Anybody starting to have trouble recognizing their game?

[Charon's Little Helper]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

It's a good trick, but it's not THAT good that the number of feats involved look justified to me.

AGAIN - I'm NOT saying that it might not be too big of an investment. That's a subjective matter depending upon your game/group etc. (Though a chain where you need to be a fighter/brawler isn't inherently bad either.) At this point - you're not just misunderstanding me - you're blatantly straw-manning me.

But it IS too good to be a single feat. That much is pretty darned obvious - and it was the only point I was making. Therefore it proves that feat taxes are not inherently bad. I'm in no way stating that they aren't overused at times.

[thejeff]

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

As I said before, the build you proposed is "online" in its late teens unless you're a fighter. Enlarge Whirlwind Trip is a neat trick, but you're pulling my leg if you think it requires investment to the point it's coming into its own about the time the wizard's learned how to cast Limited Wish without investing any feats at all or the cleric's added things like Holy Word, Word of Chaos, Waves of Ecstasy and the like to the powers he can call on just because he's a cleric in his late teens.

Why exactly is it an investment that requires about half of a fighter's feats and nearly all of another martial character's feats just to be able to trip in a large area of effect? There's enough monsters that can't be tripped, period, fly and so aren't worried about trips, or have so much CMD you will never make that check against most of them, or are just plain too big to trip that you should be able to make "an investment" while still having OTHER OPTIONS when that specific trick is rendered useless. The enlarged whirlwind trip is great if you're fighting armies of humanoids who are on the ground, but when you're fighting a couple of Gargantuan monsters it's completely useless, when you're fighting oozes it's a massive waste of time, when you're fighting flying things you're going to wish you'd had any feats to spare on ranged combat, and you will curse under your breath every time you see something with more than two legs. It's a good trick, but it's not THAT good that the number of feats involved look justified to me.

It's also kind of annoying if it's only really worth the investment for a trip build. It seems like it should be a cool ability for just normal fighting - you know, hitting people to do damage.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

It's a good trick, but it's not THAT good that the number of feats involved look justified to me.

AGAIN - I'm NOT saying that it might not be too big of an investment. That's a subjective matter depending upon your game/group etc. (Though a chain where you need to be a fighter/brawler isn't inherently bad either.) At this point - you're not just misunderstanding me - you're blatantly straw-manning me.

But it IS too good to be a single feat. That much is pretty darned obvious - and it was the only point I was making. Therefore it proves that feat taxes are not inherently bad. I'm in no way stating that they aren't overused at times.

I am sorry if you feel I have misrepresented your stance. I will acknowledge Whirlwind Attack is a very strong feat to be a single feat, but at the same time I feel its power level is more accurately priced if it is linked to another feat like Lunge, or Power Attack and BAB +4. Things that mean it's more likely to be a feat you have at level 5 or 7 where I feel it is reasonable to have an area of effect attack (once again, if you'd been playing a caster it's often taken as a given you have something that lets you attack clustered groups of enemies at this point in the game), and, more pointedly, Lunge and Power Attack, or the Cleave Line that derives from Power Attack, are all related to Whirlwind Attack's stated function of being able to attack lots of enemies at once.

As it is, the feats tacked onto Whirlwind Attack are all wrong. Dodge has a number of related feats, but Whirlwind Attack is the ONLY feat with Dodge as a prerequisite that has nothing to do with being able to avoid enemy attacks. Similarly, I don't think it would have Combat Expertise attached to it if Combat Expertise was more honestly named, like if they called it "Guarded Stance" or something like that. I don't think a good offensive feat should have a number of irrelevant defensive feats attached to it for no good reason, that's all. Particularly not when the feat's flavor is enhanced by linking it to a few other offensive feats instead.

[VM mercenario]

Bloat?
*looks at nearly a hundred 3rd party classes on external HD*
*looks at to buy list with over a hundred other classes*
*knows that Interjection, Little Red Goblin, Rogue Genius and Dreamscarred will keep releasing classes and alternate systems that I will want to buy*
What is this bloat you spek of? Pathfinder needs more stuff.

[bugleyman]

Tacticslion wrote:

Your point's taken, but this is more akin to choosing not to purchase a yacht because you believe the yacht is too big for your tastes, then complaining about the fact that others have the yachts you didn't want.

Understood. In fairness, I've been a big critic of bloat in organized play, but the Core Campaign really helps, if not outright solves, that issue.

I do think there is something to the idea that too many rules increases the need for a new, cleaned-up edition, but since I would welcome that anyway, I'm not personally going to complain about it. :)

[Oly]

gamer-printer wrote:

Charlie Bell wrote:

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.

You're certainly free to GM how you want, and you certainly can disallow a lot of material and still get players if you're in a decent location and are a good GM.

