|
There is a player in our area who, with only 1 exception I am aware of, always takes one level of Diving Wizard and a Compsagnathus for a Familiar so his characters can always act in the surprise round and he always ends up with initiatives in the teens for all his characters. I have to wonder why he always does this. Has he really been punked by that many GMs that he feels this is a necessity? As a GM, I do not find it annoying if someone has a character that can act in the surprise round and/or has a high initiative, but when all of your characters have it, it gets kind of old.
I've only got one character that always acts in the suprise round, and that's because his mount does, and they both have the teamwork feat.
But then that character is only at a +1 on initiative. The fact that he doesn't get AoO'd for movement is the more annoying shenanigan that he's got. With his arial 120' charge lanes, he doesn't get hit by melee usually anyway.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Recently I ran a scenario where the final encounter stages the PCs in a 3x5 spot on the map and the boss monster has a fireball and +8 initiative. And I rolled a 17. Knocked out one PC immediately and toasted two mounts. (The PC was playing up.)
I suppose that's a situation where having a high PC initiative is nice...
No, but what's more useful? Something that only works when you go first, or something that's viability is independent of your place in the initiative order?Don't waste your build points/feats/gold on something that on your best days isn't even guaranteed to work.Huh? Nothing in the game is guaranteed to work.
Actually if you go first you can pretty much end an encounter before it begins. Going first is every powerful for certain classes, and if an entire party builds around going first they can kill or severely hamper at least half of the opposition before anyone on that side gets to do anything.
|
A friend of mine plays a cavalier and I have a diviner wizard (who is an archer). We both have the Lookout feat.
The intent is that if there is a surprise round, the whole party can act in it. My wizard gets to act in the surprise round, and goes fairly early (not really optimized for initiative, but it is still good). The cavalier uses Tactician to share Lookout with everyone in the party, which uses his own standard action, but his mount can move him to a charge lane. Everyone else gets a standard action. No one is flat-footed in the first round, and if we know what we are facing (like an arcane caster) we can react appropriately (like dispersing from fireball formation).
Funnily enough, surprise rounds are very rare when I play a diviner wizard...
|
Actually if you go first you can pretty much end an encounter before it begins. Going first is every powerful for certain classes, and if an entire party builds around going first they can kill or severely hamper at least half of the opposition before anyone on that side gets to do anything.
Yep - Lily is a save or suck/buffer caster with no direct offensive abilities but a moderately high initiative (+11). I have on more than one occasion made a fight significantly easier by knocking out the most powerful enemy before they've even gotten a turn (Oppressive Boredom is a really effective spell for a level 2 slot).
|
|
Because every time the entire party gets to go before the bbeg and one shots him after box text nobody is really satisfied. Especially if every encounter has been first rounded because of high init and one shot abilities.
Wanderer had it pretty much down pat, with the buffer wanting to go first as well.I must disagree.
I don't mind if you can have a character who dominates combat. If you kill the beasties in 0.666 melee rounds, it'll give me more RP time. And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for you! I'll run the investagater that does the Gather Info rolls, that removes the traps that warns the BBEG, that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it. But then I would have as much fun if the Judge just said after Init is rolled "Everyone just mark off 20% of you HP and 10% of you consumables and we'll handwave this encounter". After all, some Judges do that to the RP encounters (even having the term "RP encounter" vs. "Combat encounter" makes my mind hurt - like they are two different things).
So, when someone one shots the current encounters monster (even the final encounters BBE) right after the boxed text - I'll spend the game time saved there in "chatting up the bar-maid" or enteracting with the other PCs. This is (at least sometimes) a social game, not just a combat simulation... at least IMHO.
I'm so jealous.
|
|
I've had 15 PFS characters so far. Less than a quarter of them were even close to being Initiative monsters. It's been far from a fatal flaw.
This.
Because every time the entire party gets to go before the bbeg and one shots him after box text nobody is really satisfied. Especially if every encounter has been first rounded because of high init and one shot abilities.
Wanderer had it pretty much down pat, with the buffer wanting to go first as well.I must disagree.
