*Points to himself*
Self-professed Fanboy. I think you got the definition a bit wrong though. :D
I'm not saying they can't do any wrong, but I switched from 3.5 after playing 3.0, 2.0 and earlier...
I don't think I would ever go back, despite having invested THOUSANDS of dollars in the other systems.
Sure, there are some flaws with Pathfinder, but less of them, and I like the base classes WAY more than that other system it's based off of...
There are so many good things about this game that I am willing to overlook what flaws it does have.
I even pay for books rather than just downloading PDFs.
I just wish Spirits Gift didn't get errata like it did. Sad Panda.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you ban a term for a thing that exists, people are just going to come up with a new one, because to speak properly you need to describe what you're talking about. Whether it's Fanboy, Paizo Defense Force, Hammer Legion Member (Valve's failed attempt at eradicating the use of the word fanboy with a word filter BTW), or anything else, it all means the same thing.
It's incredibly corrosive and divisive to call other posters "munchkins" or "rollplayers" for not agreeing with you as well, but I don't see you removing every post that uses those words as an insult, and they fly like rain in a thunderstorm from "Those Who Fit That Term We May Not Use" in these sorts of debates, and any others involving rules. I'd argue it's MORE divisive, since it's a commonly used way to attempt to shut down someone's argument without addressing it, and paints anyone who cares about the rules (the majority of the products your company puts out I might add) as an inferior sort of gamer. And don't tell me just "flag it and move on", since you and I both know that's as much of a full time job as flagging those spammers.
One-sided censorship just makes you look like a hypocrite, or like you're favoring one side when you're meant to be an impartial moderator.
I'm fully aware you're going to delete this, I just hope you read it first.
Rynjin, in our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force." If we missed posts that do this, let us know. We're human, and if we're not alerted to these posts via our flagging system, email, or our Website Feedback forum, we can't do anything about it. Accusing our team of censorship is uncalled for in this case, and if you have further issues, please take it to our community@paizo.com inbox, rather than debating our moderation policies in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough.
*Points to himself*
Self-professed Fanboy. I think you got the definition a bit wrong though. :DI'm not saying they can't do any wrong, but I switched from 3.5 after playing 3.0, 2.0 and earlier...
I don't think I would ever go back, despite having invested THOUSANDS of dollars in the other systems.
Sure, there are some flaws with Pathfinder, but less of them, and I like the base classes WAY more than that other system it's based off of...
There are so many good things about this game that I am willing to overlook what flaws it does have.
I even pay for books rather than just downloading PDFs.
I just wish Spirits Gift didn't get errata like it did. Sad Panda.
See, I don't think that makes you a fanboy. Just a fan, like most of us here. Fanboy has an inherent negative connotation to me.
None of us would be here if we couldn't overlook the game's flaws when actually playing. But there are flaws, which I think most people can see, even if they deny seeing it.
The caster/martial disparity problem seems to have the largest disconnect, with people falling into three camps:
1.) People that acknowledge the caster/martial disparity exists and don't like it.
2.) People who don't see this flaw...but nevertheless have a large number of houserules that address the flaw in one way or another (so recognizing it when it comes up, but not in theory? I REALLY don't understand this but there's a lot of people here).
3.) People who acknowledge it exists, but don't care.
That second camp is where most of the arguments seem to come from.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The part that I find puzzling -- and I recognize it may be that I am just an old man and out of touch, or perhaps I'm not quite all there -- is if you are adamant about disliking a game, a product, or a company why do you continue to use it?
A brief story: I played a lot of Shadowrun. A lot. An unhealthy amount, from the day the books hit the store until around a year, year and a half ago. I disliked a number of changes made between versions, especially after 3rd.
At no time did I go to the forums of whichever company decided to produce the game that week, nor any of the RPG forums and tell them that they are wrong, or that I was incredibly unhappy with their choices. I continued to play the game that I had purchased and quietly voted with my money and time against what they'd done, and finally -- and quietly -- left that game.