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

That could be that the GM feels it's unwieldy (e.g. Master Summoner), overpowered (people can disagree on what is), will inordinately slow down the game (e.g. Sacred Geometry, which I think is also overpowered), or really rubs them the wrong way (Dex to Damage of any sort in a game I GM will never happen, period. I'd also argue it's overpowered, letting Dex do all the martial work). I'd say in general it's more acceptable to disallow feats than archetypes and archetypes than classes. I've never been told I can't play a class I want to play, and hopefully never will be.

I also want to mention about feat taxes: In some cases they can be justified, but are way overboard in the game. Feat chains should pretty much never be longer than 4 feats long, and if they are even 4 feats long that 4th feat had better be really good. The prerequisites also should not be next to worthless (I'm looking at you, Combat Expertise).

[Charlie Bell]

Kthulhu wrote:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the height of roleplaying's popularity is right now. Until the last 3-4 years or so, never at any point in my life have I ever had to turn down games I would otherwise love to join. Anecdotal, sure, but I'm guessing hard numbers would tell the same story. I'd lay money that Paizo's sold more books than TSR ever did.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Charlie Bell wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the height of roleplaying's popularity is right now. Until the last 3-4 years or so, never at any point in my life have I ever had to turn down games I would otherwise love to join. Anecdotal, sure, but I'm guessing hard numbers would tell the same story. I'd lay money that Paizo's sold more books than TSR ever did.

Seconded. I've read articles which are talking about sub-cultures in general (as opposed to RPGers specifically) which have basically come to the conclusion that the internet has allowed subcultures to organize better - allowing them to grow more than ever before.

[gamer-printer]

Oly wrote:

You're certainly free to GM how you want, and you certainly can disallow a lot of material and still get players if you're in a decent location and are a good GM.

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

I'm actually coming from third party material to start, regarding the setting if not a published AP. I often use 3PP for a setting, and run homebrew campaigns rather than using published modules. The setting defines what races, classes, feats, spells, etc are available or not available. I don't begin with the Core and look to third party, I begin with third party and look to how best to support it.

[Charon's Little Helper]

gamer-printer wrote:

Oly wrote:

You're certainly free to GM how you want, and you certainly can disallow a lot of material and still get players if you're in a decent location and are a good GM.

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

I'm actually coming from third party material to start, regarding the setting if not a published AP. I often use 3PP for a setting, and run homebrew campaigns rather than using published modules. The setting defines what races, classes, feats, spells, etc are available or not available. I don't begin with the Core and look to third party, I begin with third party and look to how best to support it.

As long as the players know the ground rules going in - that sounds good to me. It's only when house-rules / bans are sprung on me that I get grumpy.

[gamer-printer]

Sometimes we might read a mechanic with a slight difference (as in RAI, rather than RAW), but in general, our table has no house rules, per se.

Too often someone suggests a change in the game, one that might not have been fully explored as to what the ramifications of such a change does across the board affecting the entire system. Sometimes those changes only serve to break the system.

I am very reluctant to allow any house rules for the risk involved in breaking things, unseen, down the road.

And before any campaign begins, players are fully informed as to what limitations or additions exist - so they can decide whether they even want to participate.

[rknop]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I wish I could play with the same group for more than a year or two. Maybe with the advent of Roll20, that dream will become a reality.

Fingers crossed!

[TOZ]

Kamishah is pleased to have your undine wizard taking over the duties of ship's mage. (Not that he would ever admit it.)

[wraithstrike]

Draco Bahamut wrote:

I guess rules bloats hurts compulsive optimizers most, as they NEED to have the perfect characters and if there are too rules, they can't consider everything and they fear other people are doing better characters then them and they can't allow that.

That silly mindset does not represent any optimizer I know but then again you may have a different definition of the word than I do.

[wraithstrike]

rknop wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

TarkXT wrote:

Why is it that people are just afraid to say no when presented with rulesets they don't want to deal with?

I brought this up earlier. It seems that players are putting pressure on the GM to allow things, and the GM's are finding it hard to say no if this is a group of close friends. if you are friends with someone it should be easier to talk to them about the type of games you like to run.

Sometimes good friends don't make good gaming partners. If gaming is the only chance you(general statement) get to meet up then it may come to a point where are better off not gaming, or at least not running Pathfinder if a common ground can not be found.

To be fair, if you're a player, you want to be able to look through the menu of what's available when thinking about your character. Sites like the PRD and ArchivesOfNethys make this even easier. If the GM has set out ahead of time what's legal, that's fine. If it's "on a case-by-case basis", it becomes much more cumbersome to make a character, as every thing you think about you have to ask about.

As GM, the larger the rules base gets, the heavier the burden of figuring out what's allowed. Once upon a time, a GM could say "everything Paizo", and have a chance of having some sense of what all of it was. Now, the burden on the GM is higher to select out the things he wants. Sure, you could just select individual books, that makes it easier -- but in reality, you probably want bits and pieces of everything. So, either you have a huge task of vetting stuff ahead of time, or you have to do "on a case-by-case" basis. In that latter case, even if you do have amenable players who agree with you that it's OK to ban some things, when a player asks for something, you're going to be tempted to want to let them have it.

