He comes back right when I have to go to work. I am sure you other folks can handle this though. I will be watching when I get a chance. :)
You seem to be a very literal person.No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.Okay, this seems self-contradictory.
First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.
Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.
How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?
If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.
I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.You seem to be a very literal person.No, just giving you room to speak for yourself, rather than risk strawmanning you. :)
What I am saying is that when people say something to the effect of "the rogue is weak, classes X, Y, and Z are better at everything the rogue wants to be. I personally would never play a rogue when class A with archetype B is clearly the winner in that category", they are implying that playing a rogue is dumb.Okay, so you're saying that if someone declares that the rogue is weak and something else is better, they're telling the player that they're stupid. Got it.
Of course we can point out a classes differences, and point people at other options to attain their goals. What I see is a lot of those points married to a definite opinion on the optimal choice. That's all.Okay, this seems self-contradictory.
First you said that claiming X was stronger/weaker than Y meant implying that the player was dumb.
Then you said that it's okay to point out the differences between X and Y.
How do those two statements work together? Are you saying that it's okay (for example) to say that the rogue has a "different" attack bonus than the bard, but not to say that it has a "lower" one?
If that's what you're saying, well, that seems pretty ridiculous. If that's not what you're saying, then I need some clarification on how to read your post differently.
Just as an aside, I don't see your distinction either. It comes off as "I feel dumb for not seeing that, therefore he called me dumb," and it is entirely dependent on whether or not you feel dumb and not whether the person said you were dumb.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only hope that most people see my point. It seems clear that you will not no matter how I word it. So I'll leave it there.
It's more that I'm afraid I do see your point, but I keep hoping against hope that maybe I've made a mistake and you're really not the kind of person who can't hear an opposing viewpoint as anything other than an attack.
I'm trying, buddy, but you're not making it easy. The words you've actually said are communicating that everything's fine until someone says X is weaker than Y and then suddenly they're implying you're stupid. That's not just me, that's what you actually said.
So if that's not what you were going for, then just leaving it isn't doing yourself any favors.
If by "differently" you mean "wrong," then I think we can all get behind that message of tolerance and peace. Everyone is free to play as they please, it's just that some people are doing it wrong. That's not to say there's anything wrong with that beyond the inherent incorrectness of their stance. Some people just prefer to disregard reason and scorn the proper way to do things as is their right. Though it is still wrong.
|
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.What I keep seeing in those threads is this:
OP: "I want to make a rogue."
Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.
Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?
Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.
What do you say?
My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.
It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.
It was a place for me to say, yes I have had GMs specifically kill off a person who decided to play a rogue because "Rogues are bad and shouldn't be played."
No, not everyone is like this. No, MOST people are not like this. But for those few newbies who are led astray by jerks, this is a post to stand up and say "Those guys are not right."
Um... You say you don't do a lot of damage. Adding power attack would make you do damage. I think you just countered yourself there. Also with the swash if you had power attck your DPR would probably go up, as you have lots of ways to get hitting bonuses. As the slayer you also could probably take Power Attack and be doing more damage. And The shield can be used 2handed for the better power attack bonuses. Like nothing in your examples deals with the issue that power attack is the damage feat.3) If power attack is not your best feat choice you do not have enough accuracy to be worthwhile in melee. Your two weapon fighting rogue example is not proof that you are right about power attack being bad. It's proof that you're wrong about rogues not being bad. Also, two weapon fighting is penalizing your accuracy for far less gain than power attack. Yes, even on a rogue.
Characters that don't have power attack that are still good in battle that I personally play:
-Swashbuckler with 7 Str, fencing grace, weapon spc, level to damage, etc.
-Tengu Slayer with TWF and TW Feint, sneak attack, etc.
-Shield-bashing tank slayer with improved shield bash, shield slam, etc. I don't do a lot of damage, but I make sure people don't get near the squishies by bashing them away.First of all, did you miss both times when I said my swashbuckler had 7 str? Because she does. I wanted to put those character build points into other things like dex, con, int, and chr (she's an inspired blade.) 4 extra damage for a -2 to hit isn't worth the 2 extra damage and 2 extra to hit if she had just put it into strength. At least that's my opinion.
Second of all, sure, the other guys would do well with power attack, IF THEY HAD FREE FEATS. If I could get power attack on an item or something, I'd go for it, but as it stands, the Tengu does well enough without power attack, and he's using his other feats for Two-weapon fighting, Combat expertise, two-weapon feint, etc.