I don't mind if you can have a character who dominates combat. If you kill the beasties in 0.666 melee rounds, it'll give me more RP time. And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for you! I'll run the investagater that does the Gather Info rolls, that removes the traps that warns the BBEG, that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it. But then I would have as much fun if the Judge just said after Init is rolled "Everyone just mark off 20% of you HP and 10% of you consumables and we'll handwave this encounter". After all, some Judges do that to the RP encounters (even having the term "RP encounter" vs. "Combat encounter" makes my mind hurt - like they are two different things).
So, when someone one shots the current encounters monster (even the final encounters BBE) right after the boxed text - I'll spend the game time saved there in "chatting up the bar-maid" or enteracting with the other PCs. This is (at least sometimes) a social game, not just a combat simulation... at least IMHO.
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.
This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame. Most adventurers would not be of that "let them get first blood so that I can really experience the thrill of combat" sort of mentality - reduction in peril is precisely what they'd try to do if they're actually acting in character, and those that expose themselves to unnecessary risk wouldn't last very long. For that matter, many times I've tried to hold back (for example, pinning down the mooks with SoS spells while I let everyone else beat down the boss, or using lower level spells that are less severely disabling), I've actually been asked to quit doing that and take out the main boss to eliminate the risk. At which point I usually spend the rest of the battle as "I pull a bottle of wine and a glass out of my Pathfinder Pouch, pour myself a drink, and watch the show" :)
There is also a certain satisfaction to be had in executing the mission commando-style and just wiping the floor with the enemy - for example, had a game of Silver Mount Collection the other day that the party took a total of about 20hp damage between all of us and were in and out of the museum in about 15 minutes of in-world time because we did scry and fry the entire way through the place.
|
|
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame. Most adventurers would not be of that "let them get first blood so that I can really experience the thrill of combat" sort of mentality - reduction in peril is precisely what they'd try to do if they're actually acting in character, and those that expose themselves to unnecessary risk wouldn't last very long. For that matter, many times I've tried to hold back (for example, pinning down the mooks with SoS spells while I let everyone else beat down the boss, or using lower level spells that are less severely disabling), I've actually been asked to quit doing that and take out the main boss to eliminate the risk. At which point I usually spend the rest of the battle as "I pull a bottle of wine and a glass out of my Pathfinder Pouch, pour myself a drink, and watch the show" :)
There is also a certain satisfaction to be had in executing the mission commando-style and just wiping the floor with the enemy - for example, had a game of Silver Mount Collection the other day that the party took a total of about 20hp damage between all of us and were in and out of the museum in about 15 minutes of in-world time because we did scry and fry the entire way through the place.
Meh, to each their own. For what it's worth, I'm super glad my area doesn't have many players that build characters like that.
|
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame. Most adventurers would not be of that "let them get first blood so that I can really experience the thrill of combat" sort of mentality - reduction in peril is precisely what they'd try to do if they're actually acting in character, and those that expose themselves to unnecessary risk wouldn't last very long. For that matter, many times I've tried to hold back (for example, pinning down the mooks with SoS spells while I let everyone else beat down the boss, or using lower level spells that are less severely disabling), I've actually been asked to quit doing that and take out the main boss to eliminate the risk. At which point I usually spend the rest of the battle as "I pull a bottle of wine and a glass out of my Pathfinder Pouch, pour myself a drink, and watch the show" :)
There is also a certain satisfaction to be had in executing the mission commando-style and just wiping the floor with the enemy - for example, had a game of Silver Mount Collection the other day that the party took a total of about 20hp damage between all of us and were in and out of the museum in about 15 minutes of in-world time because we did scry and fry the entire way through the place.
for some reason this post makes me sad.
|
|
for some reason this post makes me sad.I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame. Most adventurers would not be of that "let them get first blood so that I can really experience the thrill of combat" sort of mentality - reduction in peril is precisely what they'd try to do if they're actually acting in character, and those that expose themselves to unnecessary risk wouldn't last very long. For that matter, many times I've tried to hold back (for example, pinning down the mooks with SoS spells while I let everyone else beat down the boss, or using lower level spells that are less severely disabling), I've actually been asked to quit doing that and take out the main boss to eliminate the risk. At which point I usually spend the rest of the battle as "I pull a bottle of wine and a glass out of my Pathfinder Pouch, pour myself a drink, and watch the show" :)
There is also a certain satisfaction to be had in executing the mission commando-style and just wiping the floor with the enemy - for example, had a game of Silver Mount Collection the other day that the party took a total of about 20hp damage between all of us and were in and out of the museum in about 15 minutes of in-world time because we did scry and fry the entire way through the place.