So, while everybody seems to say "just disallow the things you don't like! what's the big deal?", as the base of mechanics (including classes, class abilities, archetypes, feats,...

95% of this does not apply to my position in this topic so I dont know what to tell you.

[wraithstrike]

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

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 **

HL allows you to use house rules.

[The 8th Dwarf]

wraithstrike wrote:

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

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 **

HL allows you to use house rules.

HL also has a community that will give you suggestions and tips on how to implement them.

[wraithstrike]

Kudaku wrote:

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.

I don't think bypassing the rogue or fighter really counts as power creep since they are not middle of the road options, but more "bottom of the barrel" with regard to power, even among nonmagical classes.

[wraithstrike]

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

I disagree that everything should be allowed by default. That means you only find out that it is a problem after it is in play, and taking things from people is almost always a lot messier than saying no at the beginning.

However I do agree that a GM should look over it before saying no.

Just because PF made it that does not mean it is more balanced than a 3rd party option. DSP's material is more balanced on average than many things Paizo makes.

[wraithstrike]

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

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 **

HL allows you to use house rules.

HL also has a community that will give you suggestions and tips on how to implement them.

I have always been able to figure it out, but this is nice to know in case I ever get stumped.

[Chemlak]

wraithstrike wrote:

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

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 **

HL allows you to use house rules.

HL also has a community that will give you suggestions and tips on how to implement them.

I have always been able to figure it out, but this is nice to know in case I ever get stumped.

Just to expand on this point a bit: over on the Lone Wolf forums you will find a very vibrant, active, and helpful community, ranging from complete amateurs (like me), to community experts (like ShadowChemosh and RavenX), all the way up to the developers (such as Aaron and Mathias), who will go out of their way to help with figuring out how to implement almost any game-mechanic house rule you can think of in Hero Lab.

[MechE_]

wraithstrike wrote:

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

MechE_ wrote:

havoc xiii wrote:

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 **

HL allows you to use house rules.

HL also has a community that will give you suggestions and tips on how to implement them.

I have always been able to figure it out, but this is nice to know in case I ever get stumped.

All great things to know, thanks guys.

Herolab mini-rant:

What irks me most of all about the situation is that the player(s) in question did not take the initiative to do this themselves and instead allowed errors to persist for months before the DM (myself once and another guy another time) got wind that something seemed off and started investigating. Indeed, this is more of a player problem than a Herolab problem, but it was not limited to a single player, but rather three different players over the course of two years. Regardless, I do not wish to pay for this supplemental program (I believe the base program is free but loading the sourcebooks is not) as one of the things I have found that helps in bringing new people into Pathfinder is that the core line of rulebooks is available online for FREE. When the use of an extra payed service enabled these errors, it is a reasonable (if a bit heavy handed) to advise players going forward that it will not be welcomed at the table.

Again, this is in no way a review of Herolab itself, as I do no use it, and I get that Herolab certainly makes it quicker and easier to build characters. As much time as a DM spends preparing a game, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask players to spend an hour or two extra building their character from scratch.

Back on Topic: With so many source books coming out that my group doesn't use, I am finding my interest in these forums waning. (To be clear, I prefer not to use every book, so I'm good with this part.) It used to be that every time I read through a thread I would find at least one or two bits of information I didn't know. (Disintegrate wrecks most undead, you actually have to count the weight of your clothes in PF, creatures can still fly per RAW with a medium or heavy load in PF, etc.) But more and more, I find that the same amount of time spent on the forums is proving less and less productive. Sure, part of this is that I've learned a lot of the "low hanging fruits" and can now share some back with others, but more and more, I find the discussion moving to things that are not relevant to the game of Pathfinder that I play. It's a bit saddening to me, that's all.

[ElterAgo]

Not saying you are wrong, just that my experience has been the opposite. Characters made by hand are chock full of errors that the programs avoid.

Dude, you don’t have a dex of 19, so you can’t have Greater Two Weapon Fighting.
Uhmm… inquisitors don’t get the domain spells.
No you don’t have many shot because you didn’t even take point blank shot.
Mage armor isn’t a magus spell.
Spell storing doesn’t work with ranged weapons.
Yeah, I know clerics do, but oracles don’t have good fort saves.
You do realize there is no way for your halfling sorc to carry all 537 pounds of this gear.
Etc…

Got to the point that I was considering making the house rule that all PC’s must be made in Herolabs (or the other free program that I forget the name). If you don’t have the program, I will make it for you but then you can only use the books I have.

As far as the not including stuff, on one hand I understand it. Back when I had time, I used to make my own settings and carefully go through the books to see what did and did not fit within my vision of that world. But even the stuff that didn’t fit could often be re-fluffed into an image that did fit. Plus I just don’t have that much time or ambition anymore. So now I allow most anything paizo (except drunken master and modern firearms) and am fairly liberal with 3pp stuff that isn’t too ridiculous if I have access to understand it.