The tank? same deal. He's got two-weapon fighting, improved shield bash, shield slam, blablabla. If he had free feats, I'd go for power attack if I had infinite feats, but I don't NEED it on the character, he's doing fine with out it.
No, I didn't miss that your swashbuckler doesn't qualify for power attack. I'm well aware that as is you couldn't take it. I said that for your swash if you HAD power attack your DPR would go up. And if your build was to be doing damage then getting power attack is most likely the way you'd want to go to accomplish that. Also I'm not understanding where you're getting the +2 damage and hit if you don't have power attack.
Power attack is 1 feat. Can be picked up lv4 or 5 just fine to still be very useful. And is a very good feat for anyone going into melee. I'd be interested to crunch some numbers on which does more damage, your 2W feinting or a power attacker. If you want to give me a level I'll check, and this is a personal interest too, I don't really care how you play you're character but I'd like to see if power attack would have been a "better" option. And you're tank, I'm not sure what BlaBlaBla is, but it sounds like you're be in a class with extra feats, so I don't know why you can't fit in power attack. And you need it if you want to improve your bashing.
@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.What I keep seeing in those threads is this:
OP: "I want to make a rogue."
Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.
Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?
Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.
What do you say?
Sure. Check your PMs.
|
|
First of all, did you miss both times when I said my swashbuckler had 7 str? Because she does. I wanted to put those character build points into other things like dex, con, int, and chr (she's an inspired blade.) 4 extra damage for a -2 to hit isn't worth the 2 extra damage and 2 extra to hit if she had just put it into strength. At least that's my opinion.
Huh. A swashbuckler with a 7 STR that was dumped to boost Int and Dex on an inspired blade... Seems hyperspecialized to me.
5) Rogues are terrible, you should never play them ever. If you do, you're stupid.
Justified. You don't need to have levels in the rogue class to play a rogue just as you don't need levels in alchemist to play an alchemist character. Play a class that will fit your character concept, not match your class by name.
4) If you are a wizard, you'd better be a conjurations specialist, or you are the dumbest mage on the planet. Universalist wizard? Doubly so.
Misconception. I have the same problem with idiots that argue that you can't play magus without Slashing Grace or Dervish Dance. Play to be creative, not optimal. This isn't a video game.
3) Do you ever plan on attacking with a melee weapon? You need power attack.
Somewhat justified. Power Attack's a staple feat for a Strength melee fighter. Other builds? Not so much.
2) Pathfinder rewards hyperspecilization.
Misconception. In reality, the game actually rewards versatility. The strongest classes in the game have the ability to handle a variety of situations. The weakest ones shoehorn them into one ideal, inflexible play style.
1) Healers are useless, you don't need healers, never, EVER heal in combat.
Misconception. Ending a fight faster is often better than using a standard action to band aid someone. However, healing in combat is very valuable when an ally drops. You CAN build a dedicated healer with the right build.
|
On #3 - Power Attack - much depends upon your game.
1. For two-handers it's very solid mathamatically - at least until very high levels.
2. Much depends upon your game. If you go by the monster build's AC - PA is usually good for full BAB character. If your GM actually builds your opponents to not be morons (wear armor - actually use some of their treasure for gear etc) PA becomes FAR less valuable as the accuracy penalty hurts far more.
3. I think that part of the disagreement on Power Attack is people talking past each-other. If your monsters are always naked - PA is awesome. If your monsters are well built - PA is only situational. (same for two-handing for that matter)
That said, an option is always better than not having an option and the nice thing about Power Attack is YOU DON'T HAVE TO PA IF IT'S NOT PRACTICAL AT THE TIME.
People act like you're either always power attacking or you don't take the feat, but that's just not true. If something legitimately has enough AC you're concerned about your martial landing most of his hits, which honestly hasn't come up that often for me, just don't use the feat and use your unpenalized to-hit to tear 'em apart with a little less damage.
Then when you come across the wizard who was relying on his DR/Adamantine and 50% miss chance buffs to protect him from your adamantine heartseeker greatsword, turn on the power attack and shred that nerd.
Just saying, Power Attack's not some big investment like most feats are. It's one feat, easily afforded, and it gives you the option to become massively more damaging on the all-too-common occasions when you're not worried about hitting the target so much as doing enough damage to drop them.
