• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • See https://www.intpforum.com/threads/upgrade-at-10-am-gmt.27631/

The problem with Pathfinder

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
I think in some regards the people who made this system didn't have their priorities straight, as I see it a tabletop game should put freedom of choice first, freedom of action second, narrative third and challenge last.

For example the results of skill checks in Pathfinder are very binary and this both strongly discourages players from using them in all but the most mundane ways and discourages DMs from putting players in truly dangerous scenarios. For example almost everything is a DC15 which means a player with two ranks in a class skill usually has a 50% chance of succeeding, and a 50% chance of failure. If that player is climbing a mountain or jumping between rooftops a 50% chance of failure is unacceptably harsh, so players don't do stuff like that until they're of a much higher level and are sure to succeed.

But that's bullshit, at lower levels a rouge/ninja or whatever in the Pathfinder system is defined as such by their class abilities and spell like abilities (which greatly affect the character build) while the general skills one would normally recognise that class by languish until level 5 to 10. I think a character's build should be based on their skills not the other way around because skills are the essential enablers of each class, they are what makes each class "that class".

I was watching a recorded Pathfinder campaign on youtube in which a ranger failed multiple attempts to light a fucking campfire, how does a "ranger" fuck that up, I would understand if this one ranger doesn't have wild empathy or this one rouge can't sneak attack or this one wizard doesn't have a bonded object, this stuff isn't essential to their class identity, their skills are. A ranger that can't survive in the wild isn't a ranger, a rouge that can't do acrobatics isn't a rouge, a wizard without knowledge arcana isn't a wizard, etc, do you see what I mean?

Skills are the essential enablers of each class, they're what make a class.

Take the Pathfinder classes out of combat and you know what they are?
They're nothing, just a pile of abilities that ought to be feats.

That's how I'd fix this, each class gets +10 to their class skills at level 1, none of this ability bullshit, all the abilities and spell-like abilities become class specific feats that players can choose as bonus feats when they level up.

And bloodlines they need some serious fixing too, my problem with the bloodlines is that they're offered as a choice when in reality they're anything but, it's the same problem as classes you're basically deciding upon you build at level 1 with the added bullshit that it's tied into your character's fuff as well. The result of this is build based characters with no real identity, the player either chooses a build then a bloodline to match or a bloodline then tries to figure out how to make it work despite how it may affect the character they want to play.

To fix this I would pull all the low level ability crap out of the bloodlines, leave in a few minor perks and disadvantages (like 5pts damage reduction to this element and vulnerability to that element) so the fluff isn't irreverent mechanically but ensuring the bloodline doesn't dictate the mechanics, and leave in the high level stuff so when I'm level 10 or whatever and I get some drake wings I've been able to adapt my build to accommodate and make good use of them.

The ideal with bloodlines being that a sorcerer wouldn't actually pick their bloodline, they'd just pick their class and at some point in the first session when the DM feels it's appropriate (or funny) the sorcerer's bloodline dramatically awakens and the player rolls to find out what their bloodline is. Wouldn't that be awesome?

If it doesn't matter for the first five to ten levels you have time to adapt but more importantly having this bloodline thrust upon you becomes method acting because it has been thrust upon you and maybe it conflicts with the alignment you want to play or maybe you don't want to be slowly turning into an aboleth, feel the angst! :D

Also before I forget skills should have degrees of success and failure, even if a ranger totally fucks up trying to start a fire maybe they set fire to the grass beside the fireplace and everybody has to scramble to stop it becoming a brushfire, the point is a ranger shouldn't simply fail at something like that, likewise a rouge may miss a jump but catch the ledge, y'know whatever enables the player to rely on that skill as someone of that class should.

I'm not saying you can't fuck up class skills just that a bard fucking up their performance is different to some dickhead trying to be a bard, one's a professional performer the other's not, the drunken would-be bard may fail to impress but the bard will be booed and heckled, but if he was merely trying to create a distraction he has succeeded either way.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 02:22
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,210
Location
someplace windswept
The system is as good as the GM. GM could allow the ranger to light the campfire without a roll. Also there is a rule to take 20 in safe conditions where nothing goes against you.

While I agree, pathfinder is a very limited system compared to the general variety. Nothing stops the GM from modifying it or choosing another d20 iteration.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Today, 09:52
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,470
I think in some regards the people who made this system didn't have their priorities straight, as I see it a tabletop game should put freedom of choice first, freedom of action second, narrative third and challenge last.
These are your preferences. I personally see challenge first, freedom as a tool to meet challenges, and story to be a means of holding it all together. If I wanted freedom I'd write a book, and if I wanted story I'd read one. You also seem to be ignoring the control a DM has over the game. There is nothing in the rules about how you have to use them, or even whether you need to listen to all of them. Most games have a few house-rules and most DM's have their own interpretation of what makes a game good.

