Unlike a lot of others I dont like PrC like Evangelist that allow complete class progression (granted there is a 1 level sacrifice involved)..... for me there should be a real sacrifice involved going PrC.
A gain in power and/or versatility in an aspect of your class for sacrifice/loss in other aspects of your class.
If you have a base class that already gets loads of class abilities as you level up then you absolutely should not be able to gain a load more on top for the sake of a feat and some skill ranks!!!
Thats why I quite like how Paizo currently design most of the PrC. If you're a witch, sorceror, shaman... etc then you should have your access to more abilities restricted unless you are prepared to give up a lot in return.
Deific/Demonic/Empyreal Obedience is potentially onerous enough to discourage what would otherwise be a no-brainer prestige class choice. Of course, this is highly GM-dependent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder game is more than just PFS!
I'm new to Pathfinder, but I'd have to say that as long as the options aren't breaking the game (overpowered), more options can't be a bad thing.
The Pathfinder game is more than just PFS!
PFS pays the bills though. It's totally possible (and potentially not even inconvenient) to run a game solely from the various SRDs. The fine folks at Paizo want to get paid though, so there's definitely an (entirely justified) emphasis on the format where you have to own the books.
I'm new to Pathfinder, but I'd have to say that as long as the options aren't breaking the game (overpowered), more options can't be a bad thing.
I think from a design perspective, you want to avoid offering people options that they will later regret. If a player has the choice between two things, and one is amazing and the other is terrible then it's either really not a choice or it's something that people will later regret the "wrong" choice later on. So if you have a prestige class that's like "Amazing Archer" and if a player taking it ends up as no better than the fifth best option for archery (and inferior to just sticking with the previous class), then a few things have gone wrong here.
So options are good, but bad options maybe aren't.
I think from a design perspective, you want to avoid offering people options that they will later regret. If a player has the choice between two things, and one is amazing and the other is terrible then it's either really not a choice or it's something that people will later regret the "wrong" choice later on. So if you have a prestige class that's like "Amazing Archer" and if a player taking it ends up as no better than the fifth best option for archery (and inferior to just sticking with the previous class), then a few things have gone wrong here.
So options are good, but bad options maybe aren't.
Fair point. I just feel that one person's bad choice can be a good choice for another. I've known RPers that always min/max for combat on their characters. While I have done that a time or two, I tended to look for interesting ways to play character builds using some lesser used spells/feats/etc. (Back when I played D&D)
But yeah, if a prestige class is simply useless in all aspects, I can definitely see how it could be bad for the game as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this already, but I think the choice to phase out PrCs is more fundamental than even a mechanics issue; it clashes with the premise of the organized play campaign setting. Almost all PrCs are shaped around the idea that characters are being inducted into some sort of organization; be it clandestine, knightly, or other. This clashes with the basic premise that pathfinders are part of the pathfinder society, and that's where their highest loyalties lie.
Fundamentally I think PrCs can be a good way to add flavor to a setting or campaign world, but unless players are interested in joining a specific organization the PrCs are basically extended NPC classes.
I disagree. In fact, I disagree on almost every point. I think that prestige classes are amazing in many ways, and the fact that you have to earn your way into it just makes them feel worth it.
Also, I am not a fan of pathfinder society. In fact, the more I see it brought up when discussing rules, the more I start to Hate it. I'd be more willing to believe in its necessity if I saw third party publishers doing the same thing or even being included in PFS.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder game is more than just PFS!PFS pays the bills though.
Actually, adventure paths pay the bills. Have been since before day 1. It's what allows Paizo to structure their sales and development like they have instead of relying almost entirely on splatbooks (which was part of the downfall of 3.5 and 4th).
I'm surprised no one's mentioned this already, but I think the choice to phase out PrCs is more fundamental than even a mechanics issue; it clashes with the premise of the organized play campaign setting. Almost all PrCs are shaped around the idea that characters are being inducted into some sort of organization; be it clandestine, knightly, or other. This clashes with the basic premise that pathfinders are part of the pathfinder society, and that's where their highest loyalties lie.