I like Pathfinder. I like, for the most part, the community that surrounds it. I am more than willing to believe that there are people that don't like it, or don't like it anymore, and still engage here in good faith for the community that Paizo provides, for friends they have made over the years, or perhaps to wait and see if things change.
But to just go somewhere to not like something and tell them daily how much you don't care for it -- that I don't get. I don't do that to the music groups I don't like or that have changed. I don't do that to TV shows I don't care for.
Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the Internet Age. I just think that I'd rather spend my free time doing the things I like and supporting the products I like rather than trying to discourage others from liking it or tearing it apart.
This isn't "If you don't like the game then go away!" This is "Maybe step back and consider that there are better ways to spend your time."
Play and have fun.
I would amend #3 to "People who acknowledge it exists, but either don't care or actually like it".
Rare, but real.
This is true. I know at least one poster (Morzadin, I believe is his name?) says he LOVES the fact that casters are the most powerful thing in the game, since to him in a game with magic it doesn't make sense for anything non-magical to even come close.
@Knightnday: Beyond the fact that it's a good place to kill time and discuss things, one of the major upsides to frequenting the forum of a company that is active in its community is that they will probably read your post. Meaning, if you have a complaint (and others have a complaint) that thing might be changed, and has been changed in the past.
Nobody ever likes EVERYTHING about anything they ever do or see, or everything a company they like does. That's just life. Not voicing your opinion unless it's positive just gives them the impression that everything is perfect and nothing needs to change (essentially, since you hold the opposite opinion about some things, not voicing that is like lying to them).
See, I don't think that makes you a fanboy. Just a fan, like most of us here. Fanboy has an inherent negative connotation to me.
None of us would be here if we couldn't overlook the game's flaws when actually playing. But there are flaws, which I think most people can see, even if they deny seeing it.
The caster/martial disparity problem seems to have the largest disconnect, with people falling into three camps:
1.) People that acknowledge the caster/martial disparity exists and don't like it.
2.) People who don't see this flaw...but nevertheless have a large number of houserules that address the flaw in one way or another (so recognizing it when it comes up, but not in theory? I REALLY don't understand this but there's a lot of people here).
3.) People who acknowledge it exists, but don't care.
That second camp is where most of the arguments seem to come from.
2b.) People who see the flaws, correct the flaws for their own game, acknowledge that there are flaws and don't bother getting upset about it and/or don't wait for the game company to fix/errata/FAQ it.
@Knightnday: Beyond the fact that it's a good place to kill time and discuss things, one of the major upsides to frequenting the forum of a company that is active in its community is that they will probably read your post. Meaning, if you have a complaint (and others have a complaint) that thing might be changed, and has been changed in the past.
Nobody ever likes EVERYTHING about anything they ever do or see, or everything a company they like does. That's just life. Not voicing your opinion unless it's positive just gives them the impression that everything is perfect and nothing needs to change (essentially, since you hold the opposite opinion about some things, not voicing that is like lying to them).
Nor do I ask or expect everyone to like everything they do or see. There are ways, however, to voice an opinion that comes across less negative than we see on the boards. You can sit and wait for a new hardback to come out and check off a list of the same people saying the same things.
After a while, the complaints become background noise because you know that Bob is ALWAYS going to say something negative, and George is ALWAYS going to say something positive. Doubly so when it is post after post of "This is bad!" "No it isn't!" "Is so!" "Is not!"
Rinse, repeat, Chris or Liz kill 46 posts and threads look like a nuclear wasteland, repeat.
Comments are great and I'm sure that the folks at Paizo learn something from many of them. But just speaking for myself, it's draining to see the same people fighting the same fight every week on the same topic.
That'd be covered under 1.) See it, don't like it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
rather than trying to discourage others from liking it
I'm curious what constitutes "discourage others from liking it" for you, because I don't think I've ever seen such a post. I've seen posts harshly discouraging others from disliking certain elements (recent-ish example: "Maybe the reason you have these issues is just because you don't treat your tablemates like actual friends, you forget that it's a team game, and you're not really there to have fun?"). But I can't think of an example of a post that really seemed like the poster wanted the reader to end up liking Pathfinder less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But to just go somewhere to not like something and tell them daily how much you don't care for it -- that I don't get. I don't do that to the music groups I don't like or that have changed. I don't do that to TV shows I don't care for.
Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the Internet Age. I just think that I'd rather spend my free time doing the things I like and supporting the products I like rather than trying to discourage others from liking it or tearing it apart.
This isn't "If you don't like the game then go away!" This is "Maybe step back and consider that there are better ways to spend your time."
Play and have fun.
This pretty much sums up exactly how I feel.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
The part that I find puzzling -- and I recognize it may be that I am just an old man and out of touch, or perhaps I'm not quite all there -- is if you are adamant about disliking a game, a product, or a company why do you continue to use it?
Because the idea that people who talk about the flaws in the system and how to address them don't like the game is false.
Rynjin doesn't get worked up because he hates the game, he gets worked up because he likes the game, is invested in it, and wants to see it be better than it is, a commonly held view.
I love Pathfinder. I've written many 3pp supplements, played with Mark Seifter and Linda Zayas-Palmer, worked with Will McCardell (you'll see his name in things like the Advanced Class Guide), and had drinks with Owen KC Stephens. Erik Mona and I have met and chatted on multiple occasions. So, I also love Paizo, and the people who work there.
All that being said, I run a weekly open table for Pathfinder and I think, because I have seen and experienced it happen numerous times even with new players, that martial/caster disparity both exists and creates problems all on its own. I don't think it's an issue that only exists on the forums, and I think the sheer volume of houserules and martial-oriented scenarios designed to mitigate that gap that even Pathfinder Society, the flagship program for spreading the game, uses, indicates that the problem is real and recognized on some level. There was a link in another active thread to Sean K. Reynolds, one of the primary design forces behind Pathfinder all the way up to the ACG, being interviewed by Louis Porter Jr. where SKR discusses the flaws behind the ideas that supposedly balance martials and casters.
Loving Pathfinder, and Paizo, doesn't change the fact that I see flaws in the system. One day, there will be a new edition of Pathfinder. This one is probably too far along to make any sweeping changes, but acknowledging the flaws now means that this awesome base can be used as a springboard to something even better, something that addresses the issues some people have without ruining the game that others are satisfied with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I'm a mix of #2 and #3?
"See it, not particularly bothered by it, house rule it when a problem actually occurs. I'd much rather tweak a problematic spell than ban it outright, and my group's mature enough to ask whoever's GMing 'hey, this might be screwy, what do you think of it?'"
@ Knightnday - I've seen a few posters mention that they don't care for Pathfinder, but they're still playing it because they can't get a game going for other systems. Pathfinder does get some edge from market dominance in this little niche.
Re: Criticism
Do remember that there's a difference between criticizing the Pathfinder game system and insulting the writers.
And a little too often, I see someone doing the latter and trying to pass it off as the former.
There's a fairly substantial difference in tone between
"Most of the psychic classes look incredibly unwieldy and overcomplicated, and I don't expect to ever use any of them in the future. Paizo should really be trying to make classes more streamlined. Having to read 20 pages to even figure out what the heck is going on is way too much."* and
and
"Whoever wrote _______ clearly doesn't understand their own game system, and shouldn't have their job."
* My current opinion of the Occult Adventures classes, and this is coming from someone who liked the ACG, despite its various typos and omissions =P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.
I bet my wife is glad that when she points out the mess I've left in the other room I don't respond with "Well if you don't like me anyway, wouldn't there be better ways to spend your time than here with me?"
Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.
I bet my wife is glad that when she points out the mess I've left in the other room I don't respond with "Well if you don't like me anyway, wouldn't there be better ways to spend your time than here with me?"
Does your wife repeat herself incessantly about the mess and talk about you, your parents, and in general run you down about it? If not, then it isn't a good comparison.