[Hulk Hogan]Me too brother, me too...[/Hulk Hogan]
|
Most adventurers would not be of that "let them get first blood so that I can really experience the thrill of combat" sort of mentality
Save for stereotypical Rangers (thrill of the hunt!), archetypical mercenary-fighter types (carnival of carnage!), worshippers of Gorum (battle for the sake of battle!), Iomedae (my sword is my honor), Zon-Kuthon (pain is life!), Rovagug (all shall be destroyed) etc.
The commando-style approach fits for some characters, but not all.
|
|
Hi, I'm Juniper. I have a +3 Initiative right now. Sometime before 12th-level it might get as high as +10. I have the draconic bloodline, and Improved Initiative is more useful to me than Power Attack and Great Fortitude, so it will be the second bloodline feat that I take (the first was Blind-Fight). I've also been looking at one of those fancy ioun stones.
It will be nice when my Initiative is higher. I don't need to act before the other PCs in my party, but it would be nice to act before our enemies. Right now I can grant all of my allies a +4 luck bonus to their AC, so if I can go before the bad guys go, there is a good chance that none of my friends will get hurt. By the time I get Improved Initiative, that bonus to AC will be +6, and later as high as +7.
If I was in nosig's group and could act before the bad guy, his witch might not have died.
|
|
Hi, I'm Juniper. I have a +3 Initiative right now. Sometime before 12th-level it might get as high as +10. I have the draconic bloodline, and Improved Initiative is more useful to me than Power Attack and Great Fortitude, so it will be the second bloodline feat that I take (the first was Blind-Fight). I've also been looking at one of those fancy ioun stones.
It will be nice when my Initiative is higher. I don't need to act before the other PCs in my party, but it would be nice to act before our enemies. Right now I can grant all of my allies a +4 luck bonus to their AC, so if I can go before the bad guys go, there is a good chance that none of my friends will get hurt. By the time I get Improved Initiative, that bonus to AC will be +6, and later as high as +7.
If I was in nosig's group and could act before the bad guy, his witch might not have died.
She actually didn't. Maybe should have, but didn't.
|
|
Meh, to each their own. For what it's worth, I'm super glad my area doesn't have many players that build characters like that.
The commando raid was actually at a con and was mostly a matter of "this is known as a deadly scenario and the group that ran it last night got their butts kicked and had to flee the final boss, so we're all going in full bore today by common consent". But in general, I'm quite happy to play around people that want to actually explore the story and characters and try odd tactics and different approaches to the situation (be that sneaky invisibility sphere raids, talking through the situation, disabling the enemy party without killing them, or any other approach that isn't just applied reduction of HP) rather than spending 4 hours moving minis around on a map doing "GROG SMASH!"
I mean, I should make it clear that I try not to just go around running the show even if in many games between skills and spells I could - my general attitude on optimization is to create a powerful character but then hold back unless the excrement hits the rotary air motivation device and make sure everyone has the chance to shine. But sometimes you encounter extremely dangerous scenarios, and it's nice to be able to deal with them expeditiously.
|
|
Meh, to each their own. For what it's worth, I'm super glad my area doesn't have many players that build characters like that.The commando raid was actually at a con. But in general, I'm quite happy to play around people that want to actually explore the story and characters and try odd tactics and different approaches to the situation (be that sneaky invisibility sphere raids, talking through the situation, disabling the enemy party without killing them, or any other approach that isn't just applied reduction of HP) rather than spending 4 hours moving minis around on a map doing "GROG SMASH!"
Here's the deal, I never said anything about four hour combats, so stop twisting words. Just because I don't want an encounter to end on the first person's turn of the first round of combat doesn't mean I want endless combat. I enjoy RP, and I enjoy diplomaczing my way out of combats (Library of the Lion is one of my favorite scenarios and if done well, has zero combat!) but what you were describing earlier wasn't anything close to an odd tactic (scry and fry). For what it's worth, my characters tend to default to taking living humanoids alive, but I don't think you actually care.