For example the results of skill checks in Pathfinder are very binary and this both strongly discourages players from using them in all but the most mundane ways and discourages DMs from putting players in truly dangerous scenarios. For example almost everything is a DC15 which means a player with two ranks in a class skill usually has a 50% chance of succeeding, and a 50% chance of failure. If that player is climbing a mountain or jumping between rooftops a 50% chance of failure is unacceptably harsh, so players don't do stuff like that until they're of a much higher level and are sure to succeed.
You can give bigger point buy so that players can get more skills. You can be lenient on DC's and you can alter the adventure so that the skills are relatively easy checks. The rules are just there to support the vision of the DM/players. If you're into skills, you can do a lot to increase them, but for those who don't care there are other options. At level 1, I had +12 to my planar knowledge, which means I had an 85% chance to hit that DC 15. If I really wanted to I could've made it 95% by investing a trait.

You're also forgetting that these things scale, so your problem is only with D&D low levels. If you could do everything at level 1, you'd be unable to progress, and the game might get stale.

The skills aren't all binary, but some are, for a reason. It's supposed to represent a self-consistent reality. Pathfinder =/= platform jumper.

But that's bullshit, at lower levels a rouge/ninja or whatever in the Pathfinder system is defined as such by their class abilities and spell like abilities (which greatly affect the character build) while the general skills one would normally recognise that class by languish until level 5 to 10. I think a character's build should be based on their skills not the other way around because skills are the essential enablers of each class, they are what makes each class "that class".
Errr... I disagree? ...or don't understand? A class is a categorisation used for balance and flavour purposes. Skills are a means of customising classes to give personality and variety. It seems like you're going ham with a value judgement over skills. Could you give more reasons for why skills are so important to class specificity when by their very nature they are not definitive of class?

I was watching a recorded Pathfinder campaign on youtube in which a ranger failed multiple attempts to light a fucking campfire, how does a "ranger" fuck that up?
Take 20. People always fuckup making fires, but they stay there until it works. As Blar said, most DM's wouldn't bother making you role to light a fire because success is inevitable.

I would understand if this one ranger doesn't have wild empathy or this one rouge can't sneak attack or this one wizard doesn't have a bonded object, this stuff isn't essential to their class identity, their skills are. A ranger that can't survive in the wild isn't a ranger, a rouge that can't do acrobatics isn't a rouge, a wizard without knowledge arcana isn't a wizard, etc, do you see what I mean?

Skills are the essential enablers of each class, they're what make a class.
A rogue is any unprincipled person. That could be anyone of a non-lawful alignment. They don't need to be sneaky, or manipulative, or acrobatic, or able to escape bindings, or able to disarm/spot traps, or whatever else. A rogue is not defined by his skills. Classes are defined by different things, they are just player character templates that have any number of reasons for existing.

Take the Pathfinder classes out of combat and you know what they are?
They're nothing, just a pile of abilities that ought to be feats.
So not their skills? Not their character? Not their utility class features? Not their background or personality? Again, I'm not entirely certain what you're saying. There is no limit enforced upon what you can write up for your character.

That's how I'd fix this, each class gets +10 to their class skills at level 1, none of this ability bullshit, all the abilities and spell-like abilities become class specific feats that players can choose as bonus feats when they level up.
That seems ...hasty. You're still very inexperienced... Pathfinder is made by guys that have played themselves a lot of D&D. There are some things I find questionable, but less so than your proposed changes. It seems to reach your vision you'd be better off building from the ground up.

And bloodlines they need some serious fixing too, my problem with the bloodlines is that they're offered as a choice when in reality they're anything but, it's the same problem as classes you're basically deciding upon you build at level 1 with the added bullshit that it's tied into your character's fuff as well. The result of this is build based characters with no real identity, the player either chooses a build then a bloodline to match or a bloodline then tries to figure out how to make it work despite how it may affect the character they want to play.
You have that option. Talk to the DM about it next time. I guess, you're moving to limit the freedom of other players to choose their character, when you could just ask for this particular quirk for yourself. Last campaign I ran I had a wizard that wanted to improvise from what spells he learned, rather than choosing new spells with a plan in mind. So I devised a system for how his new spells were decided on the spot. Worked a treat.