I totally agree. In the case of most melee characters I do take it - using it rarely. But if in the case of a character who otherwise would build their strength lower than 13, it's not worth it. (And not for some feat starved builds.)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.
It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.
Then exercise more precision. If you blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders when you use a fireball spell to shoot a troll standing in a crowded market, the fact that there really was a troll there and he was your only real target doesn't make you any less of a mass-murderer.
|
|
No, I didn't miss that your swashbuckler doesn't qualify for power attack. I'm well aware that as is you couldn't take it. I said that for your swash if you HAD power attack your DPR would go up. And if your build was to be doing damage then getting power attack is most likely the way you'd want to go to accomplish that. Also I'm not understanding where you're getting the +2 damage and hit if you don't have power attack.
Just that I'd rather spend the 8 build points I'd need to up my str from 7 to 13 on dex. Upping my dex from 14 to 18. I wasn't doing math, just saying my build points could be much better spent.
As for power attack being one feat? I don't know about you, but I'm constantly feat-starved when coming up with builds. Maybe it's because I'm playing the game wrong and not dipping fighter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I didn't miss that your swashbuckler doesn't qualify for power attack. I'm well aware that as is you couldn't take it. I said that for your swash if you HAD power attack your DPR would go up. And if your build was to be doing damage then getting power attack is most likely the way you'd want to go to accomplish that. Also I'm not understanding where you're getting the +2 damage and hit if you don't have power attack.Just that I'd rather spend the 8 build points I'd need to up my str from 7 to 13 on dex. Upping my dex from 14 to 18. I wasn't doing math, just saying my build points could be much better spent.
As for power attack being one feat? I don't know about you, but I'm constantly feat-starved when coming up with builds. Maybe it's because I'm playing the game wrong and not dipping fighter.
Maybe it's because your builds are as passive-aggressive as that post was.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sure. Check your PMs.@ Jiggy: It's more that if someone asks for advice on a rogue, they get an avalanche of responses telling them that they (along with everyone else who has ever played a rogue) are playing the game wrong. The posts are usually incredibly condescending at best.What I keep seeing in those threads is this:
OP: "I want to make a rogue."
Respondent: "What do you want to do with your rogue?"
OP: "I want to be good at X, Y and Z."
Respondent: "The rogue class isn't actually good at those things. For that combination of abilities, you'd be better off playing this or that other class instead."
That's the vast majority of what I see happening with "rogue hate" in Advice threads. Do you call that "telling everyone who has ever played a rogue that they're playing the game wrong"? Because I sure don't.
Or do you think that's not how it usually goes down?
Tell you what: whenever you see someone actually talking down to people in the manner you're claiming, you PM me a link to the post. And then for every instance you come up with, I'll show you three instances of the opposite, and we'll see who runs out first.
What do you say?
Check yours. ;)
Slayers get 1 less feat than a fighter up to lv8/12, depending if you want weapon focus. Ranger 2, combat trick 4, ranger 6, weapon training 8, ranger 10. So since I don't know your build I don't know why you can't fit in Power attack, but as a slayer you have "lots" of feats.
And an inspired swash human could go 13, 18, 14, 7, 11, 14. it gets you three panache. Which is the same as having 7, 18, 14, 13, 11, 14 in how much panache you get. Or you could switch the int and cha on the first if you wanted more skills and didn't care about not using charmed life.
|
|
Then exercise more precision. If you blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders when you use a fireball spell to shoot a troll standing in a crowded market, the fact that there really was a troll there and he was your only real target doesn't make you any less of a mass-murderer.My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.
It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.
Did you just equate my incidental, admitted vent on the internet to mass murder?
And you say I blew things out of proportion/lacks precision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then exercise more precision. If you blow up a bunch of innocent bystanders when you use a fireball spell to shoot a troll standing in a crowded market, the fact that there really was a troll there and he was your only real target doesn't make you any less of a mass-murderer.My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.
It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.
Did you just equate my incidental, admitted vent on the internet to mass murder?
And you say I blew things out of proportion/lacks precision.
Wow, do you intentionally take things the wrong way? In a game, if there was a troll in a crowded market and you used fireball you'd kill the troll and all the commoners. Thus you'd be a "mass murderer" of commoners. He's not comparing you to a real life mass murderer.
While I agree with the point Jiggy has been making, I also agree that the "mass murderer" bit is uncalled for. There are plenty of other less offensive analogies that could've been used to make the same point.