{. . .}
I see 2 errors in the above:
1. The Pathfinder Society actually has some prestige classes associated with it (all of those with "Pathfinder" in their names, plus Student of War), and one of them is even in the Core Rulebook. So does the Aspis Consortium, to a lesser extent.
2. For better or worse (probably worse in many cases), some of the prestige classes (especially those in the Core Rulebook) DON'T have an association with an organization or religion or other philosophy.
I haven't read most of the posts, so apologies if I am duplicating what has already been said.
I like the concept of Prc, mainly because I like the idea of them granting unique abilities (usually)tied to a specific organisation.
What might be cool would be if Prc's were reworked to give additional or alternative benefits to core/base classes. Kinda like an archetype, but one that can be joined at a later level. Perhaps if they were slightly more powerful than standard but with balancing constraints it could be workable. Alternatively it could be a parallel power boost with conditions , in some ways similar to the mythic mechanic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS has been a public forum for players to go and play the game while not necessarily having to find local players to bring to their house. Because it's a public game, it needs to be regulated harder for the sake of making sure casual/new players aren't alienated. To that end, PFS does it's job.
But I cannot stand the stigma established by the notion that PFS is the only thing that matters, and unfortunately that very stigma has found its way onto the design table and it has infected the newer products.
As to the topic at hand, most of the old prestige classes were about combining different class abilities, and they mandated multiclassing. This required spending a lot of levels with a $#!++y character that wasn't fun for many levels. These are the prestige classes that needed to die and be resurrected as base classes. The ACG was meant to be a whole book of this idea, while also addressing some other class niche issues. They flat out said they wanted the swashbuckler to be a full class version of the duelist.
The magus and antipaladin are both examples of full classes that are basically the same as your old prestige classes, but without having the rough start up time. Getting rid of that start up time was a main design choice for the game, and a good one.
For classes like Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Archer, I would say we are better off without them. Assassin is better off being replaced by the slayer. Wording may not be perfect for RAW, but a slayer with VMC rogue is basically a perfect rogue replacement, and also a full class assassin at the same time.
If we aren't concerned with combining the different base classes together then we get more interesting niche filling classes like Dragon Disciple (arguably still replaced by Draconic bloodragers).
How Hellknights aren't turned into a base class yet still baffles me. It's a paladin variant who forgoes spellcasting in favor of some fighter esk abilities like Armor Training who can be LE and worship Asmodeus.
In 3.5 prestige classes sold books, in PFRPG archetypes do. And I haven't even touched on the fact that we could derive a whole other discussion on turning archetypes into full classes, since they have done that too.
There are good prestige classes out there, but they should be ones that enhance your character in a different direction than your base class goes, rather than being a hodgepodge of mediocre abilities that require you to play a purposely gimped character just to get one (more often than not) decent ability.
Even then, most people would rather just play a full class at that point that traded out the abilities that they would be missing out on instead of taking a whole other class and missing out on class progression. And we're back to how archetypes replaced prestige classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As to the topic at hand, most of the old prestige classes were about combining different class abilities, and they mandated multiclassing. This required spending a lot of levels with a $#!++y character that wasn't fun for many levels. These are the prestige classes that needed to die and be resurrected as base classes.
Now, I disagree with this. The problem was with overly-draconian prerequisites and too long a wait for payoff. The period of time when the SLA ruling was in effect allowed for early qualification into many prestige classes, and demonstrated fairly clearly that they didn't need those high prerequisites. Practically removing the prerequisites entirely caused no balance issues. There is no need for these PrC's to have a valley of suck, it's a fault with their implementation and not PrC's in general.
