So, blues? why +1?

[bobthe6th]

Ok, so this has always bothered me. a -2 net penalty, small size, 60ft dark vision, 1 pp, and two +4 skills... LA+1? Not even. you might get 11pp over the long term as a psion, and small size is nice. but really, not all that much better then a solid LA +0 race, and definitely not a human.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I always assumed blue's LA was a mistake. Like, whoever wrote it didn't realize the +1 LA would stack with the 1 HD that carried a virtual Psion Level.

[bobthe6th]

Um... what? they don't have a racial HD, the stat block is just for a 1st level psion.

[vasharanpaladin]

Because WotC hates the idea of anybody playing a non-Tolkeinian race with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns? :smallconfused:

Seriously, just ignore LA, it saves a lot of headaches and makes the game better in the long run. :smallfurious:

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Um... what? they don't have a racial HD, the stat block is just for a 1st level psion.

I'm saying it's a mistake, I believe whomever wrote +1 LA intended for the 1 Psion Level to be free. Alternatively, they realized that +2 to a mental stat is really good on a caster and over compensated. You'll notice those are quite rare and are usually in races with an LA of at least half their highest plus to a mental stat. Of course, gray elf in core ruins that argument.

It's either very poor design or a minor bookkeeping error or misunderstanding of the relationship between stat blocks and LA.

[TypoNinja]

If you look at other races/templates that are Psionic, wizards has this thing where they think any psionic ability at all no matter how minor is worth a 1 LA.

Sort of like how physical stats are overvalued compared to mental stats, they just straight up got it wrong.

[Madara]

Seriously, just ignore LA, it saves a lot of headaches and makes the game better in the long run. :smallfurious:

Short answer is the above.

Longer answer: Goblins live with very little support by Wizards, seen as the #1 enemy race, and "always evil."(Not even in a Races book, unlike Kobolds, despite being the longest standing of the two. The other problem is that they get a bonus to Int, which is an Uber-stat. They'd be an extremely strong LA 0, but they're a terrible LA 1. Small size is a bonus, with bonuses to attack, skills, and to AC. All of which is an optimized race for any caster, plus they get the extra pp.

So in the end, its probably a high end LA 1/2, but LA 1/2 doesn't exist. So ignore the LA, and drop the bonus pp or something, or give them a boost. Do they have the Goblin's 30ft move?

[TuggyNE]

Do they have the Goblin's 30ft move?

They do.

I'd suggest dropping bonus pp and making them a decent LA +0.

[Phelix-Mu]

Noticed a similar imbalance with uldra from Frostburn supplement, though they have more special abilities to justify the LA.

On the other hand, I am always flabbergasted that whisper gnome wasn't painted with the same brush. Whisper gnome is really good for a +0.

On the other, other hand, I think LA is definitely important, particularly other creatures with higher LAs. Drow without level adjustment would be kinda crazy, though I guess the flavor of the race is that they are very strong and dangerous creatures to fight.

Mostly comes to be important when you want to balance power levels between various PCs in the party.

[vasharanpaladin]

They do.

I'd suggest dropping bonus pp and making them a decent LA +0.

Or, you can drop nothing and they'll still be a decent LA+0. :smallannoyed:

[toapat]

Of course, gray elf in core ruins that argument.

Barring that grey elf has a penalty to the most important stat in the game.

What makes Grey Elf ridiculous is the total combination of wizard stuff there is.
Where as a Blue doesnt have Racial subs for Psions or casters, the Elven Generalist sub is outright the best Non-Cannabis based Substitution level for Wizard, even if people typically use it wrong and stack it with Domain wizard (which doesnt work, lest paladins would be awesome AKA you cant sell a class feature twice, even if the rules dont say you cant*.).

I kinda agree though that LA overal was done wrong

*Yes, you can, but only in a specific way. You can, for instance, take 5 levels in Ranger, taking the Distracting Attack varient in PhB2. At level up you then choose to take the Mystic Ranger substitutions. Now, despite no longer having the pet, you get to keep distracting attack and as a result, get an even more ridiculous Wizardshape Druid.

[Mithril Leaf]

Barring that grey elf has a penalty to the most important stat in the game.

What makes Grey Elf ridiculous is the total combination of wizard stuff there is.
Where as a Blue doesnt have Racial subs for Psions or casters, the Elven Generalist sub is outright the best Non-Cannabis based Substitution level for Wizard, even if people typically use it wrong and stack it with Domain wizard (which doesnt work, lest paladins would be awesome AKA you cant sell a class feature twice, even if the rules dont say you cant*.).

I kinda agree though that LA overal was done wrong

*Yes, you can, but only in a specific way. You can, for instance, take 5 levels in Ranger, taking the Distracting Attack varient in PhB2. At level up you then choose to take the Mystic Ranger substitutions. Now, despite no longer having the pet, you get to keep distracting attack and as a result, get an even more ridiculous Wizardshape Druid.

Except you only sell it once. It's like getting rid of a horse while simultaneously agreeing to give up riding the horse.

[toapat]

Except you only sell it once. It's like getting rid of a horse while simultaneously agreeing to give up riding the horse.

Mystic ranger is the only alternate class which can take sub levels and ACFs for their base class that i know of, that looses any one of their class features, which is why i brought it up. your DM would have to allow you to expand the retraining rules to allow for it though, and it does lead to the edge case of having a class feature you obtained by selling a class feature your class variant doesnt have.

[absolmorph]

Mystic ranger is the only alternate class which can take sub levels and ACFs for their base class that i know of, that looses any one of their class features, which is why i brought it up. your DM would have to allow you to expand the retraining rules to allow for it though, and it does lead to the edge case of having a class feature you obtained by selling a class feature your class variant doesnt have.
That's not an edge case.
That's something that doesn't work.

[toapat]

That's not an edge case.
That's something that doesn't work.

the point is, outside of absurdly confusing circumstances that lead to a rules Pretzel, the primary use of Grey Elf is RAM/Rules According to Munchkinism.

[bobthe6th]

I mean, they do get bigger bonuses then a LA 0 should in a couple places(60ft dark vision, +4 to skills, stuff like that)...

random thought, would handing out 1 pp per two level and removing the int boost?

[Darth Stabber]

Blues are not even as good at being generic psions as Human, Azurin, Strong-Heart Halfling, Elan, Illumian, or Deep Imaskari (if you let spell clutch give them back a power point) if you ignore the LA, and they are worse in many other applications. Add in the LA and they are as bad as using a regular goblin. Half-Giant is worth the +1LA. I ignore the LA with blues, and I recommend others do the same.

[Acanous]

What makes Grey Elf ridiculous is the total combination of wizard stuff there is.
Where as a Blue doesnt have Racial subs for Psions or casters, the Elven Generalist sub is outright the best Non-Cannabis based Substitution level for Wizard, even if people typically use it wrong and stack it with Domain wizard (which doesnt work, lest paladins would be awesome AKA you cant sell a class feature twice, even if the rules dont say you cant*.).

.

Ugh. How does this keep cropping up?
It's been shown to work by RAW. One says "You must give up the ability to specialize" and the other says "You must not be a specialist".

Someone who has given up the ability to specialize is not a specialist, ergo able to take both variants.

The one that says you must not BE a specialist doesn't say you have to give up your ability TO specialize. You're not selling the same class feature twice. You're selling it once, then taking another variant that requires you to not have used it.


It's like if you gave up your familiar for, I dunno, Chains of Disbelief, and then took a variant that said "Special: You must not have a familiar".
make sense now?

[Darth Stabber]

Ugh. How does this keep cropping up?
It's been shown to work by RAW. One says "You must give up the ability to specialize" and the other says "You must not be a specialist".

Someone who has given up the ability to specialize is not a specialist, ergo able to take both variants.

The one that says you must not BE a specialist doesn't say you have to give up your ability TO specialize. You're not selling the same class feature twice. You're selling it once, then taking another variant that requires you to not have used it.


It's like if you gave up your familiar for, I dunno, Chains of Disbelief, and then took a variant that said "Special: You must not have a familiar".
make sense now?

You can make a RAW case, but it is perceived as selling the same feature twice. Most GMs will ban taking both, since it is a problem of double spending.