I find it quite amusing that you say this isn't a tactics game, then laud some of the most highly optimized tactics imaginable (SoS abilities, scry and fry). So, whatever. Play the game as you want to play it, I'll play the game as I see it. If your way works in your area and everyone has fun, that's all good. Just don't scream BADWRONGFUN just because people do it differently. Have a good night everyone, I'm done here.
|
|
Just don't scream BADWRONGFUN just because people do it differently.
Sorry if I seem to be getting a bit defensive, it's just that this is exactly what you seemed to be saying to me - that having the ability to end fights quickly when necessary is BADWRONGFUN.
Really, if I had to guess, our play styles are likely more compatible than this argument would make it sound (I also love Library of the Lion and made it through almost entirely without combat). The combination of snarkiness and the difficulty of communicating the subtlety of play styles on the internet is combining to make this come off all wrong.
|
|
Just don't scream BADWRONGFUN just because people do it differently.Sorry if I seem to be getting a bit defensive, it's just that this is exactly what you seemed to be saying to me - that having the ability to end fights quickly when necessary is BADWRONGFUN.
Really, if I had to guess, our play styles are likely more compatible than this argument would make it sound (I also love Library of the Lion and made it through almost entirely without combat). The combination of snarkiness and the difficulty of communicating the subtlety of play styles on the internet is combining to make this come off all wrong.
I guess I'm going to make a liar of myself, cause I'm back. I have no problem with taking something down in the first round, I just generally try not too because I want other players to have their chance in the spotlight.
I think we just managed to read each other's posts the wrong way, mixed signals and all that. We just managed to convince ourselves we were on different sides, my apologies for the snarkiness on my end, and no hard feelings.
|
|
I guess I'm going to make a liar of myself, cause I'm back. I have no problem with taking something down in the first round, I just generally try not too because I want other players to have their chance in the spotlight.
I said it in an edit to a post I made above, but I think you read the original before the edit - I generally like to make an optimized character, then hold back unless the situation calls for it. It's actually playing against character personality, but I want everyone at the table to have fun :) The exceptions have been by agreement of the party - for example, a couple of groups that wanted to do things as safely as possible and actually asked me to always disable the biggest bad possible in each fight after they noticed me disabling mooks so that they could have their fun dealing with the main threat, or the party wanting to take a particular enemy unharmed and asking me to pin them down until the mooks are dealt with. That's the context in which I was talking about being able to use the high initiative to head things off before - it's not an option to always use, but if you don't set yourself up so that the option is available, you'll never be able to use it.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame.
Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder's progenitor (in fact, the progenitor of all RPGs), was created by a group of tactical wargamers (Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and several others). It's core mechanics were derived from a tactical miniatures game called Chainmail. And the company they formed to publish the game was called the Tactical Studies Rules, Inc. Even in the current version of the game you are playing, most of the rules are dedicated to combat, not role-playing. So to claim it isn't a tactical wargame is simply not true, especially when the only evidence used to deny this is the name of the genre the game belongs to.
Don't get me wrong. I happen to think role-playing is an important aspect of the game (one I personally happen to enjoy) and have no problem with people who like to focus heavily on that aspect. But since I have, unfortunately, seen this false claim made far too many times by elitist role-players trying to further their own personal agenda, I feel obliged to correct any misunderstanding of the game such comments may have engendered.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This game is also a tactical wargame. All those combat feats and spells exist for a reason. Pathfinder has the potential for extremely varied and interesting combat. I really like it when a scenarios has fights in it with weird stuff happening that I haven't seen before.
I also enjoy nonviolent scenarios like Library of the Lion. It's fun to try to do those "perfect", although sometimes it's more fun to slip up a bit and have to come up with a plan B on the fly.
My point is: if a scenario has interesting combats built-in, why would I want to skip them? Not every scenario has particularly interesting RP scenes. I'd rather have a drawn-out interesting combat scene and gloss over a cookie-cutter RP scene.
Sadly, we as players have been trained to quickly suppress the enemy's options because sometimes that's the only thing that keeps you alive. But if we suppress enemies too much, they never get an opportunity to showcase what funny stuff makes this adventure unique.