The 2 GM’s I know that do still restrict a bunch of stuff, still find at least a few things in every source book that they have decided works with their definition of the game world. For example: He loves the slayer and investigator but won’t allow the arcanist. Not because it is too powerful. Because in his world sorcerers and wizards magic abilities function very differently and they are basically at war with one another. A class that has both would basically wreck a large part of the underlying set-up of his world.

[LazarX]

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

With that logic, you're including both Mythic Adventures, and the Occult Playtest, which aren't necessarily items that should be considered go to by default.

I don't think that a GM should be obligated to start out with any material they are not comfortable with. What the GM should do is state what materials he or she is going to support. Players can surredly ask about additional items, but should not push past the first "No."

[MechE_]

LazarX wrote:

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

With that logic, you're including both Mythic Adventures, and the Occult Playtest, which aren't necessarily items that should be considered go to by default.

I don't think that a GM should be obligated to start out with any material they are not comfortable with. What the GM should do is state what materials he or she is going to support. Players can surredly ask about additional items, but should not push past the first "No."

It is often clear from reading these boards who is a GM first and who is a player first. Not that either side is right or wrong, but this is a prime example of that. Different perspectives are fine and even good when you consider how boring life would be if we were all the same.

What I've been doing recently (and plan to continue doing) is allow a list of core rulebooks (CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG) minus a few bits (no uncommon races, no gunslingers or summoners), and adding in a bit of homebrew (I have created 3 classes so far). I then informing players I will normally approve on additional piece of material from another source - be it a single feat, an archetype, or a spell. Most frequently, I say yes to Paizo created content and most frequently, I say no to 3 pp content.

[thejeff]

MechE_ wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

With that logic, you're including both Mythic Adventures, and the Occult Playtest, which aren't necessarily items that should be considered go to by default.

I don't think that a GM should be obligated to start out with any material they are not comfortable with. What the GM should do is state what materials he or she is going to support. Players can surredly ask about additional items, but should not push past the first "No."

It is often clear from reading these boards who is a GM first and who is a player first. Not that either side is right or wrong, but this is a prime example of that. Different perspectives are fine and even good when you consider how boring life would be if we were all the same.

What I've been doing recently (and plan to continue doing) is allow a list of core rulebooks (CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG) minus a few bits (no uncommon races, no gunslingers or summoners), and adding in a bit of homebrew (I have created 3 classes so far). I then informing players I will normally approve on additional piece of material from another source - be it a single feat, an archetype, or a spell. Most frequently, I say yes to Paizo created content and most frequently, I say no to 3 pp content.

Might be clear, but might be misleading.

I'm primarily a player and yet I'm quite happy with restrictions and prefer a less bloated game.

[Shroud]

I have a very easy way of dealing with bloat in my games. I read through the entire AP before beginning the campaign. I then sit down and create a list of exactly which races and classes will and will not be allowed in that particular campaign. Specifically, I try to encourage races/classes that fit into the theme and region of the game, and exclude things that would disrupt the storyline/them/balance of the game. For the most part, that means excluding things introduced after the publication of the AP, unless they are appropriate.

Honestly, I think most OP problems stem from GM's who don't take the time to think about the story they want to tell and the experience they want to craft during the campaign. Just because everyone loves Aasimar, doesn't mean you should allow three of these "ultra-rare" races into your adventuring party. IMO, Humans should always be the majority of just about any party.

One of the things I do is create a list of what Race/Classes are Common, Uncommon, Rare and Excluded. The party as a whole is allowed to include one Rare Race and one Rare Class. No more. It's up to them to decide who gets what. To encourage the use of common Classes and Races, I give a free background trait to those playing such. It's a minor perk, but helps motivate people to fit in with the theme.

That's my 2 cents.

[Oly]

LazarX wrote:

Oly wrote:

I personally think, though, that GM's should voluntarily start with the default as "all Paizo material is allowed" and then only disallow material if they have a real problem with it. If someone wants to use 3rd party material, I think a GM should at least look it over before saying no, but it shouldn't have the same presumption.

With that logic, you're including both Mythic Adventures, and the Occult Playtest, which aren't necessarily items that should be considered go to by default.

Fair enough. I wouldn't consider the playtest even official, because it hasn't been published in it's final (besides errata) form. But, okay, things that are clearly meant for very specific campaigns like Mythic Adventures, or even clearly optional things like Hero Points, aren't what I meant.

I think by default, all Paizo classes, archetypes, magic items, and feats should be allowed (within the technological time frame of the game, anyway). It should take a good reason to ban a feat or item, a very good reason to ban an archetype, and a huge, huge reason to ban a class.

I've never been refused the ability to play a class I wanted, but I'd be very much bothered if I were. Feats I'd otherwise used I've had banned on many occasions, and I never had a problem with that.

LazarX wrote:

I don't think that a GM should be obligated to start out with any material they are not comfortable with. What the GM should do is state what materials he or she is going to support. Players can surredly ask about additional items, but should not push past the first "No."