[TypoNinja]

You can make a RAW case, but it is perceived as selling the same feature twice. Most GMs will ban taking both, since it is a problem of double spending.

By RAW it works, RAI, probably not. Will your DM call shenanigans if you try it? Mine would, if yours wouldn't go for it.

[Gnome Alone]

Barring that grey elf has a penalty to the most important stat in the game.
How is Strength the most important stat? Wait, are we making fun of WOTC? Like how half-orcs' Strength bonus means they have to be mental idjits?

[Chilingsworth]

How is Strength the most important stat? Wait, are we making fun of WOTC? Like how half-orcs' Strength bonus means they have to be mental idjits?

Grey elves (from the monster manual/SRD) have +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str, -2 Con. I'm guessing this is what was being referred to. :smalltongue:

[Gnome Alone]

Grey elves (from the monster manual/SRD) have +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Str, -2 Con

Oh, those stats are in addition to the PHB elf ones? I had interpreted them as replacing them. How... specific that is.

[toapat]

It's been shown to work by RAW. One says "You must give up the ability to specialize" and the other says "You must not be a specialist".

The wording may be different, and very Atypical in UA, but in the actual book as opposed to the SRD, the Domain wizard trades Generalist or Specialist for Generalist or Domain.


You can make a RAW case, but it is perceived as selling the same feature twice. Most GMs will ban taking both, since it is a problem of double spending.

again, its RAM, it works in the minds of the people who want it to, but it doesnt actually.

[absolmorph]

The wording may be different, and very Atypical in UA, but in the actual book as opposed to the SRD, the Domain wizard trades Generalist or Specialist for Generalist or Domain.



again, its RAM, it works in the minds of the people who want it to, but it doesnt actually.
No.
As stated by others, one says you don't specialize and the other removes the ability to specialize.
Also, the version of the book I saw had the exact same text under "Class Features" (which is what matters) that the SRD has.

They may have intended them to be mutually exclusive, but the way they're written does not prevent it. You're totally free to rule it that way in your games, but for the purposes of this discussion they're not mutually exclusive because the rules don't tell us so.

[Waddacku]

I'm saying it's a mistake, I believe whomever wrote +1 LA intended for the 1 Psion Level to be free. Alternatively, they realized that +2 to a mental stat is really good on a caster and over compensated. You'll notice those are quite rare and are usually in races with an LA of at least half their highest plus to a mental stat. Of course, gray elf in core ruins that argument.

It's either very poor design or a minor bookkeeping error or misunderstanding of the relationship between stat blocks and LA.

Blues don't get a free Psion level. Are you saying it was supposed to have a level of Psion as a kind of racial HD? There's nothing to suggest that. The example Blue is a Psion 1, just like the example Goblin is a Warrior 1.


On a side note, an Air Blue would presumably end up with -2 Str -2 Con +2 Dex +2 Int, just like a Gray Elf, only half as tall.

[docnessuno]

On a side note, an Air Blue would presumably end up with -2 Str -2 Con +2 Dex +2 Int, just like a Gray Elf, only half as tall.

And twice as cool.


again, its RAM, it works in the minds of the people who want it to, but it doesnt actually.

Toapat, i have seen you act as if you are the ultimate reservoir of RAW knowledge, but you know? You are not. Everyone makes mistakes, including you. I have seen you misread rules or features multiple times, and on "grey areas" that have been debtated by the Gods of TO for long you state that only your interpretations is correct. It seems to me that you should start using RaTT (Rules as Toapat Thinks) as your abbreviation.

[toapat]

No.
As stated by others, one says you don't specialize and the other removes the ability to specialize.
Also, the version of the book I saw had the exact same text under "Class Features" (which is what matters) that the SRD has.

They may have intended them to be mutually exclusive, but the way they're written does not prevent it. You're totally free to rule it that way in your games, but for the purposes of this discussion they're not mutually exclusive because the rules don't tell us so.

1: UA does not use Typical wording for 3.5

2:
A domain wizard can not also be a specialist wizard. In exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her spells with increased power

Bolded relevant. Not in the SRD

[gooddragon1]

It's just that the XPH has got the level adjustment blues. I'd look for a homebrew version if necessary.

[toapat]

or, you know, let them buy off the LA

[Waddacku]

Just removing the LA would be preferable. Worst thing that can happen is whoever uses it plays a Wizard, and the +2 Int isn't going to make or break that.

[Psyren]

I'd use the Pathfinder Blue. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/races/blues-psionics-unleashed) Which is another thing I enjoy about Pathfinder - they raised the baseline for all the races, resulting in better options for everyone.

You could nerf that down to 3.5 levels by removing either the Int or Dex bonus, canning Psionic Aptitude and replacing Naturally Psionic with the racial pool they have now.

[Answerer]

1: UA does not use Typical wording for 3.5

2:

Bolded relevant. Not in the SRD
Actually, it's not relevant. That line is grammatically descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it's an explanation, but not a rule. The rule is that you cannot be a specialist as well as domain wizard. You don't lose the ability to specialize: it's merely stating that "in exchange" for choosing not to do so, you can get other bonuses. You're making the same mistake that those who claim that the "You start with a single 1st-level stance" line from Tome of Battle means a character who takes his 1st level of an initiating class at ECL 9 must take a 1st-level stance.

[toapat]

and yet, Paladins, Knights, Samurai, and Soulborn (and maybe others, although i dont know off the top of my head) have Fluff as rules.

as far as that specific interpretation of ToB, i havent read through the book, as a result of holding it in utter contempt.

But again, as i said, UA does not have very standard formatting, at least for that section.

although it is like, one of only 2 books that is both official and has varients in it.

[vasharanpaladin]

News flash, guys: Level adjustment was quite simply the biggest screwup WotC could have made. Anything they've marked as LA+1 is roughly equivalent to a human in terms of power.

[docnessuno]

News flash, guys: Level adjustment was quite simply the biggest screwup WotC could have made. Anything they've marked as LA+1 is roughly equivalent to a human in terms of power.

*Points toward half-minotaur, lolth-touched, feral, goliath

[Larkas]

News flash, guys: Level adjustment was quite simply the biggest screwup WotC could have made. Anything they've marked as LA+2 is roughly equivalent to LA+1 in terms of power.

FIFY. Though I'm sure someone will prove me wrong too.

[docnessuno]

FIFY. Though I'm sure someone will prove me wrong too.

*Points toward saint

[TuggyNE]

News flash, guys: Level adjustment was quite simply the biggest screwup WotC could have made. Anything they've marked as LA+1 is roughly equivalent to a human in terms of power.

The biggest they could have made? Or did make? I'd honestly disagree with either of those; LA is flawed, pretty significantly so, but it's nowhere near the worst design they've put out. Compare CR, which is at least as badly messed up and (notionally) affects all games instead of only some. (Or, for that matter, check the somewhat similarly-rated list of Top Ten Worst in my sig for an example of other terribly-written/terribly-designed things they've done.)

Or if you meant that LA is the worst possible way to handle races of differing base power, well, I'd disagree with that too; SKR, in one of his occasional flashes of correctness, disassembles an alternative pretty well (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/LAvsXPpenalty.html).

[Answerer]

SKR, in one of his occasional flashes of correctness, disassembles an alternative pretty well (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/LAvsXPpenalty.html).
I haven't read it, but I can't take him seriously when he claims responsibility for LA, claims it isn't so bad, and that the great problem with the XP penalty system is that it "rewards players for choosing powerful races."

Maybe it's just me, but I generally expect game-playing to be a rewarding experience. It's like he is explicitly stating that players should get shafted for daring to stray from Tolkien.

[toapat]

I haven't read it, but I can't take him seriously when he claims responsibility for LA, claims it isn't so bad, and that the great problem with the XP penalty system is that it "rewards players for choosing powerful races."

Maybe it's just me, but I generally expect game-playing to be a rewarding experience. It's like he is explicitly stating that players should get shafted for daring to stray from Tolkien.

I think he doesnt understand the exact thing he is arguing, but from the perspective of which is worse, the XP penalty is way worse then a bad LA, because it makes the game longer and less fun.

as far as Worst overal, LA is the 19th worst thing which players will typically encounter, while 45th overall for worst.

