Its not unrealistic its pretty much impossible as the hawk cant stealth without cover or concealmentHawk pecks at the door. Someone goes to see what's going on and opens the door. Hawk flies in and isn't spotted, guy thinks maybe something is up, or he's going crazy.Not spotting or hearing a hawk fly right by your head is slightly unrealistic but now the hawk is trapped inside.
The hawk in this example is invisible, remember? The conversation started with whether or not the wizard should cast invisibility on the rogue or her familiar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I need a Fry "CAN'T TELL IF SERIOUS/ ABOUT INVISIBLE HAWK KNOCKING ON DOOR TO FLY INSIDE" meme.
I disagree with the invisibility/stealth thing though. In recent books, a little different picture about stealth was painted, like in Unchained when i remember right. Stealth also only becomes very bad when people play overly RAW. The main problem there is the line of sight thing and as a GM, i tend to overrule that, making it a simple perception vs stealth check (maybe combined with a sense motive or perception for the person making the stealth check) or let players get a bit creative with bluff checks etc.Invisibility is one of the few things which make me miss Perception being split into Spot & Listen. You couldn't see invisible wizards, but they were really easy to hear.
This is actually specifically a GM ruling. A Popular way to rule invisibility is that it also applies the stealth check if you are listening instead of simply searching.
This is because it doesn't specify what the +40 or +20 apply to. The idea is that it is +40 when you are stationary because you aren't making any noise, and is reduced by 20 when you are.
however
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle).
Is the specific starting text via the PRD...which can also be interpreted by a GM to mean that, in fact, if one is simply listening for sounds...the invisibility spell would actually NOT apply to the check on that regard.
HOWEVER...this is a VERY unpopular interpretation of the spell on these boards.
It IS a very applicable way to interpret the spell however. It's all how the GM decides the description is applied.
I think this is an example of where how GM's see or understand rules differently.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you can't threaten them or make them expend enough resources, then delay the death of monsters until sufficient resources are depleted.Get ready for some internet rage.
Fair, but I did it for two campaigns with two different groups of players. One went from level 1 to level 14. The other from level 3 to level 19.
No players knew, noticed, or even suspected. I still kept track of hit points, and the monsters died in exciting moments.
Some may say it is an awful thing to do, but what is really awful is to have a CR 19 boss die to a level 12 ranged combatant in surprise round. I recommend avoiding that, because I've been at those tables and it isn't ever fun for the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't threaten them or make them expend enough resources, then delay the death of monsters until sufficient resources are depleted.Get ready for some internet rage.
A lot of the players I have gamed for would have noticed. I had some that would not have cared though. As long as the players don't care it is 100% a nonfactor, but if they would care, then hope they don't notice.
Personally, I don't mind if the players steamroll a boss as long as it is not every boss. I had a group open up with crits on a boss. I spent 3 hours setting up that fight. Part of me was annoyed that it happened, but since I had never seen anything like that before part of me was in amazement.
...."I'm not having fun because my character feels like a sidekick."...Second: who cares if the druid is stronger then the wizard or the wizard is stronger then the fighter ect ect we are all on the same team and work together to overcome the challenges the story throws at us, sometimes certain classes are better at certain situation but every class has their strengths and weaknesses.
third: this is not a competitive game with ladders or leagues so "balance" does not matter. you are not competing with the other players to be better then them...
Now I feel bad & embarrassed for using that exact line....
One game I'm playing in I'm building a fighter with the goal of being a) resilient and b) capable with sword & board & a bow. Of course that's spread me a little thin on a lot of things. However despite the sword, shield & armor, I look over at our vivisectionist alchemist and realize that he's going to have as much if not more AC than I, and far more damage threat then I. Yet I, playing the fighter, have sacrificed skill points, a save and casting as a class feature for it...repeatedly failing fear checks with a class feature called "bravery" isn't doing much for morale either.