Zhangar touches on the difference in the conversations. If people are coming at it from love and respect for the game, as many may be, then great and wonderful. If it turns to insults because of frustration at not being answered or mot getting the answer that you desire, then that's where the problem lies. And we are getting a lot of that.
@Jiggy: When a point is repeated over and over and over again, I (and this could just be me) feel that you are trying to influence the conversation by repetition. I've seen similar styles of talking down a product when I've reviewed people unhappy with products on Facebook or Youtube. It isn't enough to say that you are unhappy; it turns into trying to preach to others why they shouldn't like them, like the product, or should believe like you do.
@Ssalarn: It may or may not be false. But let's say that in several instances it comes across very poorly and not at all like someone who cares about the product, the company, the people behind it or the people they are talking to. This is not directed at any one individual in particular.
Yeah, there are a few things like that scattered here and there that are LITERALLY the case.
Like there's a trait that gives "DR 1/- against lightning damage".
Um, yeah, thanks. THAT DOESN'T FUNCTION.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.
You're absolutely right, and it's quite distasteful.
|
You know, there's also a group who don't see a problem, nor house rule it.
We have players who build smart to minimise limitations in their classes. We also have players absolutely willing to spend their own resources to make the team more effective.
We also have lots of experience at high level play.
So, I belong to a group that sees no disparity at all, because our players are equally powerful in the narrative, in fact, the narrative itself often builds around the players at high level.
So I'm still seeing an issue that folk believe that what they see must be true, and everyone else is wrong or blind.
@ Jiggy - I think your example is a bit off.
This is more like, say, going to a store that started selling products you don't like to file a complaint - and doing it every single day for several months.
It's something that you're spending extra time and effort to do.
Though of course you have the right to do it.
@ Rynjin - that's hilarious, but it's also obvious what they meant. Hopefully the significantly expanded editing department will help with that in the future =P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.
|
|
Yeah, this whole paradigm of responding to complaints with "Since you obviously dislike it so much, why are you here talking about it?" is really weird and nonsensical, yet it keeps coming up.You're absolutely right, and it's quite distasteful.
Telling someone to bugger off is never pleasant. Nor is it constructive.
I sometimes do see posters stating a list of problems that other games systems have addressed though. For example, dnd 5th edition addresses much of what Rynjin sees as martial caster disparity by reducing the power of magic significantly.
If I advise people to check out that system as it may be more suited to what they want, that's fine.
Unfortunately, the message here is usually delivered as " go play x instead". That's fairly rude, isn't advice and dismisses any constructive feedback that may be garnered.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
***
@Ssalarn: It may or may not be false. But let's say that in several instances it comes across very poorly and not at all like someone who cares about the product, the company, the people behind it or the people they are talking to. This is not directed at any one individual in particular.
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but there was an index put together recently by a forum regular, Kobold Cleaver. One of the things this index revealed was that, more often than not, the combative and negative threads were actually started by individuals who took it upon themselves to come in and explain why everyone who believes in martial/caster disparity just isn't as good at the game as they are, or some similar stance. This is the truth, and it's provable. The majority of the instances you're saying are problematic, aren't being started by the people who want to see the game grow and improve, they're started by people who choose to express their disdain for those people.
I don't always agree with Rynjin (really, I don't necessarily always agree with anyone on the boards), but I definitely agree that people who want to call others munchkins, or rollplayers, or whatever other derogatory statement they want to use, are just as toxic and negative as the people who say "X designer or team hates martials". Frankly, the forums would be a better place if both of those groups could shut the hell up, but the start to a fix involves everyone putting on their big boy (or girl) pants, and acknowledging that there are two sides feeding into the issue, and they both need to grow up. People with criticisms need to learn to phrase them better. People without criticism need to stop accusing the other side of "playing the game wrong" or whatever other accusation they want to level and understand that it's possible for 1 person to have a legitimate problem that doesn't affect another.
If you don't have an issue with martial/caster disparity, then say so, and then shut the hell up if all you can do after that is level aspersions at other players.