To fix this I would pull all the low level ability crap out of the bloodlines, leave in a few minor perks and disadvantages (like 5pts damage reduction to this element and vulnerability to that element) so the fluff isn't irreverent mechanically but ensuring the bloodline doesn't dictate the mechanics, and leave in the high level stuff so when I'm level 10 or whatever and I get some drake wings I've been able to adapt my build to accommodate and make good use of them.
I'm not sure what you're trying to fix. You think the game mechanics should be tailored to your preferences at a global level? There are already many aspects of the game which you don't have control over from the start, such as itemisation and NPC's. If you want less control, just ask for it, or roll a dice. I already do some decision making by the roll of a die (that 7 wisdom tho!)

The ideal with bloodlines being that a sorcerer wouldn't actually pick their bloodline, they'd just pick their class and at some point in the first session when the DM feels it's appropriate (or funny) the sorcerer's bloodline dramatically awakens and the player rolls to find out what their bloodline is. Wouldn't that be awesome?
As above, it's an option.

If it doesn't matter for the first five to ten levels you have time to adapt but more importantly having this bloodline thrust upon you becomes method acting because it has been thrust upon you and maybe it conflicts with the alignment you want to play or maybe you don't want to be slowly turning into an aboleth, feel the angst! :D
It would be terrible DMing if they forced you to play something you didn't want. Considering you'd have to roleplay this stuff for an entire campaign... What if you don't like the same stuff the DM does? If I got turned into a half-faerie I'd be fucking furious.

Also before I forget skills should have degrees of success and failure, even if a ranger totally fucks up trying to start a fire maybe they set fire to the grass beside the fireplace and everybody has to scramble to stop it becoming a brushfire, the point is a ranger shouldn't simply fail at something like that, likewise a rouge may miss a jump but catch the ledge, y'know whatever enables the player to rely on that skill as someone of that class should.
They usually do. Look up what your skills actually do. Many of them have degrees of failure/success. For the purpose of proceeding through the game, it's often left to the imagination for this sort of stuff, but the closer the proximity to the DC the more fine the line you trod. RB does a fairly good job at narrating some of this, though admittedly more so for combat rolls.

I'm not saying you can't fuck up class skills just that a bard fucking up their performance is different to some dickhead trying to be a bard, one's a professional performer the other's not, the drunken would-be bard may fail to impress but the bard will be booed and heckled, but if he was merely trying to create a distraction he has succeeded either way.
There is nothing in the rules that stops this sort of thinking. To me it feels like you're taking issue with the letter of the law when the same law states not to take it too seriously.

If you want to be defined by your skills, you can specialise in skills. I did.

If you want to not make decisions about your character, you can roll a die, or have the DM do it.

These sorts of issues don't require systemic change, they're already options within the ruleset.

@Blar
I see very few limits, but I'm also unfamiliar with other systems. My understanding is that pathfinder lets you do almost anything, but does not necessarily provide the specific rules for you to do so. To me that's just a simple open system, not a narrow one.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today, 10:22
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,994
Location
69S 69E
I think the real issue here is that you don't know enough about how the game works to utilize it properly.

I could have made your Vampiric Bloodline build work with the right ability distribution, feat, race and trait selection. There's very few combinations of class/archetype that are inherently "weak". The problem is you don't really have the experience/knowledge to put together a unique build that works properly.

In fact with 25 point buy I actually could have made it borderline broken. There's nothing wrong with bloodlines*. There's about 3 which are quite underwhelming, a handful that are strong and then the rest are quite useful if built correctly.

Most of what Hado said I agree with, don't see much need to expound on it.

*In fact Sorcerer's have apparently become more and more popular in society play (whereas it used to just be Wizards everywhere) because of the flexibility provided by bloodlines now.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 02:22
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,210
Location
someplace windswept
@Blar
I see very few limits, but I'm also unfamiliar with other systems. My understanding is that pathfinder lets you do almost anything, but does not necessarily provide the specific rules for you to do so. To me that's just a simple open system, not a narrow one.
Yes, I agree. I was referring to systems that have more mechanics provided, but everything is open and customisable, so a complaint against a system is either the issue of the player or the issue with the game master.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
I don't mean to have a shot at redbaron, I really don't he's running a fine game and I eagerly await each session, but I do have a strong preference for skills because I see them being tools a player uses to solve problems, a different class gives you a different toolset.

Actually before I go any further I'm not going to get into a debate about there being nothing wrong with Pathfinder because it can be changed in various ways, that's a cyclical argument.

So the reason I think skills should be emphasised is that they enable players to do things and the things a character can do is pretty much (or rather should be) the definition of each class because the things a given character can do are far more fundamental to their behaviour in and outside of combat than any abilities they might have. More importantly skills are very contributory which is party why I think there's no such thing as an overpowered skill, an arcane knowledge check benefits everyone, a trap finding check benefits everyone, a survival check benefits everyone and so if a player is really good at a certain skill other players aren't going to feel shortchanged by comparison because they benefit from it too.

