|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I know Hmm said not to engage, but this thread just keeps on giving.
Also, I suspect that ChaosTicket wants to mold PFS into his style of game because he can't get into a home game where he could play his style of game.
Random thought, so as to contribute to the discussion: Have you tried getting into a home game via PbP? Maybe they will allow you to thrive under the conditions you have imposed for yourself.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
ChaosTicket,
Everyone here is being very nice. So, let's just get to it:
Stop playing PFS.
If it doesn't make you happy, stop playing PFS.
If it doesn't meet your particular gaming sensibilities, stop playing PFS.
If you constantly feel the need to complain about it or the people you play with, stop playing PFS.
If the only option you have to game is PFS, and all three of the above are true, stop playing PFS.
If you continue to play PFS despite all of the above, stop coming online to complain about playing PFS.
No one owes an explanation, no one owes you a defense, no one owes you a compassionate ear to listen anymore. After 83 games across 3 different Organized Play campaigns by the same company, you're not satisfied. Don't be the person who does something that makes them miserable and then complains about being miserable; you're not being a brash truthteller, you're being kind of a bummer.
PFS isn't for you.
Stop playing PFS.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest clue to the disconnect is this:
Pathfinder Society didnt really fix any of that.
Pathfinder Society isn't a redux or upgrade or revision of the Pathfinder game. Pathfinder Society is what is called a "Living Campaign" or "Organized Play." It is designed so that players can come and go from any table and have a similar experience at those different tables. The additional rules in Pathfinder Society are not "fixes" for Pathfinder but rather modifications designed to streamline the organized play and maintain the goals of organized play.
Another misconception you have is that your actions don't matter. That may be on a specific round-to-round standpoint or it may be in a grander scale.
On the grand scale, your actions do matter. In aggregate. All the tables that play a given scenario report "Reporting Conditions." The Organized Play team then takes the outcome with the most votes and affects the future scenario content to reflect the changes of those outcomes.
On the smaller scale, here's an example, my 1st level Cleric casts bless. Three rounds later ranger hits with an arrow that would have missed if not for the +1 morale bonus and kills the enemy. My action mattered, but I didn't get immediate results the moment after I cast bless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I could find a homebrew Pathfinder game on Sundays that would be great as the Pathfinder Society is just trouble.
Honestly if I could just stick to one character without having to swap it because of scenario level, because I already did it, or whatever other Society related problems that would be great.
The best way to get a homebrew group started is to offer to GM the first few months.
I agree with the others that the way you approach playing your characters may be affecting whether or not other GMs want to invite you into their home games.
To get around this, just start a group yourself. You've got plenty of knowledge to be a GM. All you need to do is invite other players to join you at home.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I suggest if youre not going to admit there are flaws with the Pathfinder Society campaign then stop responding. Im trying to find solutions and these threads get bogged down with pointless filler.
Oh, I fully admit there are flaws with Pathfinder Society and with Pathfinder in general. But you haven't revealed any of the actual flaws yet.
None of the things you are talking about are actual flaws unless you don't like the game system itself.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me saying chess is flawed: I found a work around by allowing my pawns to move unlimited squares in any direction, but when I play chess tournaments, they won't let me play my homebrew rules so I declare that chess tournaments are flawed.
Chess tournaments are not flawed. I'm just no good at chess.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im trying to find solutions...
I dont want to quit roleplaying games or tabletop games, just not deal with the Society's problems.
Organized Play is a worldwide shared campaign. It uses a subset of the Pathfinder RPG rules, modified by some “house rules”, all decided upon by the campaign leadership.
Organized Play GMs agree to run their games according to these rules.
Orgainized Play players agree to play by these rules.
If you can’t make those same agreements, this Organized Play Campaign is probably not for you.
Good news, though. There are plenty of other role playing and tabletop games out there. You can still play them and not have to deal with our “problems.”
Can’t find a home brew? Good news there, too. You already know some players who enjoy playing Pathfinder. I’d bet they’d love an opportunity to play even more Pathfinder.
