| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So long as everybody is responsible and doesnt strive to break things completely (a bit is ok..), explains the mechanics and keep tract of them themselves, it's fine.
Just makes more options available, which if balanced (something paizo hopefully does) just adds more flavour and customisation.
Otherwise we'd all play the same 3 cookie cutter builds, instead of the same 23 cookie cutter builds.
My players would probably ask me why I disallowed non-core material, but I cannot see any of them refusing to play, or even considering refusing to play, just because I was going core only.
-Nearyn
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a world where the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are the godkings of adventurerkind, and the Fighter, Monk and Rogue are so laughably useless that they'll be lucky to be kept around as pack mules.
The above is true in "Core Rulebook-only" and "GET READY TO DRINK FROM THE FIRE HOSE" versions of Pathfinder. =p
In my humble opinion it´s a matter of perspective. Some are probably obsessed finding the most obscure books to make the most odd characters, just for the thrill of it, and to shock their fellow party members. Others, like the party I am in, well we just shrug, accept it and work with whatever stuff our GM allows us to use.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Core-only PF is the worst kind of PF. It's a world where the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are the godkings of adventurerkind, and the Fighter, Monk and Rogue are so laughably useless that they'll be lucky to be kept around as pack mules.
Or you could just try not powergaming the hell out of your full casters, and you might find the game works a little better. YMMV
NOTE: As a DM, never try to weaken the PCs, take their stuff away, or mess around at character creation - THAT just demoralizes everyone!
I have forced particular class levels onto my PCs, and disallowed them from retraining them (although other levels are allowed to be retrained). I once ran an entire sub-adventure at high level after stripping them of all of their gear. Not only that, but I gave said gear to some of the bad guys they were facing and made them win it back the hard way. And every so often, I cut off or out one of their body parts. You can always tell a new character, because they haven't lost any organs, limbs or digits.
So I don't know about 'never'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dealing with "bloat" in 2 simple steps:
1. Use what you like.
2. Don't use what you don't like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now, the two, have become one. The circle is complete. All is oneness.
This thread surprises me, OR, just validates that these forums really don't represent PF players as a whole. In my experience, overwhelmingly, a majority of players and games I've run into have been with the Core Rule book only, or the CRB and one or two books only. In fact, IRL, I don't know of any group thus far that I've run into that uses ALL the book ALL the time.
Maybe I just run into the wrong stores and wrong groups every time in every state...but it seems so odd that this thread would show so overwhelmingly a vote against a CRB only campaign, but these types of campaigns are nigh impossible to find outside of Society games.
With how many are saying they are anti-core only, it would seem as if it shouldn't be that hard to find a game which includes all the PF books in them in casual travel from state to state.
Ironically I have yet to actually find one IRL OUTSIDE of Society games. Even in Society games, however, there are many restrictions.
Given the OP's sentiment seems to be that adding more books leads to more powergaming and that core is more balanced, if "voluntarily don't play balls-out" is something necessary to balance core then I think the point is made already.Core-only PF is the worst kind of PF. It's a world where the Wizard, Cleric and Druid are the godkings of adventurerkind, and the Fighter, Monk and Rogue are so laughably useless that they'll be lucky to be kept around as pack mules.Or you could just try not powergaming the hell out of your full casters, and you might find the game works a little better. YMMV
But I don't think core is more balanced then later books, it just has less options. The general complaint is that full casters hit well above the APL after the mid levels. Thankfully Paizo didn't just powercreep everyone up to the level of a god wizard, and make the CR system a joke. The additional books are based on the APL/CR system, and with a few exceptions (some summoner stuff, gunslinger stuff, slumber hex, dazing spell,etc.) it is balanced.
Once you accept that the game isn't balanced for optimized play, you then need to establish a power baseline. You can either use the CR system the game is designed around and bring the casters down a peg or you can throw it out and up the power of every other class. Since the expansion books do neither of these things, they aren't the cause or solution to power inbalance.
But the entire premise of the OP is that it seems like it's "all to much"[sic], i.e. that there are too many options.
are players becoming obsessed with extra rule books more classes Feats spells races
Later in the thread, he clarified:
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
It's not that he's against options, it's that all the options seem to make things "too strong" for his tastes. Hence, the counter-argument, that Core is more unbalanced than the full suite of options of the broader array of PF.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOTE: As a DM, never try to weaken the PCs, take their stuff away, or mess around at character creation - THAT just demoralizes everyone!I have forced particular class levels onto my PCs, and disallowed them from retraining them (although other levels are allowed to be retrained). .