Which is part my fault for building a beatstick (and an average one at that with the hopes of being versatile in combat) when we already had someone who could fill that roll (indeed we have a gunslinger too), but there's just something that feels wrong when a half caster is able to fight so well....and still be a half caster.
Other side of it is I didn't know the slayer was a class when I started, and I find myself looking at it so longingly....
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair, but I did it for two campaigns with two different groups of players. One went from level 1 to level 14. The other from level 3 to level 19.
No players knew, noticed, or even suspected. I still kept track of hit points, and the monsters died in exciting moments.
I dunno, I think this is in the same category as fudging rolls. So...not something to get upset about if you tell the players you do it, but also not something I generally consider appropriate unless the players have been informed you do it. It's lying to your players about what kind of game they're playing, and I don't generally approve of lying to your friends and acquaintances about what sort of activity they're participating in. They deserve to judge whether they want to play in a game based on accurate information about what sort of game it is.
If you told 'em at the beginning of the game and they still wanted to play, I'd be fine with it. If you didn't...it sorta begs the question why you didn't, and whether they'd choose to participate if they knew. If they wouldn't, then you're deceiving them about something pretty fundamental to your interactions with them that you know would bother them if they found out. Any lie where people would be upset if they caught you in it is probably a morally dubious choice at best.
I wouldn't be inclined to forgive someone who lied to me like that any more than someone who constantly cheated at some more conventional game that was our standard activity when we were hanging out. And I doubt I'm alone in that.
Some may say it is an awful thing to do, but what is really awful is to have a CR 19 boss die to a level 12 ranged combatant in surprise round. I recommend avoiding that, because I've been at those tables and it isn't ever fun for the players.
I've been in a game where the equivalent of this (at somewhat lower level) happened at least twice (once as a GM, once as a player). It was actually pretty fun both times (though I did have one of his minions Breath of Life him when I was GMing...that bought him one whole round before he went down again).
Sometimes PCs really enjoy just making the main villain look like a punk and slapping them down.
I personally find the guy that cries foul because the math doesn't add up much less fun and much more disruptive than the DM that fudges as he sees fit. I do not agree that there is any parity between a DM deceiving his players, both IC and OOC, and cheating on your girlfriend. Rule zero covers any sort of poetic license a DM takes with the rules so there is no moral equivalency whatsoever--PF is an open relationship where you have been given permission to sleep with others so you're not cheating on your girlfriend at all. PF uses inherently and imminently fluid rules by design that specifically empower the DM the do what you are complaining about.
|
So this has come down to arguments about the proper way to play your own game....
Can i say again every group and every person has their own play style and method of running games.
just because you do not like X and feel that you should run the game this way, does not mean he has to run a game that way. he is not playing the bad wrong fun way of playing, he is playing his own way that hopefully works for his group. if his group does not like it, hopefully they are adults about it and talk it out.
in this example he thinks fudging rolls on his end or making the boss have more hp so it survives and extra round furthers the story or uses certain resources he hoped it to. he does not feel the need to tell his players this, they were not "cheated" out of anything, it is his encounter and his story that is taking the flow he wants it to. it has no effect on the players out of the game. Its all done in hopes of everyone having an enjoyable time.
You do not like fudging rolls without your players knowing, that's fine but sort of draws back the curtain on the encounter if you tell them during the session. or maybe you started the campaign with I am going to fudge rolls and add HP at times in hopes that everyone has fun with what i build. perfectly acceptable and everyone is on the same page
I play somewhere in the middle ground, i started this last campaign without adding HP and playing completely honest. I noticed the bosses and monsters started dieing quicker then i wanted so i started designing encounters with double or more listed health on bosses and max health on minions without telling the players or gaining or taking HP in the middle of combat so that it flowed a little better. I noticed the players having a better time and they seemed a bit more challenged so it was more rewarding when they beat the encounter. On an off game night one of my friends commented on this and asked something or another about it and i told him what i did and he was like "oh cool that was a smart and easy way to do that, i'll have to try that in my next game".
