Hello everyone a quick question for you all to think about are players becoming obsessed with extra rule books more classes Feats spells races
Would they still play without them ?
Ask yourself this question if you said to your players where starting a new game core rules only would they go ok and just get on with it or would they say can I use books xyz as well and not play if they couldn't
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't speak for any other gaming group, but I can tell you mine would have no problem whatsoever. I would imagine, though, that neither would most groups.
However.
I'm not sure why there's such a huge backlash against options in Pathfinder. Options are fun. They allow for a greater freedom in character concepts. Wanna make a viable finesse character in core? A viable thrown weapon character? Can't be done. Are these options overpowered outside of core? No, on the contrary they're both slightly less powerful than other more traditional options. But if someone would like to play them, why are there so many who are so quick to call that a bad thing?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Core-only in Pathfinder is a great place to begin, and a terrible place to end. One of Pathfinder's strengths is the diverse amount of options to make all sorts of character concepts. As far as I know precious few D&D Editions and retroclones come close to this.
As I get along great with my players and they enjoy my games, I don't think they'd leave if I said 'core only' for one game one day. It probably won't be a long campaign, though, as we'd be selling ourselves short on all the stuff that's out there.
This is hypothetical, though. Why would I or them give up one of the RPG's greatest positives?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is every thread you make a complaint about something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone a quick question for you all to think about are players becoming obsessed with extra rule books more classes Feats spells races
Would they still play without them ?
Ask yourself this question if you said to your players where starting a new game core rules only would they go ok and just get on with it or would they say can I use books xyz as well and not play if they couldn't
I don't think they would be happy about it, but they still might play. I have personally avoided core only games, as a player. That does not mean I would never play in one. It would depend on "why" the GM went to core only, and I am sure most players I have GM'd for would ask why also.
PS: I also don't think avoiding core only means you are obsessed with anything. You could just want more options.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I told my players that we'd be having a core only game, I would hope that they would realize that I was trying to signal to them that I was under extreme duress. Like a fellow somewhere nearby has a gun aimed at my head. There would be no other circumstance that I would ever say such a thing without immediately bursting into laughter.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with core-only...
Well, to be frank, the thing with core-only is that it is simultaneously the most restrictive and the least balanced. Core-only has the widest gaps in both power and utility both in terms of class-to-class and class-to-monster (and, for that matter, monster-to-monster for the inexperienced DM attempting to learn encounter balance). It has the least useful options for martial concepts but all of the foundation and staple options for spellcasters.
Pathfinder's great strength, like 3.5 before it, is its sheer breadth of compatible options. In theory, with enough book-digging, you can bring almost any idea to life within the system. Heading back towards core-only is failing to utilize this great strength, at which point it really becomes a question of why you're using this system and not, say, Dungeon World.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I'd never consider running a core-only game in Pathfinder (or 3.5). As a player, I'd never consider playing in one. The concept strikes me as an overall terrible idea, and if someone offered to DM a core-only game for me, I'd conclude that they were either new (at which point I'd try to work with them to get something workable with about as much stuff, rather than using Core), or someone who doesn't really understand the game.
Overall, there are two valid reasons I can see for playing Pathfinder. The first is momentum, because you've played it for a while, and you know it, so you keep playing it. The second is to use it for what it's good at. Pathfinder's (and 3.5's) strength is the large amount of variety of options, and the ability to combine them in many different ways, to make pretty much any concept workable. Like its predecessor, the system's rules barely hold together, the game breaks if you're not careful (hell, it breaks even if you are; the goal in play is just to minimize it to the fun breaks), and imbalance is everywhere. It honestly doesn't have a lot going for it as a system beyond this strength (well, the playerbase's size, but with the internet, that's mostly irrelevant).
My issue is that restricting Pathfinder to Core-only removes that strength, and increases the magnitude of its biggest problem. You've got some ridiculously overpowered casters and some incredibly underpowered noncasters, with very little in the middle. Many of the cooler options don't exist, and overall, a lot of possible character concepts just can't be done. At that point, you've killed the biggest draw for Pathfinder outside of sheer momentum, which... Isn't that good of a reason to play a game, if you look at it rationally.