One character might find a trap twenty times every session and another may have a skill that only gets used about once every three levels but the rarity of that skill makes it all the more impressive when they use it, you might not get to use Heal very often but when someone needs a parasitic voidworm cut out of them or to be treated for a debilitating disease you'll be the hero for having it.

In terms of freedom of choice having a party of people with diverse and powerful skills means you get to choose as a party how to approach problems, consider the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, in it the three most interesting characters out of the party of five were those with the interesting skills. Starlord is 100% rouge, Groot has lots of non-combat abilities that for the sake of argument count as skills since they're enablers, Rocket crafts/hacks/flies stuff as well, whereas the other two were combatants and nothing but.

Those three were more interesting than the other two because skills enable a diversity of actions but in order to actually be useful these skills have to exceed their cost in the economy of consequences. Ever played a stealth videogame in which being spotted at all is an instant game over, fucking annoying isn't it? Or what about a skateboarding game where a single slip ends you run, such a game has never existed, or what about a racing game where there's no crash recovery so if you crash once you come last, not fun is it?

These example fail the economy of time and consequences because the costs of failure are too high, if a single crash ended your race in Burnout players would drive under the speed limit and politely indicate when turning because anyone who tries to actually race will crash and instantly lose. However there are racing games where a single crash can end your race and they're fun but they're almost a completely different kind of game, they involve proper racing cars on proper tracks with bots that will never try to shunt you off the road or force you to take corners at breakneck speed.

If Pathfinder is the latter kind of racer then I want to design the former because I think it would be more fun, more adventurous and in a fantasy world with spells and dragons and whatnot I don't see why mechanical realism is more important than fun, not when the actual realism of the game is far more dependant upon the suspension of disbelief provided by the GM's world building.

The keen senses means a character has 10% better sight/hearing than usual which seems inconsequential to me, now I'm not bitching about Takashi's perception score it's fine I'm having a ball, I'm just trying to say that from a lore perspective I'd expect a kitsune/cat-person or whatever to have significantly better senses, not just marginally better. The reason being that it would significantly affect the experience of playing that character, with +10 perception that character will almost always spot/hear stuff first so they player will both use that skill whenever possible. They will also become an asset to their party, other players will call them over to look at things (like what's splashing around at bottom of a well) or to sniff food/drink for poison before their character consumes it.

That's what skills do, a high skill score dramatically changes how you'll play a character (Takashi lying at every opportunity) because they're powerful tools for puzzle solving and more importantly role play, the afore mentioned spotter/sniffer is now playing a role in their party and has a wealth of opportunities to show their character's personality with it, e.g. If you put a cupcake under Takashi's nose he would tell you it's poisoned, take it off you and eat it himself when you're not looking.

More on the way...
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
Okay if you lot happy there's nothing wrong with pathfinder, it's just not how I would do it and anything but the way I would do something is, of course, absolutely wrong :D

You may be worried about how really high skills may affect the challenge of a game, well apart from acrobatics and maybe spellcraft they don't really affect combat and if there is some game breaking loophole then it just needs to be found and fixed, I have no illusion that changing Pathfinder risks affecting the balance in unforeseen ways. Meanwhile getting money out of crafting and profession skills is like trying to get blood from a stone so good luck with trying to exploit that, if anything I think boosting those skills actually makes them of practical use.

A high acrobatics skill can be countered in many ways, as can a high perception skill, so another thing I really like about players relying more on their skills is that it gives a DM more opportunities to mess with them. A party accustomed to being able to spot/hear everything coming may be very intimidated by a dark and stormy night whereas a party that usually fail to spot anything wouldn't care, they're used to it.

It's also great paranoia fuel, a player used to relying on acrobatics in combat may think twice about attacking something that can slow/entangle him and someone with high perception will constantly be hearing things, a scream far away, sobbing from under the floorboards, other unrecognizable things...
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
On the off chance this isn't clear yet nothing in this thread is about redbaron's game, I'm just considering what kind of game I'll DM when he's done with his, I might have implemented my ideas into a new pathfinder inspired system by then (way way off).

It would be terrible DMing if they forced you to play something you didn't want. Considering you'd have to roleplay this stuff for an entire campaign... What if you don't like the same stuff the DM does? If I got turned into a half-faerie I'd be fucking furious.
How does that upset you? (mechanics or roleplay)

They way I'd handle bloodlines their affect on your build would be minimal to nonexistant, they're fluff only until late game when your character actually starts turning into something by which time the perks wouldn't really affect how your build works they'd just be interesting extra abilities, things to play with.