If you've got a problem with the game, express it without accusing someone, particularly the designer, of deliberate malice. No one wastes hours/days/weeks/months/years of their life in a creative field planning and executing projects they don't care about, or deliberately sabotaging their own work.
If you find yourself inclined to start a new thread on martial/caster disparity, don't. There's already plenty of others out there you can go participate in, and regardless of which side you fall on, the only thing starting a new thread proves (especially if it's one to snidely comment on how people who believe differently then you aren't as smart as you are) is that you're an ass.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.
Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.
In fact I would go so far as to say that those who don't work co operatively are house ruling. Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.
A group of individuals does not a team make.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.
In fact I would go so far as to say that those who don't work co operatively are house ruling. Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.
A group of individuals does not a team make.
Yeah, Rynjin! Why don't you play cooperativelly with your friends? Why is it always a vicious free-for-all, head-to-head, mano-a-mano, tooth-n'-nail competition in your games???
/sarcasm
I didn't think I'd see another instance of this stupid and condescending argument so soon after DD used it...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have players who build smart to minimise limitations in their classes. We also have players absolutely willing to spend their own resources to make the team more effective.
We also have lots of experience at high level play.
I think a big issue here, one that you are touching upon, is the rather large amount of system mastery needed for such gentleman's agreements to work. You need to have an in-depth understanding of the system and it's pitfalls to make sure you aren't going to outshine people as a full caster. Inversely, you need lots of system mastery to try to not be outshone as a martial. If everyone is running around with not particularly optimized melee dudes and you decide to try a Sorcerer because it sounds awesome, you may just end up being that guy just by picking cool sounding spells. New players don't have that system mastery. They only have the rules in front of them.
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.
In fact I would go so far as to say that those who don't work co operatively are house ruling. Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.
A group of individuals does not a team make.
Yeah, Rynjin! Why don't you play cooperativelly with your friends? Why is it always a vicious free-for-all, head-to-head, mano-a-mano, tooth-n'-nail competition in your games???
/sarcasm
I didn't think I'd see another instance of this stupid and condescending argument so soon after DD used it...
It's almost like a parody, considering that's the exact type of response Ssalarn was talking about just one post previous.
@RDM42: I think autocorrect accidentally your post.
Run join. It not use that argument but I have indeed seen it used - to whit, that all of a characters resources are solely their own and should only be used for their own purposes. From crafting to other abilities. It's not Rynjin's, perhaps but it's not a nonexistent or insignificantly argued point of view.
I've only ever seen that stance in discussions about how classes compare; it's needed there as you can't discuss classes on their own merits if you assume another class is going to always be there to shore up another weaknesses. As for in actual play... Nope.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meaning you have a social contract that the stronger characters will help the weak one, falling under 2 again.Meaning we play as the game was intended, and designed for.
In fact I would go so far as to say that those who don't work co operatively are house ruling. Perhaps the disparity you see is from this house rule of non co operation.
A group of individuals does not a team make.
I think we're bordering on a serious derail here (and by bordering I mean it happened about 2 pages ago), but I do have an opinion on this.
Teamwork and true cooperative play are when 2 or more individuals come together to be more than the sum of their parts. In teamwork, 1+1=3.
When a wizard spends an action he could be using to debuff, destroy, or dismiss an enemy to instead pick up a fighter and set him next to an enemy the fighter couldn't otherwise reach, you have charity. 1+1=1.5, at best.
When I field a team, I want the Seattle Seahawks on both offense and defense, professionals who belong on the field locking their respective roles. What I don't want, is the Hawks on defense but a team of peewee league 8-year olds who aren't even sure what game they're playing having to be my offense. I want equal components that come together to be better than they are separately, not an imbalanced system where some of the components are responsible for covering the failures of the others. I can play a wizard, a druid, a cleric, a paladin, or a barbarian from 1-20. My character will evolve with the game, gaining new tools that allow him to adapt to the game's expanded scope. There are some classes I can't say that about, at least not without accounting for expansive use of splat book and 3pp products.