Again this is with my group your group may very. everyone has their own method and what they want from the game.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair, but I did it for two campaigns with two different groups of players. One went from level 1 to level 14. The other from level 3 to level 19.
No players knew, noticed, or even suspected. I still kept track of hit points, and the monsters died in exciting moments.
I dunno, I think this is in the same category as fudging rolls. So...not something to get upset about if you tell the players you do it, but also not something I generally consider appropriate unless the players have been informed you do it. It's lying to your players about what kind of game they're playing, and I don't generally approve of lying to your friends and acquaintances about what sort of activity they're participating in. They deserve to judge whether they want to play in a game based on accurate information about what sort of game it is.
If you told 'em at the beginning of the game and they still wanted to play, I'd be fine with it. If you didn't...it sorta begs the question why you didn't, and whether they'd choose to participate if they knew. If they wouldn't, then you're deceiving them about something pretty fundamental to your interactions with them that you know would bother them if they found out. Any lie where people would be upset if they caught you in it is probably a morally dubious choice at best.
I wouldn't be inclined to forgive someone who lied to me like that any more than someone who constantly cheated at some more conventional game that was our standard activity when we were hanging out. And I doubt I'm alone in that.
Some may say it is an awful thing to do, but what is really awful is to have a CR 19 boss die to a level 12 ranged combatant in surprise round. I recommend avoiding that, because I've been at those tables and it isn't ever fun for the players.I've been in a game where the equivalent of this (at somewhat lower level) happened at least twice (once as a GM, once as a player). It was actually pretty fun both...
This is going off topic somewhat.
Let me quote what Jason B and co had to say on the topic:
Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the “correct” way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
Emphasis mine.
I would strongly suggest that we avoid getting into the dead-end argument of "To Fudge Rolls or Not to Fudge Rolls" here, as it is entirely a matter of personal taste and varies from group to group. Some prefer human judgement over arbitrary random numbers. Others prefer everything to be as impartial as possible rather than rely on potentially biased human judgement. Neither is correct, and neither is going to be convinced to the other's perspective in an online forum.
If the OP and his players are comfortable with empowering the GM to treat the rules as a guideline to creating fun, and flex their creativity, then highly optimized players can be accounted for by doing so.
If the OP and his players prefer to stick to the rules as published to keep things impartial and avoid potential bias, then going a slow XP track and bumping the difficulty (and thus XP) up a notch can also help to account for an optimized party.
'tis all good.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm not saying fudging stuff in a game is as morally wrong as cheating in a committed relationship (it's not even close)
I do not agree that there is any parity between a DM deceiving his players, both IC and OOC, and cheating on your girlfriend. ...there is no moral equivalency whatsoever
Born of fire, do you want a conversation or just a punching bag?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find the guy that cries foul because the math doesn't add up much less fun and much more disruptive than the DM that fudges as he sees fit.
That's fine. It may mean you don't want to game with me. And, because I've been honest about this, now you know that. If a GM who wanted to do this was similarly honest, I might not want to game with them either, I dunno. But at least I'd be able to make an informed decision.
I do not agree that there is any parity between a DM deceiving his players, both IC and OOC, and cheating on your girlfriend.
There isn't. As I said. There's parity between the excuses you're making for fudging without telling your players and the excuses many cheaters use.
The actions are different, but the excuses why it isn't wrong are identical.
Rule zero covers any sort of poetic license a DM takes with the rules so there is no moral equivalency whatsoever--PF is an open relationship where you have been given permission to sleep with others so you're not cheating on your girlfriend at all. PF uses inherently and imminently fluid rules by design that specifically empower the DM the do what you are complaining about.
That is not everyone's opinion. It's certainly not mine. To continue the analogy, assuming you are in an open relationship without checking with the other person is not a good call.
And exactly what you're doing. As my existence proves. See, I would be pissed off if I found out about this kind of thing from a GM of mine, which means other people likely would too. Therefore, such people exist and their feelings should be taken into account.