Here’s my suggestion:
Engage them in conversation and say something like, “Hey guys, I like Pathfinder and role playing and tabletop games in general. Wouldn’t it be fun if we could craft our own gear, pick the pockets of the townies for extra gold, go out in the woods and hunt goblins until we’re 10th level? Now, I know we can’t do that in this Organized Play game, but what if we met here on some other night and ran our own game without the constraints of Organized Play? You know... use all the crazy rules from all the books? Who’s up for that?”
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf. And those lines about actions, yes "if they are allowed by the scenario". I think youre trying to antagonize me.
No. Not if they are allowed by the scenario.
The scenario does not have to allow them. The scenario will on VERY rare occasions specifically avoid them (with various levels of justification ranging from making perfect sense to WTF) but a scenario absolutely does not have to include a specific caveat for the party to try something the scenario does not intend. The DM is empowered to roll with creative solutions that the party comes up with without them being listed in the scenario.
Creative Solutions
Sometimes during the course of a scenario, your
players might surprise you with a creative solution to
an encounter (or the entire scenario) that you didn’t see
coming If, for example, your players manage to roleplay their
way through a combat and successfully accomplish the
goal of that encounter without killing the antagonist,
give the PCs the same reward they would have gained
had they defeated their opponent in combat.
-Guide page 13
If the DM thinks it should work, the dm is willing to let it work, and you have the skills to pull it off (no my players argument is so good, the 5 charisma dwarven barbarian charms everyone at the fancy dinner) then it works. AND you get the loot from the encounter. Somehow.
Not every DM is open to that but if they're not it's not because of the society rules. The very thing you say you can't do is explicitly allowed by the society rules to the point that the universe will somehow reward you for it.
Actual example from play
Players talk past Giant Monster
Giant monster picks up a slightly chewed backpack and throws it at the party.
"Get out of here! And learn to pick up after yourselves!"
Is talking to a Slime possible? I think youre pulling my leg.
Fast empathy ,ooze whisperer, and a druid with a +24 wild empathy. Slimes are easy to make friends with
Wild empathying a boat, now THAT was weird...
Well since you dared me Ill try to talk my way out of fights again. Last time, I talked to Solar Elementals, they tried to kill us all.
No tactic works every time. Nor should it. The game would be very boring if there was one kind of hammer that could drive every nail.
But something is true. Pathfinder has its flaws and I found out ways to work around them In Pathfinder. Pathfinder Society cut off those possibilities and adds new flaws which I also have to work around.
Pathfinder society not meeting your expected level of difficulty (none) is not a flaw. It is a difference of opinion between you and the developers who are trying to create a game to include as many people as possible. You are not getting "Real" pathfinder because most players have less fun when someone Brings their own personal army (from leadership) with doubled wealth by level gear (from crafting) to solo the dungeon.
What do you expect people that aren't you to be doing while you do all that?
Well I suggest if youre not going to admit there are flaws with the Pathfinder Society campaign
I think there's always room for improvement, but I also have to realize that any of my suggestions (like lead lined core rulebooks with "apply to rules lawyer repeatedly" stamped on the cover) simply aren't feasible in a living campaign like they would be in a home game.
I have had problems with the campaign. I didn't like that there was no reward for game day dms. We argued for, and got, the regional support program.
I didn't like that you needed an entire website devoted to DM prep to effectively run a scenario, and we got the monsters included in the scenarios instead of the ads.
I thought that the guide was a legalistic Amodean inspired mess to throw at a new guy so i wrote my own
I think the game finder is an unusable mess. So i made a better one
There's a thread with changes you'd like to see in PFS full of suggestions for improvement.
So this idea that i think everything is hunkey dorey because its PFS and thats why i'm going along with it is absolute malarky. You're trying to level that against what is likely the absolutely WORST person you could try that with. If i think something is wrong i say something. Boy do I say something...
