What the HELL is up with this thing? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Spuddles

2013-05-23, 11:06 PM

I have a feeling SKR (and the PF crew for that matter) plays a lot of chars starting at level 1 with the bulk of their time spent playing under level 10.

In such an environment, TWF, weapon focus, and rapid shot are all pretty awesome as they overcome limitations inherent in classes based around BAB. Spell focus is also awesome at those levels, as monster HD inflation hasnt taken off and NPC stats/equipment won't cover their weak saves.

Prior to having 5th level spell slots, unmitigated metamagic is almost never worth it. A prepared quickened spell probably isn't worth the spell slot until you've got 7th level slots. The only real exception would be sorcerers with split ray, heighten spell, sculpt spell, and enpower spell. And that's all outside of core, which means there's potentially a lot more on the table.

Sith_Happens

2013-05-23, 11:34 PM

Someone please explain just what drugs this guy was on?

The one that makes you think exactly the opposite of the general consensus regarding 3.5's game balance (or lack thereof). I believe it's called "scrub" nowadays.

Oh, and you didn't get this from me, but I hear he's nursing a pretty bad stormwind habit too.

Rubik

2013-05-23, 11:40 PM

Oh, and you didn't get this from me, but I hear he's nursing a pretty bad stormwind habit too.You're saying he chugs fallacies?

FleshrakerAbuse

2013-05-23, 11:42 PM

The one that makes you think exactly the opposite of the general consensus regarding 3.5's game balance (or lack thereof). I believe it's called "scrub" nowadays.

Oh, and you didn't get this from me, but I hear he's nursing a pretty bad stormwind habit too.

I think the guy's just not as connected to the rest of the optimization world, along with previous edition bias and/or maybe possibly past experience luck. After all, two-weapon fighting with a rogue could have been one of his favorite characters. And that he uses the other core feats to measure them against each other means that he probably doesn't have much to go on. After all, you really gotta think about the you get only 6 of them part.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 12:04 AM

There are some decent arguments for why he thinks some of the things he does, but for others there's no excuse. Like, leadership at 8. Who would put that there? The book basically flat out says, "This feat is really really powerful. Its existence in any given game is up to the DM." He also has weapon specialization at 10. That feat is just terrible. Let's see if I can come up with some other ones that I didn't use in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284814). I didn't bring up simple weapon proficiency being at 7 yet, but it is. What are you really gaining by having a pile of mediocre weapons, and how many classes don't have sufficient simple weapon access that they need more? Combat casting is at 10, which just seems patently ridiculous. It might fall under his beliefs about skill focus, but still. Also, he has improved initiative at 8. It's a reasonable placement, but his reasoning based upon its comparison to skill focus is ridiculous. Another one is spell mastery and eschew materials at 4. They're not particularly good, but they're certainly not the worst feats in the game, which is how they're listed.

137beth

2013-05-24, 12:14 AM

I think SKR is talented at coming up with ideas. The feat point system is really nice, assuming you have a competent sense of how powerful each feat is (as Sonofzeal does, while SKR does not). It helps eliminate the issue of "this feat is horrible, but a necessary prerequisite to everything (I'm looking at you, point blank shot). What he is missing is the execution of his ideas. Of course, homebrewers can fix that, but it is rather disturbing to read his "explanations."

The Glyphstone

2013-05-24, 12:15 AM

It's also strongly suspected that a monk kicked his puppy to death in front of him as a small child.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 12:24 AM

It is rather disturbing to read his "explanations."
I think my favorite part of it is how understated they are sometimes. Natural spell, for example, just tells you to compare it to combat casting, silent spell, and still spell, and it says that giving a bonus is better than removing a penalty. It just makes absolutely no sense. If you used those two feats, all of your spells would necessarily cost a spell level two higher, and you'd be using two feats rather than one. The idea that natural spell is just removing a penalty is similarly illogical, given that it turns wildshape from an occasionally used buff that stops your casting, into an always on buff, which is crazy. I don't really have to go into detail, because everyone knows natural spell is wonderful, but it's nice to show where logic went wrong sometimes. I also love the +saves feats descriptions, as well as some similar ones, which are literally just, "a benchmark for defining what plus to a single save is worth a feat," as if that means anything.