What 3.p does better than the rest of ttrpgs is "having a huge pile of things to use, without delving into overcomplicated point-buy systems." There are systems that do the majority of campaign concepts better than Pathfinder, so once that's gone, there's not really a valid reason to use it outside of group comfort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love options and the so called rules bloat. The more the merrier.
I groan every time I hear a DM announce they are limiting something or banning something for no good reason.
When I DM I allow everything as long as it fits the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against options they can add a great deal I don't like options just for the sake of it
I would prefer a few less options that are well thought out a throughly play tested and less open to abuse which less face it does happen probably more often then we would admit
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in game
Hum. 6 years into campaign and looking at my character sheet. Until recently (when we converted a level of sorcerer to arcanist) the only non-core material was a single feat, single spell, and arcane subschool.
Yeah, I could live with core only, as long as there's a bit of table specific homebrew available (e.g. creating new spells).
Personally I prefer it with less material as a whole, though things like the PRD make it less onerous to draw on multiple sources than it ever was in 3.5 (where you often had to carry around a stack of books).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in game
I think this depends partly on their gaming experience with GM's. If the GM is willing to be less lethal so they can choose less optimal options they might do so, but if they know every resource has to matter they will go with the "power" options.
As for the abuse comment, which I did not quote, that word is really objective. One person's "abuse" is another person's "normal".
PS: I think some people will go for power anyway, so that is not an excuse for every player that does so. It is just one factor I have seen in play.
Hum. 6 years into campaign and looking at my character sheet. Until recently (when we converted a level of sorcerer to arcanist) the only non-core material was a single feat, single spell, and arcane subschool.
Yeah, I could live with core only, as long as there's a bit of table specific homebrew available (e.g. creating new spells).
Personally I prefer it with less material as a whole, though things like the PRD make it less onerous to draw on multiple sources than it ever was in 3.5 (where you often had to carry around a stack of books).
What level are you at after 6 years?
Do you use the slow advancement or do you just level up when the GM tells you to?
Just curious, no alterior motives
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone a quick question for you all to think about are players becoming obsessed with extra rule books more classes Feats spells races
Wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute, chum.
Players are obsessed with extra rulebooks? Odd. I find as a DM, I've got that disease. Really weird how eager I am to snap up the latest, greatest monster manual. Odd how gleefully I lay my hands on whatever strange spells or magic items I can. Truly inexplicable how much exultation I experience when I can throw something new at my players.
Would they still play without them ?
They? How about I.
Bluntly, no. Not for more than a one-shot. I've been playing the system for basically fifteen years now. I've played or seen pretty much every meaningful permutation of Core-only and you know, while adventures change, it's still the same player actions available.
Bo. Ring.
Ask yourself this question if you said to your players where starting a new game core rules only would they go ok and just get on with it or would they say can I use books xyz as well and not play if they couldn't
Some of my players might, because they're comparatively new. Others would tell me to go find a new system.
Where are we going with this?
Just because I don't want to watch Iron Chef or B~+#&y Arguing Housewives of Wherever doesn't mean I object to them existing. If you don't want to (bother to) learn new material for the game, don't. Your players will either not care (if they're new), grudgingly agree because getting someone to DM for them is a coup to start with, or balk. One of the three.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against options they can add a great deal I don't like options just for the sake of it
I would prefer a few less options that are well thought out a throughly play tested and less open to abuse which less face it does happen probably more often then we would admit
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in game
I forgot to add that some players ask me for things that are not even in the books, so Paizo not printing things you(general statement) do not like won't stop players from asking for them, and Paizo printing them should not make any GM afraid to say no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What level are you at after 6 years?
Do you use the slow advancement or do you just level up when the GM tells you to?
Just curious, no alterior motives
Recently 15th level. We play over the MIRC chat client, use slow advancement, and tend to get sidetracked from quests by long periods of RP. You can find everything you ever wanted to know here or here
The Core Rule Book is, for the most part, complete and utter garbage. I don't play in core-only campaigns because I don't like playing wizards.
I'd play. I've found a way to play for the last 30 years no matter what and I intend to play for the next 40 or so too. The game is what matters, not which particular rule set or even which system is being used.
Definitely would pass on a Core only game. Can martials (besides archery towers) do anything interesting in core? At least they get some nice things outside of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Core Rule Book is, for the most part, complete and utter garbage. I don't play in core-only campaigns because I don't like playing wizards.Try playing without it. Won't work well.