The fact that you don't feel that way personally is immaterial since there are people who do.
So this has come down to arguments about the proper way to play your own game....
Can i say again every group and every person has their own play style and method of running games.
Of course they do. but people shouldn't be tricked into playing in a different style of game than they want to. Which is what not telling people about this sort of thing results in.
just because you do not like X and feel that you should run the game this way, does not mean he has to run a game that way. he is not playing the bad wrong fun way of playing, he is playing his own way that hopefully works for his group. if his group does not like it, hopefully they are adults about it and talk it out.
Only if they ever find out. Which is sorta my problem with the whole thing conceptually and morally.
If they'd be fine with it if you told them...why not tell them? If they wouldn't...you shouldn't be doing it.
If they were told, I'd be fine with it.
in this example he thinks fudging rolls on his end or making the boss have more hp so it survives and extra round furthers the story or uses certain resources he hoped it to. he does not feel the need to tell his players this, they were not "cheated" out of anything, it is his encounter and his story that is taking the flow he wants it to. it has no effect on the players out of the game. Its all done in hopes of everyone having an enjoyable time.
So's my 'cheating to make the game more interesting' example in poker above. Still not a cool thing to do to your friends IMO, even if you aren't playing for money.
You do not like fudging rolls without your players knowing, that's fine but sort of draws back the curtain on the encounter if you tell them during the session. or maybe you started the campaign with I am going to fudge rolls and add HP at times in hopes that everyone has fun with what i build. perfectly acceptable and everyone is on the same page
For the record, I'm advocating the 'beginning the campaign announcement' version. Telling every time is pointless and counterproductive, but getting the people involved's approval to do it at all seems necessary.
I play somewhere in the middle ground, i started this last campaign without adding HP and playing completely honest. I noticed the bosses and monsters started dieing quicker then i wanted so i started designing encounters with double or more listed health on bosses and max health on minions without telling the players or gaining or taking HP in the middle of combat so that it flowed a little better. I noticed the players having a better time and they seemed a bit more challenged so it was more rewarding when they beat the encounter. On an off game night one of my friends commented on this and asked something or another about it and i told him what i did and he was like "oh cool that was a smart and easy way to do that, i'll have to try that in my next game".
Again this is with my group your group may very. everyone has their own method and what they want from the game.
Again, if they're okay with it...why not tell them?
|
|
I'm pretty sure adding HP to a creature or fudging a roll to make it a little tougher or get over a hump is pretty common... and there's a section for it in the GameMastery Guide for Pathfinder that basically sums it up as "its fine if secret and makes the game more fun - and not abused."
Where? I'm not seeing it. EDIT: Ah, mentioned in the corebook. Okay, check. See below for my response.
I would strongly suggest that we avoid getting into the dead-end argument of "To Fudge Rolls or Not to Fudge Rolls" here, as it is entirely a matter of personal taste and varies from group to group. Some prefer human judgement over arbitrary random numbers. Others prefer everything to be as impartial as possible rather than rely on potentially biased human judgement. Neither is correct, and neither is going to be convinced to the other's perspective in an online forum.
To be clear, I'm fine with fudging rolls. I don't generally do it, but I've played with GMs who do. It's fine (as long as they note that they do it).
I just think that if you're gonna do it, your players should be informed 'Hey, sometimes I fudge rolls.'
That's it. I'm just asking for honest communication so the whole group can get on the same page.
If the OP and his players are comfortable with empowering the GM to treat the rules as a guideline to creating fun, and flex their creativity, then highly optimized players can be accounted for by doing so.
As long as the GM tells their players what they're doing, I have no objection to this whatsoever.
That is not everyone's opinion. It's certainly not mine. To continue the analogy, assuming you are in an open relationship without checking with the other person is not a good call.
And exactly what you're doing. As my existence proves. See, I would be pissed off if I found out about this kind of thing from a GM of mine, which means other people likely would too. Therefore, such people exist and their feelings should be taken into account.