Lately I find myself thinking how I can make my characters more able to take punishment (giving the GM the chance to showcase his cool boss, and for me to admire it) rather than winning as fast as possible. I still want to win the fight of course, so a really strong defense is imperative.
Getting a good initiative will still be helpful though, mainly because being flat-footed is annoying.
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame. Most adventurers would not be of that "let them get first blood so that I can really experience the thrill of combat" sort of mentality - reduction in peril is precisely what they'd try to do if they're actually acting in character, and those that expose themselves to unnecessary risk wouldn't last very long. For that matter, many times I've tried to hold back (for example, pinning down the mooks with SoS spells while I let everyone else beat down the boss, or using lower level spells that are less severely disabling), I've actually been asked to quit doing that and take out the main boss to eliminate the risk. At which point I usually spend the rest of the battle as "I pull a bottle of wine and a glass out of my Pathfinder Pouch, pour myself a drink, and watch the show" :)
There is also a certain satisfaction to be had in executing the mission commando-style and just wiping the floor with the enemy - for example, had a game of Silver Mount Collection the other day that the party took a total of about 20hp damage between all of us and were in and out of the museum in about 15 minutes of in-world time because we did scry and fry the entire way through the place.
I agree that it is a social game, but my character also wants to live, and I want him/her to live. I would want you to make the fight easy for me also.
Now if the GM is the type to pull punches and hold back then you holding back is less dangerous, but if the GM does not hold back then turn the dial up to 11 if you have too.PS: I understand this is not everyone's preference, and I do applaud Tiger Lily for holding back in case someone actually wants to do something in combat.
|
|
More or less depressing then the ones implying that having a high initiative score is badwrongfun?I would love to have groups and GM's that allow going into RP in detail. I find like you said early thatWell that's depressing.somemost Judges hand-wave RP encounters.
More "grrr, I hate your mechanical gimmick" is borderline expected response and very rarely amounts to more than the grrr. entirely skipping role play pretty much drains the entire soul out of the game.
|
|
More "grrr, I hate your mechanical gimmick" is borderline expected response and very rarely amounts to more than the grrr. entirely skipping role play pretty much drains the entire soul out of the game.
Yeah, the whole "not a tactical wargame" line was very much about those sorts; not *just* a tactical wargame is a much better way to phrase it - combat is only one aspect, and even in combat, you're playing a character, with their own motivations and objectives. Too many people seem to boil the entire thing down to the combat phases, with RP being the filler that's keeping your from getting to more combat. I'm fortunate to not run into that too often with the local players, which is part of what makes a more social character fun :)
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I would love to have groups and GM's that allow going into RP in detail. I find like you said early that
somemost Judges hand-wave RP encounters.I guess they think it is time constraints. We do run over in some sessions, and one of our venues kicks us out.
If it is and encounter - something with tangible effects attached - you should absolutely not hand have it, of course if the group is regularly brushing against their time limit, it is quite understandable when a GM is trying to speed things up.
Ideally I like to give players time to describe their characters in detail, so set up RP opportunities, but it doesn't always work out.You should consider, that your GM is doing this for you, after all, the players are the ones who suffer when they have to quit a scenario ahead of time, and thus miss the chance to get full rewards.
|
|
I've actually been asked to quit doing that and take out the main boss to eliminate the risk. At which point I usually spend the rest of the battle as "I pull a bottle of wine and a glass out of my Pathfinder Pouch, pour myself a drink, and watch the show" :)
Is that after you disable the BBEG you start doing that? Or do you do that in response to being asked to be more efficient?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame.Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder's progenitor (in fact, the progenitor of all RPGs), was created by a group of tactical wargamers (Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and several others). It's core mechanics were derived from a tactical miniatures game called Chainmail. And the company they formed to publish the game was called the Tactical Studies Rules, Inc. Even in the current version of the game you are playing, most of the rules are dedicated to combat, not role-playing. So to claim it isn't a tactical wargame is simply not true, especially when the only evidence used to deny this is the name of the genre the game belongs to.
Don't get me wrong. I happen to think role-playing is an important aspect of the game (one I personally happen to enjoy) and have no problem with people who like to focus heavily on that aspect. But since I have, unfortunately, seen this false claim made far too many times by elitist role-players trying to further their own personal agenda, I feel obliged to correct any misunderstanding of the game such comments may have engendered.