I wish this was more facts/myths about posters, like Kobold Cleaver did :(
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
While I agree with the point Jiggy has been making, I also agree that the "mass murderer" bit is uncalled for. There are plenty of other less offensive analogies that could've been used to make the same point.
Maybe if I'd referenced confusion or entangle instead of fireball? Though then you lose the anti-troll element...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about
It's like trying to make your garden grow by throwing handfuls of chemical fertilizer. Sounds good on paper till you realize you created an environment too salty for plants.
Or it's like trying to clean the dust off your shelves, but also knocking down all your beautiful expensive plates because you arced too wide.
or how about Mr. vamp just stops taking things so literally and seemingly intentionally misunderstanding every post. Seriously, I am considering just flagging this thread up for "breaks other guidelines."
While I agree with the point Jiggy has been making, I also agree that the "mass murderer" bit is uncalled for. There are plenty of other less offensive analogies that could've been used to make the same point.Maybe if I'd referenced confusion or entangle instead of fireball? Though then you lose the anti-troll element...
Eh, the commoners would still be equally screwed.
So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?
This only requires a simple yes or no.
Sort of.
I think you are missing the hyperbole used in the original post. Many people won't go so far as saying you should NEVER heal, but it is common to say healing is ineffective, a waste of an action, and a sign of poor tactics. When you have a post in this thread that says, "When people say healing in combat is bad, they're right." and it gets 15+ likes, then it is safe to say that many people view healing in combat is a bad thing to do. Is the majority opinion that you should do bad things in combat? But frequently healing is effective, efficient, and part of good tactics. Making a character who has some abilities and/or equipment dedicated to being a good healer can be a very effective character. The math of the game proves this.If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".
If you say no then his general point is wrong because his general stance was that most of are promoting never ever heal. If he general stance was more in the middle which it is not then it would be correct.
If you somehow think he is in the middle then you need to reread his opening statement.
If you recall wraithstrike, I participated in that thread, and I'm well aware what the original post said. I'm also aware of what he intended, and what I have read in this thread, and many others. This isn't a legal debate, we are talking about general perceptions, not drafting The Constitution.
Two issues with this and views expressed in the linked thread.
1) The healing domain cleric casting her highest level spell should be healing more on avg than the "high avg" for a CR appropriate monster. Ie, you are specialized in healing and you have just dropped one of your most powerful daily resources. You should be able to MORE than undo the damage caused by a single monster in a single round.
You missing some very critical bits of info. First of all, you are NOT casting your highest level spell. You are casting a 4th level spell, which you can do 5/day. You are also not spending any feats, gp, or other resources. Also, a monsters "high avg" damage assumes all attacks hit. Even if this is the case, you don't need to undo all the damage, you just need to keep the PC out of danger of dropping/dying. If keeping the full BAB guy upright for 5 extra rounds while everyone else in the party beats on the monster doesn't help, there isn't much the cleric could have done to solve the combat. If you really want to heal a lot at once, just wait one more level, (or buy a scroll) then your highest level spell will heal 110hp, which is almost the entire hp of an 11th level character.
2) the burst heal myth is just as bad as the fireball myth. "If we can get all of the baddies to stand in exactly a 20-ft radius circle then I can do 123,547 damage with my 4d6 fireball."
If that works out then great, but that isn't exactly likely. Also, who cares if you can heal 100 damage in a round if it is spread out in 17hp chunks to all of your allies. The dude at the front soaking that 50hp a turn isn't helped by you patching up "grimoire" the witch's familiar for damage he hadn't taken.
Your missing the entire point of healing a group. You heal the group when the group takes damage, such as from the fireball you mentioned. If the individual is taking damage, you heal the individual, such as the 38 healing on the guy who just took 50. The nice thing about most classes used as "healers" is that they have the option of using a spell on the individual, or channel on the group. By using the right tool for the job, you conserve resources and keep people from dropping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"2 + 2 = 5."
"Actually, 2 + 2 = 4."
"By pointing out my major mistake, you have implied that I am stupid. Now to go make a passive-aggressive thread about it!" *Frolics off*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"2 + 2 = 5."
"Actually, 2 + 2 = 4."
"By pointing out my major mistake, you have implied that I am stupid. Now to go make a passive-aggressive thread about it!" *Frolics off*
2 + 2 does indeed not equal 5. But 5 / 2 does equal 2 ;)
*Please don't run on with this, lets not derail okay :D
|
|
"2 + 2 = 5."