As to the topic at hand, most of the old prestige classes were about combining different class abilities, and they mandated multiclassing. This required spending a lot of levels with a $#!++y character that wasn't fun for many levels. These are the prestige classes that needed to die and be resurrected as base classes.Now, I disagree with this. The problem was with overly-draconian prerequisites and too long a wait for payoff. The period of time when the SLA ruling was in effect allowed for early qualification into many prestige classes, and demonstrated fairly clearly that they didn't need those high prerequisites. Practically removing the prerequisites entirely caused no balance issues. There is no need for these PrC's to have a valley of suck, it's a fault with their implementation and not PrC's in general.
I'm not sure how what you said and how what I said are different.
Early access PrCs was done mostly via Eldritch Knight with an Aasimar via their Daylight ability, and treated their one fighter level as merely a dip into the base class that was the Eldritch Knight for them.
Assuming I recall that trick correctly, of course.
I'm failing to see how bypassing prerequisites and playing the prestige class early is different from having a base class that does what you wanted in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm failing to see how bypassing prerequisites and playing the prestige class early is different from having a base class that does what you wanted in the first place.
Because I can pick and choose from base classes with Eldritch Knight. I can enter with Fighter/Wizard if I want, or with Paladin/Sorcerer, or with Gunslinger/Arcanist. The ability to pick and choose which means of entry I want to use gives prestige classes more avenues and approaches.
For the record, I think the right prerequisite for Eldritch Knight is: proficiency with all martial weapons, base attack bonus +3, ability to cast 1st level arcane spells.
I'm failing to see how bypassing prerequisites and playing the prestige class early is different from having a base class that does what you wanted in the first place.Because I can pick and choose from base classes with Eldritch Knight. I can enter with Fighter/Wizard if I want, or with Paladin/Sorcerer, or with Gunslinger/Arcanist. The ability to pick and choose which means of entry I want to use gives prestige classes more avenues and approaches.
For the record, I think the right prerequisite for Eldritch Knight is: proficiency with all martial weapons, base attack bonus +3, ability to cast 1st level arcane spells.
I see the basic idea you're getting at, but the point remains that all of those ideas can be covered with different ideas for base classes progressing differently.
The eldritch knight is very generic, on purpose. More realistically you would see each of those niches filled out as a single base class, with the various cherry picked class abilities showing up in archetypes, and you'd actually get to use those class abilities because you would be getting them for more than one level.
I'm fairly certain this has actually happened with a lot of classes, since we have so many magus archetypes that either have pseudo-rage, pick up weapon/armor training, or even have variants that use sneak attack and/or access to grit/panache.
Marshmallow Fallacy comes back into play here.
^Eldritch Knight doesn't have a BAB requirement, although if you get in with any combination of a martial dip and a spellcasting class, you will have BAB >=+3 anyway. The only way to get in with BAB +2 is to go Wizard (or Witch) 5 VMC Oracle of Battle with the Skill At Arms Revelation selected at 3rd level to get proficiency with all martial weapons -- of course, this is probably not going to be very optimal.
But I cannot stand the stigma established by the notion that PFS is the only thing that matters, and unfortunately that very stigma has found its way onto the design table and it has infected the newer products.
*Looks at Unchained, a book from last year that is nearly completely useless for PFS since it's all variant rules*
It has not infected the design process by any stretch of the imagination. It does affect the design process, since it's easier for the rules to be more grounded rather than PFS having a billion houserules, since home campaigns can tweak it to their desire.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the basic idea you're getting at, but the point remains that all of those ideas can be covered with different ideas for base classes progressing differently.
Theoretically you could do that, but in practice with the finite page count in any published book it is impossible. The whole strength of prestige classes is that they can implicitly draw from materials published elsewhere without needing to republish them over and over again for different combinations of classes and abilities. Archetypes suffer compatibility issues with each other, and collectively take up a lot of page count so it can take a while before you get archetypes for every concept you want. We only just got a Magus archetype that does illusion and enchantment spells, and we're still waiting on one that can do necromancy. And if you want to combine that with another archetype (say, you want to do archery) then you're out of luck.