No crafting, no leadership, and some risk is not wrong. It makes the game more playable and more fun for me and for the vast majority of people when those options aren't available. I don't want to play in, much less run, a game where 5 people go against a dungeon with their own private army of 25 characters. Either do a lot of people.
Role playing games are a group experience. Organized play is a larger group than a home game. You have to accept that and you have to adapt to the group. You cannot make 10,000 people radically alter the game (and what you're proposing is a radical alteration) they're playing because you want things to be a certain way.
Thousands of people have managed to level characters without being demigods with their own private army. You can to.
|
#4 Race to the finish line.
Rewards are based on scenario competition, though there are some secondary objectives but never anything awesome like a free +1-5 Flaming Longsword, just one more prestige point. Trying to be non-linear is unrewarded.
Unless you make a character capable of doing everything youre going to be doing a lot of nothing. Games are more often about completing in the shortest time so maybe do another one on the same day.#5 Forced min-maxing of characters.
I want to make interesting characters but the Adventure scenarios range between heavy skills or heavy combat. Depending on class its easy to be in a situation where I am useless because i didnt bring the right character for the scenario. Theoretically I could create a character able to do...
Sounds like this is self imposed when seen together. I have plenty of characters who are total dog shit with social skills.....yet they RP like they are total masters.....usually unsuccessfully but it makes the game enjoyable.
Making a character who can't combat doesn't make sense for the game and theme of organized play. You don't have to be an outrageous damage dealer or a huge box of hit points to be effective in combat so I'm not even really sure what you are on about with some of these arguments outside of your perception is obviously different then mine or your definition of what is "fun" is far more restrictive then mine....or maybe your definition of fun is better suited for a different game system....
also....
The guide to organized play specifically states that GMs should allow for creative solutions if at all possible. GMs that railroad their players into combats regardless of player action aren't very good GMs, and organized play doesn't have anything to do with that. But players whose only goal is to derail an adventure just for the sake of derailing adventures with the flimsy excuse of "because that is what my character would do" are the worst sort of player. Especially if they fall in line and take expected actions in a homebrew but are hyper disruptive in a organized game because they "don't like to be railroaded"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ordering nachos over and over and complaining about the cheese every time is a waste of the good life.
Pointing out to nacho-guy over and over that he doesn’t like cheese is about the same.
Getting upset when he complains again is maybe even a bigger waste of the good life than him ordering those damn nachos and complaining in the first place.
I had something about the waitstaff eventually starting to spit in the nachos, but that’s where the analogy broke down.
And now I really want some nachos. Peace out, y'all.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very good point. I want Pathfinder society to be like Pathfinder vanilla/original/proper/etc.
Why is it that people bring up all the instances In Roleplaying Games where they managed to rob people blind, talk their way out of trouble, and make tough enemies into chumps, but when I want to be able to do that something is wrong?
Videogames more often have those features. Roleplaying ones like the Fallout series allow 2-3 options like Fight/Talk/Sneak.
So I dont understand why people want a tabletop Roleplaying game to be poorly streamlined grindfests with no rewards until the end. The options are very much up the scenario, not the players' choice. I keep trying to talk my way out but it hasnt worked yet.
The Society campaign is poorly altered so its not a Videogame or a Roleplaying game. The only things new are the prestige and those are replacements for what people could already do with some clever thinking. Retraining is outright worse as you have to hoard up Prestige points.
=================
What do you want? I want feedback from my actions. I want things to matter. If they dont then speed along to the end so I can get my rewards and wait weeks while waiting for my character to "awaken".Warriors classes have the best results early on. There is feedback in attacking, hitting, and damaging enemies. Problem is all the later abilities are for the non-warriors because of "LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards". So is it possible to create a character that has 18 strength for low level fighting and 18+ casting stat for later on? If that was possible that would mean I wouldnt have to overthink about making a Cleric or a Druid.
================
Pathfinder has its well known flaws carried over from Dungeons and Dragons. Scaling is erratic and the early levels are deadly. There are ways to make things easier.Pathfinder Society didnt really fix any of that. It made it worse actually as it takes more work to gain anything, and still throws around overpowered enemies frequently unless you also have overpowered characters.