[Answerer]

from the perspective of which is worse, the XP penalty is way worse then a bad LA, because it makes the game longer and less fun.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that an XP penalty is a good idea. The sheer headache of it is miserable.

Plus, it makes little-to-no sense that these creatures would start out so much better, and only lose ground over time. At least LA does go in the opposite direction that, which seems more appropriate.

[toapat]

i think the simple answer is:

LA is not good. But it is not the worst of many greater evils that the alternatives could be

[Sgt. Cookie]

*Points toward half-minotaur, lolth-touched, feral, goliath

*Points towards Symbiote.

Now that is a broken, +1 template.

[toapat]

*Points towards Symbiote.

Now that is a broken, +1 template.

doesnt the Symbiont template override the LA of the base creature at that?

[vasharanpaladin]

Templates should never have been PC-able to begin with, and if goliaths were LA+0 I might have seen something other than frakking humans in play without having to ban the stupid things. :smallannoyed:

[toapat]

Templates should never have been PC-able to begin with, and if goliaths were LA+0 I might have seen something other than frakking humans in play without having to ban the stupid things. :smallannoyed:

part of the problem with 3.5 is that feats are damn well the most valuable thing after spellcasting. very few feats actually are feats at that.

Level adjustment is typically very bad in terms of the effect.

I have plans for a system, which the only real thing that i will say im going to lay down upfront is that my also in work Dyson Sphere setting will be in, and the level cap would only be level 10.

[TuggyNE]

I haven't read it, but I can't take him seriously when he claims responsibility for LA, claims it isn't so bad, and that the great problem with the XP penalty system is that it "rewards players for choosing powerful races."

Maybe it's just me, but I generally expect game-playing to be a rewarding experience. It's like he is explicitly stating that players should get shafted for daring to stray from Tolkien.

Rather, he's saying that they're getting an extra advantage over other characters: not only do they have more power than other characters, not only do they get to play a cool and fun race, but they seldom have any counter-balancing penalty or hindrance, and when they do, it's only just enough to bring them down to the level of other players. (One thing he didn't address is the idea of using harsher penalties so as to average out between noticeably more powerful and dramatically less powerful, but I have to say I don't think that would work much better. Alternating between too powerful and not powerful enough isn't exactly ideal.)


Plus, it makes little-to-no sense that these creatures would start out so much better, and only lose ground over time. At least LA does go in the opposite direction that, which seems more appropriate.

Yeah. Even SKR wasn't necessarily arguing that LA is super-great, but primarily that XP penalties are substantially worse.


i think the simple answer is:

LA is not good. But it is not the worst of many greater evils that the alternatives could be

Basically, that. Like democracy, it is the worst system imaginable, except every other system that's been tried. :smalltongue:

[Answerer]

Basically, that. Like democracy, it is the worst system imaginable, except every other system that's been tried. :smalltongue:
Well that isn't true. Legend's system for handling powerful races is superb, for example.

[Darth Stabber]

LA is a very elegant solution in theory, but the execution is the problem. Given 3.x's system of free* multiclassing, making powerful races cost levels is a a simple solution if you ignore spellcasters. The issue is that most races give flat bonuses, and they start to pale in comparison to class abilities (of decent classes) fairly quickly, as magic and items can later give them what the took the race for in the first place, meaning they could be X levels ahead in class abilities and get the race abilities that magic gives later. The problem is purely educational in a powergame sense, the inexperienced munchkin learns the value of levels and cost of impatience. However as soon as the game is, in whole or in part, about anything other than number crunching and die rolling that line of thought hits a dead end. The guy that plays a orc bard is obviously not trying to max out numbers, he's out to sing, have some silly fun, and create half-orcs consensually. If we apply these thoughts to LA races, it's even more painful. You fall behind in your ability to contribute, even if you aren't playing against a race's tropes. If you want to be a pixie, as the most stereotypical faerie, you are paying through the nose. Some races have it even worse due to racial HD. These are even more levels where you don't get class abilities. Take lizard folk for example: they are kinda worth the LA until you include the aweful RHD, making the ECL unpalatable. Templates are a similar matter, they give you abilites at the cost of levels, but given that they are semi-modular, you can finagle them a little better, thus you can pair them with a race and class to ensure you have things moving in the right direction (as opposed to just class). A dark templated dwarf paladin isn't going to work out as well as a dark halfling rogue. Where as a saint templated dwarf paladin isn't too bad (for a paladin) since that template is actually worth 2 levels (on anything but a primary caster, and even that is arguable for clerics) .

I will say, after all of this, that the LA system does actually work (and by work I mean work better than CR) in gestalt. Taking a class alongside the racial features comes out fairly close to balanced at mid optimization, though there are some outliers (pixie casters are crazy) most races work out fine, and the good 0LA races races remain reasonable choices. You pretty much have to give LA away to make humans uncompetitive (and a lot since karsites are still human).

[Sgt. Cookie]

doesnt the Symbiont template override the LA of the base creature at that?

Technicaly speaking, there is no "base creature" when dealing with the symbiote template. There is only the Host and the Guest.

It certainly overides the LA for the guest, as most of the time the guest has LA -.

[Larkas]

Actually, RHD isn't as bad as LA, at least in a game where LA buy off isn't allowed. It's the combination of LA and RHD that screws most "playable" monsters over.

[Darth Stabber]

Actually, RHD isn't as bad as LA, at least in a game where LA buy off isn't allowed. It's the combination of LA and RHD that screws most "playable" monsters over.

RHD isn't as bad on it's own as LA, but most things with rhd also have LA.

Also given the lack of class features associated with RHD, you can often achieve a fairly balanced character by allowing the ECL to count as the higher of the LA or RHD as opposed to the sum, at least when the total is about 5 or less.

[Story]

By RAW it works, RAI, probably not. Will your DM call shenanigans if you try it? Mine would, if yours wouldn't go for it.

For what it's worth, my DM allowed it. Then again, he also didn't see any problem with taking the flaw Pathetic (Constitution) on an undead character.

[Starbuck_II]

Actually, it's not relevant. That line is grammatically descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it's an explanation, but not a rule. The rule is that you cannot be a specialist as well as domain wizard. You don't lose the ability to specialize: it's merely stating that "in exchange" for choosing not to do so, you can get other bonuses. You're making the same mistake that those who claim that the "You start with a single 1st-level stance" line from Tome of Battle means a character who takes his 1st level of an initiating class at ECL 9 must take a 1st-level stance.

Following Raw is not a mistake. 1st level stance or no Warblade, Swordsage, or Crusader allowed.

[Answerer]

Following Raw is not a mistake. 1st level stance or no Warblade, Swordsage, or Crusader allowed.
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but if you're saying that a Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade 1 that has an IL higher than 1 cannot take higher-level stances, as his IL dictates, then you are incorrect. The rules as written do not state that he can only take a 1st-level stance. The rules as written state that a Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade "starts play" with a single 1st-level stance. "Starts play," as in, an ECL 1 character just beginning.

Or, if you prefer, a new character who hasn't played before, regardless of ECL, IL, class level, or any Martial Stance feats. If you really think that's how it should be read.

[ericgrau]

Because the +2 is to a mental stat. If they were LA 0 it would make many other races obsolete for psions and wizards. Small size bonuses without a speed penalty is also helpful for these classes. The other 2 stats are dump stats anyway. With the LA they still make so-so psionic-dex-class hybrids and maybe psions. At the very least you could be a normal rogue who qualifies for many new psionic feats. They might need a little more to be a popular player but dropping the LA to 0 is going too far.

If you are allowing the dozen most powerful races and making the 500 other races obsolete including all or almost all the PHB races, then I could see putting them at LA 0. They aren't any stronger than whisper gnomes.

[Answerer]

Because the +2 is to a mental stat. If they were LA 0 it would make many other races obsolete for psions and wizards. Small size bonuses without a speed penalty is also helpful for these classes. The other 2 stats are dump stats anyway. With the LA they still make so-so psionic-dex-class hybrids and maybe psions. At the very least you could be a normal rogue who qualifies for many new psionic feats. They might need a little more to be a popular player but dropping the LA to 0 is going too far.
Gasp! Something might compete with Human!