In addition to the football metaphor, there's another one I use. Starting out, Pathfinder is kind of like Lord of the Rings; Gimli the dwarf is the most badass axe-swinger around, and the wizards still need to ride horses and only cast one or two spells a day. By 11th level, the game is Naruto Shippuden. You've got casters who run around summoning giant beasts of war, transforming into unstoppable power-houses, hurling blasts of destructive energy, and capable of completely reshaping the environment to their whims to gain advantage in a fight. The problem is, the fighter is still Gimli the dwarf. He doesn't belong in this world anymore, and the thing that is inconsistent is trying to shoehorn him in by making it the responsibility of the people who do fit this world to carve a place for him.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my stance is condescending and stupid.....
But when I'm told playing by design intent makes a problem non existent is called a "house rule or gentle mans agreement"', that is not condescending or rude.
Interesting.
How is saying you're using a social contract to iron out the inherent game system problems at all condescending?
That's a COMPLIMENT. That means both you and all of your players:
1.) Have a working mastery of the system.
2.) Work together to reduce any potential problems that might come up.
3.) Have a GM who accommodates his players and doesn't let caters run rampant just because the RAW says they should be able to.
And generally just work like a good gaming group should.
The problem here is, of course, that the RAW does actually say they can...multiple times, in multiple ways. Which is a problem for:
1.) New players.
2.) Players who can't or won't rein in the power of their characters in order to not break the game over their knee.
3.) New GMs (hits the hardest here, since it's hard to curb caster rampancy without looking like a tyrant).
4.) "Casual" players who don't really delve into the books (but play with people who do).
|
|
I think a big issue here, one that you are touching upon, is the rather large amount of system mastery needed for such gentleman's agreements to work. You need to have an in-depth understanding of the system and it's pitfalls to make sure you aren't going to outshine people as a full caster. Inversely, you need lots of system mastery to try to not be outshone as a martial. If everyone is running around with not particularly optimized melee dudes and you decide to try a Sorcerer because it sounds awesome, you may just end up being that guy just by picking cool sounding spells. New players don't have that system mastery. They only have the rules in front of them.We have players who build smart to minimise limitations in their classes. We also have players absolutely willing to spend their own resources to make the team more effective.
We also have lots of experience at high level play.
Maybe, but I see non experienced players building not very effective anything really.
High level play, where some of these things apparently turn up, takes lots of experience. It is not an area I'd recommend someone playing who isn't familiar with the rules.
Maybe, but I see non experienced players building not very effective anything really.
True, but in a low optimization game a caster looking over his spell list and thinking: "Oh wow, Black Tentacles sounds awesome!" is going to be much more devastating to idea of everyone in the party being equal than the Fighter deciding that he should invest in every Improved -Insert Combat Maneuver- feat. Casters can just stumble into greatness without trying, while martials must work at it, usually with pre-planned and exhaustively researched feat selections (I know that's what I do).
|
|
Sslarn, the most powerful spell the casters in our group can prepare is haste.
Quite often, it's the only spell they need to cast as the others just clean up. Note that all the Martials in our groups have acquired items that let them fly when needed, so,reaching targets is rarely an issue.
Aiding the team in this way is more efficient than summoning or trying and failing an SoD spell.
So what we see is 1+1 = 5 in effect.
Get rid of number 3 and you have my group.
Myself and our other DM do not accommodate players. We run encounters as presented in APs and reactive to player actions. Number 3 is where the condescension kicks in.
If you run encounters as written in APs, but don't reign in some spells, you wind up with an issue with skilled caster players.
Off the top of my head, when we were playing Runelords, there's a bit that's meant to be like a siege, with an enemy army attacking sandpoint that'll arrive in 3 days or yadda yadda.
We scryed, teleported to within a mile of their location once they'd gone to sleep, and then murdered most of the giants and the dragon leading them that evening.
Not allowing that (by, say, having the dragon cast Mind Blank or some such, which he's potentially capable of doing) is part of where reigning in caster power comes from.