This right here would make me walk, immediately.
Cut me, stab me, burn me, muilate me, kill me all you want. All that is outside forces acting on the character.
"Your character has decided to pursue this avenue of training and is so attached to it he can't ever undo it" is mucking around with s*## the DM shouldn't be mucking around with. The player controls what the PC says, does, thinks, and takes levels in. Not you.
This thread surprises me, OR, just validates that these forums really don't represent PF players as a whole. In my experience, overwhelmingly, a majority of players and games I've run into have been with the Core Rule book only, or the CRB and one or two books only. In fact, IRL, I don't know of any group thus far that I've run into that uses ALL the book ALL the time.
The simplest way to have a traditionally "full" PF game is the Core, APG, UC, and UM. The UE and ARG were/are the other books that can be incorporated for "completeness", adding in whatever Bestiaries you want to. And the ACG now joins those books.
---
Core and APG + Bestiaries are enough for a campaign with plenty of options. This is a pretty "light" campaign, but still gets the job done extremely well.
Core + APG + UM + UC + Bestiaries is a fairly mid-size campaign. At that point, you've got all the "traditional" classes, meaning the Core 11 plus the 8 Pathfinder classes and 3 Alternate classes. This is probably what most people are familiar with.
Core + APG + UM + UC + ARG + ACG + UE + Bestiaries is a pretty grand-scale campaign that REALLY hits just about everything you might want to run - ALL the classes, lots of races, alternate racial features, Archetypes, plenty of equipment. This is definitely a campaign for playgroups and DMs that are experienced with 3.5 and want to really customize their characters & add lots of flavor to their campaign.
You could add in Ultimate Campaign, Monster Codex, and NPC Codex to any of the above, but these three books are definitely "expansion" materials that just flesh out existing campaigns.
The Player's Companions and Campaign Setting booklets can be added to these, but those are very-optional rules, and more than likely most players will never have actually seen one if they've never played PFS.
---
If I had to categorize the groups by the general campaign scope, I'd say that:
Core only would be a "regional" campaign where the story takes place in one or a few provinces in a nation
The first group is a "national" campaign, where the story encompasses an entire nation, thus explaining the extra classes and variety.
The second group is a "continental" campaign, where the story takes place across several nations. You get lots of choices because the scope of the campaign covers several different cultures, leading to lots of different options.
The last group is a "global" campaign. Since the scope encompasses an entire world, meaning lots of nations and different cultures, it makes sense that you'd have tons of options for both players and NPCs, with characters being as unique as possible.
---
PFS can seem like an unruly mess because not only is it a huge, "global" campaign like I described, it adds in every Player's Companion an Campaign Setting sourcebook, meaning their are even more options available than just 6 player's options books, 1 equipment book, and 4 Bestiaries.
---
My group DOES use all the PRD books, meaning players have direct access to 6 "player's options" books and 1 Equipment book. This works fine for use, since we've all played RPGs for a long time and are used to lots of different rules in different games.
Plus, compared to the tons of books from 3.5, 6 books is practically nothing.
But not every group is like that, and plenty likely can't afford more than a few books (lord knows in college we shared PDFs like crazy because we couldn't afford the tons and tons of 3.5 books - but we've been out of college for a few years now, and affording around 14 books isn't too difficult for us anymore).
Eh, I agree with you if the situation is: "alright everyone level up to seven, I already did it for you, here are your character sheets", but I can also see it being a fun story point if done as part of a conversation between DM and players. Like, okay, the story hinges on being part of a wizards guild, so everyone has one level of wizard, and we're starting at level 2. Or giving everyone the same free level of something in the midlevels as part of a plot point.
I can kinda see that, but at the same time, I think it's better to say "it's a wizards' guild, so everyone needs to have at least a Caster Level of 1"
That still fits into the theme, but allows players to pick from: Ranger, Paladin, Bloodrager, Bard, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Summoner, Skald, Alchemist, Investigator, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Cleric, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, and Arcanist.
NOTE: As a DM, never try to weaken the PCs, take their stuff away, or mess around at character creation - THAT just demoralizes everyone!I have forced particular class levels onto my PCs, and disallowed them from retraining them (although other levels are allowed to be retrained). .This right here would make me walk, immediately.
Cut me, stab me, burn me, muilate me, kill me all you want. All that is outside forces acting on the character.
"Your character has decided to pursue this avenue of training and is so attached to it he can't ever undo it" is mucking around with s!*% the DM shouldn't be mucking around with. The player controls what the PC says, does, thinks, and takes levels in. Not you.