[ericgrau]

That's it's own problem when you have so much power creep in feats that any race that doesn't get a feat is obsolete. Good luck changing the other 500 races to match then. I prefer limiting the most extreme power creep and I think the vast majority of gaming groups aren't extremely high op either.

You could always drop the LA of everything by about 1 and manually boost all the LA 0s with a +2 and nice class feature or something. The 2nd way seems like more work tho. Or if you don't make those changes to hundreds of races then you are limiting player options to a handful of the best races. That's in fact way fewer options than simply disallowing a few things.

[Psyren]

That's it's own problem when you have so much power creep in feats that any race that doesn't get a feat is obsolete. Good luck changing the other 500 races to match then.

Pathfinder seemed to manage it just fine. It's really not that big a deal to do.

[ericgrau]

I didn't say it's horrible to change 500 races, but it is a lot more work and often not practical. Nor does it reflect the optimization level of most gaming groups. And you can make a lot of mistakes.

Good for them. Though I've heard in several cases they've gone too far in the other direction and it's not fair to use a lot of monster races unless the whole party is using monster races. Dunno how true that actually is.

[Answerer]

That's it's own problem when you have so much power creep in feats that any race that doesn't get a feat is obsolete. Good luck changing the other 500 races to match then. I prefer limiting the most extreme power creep and I think the vast majority of gaming groups aren't extremely high op either.

You could always drop the LA of everything by about 1 and manually boost all the LA 0s with a +2 and nice class feature or something. The 2nd way seems like more work tho. Or if you don't make those changes to hundreds of races then you are limiting player options to a handful of the best races. That's in fact way fewer options than simply disallowing a few things.
We are not talking about high-optimization. A feat lets you get prerequisites sooner and more easily, allows your character to do what he's meant to do, and downplays some of the bigger problems in 3.5. It's not like the average Human gets a hugely-powerful feat as his bonus feat – it's more that feats are too rare and too many things require far too many of them.

And that was as true in Core as it is if you include everything.

[ericgrau]

Not so much. Core half-orcs make better fighters than humans because almost no feat is as good as +2 strength. The 2 or 3 that are essential to the build can still be obtained on either race. And I'm not even saying half-orcs are that great of a core-only race but if it's core-only they can manage well in cases like these.

Once feats get better the unchanged racial abilities are relatively worse.

[Answerer]

You assume that someone would stay in the Fighter class when there's absolutely no good reason to do so, particularly in Core.

Humans make better Barbarians, or Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Horizon Trippers, than do Half-orcs.

[ericgrau]

The same applies to all melee, I use fighter in the generic sense. Trippers gain additional benefit.

[Answerer]

So you consider +1 attack, +1.5 to damage, and +1 to your combat maneuver of choice, maybe, as worthy of a feat?

You seem to consider features those things that I consider bugs. I doubt we'll have much meaningful conversation on this topic when we completely disagree on how things should be evaluated.

I think your claims of power creep are absurd, though, considering how the most powerful classes and options are all in Core. Sure, the feats sucked, but I don't buy that this was intentional, plus there's still Leadership, so it's not like all feats were created equal. And considering the issues that the game has with overabundance of prerequisites, even in Core, my point about Humans being better simply because it let you mitigate that design flaw remains true, even in Core.

To be short, the Fighter was always bad design. The +2 to two skills feats were always bad design. Combat Expertise was always bad design. The absurd number of feats necessary for dual wielding or archery were always bad design. That the design improved is not the same thing as power creep.

[enderlord99]

as far as that specific interpretation of ToB, i havent read through the book, as a result of holding it in utter contempt.

...Because the fighter is clearly already as useful and/or powerful as the wizard.:smallannoyed:

[toapat]

...Because the fighter is clearly already as useful and/or powerful as the wizard.:smallannoyed:

no, because people hold it as sacred, despite being extremely bad. Balanced? Yes. Correct? No

[enderlord99]

no, because people hold it as sacred, despite being extremely bad. Balanced? Yes. Correct? No

Sorry about my pm, then. But how would you know it isn't "correct?" You said yourself you've never read it.

[toapat]

Sorry about my pm, then. But how would you know it isn't "correct?" You said yourself you've never read it.

no, i havent read that section.

Basically, ToB is well balanced

On the other hand, the way it balances itself is by completely ignoring the issues and problems in general.

[Darth Stabber]

Because the +2 is to a mental stat. If they were LA 0 it would make many other races obsolete for psions and wizards. Small size bonuses without a speed penalty is also helpful for these classes. The other 2 stats are dump stats anyway. With the LA they still make so-so psionic-dex-class hybrids and maybe psions. At the very least you could be a normal rogue who qualifies for many new psionic feats. They might need a little more to be a popular player but dropping the LA to 0 is going too far.

If you are allowing the dozen most powerful races and making the 500 other races obsolete including all or almost all the PHB races, then I could see putting them at LA 0. They aren't any stronger than whisper gnomes.

Again I state that they are no better at psion or wizard than:
Human, Azurin, Illumian, Elan, Strong-Heart Halfling, Deep Imaskari, and certain Elf variants. Blues are better than Dwarves at it, but wizard and psion are playing against type for them, but Dwarves are really good, in fact I would say better overall. And you are certainly right about them not being any stonger than whisper gnomes, those are ridiculous, blues are no where close to that good.


no, i havent read that section.

Basically, ToB is well balanced

On the other hand, the way it balances itself is by completely ignoring the issues and problems in general.

What issues is it ignoring? It seems like a very elegant solution within 3.5 as it was at the time. It couldn't go through and rewrite fighters and other meleers. It gave melee nice things without making them as insane as casters. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[enderlord99]

no, i havent read that section.

Section? I thought you hadn't read Tome of Battle in general because of your utter contempt for it.


Basically, ToB is well balanced

On the other hand, the way it balances itself is by completely ignoring the issues and problems in general.

Please tell us what issues it completely ignores, and how you know without reading the book.

[Sgt. Cookie]

Left unchecked any disscusion about 3.5's balance, no matter how unrelated, always ends up as a ToB argument.

Seriously, does anyone remember what the original question aske?

[enderlord99]

Left unchecked any disscusion about 3.5's balance, no matter how unrelated, always ends up as a ToB argument.

Seriously, does anyone remember what the original question aske?

*points at Toapat*

She started it!

:smalltongue:

[gooddragon1]

Left unchecked any discussion about 3.5's balance, no matter how unrelated, always ends up as a ToB argument.

Seriously, does anyone remember what the original question asked?

It asked why the blue race is +1 LA instead of +0. I made a joke about the XPH having the level adjustment blues but it went under the radar. Then the rest of the stuff happened.

[Mithril Leaf]

So the general idea is that the LA system is bjorked and WotC hates goblins. Well, sounds good everyone, we don't have to talk about anything else anymore in this thread. :smallwink:

[vasharanpaladin]

So the general idea is that the LA system is bjorked and WotC hates goblins. Well, sounds good everyone, we don't have to talk about anything else anymore in this thread. :smallwink:

Not just goblins! Nonhumans in general! :smallfrown:

[Darth Stabber]

Not just goblins! Nonhumans in general! :smallfrown:

True enough, just look at the list I posted earlier


Human, Azurin, Illumian, Elan, Strong-Heart Halfling, Deep Imaskari, and certain Elf variants.

Humans, incarnum humans, humans with words circling their head, humans who decided they didn't want to die, halflings that look up to humans (no pun intended), humans that have been sealed in a underground tippyverse city for too long, and elves. The elves are only odd ones there, and are only good as wizards due to a racial ACF (comparing the opportunity cost of not being human). Add dwarf, whisper gnome, and dragonborn water orcs and that is pretty much the list of races worth picking without factoring racial ACFs (from a pure PO perspective).

[Gnorman]

Humans, incarnum humans, humans with words circling their head, humans who decided they didn't want to die, halflings that look up to humans (no pun intended), humans that have been sealed in a underground tippyverse city for too long, and elves. The elves are only odd ones there, and are only good as wizards due to a racial ACF (comparing the opportunity cost of not being human). Add dwarf, whisper gnome, and dragonborn water orcs and that is pretty much the list of races worth picking without factoring racial ACFs (from a pure PO perspective).