The fact that you don't feel that way personally is immaterial since there are people who do.
Making sure the gaming styles of those at the table are aligned is important. It's why Session 0 is important.
It also goes far, far beyond merely opinions on fudging vs As-Rolled. E.g. trying to combine thespians, entrepreneurs and hardcore dungeon crawlers with phobias of splitting the party at the one table is going to be uncomfortable and short lived if everyone is expecting and trying to game to their usual tastes.
|
|
Rolling Dice: Some GMs prefer to roll all of their dice in front of the players, letting the results fall where they may. Others prefer to make all rolls behind a screen, hiding the results from the PCs so that, if they need to, they can fudge the dice results to make the game do what they want. Neither way is the “correct” way; choose whichever you wish, or even mix and match as feels right for you.
because it is actually in the rules that if you choose to you may fudge the rolls and not tell them that is fine.
This is a vastly different scenario then the poker one you presented.
There is not right or wrong way to play the game and you guys are arguing for no reason
In my group there is no need to tell we all trust each other and everyone is having fun, i could tell them, i have nothing against telling them but there is no point. if they ask or they find out, which at this point most of them know anyway from just passing conversations, it does not change anything...
in this example he thinks fudging rolls on his end or making the boss have more hp so it survives and extra round furthers the story or uses certain resources he hoped it to. he does not feel the need to tell his players this, they were not "cheated" out of anything, it is his encounter and his story that is taking the flow he wants it to. it has no effect on the players out of the game. Its all done in hopes of everyone having an enjoyable time.
Here is the thing, the story isn't just the DM's story, it is the story of everyone on that table. Unless of course a DM doesn't like the idea of the players having any kind of agency, which in my opinion is pretty tyrannical.
The players should be able to affect the world within the parameters of the rules, and when a DM starts messing with these rules they might as well be saying to the players "you all have no control and the rules mean nothing without my say so" and that's a DM I would never want to play with.
But what about the encounter I worked so hard on?! Sometimes the dice are cruel; just like the players have to accept that a string of criticals from their foes could end up killing their characters, A DM must accept that players may get lucky and end his encounter in a single round, even if he did plan it to last longer. Because as I've said above, the story is everyone's story; yes a DM may have had a grandiose idea for that particular encounter but things don't always work out as they plan, just like how a player never intended for their character to be killed against a bunch of minions but hey it happens.
|
|
Many, many, MANY games involve "lying" to your friends. You must have great fun playing poker with your pals, Deadmanwalking, what with this expectation of complete and absolute honesty at all times. Because playing your cards wisely is the same as sleeping with your friends' wives or swindling them out of their retirement savings..Wow. I've seen some strawmen before, but this one takes the cake.
If your going to call one party out on using straw-man you should also call the other party out on straw-man... both of them are using them but only one is getting called out... hmm seems like a biased attack to me.
|
|
Making sure the gaming styles of those at the table are aligned is important. It's why Session 0 is important.
It also goes far, far beyond merely opinions on fudging vs As-Rolled. E.g. trying to combine thespians, entrepreneurs and hardcore dungeon crawlers with phobias of splitting the party at the one table is going to be uncomfortable and short lived if everyone is expecting and trying to game to their usual tastes.
This is absolutely true. And exactly what I'm advocating.
because it is actually in the rules that if you choose to you may fudge the rolls and not tell them that is fine.
It is not in the rules of many other games. Is it then not okay to do it in those games?
This isn't a rules question, and cannot be handled by references to the book as Almighty Arbiter. This is a question of what kind of interactions are appropriate among human beings who hang out and do things for fun.
If you want to play rules lawyer on this, I can also note that nowhere does it say you should fudge while leaving the rest of the group with the assumption you aren't. Which is literally all I'm arguing against.
This is a vastly different scenario then the poker one you presented.
Not by a huge amount.
There is not right or wrong way to play the game and you guys are arguing for no reason
I think lying to one's friends is wrong. Not just as a way to play the game, but morally. That's literally all I'm arguing against.