Of course Greg with butterfly wings would be pretty funny and I wouldn't force you to play a randomized bloodline I just thought it would be cool for someone who doesn't know what they want to play, or maybe there could be a way for a sorcerer to change their bloodline to something generic like arcane or aberrant in case someone agrees to randomize but regrets it when they actually get whatever the dice give them.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Yesterday, 20:22
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,703
Location
Charn






.... let's face it, i think some of the issues here are:

1. General unfamiliarity (still) with the game system and how it plays in different contexts and at different levels.
2. Hating the restrictions of rules upon one's unfettered mental concept of a character.
3. Impatience with actually enacting that vision and expecting to be capable of what is desired immediately.

Sorc bloodlines are meant to give some variation/flavor to the character but are not necessarily character-definitive.
However, if you talk to your GM, you can develop a character background and RP it more heavily.

No, Pathfinder is not the "perfect system" and it is still distinctly class-based (versus skill-based) even if there are numerous archetypes for each class meant to help players develop a unique concept. So there's always something to gripe about. But the reason games systems exist are to impose structure and balance on imagination in order to make a level playing ground for all the players and to help the GM scale challenges, and also to mirror limitation in the real world (where laws of behavior and physics also impose boundaries on imagination) -- the game system is merely providing structure just as physics and self-organizational concepts impose themselves on the real world.

if you want to develop a character to which random shit happens to based on a sorc bloodline (like Proteas), then talk to the GM and see what can be worked out that is fair and balanced. I just don't see why random shit would always be beneficial, funny, or interesting though (like butterfly wings); usually when things mutate in real life, the person ends up getting cancer and/or having a non-beneficial mutation and dying horribly from it.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
1. General unfamiliarity (still) with the game system and how it plays in different contexts and at different levels.
Be as that may you've said nothing to change my mind.

2. Hating the restrictions of rules upon one's unfettered mental concept of a character.
Yep totally, a character's combat build, fluff and noncombat skills should be as independent as possible to give players the most freedom of choice possible. Class skills are something the character starts with because they've been doing these things almost every day of their life up to this point whereas combat abilities and spell like abilities are things I think a character should gain through their experiences while adventuring.
Doesn't that make sense?

Obviously for the sake of balance this would mean that a fighter would begin with multiple feats to spend as they wish to replace whatever class abilities they may have lost.

3. Impatience with actually enacting that vision and expecting to be capable of what is desired immediately.
I think that's what the classes already try to do but poorly because you start with someone else's vision which you have to painstakingly adapt rather than your own vision which you can then perfect.

If a character has an ability that the player isn't using because it doesn't fit what they're trying to roleplay or the kind of build they're going for then the class system is working against the player and I think that's a sure sign of a flawed system. An effective class system prevents the player from making an ineffective character by giving the character everything it needs to be effective and only letting the player make interchangeable or mechanically inconsequential choices, there are no right or wrong choices because if there are THEY'RE NOT CHOICES!
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
Sorc bloodlines are meant to give some variation/flavor to the character but are not necessarily character-definitive.
Indeed they're not supposed to be but they are.

No, Pathfinder is not the "perfect system" and it is still distinctly class-based (versus skill-based) even if there are numerous archetypes for each class meant to help players develop a unique concept. So there's always something to gripe about. But the reason games systems exist are to impose structure and balance on imagination in order to make a level playing ground for all the players and to help the GM scale challenges, and also to mirror limitation in the real world (where laws of behavior and physics also impose boundaries on imagination) -- the game system is merely providing structure just as physics and self-organizational concepts impose themselves on the real world.

if you want to develop a character to which random shit happens to based on a sorc bloodline (like Proteas), then talk to the GM and see what can be worked out that is fair and balanced. I just don't see why random shit would always be beneficial, funny, or interesting though (like butterfly wings); usually when things mutate in real life, the person ends up getting cancer and/or having a non-beneficial mutation and dying horribly from it.
This isn't about me playing a character I want to play, I want to DM this and I want my players to enjoy a system that doesn't punish them for not knowing it because that would be a better system.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
Another advantage of emphasizing skills over abilities is that abilities often require all manner of conditions and you need only read the forums to see what an utter mess that has created, I hate debating semantics and Pathfinder creates endless semantic debates, the Synthesist in particular has so many rule exceptions and clauses that most DMs won't allow it.

Also there's the matter of complexity, having abilities be the core of each class means there's a lot of unique abilities out there and learning the ins and outs of each is daunting for a new DM, many just try to wing it, as I did, and fail, as I did. Having the game built around skills simplifies things greatly, a new DM just learns the feats and whatever feats the players gain at each level, these feats would primarily enable skills to be used in new ways or affect combat in straightforward ways.