Other than the mechanics of the game itself most of the CRB is an imbalanced and self-contradictory mess. Most of the concepts I have even the slightest interest in running are impossible without drawing from outside of it, even more so when I'm GM'ing. I would feel extremely limited if I could only draw encounters from the CRB and Bestiary 1.
But, accepting the premise, would just using the APG classes work better? Obviously you'll need the CRB for basic feats, spells, etc, as well as the actual rules.
Yes, actually. Inquisitor/Alchemist/Oracle/Cavalier is a far more interesting and balanced party than the typical Wizard/Cleric/Fighter/Rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When one of my players became a GM for the first time, we all decided on core only to make her job as a GM easier. It was a fun game. The next campaign, we expanded.
As a DM, I like to give my players options, but Core seems to be where I tend to build with. Probably 80% of my stuff is built with Core, and 95% with Core plus APG. That said, I like ninjas, samurai, magi, gunslingers, etc, but as flavoring, not the main course.
The game being fun or not tends to have nothing to do with the restricted books, and everything to do with the group, the story, the DM's descriptive ability, etc. Give me an all core rogue party before you give me a jerk in our group.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask yourself this question if you said to your players where starting a new game core rules only would they go ok and just get on with it or would they say can I use books xyz as well and not play if they couldn't
We just started a Core-Rulebook-only campaign last month, so no.
I played in a core only game with a new GM. I wanted to be a magus, so I made an elf wizard wielding a long sword using the transmutation school to get enhancement bonuses into strength and cast shield and mage armor all the te while setting up flanking. I also had more hp than the barbarian at level 1 with my toad familiar, toughness feat, higher constitution and favored class bonus. His name was hulk hogan]Gary Rrrroderick PAYNE[/hulk hogan] and he used prestidigitaion to appear 7'8" with a handlebar mustache.
Dude played like a fighter, talked like a pro wrestler, had more hp than the barbarian and was actually an Elven wizard. Core only can still get pretty weird and is not more balanced. If I wanted, at any point as a wizard I could have opted to change what spells I was preparing and done any other character class's job, or just been a wizard and been a lot more powerful.
Weirdly the character's viability dropped when my party opted to stop flanking with me. I wound up leaving the game due to the other players making nonsensical choices that ruined my fun. "I won't flank, even though I could, because I don't think I need it *miss*" (this happened more times than was reasonable.) "I don't carry a ranged weapon because this is a melee character, I will stand back here and full defense instead."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me at least, core-only is not Pathfinder. Core-only is houseruled 3.5. For it to feel like Pathfinder at least the APG classes need to be availiable. As I stated in the other thread like this one, if anything the focus of my games is becoming clearer with more options, not more muddied.
No. Not because it can't be fun,just because it feels like a step back.I'd rather run myself than play core only.
I will run core only,but just to teach new players.
And if the players are experienced...They can limit themselves as they see fit.
No one forces players to buy and study splatbooks...it's a labor of love :)
My group uses the PRD, usually excluding Mythic Adventures and the Technology Guide; the GameMastery Guide is kept on hand solely for the 20-odd pages of optional rules.
We don't use Player's Companions, mostly for our convenience, since the PRD is more than enough to thoroughly flush out just about any world we can think of, and provide plenty of powerful options for any build. Nor do we use Campaign Setting booklets, since we play in homebrew worlds - nothing WRONG with Golarion, we just like to use our own settings is all.
I can understand Companions being pick-and-choose with groups, though. It's especially easy to do that since they're 32-page booklets.
The PRD is just nice because it's all there online - since it's easily accessible in it's entirety, why not make use of it all? It's all pretty balanced (well, nothing's really more broken than a Core-only Wizard), and it's pretty easy as a DM to adapt to the extra classes, races, and feats.
Yeah, but none of those spells are more powerful than the most-powerful spells in the Core Rulebook.
And the published feats don't really play into the broken-ness, either
The powers MIGHT - I've heard some people say an Exploiter Wizard might actually be more powerful than the base Wizard, but I've yet to see any real difference myself.