In my group there is no need to tell we all trust each other and everyone is having fun, i could tell them, i have nothing against telling them but there is no point. if they ask or they find out, which at this point most of them know anyway from just passing conversations, it does not change anything...
I'm pretty sure you need to be a mind reader to be 100% sure of this, which means you should probably make sure.
You may well be right, I'd just strongly argue you should check anyway just in case you're wrong.
If your going to call one party out on using straw-man you should also call the other party out on straw-man... both of them are using them but only one is getting called out... hmm seems like a biased attack to me.
A straw-man is misrepresenting the other party's argument and then arguing against that false argument they never made. What uses of this tactic have I made?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding whether to tell the group about fudging:
The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
Also, I searched the PRD for the passage that Shadowlords said was in the CRB, and turned up nothing. Maybe he's looking at a book from another game?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding whether to tell the group about fudging:
The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
Yeah. That's pretty much all I'm saying.
Also, I searched the PRD for the passage that Shadowlords said was in the CRB, and turned up nothing. Maybe he's looking at a book from another game?
Nah, it's there in hardcopy/PDF. I checked.
|
|
so taking a step back.
I do not advocate lying to your friends or cheating in games to get your way or to win.
I do not see fudging rolls or adding or taking away health from the boss of minions as lying or cheating, in your home games (keeping PFS out of this).
I do not equate fudging rolls to cheating in poker or stacking the deck. I would equate it to going to your best friends house and opening their candy jar and eating some of their candy without asking or telling them. there is a level of trust involved.
my group of friends i play with have been friends for the last 20 years.... expect our new friend we met 4 years ago, we trust each other and we talk about any rules changes and discuss how we want to play the game. fudging rolls and health has never came up as an issue or topic needed to be discussed, but i know some of my players know i do it, and i know other players when they DM do it as well. again its never been a topic because WE don't think it is a big deal or cheating or lying in any fashion.
You do think so. You want to be honest about it. you don't have an issue with fudging rolls or health, you just want to be informed about it. and if i was joining a group that id never even met before let alone played with you are right it would be proper to tell them i sometimes fudge rolls, i, until this point, probably wouldn't have because i did not view it as an issue needing to be discussed at all or that people really cared.
Again everyone has their own way of playing, I have only stated the way i play and view things and not that this is how you should play or view things.
I just couldnt stand living a lie. If my character dies to a goblin's blade or the bad guy I spent 3 hours developing dies in the first round without getting any banter out so be it.
|
|
I don't know if I'd go so far as to say unbalanced, but it certainly has become increasingly complicated. Especially with so many of the newer classes having limited resources to effect actions (grit, arcana, burn) and a good many of them also having things to do as swift actions that the Core classes mostly did not (swift casting or judgements as examples). Add in the ATs that give the older classes these bells and whistles and I've found the combat rounds getting longer. On top of that working the classes into new design spaces such as the non-lethal damage of the kineticist has caused a lot of confusion and debate among the tables I play at. So while I certainly still enjoy the game and play frequently, I have found so much of the newer material a distraction at best, unbalancing at worst.
|
|
Saying someones 'ideas' are incorrect is a dangerous road. that leads to individuals feeling personally attacked, which does not promote a healthy discussion.
Now i do not remember what exactly the argument or discussion between the 2 of you was at this point but most of this thread has been about personal preferences in the way the game is played and how people view the state of class diversity or lack of diversity within the system.
All these are based off personal opinions and experiences that are going to be different from one another. no one is right or wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying someones 'ideas' are incorrect is a dangerous road. that leads to individuals feeling personally attacked, which does not promote a healthy discussion.
If I say "Nine doubled is sixteen, right?" and you reply "No, it's eighteen," then you've just told me that my ideas are incorrect.
If I say "All the 3/4 BAB classes have the same accuracy" and you reply "No, some of them have built-in class features that give them attack bonuses," then you've told me that my ideas are incorrect.