No feat tree nonsense, no feats that only work in really specific circumstances, no skill focus and no metamagic because there's a better way of handling that.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Yesterday, 20:22
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,703
Location
Charn
Be as that may you've said nothing to change my mind.
You mistake my intent.

I've learned I can pretty much never change your mind on anything.
I just want to go on the record for posterity.


Yep totally, a character's combat build, fluff and noncombat skills should be as independent as possible to give players the most freedom of choice possible. Class skills are something the character starts with because they've been doing these things almost every day of their life up to this point whereas combat abilities and spell like abilities are things I think a character should gain through their experiences while adventuring.
Doesn't that make sense?
Uh, no.

Most of these characters are 16-17 years old at level 1, and some skills you can't even try if you don't have at least one rank. So having a rank in something already makes you capable of doing basic stuff that others cannot.

Let's face it, if you could also be a whiz at something at level 1, then the game would still be getting commensurately harder to provide a challenge, so what does it matter? The DCs would just increase.

Obviously for the sake of balance this would mean that a fighter would begin with multiple feats to spend as they wish to replace whatever class abilities they may have lost.
i still read all this as "Cog is impatient and must be really good at stuff at first level and doesn't have the patience to earn it."

I think that's what the classes already try to do but poorly because you start with someone else's vision which you have to painstakingly adapt rather than your own vision which you can then perfect.
These classes that you hate so much are balanced against each other in two years of playtesting and tweaking and fixing, so that no class should really be "shortchanged" enough to not be worth playing. As noted other times, spellcasters are more variable in their value -- at low levels, they tend to be underpowered, and at high levels they tend to dominate the game. All the "Tier 1" classes (i.e., like being an Omega-class mutant) on player rankings typically are spellcaster classes of some sort.

If a character has an ability that the player isn't using because it doesn't fit what they're trying to roleplay or the kind of build they're going for then the class system is working against the player and I think that's a sure sign of a flawed system. An effective class system prevents the player from making an ineffective character by giving the character everything it needs to be effective and only letting the player make interchangeable or mechanically inconsequential choices, there are no right or wrong choices because if there are THEY'RE NOT CHOICES!
If you hate class systems so much, there are already a number of skill-based systems out there, and some games are blends. (WoD uses a mix, so you can actually be damned good at a few things right off the bat while being bad at others. And you don't "level," you basically earn XP that you can spend raising skills and abilities after each adventure. White Wolf isn't the only company that puts out games oriented more along those lines.)

I think you need to get it through your head that some people prefer class-based systems for whatever reason. Maybe for you, they aren't what you like -- and that's now something that you've learned. But you seem to enjoy passing universal judgment on something that doesn't meet your personal preferences. Class based systems have their problems, but it's not like "they're wrong." They apparently just don't suit your preferred play style. But for many, they are convenient; some of the most dominant games out there both in pen-and-paper AND online (like WoW) are still class/level based.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today, 10:22
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,994
Location
69S 69E
I want my players to enjoy a system that doesn't punish them for not knowing it because that would be a better system.
Would be boring for me because (shock horror) most of my enjoyment of these games is in being challenged to find solutions. I enjoy the process of experimenting and seeing what I can or can't do and what works.

I don't give a fuck about freedom of choice past a certain point.
There's 15 or more classes, all with various archetypes. Each class can be viably built in at least half a dozen ways. Am I ever going to get through enough campaigns to run out of things to play? Seriously doubt it.

I loosely relate this to drumming. Trying to use an entire kit to play a 5 minute solo often sounds like shit compared to using 2-3 drums to create and build something does not necessarily sound better and isn't more fun to play either.

Go compare a drumsolo from Terry Bozzio and one from Tomas Haake. Their contrasting styles is something that I was reminded of when reading your post vs. Hado's.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
Would be boring for me because (shock horror) most of my enjoyment of these games is in being challenged to find solutions. I enjoy the process of experimenting and seeing what I can or can't do and what works.
THAT, exactly that, but in-game, that's what I want to achieve.

I'm getting tired of arguing over specifics, in broad terms I've explained what I want to do and why and it's going to take a lot of work to figure out how to achieve that, I'm not getting any constructive criticism out of this so sod it I'm just going to do my thing and you can judge me by the fruit I bear, figuratively.

But you seem to enjoy passing universal judgment on something that doesn't meet your personal preferences.
OMG have I hurt your feelings because let me tell you I've lost my patience with you, your snarky ad homienms and your complete inability to see the forest for the fucking trees I swear you must be here for the sole purpose of pissing me off and ensuring anyone who might have constructive criticism or suggests gets drowned out by your rubbish.