Warforged and kobolds would like a word with you.

[Darth Stabber]

Warforged and kobolds would like a word with you.

Okay so I missed one. Kobold is useless without crazy broken feats. It's either entirely worthless or completely ridiculous.

[Larkas]

Okay so I missed one. Kobold is useless without crazy broken feats. It's either entirely worthless or completely ridiculous.

Not necessarily. Even without Dragonwrought, RotD's Kobold (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) is a somewhat solid race choice. Can't hold a candle to humans, though.

[Answerer]

And even without Venerable, Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, Epic Feats, or alter self, Dragonwrought is a good feat for an RotD Kobold. It's a pretty solid race.

[ahenobarbi]

And even without Venerable, Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, Epic Feats, or alter self, Dragonwrought is a good feat for an RotD Kobold. It's a pretty solid race.

Wht's left of DWK after you take away "Venerable, Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, Epic Feats" and "alter self"? Paparlysis and sleep immunity, longer life skill bonus and early qualification? Maybe the last one is worth something but there aren't that many things you can qualify for.

[Answerer]

You get immunity to things that target humanoids in particular (e.g. charm person). You can also get Rapidstrike, and there are other, not-broken feats that require being a Dragon.

[Darth Stabber]

And even without Venerable, Greater Draconic Rite of Passage, Epic Feats, or alter self, Dragonwrought is a good feat for an RotD Kobold. It's a pretty solid race.

So instead of a racial bonus feat you have a racial feat tax? If you go further it gets crazy, if not it's just unappealing.

And if you want to not be a humanoid, try elan, if you want to be a dragon, dragonborn.

[Psyren]

I didn't say it's horrible to change 500 races, but it is a lot more work and often not practical. Nor does it reflect the optimization level of most gaming groups. And you can make a lot of mistakes.

Good for them. Though I've heard in several cases they've gone too far in the other direction and it's not fair to use a lot of monster races unless the whole party is using monster races. Dunno how true that actually is.

Nope, humans still rule the roost in PF (barring the odd racial archetype - of course, humans have those too, or powerful/broken FC bonuses, so it still tends to even out.) But the gap between them and everyone else is much, much smaller, particularly in core-only.


Okay so I missed one. Kobold is useless without crazy broken feats. It's either entirely worthless or completely ridiculous.

I would add Synads and Elans but I do agree with your underlying point, humans and human-derivatives far outweigh the lesser options.

[Darth Stabber]

I would add Synads and Elans but I do agree with your underlying point, humans and human-derivatives far outweigh the lesser options.

Elans were on the list, I keep forgetting about synads, but 7/10 times I would rather have elan: no food, make all my saves, and emergency hp supply are hard to top. And elans are human derived, at least from a 3.5 fluff perspective. I heard pf changed it so any race can become elan, but I don't play PF so I wouldn't know.

[willpell]

They do.

I'd suggest dropping bonus pp and making them a decent LA +0.

Or up the bonus pp to 2-3 and make them an LA +1 that's actually worth it (at least in LA buyoff campaigns where the LA only applies for three levels, during which 2-3 pp makes a difference). If you pretend that INT is worth exactly the same as DEX (not strictly true, but tolerably near it) and ignore the tier difference between races, the PP is literally the only difference between goblins and blues, but 1 pp is nowhere near enough to matter; all the naturally psionic races get 2 (except the Synads who have 3).

[Answerer]

Or up the bonus pp to 2-3 and make them an LA +1 that's actually worth it (at least in LA buyoff campaigns where the LA only applies for three levels, during which 2-3 pp makes a difference). If you pretend that INT is worth exactly the same as DEX (not strictly true, but tolerably near it) and ignore the tier difference between races, the PP is literally the only difference between goblins and blues, but 1 pp is nowhere near enough to matter; all the naturally psionic races get 2 (except the Synads who have 3).
Kalashtar get +PP=HD.

[willpell]

You could always drop the LA of everything by about 1 and manually boost all the LA 0s with a +2 and nice class feature or something.

Isn't that exactly what Pathfinder did?

[Lord_Gareth]

Isn't that exactly what Pathfinder did?

Less "did" and more, "Isn't this the idea Pathfinder took and completely savaged, leaving it to bleed out on a highway shoulder like everything else they did to their game?"

[willpell]

I used to know a guy from Denver, which he claimed was Pathfinder capital of the world, who took my criticisms of the game personally because he'd been heavily involved in feedbacking to the company and getting them to change in the direction of what I was talking about. Which was basically being more wide-open and sandboxy for maximum customization, something that I theoretically ought to approve of, but in practice I found the results incredibly messy.

But in terms of this context, I was referring to the way everyone now gets either +2 or +2/+2/-2 in attributes, and favored class is a bonus instead of a penalty, which are aspects I don't have a huge problem with. The LA part was more of a guess, since they can't use Wotco property and so I figured there would be more Paizo-original stuff than adapted versions of 3.5 material.

[Psyren]

I'd chalk it up to a design decision. Raising the base power level - and by that, I mean raising the players' expectations of what base power should be - increases your design space. When everybody is getting +2 to two attributes along with other goodies, suddenly Aasimar don't seem so powerful anymore and their LA can be removed, for example.

Paizo did not update the Blues themselves, but DSP followed this design philosophy for their own conversion, and it fits seamlessly.

Also, Gareth's revulsion for PF is well-known, I wouldn't take it to heart.

[Answerer]

Also, Gareth's revulsion for PF is well-known, I wouldn't take it to heart.
Gareth's revulsion for PF is also well-justified, and I'd at least consider it even with a grain of salt. He speaks with grandiose metaphors and exaggeration, but he's not wrong overall. Paizo is a pretty atrocious design team.

[willpell]

I'd chalk it up to a design decision. Raising the base power level - and by that, I mean raising the players' expectations of what base power should be - increases your design space. When everybody is getting +2 to two attributes along with other goodies, suddenly Aasimar don't seem so powerful anymore and their LA can be removed, for example.

This is a good point...did they in fact update the Tiefling and its unfortunately-named Celestial equivalent to LA +0? Were there any other changes? (This answer is presumably on the Pathfinder wiki, but I consider that foreign soil which I am not yet comfortable visiting. Someday.)

The things about Pathfinder I don't like are largely gut feelings, but I can definitely point to one gaping hole in the idea of making the game more cutomizeable - the change from "max ranks in a class skill is HD+3" to "max ranks in a skill is HD, and you get a +3 bonus to class skill rolls" has the effect of more severely pigeonholing low-level characters. A 3E Rogue 1 can have 4 ranks in hide, while a high-int Fighter 1 can pay the same number of SP (from his lower starting allotment) to have 2 ranks in Hide, but under Pathfinder rules, a Fighter starting with +2 to his hide check (feats and such excluded) is not just expensive, it's impossible. The Rogue still has +4 to Hide, but the Fighter is even less capable of learning those skills, and that's just not a good move at all.

Beyond that I know too little about PF to have an informed opinion, but the stuff I glimpse of it around here tends to look silly to me (Cavalier? Magus? Eidolon? These are classes somehow?), and in my very brief attempt at playing in a camp based on the pirates adventure path, one of the few facts I learned is that you don't get to level 1 until 2000 XP. Maybe the XP is given out at double the rate for killing the same number of rats and goblins, but I didn't get so far as to find out, and doubling the number that says how long you have to wait is still discouraging psychologically, even if this is purely in one's head and the math proves it false.

[Psyren]

Gareth's revulsion for PF is also well-justified, and I'd at least consider it even with a grain of salt. He speaks with grandiose metaphors and exaggeration, but he's not wrong overall. Paizo is a pretty atrocious design team.

The best judge I have is their success, which speaks quite soundly for itself - all the moreso since nobody is ever required to pay them a dime for their rules, yet they still manage to outsell WotC. And for all their missteps during beta and even during release, they did quite a bit right with PF from a design perspective and should be lauded for doing so.

So no, I don't consider this attitude to be nearly as justified as you seem to, nor do I consider him to be correct in an overall sense either. Though I admit I tend to see features where many in this thread might see bugs, which may contribute to my stance.