But, at the end of the day, the things that make the Core Wizard broken are all Core. Everything else is just decals.
|
I'm not against options they can add a great deal I don't like options just for the sake of it
I would prefer a few less options that are well thought out a throughly play tested and less open to abuse which less face it does happen probably more often then we would admit
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in game
Sounds like 5E is the game for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not against options they can add a great deal I don't like options just for the sake of it
I would prefer a few less options that are well thought out a throughly play tested and less open to abuse which less face it does happen probably more often then we would admit
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in gameSounds like 5E is the game for you.
I'm sure in time 5E will prove to be just as exploitable as everything.
I'm not against options they can add a great deal I don't like options just for the sake of it
I would prefer a few less options that are well thought out a throughly play tested and less open to abuse which less face it does happen probably more often then we would admit
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in game
I don't think you've really thought out what you're saying here. Options are never there for their own sake, they're there for the sake of variety. In any system, optimization is possible. In any system, more options will lead to greater possible optimization. To ask for perfect balance in a game as large as Pathfinder is a monumental, essentially impossible task. That being said the designers have done a damn impressive job of it.
If you're having trouble with system abuse amongst your players, I suggest you sit down and talk to them. Or find a different group. In most groups, there is a gentlemen's agreement about the level of optimization, versimillitude, humor, and what have you. Different groups have fun in different ways and, I can't stress this enough, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRONG FUN. So find a group more in line with how you'd like to play. And if your problem is with other groups, try not to worry about it so much.
Can't speak for any other gaming group, but I can tell you mine would have no problem whatsoever. I would imagine, though, that neither would most groups.
However.
I'm not sure why there's such a huge backlash against options in Pathfinder. Options are fun. They allow for a greater freedom in character concepts. Wanna make a viable finesse character in core? A viable thrown weapon character? Can't be done. Are these options overpowered outside of core? No, on the contrary they're both slightly less powerful than other more traditional options. But if someone would like to play them, why are there so many who are so quick to call that a bad thing?
A few vocal people who post on a message board does not constitute "a huge backlash".
If there were such a backlash, the products would not be selling. Do not ever for an instant believe that this place is anything other than the most shrill of a vocal minority.
I was speaking more in terms of fervency, not numbers.
I have been in terrible games that allowed every book/supplement published, and I have been i terrible games that were Core Rulebook Only.
First - is the DM having fun?
Second - are the players having fun?
If the answer to either of the above is not 'Yes' - then keep asking 'Why?' repeatedly until you get to the reason(s).
DM Example:
GameCounselor, "Why are you not having fun as a DM?"
DM, "Because my min-max'd, munchkinizing, powergamers just walk through every monster!"
GameCounselor, "Why does that bother you?"
DM, "Because the players are not being challenged."
GameCounselor, "Does that bother the players?"
DM, "Dunno, probably not."
GameCounselor, "So why does that bother you?"
And so on... and so on... -sip- etc...
What concerns me most as a Player and DM, is when one/some of the players are lower/weaker than another/others.
Party Power Balance is KEY!
As a DM, that is when you tweak events/things to help give the lower one(s) a little something extra to bring balance to the party.
As a DM I am never concerned with a Party being too powerful - you can ALWAYS boost monsters, make harsher traps/environments, multiply monsters... heck - bust out an enlarged Mirror of Opposition to have them fight themselves.
NOTE: As a DM, never try to weaken the PCs, take their stuff away, or mess around at character creation - THAT just demoralizes everyone!
-whew-
Enough Ranting...
Thank You for Listening
A few vocal people who post on a message board does not constitute "a huge backlash".
If there were such a backlash, the products would not be selling. Do not ever for an instant believe that this place is anything other than the most shrill of a vocal minority.
I've noticed that the Pathfinder Subreddit is more moderate, even-keeled, and indicative of your average Pathfinder players than these forums, with very few "OH GOD BLOAT" threads to be found.
Let that just sink in for a second...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure in time 5E will prove to be just as exploitable as everything.I'm not against options they can add a great deal I don't like options just for the sake of it
I would prefer a few less options that are well thought out a throughly play tested and less open to abuse which less face it does happen probably more often then we would admit
I also find it amazing at how often players are playing unusual or strange race and or class combinations mainly for the advantages that they get in gameSounds like 5E is the game for you.
Well he can enjoy 5E now, and then start a bloat thread when 5E gets there.