Prestige classes are a better rules construct to handle this mix-and-match style of character building. They are more generic, yes, but they can also draw from more sources and combinations of sources than archetypes can. Since Paizo can only put out a finite number of archetypes, prestige classes make a lot of sense to fill in the gaps that simply don't have any explicit options published for them.
I feel that archetypes and prestige classes complement each other well and Pathfinder could gain marvelously from better prestige class support. Archetypes are more specific, giving much better tailored packages with well-defined progressions. However, they are also inflexible and can leave you with unwanted baggage or with incompatibilities that prevent you from getting all the abilities you want. More obscure abilities may not even have an archetype. Prestige classes are a much better construct if you prefer a mix-and-match approach to get exactly the combination of abilities you want. They naturally incorporate new content published for other classes, and fill in the gaps that will always exist between archetypes.
So much Marshmallow Fallacy..... such little time....
Milo, what are you saying? That the big book of houserules and alternate rule systems should have been incorporated onto PFS forcibly, cuz I'm pretty sure they did that with the Summoner.
Look at how the classes in the ACG were designed compared to classes in the CRB. More often than not you see classes like the brawler who have built in, a class ability to bypass the INT 13 requirement on combat feats. Why did they do this? Because they assume you're using point buy, because PFS uses point buy. Copy and paste this concept throughout the rest of the ACG and OA and you will see that designing around PFS is very apparent.
Not that all the products are designed to be used with PFS, but they most certainly are trying to.
Also
It has not infected the design process by any stretch of the imagination. It does affect the design process, since it's easier for the rules to be more grounded rather than PFS having a billion houserules, since home campaigns can tweak it to their desire.
You directly contradict yourself here. Like, a bad Trump quote kind of contradict yourself.
More often than not you see classes like the brawler who have built in, a class ability to bypass the INT 13 requirement on combat feats. Why did they do this? Because they assume you're using point buy, because PFS uses point buy.
Or, you know, they realized that the prereqs make no sense from either a balancing or a flavor point of view? Also, having a 13 yet having positive Dex and Con is far from a sure thing with rolled stats.
The features that bypass having to hit INT of 13 that the Brawler and Swashbuckler have don't have anything to do with point buy vs. other ways of generating statistics.
Regardless of the way you generate your stats, it is likely that you will have at least one attribute that will be below 13. These abilities mean that you don't have to put a 13 or higher into INT.
If you were to roll, say 10,13,14,16,9,18 (A good roll) your brawler/swashbuckler could put that 10 or that 9 into INT and still use combat expertise stuff. The swashbuckler is likely better off putting that 18 and 16 into Dex and Cha, and the 14 and 13 into Con and Wis..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Milo, what are you saying? That the big book of houserules and alternate rule systems should have been incorporated onto PFS forcibly, cuz I'm pretty sure they did that with the Summoner.
What are you on about.... I'm saying they released a book that is basically directly opposite to PFS, so it's ridiculous to believe that PFS has infected the design team. No where did I suggest it should have been incorporated into PFS forcibly at all....
Look at how the classes in the ACG were designed compared to classes in the CRB. More often than not you see classes like the brawler who have built in, a class ability to bypass the INT 13 requirement on combat feats. Why did they do this?
They did it because it's stupid not to.
Because they assume you're using point buy, because PFS uses point buy.
It's also what they assume for Adventure Paths... since that's the main focus of PF and was were PF start.
Copy and paste this concept throughout the rest of the ACG and OA and you will see that designing around PFS is very apparent.
Ah yes, that must be why there are things like archetypes that are based around feats that are banned by PFS in occult adventures.
Not that all the products are designed to be used with PFS, but they most certainly are trying to.
... no. PFs works with basically all the products, other way around. Design team makes the stuff without regard to PFS, and then the PFS guys have to deal with it despite there being a decent enough amount of stuff in it that might go against what PFS goes with. They are designed to work with a GM who doesn't do much houseruling so they are conservative (mark has a great post somewhere about this), which does overlap with PFS since they don't houserule (they do houserule but whatever) but PFS isn't the cause it's more like.... it gets circumstantial benefits from overlapping with the intended use in some areas.