You want to know why you can never change my mind?
It's because I explain my reasoning and you say NOTHING about it, you pick at inane details and just attack my credibility again and again and again, fuck you I'm done.

If someone actually wants to discuss the topic of this thread in a rational and reasonable manner by all means PM me because we sure as hell won't get to have that conversation here.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today, 10:22
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,994
Location
69S 69E
You pick at inane details and just attack my credibility again and again and again, fuck you I'm done.
Inane details? Oh you must mean the rules of the game. The fact is that you often overlook them or misunderstand their application. Which is fine, but your response when presented with them is not, "oops I made a mistake" it's, "omg these rules are dumb!".

I don't intend to attack your credibility, it's just that the majority of your issues throughout our game sessions and discussions on the forum begin and end with your inexperience/understanding of the game. I'm sorry that the truth hurts.

You want to know why you can never change my mind?
You want to know a secret?

I'm not trying to change your mind, just offering my interpretation. Actually I don't think anyone here is trying to change your mind and I have no idea why you'd interpret the posts that way.

constructive criticism
Try this.

- you have some good ideas and obviously a lot of enthusiasm for finding unique builds and ways to play Pathfinder
- next you'll have to learn the finer points of the rules
- get some experience before you try too hard to implement them, since it will be easier for you to know what will/won't work
- once you do that you'll be able to make some really cool builds straight off the top of your head

It's been repeated in one form or another over a dozen times by several people across all these threads. So what's the problem? Do you not like the above advice?
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Yesterday, 20:22
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,703
Location
Charn
THAT, exactly that, but in-game, that's what I want to achieve.

I'm getting tired of arguing over specifics, in broad terms I've explained what I want to do and why and it's going to take a lot of work to figure out how to achieve that, I'm not getting any constructive criticism out of this so sod it I'm just going to do my thing and you can judge me by the fruit I bear, figuratively.
That's fine, and ironically it's what we've been doing.

OMG have I hurt your feelings because let me tell you I've lost my patience with you, your snarky ad homienms and your complete inability to see the forest for the fucking trees I swear you must be here for the sole purpose of pissing me off and ensuring anyone who might have constructive criticism or suggests gets drowned out by your rubbish.

You want to know why you can never change my mind?
It's because I explain my reasoning and you say NOTHING about it, you pick at inane details and just attack my credibility again and again and again, fuck you I'm done.
Ummm... dude, please get a grip.
You're the one who is flying off the handle and taking this personally.
Or is this your strategy to dissuade me from engaging you anymore?

You've seemed to have misread me from Day #1, if we're going to be honest here.
I misread you waaay back, and then recalibrated ... which I started quite a while ago.

If someone actually wants to discuss the topic of this thread in a rational and reasonable manner by all means PM me because we sure as hell won't get to have that conversation here.
Nice way to gaslight me as irrational and biased and unfair, so that you don't have to deal with what I've said. It wasn't just me who challenged your ideas, nor has it ever been just me. For some reason, though, you are taking my comments far more personally than you seem to take others.

Now, since you seemed to have MISSED this, I happen to like skill-based games MORE even if I do like Pathfinder and think you need to give it some more time. I brought up Worlds of Darkness because I really love that game and wish my local group would play more of it.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
I don't intend to attack your credibility, it's just that the majority of your issues throughout our game sessions and discussions on the forum begin and end with your inexperience/understanding of the game. I'm sorry that the truth hurts.
And I've acknowledged it, I know quite well that I don't have the experience with the system you or Jenny have but what are you saying here, are you just telling me to shut up because I don't know what I'm taking about, I'm sorry but be as that may (which I'll be the first to admit) it's still rude to ignore the reasoning which I've gone to great lengths to explain to just tell me to shut up.

That's why I lost my temper, I'm explaining myself and the response I keep getting over and over isn't constructive it's "shut up", is it not reasonable that I should be annoyed by that?

It's been repeated in one form or another over a dozen times by several people across all these threads. So what's the problem? Do you not like the above advice?
When the advice is effectively "shut up" I can honestly say I don't.

That's fine, and ironically it's what we've been doing.
Oh ha ha.

I think such a game would work better if it focused on skills rather than abilities and at length I have explained my reasons why and what I'm not hearing is reasons why that isn't so, rather than defending abilities all I hear is people picking at why just buffing skills would break the game, we obviously if one were to refocus the game on such a fundamental level a lot would have to be done to accommodate the changes.