137beth

2013-05-24, 12:25 AM

because everyone knows natural spell is wonderful,\
Apparently, not quite everyone:smalltongue:

Spuddles

2013-05-24, 12:47 AM

Read this, and let the hate flow through you:

Roleplaying?

Not every game option has to be the best option. Not every game rule option has to be a good option. In fact, some game choices are guaranteed to be BAD in terms of rules consequences, and people do them anyway because they want to play interesting characters. You can play a wizard with a 12 Int (I've done it, in the very first 3E playtest campaign, in fact). You can play a fighter who maximizes Con instead of Str. You can put ranks in Profession. You can take Skill Focus (Appraise). You can play a child, or a blind character, or a pacifist.

There are huge numbers of players who make and play characters that they think would be a fun or interesting concept. Players who don't worry about "optimal builds" to maximize AC or damage, because the game is designed for PCs to win and they can play characters that aren't minmaxed and not have them die all the time (I'll point out that the default encounter is CR = APL, which is an easy encounter that only uses 20% of the party's disposable resources... that's stacking the deck in the favor of the PCs).

The game expects you to have X gp worth of gear at every level. Deliberately choosing to play a character that ignores that and has essentially nothing at high levels is a very suboptimal design choice. You're allowed to do that. I think it's admirable for the people who want to play that sort of character. But it is unrealistic to say "because you've given up all these goodies, you gain other goodies that exactly make up for that choice which deliberately makes you a fragile character." And if you did build such a thing into the rules, it's basically saying, "you, the character that's made a sacrifice? It's not really a sacrifice at all, you're just as good as someone who didn't make that sacrifice. In other words, your sacrifice is meaningless because you're not really giving up anything."

If you want a game where all builds are equally viable, you should play a different game. Pathfinder lets you make suboptimal choices, or even poor choices, and it doesn't reward you for making those poor choices. Because rewarding poor choices is dumb. I don't see anyone clamoring that there should be a feat or vow or ritual for Int 8 wizards to get access to different powers to make up for his lack of spells, whether or not you call it the "Vow of Rincewind." I don't see anyone clamoring that the low-Dex fighter should get something that makes him awesome at dodging out of trouble and accidentally killing his enemies in comedic ways, whether or not you call it the "Vow of Jar-Jar."

I like the concept of the vow of poverty. It's a noble thing. And I understand that it sucks to be the impoverished character in a game where you're supposed to have 20,000 gp worth of goodies. So the VOP in UM gives you a bone in the form of extra ki. And another bone in the form of "you can have one item of value," which lets you put all your gp cheese in one item instead of ten. But I'm not going to let the rules make your impoverished monk as good as a regular monk. If you want to play a character that's making a sacrifice, make a sacrifice--don't pretend it's a sacrifice and expect a handout for pretending.

SKR likes trap options and defends a system full of poor mechanical options because suboptimal decisions exist in real life.

Gnome Alone

2013-05-24, 01:14 AM

I like his reasoning on playing suboptimal interesting characters, but yeesh, why shouldn't there be damage-control feats to help do that? VoP makes "I don't wanns rely on magic items" more viable.
Side note: I would so take the "Vow of Rincewind."

Jeff the Green

2013-05-24, 01:27 AM

Read this, and let the hate flow through you:

SKR likes trap options and defends a system full of poor mechanical options because suboptimal decisions exist in real life.

The biggest thing he seems to be missing here is that the character and the player are two different entities. Character sacrifices (poverty, VoR) should impact the character. The player, on the other hand, has the right to expect that while their character might be forced to beg for food or sleep on the street, they will be capable of contributing to the party. Since, you know, he's playing this character because it sounded fun, but it's not fun to be useless.

Vows of poverty and the like violate this rule. They are sacrifices the character made but they make the player less able to have fun.