You directly contradict yourself here. Like, a bad Trump quote kind of contradict yourself.
That's just sad. Affect doesn't equal infect. There is no contradiction there. Please learn the meaning of the words before you insult people. Air pressure affects a coin toss, but air pressure doesn't "infect" the outcome, because there are many many factors that determine the outcome. -.-
… it can take a while before you get archetypes for every concept you want. We only just got a Magus archetype that does illusion and enchantment spells, and we're still waiting on one that can do necromancy. And if you want to combine that with another archetype (say, you want to do archery) then you're out of luck.
Since when do we have to have an archetype for every concept? Also, I don't understand your other comments. There are illusion, enchantment, and necromancy spells already on the Magus spell list, so an out of the box Magus certainly can "do necromancy" or whatever. A magus who "does archery" may not be as good at it as other archers, but nothing says he can't do it.
… it can take a while before you get archetypes for every concept you want. We only just got a Magus archetype that does illusion and enchantment spells, and we're still waiting on one that can do necromancy. And if you want to combine that with another archetype (say, you want to do archery) then you're out of luck.Since when do we have to have an archetype for every concept? Also, I don't understand your other comments. There are illusion, enchantment, and necromancy spells already on the Magus spell list, so an out of the box Magus certainly can "do necromancy" or whatever. A magus who "does archery" may not be as good at it as other archers, but nothing says he can't do it.
Marshmallow Fallacy in a nutshell.
Marshmallow Fallacy in a nutshell.
1. Fallacy's are useless if only one person knows what the hell it means. -.-
2. It's a pretty... eh. Fallacy once I eventually found it (only person who uses it is you), and too strawman-y for my likeing. I mean, the thing your "fallacy" is meant to dispel is completely justified in a lot of cases.
Marshmallow Fallacy in a nutshell.1. Fallacy's are useless if only one person knows what the hell it means. -.-
2. It's a pretty... eh. Fallacy once I eventually found it (only person who uses it is you), and too strawman-y for my likeing. I mean, the thing your "fallacy" is meant to dispel is completely justified in a lot of cases.
What is a marshmallow fallacy? I tried looking it uo but just a bunch of articles about lucky charms.
I think regardless of how long it gets to take archetypes for whatever sort of thing, I think that "you blend [thing 1] with [thing 2]" is something better handled through archetypes or hybrid classes than with PrCs.
Just since "Sneaky wizard" or "Archer with spells" and things like that are something that a character would probably be interested in from the start of their career, rather than something they are only able to do effectively much later on. If you have a prestige class that's actually prestigious, by all means print it, but it's worth considering whether an archetype or new hybrid class would be a better way of doing it.
What is a marshmallow fallacy? I tried looking it uo but just a bunch of articles about lucky charms.Marshmallow Fallacy in a nutshell.1. Fallacy's are useless if only one person knows what the hell it means. -.-
2. It's a pretty... eh. Fallacy once I eventually found it (only person who uses it is you), and too strawman-y for my likeing. I mean, the thing your "fallacy" is meant to dispel is completely justified in a lot of cases.
It came up in an old fighter thread a while ago where people were complaining about the skill point thing and I brought up the Tactician as being an alternative that functioned well.
People raged.
The fallacy is the notion that because you don't like the way that an option exists for you to fulfill a character concept, does not mean that the option doesn't exist, and pretending that it doesn't exist while persisting to complain about it is fallacious.
The fallacy is the notion that because you don't like the way that an option exists for you to fulfill a character concept, does not mean that the option doesn't exist, and pretending that it doesn't exist while persisting to complain about it is fallacious.