No GM is obligated to allow anything. GM's should, however, accept that they ought to allow everything they don't have a good reason for banning.

As far as asking beyond the first, "No," it depends whether it was "No, because [insert rational reason here]" as opposed to "No." In the latter case, "Why not?" is a very acceptable question that the GM should have an answer to: A feat or item doesn't require that strong of a justification (but it requires something). Saying no to an official class that's within the game's tech level should require a very, very good justification.

Any game I GM, I've said, any feat allowing Dex to damage in any way gets banned, but I'll always explain why if asked.

[Oly]

MechE_ wrote:

It is often clear from reading these boards who is a GM first and who is a player first. Not that either side is right or wrong, but this is a prime example of that. Different perspectives are fine and even good when you consider how boring life would be if we were all the same.

What I've been doing recently (and plan to continue doing) is allow a list of core rulebooks (CRB, APG, UM, UC, ARG, ACG) minus a few bits (no uncommon races, no gunslingers or summoners), and adding in a bit of homebrew (I have created 3 classes so far). I then informing players I will normally approve on additional piece of material from another source - be it a single feat, an archetype, or a spell. Most frequently, I say yes to Paizo created content and most frequently, I say no to 3 pp content.

Really, that's something I could pretty easily live with. I kind of dislike "no uncommon races," and I'd guess you think Summoners are brokenly strong. I disagree with that, but it's a good (and widespread-believed) enough reason. With Gunslingers, that can just be justified by the tech level of the campaign world.

You default seems to be to allow Paizo material, though; so I think that's all within reason.

[ElterAgo]

Shroud wrote:

...

One of the things I do is create a list of what Race/Classes are Common, Uncommon, Rare and Excluded. The party as a whole is allowed to include one Rare Race and one Rare Class. No more. It's up to them to decide who gets what. To encourage the use of common Classes and Races, I give a free background trait to those playing such. It's a minor perk, but helps motivate people to fit in with the theme.

That's my 2 cents.

Personally, I have little problem with that (except that I usually dislike playing a human PC). I like a clear enough definition of the campaign to make sure my character is unique but still works with not against the plotline.

However, I know a LOT of players would immediately walk away from such a game muttering about 'authoritarian control freaks should just go write a book.'

[LazarX]

Oly wrote:

No GM is obligated to allow anything. GM's should, however, accept that they ought to allow everything they don't have a good reason for banning.

As far as asking beyond the first, "No," it depends whether it was "No, because [insert rational reason here]" as opposed to "No." In the latter case, "Why not?" is a very acceptable question that the GM should have an answer to:...

I categorically disagree with the first statement. As far as I'm concerned, "It doesn't fit, or I'm not familliar with that material are both good reasons, as well as "I don't wish to include it."

Whether you want to use the word or not, your statement has been that by default, GM's are obligated to use everything unless they justify an exclusion.

[Chess Pwn]

"It doesn't fit" is a good reason
"I'm not familiar with it" is a good reason

When a player asks why can't I do X both of those work well (Though the not familiar with it they might argue a bit about)

The "I don't want it" with no reasoning probably isn't going to be received by anyone well. Why not? Cause. Because why? Just cause. And now you have a frustrated player and probably a frustrated GM too.

You're free to do and allow what you want, but not having a reason for banning something means you have at least as good of reasons for allowing it instead. So why not allow it?

[Captain Marsh]

I think it's fair to say that DMs need to exercise far more control over Pathfinder now than they did five years ago. It's kind of a dramatic change.

You can't take a light touch unless you want an anything goes, post-genre, super-hero-fantasy-sci-fi-lovecraftian-power-skewed pot of weirdness. Which can be fun, but let's be honest, it's kind of a mess.

And I think by basically saying that all of that stuff fits into Golarion, Paizo has encouraged the sense that PF is verging more toward a kind of GURPS-like game where DMs (hopefully in collaboration with their players) need put bright lines around what's in and what's out.

I think Paizo is kind of acknowledging this by introducing some stripped down versions of the game that harken back to a more straight fantasy, early edition feel. I don't think any of this is necessarily bad, but it does require some reasonably sophisticated editorial decision-making on the part of gaming groups which (in many instances) just don't know the game well enough or don't know genre fiction well enough to think all that through.

Throw on top of that complexity the weird power spikes of some PC classes and abilities and I think PF has become a significantly more meta-complicated system.

To be clear, this is my primary game system and I love it (I also DM a bit of Numenera and a bit of Traveller). But despite my long experience as a DM, the increasing everything-ness of PF has caught me off guard in big ways a few times and forced me to really negotiate delicately with some players. Sometimes this has been a power-gaming issue, sometimes a narrative/texture/doesn't really fit the story issue.

All of this is made even more complex by the healthy but muddled ecology of 3rd party publishers. Some of that stuff is really, really good, but it can also blow the bottom out from under your game.