Also, seriously? You're in a world where the power of metaphysical Goodness can grant you the ability to heal yourself. Why wouldn't renunciation of physical pleasures and tools be able to enhance the mind and body to the point of allowing flight, immunity to status effects, stat boosts, etc.?

urandom

2013-05-24, 01:41 AM

Barsoom

2013-05-24, 01:51 AM

SKR likes trap options and defends a system full of poor mechanical options because suboptimal decisions exist in real life.It's a viable design philosophy.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 01:53 AM

I suspect part of it is that he only compares feats within the same category, and largely ignores synergy (like metamagic reduction or stacking) or commitment (like feat chains). So comparing quicken spell to weapon specialization is not relevant to how he constructed it. Of course there are still very odd things within that paradigm. It's also safe to assume that he's operating at a low optimization level. I have to say that I agree with his discussion about having bad options. I might argue that there should mainly be bad combinations, not across the board always bad options, but I agree that having everything equally good would make the choices relatively boring.
I guess I can do some more random comparisons along that metric. By random, I mean very specifically picked by the way. whirlwind attack is at 9, two weapon fighting is at 11, manyshot is at 12, weapon specialization is, as you mentioned, at 10. On the somewhat lower end of the spectrum, you have improved trip at 8.

Actually, just looking at it, he generally places combat feats as more powerful than magic feats. There is no combat feat as low in points as the lowest magic feat (eschew materials and spell mastery), and there is no magic feat as high in points as the highest combat feats (many shot and two weapon fighting). He's not evaluating magic feats and combat feats under the assumption that you should judge the two feat sets separately. He's evaluating them under the assumption that melee characters are stronger than magic characters. The only magic feats he puts at 10 are the magic item creation feats. Any given magical character is going to have more feats than any given melee character on average.

CRtwenty

2013-05-24, 02:17 AM

He's evaluating them under the assumption that melee characters are stronger than magic characters. The only magic feats he puts at 10 are the magic item creation feats. Any given magical character is going to have more feats than any given melee character on average.

Just... how is that even possible? How can any person who's spent more than 10 minutes looking at the base system come to that conclusion?

The Random NPC

2013-05-24, 03:58 AM

And how is Light Armor "Near-useless"? If you have a even a decent dexterity score, Light Armor is much better than the other two types of armor.

To be fair, Light Armor Proficiency is near useless. Half of them don't have an armor check penalty, the other half can reduce it to 0 by making it masterwork, or by making it out of Mithral. That means there is no penalty for wearing it untrained.

ahenobarbi

2013-05-24, 04:35 AM

To be fair, Light Armor Proficiency is near useless. Half of them don't have an armor check penalty, the other half can reduce it to 0 by making it masterwork, or by making it out of Mithral. That means there is no penalty for wearing it untrained.

And most characters with no light armor proficiency are better of using Mage Armor.

Just... how is that even possible? How can any person who's spent more than 10 minutes looking at the base system come to that conclusion?

Actually it's quite common to think that after a quick look at the system (and even after playing for a while). Yes, fact that almost half of players handbook is about magic is a hint about what real power is but somehow many people (me included) don't notice relative underpoweredness of meelee (after all they are much more powerful than many fiction heroes anyways) .

Darrin

2013-05-24, 06:28 AM

SKR likes trap options and defends a system full of poor mechanical options because suboptimal decisions exist in real life.

If the point of your argument is the rules system shouldn't reward bad choices, then the very last feat you'd want to bring up is Vow of Poverty (which violates his argument in an extremely direct way).

But yeah, you get a very strong "You're playing the game WRONG!" vibe from most of the examples of his reasoning.

Amnestic

2013-05-24, 06:42 AM

I think the guy's just not as connected to the rest of the optimization world,

I don't know how that's possible in the era of the internet, unless it's by choice. And why would you - as a games designer - not be connected to the optimisation world of the system you're designing for? I'm not sure if that's a :smallconfused:, a :smallfrown: or a :smallsigh:. Possibly all three. But it's something.

Spuddles

2013-05-24, 07:09 AM

If the point of your argument is the rules system shouldn't reward bad choices, then the very last feat you'd want to bring up is Vow of Poverty (which violates his argument in an extremely direct way).

But yeah, you get a very strong "You're playing the game WRONG!" vibe from most of the examples of his reasoning.

