's entire run.
As a counterpoint, though, hardly anybody actually ran 1E 'RAW". This was expected; every GM was assumed to be putting their own spin on the game. And while there weren't many splatbooks, Dragon magazine regularly ran columns with new options for the game.
Some areas took it a whole lot further; the groups I played with in the '80s (with roots in gamers from Digital Equipment Corp.) had all thrown out Vancian magic and replaced it with a spellpoint system (mechanically quite similar to Pathfinder's Sorcerer class). I even experimented with a classless "learning by doing" system (a mechanic which is a lot more suited to a video game than to a tabletop setting!).