Finally, I do think it is fun to occasionally force players to get creative and interesting within tighter boundaries. Show me an interesting PC that you've made out of the core book, with cool color and personality traits -- not always relying on the crutch of some arcane feat or weird power-boost combo.

The last couple of years I've seen more and more PCs at my table that look and feel more like video game builds and less like, you know, characters.

I don't think any of this argues for not churning out more books and options. But I do think Paizo is wise to keep creating islands of (relative) simplicity and genre-sanity. I have a feeling that this new 'against the giants' adventure path will serve as a tentpole for that kind of 'give us some old-school D&D' crowd.

--Marsh

[Captain Marsh]

Sorry to spam, but one last thought: One of the things I love about core Pathfinder is that every build had significant strengths and weaknesses, at least at early and mid levels.

These days, power gamers can optimize PCs in ways that they're often pretty flawless. The contrast between these designs and the more average, common, "I made up a character" has grown dramatically.

Bluntly, it's much more common now to have one player show up with a 1st level VW bug and another player show up with a 1st level porsche. Neither player has cheated and neither player has done anything blatantly stupid.

It's just that players who really scrutinize the growing number of books can mix and match in ways that are dramatically superior. In my gaming group, this divergence in character-creation experience has become a significant issue.

--Marsh

[LazarX]

Chess Pwn wrote:

"It doesn't fit" is a good reason

"I'm not familiar with it" is a good reason

When a player asks why can't I do X both of those work well (Though the not familiar with it they might argue a bit about)

The "I don't want it" with no reasoning probably isn't going to be received by anyone well. Why not? Cause. Because why? Just cause. And now you have a frustrated player and probably a frustrated GM too.

You're free to do and allow what you want, but not having a reason for banning something means you have at least as good of reasons for allowing it instead. So why not allow it?

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

[Charon's Little Helper]

LazarX wrote:

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

That is purely opionion - and poorly thought out. If you wanted a really simple system - you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. There are scores of simpler systems - even diceless ones. By your logic - those would be inherently better.

And what defines 'equal' reasons?

[thejeff]

ElterAgo wrote:

Shroud wrote:

...

One of the things I do is create a list of what Race/Classes are Common, Uncommon, Rare and Excluded. The party as a whole is allowed to include one Rare Race and one Rare Class. No more. It's up to them to decide who gets what. To encourage the use of common Classes and Races, I give a free background trait to those playing such. It's a minor perk, but helps motivate people to fit in with the theme.

That's my 2 cents.

Personally, I have little problem with that (except that I usually dislike playing a human PC). I like a clear enough definition of the campaign to make sure my character is unique but still works with not against the plotline.

However, I know a LOT of players would immediately walk away from such a game muttering about 'authoritarian control freaks should just go write a book.'

As I've said before in this thread, I'm really amused by the general tone of "bloat isn't a problem because you can just leave stuff out" contrasted with the common tone of threads about GM's limiting builds, where your LOTs of players seem much better represented.

[LazarX]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

That is purely opionion - and poorly thought out. If you wanted a really simple system - you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. There are scores of simpler systems - even diceless ones. By your logic - those would be inherently better.

And what defines 'equal' reasons?

So complicating a game without demonstrable benefit is a laudable virtue? Pathfinder is full of things put into the game for the sheer sake of simplicity, the monetary system that uses metal instead of regional currency, the default assumption of a Common tongue, the full elimination of dimorphism between male and female in virtually every race, etc.

[Oly]

Chess Pwn wrote:

You're free to do and allow what you want, but not having a reason for banning something means you have at least as good of reasons for allowing it instead. So why not allow it?

That's a good way of putting what I was trying to say.

[Oly]

LazarX wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

That is purely opionion - and poorly thought out. If you wanted a really simple system - you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. There are scores of simpler systems - even diceless ones. By your logic - those would be inherently better.

And what defines 'equal' reasons?

So complicating a game without demonstrable benefit is a laudable virtue?

Players getting to play the type of character they want is a demonstrable benefit.

A good enough reason can outweigh that benefit, but it is a benefit.

[Blackwaltzomega]

Captain Marsh wrote:

Sorry to spam, but one last thought: One of the things I love about core Pathfinder is that every build had significant strengths and weaknesses, at least at early and mid levels.

These days, power gamers can optimize PCs in ways that they're often pretty flawless. The contrast between these designs and the more average, common, "I made up a character" has grown dramatically.

Bluntly, it's much more common now to have one player show up with a 1st level VW bug and another player show up with a 1st level porsche. Neither player has cheated and neither player has done anything blatantly stupid.

It's just that players who really scrutinize the growing number of books can mix and match in ways that are dramatically superior. In my gaming group, this divergence in character-creation experience has become a significant issue.

--Marsh

I honestly feel nostalgia might be misleading you here.

In core-only settings, you are pretty much set if you want to play a great caster. All the materials you need to excel are right there in that book.

If you wanted to play a fighter that had any kind of flavor, you were out of luck. Here's your sack of feats without any of the neat specialties and inherent flavoring fighter archetypes have.