I've GMed for multiple people whose first character were a Rogue (why do so many people gravitate towards a CN Rogue?) and tried to rob people blind. I explained to them they can't gain extra money that way and that everything I do allow you to steal is flavour only. They accepted that. Even if they didn't, there's a very good reason why they shouldn't: you're a representative of the Society. One of the most important tasks is that you don't make the Society look like a bunch of incompetent murderhoboes. In PFS, unlike Fallout or Skyrim, you have to report to a higher authority. Explaining to them that you got caught with your hand in a lady's purse isn't something they want to hear.
It's true that a lot of adventures have encounters you can't talk your way out of. Either they're animals or demons you can't reason with, they're fanatics and have no other option, or are misguided/enthralled and are forced to serve the bad guy. But over the past three seasons, there have been more and more encounters that can be talked through. Hell, I've even seen some end encounters roleplayed away. While Pathfinder remains a combat-focused system, diplomacy certainly helps in a lot of scenarios.
Feedback from your actions is also pretty hard. It's not like Fallout/Skyrim where your notoriety can raise and NPCs are programmed to respond in a certain way, but again, there are scenarios where that does happen. Some scenarios have an awareness system where you have to blend in, earn trust points, or have A/B options. And in a lot of newer scenarios, there are things such as reporting notes, where the outcome of a scenario can influence potential follow-up scenarios. Or hell, if that's not an option, there's flavour. I take pride in managing to subdue an enemy and take him back for questioning, rather than being his judge, jury, and executioner and killing him on the spot.
As said before, no one expects you to dominate in all areas. Bards can talk their way out of anything but they're seldom a powerhouse on the battlefield (other than handing out buffs, I mean). Wizards can handle anything, as long as they're not surrounded by enemies. And Fighters can fight all day long, as long as they're supported by Wizards/Clerics/Bards/etc. As for casting stats, here's a radical thought: sometimes you have to depend on others. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you don't have to. Traditional support Clerics have it tough the first few levels, but eventually grow into their own. People understand that you can't help out in every fight, so being just a meat shield or wand operator the first few levels is fine. Eventually you have enough spells per day where you can do something every fight. Wizards have it even tougher. They get three pissing spells at level 1, and have no frontline capabilities. They have to muddle around with crossbows. I get that party composition can be an issue, but I've seen some inventive solutions. A party without a frontline got by on summons, and Cure Light or Infernal Healing is on practically every spell list, so there's no reason not to carry a wand of either (or both) when you're missing a divine caster.
Again, for every single complaint there's a valid reason why it is the way it is, mostly having to do with individual experience versus general balance. You can either agree with them, or invent your own ChaosTicket Society, where only you have fun. I'm not saying your arguments are worthless, but when you look at the bigger picture, there's more important things to worry about.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People emphasize that Pathfinder is a team game, but Pathfinder Society isnt that way. There are also no ways to actually deal with pickup groups.
I have played some forty games of PFS since I started. I play at small local conventions, where there are usually two to six tables of PFS/Starfinder going on.
I have enjoyed every scenario I have played, though not always _all_ of the scenario. I play with whoever shows up. There is often character paralysis of the sort, "well I could play a fighter, a paladin, and oracle, or a rogue. What's everybody else playing?" When three out of five people do this, it can 10 minutes just to settle on characters.
There are either two problems here:
A) You are playing with a terrible mix of players.
B) You are the problem.
For them nature of your posts, I estimate it's 60% A), and another 60% B).
1. Loot. Loot is rigorously controlled, to keep things balanced across one million tables across fifteen years and several continents. Hundreds of thousands of PFS/Starfinder players accept this. Why can't you?
2. Skill Monkeys. The last time I played with a skill monkey (level 4), his typical attack was to cast Magic Missile from a wand repeatedly. Compared to the Gunslinger (level 6) who delivered 80% of the damage to the BBEG end boss, but only contributed to Kn Engr checks. But both characters roleplayed the same ammount, and enjoyed it the same ammount.