Actually I do. What you control is right up there at the top, the ability to walk if you don't like it. DM can't run without players, players can't play without a DM. In between those two extremes, there exists a wide spectrum of various levels of power balance. Some favor the DM, some favor the PCs. But either party can always walk away if they don't like where it sits.
Eh, I agree with you if the situation is: "alright everyone level up to seven, I already did it for you, here are your character sheets", but I can also see it being a fun story point if done as part of a conversation between DM and players. Like, okay, the story hinges on being part of a wizards guild, so everyone has one level of wizard, and we're starting at level 2. Or giving everyone the same free level of something in the midlevels as part of a plot point.I can kinda see that, but at the same time, I think it's better to say "it's a wizards' guild, so everyone needs to have at least a Caster Level of 1"
That still fits into the theme, but allows players to pick from: Ranger, Paladin, Bloodrager, Bard, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Summoner, Skald, Alchemist, Investigator, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Cleric, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, and Arcanist.
You might think it's better, but it is just variations of a degree. I think Rynjin will agree with me here, it is still forcing an option on a PC and limiting another. The difference is only in the number of players who are feeling restricted. If you were going to take one of those classes, this 'restriction' isn't one. But if my fighter PC that I forced to take a level of barbarian was going to take a level of barbarian, it wouldn't be a restriction there either. To those PCs who really had their heart set on taking a level of fighter, neither of our options represent the ability to do what they want, and become restrictions. In a game where 'no fighters' was right up front, that isn't really a big deal. But right in the middle of things? It becomes quite the issue.
As a general rule, despite what I have done specifically, DMs are best to limit options at the outset of the game, and allow players as much choice as they are comfortable with. From there on out, it is very tricky to balance interfering in a PC like that without ruining a player's agency.
|
Actually I do. What you control is right up there at the top, the ability to walk if you don't like it.Then the DM can't control what the player does with his character.In that the player can always walk away? No he can't.
He can however control what the character needs to play in his game and since a character isn't much use without a game ...
He can't "controls what the PC says, does, thinks, and takes levels in". He has to convince the player to do that.
So to sum up, even though the GM controls what a PC does, says, thinks, and takes levels in, the GM is not a tyrant. The GM shouldn't be the one to bend - because the GM is not a tyrant. And if the GM has to bend, it's because of Player Entitlement.
This thread surprises me, OR, just validates that these forums really don't represent PF players as a whole. In my experience, overwhelmingly, a majority of players and games I've run into have been with the Core Rule book only, or the CRB and one or two books only. In fact, IRL, I don't know of any group thus far that I've run into that uses ALL the book ALL the time.
Maybe I just run into the wrong stores and wrong groups every time in every state...but it seems so odd that this thread would show so overwhelmingly a vote against a CRB only campaign, but these types of campaigns are nigh impossible to find outside of Society games.
With how many are saying they are anti-core only, it would seem as if it shouldn't be that hard to find a game which includes all the PF books in them in casual travel from state to state.
Ironically I have yet to actually find one IRL OUTSIDE of Society games. Even in Society games, however, there are many restrictions.
Almost every group I have every played in uses all of the hard covers, and may allow others on a per case basis.
It seems we have different experiences.
If you check roll20.net most books are allowed, at least in the games I have seen there.
He can't "controls what the PC says, does, thinks, and takes levels in". He has to convince the player to do that.Actually I do. What you control is right up there at the top, the ability to walk if you don't like it.Then the DM can't control what the player does with his character.In that the player can always walk away? No he can't.
He can however control what the character needs to play in his game and since a character isn't much use without a game ...
I think what is being said is that as long as that player is in that game the GM can control what class the PC has access to. Saying "you must take a level of wizard next level" is the same thing as "all classes are banned except wizards for the next time you level up".
What happens when the player does not have a stat that makes the next class useful such as an intelligence of 9 might make for an unhappy player however.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I guess my point wasn't clear enough.
Unless my GM is an insufferable t!*& I control all of that.
Though even most insufferable t*~@s would understand that playing a game with players as separate entities from the GM is pointless if the GM is just going to do everything anyway.
Just play by yourself if that's what you really want to do.
So to sum up, even though the GM controls what a PC does, says, thinks, and takes levels in, the GM is not a tyrant. The GM shouldn't be the one to bend - because the GM is not a tyrant. And if the GM has to bend, it's because of Player Entitlement.
No.