EDIT:


This is a good point...did they in fact update the Tiefling and its unfortunately-named Celestial equivalent to LA +0? Were there any other changes? (This answer is presumably on the Pathfinder wiki, but I consider that foreign soil which I am not yet comfortable visiting. Someday.)

Correct, both (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/aasimar) are (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/tiefling) LA 0 in Pathfinder, as are Drow and Dhampir.


The things about Pathfinder I don't like are largely gut feelings, but I can definitely point to one gaping hole in the idea of making the game more cutomizeable - the change from "max ranks in a class skill is HD+3" to "max ranks in a skill is HD, and you get a +3 bonus to class skill rolls" has the effect of more severely pigeonholing low-level characters. A 3E Rogue 1 can have 4 ranks in hide, while a high-int Fighter 1 can pay the same number of SP (from his lower starting allotment) to have 2 ranks in Hide, but under Pathfinder rules, a Fighter starting with +2 to his hide check (feats and such excluded) is not just expensive, it's impossible. The Rogue still has +4 to Hide, but the Fighter is even less capable of learning those skills, and that's just not a good move at all.

On the contrary, a PF fighter is much better at hiding than a 3.5 one. Sure, in 3.5 - at level 1 with high Int - a fighter could sink 4 points into getting a +2 hide check. But one level later the PF fighter catches up, and does so without having to neglect most or all his other skills due to cross-class skill costs.

What this change does is reward you for spreading your points around more. Since you get a hefty bonus just for having one rank in a class skill, you have incentive to train all your class skills at least once. So a rogue who might have otherwise ignored Appraise or a Druid who would have skipped Survival or Handle Animal now has reason to spare at least one point for those skills, and have a decent chance of making the check.



Beyond that I know too little about PF to have an informed opinion, but the stuff I glimpse of it around here tends to look silly to me (Cavalier? Magus? Eidolon? These are classes somehow?), and in my very brief attempt at playing in a camp based on the pirates adventure path, one of the few facts I learned is that you don't get to level 1 until 2000 XP. Maybe the XP is given out at double the rate for killing the same number of rats and goblins, but I didn't get so far as to find out, and doubling the number that says how long you have to wait is still discouraging psychologically, even if this is purely in one's head and the math proves it false.

Well, personally I don't see "Cavalier" as being any sillier than "Knight", or "Magus" being any sillier than "Duskblade" but there's no point in arguing personal preference. :smallsmile:

An Eidolon is actually not a class; it's a class feature (specifically, a dedicated pet) for the Summoner class.

The exp one I can't address for you as my groups typically wing it or it happens behind the scenes.

[Lord_Gareth]

The best judge I have is their success, which speaks quite soundly for itself [...]

I am compelled to point out that if success is your metric, then Twilight, Fifty Shades of Gray and Avatar have rendered all of the classics obsolete.

Success is no measure of quality - especially not in so subjective an industry as this one.

[Larkas]

On the contrary, a PF fighter is much better at hiding than a 3.5 one. Sure, in 3.5 - at level 1 with high Int - a fighter could sink 4 points into getting a +2 hide check. But one level later the PF fighter catches up, and does so without having to neglect most or all his other skills due to cross-class skill costs.

What this change does is reward you for spreading your points around more. Since you get a hefty bonus just for having one rank in a class skill, you have incentive to train all your class skills at least once. So a rogue who might have otherwise ignored Appraise or a Druid who would have skipped Survival or Handle Animal now has reason to spare at least one point for those skills, and have a decent chance of making the check.

Just to reinforce Psyren's point and further explain what he's saying, there is no cross-class penalty to buying skill ranks in Pathfinder. Hence, you always spend a point for a rank there. Your hypothetical fighter would hence spend one skill point for a rank in Hide at level 1, and though that admittedly is less than what you'd get in 3.5, it's also cheaper. Besides, he will catch up with his counterpart by level 2 and overtake it by level 4 (2x2.5, 4x3.5). That, coupled with the fact that the skill list has been severely condensed, means that at the end of the day you can get a character who can be much more fleshed-out skillwise (i.e.: not only are your skill points worth more, they also last longer).


I am compelled to point out that if success is your metric, then Twilight, Fifty Shades of Gray and Avatar have rendered all of the classics obsolete.

Success is no measure of quality - especially not in so subjective an industry as this one.

True that. Regardless, I don't see Paizo as being too much worse than WotC back in the day. Quite the opposite, really, if I had to compare one to the other, I'd say they are more or less equivalent. I don't know, it seems to me that WotC burnt much of it's talent when they released 3E, and went downhill from there. Of course they had great gems (ToB, binders, Incarnum, among many others), but most of the material is at best uninteresting, and at worse downright atrocious (Truenamer, I'm looking at you). I think we look more favorably towards WotC for two reasons: (1) they created the game, for pete's sake, and (2) by now we had enough time to separate the good stuff from the mediocre from the bad. Besides, we now have a better grasp of what's bad and mediocre, so if Paizo releases something that's not up to par, we can see right away and cry foul much faster. Bottomline, Paizo and it's version of the game surely have their faults, and they are many and not irrelevant, but I think that maybe people hit it harder simply because the standards we set to the newbie were very high.

[Psyren]

I am compelled to point out that if success is your metric, then Twilight, Fifty Shades of Gray and Avatar have rendered all of the classics obsolete.

Just as the assertion that success is always correlated with quality is false, so too is the assertion that they are never correlated. It's just as bad to imply one as the other.

So we have to look at other factors in conjunction with mere sales - which compels me to point out the first false equivalency you're attempting to draw between tabletop gamers and the audience of the works you cite. The gaming community is more tightly-knit - we go to RPG conventions, we cosplay, we argue on forums, we play online etc. And while those things may exist for your examples specifically - a Twilight convention for instance - you're unlikely to have a broader "teen girl novel convention" where alternatives can be readily viewed, nor would the audience of Twilight necessarily be interested in such alternatives. By contrast, alternatives to both PF and D&D abound and are easy to learn about, with quality being the primary if not only differentiating factor.

The second false equivalency you draw is between their business models - sure, lots of people think Twilight is dreck, but the often-heard counterargument is that "you only think that because you haven't actually read it!" which repeated often enough can convince even a naysayer to shell out for the work in question. In short, there is no "Twilight OGL" - no way to (easily/legally) experience the totality of your examples without first consuming/funding them in some way, and by then the sale has been recorded.

Pathfinder, meanwhile, IS free. And so, every single person who decides to try Pathfinder before buying can do so. Thus, there's a greater chance that every sale of a Pathfinder book, as opposed to every sale of Twilight etc., comes from someone who is already satisfied with the product - rather than someone who is merely plunking down the cash "to see what all the fuss is about."

That satisfaction - and therefore, that sale - is thus more likely to be based on quality (actual or perceived) than the sales of your examples.

[Lord_Gareth]

Bottomline, Paizo and it's version of the game surely have their faults, and they are many and not irrelevant, but I think that maybe people hit it harder simply because the standards we set to the newbie were very high.

First, I apologize for shortening your quote; I did read all of it and I'm addressing all of it, I just didn't want to be quote-boxing a huge wall of text.

There may, perhaps, be some truth to your statements, but I'm not inclined to agree with them. Paizo isn't new; they were (failing) to design for 3.0 and 3.5 during the Dragon and Dungeon eras (though they did admittedly have some gems like Force Missile Mage) for years before they published Pathfinder. When they did start to design Pathfinder, they promised to fix all manner of balance issues, to listen to their community, and to improve the game that they were basing it from (3.5). Instead they've worsened almost all of the problems (widened the gulf between caster and non-caster, made feats worth less, increased the trap-to-option ratio in favor of traps, etc, etc), and that by itself might have been forgivable if they'd listen to feedback. Instead, SKR and his team choose to condescend, deride, and ultimately ostracize those who criticize their work, reject constructive commentary, and continue to repeat the same insipid mistakes over and over and over again.

If they were making the blunders of beginners and accepting criticism like professionals, I'd be more inclined to think and speak well of them. Instead they act like spoiled brats inconvenienced by the demands of 'lesser' players and designers. That's no way for professionals to react, and why I loathe Paizo and its products.