You seem to have unreasonable expectations, so it is no wonder you are disappointed.
PFS is not a homebrew. Neither is it a videogame with a halt button. If you aren't enjoying PFS because it's not enough like either of the above; then go play one of them.
If you aren't enjoying PFS, stop being a masochist and find something else to do with your time.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
You need one of a few very specific builds to help protect someone else going toe to toe with the bad guys and if you don't use that, your tank is going to feel useless plinking away for 1d8+2 damage while the monster ignores him to tear apart the backstabbing rogue.
What inane build of a tank are you thinking of? Its easy enough to eat through damage and be more threatening than the backstabbing rogue.
When not arguing this actually achieves some progress.
#1 Scenarios are flawed. They are made not with the party in mind but whether your party fits the scenario. I dont think Pathfinder is supposed to throw DC 25 checks or enemies with one-shot kill abilities at level 1 characters but those are in the scenarios that early on.
This can punish players for not having for not having min-maxed characters that start with +10 on certain skill checks.
#2 the credit system is flawed. Its the primary reason why my group isnt progressing. Each player can only play Scenarios once unless they are level 1-2 "evergreen" scenarios. Each player also has to play average 3 scenarios to get to the next level. Technically players can use Pre-generated characters but you cant actually access the rewards until you reach the required level of the scenario.
For a GM this is the problem of bringing in scenarios that every player can receive credit for and has character of that level range.
All of it stresses linear progression as each player still has to do 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and so on in order. You cant jump in, earning experience, quickly level and get close to the party level, nor can you just skip the low levels and start as level [blank].
#3 Focusing on balance is flawed as Pathfinder is an inherently unbalanced system.
a Class based system is self-contradictory. Teamwork is promoted but more often tries to make characters dependent on one another. It is still possible to make characters through the class system that have both Combat Ability, skills, and numerous other features that easily dominate lower levels just because you picked a certain class.
Other classes have high equipment requirements. For example Any dexterity character requires equipment costing thousands of gold to be able to do damage any reasonable amount of damage with their attacks. Spellcasters need expensive wands to avoid a "15minute work day".
#4 Prestige is flawed. In theory its a good idea to buy things at earlier then you normally would through character level system. The problem is that you could already earn that through a campaign so its not an addition, its an exchange.
This all hurt progression as you cannot take easy to level classes, and then use retraining to get into other classes even with hoarding Prestige as the amount needed is more than a player can actually earn.
=====================
This leads to continuous loops as players with higher level characters have to keep making new low-level characters and low level players have to keep working a slow grind just made worse by how many character classes take a large amount of time to actually gain the equipment and abilities they need to function.
Tabletop games are about roleplaying to find alternatives to linear situations and people made a campaign stressing linear progressing that in my experience stress the best builds, the best equipment, and the most +1s to skills and stats while at the same time trying to prevent people from getting equipment and abilities. Its a fundamental contradiction.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please try to increase your signal to noise ratio. Yes. Everything is flawed. Such is life. Thats not the question. The question is what has you spinning your wheels in low levels.
#1 Scenarios are flawed. They are made not with the party in mind but whether your party fits the scenario. I dont think Pathfinder is supposed to throw DC 25 checks or enemies with one-shot kill abilities at level 1 characters but those are in the scenarios that early on.
So are you saying that you can't advance at an acceptable rate because you keep dying or that you can't get any prestige because the checks are too high?
#2 the credit system is flawed. Its the primary reason why my group isnt progressing. Each player can only play Scenarios once unless they are level 1-2 "evergreen" scenarios. Each player also has to play average 3 scenarios to get to the next level. Technically players can use Pre-generated characters but you cant actually access the rewards until you reach the required level of the scenario.
Do you have two tables? That is something that actually WILL keep you spinning your wheels, but it will stop you at 5. Not 1 or two.