They should Both be willing to bend. It's called compromise.Even if only one ends up bending, it's not because of either party necessarily being "Entitled". It's because they are being reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still reject the idea that core only prevents power gaming. Power gamers are going to powergame, whether it is the beginner box or everything ever printed. If you want to prevent power gaming, talk to your players.
I think power gaming makes expansion material much more needed because very few options are viable for a high powered game. I can get more usable options by dialing back the optimization and power then adding a bunch of books were only a handful of options are fit for X-treme play.
So are wizards with 20 int, massive amounts of save-or-suck, and crafting feats to get to almost 200% WBL!
Sorry, I guess my point wasn't clear enough.
Unless my GM is an insufferable t+~$ I control all of that.
Though even most insufferable t*@%s would understand that playing a game with players as separate entities from the GM is pointless if the GM is just going to do everything anyway.
Just play by yourself if that's what you really want to do.
Something like that is a dick move if sprung on the players mid-game, but isn't a bad thing if set up as part of the campaign premise.Saying "For this game, you're all going to need 3 levels of X" isn't even remotely similar to "the GM is just going to do everything anyway."
You might not like it. It might not be a game you want to play. That's fine.
It's still nothing like playing by yourself.
That's not what he said.
He said "I have forced class levels on a player".
As in "You now have this level".
Making a houserule saying "All players must have levels in X class for this campaign" up front is not "forcing levels on a player".
| 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
As a player, no, I wouldn't play a core only game. The more I play Pathfinder and compare it to other systems, the more hardline I become on this in my thinking; I play Pathfinder because I want a mechanically complex game. If you don't want mechanical complexity and are trying to limit it by cutting off 95% of all content for the game, then I really wonder why you'd bother running Pathfinder or why as a player I'd want to play it.
Now I know that sounds inflammatory, like saying "Yeah? Well you can get the f~~& out if you don't like it," but I don't mean it that way at all. There are plenty of awesome systems that lack 3.5/Pathfinder's mechanical complexity, often to their betterment.
For instance I just started getting into FATE and I think it's the best thing in the world for a more character driven campaign, but still if I wanted a complex war game with some roleplay on top I'd come back to Pathfinder. Pick the best tool (in this case system) for what you want to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM controls:
-What levels the character takes
-What thoughts he takes
-What actions he takes
-What the character says
What else is there for the player to do? Since according to Kain, I am wrong when I say the player controls those things.
It's possible to like the basic engine without like the ever increasing complexity of the build game.
Except you're confusing greater numbers of options with complexity.
Adding in additional classes that still use the same basic character architecture (20 levels, feats at every odd level, stat bonuses at every 4th level, a certain number of skills that have never changed since Pathfinder's release), additional Feats, and additional items is not "adding complexity."
Adding in Alternate Racial Traits, Favored Class Abilities, and Character Traits WAS adding complexity. However, those were all added years ago, and most people would agree made the game more enjoyable; since then, everyone has adapted, and to most people these are just a basic part of the system.
If Paizo added THAC0 back in, that'd be "adding complexity" to the game as a whole.
Adding 12 new Skills would be "adding complexity"
Reverting classes back to a state where they had their own individual XP values would be "adding complexity" to the game.
Subdividing the 6 stats into 3 sub-stats each for a total of 18 total basic stats that may completely contradict one another, even within the same grouping - that's "adding complexity" to the game.
Dividing HP across the entire body, so that every major part, limb, and digit has its own allocated HP, and then a corresponding chart showing the location of hits based on how much the AC is exceeded by... THAT'S adding complexity to the game.
---
New classes, feats, spells, and equipment don't actually make the rules of the game any more complex; they simply add more options which use the same, basic rules set, and may or may not be used at all by PCs or NPCs.
You're right. They don't change the basic rules set. They do make the character building game more complex. More options to look through. More combinations of abilities to process.
I mean, if more options is a bad thing, then it's a good thing Magic the Gathering isn't popular.
... wait.
---
Look, it might sound mean, but if Analysis Paralysis is a major problem because you have to stare at a whopping 6 books of character options, then it's more a problem with you than it is the system.
I'd much rather have a character concept and be able to flesh it out to as close to my vision than be stuck playing Generic Ranger #17 just like the three schlubs next to me.
---
Also, again, that's not "more complex". "Longer" yes. "Greater numbers of combinations," like you said, yes.
But it is not actually harder to create a character now than it was in 2012. You just have more options to look through and put in the same places than you did 3 years ago.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about you guys, but I'm having trouble recognizing which thread I'm on. It's all just too much, really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have had that problem more than once when similar threads were running. I just try to quote who I am replying so I dont reply to the wrong person in the wrong thread. :)