"Actually, 2 + 2 = 4."
"By pointing out my major mistake, you have implied that I am stupid. Now to go make a passive-aggressive thread about it!" *Frolics off*
2 + 2 does equal 5, for sufficiently large values of 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, ladies and gentlemen: a good writer will ensure s/he is understood. If your reader misunderstands you, the fault is yours for not being clear enough. If your reader asks for clarification, they are not insulting you, they are simply trying to understand you better.
If you think you do not understand what someone is saying, ask for clarification. If some asks you for clarification, please be kind and try to clarify your statements so you are better understood.
This advice has been given before:
If you think no one understands your point, then it probably isn't an issue with everyone else, it's likely you who is the one not presenting your point well enough to be understood. Try restating your point in a different way; this might help others understand you more.
Alternatively, perhaps they do understand your point, and you do not understand their counter points. Try rereading what others have said with the intent to see things from their point of view; that may help in understanding your opposition. As a bonus, if you understand your opposition, it'll help you present your own arguments in a way they are likely to understand.
2 + 2 does equal 5, for sufficiently large values of 2."2 + 2 = 5."
"Actually, 2 + 2 = 4."
"By pointing out my major mistake, you have implied that I am stupid. Now to go make a passive-aggressive thread about it!" *Frolics off*
But what if I don't value the number two?
I spend all my feats on looking stylish. Improved Beard, Greater Beard, Beard Mastery, Beard of Legend, etc.
See here this man truly knows how to play the game the correct way.
Are you implying that the Bard, Swashbuckler, and Gunslinger are not the OWNERS of looking cool while you do what you do?PFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.
When the rogue has an awesomeness pool that replenishes based on how cool he's been that day like the Swashbuckler does, we'll talk. ;)
I... I got nothing.
So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?
This only requires a simple yes or no.Sort of.
I think you are missing the hyperbole used in the original post.If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".
He used specific examples for some points such as the power attack with TWF. That is not hyperbole. It is very bad comprehension or a blatant lie. I see the points in a similar light.
Bookrat - I'd say that it has to be 'readers' who miss your point before you can be pretty sure it's your fault. (Did I just miss your point? :P) There's often going to be someone who misunderstands you.
Overall though - I totally agree.
You are correct. :)
This thread has made me very interested in seeing the new Rogue coming in Pathfinder Unchained. I never thought I would write that last sentence.
|
|
How about
It's like trying to make your garden grow by throwing handfuls of chemical fertilizer. Sounds good on paper till you realize you created an environment too salty for plants.
Or it's like trying to clean the dust off your shelves, but also knocking down all your beautiful expensive plates because you arced too wide.
or how about Mr. vamp just stops taking things so literally and seemingly intentionally misunderstanding every post. Seriously, I am considering just flagging this thread up for "breaks other guidelines."
Actually, I was trying to be sarcastic. By pointing out that comparing my post where I rant about stuff that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of thing to the horrible idea of Mass Murder (even fictional mass murder) is just as much of a wide 'non-sharp' swath as he was saying I was in the original post. It's . . . I know he wasn't calling me a mass murderer. I shouldn't have to say that. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.
Text makes it very hard to determine sarcasm -- or most other things -- without some clues. There are not enough bread crumbs to lead us to the conclusion that there was sarcasm in your reaction.
Always say what you mean and try to be clear in text. It saves time and tempers.
Actually, I was trying to be sarcastic. By pointing out that comparing my post where I rant about stuff that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of thing to the horrible idea of Mass Murder (even fictional mass murder) is just as much of a wide 'non-sharp' swath as he was saying I was in the original post. It's . . . I know he wasn't calling me a mass murderer. I shouldn't have to say that. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the situation.How about
It's like trying to make your garden grow by throwing handfuls of chemical fertilizer. Sounds good on paper till you realize you created an environment too salty for plants.
Or it's like trying to clean the dust off your shelves, but also knocking down all your beautiful expensive plates because you arced too wide.
or how about Mr. vamp just stops taking things so literally and seemingly intentionally misunderstanding every post. Seriously, I am considering just flagging this thread up for "breaks other guidelines."
How was it hypocritical?