Actually, this is with regards to a PF monk archetype. You give up all material possessions save for one valuable item and like a mundane bowl and blanket, for a bonus ki point every other level. It's unbelievable bad for a fantasy archetype that is very common. I guess there's no room for ascetics in dnd's Monty Haul system.

Telonius

2013-05-24, 07:15 AM

IIRC, the "feat point system" was written in-between the time he was laid off WotC but before Paizo hired him for work on Pathfinder. During that time, a lot of the (very real) deficiencies of 3.X were being hashed out online. Personally I think there was a pretty big incentive to say, "Actually, we meant to do that!" ... especially if the person in question wanted to have the possibility of future employment. Monte Cook had a few articles on his blog during that timespan that were basically doing the same thing, but for some reason (:smallconfused:) I can't seem to locate them.

Eldariel

2013-05-24, 07:15 AM

I have a feeling SKR (and the PF crew for that matter) plays a lot of chars starting at level 1 with the bulk of their time spent playing under level 10.

In such an environment, TWF, weapon focus, and rapid shot are all pretty awesome as they overcome limitations inherent in classes based around BAB. Spell focus is also awesome at those levels, as monster HD inflation hasnt taken off and NPC stats/equipment won't cover their weak saves.

On level 1 TWF is strictly worse than two-handed fighting. Same damage, worse to hit, requires 15 Dex. Rapid Shot is a fine feat, granted.

But yeah, this is in a nutshell why the minmax community doesn't like PF even though the system is kinda-sorta an improvement over 3.5 (much like 3.5 was kinda-sorta an improvement over 3.0); it could've been much better, SKR is the Uwe Boll of game design (down right to being completely blind to his own failings) & all the people who brought up problems in the system at Paizo's more or less got banned for it.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 07:16 AM

Actually, this is with regards to a PF monk archetype. You give up all material possessions save for one valuable item and like a mundane bowl and blanket, for a bonus ki point every other level. It's unbelievable bad for a fantasy archetype that is very common. I guess there's no room for ascetics in dnd's Monty Haul system.
Oh god. I thought that when he said monks can get one cool magical item to invest all of their money in, that that was his fix for vow of poverty. Like, his vow works like vow of poverty, except he fixed it by giving the monk an item, and people were arguing that it wasn't adequate to fix the ability. Did he actually take a feat that was already crazy bad, and make it significantly worse? Why would he do that? I thought vow of poverty was bad enough already to not deserve a severe nerf.

Amoren

2013-05-24, 07:30 AM

Oh god. I thought that when he said monks can get one cool magical item to invest all of their money in, that that was his fix for vow of poverty. Like, his vow works like vow of poverty, except he fixed it by giving the monk an item, and people were arguing that it wasn't adequate to fix the ability. Did he actually take a feat that was already crazy bad, and make it significantly worse? Why would he do that? I thought vow of poverty was bad enough already to not deserve a severe nerf.

What are you talking about? Its clearly a buff. The monk doesn't have to burn two feats to get it now, and also gives something it never used to! :P

Threadnaught

2013-05-24, 08:15 AM

Oh god. I thought that when he said monks can get one cool magical item to invest all of their money in, that that was his fix for vow of poverty. Like, his vow works like vow of poverty, except he fixed it by giving the monk an item, and people were arguing that it wasn't adequate to fix the ability. Did he actually take a feat that was already crazy bad, and make it significantly worse? Why would he do that? I thought vow of poverty was bad enough already to not deserve a severe nerf.

Get a Magic Item like a pair of magic pants, make them magic. Have the Wizard or whoever, Planar Bind and Gate in several Djinn to Wish more abilities onto the pants.
So a VoP character now has the most powerful magic item ever, which just so happens to be worth 10x the combined value of the universe. Yeah, it's totally a limitation.

Telonius

2013-05-24, 08:16 AM

eggynack

2013-05-24, 08:24 AM

Get a Magic Item like a pair of magic pants, make them magic. Have the Wizard or whoever, Planar Bind and Gate in several Djinn to Wish more abilities onto the pants.
So a VoP character now has the most powerful magic item ever, which just so happens to be worth 10x the combined value of the universe. Yeah, it's totally a limitation.
It's a pretty big limitation if you're not frigging wish farming. Seriously man, if you're chaining wishes, then letting the vow of poverty monk not suck is the least of your goals. In a regular game, where you don't lack limitations on crazy levels of cheese, it's a real problem for the monk. You could just as easily say that the CW samurai doesn't suck, because hey, he can become Pun-Pun.