If your GM doesn't do any such thing, then it's because 1 and 2 are already adequately covering the problem. You're self-reducing your options.
Buffing is a whole 'nother can of worms.
The "problem" with buffing is that it's STILL options the martial character simply cannot provide himself. That's a disparity.
However, it's a more benign manifestation, since it doesn't leave the caster as having outshone the martial character, merely augmented him to (in the case of Haste) double his damage output.
|
If you run encounters as written in APs, but don't reign in some spells, you wind up with an issue with skilled caster players.
Off the top of my head, when we were playing Runelords, there's a bit that's meant to be like a siege, with an enemy army attacking sandpoint that'll arrive in 3 days or yadda yadda.
We scryed, teleported to within a mile of their location once they'd gone to sleep, and then murdered most of the giants and the dragon leading them that evening.
What's the issue?
Actual play will usually to almost always include multiple characters of different classes, and rarely will be arena style one on one fights.Run join. It not use that argument but I have indeed seen it used - to whit, that all of a characters resources are solely their own and should only be used for their own purposes. From crafting to other abilities. It's not Rynjin's, perhaps but it's not a nonexistent or insignificantly argued point of view.I've only ever seen that stance in discussions about how classes compare; it's needed there as you can't discuss classes on their own merits if you assume another class is going to always be there to shore up another weaknesses. As for in actual play... Nope.
No one mentioned "arena style one on one fights." Looking at what a class can bring on its own and comparing it to other classes doesn't irrevocably lead to the idea that teamwork is dead. Instead, it lets you figure out what you can bring that can better compliment a team. There is also the fact that though in actual play you are part of a party, you can't assume that someone is always going to be there to cover all the bases for you that you yourself can't take care of. Maybe they want to be able to do things on their turn that don't involve you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the issue?If you run encounters as written in APs, but don't reign in some spells, you wind up with an issue with skilled caster players.
Off the top of my head, when we were playing Runelords, there's a bit that's meant to be like a siege, with an enemy army attacking sandpoint that'll arrive in 3 days or yadda yadda.
We scryed, teleported to within a mile of their location once they'd gone to sleep, and then murdered most of the giants and the dragon leading them that evening.
The part where a scene intended to be tense, exciting, with the lives of the townspeople under your protection at stake as you scramble to fortify and protect a city became a 10 minute gangbang of an army of half-asleep giants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one mentioned "arena style one on one fights." Looking at what a class can bring on its own and comparing it to other classes doesn't irrevocably lead to the idea that teamwork is dead. Instead, it lets you figure out what you can bring that can better compliment a team. There is also the fact that though in actual play you are part of a party, you can't assume that someone is always going to be there to cover all the bases for you that you yourself can't take care of. Maybe they want to be able to do things on their turn that don't involve you.Actual play will usually to almost always include multiple characters of different classes, and rarely will be arena style one on one fights.Run join. It not use that argument but I have indeed seen it used - to whit, that all of a characters resources are solely their own and should only be used for their own purposes. From crafting to other abilities. It's not Rynjin's, perhaps but it's not a nonexistent or insignificantly argued point of view.I've only ever seen that stance in discussions about how classes compare; it's needed there as you can't discuss classes on their own merits if you assume another class is going to always be there to shore up another weaknesses. As for in actual play... Nope.
For example you might want a Druid instead of a Fighter, because it brings two bodies that can benefit from haste! And when you need a high perception or sense motive it can totally ace that for you. Oh and it can heal you. And buff you. And use battlefield control to support yours. Huh. It seems like there's more synergy there for some reason. If only we had some way to compare just the class rather then it's amazing synergies with the Wizard...
@ Rynjin - Wait, you scryed them and the giant ranger and the dragon didn't notice?
It's only a DC 24 perception check to spot the sensor. And I think scrying sensors pick up on blindsense. Need to think on that.
Your GM might've goofed.
(When my PCs scryed that giant, the giant and dragon sure as hell noticed, the dragon passed its check to recognize the scrying sensor for what it was, and they proceeded accordingly.)