You can't have a healthy discussion unless you're free to point out when you think someone's incorrect about something.
Now i do not remember what exactly the argument or discussion between the 2 of you was at this point but most of this thread has been about personal preferences in the way the game is played and how people view the state of class diversity or lack of diversity within the system.
All these are based off personal opinions and experiences that are going to be different from one another. no one is right or wrong.
His playstyle/preferences are not what I suggested he might have been mistaken about.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm a core book guy. I love the core book. 99.99% of my characters and their equipment are core.
But now, my heavy fighters are completely being outgunned and out-damaged by lower level newer classes. Gunslingers, Alchemists & Kineticists to name a few. It's really getting to the point where I'm not having fun playing anymore. I've even got the 'nuclear blast' video bookmarked on youtube and tend to play it when the powergamers attack.
I play my characters because I enjoy them. I roleplay them. I have fun with them. But when somebody comes along with characters solely based upon the numbers of damage then can output, that annoys me. And there's alot more of them nowadays.
I'm really finding out that I'm a gamer of a different sort. I have characters that aren't min/maxed to the point of stupidity. 5 strength? Really?
Remember that it's a Roleplaying game. Have fun. Don't just break the game with your nuclear blast flinging characters.
I'll defend the race book a bit, it adds a bit of flavor. But again, Rules Lawyers and powergamers can break anything they put their minds too.
/endrant.
Am I alone on this?
|
So I'm a core book guy. I love the core book. 99.99% of my characters and their equipment are core.
But now, my heavy fighters are completely being outgunned and out-damaged by lower level newer classes. Gunslingers, Alchemists & Kineticists to name a few. It's really getting to the point where I'm not having fun playing anymore. I've even got the 'nuclear blast' video bookmarked on youtube and tend to play it when the powergamers attack.
I play my characters because I enjoy them. I roleplay them. I have fun with them. But when somebody comes along with characters solely based upon the numbers of damage then can output, that annoys me. And there's alot more of them nowadays.
I'm really finding out that I'm a gamer of a different sort. I have characters that aren't min/maxed to the point of stupidity. 5 strength? Really?
Remember that it's a Roleplaying game. Have fun. Don't just break the game with your nuclear blast flinging characters.
I'll defend the race book a bit, it adds a bit of flavor. But again, Rules Lawyers and powergamers can break anything they put their minds too.
/endrant.
Am I alone on this?
So what you're saying is "I'm not like other gamers." I mean, PFS has PFS core for people like you, so you're not really that different.
Let me pull this line out especially:
But again, Rules Lawyers and powergamers can break anything they put their minds too.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the CRB. A cleric with only CRB spells can destroy a fighter and heal and buff and do anything else. Same with a druid. Wizards and Sorcs can out rogue a rogue without much effort.
You want a broken game with a massive gulf in power? Core is where the game's at its most polar when it comes to power levels.
This is why I'd be fine tossing out all the core classes, as aside from a few examples, they're the worst balanced of all the classes in the entire game. Sure, a beastmorph/vivi alchemist will DESTROY GOD, but so will just about any other character optimized to the hilt. Core optimized to the hilt just swings in the favor of magic doing it in different ways, which tricks people into thinking the big numbers from later books are bad. Core Wizard needs only Int/Dex/Con, takes spell focus in their favored school, and puts its DCs into a cartoonishly high bracket, and that's when they're using spells that allow saves.
If you're afraid of big numbers, some new classes might be an issue, but if you're afraid of balance concerns, every 9th level caster in the core rulebook should probably be banned at your table without a metagame agreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Rules Lawyers and powergamers can break anything they put their minds too.
/endrant.
Am I alone on this?
Well not entirely, which is kind of the point. Is it inevitable with so many options? Maybe, probably, but that doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
Basically, from my perspective, it's not an issue of a class doing something too well (as it feels like your assertions on optimized characters seems to point to), but classes that do too many things well, taking away from others.