My OP wasn't because I was saying you were being mean. I'm sure you're a nice guy. I'm sure 75% of the people on the boards were nice guys. My OP, really, was to vent (as I explained in the first post BTW. Does it count as trolling if you openly say that you are ranting?) Anyway, my OP was for those that had seen the 25% of posts that were super jerk-like in nature and had maybe gotten the wrong ideas.
It was a place for me to vent to those 25% of people who DO say those things.
-
It is trolling if you intentionally misrepresent points(power attack) and it looks like trolling when you are inaccurate(wizard) . It also helps to have accurate thread titles. When you claim "the boards did ______" it looks like you are talking about most of us.
You could hav said "certain people _____" and still gotten your point across. You can rant and still be precise while doing so. The two are not polar opposites.
So you are saying the majority opinion is to not EVER heal in battle no matter what?
This only requires a simple yes or no.Sort of.
I think you are missing the hyperbole used in the original post.He used specific examples for some points such as the power attack with TWF. That is not hyperbole. It is very bad comprehension or a blatant lie. I see the points in a similar light.If you say yes I can show that you are wrong. I actually made a thread on the of people taking the idea way out of context and only a few posters said "let the person die".
Admittedly this may not be clear. If it is unclear I will clarify once I am home
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay guys, honest talk time. I'm gonna strip away the thin veneer of the internet, and say exactly what I mean. No snarkyness, not trying to be condescending, no ax to grind. I'm even trying not to be the least-bit 'tolly' here.
I made this thread for one reason. Exactly one reason. It was because I had received ALL of the above information at one point in time or another when I came to the boards for help. I have received those opinions in one form or another when playing with my friends, and they cited the boards. Each and every one of those comments has been repeated more than once, and back, in my earlier days of Pathfinder, I bought into each of them until I realized that they weren't true.
I'm not saying everyone thinks this way. I'm saying that there are enough people out there that say these things that it can ruin (or decrease the fun) of players out there.
5)No, I'm not saying rogues are good. I am saying that they are playable. Hard mode? Maybe. Are there better ways to go about them? Most likely. But hardly unplayable.
I am saying I've had a GM who killed off a friend's rogue character specifically, just to 'prove' to her that rogues are bad (and yet this was before ACG and he set us up with save-or-die traps, so no fun there.) I have seen people tell PFS noobs that they "can't" play rogues in PFS, and basically talk them out of fun character concepts. I'm saying I've seen these people around who will viciously lay into anyone who even brings up that they are thinking about playing a rogue in a campaign. That's not right, and that's not fun.
4)Similar to the above, I've proposed universalist wizard builds before, and people have just layed into me, calling me stupid or dumb or whathaveyou for not building a wizard 'the right way.' I understand that a wizard can be super godly with conjuration specialization. I also understand that diviner wizards are great too. (Personally, I've seen more pro-conjuration than pro other stuff, but that's personal experience.) I've also seen it bog down games and basically run amok, making the game unfun for others.
And I've seen other wizards do really well. I've seen utility Universalists that were really cagey with their spell selection, didn't need that extra spell a level, and still did really well, in part because they had access to whatever spell they needed for the day. Heck, I've seen a super fun arcane trickster rogue/universalist who used hand of the apprentice to sudden sneak attack with a sword of subtlety. Best build in the world? No. But it worked and was super fun, and really, isn't that all that matters?
3) Power attack is a good feat. I do not deny this. Power attack should probably be your first or second feat if you have a two-handed melee build. I also do not deny this. In fact, I have a sword-saint samurai with both power attack and furious focus, and a lot of her damage comes from power attack. I deny none of this. Power attack is a great feat.
I was just saying, it wasn't the only feat. If you have sneak attack, it becomes less important. If you are two-weapon fighting, it becomes less appealing. If your entire build is based around dealing damage some other way, and you can't manage that thirteen strength or that extra feat into your build, it isn't the end of the world. I'm saying, if you are building a melee fighter, take a good long look at power attack, but do not twist your character into pretzels in order to take it happen.
Let me put this another way. I have a cavalry summoner (full summoner who uses mounted combat feats on her eidalon). Not optimal, I know. She's a Wayang with 16 Str, heirloom weapon (lance) and she charges from the back of her (mount-evolution) Eidalon.
Level 1 mounted combat
Lvl 3 Ride-by attack
lvl 5 spirited charge
lvl 7 wheeling charge
lvl 9 Indomitable mount.