If you wanted to play a monk, learn to enjoy sucking, because all of the feats and abilities that put you on the map as a fun class are in other books.

If you wanted to play a rogue, hope your GM likes you and the party wizard is conducting himself with restraint, because most of your best tricks for keeping up with the party aren't in the CRB.

There were plenty of "builds" in Core-only that meant there were plenty of people who got stuck with a @#$% sandwich and had to eat it if they wanted to play that class. Every archetype that has come out for the fighter has been more interesting than the one we got in the core rulebook while generally retaining the fighter's simplicity (and most of its problems, but that's another discussion). The Core Monk was BADLY DESIGNED. I don't think this is up for debate. Archetypes fixed this by giving us monk abilities that actually made the class fun to play. You wanna talk VW Bug vs Porshe at first level, maybe consider that there are people who think of the core-only monk as a joke character sharing a rulebook with a slightly more restrained CoDzilla.

It's not fun when lack of options mean some classes are mostly strengths and other classes are mostly weaknesses. Core-only wizards have the weakness of being vulnerable in the first couple levels and their strengths of almost everything else, along with the cleric and the druid, who are both only vulnerable at the outset compared to the fighter and barbarian. In core, the Fighter had the strength of being great at hitting things and the weakness of being completely irrelevant to the game when the GM didn't let you headbutt your way to victory, something they're still working on fixing today. In core, picking the rogue or the monk was generally choosing a class that was almost entirely weaknesses for very little payoff.

More options help fix these things. The Slayer and the Investigator are two examples I look to for expanded options FIXING problems. The rogue has traditionally been a schizophrenic class that's not sure if it's a tough, stabby assassin type that's marching around with the bruisers up front and personal when the swords are out or if it's more of a hanging back and assisting with skills type class that can contribute with clever tactics in combat. It tries to be both, and ends up being bad at both of them. The Slayer and Investigator crystalize these things by creating the skillful, deadly assassin class (without requiring a heavy investment in a roleplay-restrictive and often downright incompetent prestige class) and the ULTRA-skillful, socially adept, scouting-and-support type class the Investigator represents (which still is damn useful in a fight, although not on the Slayer's level). Saying these classes "don't have weaknesses" is wrong; they're just not MOSTLY weaknesses like playing a rouge or monk without the materials that gave them more and better things to do was.

[Duiker]

Oly wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

That is purely opionion - and poorly thought out. If you wanted a really simple system - you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. There are scores of simpler systems - even diceless ones. By your logic - those would be inherently better.

And what defines 'equal' reasons?

So complicating a game without demonstrable benefit is a laudable virtue?

Players getting to play the type of character they want is a demonstrable benefit.

A good enough reason can outweigh that benefit, but it is a benefit.

Just so we're clear, "because I am an arbitrary and cruel DM who lives for denying you what you love and feasting on your tears" is an objectively good enough reason, right?

[TarkXT]

Oly wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

That is purely opionion - and poorly thought out. If you wanted a really simple system - you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. There are scores of simpler systems - even diceless ones. By your logic - those would be inherently better.

And what defines 'equal' reasons?

So complicating a game without demonstrable benefit is a laudable virtue?

Players getting to play the type of character they want is a demonstrable benefit.

A good enough reason can outweigh that benefit, but it is a benefit.

That's kind of a weak benefit though if the character the player wants to play kills the theme and mood of the game.

I've turned plenty of characters down simply because the character itself would have been hugely disruptive for any number of reasons.

[Oly]

TarkXT wrote:

Oly wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Because if you have equal reasons to either simplify or complicate your game, simplifying it is always the better option.

That is purely opinion - and poorly thought out. If you wanted a really simple system - you wouldn't be playing Pathfinder at all. There are scores of simpler systems - even diceless ones. By your logic - those would be inherently better.

And what defines 'equal' reasons?

So complicating a game without demonstrable benefit is a laudable virtue?

Players getting to play the type of character they want is a demonstrable benefit.

A good enough reason can outweigh that benefit, but it is a benefit.

That's kind of a weak benefit though if the character the player wants to play kills the theme and mood of the game.

As I wrote, "A good enough reason can outweigh that benefit."

[Zhangar]

As a GM I tend to freely allow things, though if it's 3rd Party the player should ask first (and I'll ask flat out "where is that from and what does it do?" if a player announces they're using a power I'd never heard of), and I reserve the right to tweak things that are turning out to be too good.

(And I will tell someone, "your character concept/backstory doesn't work at all for this campaign. Please come up with something else.")

As has already been pointed out, in 1E the monthly expansions of player options were primarily handled by Dragon Magazine.

From 2E through 4E, Dragon Magazine continued performing that role (in 4E, there's at least one entire class introduced through Dragon) along with TSR/WotC presenting regular "splat books."

I have no idea what WotC'll do for 5E. Dragon Magazine's gone now, isn't it?