[toapat]

Success is no measure of quality - especially not in so subjective an industry as this one.

I have to agree with you there. Someone could write a perfect system, and it would probably go un-noticed for years, and only become known after the original author went bankrupt and the copywrites burned. The RPG market has immense inertia, and at least a portion of the success of Pazio is as a result of exploiting that inertia. On the other hand, they make their books ooze pretty, enough so that they sell themselves to those who are less well versed in RPGs, and they say they are based off of DnD, further reinforcing themselves.

Pazio certainly didnt excel at fixing 3.5, but they did make the first RPG in a long time that actually sells itself to people on more then just name recognition.

[Zeful]

Thus, there's a greater chance that every sale of a Pathfinder book, as opposed to every sale of Twilight etc., comes from someone who is already satisfied with the product - rather than someone who is merely plunking down the cash "to see what all the fuss is about."
Or completely blinded by nostalgia, given that the entire Pathfinder actually appealed to nostalgia at many points before the game came out; or as is likely the case considering highly popular things that suffer glaring flaws (Like Pathfinder and Twilight), too ignorant to know just how bad the authors screwed up.

I've seen the game, and I do not ascribe any of it's success to quality, far to many mistakes were made in it's creation for that to be a credible explanation.

[Psyren]

Or completely blinded by nostalgia, given that the entire Pathfinder actually appealed to nostalgia at many points before the game came out; or as is likely the case considering highly popular things that suffer glaring flaws (Like Pathfinder and Twilight), too ignorant to know just how bad the authors screwed up.

Both are possible (if highly insulting) but again reveal another key difference between Twilight and Pathfinder - one is a game, an ongoing medium. Twilight, once the story is written, is crap, but that crap is fait accompli. Meyer got her money and ran.

PF, by contrast, is still being played, still being purchased - with new books being as readily consumed as old. If it's as horrible as you believe, mere nostalgia without quality couldn't account for its continuing dominance.

As for "how bad they screwed up" - I'm willing to bet the answer to that question is "far less than the anti-paizo crusade believes, or wants others to believe."

[Larkas]

If they were making the blunders of beginners and accepting criticism like professionals, I'd be more inclined to think and speak well of them. Instead they act like spoiled brats inconvenienced by the demands of 'lesser' players and designers. That's no way for professionals to react, and why I loathe Paizo and its products.

For the purposes of not making huge quote boxes, I'll go ahead and snip most of your post too, if you don't mind :smallsmile:

I can now see where you're coming from, and I can say I can sympathize. I've never really provided feedback to Paizo, nor really payed much attention to their boards, but I simply hate when a company acts like that. Specially if that company capitalized on the fact that they are great because of their clients -- myself, I recently stopped buying anything BioWare related because of something similar they did to a game of theirs, and believe me, I was a hardcore fan since Baldur's Gate.

Regardless, I don't see them worsening the problems they set out to fix. I actually see them performing more or less the same hit/miss ratio WotC did. That doesn't mean I downright disagree with you. Maybe I see it like this simply because we are all veterans at PF even if we only played 3E/3.5. Meaning: when I see something bad, I might simply disregard it as an almost automatic reflex. Though, to honestly address the things you pointed: (1) The gulf between magic-users and mundanes might have widened (though I see it as being mostly the same), but mundanes DID get some love; and an increase in power when you can't do anything appropriately might mean more than when you already can do anything perfectly. (2) Feats might be worth less (and I'd really recommend either adapting them to increase power or to simply use their 3.5 counterparts), but you do get more feats. The end result is more or less 0. (3) I can't address the trap/option ration, like I said, I might simply be skipping over the traps and paying attention only to the options. Again, I don't mean to convince you in any way, I am merely presenting the outline the way I see it.

On them not being newbies, I stand corrected, indeed they were publishing 3rd/2nd party products all the way back to 3E. However, they were not actively trying to maintain a system, and maybe that's a bit more responsibility than they were ready to take... Regardless, they are at least trying to keep the game alive, so that must be a plus :smallwink:

Anyways, if I might be so bold to provide some piece of advice, it would be this: look things on the bright side! Paizo might suck alright, but they are able to produce some gems. You already pointed to Force Missile Mage, but IMHO, things like bloodline feats, Mystic Ranger and even the Battle Dancer fit the bill just as fine, and this is only in 3.5. For every Gunslinger in PF, you have a refitted Paladin. For every broken bardic music, you have a Qinggong Monk. For every nerfed Improved Trip, you have a nerfed Polymorph subschool. Besides, the game is pretty much retro-compatible! Take the bits you like, discard the rest, and go to town! The best part is that you don't even have to pay for it :smallbiggrin:

[Lord_Gareth]

PF, by contrast, is still being played, still being purchased - with new books being as readily consumed as old. If it's as horrible as you believe, mere nostalgia without quality couldn't account for its continuing dominance.

As for "how bad they screwed up" - I'm willing to bet the answer to that question is "far less than the anti-paizo crusade believes, or wants others to believe."

Pathfinder is still being played and purchased either by people who lack sufficient system mastery to recognize the problem ("Guys a human fighter has THREE FEATS at level one!!!!") or people like you who acknowledge the problems and then dismiss them as "features, not bugs". As the ongoing debate on Tome of Battle demonstrates, there's a large supply of buyers for Paizo who are interested in CHARGE AND FULL ATTACK, and it's from them that Paizo profits.

[Darth Stabber]

In short, there is no "Twilight OGL" - no way to (easily/legally) experience the totality of your examples without first consuming/funding them in some way, and by then the sale has been recorded.

False. Public libraries still exist (at least in the US, but I can't imagine they don't exist in other countries), and it is perfectly legal to check out a book, read it, return the darn thing and not be out anything but time. I did so, just because I figured there must be some redeeming quality to cause it to get that big. I didn't find anything worth the death of the trees it was made of in the first two books and gave up, but i've given it more of a chance than most haters.

[Lord_Gareth]

False. Public libraries still exist (at least in the US, but I can't imagine they don't exist in other countries), and it is perfectly legal to check out a book, read it, return the darn thing and not be out anything but time. I did so, just because I figured there must be some redeeming quality to cause it to get that big. I didn't find anything worth the death of the trees it was made of in the first two books and gave up, but i've given it more of a chance than most haters.

I read all four books thanks to the public library.

I still have flashbacks. Horrible, horrible flashbacks.

[Larkas]

I read all four books thanks to the public library.

I still have flashbacks. Horrible, horrible flashbacks.

I was a volunteer at a local public library. Maybe that's where my optimistic outlook towards Paizo comes from: I've read **** and THEN I've read **** :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

False. Public libraries still exist

Public libraries are funded by taxes, so you're actually still paying for the books. Remind me, how much of your taxes does paizo collect, again?


Pathfinder is still being played and purchased either by people who lack sufficient system mastery to recognize the problem ("Guys a human fighter has THREE FEATS at level one!!!!") or people like you who acknowledge the problems and then dismiss them as "features, not bugs".

It's not really a dismissal. I'd love and welcome a ToB-like maneuver-based system for Pathfinder, for instance. But I do think the problem is highly exaggerated.

[Deadline]

the anti-paizo crusade

Is this a thing? Or is it hyperbole? Because I'm pretty sure not liking a thing doesn't constitute an "anti-thing crusade".


Public libraries are funded by taxes, so you're actually still paying for the books. Remind me, how much of your taxes does paizo collect, again?

Are you really going to try and claim that, say $0.001 ($30 book evenly divided out among a population of 30,000 taxpayers - i.e. a very small town) isn't essentially the same thing as free? I mean sure, you are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but it doesn't serve your point, and casts the dark spectre of straw-grasping upon your arguments.

I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that both examples are, essentially free to try before you buy. Also, why is it so hard to grasp the concept that quality generally has very little to do with success? (Exposure, advertising, marketing, etc. all have a far more significant impact than quality.)

Disclaimer: I don't have any strong feelings one way or another towards Paizo. I don't think they've put out anything amazing, but I don't think their efforts are utter crap either. It's basically more 3.5 stuff, with some nice tweaks. I like 3.5, so I like more 3.5 stuff.