I'm going to keep going back to the fighter because I apparently like beating on him....basically, his job per the tools he's given is to fight. He gives up skills, saves, & class features for this. Except everyone can fight, and many I'd argue do it better than the fighter. I mean how absurd is it that the fighter is the worst pure martial at using a variety of weapons? This leaves a class without a solid strength, but plenty of weaknesses, and very little variety in behavior. In contrast as was mentioned previosly, casters tend to get "i have an app for that" spells to give them problem solving abilities beyond those given to everyone.
I'm a bit contrary to the crowd in one respect on this though. I don't want that much more narrative power for the fighter. Throw a few more skills at him, maybe making skills better (every skill-like feat that paizo introduces makes skills less powerful), and then give him toys to make him fight better. Make a fighter a very noticeable & very threatening piece on the board, so that he clearly does his schtick better than anyone else.
Of course I also much prefer spheres of power's system to the built in casting, so that also tends to tone down the reality bending.
Actually, got a little side tracked. What I really want to get at is from my view there's nothing wrong with a player wanting to build an effective character. Some find a generalist effective, others specialize to an absurd amount, but I expect everyone wants to feel that they specifically bring something special to the table beyond the player's head, because they could just as well play a commoner.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But now, my heavy fighters are completely being outgunned and out-damaged by lower level ... Kineticists to name a few.
Wait, what? Your fighters are being out-damaged by lower-level kineticists?
I think that merits investigation. Mark Seifter, the main design guy behind the kineticist, was actually extremely meticulous in doing the math to make sure the kineticist's damage didn't outpace other damage-oriented classes (such as the fighter). In fact, there was even a thread a while back specifically about kineticist damage concerns in which Mark Seifter took time out of his day to make a post detailing the math to show that the kineticist was well within the baseline damage benchmarks of the game. I bet somebody could even come up with a link to the post.
So if your experience is the opposite, then something's going on. Maybe there's been a misunderstanding in the kineticists' builds that's giving them extra damage, or maybe your GM has inflated monsters' AC but the individual kineticists you've encountered are targeting touch AC, or maybe (and I don't mean this as a judgment) you opted to reduce your fighters' damage capabilities in exchange for something else but forgot that this meant you wouldn't be top-dog anymore, or maybe the usefulness of loot for your fighters and their kineticists has been lopsided, or any number of other things.
Anyway, I can't speak to the other classes that are outdamaging you, but maybe with a little investigation you can find a mutually-agreeable solution to your dilemma. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter damage is largely based upon getting full attacks. He's probably comparing a melee Fighter to the three classes. He probably wouldn't feel so bad if he was playing a spec archer.
Gunslingers are ranged touch attacks. Nobody beats them at close range IF they can get off their full attack sequence, simply because they won't miss.
Alchemists can either abuse TWF for bomb frenzy at range or be a mutator that gets devastating natural attacks and perhaps pounce.
kineticists are ranged attackers, again. Full attacks outdamage standard actions any day.
==Aelryinth
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being Factually wrong and correcting them is different than saying their Ideas or way of playing is incorrect.
Why do you keep inserting "way of playing" as though that's what I was saying was wrong? I already told you that's not what I was commenting on. If you really didn't believe me, you could go back and look at my posts, since they're all right there in writing for you. So why do you keep asserting that I'm speaking out against his preferences/playstyles?
What I actually said ("ideas are incorrect", without your "or way of playing" insertion) is the same as correcting someone who is factually wrong. An incorrect idea is a factually-wrong belief.
The only difference between the two things in that quote box is the difference you created when you put words in my mouth.
You need to stop doing that.
Am I alone on this?
When my group changed from core only to PRD, we noticed a definite uptick in the power level of the characters. One player even made the statement: "There is no point in making a character from the book because all of the newer stuff is better."
We tend to play in lower magic campaigns, and at lower levels, and with some serious RP/setting controls on magic though.
For the record, I'm happy to play in a core only game. The one thing I usually like beyond core is additional playable races.