It's not so much a false claim as not being in step with your opinion.
Look at how LARPs work: are the bulk of the rules being about combat because the game is mostly about combat, or because those rules are necessary to resolve what occurs in the game outside of the give and take of roleplaying?
In the specific case of Pathfinder, you might look at the CRB and decide combat is what the game is about. The critique of this view is that it's akin to looking at a 4 legged, 1 mouthed dog and come to the conclusion that running is 4 times as important as eating. Maybe it is, but if so that's not exactly a great way to defend the view.
My own opinion is that the pathfinder CRB (and the D&D equivalents before it) focus mostly on combat because the game can allow roleplaying issues to be resolved primarily through the GM's/Players' application of common sense. Roleplaying is like a game of Cops and Robbers. When it comes down to who actually shot who first or who hit and who missed, or whether or not one's "bullet proof vest" actually saved you, more regimented rules become necessary.
|
|
Is that after you disable the BBEG you start doing that? Or do you do that in response to being asked to be more efficient?
After the threat has been eliminated :) I view my primary responsibility in battle as keeping my party alive by preventing damage from being done in the first place, and as a crossblooded sorcerer I don't really have the spells known to do much else yet (although I'm working on adding buffs now to get a bit of variety), so once the enemies are rendered inert, there's not much else I can do aside from taking pot shots with a crossbow and hoping for a 20.
Edit- Cancel that, it should say mounted chargers are the only martials that really benefit from high initiative, since cavaliers are by no means the only class capable of charging from atop a mount.
I think high initiative helps anyone that wants to go first for whatever reason, martial character or not. My flowing monk loves to toss up a Shield or Mage Armor and run up in the middle of the baddies. My alchemist like to bomb them while they're in a nice group. My sound-striker likes to fling words at them while they're flat-footed. And so forth.
Deighton Thrane... is that Creighton Shane's evil twin?
|
|
I think the disparity in opinions expressed in the thread is rooted in different views on a basic principle:
If some thing is possible, does that make it ok?
It's an ethical dilemma that is very serious in the real world, but in PFS the stakes are less profound. Some players view the relatively laissez-faire approach PFS has with the rules as a golden opportunity to indulge in the greatest extent of munchkinishm/system mastery they can manage.
Their version of fun isn't any more or less valid than the players who like to be challenged by PFS encounters. But the problem is, these two divergent playstyles don't mix well.
The player who wants to ROFLSTOMP should be cognizant of the preferences of the rest of the group. If most of the group wants a challenge, then the player with a ROFLSTOMP PC should either tone it down during the game or select a not-twinked PC to play. The problem for the "wants to be challenged crowd" is that the "system master crowd" tends to so often fail to exercise self-restraint.
|
|
I think the disparity in opinions expressed in the thread is rooted in different views on a basic principle:
If some thing is possible, does that make it ok?
It's an ethical dilemma that is very serious in the real world, but in PFS the stakes are less profound. Some players view the relatively laissez-faire approach PFS has with the rules as a golden opportunity to indulge in the greatest extent of munchkinishm/system mastery they can manage.
Their version of fun isn't any more or less valid than the players who like to be challenged by PFS encounters. But the problem is, these two divergent playstyles don't mix well.
The player who wants to ROFLSTOMP should be cognizant of the preferences of the rest of the group. If most of the group wants a challenge, then the player with a ROFLSTOMP PC should either tone it down during the game or select a not-twinked PC to play. The problem for the "wants to be challenged crowd" is that the "system master crowd" tends to so often fail to exercise self-restraint.
Are you still talking about having a high initiative?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I would rather combats not just become a game of "Who can one shot the BBEG first." I actually enjoy a bit of peril in my PFS, it actually makes completing a scenario feel like an achievement. You are correct, this is a social game, and I don't think someone racing to one-shot every encounter makes for a very sociable game.This is an RPG, not a tactical wargame.Dungeons & Dragons, Pathfinder's progenitor (in fact, the progenitor of all RPGs), was created by a group of tactical wargamers (Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and several others). It's core mechanics were derived from a tactical miniatures game called Chainmail. And the company they formed to publish the game was called the Tactical Studies Rules, Inc. Even in the current version of the game you are playing, most of the rules are dedicated to combat, not role-playing. So to claim it isn't a tactical wargame is simply not true, especially when the only evidence used to deny this is the name of the genre the game belongs to.