Notice that power attack would be great for her (+3 damage for her lance, +6 at level 6), but at a 3/4 bab, and the fact that she already deals triple damage on a charge, I think it's better to get the requisite cavalry feats than add some damage. Sure, power attack would be great, and I'm sure you could make any number of arguments for delaying one of the other feats in favor of it, but I could come back with other reasons why I chose this.
2) The hyperspecializtion thing is the one I've seen the least DIRECT evidence for on the boards, and more of an inferred thing. I should have renamed it however. Basically, a lot of times on the boards I've seen people make builds that require on a very unique set of circumstances, and if they are ever not fighting human fighters the build falls apart. I've seen sword-touch maguses that are just, insane, until they fight a creature with electricity immunity. I've seen basically unbeatable combos of stuff, but if that character doesn't have three rounds to buff, they are useless.
The problems with those characters are that there are any number of things that will COMPLETELY SHUT YOU DOWN. And then you have no fun. Oh, your gunslinger can deal 300 damage in a round and nothing can stand up to you? Meet Mr. Monk with deflect arrows, stunning fist, and step up. Oh, suddenly you can't do a thing and start complaining about how this is no fun.
The problem I've found with super hyperspecialized characters is that there is no 'challenge' for them. They either win, or their build is 100% useless. If the former, then no one else at the table has fun. If the latter, then they don't have fun. Overall, I'd rather have a less effective generalist that gets to have fun, and let everyone else have fun, than to put myself or the others in that situation.
1) I've seem to have gotten the least amount of guff for this one. To answer your question, yes, I have seen people who think healers are useless, that there is no way you can have fun with them, and that there as absolutely no call for healing in combat (There's a wizard guide out there that makes this claim, I know, only quasi-facetiously). I have seen people refuse to heal downed and dying characters because 'healing isn't for combat.' I've seen situations where an entire party gets hit by a high-level chain lightning, no one makes their save, and Channel energy is the best option to make sure EVERYONE doesn't die on the next round.
I am not saying healing is the best thing to do in combat. I'm not saying there usually aren't better things to do in combat. I'm saying it shouldn't be immediately off the table.
0) What do all these things have in common? I guess it's the idea that a character doesn't have to be the most broken, overpowered, optimized thing on the planet in order to work. In fact, I dare say that it shouldn't be. Have fun with characterization. Have a rogue with trap-spotter (it might just save your life!)
I've played in games before where the GM expected everyone to have his insane level of system mastery and build completely broken over-the-top characters, and it was the only TPK I've ever had, because we made FUN characters and apparently that was WRONG. I've GMed games where half the people were insanely optimized, and the other half worn't, and I had to quit it because there was no way to challenge the overpowered characters without immediately killing off the non-overpowered characters. And there was only one guy who had fun with it, the aforementioned gunslinger who could one-shot the final boss before anyone else got to act, but could be completely shut down by one of five things (and complained VERY LOUDLY when it happened.)
I've seen all of this on the boards and in real life, and I don't think it's right. And after seeing SO MUCH of it, I finally had to rant about it If this doesn't describe you, great, thank you for not feeding the misconceptions. If you're new, don't fall into their trap. There are a lot of ways to play Pathfinder, and their advice is viable, but it isn't absolute. If you are one of these guys . . . well, just take what I have to say into account. Make good characters, but not broken characters. And if someone has a character that breaks one of your rules, let them play it, it may just surprise you.
Sounds like you play at a shop full of A holes.
Also how does one talk another out of a Rogue concept? If anything we tell them how to actually fulfill their concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
5)No, I'm not saying rogues are good. I am saying that they are playable. Hard mode? Maybe. Are there better ways to go about them? Most likely. But hardly unplayable.
*Shrug* You could say the same thing about the commoner class. Now while I personally wouldn't go anywhere near as jerky as your examples, I will admit I'd have probably told my players that it's a stupid idea to play a rogue when they first bring it up and tell them how they can do the same concept with another class without hitting pitfalls.
But after that it should be the players decision on if they play a rogue or not, the GM should let them play the character even if it's isn't optimized without purposefully screwing them over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@OP: Thank you. Very well put. I've been trying to say a lot of the same things. The bean-counter mentality is only as sure of itself as it is because it blinds itself to all but a stark handful of possibilities and paradigms - and the whole point of fantasy gaming is that anything's possible, so if your game can be boiled down to an equation, something is gravely wrong.