Which is what makes your "marshmallow fallacy" ill-founded at best. I did not say the concept doesn't exist, nor did I pretend it doesn't. Nor, for that matter, did I say anything about liking or disliking either archetypes or prestige classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since when do we have to have an archetype for every concept? Also, I don't understand your other comments. There are illusion, enchantment, and necromancy spells already on the Magus spell list, so an out of the box Magus certainly can "do necromancy" or whatever. A magus who "does archery" may not be as good at it as other archers, but nothing says he can't do it.
We certainly don't need to have archetypes for everything, and due to realistic page count limitations we can't. That's kind of my key point, that prestige classes are a better rules construct for handling mix-and-match of different concepts and alleviate the need for archetypes to touch on every conceivable combination of abilities. The lack of support for prestige classes is disappointing for that reason, because archetypes and PrC's complement each other and provide very different tools for players.
As for Enchantment/Illusion/Necromancy, each has varying degrees of issues. Enchantment is the most egregious of the three. To my knowledge there is exactly one enchantment spell (the Daze cantrip) on the entire Magus class list. For all intents and purposes, the Magus doesn't get any Enchantment spells and you need to pick up everything you want from spell blending (which just isn't feasible). Necromancy is a little better, with a few spells like Ray of Enfeeblement and Vampiric Touch on his class list, but it's still missing most of its iconic spells. Notably Command Undead, Blindness/Deafness, Ghoul Touch, Animate Dead, Bestow Curse, Contagion, Enervation, and Magic Jar are all missing. Illusion is the best off of the three, missing only a handful like Shadow Conjuration, and I mostly mentioned it because the Puppeteer archetype finally gives the Magus some good synergy with the school that goes beyond simply having access to the spells.
The fallacy is the notion that because you don't like the way that an option exists for you to fulfill a character concept, does not mean that the option doesn't exist, and pretending that it doesn't exist while persisting to complain about it is fallacious.
I feel that misses the point.
You could build a commoner who can do almost anything to a certain minimum standard. Max out UMD and use scrolls/wands to get pseudo-spellcasting, pick up weapon proficiency feats for whatever style you want, maybe even put ranks into handle animal so you can raise an animal companion. You'll never be anything special at any of these things, though, and will struggle to be relevant against players with class features that actually enhance their key abilities. That, at it's core, is what the class system is about: it's about getting abilities and competencies that make our character better than others within his area of expertise. Archetypes allow us to modify classes, to remove class features that don't suit our concept and pick up ones that suit us better in their place. However, archetypes are relatively inflexible and tend to be incompatible with each other. You certainly can do things without the support of class features, but you'll never be anything more than mediocre at them. If your concept is to be a great archer, then a build that manages to be a mediocre archer doesn't fit the concept.
Could the game work without prestige classes? Of course it could. It could work without classes altogether in a pinch. Obviously we play Pathfinder instead of class-less RPG systems because we like character classes. We like creating characters that feel exceptional in their areas of strength. And many of us like the flexibility and mix-and-match building supported by prestige classes and more generally multi-classing. I feel that a robust offering of prestige classes would complement the existing stable of archetypes, and feel it's a shame that we don't get properly pathfinderized PrC's.
What is a marshmallow fallacy? I tried looking it uo but just a bunch of articles about lucky charms.Marshmallow Fallacy in a nutshell.1. Fallacy's are useless if only one person knows what the hell it means. -.-
2. It's a pretty... eh. Fallacy once I eventually found it (only person who uses it is you), and too strawman-y for my likeing. I mean, the thing your "fallacy" is meant to dispel is completely justified in a lot of cases.It came up in an old fighter thread a while ago where people were complaining about the skill point thing and I brought up the Tactician as being an alternative that functioned well.
People raged.
The fallacy is the notion that because you don't like the way that an option exists for you to fulfill a character concept, does not mean that the option doesn't exist, and pretending that it doesn't exist while persisting to complain about it is fallacious.
Just because an option exists doesn't make it good. A bad option is, in many ways, worse than no option, in that it purports to solve a problem while exacerbating other issues.
Your "fallacy" is bad and you should feel bad for proposing it.