I'll also note that at least one of Kthulhu's examples of a "bloat free" game was Call of Cthulhu - a game where expanding player options would be pointless. At the end of the day in CoC, you're playing a normal person who's going to retire, go insane, or die. =P I believe CoC's character progression was limited to improving your skill checks (though it's worth noting that everything was resolved as a skill check) or learning spells (which speeds up the "go insane" part).

I'm not familiar with Swords & Wizardry, so no comment there.

D&D in every edition (including Pathfinder) is driven by character progression. And so Paizo (and before them, TSR/WotC) has a hefty incentive to keep introducing new things for PCs to get (new items!) or otherwise be able to do (new spells, archetypes, feats, etc.).

I welcome the content, myself. There's some misfires, but, well, mistakes happen. If one of the apples in the bushel is bad, nothing requires you to eat the bad one. (Or from cutting out the spots to get a perfectly fine apple.)

One person's "bloat" is another person's banquet.

[Torger Miltenberger]

Wiggz wrote:

So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.

The question I asked was a sincere one... with so many versions of the game out there and more seemingly on the way, what does the end-game look like?

One side keeps getting what they want because they're the side that makes Paizo money.

By contrast if the "marginalized" side got their way pazio would be out of business. Further more that side can get the game they want by drawing a line in the sand as to what is and isn't allowed.

Bloat will never go away, that's not a bad thing and this is coming from someone who doesn't even allow everything from the CRB at my table.

As to the end game, it looks like the end game of any other system. Many many many options to the point where people no longer feel the need to purchase them followed by a shiny new edition.

- Torger

[thejeff]

Torger Miltenberger wrote:

Wiggz wrote:

So we keep getting bloat threads... and we keep getting more bloat. Seems like one side's getting everything they want and the other is getting increasingly marginalized.

The question I asked was a sincere one... with so many versions of the game out there and more seemingly on the way, what does the end-game look like?

One side keeps getting what they want because they're the side that makes Paizo money.

By contrast if the "marginalized" side got their way pazio would be out of business. Further more that side can get the game they want by drawing a line in the sand as to what is and isn't allowed.

Bloat will never go away, that's not a bad thing and this is coming from someone who doesn't even allow everything from the CRB at my table.

As to the end game, it looks like the end game of any other system. Many many many options to the point where people no longer feel the need to purchase them followed by a shiny new edition.

Except it's not the end game of every other system. There are plenty of rpgs that don't follow that cycle. Admittedly, they're from smaller companies with a smaller customer base than Paizo.

Some of us would prefer a more steady state approach than the expansion - reboot cycle.
I don't know whether that's possible on Paizo's scale.

[memorax]

To a lesser or greater extent their will always be bloat. If it's with Paizo with Pathfinder. Or another rpg company with their product. There needs to be a certain amount of new material. A gaming group for example may need 2 or 3 copes of the core. More than that it's optional. Only those running the game need the players guide, dms guide and monster manual for a rpg.

The reason why those who want new material will win over those who want less is that the first group make Paizo more money than the second. For the company to keep existing the need a certain amount of money to stay in the black. It's strange because no one except the hardcore purists complain when Starbucks releases a new type of coffee. Or if Dunkin Donuts or Boston Pizza keeps adding new products.

If someone can come up with a way to reduce the amount of new material while still making Paizo the same amount I'm interested in hearing. Until then the amount of new material coming out will not stop imo. My main complaint is the type of new material being released. I rather get say a book on the different dimensions before the strategy guide. I will not fault them for running a smart business.

[Mr.Fishy]

Starbucks comes out with a new coffee...is the same. You don't have to drink it and no one hates you for refusing to try it. Paizo drops a new book some one is going to ask to use it regardless of your opinion of the new.

Mr. Fishy doesn't mind the new books it's the let me play the new stuff or else entitlement mentality of player that gripes Mr. Fishy.

[memorax]

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Starbucks comes out with a new coffee...is the same. You don't have to drink it and no one hates you for refusing to try it. Paizo drops a new book some one is going to ask to use it regardless of your opinion of the new.

Well a player can always ask and a dM can say no. The trick is for both to be respectful and adults about it. Too often the solution on these boards is for the DM to be a dick about it. Or the player to be the same. Why would I keep playing in your game if I can't be shown some common courtesy. Why would I allow a player to pick something from the latest sourcebook if they can't do the same.

Simply put establish some ground rules as to what you allow and disallow. If it's core only. Then it it's just material from the core. I like options and would be dissapointed if I could not use the other books. Yet still play in such a game.

Mr.Fishy wrote:

Mr. Fishy doesn't mind the new books it's the let me play the new stuff or else entitlement mentality of player that gripes Mr. Fishy.

Calling it player entitlement does a disservice to players as a whole. Sure some can be rude and try to force a DM to use any and every thing in the books. In my experience players ask me if I want to use something new. I review it and give it a yes or no. Both sides act lie adults, polite and treat each other with respect. The way some here make it sound asking for a new option in the lastest sourcebook is almost as bad as if they were asking if it was ok to sleep with their girlfriend.