Don't get me wrong. I happen to think role-playing is an important aspect of the game (one I personally happen to enjoy) and have no problem with people who like to focus heavily on that aspect. But since I have, unfortunately, seen this false claim made far too many times by elitist role-players trying to further their own personal agenda, I feel obliged to correct any misunderstanding of the game such comments may have engendered.
It's not so much a false claim as not being in step with your opinion.
Go to any given PFS game in any given region and odds are you will see people moving miniatures around on a map engaged in tactical wargaming. So claiming this is simply my opinion is a gross denial of the evidence.
Likewise, go to any given PFS game in any given region and odds are you will see people acting out character interactions and role-playing their characters. So for me to claim that Pathfinder is a, "Tactical Wargame, not a Role-playing Game," would be equally false.Tiger Lily rephrased her statement from "It's a Role-Playing Game, not a tactical wargame," to "It's a Role-Playing Game, not just a tactical wargame," and in so doing, changed a false claim to one of genuine varsity. Pathfinder isn't just a tactical wargame. It isn't just a role-playing game. It isn't just a puzzle solving game. It isn't just a social game. It is all of those things and more and that is what makes the game so great. Any attempt to boil the game down to only one component is doing the game a great disservice.
I have been playing D&D since it first came out in the 70s. Back then it was all about going into the dungeon, killing the monsters, taking their stuff, rescuing the princes, leveling up and repeating the process. There is a reason why many CRPGs follow that formula. But if the game had never evolved from that, I probably would have stopped playing years ago. In the 90s, when 2E was at it's height, there was a growing focus on the RP aspects of it. So when 3E came out, a version much more focused on Crunch, there was a backlash from the heavy RPers who waged a campaign of elitist bullying with catch phrases like "It's a Role-Playing game, not a Roll-Playing game!" and false claims like, "Role-playing is what the game was originally about."
Since I did not want to see D&D reduced to simply being 'just' a role-playing game, I fought against this campaign. And I do the same when I see elitist power gamers trying to turn the game into 'just' a tactical wargame. So when I see phrases like, "It's a Role-Playing game, not a tactical wargame," it frequently is a sign of someone trying to push an agenda in a disingenuous manner. Judging from Tiger Lily's additional comments, she understands it is a tactical wargame as well as a role-playing game. But there may be others reading this that don't.
Look at how LARPs work: are the bulk of the rules being about combat because the game is mostly about combat, or because those rules are necessary to resolve what occurs in the game outside of the give and take of roleplaying?
In the specific case of Pathfinder, you might look at the CRB and decide combat is what the game is about. The critique of this view is that it's akin to looking at a 4 legged, 1...
I agree there is more need in the rules for crunch than fluff so it is difficult to judge the actual import of both based solely on the amount of content. However, that was not my only evidence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are "combat" and "RP" mutually exclusive for so many people?
I'm told "you never really know someone until you've shared a foxhole." Why are we all insisting that any character development has to occur outside of initiative?
The way you act when threatened is reliant on your character every bit as much as the way you act when discussing business opportunities with Natalie Merchant or going out clubbing with Marty McFly.
|
I have a +24 init modifier magus lv 18, I have uncanny dodge through shadowdancer. I get to add int to damage through kensai, going first (better yet - going first in the surprise round followed by first in the following round) has been very good to me.
My cleric of Asmodeus is +8, being able to move (in/out) of danger as the party needs tends to save lives.
I rarely drop init, its a form of offense and defense. But there are times when you have no choice.
|
|
Why are "combat" and "RP" mutually exclusive for so many people?
In my experience, this is a mind set situation. When there is no 'threat' people have the opportunity to focus on whatever aspect of the game they want to, be it role-playing, puzzle solving, story telling or what have you. But once combat starts, and there is a threat that can remove your character from play, then people switch their mind set to winning, or at least surviving, the battle and other aspects of the game take a back seat. This is, of course, a generalization and there are people out there who will do things they know will increase the chance of having their character removed from play simply for the sake of role-playing. Though, in some cases, they may also be seeking a greater challenge.