It doesn't have to be good, it just has to exist.
You have only confirmed the fallacy.
|
I agree with those that say thematic campaign related ones are great. For example, my werewolf gunslinger (this character's mom lol) is a Gunslinger 10/Shield Marshal 5. In my campaign, she actually does work as a Shield Marshal, it's not just a class. The extra abilities that let her blend into crowds and such? Much, much more useful for such a character than the 11+ gunslinger stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't have to be good, it just has to exist.
You have only confirmed the fallacy.
Way to move the goalposts. What happened to "fulfill a character concept"? A option that is not good does not help me fulfill my character concept, therefore the original complaint is still valid.
The only one commiting a fallacy is you because you, in the hopes of creating a fallacy with your name, ignore part of the other person's argument.
i.e. his fallacy doesn't even qualify by the terms of his Marshmallow Fallacy.
I propose the S'Mores Fallacy: A power or ability proposed that purports to satisfy a concept and doesn't.
==Aelryinth
It doesn't have to be good, it just has to exist.
You have only confirmed the fallacy.Way to move the goalposts. What happened to "fulfill a character concept"? A option that is not good does not help me fulfill my character concept, therefore the original complaint is still valid.
The only one commiting a fallacy is you because you, in the hopes of creating a fallacy with your name, ignore part of the other person's argument.
Never moved a goal post. Just because you don't like an option, exemplified by the statement "it's not good" doesn't mean the option doesn't exist.
Stop attacking me, that was two days ago, the conversation has moved on dude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It never ceases to amaze me how often people look on disagreement with their opinions as a personal attack.
"The fallacy is the notion that because you don't like the way that an option exists for you to fulfill a character concept, does not mean that the option doesn't exist (...)" emphasis mine Your "fallacy" is about options that help one to fulfill his character concept. If the option does not help fulfill the character concept, it is not covered by your "fallacy", as you wrote it. Yet than afterwards, you claim every option no matter how bad has to be considered - ignoring the above criteria. That is moving the goalposts.
Stop attacking me, that was two days ago, the conversation has moved on dude.
There is one single post after your last post mentioning your made up "fallacy" (which was just a little over 24 hours ago). I'm sorry that I had the audacity to respond to the second to last post in a thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And the winner of the Paizo 2016 'Most Pretentious Thread' award goes to......."
A concept not being fulfilled by the options available is not covered by the fallacy.... by definition.
It is a personal attack because you aren't attacking my argument, you're just saying that it's wrong.
If an option exists that fulfills a concept, but is not optimal or "good" then the fallacy is true.
If your character concept is not fulfilled by the options available then the fallacy is inapplicable.
Telling me that I'm fabricating the validity of options, or implying that I'm saying that options exist when they do not is a strawman.
None of this has anything to do with the topic anymore, if you wanna discuss it more, PM me or start another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really think what is being talked about here is a fallacy. "Fallacy" simply means "a case of faulty reasoning".
If you want to play a concept, and the only options available that fulfill your concept are very poor compared to most other options which do not fulfill your concept, you're entirely justified in observing "I wish there were better options for playing [x], the options available simply are not very good." The complaint may be stated improperly as "I wish I could play a [concept]" when the actual meaning of the complaint is "I wish I could play [concept] effectively." I mean, we saw this for years with the monk; people's complaint was not that they couldn't play a fantasy monk, it's that they couldn't play a monk very effectively within their concept of what a fantasy monk should be (i.e. not a Zen Archer). The complaint about rogues was not "sneaky thief type characters can't be played" it's that rogues were not good at all. After all, a significant portion of the discussions orbiting this game are explicitly "is this option viable compared to alternatives" rather than "does there exist an option that enables [concept]."
Wanting things to exist that do not exist, or wanting things that are not good to be made better is not a case of fallacious reasoning. There is no way to have personal preference that is fallacious. If thinking "this sort of thing should be better supported by the rules" is a case of faulty reasoning, then what would we expect the people who design the new rules to do?