[PersonMan]

Is this a thing? Or is it hyperbole? Because I'm pretty sure not liking a thing doesn't constitute an "anti-thing crusade".

People like Lord_Gareth could be described as "anti-Paizo crusaders" because they hate Paizo and don't hesitate to bring their strongly anti-Paizo viewpoint into conversations within which Paizo is brought up. This can give many the impression that they are 'looking for a fight' or 'crusading' against the group in a discussion populated primarily by fans/neutrals.

I personally haven't really played PF and never actually used its material (ok, I did once, but I never got to actual combat and didn't use the social skills I had, so...), so I'm just a mostly lurking neutral.

[Starbuck_II]

Pathfinder is still being played and purchased either by people who lack sufficient system mastery to recognize the problem ("Guys a human fighter has THREE FEATS at level one!!!!") or people like you who acknowledge the problems and then dismiss them as "features, not bugs". As the ongoing debate on Tome of Battle demonstrates, there's a large supply of buyers for Paizo who are interested in CHARGE AND FULL ATTACK, and it's from them that Paizo profits.

Pathfinder makes most of their money from adventure paths/modules.

They are useable in 3.5 with some tweaking; so everyone benefits.

[Deadline]

People like Lord_Gareth could be described as "anti-Paizo crusaders" because they hate Paizo and don't hesitate to bring their strongly anti-Paizo viewpoint into conversations within which Paizo is brought up. This can give many the impression that they are 'looking for a fight' or 'crusading' against the group in a discussion populated primarily by fans/neutrals.

A crusade implies some sort of organized opposition, not someone spouting off their opinion any chance they get. Lumping those sorts of people together and ascribing an organized, malicious agenda (that is likely non-existant) to them is not only foolish, it's the basis for bunker mentality. Or a cornerstone of Newscorp's business model. Either way, it doesn't lead anywhere productive or useful. Mouthy opinions are easy to ignore, organized opposition, less so.

[Psyren]

Is this a thing? Or is it hyperbole? Because I'm pretty sure not liking a thing doesn't constitute an "anti-thing crusade".

It's a thing, and not just in threads specifically asking for opinions on the Pathfinder system in general or threads asking about paizo as a company (though it's certainly more obvious there.) But yeah, search up some threads with those topics and you'll pretty clearly see what I'm referring to.

And "not liking a thing" is a pretty bland way to refer to a comment like "took and completely savaged, leaving it to bleed out on a highway shoulder like everything else they did to their game." If hyperbole indeed got into this discussion, it didn't start with me.



Also, why is it so hard to grasp the concept that quality generally has very little to do with success?

I grasp that it is one factor. How much of a factor it is depends on the relative weight of other factors. That Twilight is popular independent of (or inversely to) its quality says nothing about Pathfinder - they are apples and volkswagens.

[Darth Stabber]

I get lumped in with the anti-paizos sometimes, mostly because I feel the need to correct people when they say it fixes what was wrong with 3.5. It fixes a few surface issues, and does tweak a few things that needed it, but the core balance problems remain. You bring that up to paizoites and half of them will call you a min/maxing munchkin heathen. Personally, I think late 3.5 is more balanced, but who am I to stop people from playing the version they like. I have a row on my bookshelf full of 3.5 material, so I am not upgrading for a marginal at best improvement. My 3.5 books are a sunk monetary cost, and given my personal campaign worlds are based on it, I have a sunk intangible cost too. I realize that the pathfinder srd is free, but I tend to like GMing while surrounded by a forest of dead trees.

As far as libraries being taxpayer funded: true, but again it is a sunk cost, and more than a sunk cost, it is a cost that I have no real choice in paying, so I may as well get some utility from it. That reminds me, I have some overdue books to return (not twilight).

[Lord_Gareth]

That reminds me, I have some overdue books to return (not twilight).


Well yeah, if you returned Twilight then someone else might read it.

[Curmudgeon]

... You can, for instance, take 5 levels in Ranger, taking the Distracting Attack varient in PhB2. At level up you then choose to take the Mystic Ranger substitutions.
Mystic Ranger is a variant class, not a bunch of substitution levels. From Dragon # 336, page 105:
MYSTIC RANGER CLASS FEATURES
The mystic ranger is a variant ranger. Unless otherwise noted, a mystic ranger advances in the same manner as a ranger (same Hit Die, base attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, skill points, and so on). You pick either Ranger 1 or Mystic Ranger 1; thereafter you're stuck with that class choice. Substitution levels have a completely different mechanic, so they need to be explicitly stated as such.

[toapat]

Mystic Ranger is a variant class, not a bunch of substitution levels. From Dragon # 336, page 105: You pick either Ranger 1 or Mystic Ranger 1; thereafter you're stuck with that class choice. Substitution levels have a completely different mechanic, so they need to be explicitly stated as such.

and the PHB2 was published before more then 1 class had a True variant and not ACFs, and those variants couldnt be interchanged freely because they were all restricted by alignment

besides that, i acknowledged you had to allow the ACF rules to apply to sub levels

[Deadline]

It's a thing, and not just in threads specifically asking for opinions on the Pathfinder system in general or threads asking about paizo as a company (though it's certainly more obvious there.) But yeah, search up some threads with those topics and you'll pretty clearly see what I'm referring to.

Fair enough. I haven't seen it in any of the threads I've been reading, but I've only been perusing this site for a few months. I've seen several people foam at the mouth to defend it, so maybe I'm missing something vital here.


I grasp that it is one factor. How much of a factor it is depends on the relative weight of other factors. That Twilight is popular independent of (or inversely to) its quality says nothing about Pathfinder - they are apples and volkswagens.

When it comes to using sales figures as the measure for success, no, quality is very rarely a significant factor (surprisingly).

As far as the sidelong comparison with Twilight, it was an example that finely illustrated the point of quality not equating to success.

At any rate, defending Pathfinder's quality seems more like an exercise in arguing opinion, so I'll refrain from further comment on the matter.

[toapat]

At any rate, defending Pathfinder's quality seems more like an exercise in arguing opinion, so I'll refrain from further comment on the matter.

Basically, Advertising is worth way more then quality.

If we are to objectively weigh the quality of PF vs that of 3.5 over their lifetime, then 3.5 by this point has well surpassed PF. 3.5 was handled by 3 companies as first and second party, and many more third party groups. Comparatively Pathfinder only has Pazio as a first or second party developer, and they have neglected to put out similar volume of quality content. While this has prevented significant power creep, it hasnt done anything for narrowing the balance gaps. At the very least, there is actual potential in a number of the classes in 3.5, and in the same timeframe, Rich Burlew's and Jason Bulman's Big Book of Houserules (WotC approved) (http://www.amazon.com/Dungeonscape-Dungeons-Dragons-Supplement-Bulmahn/dp/0786941189) had come out already. On the other hand, Nothing of the sort has come from Pazio.

[Psyren]

As far as the sidelong comparison with Twilight, it was an example that finely illustrated the point of quality not equating to success.

In a very broad sense, sure, but that particular analogy relies on equating tabletop gamers with the Twilight fanbase; I don't see much point in making such a comparison myself. At the very least, it doesn't fit me at all.

[Answerer]

Paizo is successful because they have zero competition in the market of people still producing things for 3.x. If you play 3.x and want new material, Paizo is close to your only choice. Most 3PP aren't producing new things, Wizards certainly isn't, and a lot of people don't want to play with stuff by a company they've never heard of – even if the things they've heard about the company they have wasn't good. "There's no such thing as bad publicity," as they say.

So of course Paizo is successful. They had the capital to produce and advertise their system, nothing in the way of real competitors, and a reasonably-large market to attract.

I'd argue that their success hinges on having a certain bare minimum of quality, but anything more than that probably would not add value to their bottom line, since they have no competition. As a result, their success and the quality of their product are almost entirely independent. That they are successful means, basically, that they haven't out-right offended too many people (though they have out-right offended quite a few people). They're selling nostalgia; it doesn't need to be good.


Before someone tries, this is explicitly not an argument to demonstrate that Paizo's quality is poor. This is an argument to demonstrate that the facts of their success does not necessarily say anything about the quality of their product.