You can take pregen credit, drop the gold to 500 and apply it to a first level character. This actually won't cost you more than 14 or so gold in the long run.
For a GM this is the problem of bringing in scenarios that every player can receive credit for and has character of that level range.
I know that pain.
But at the very least you can run or at least scheduel the new scenarios. That's mostly what I relied on with our group.
you can try to get the group on Pfstracker.com to make it easier for your cat herder.
All of it stresses linear progression as each player still has to do 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and so on in order. You cant jump in, earning experience, quickly level and get close to the party level, nor can you just skip the low levels and start as level [blank].
This gives the player time to learn pathfinder and PFS. It has its downsides but overall its a good thing.
Things are a series of compromises. The fact that something has downsides does not mean that it is wrong, flawed, or the wrong choice.
It is still possible to make characters through the class system that have both Combat Ability, skills, and numerous other features that easily dominate lower levels just because you picked a certain class.
You argue that you can't do this but also that it's a flaw in the system that you can do this.
Other classes have high equipment requirements. For example Any dexterity character requires equipment costing thousands of gold to be able to do damage any reasonable amount of damage with their attacks. Spellcasters need expensive wands to avoid a "15minute work day".
Adjust your expectations of reasonable. A level 1-3 doing a d8 damage is doing just fine until dex to damage comes online for a rogue at 3. You can live with a starting 17 dex and a 10 strength.
#4 Prestige is flawed. In theory its a good idea to buy things at earlier then you normally would through character level system. The problem is that you could already earn that through a campaign so its not an addition, its an exchange.
Fame really stops mattering after your first big purchase in most cases.
Tabletop games are about roleplaying to find alternatives to linear situations and people made a campaign stressing linear progressing that in my experience doesnt reward roleplaying but roll-playing. Its a fundamental contradiction
You are not going to find an alternative to leveling your character without his butt going in the dungeon or you dming games. There is no substitute for experience.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just make ChaosTicket Society already!! Find some random people that want to break the world over their knee with their overpowered hyperversatile immortal godfolk. Have a good time with your power fantasy, and leave the rest of us to our organized play.
Or keep piping up with inane "change a system thousands of people understand may not be their ideal, but still enjoy regardless, so I am happy" manifestos every few weeks or so.
|
|
Just make ChaosTicket Society already!! Find some random people that want to break the world over their knee with their overpowered hyperversatile immortal godfolk. Have a good time with your power fantasy, and leave the rest of us to our organized play.
Or keep piping up with inane "change a system thousands of people understand may not be their ideal, but still enjoy regardless, so I am happy" manifestos every few weeks or so.
OMG yes. This is the best idea in this thread, ChaosTicket Society. Somehow, and this is just a hunch here, I don’t think there’d be a long line to join.
I am amazed again by the patience that a lot of folks show here while talking to a brick wall. Technarken accurately described these as a manifesto. They are not made seeking advice, they are made to rail against the injustice of pfs.
ChaosTicket is not just unwilling to process the advice others are giving, he is unable to. This is clear in this thread and many others. While manifestos can make interesting reading, not much good will come from debating the author.
|
|
I think that I've figured out what he's been trying to tell us.
His problem is not that he cannot make progress but that he cannot catch up with the established core group of gamers in his local PFS venue. It appears that he is being forced to play up very frequently, thus his fear of death and sense of not making progress. In many online video games, there are mechanisms for higher level players to carry newer players to help them catch up. Even in 3.5 and PF, there's possibility for a new player's character to catch up in level with the established group, provided the disparity is not too great. This mechanism/effect does not exist in PFS. You get 1 XP whether you play in subtier or play up.
So, the regulars are 3-4s playing 4-5 in 1-5 scenarios. He, the new guy, brings his fresh PFS character and gets steamrolled in the second combat. He brings a new character. Two scenarios later, they've all leveled to 4-5s and playing 3-7 scenarios, and he's stuck at 1st level with 2 xp.
His "fixes" are ways for a lower level character to survive in a higher level environment.