Okay so I said Pathfinder is wrong, fine I take it back, it was mainly in jest anyway if this doesn't make that abundantly clear "Okay if (it makes) you lot happy there's nothing wrong with pathfinder, it's just not how I would do it and anything but the way I would do something is, of course, absolutely wrong :D" but I guess the joke fell flat so alright already Pathfinder's a perfect little snowflake but when I DM again I'd like to do something different because I don't think this system is as fun as it could be, so sue me if you don't agree.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
I've discussed my ideas with a guy I work with who is pretty knowledgeable on the subject and he explained how this could break the stealth mechanic at higher levels but offered a solution, on class skills you can't roll lower than 20 plus your class level, this doesn't stack with anything it merely prevents failure on reasonable difficulty challenges, the player still gets to roll and if they roll higher than the minimum then they take the roll, the minimum is explicitly not a modifier it's just a minimum to prevent unreasonable failure.

I had a very constructive conversation with him, pity I couldn't have it here.

He also suggested coming up with new skills to help differentiate the classes further.
 

Blarraun

straightedgy
Local time
Today, 02:22
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
4,210
Location
someplace windswept
I had a very constructive conversation with him, pity I couldn't have it here.
This is soo funny. It may take some time before you see the situation.

There are systems where DC levels are numeral and further divided on categories.

Example
Childlish 1-5, Mundane 6-10, Simple 11-15, Moderate 16-20, Difficult... Etc.

Having a specified amount of skill points or "proficiency points" in a given skill can have two effects, it can make the character automatically succeed past the number of initial difficulty levels, while adding to the skill roll, it is done with either a single stat or a composite of two different stats describing a single skill.
 

redbaron

irony based lifeform
Local time
Today, 10:22
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,994
Location
69S 69E
That's why I lost my temper, I'm explaining myself and the response I keep getting over and over isn't constructive it's "shut up", is it not reasonable that I should be annoyed by that?
No you just interpret it that way because you don't like the constructive criticism being provided.

When the advice is effectively "shut up" I can honestly say I don't.
As above, no one is telling you to shut up.

The thing is that a great deal of what you're posting are things that you'd understand if you would spend some time reading the rules, built one character and stuck with it for a while in order to grasp the game in a more hands-on capacity.

I (and I assume others) bring this up because you're making post after post about, "Oh this build is just shit. Oh this should not be like that. This doesn't work. This is dumb." So it looks like you're frustrated over a bunch of things that with a few months of experience in playing and some better understanding of the rules - you wouldn't be frustrated by. The summary of the advice is not, "shut up". It's, "relax and focus on the fundamentals instead of trying to do everything at once."

You appear to be legitimately annoyed/frustrated at yourself for making mistakes or not having knowledge in the same way that most new PF players do. This shit is supposed to be fun, so I'm telling you to relax and just focus on the basics. You'll learn more in-depth stuff almost as side-effect of simply playing and observing.

But yeah I don't really care anymore. I'll just be scrolling over your shit from now on.
 

Cognisant

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 13:22
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
8,402
I (and I assume others) bring this up because you're making post after post about, "Oh this build is just shit. Oh this should not be like that. This doesn't work. This is dumb." So it looks like you're frustrated over a bunch of things that with a few months of experience in playing and some better understanding of the rules - you wouldn't be frustrated by.
Well you're making this out to be something it's not, admittedly when Takashi's initial build didn't work out I was frustrated and I still think it's a weakness of the system that "builds" exist but with your help I'm now playing the game as it was intended to be played and I have no frustration with that, you're right when played as intended there's nothing wrong with Pathfinder.

But I think a game shouldn't have to be played as intended and I hold my initial experience with Takashi as proof of the build philosophy being flawed, I'm not saying you aren't running a damn fine game or that I don't enjoy every minute of it and all week looking forward to the next session, because I am, if anything my enjoyment with your game is what's motivating me to try and solve what I perceive to be a problem.

I'm not attacking you or the game you're running but I feel like I'm being attacked by pathfinder loyalists for being a heratic and if that is the issue well alright then just ignore me, if I devise a new system and host a new game when I'm done enjoying this one and what I offer dosen't sound good to you then don't play, simple.

Or what you think I'm going to go to Pazio and make them change their game?

You've seemed to have misread me from Day #1, if we're going to be honest here. I misread you waaay back, and then recalibrated ... which I started quite a while ago.
So Jenny you're not just telling me to shut up?
Because if you aren't I have to say your writing style invites misreading, for instance:
i still read all this as "Cog is impatient and must be really good at stuff at first level and doesn't have the patience to earn it."
On this side of the screen that seems VERY dismissive and having to defend myself against these perceived attacks has well and truly derailed this thread, now I'm hearing you're not actually attacking me but that's the way it's being recieved and the reason I'm getting annoyed with you in particular is because your "attacks" do seem to be worded more personally to me.

Yes I would appreciate it if you left me alone, or checked your tone.
 
Top Bottom