It looks like his group doesn't want to slow down for him (and the pool of players and GMs is too small).
|
ChaosTicket, I asked you up thread whether starting at a higher level, with greater than average gold, was something appealing to you.
It *seems* to be in line with what you're asking for. I may be wrong.
|
|
If in fact this is a(nother) serious thread, then a lot of people have provided a lot of information to you, on this and on previous threads. There are also a million forum posts that answer almost any question you can think of (often in multiple ways). I think the issue here, is that you are not taking the time to read and digest all of that content.
That's how you "grind" in PFS: read. Read all the rules, understand them, master them. Ignore the ones not allowed, and use the ones that are. Learn new ways to build characters or play, by reading. There are players in my Lodge with characters that can actually solo scenarios (although they don't, because it's a team game), even with all the limitations of PFS, because they read and understand the rules and how they work, and the rules overwhelmingly favor the PCs. They read and understand other players' experiences, and not just their own. When they learn something different from the way they have always done things, then they adapt their knowledge base and incorporate it into their playing.
That's the only advice I can give you, because EVERYTHING else in Pathfinder is built upon that. From the sounds of it, you don't really want to take your gaming group's word for things... and there's no way to shortcut. Read, understand, and adapt.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
(And with respect, I'm not sure that GMing is the best suggestion to remedy ChaosTicket's issue. Yes, GMs can get risk-free credit onto their PCs, but they also have a major effect on other players. A GM in a small Lodge who is doing it just for the credit without putting in the effort to read the scenario and understand it, or to apply the rules properly, is not a situation I'd push for.)
|
|
more stuff
The bottom line is this. While PFS tweaks the rules from time to time, most of the "flaws" you describe are inherent, accepted, and embraced aspects of the campaign by the VAST majority of players. We simply do not agree with your assessments nor your passionate insistence that changes need to be made. You need to warm up to the fact that you should either accept these "flaws" and focus on aspects of the game you do enjoy (if anything) or you should stop "wasting" your valuable personal time playing a game you do not enjoy. Life is too short to be pissed off, miserable, or at the very least unhappy. Refusal to accept those options and continuing to extend this argument just makes you look either like a bitter whiner or a troll. That neither helps you nor the community. You are not an unstoppable force, but you are beating yourself against an immovable object.
|
|
If in fact this is a(nother) serious thread, then a lot of people have provided a lot of information to you, on this and on previous threads. There are also a million forum posts that answer almost any question you can think of (often in multiple ways). I think the issue here, is that you are not taking the time to read and digest all of that content.
That's how you "grind" in PFS: read. Read all the rules, understand them, master them. Ignore the ones not allowed, and use the ones that are. Learn new ways to build characters or play, by reading. There are players in my Lodge with characters that can actually solo scenarios (although they don't, because it's a team game), even with all the limitations of PFS, because they read and understand the rules and how they work, and the rules overwhelmingly favor the PCs. They read and understand other players' experiences, and not just their own. When they learn something different from the way they have always done things, then they adapt their knowledge base and incorporate it into their playing.
That's the only advice I can give you, because EVERYTHING else in Pathfinder is built upon that. From the sounds of it, you don't really want to take your gaming group's word for things... and there's no way to shortcut. Read, understand, and adapt.
One thing about his premise of thought though is that if you don't have the highest possible stat that the option is useless. At least that's how he's come across before.
Like if you're a magus and only have a 16 int your spells are useless since you didn't start with an 18 or 20. If you a magus and your str is 16 attacking is useless since you didn't start with an 18 or 20. Similar with skills, if your diplomacy isn't +10 at lv1 and doubled that by lv3 it's useless to try diplomacy. This illustrates his flaw of how good you need to be at something to help out a party.
This is one if his issues. He sees fighters as good at lv1 to hit things, but then wants to retrain to a rogue at lv3 and then to a wizard at lv7, thus always having a character be at peak power levels for their level. Again showing his flaw that you must be the best at all times to help the party.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just make ChaosTicket Society already!! Find some random people that want to break the world over their knee with their overpowered hyperversatile immortal godfolk. Have a good time with your power fantasy, and leave the rest of us to our organized play.
Or keep piping up with inane "change a system thousands of people understand may not be their ideal, but still enjoy regardless, so I am happy" manifestos every few weeks or so.
OMG yes. This is the best idea in this thread, ChaosTicket Society. Somehow, and this is just a hunch here, I don’t think there’d be a long line to join.
I am amazed again by the patience that a lot of folks show here while talking to a brick wall. Technarken accurately described these as a manifesto. They are not made seeking advice, they are made to rail against the injustice of pfs.
ChaosTicket is not just unwilling to process the advice others are giving, he is unable to. This is clear in this thread and many others. While manifestos can make interesting reading, not much good will come from debating the author.
I'd join, if only to demonstrate why Org Play makes the compromises it does. In many cases I'm the sort of player PFS's houserules were written to counter, after all.
|
|
One thing about his premise of thought though is that if you don't have the highest possible stat that the option is useless. At least that's how he's come across before.
That's one reason I suspect that he's always playing abive subtier. That misconception will be reinforced if you're encountering CRs 5+ greater than your level.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Actually, the one flaw that he has repeatedly pointed out people have scoffed as inappropriate isn't really subjective at all. There are scenarios where the difficultly sidelines into an area where you would get the impression you'd want to min max. Jarlsblood is a good example of a scenario where the writer assumes a MMO trinity and even then that isn't guaranteed that you won't TPK.This is not true. Gwyn of Nybor is not min-maxed. If Gwyn of Nybor was min-maxed he'd use a two handed great sword instead of a longsword. He would have focused on 3 skills rather than 2 with a smattering of 1 rank "offs" in some so I could make assist rolls.
One thing about his premise of thought though is that if you don't have the highest possible stat that the option is useless. At least that's how he's come across before.That's one reason I suspect that he's always playing abive subtier. That misconception will be reinforced if you're encountering CRs 5+ greater than your level.
Or just playing really badly designed scenarios.
|
|
That's one reason I suspect that he's always playing above subtier.
Which is one way the society earns extra gold, so if you're focused on earning as much gold as possible you consistantly try to play up.
1) this is bad form. It makes it harder on the rest of the group. I mean, it happens on its own and thats not a problem, but every time starts to grate. You have to pay it forward eventually
2) and this is irony, what are generally considered strong character options (high damage melee, save or die casters, battlefield characters, pet classes) do not play up well. Casters have trouble with people consistently making saves. High damage melee can have trouble hitting. Both will quickly draw the ire of the big bad and get turned to paste. Options that are generally considered weak/suboptimal (healing, buffing, skill monkeys ) play up very well by standing in the back and not drawing attention, and contributing indirectly.
|
|
Guys, can we please try to make this a discussion of ideas, rather than of the OP's character?
A discussion of ideas presumes a back and forth exchange and an ability to consider another viewpoint. ChaosTicket does not engage in this manner. Given this some continue to post advice in vain hopes to breakthrough the brick wall. Others see that as a useless endeauver and speculate on why it is so.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Actually, the one flaw that he has repeatedly pointed out people have scoffed as inappropriate isn't really subjective at all. There are scenarios where the difficultly sidelines into an area where you would get the impression you'd want to min max. Jarlsblood is a good example of a scenario where the writer assumes a MMO trinity and even then that isn't guaranteed that you won't TPK.This is not true. Gwyn of Nybor is not min-maxed. If Gwyn of Nybor was min-maxed he'd use a two handed great sword instead of a longsword. He would have focused on 3 skills rather than 2 with a smattering of 1 rank "offs" in some so I could make assist rolls.
I dunno - We ran that one and...
** spoiler omitted **
You had the trinity three times over and having looked at the stats for the monsters you lucked out. If you get horrible luck in one encounter there is a monster capable of sidelining most of your party composition in one hit.