Amnestic

2013-05-24, 08:24 AM

Still trying to look up that Monte Cook article - it was titled "Ivory Tower Game Design." Anyone have a copy of it? It's definitely disappeared from his blog, and my google-fu is too weak to find a copy of it.

My google-fu is slightly superior. (http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) Apparently he pulled it because he didn't agree with it or somesuch, but regardless, the internet never forgets.

Threadnaught

2013-05-24, 08:38 AM

It's a pretty big limitation if you're not frigging wish farming.

Okay then, how about Artificer?

Standard VoP is absolutely impossible as Artificer, with his "fix" you can at least have a Dedicated Wright.

Granted, VoP does need Dimensional Travel, Energy Immunity, Death Ward, Mind Blank and Flight in most games. Then again some people would probably complain about how magic items are pointless.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 08:41 AM

Okay then, how about Artificer?

Standard VoP is absolutely impossible as Artificer, with his "fix" you can at least have a Dedicated Wright.

Granted, VoP does need Dimensional Travel, Energy Immunity, Death Ward, Mind Blank and Flight in most games. Then again some people would probably complain about how magic items are pointless.
Is there an artificer class in pathfinder? There seems to be one, except it's third party. Vow of poverty in pathfinder needs more than dimensional travel, energy immunity, death ward, mind blank, and flight, it needs everything. Unless you can replace all but one item with ki points, you're a bit out of luck.

Threadnaught

2013-05-24, 09:19 AM

Is there an artificer class in pathfinder? There seems to be one, except it's third party. Vow of poverty in pathfinder needs more than dimensional travel, energy immunity, death ward, mind blank, and flight, it needs everything. Unless you can replace all but one item with ki points, you're a bit out of luck.

Ahh, right. Pathfinder.

I'm a little ignorant on the whole Pathfinder thing. I'll stick to what I know, good old broken 3.5e. :smallamused:

eggynack

2013-05-24, 09:21 AM

Ahh, right. Pathfinder.

I'm a little ignorant on the whole Pathfinder thing. I'll stick to what I know, good old broken 3.5e. :smallamused:
Indeed so. It's ultra super stupid crazy. As I noted, they took out all of those nifty and item replacing bonuses, and replaced them with one ki point per level and a single magic item. It's just kind of baffling, especially considering the fact that VoP was crazy underpowered already.

137beth

2013-05-24, 09:22 AM

Is there an artificer class in pathfinder? There seems to be one, except it's third party.
Yes, all 3.5 game content is useable in pathfinder by RAW, as there is an official procedure to update 3.5 content to PF. You cannot, however, use a pathfinder class in 3.5 without a house-rule.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 09:27 AM

Yes, all 3.5 game content is useable in pathfinder by RAW, as there is an official procedure to update 3.5 content to PF. You cannot, however, use a pathfinder class in 3.5 without a house-rule.
I suppose that makes some sense. Still gives you some pretty massive hoops to jump through just to gain anything approaching competence. I mean, artificer isn't even general 3.5, as it's pretty Ebberon specific. That doesn't really stop people from taking it, but it's an issue. More importantly, it still falls partially under the wish issue. If your party has an artificer then the monk is utterly pointless anyway. Either way, it feels like a corner case to a massive nerf.

Firest Kathon

2013-05-24, 09:58 AM

Indeed so. It's ultra super stupid crazy. As I noted, they took out all of those nifty and item replacing bonuses, and replaced them with one ki point per level and a single magic item. It's just kind of baffling, especially considering the fact that VoP was crazy underpowered already.

I think one combination that is not that bad is combining PF VoP with Quinggong (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk) monk archetype, which powers his spell-like abilities with Ki points. Certanly not overpowered, but at least you have something sensible to do with all those Ki points.

3WhiteFox3

2013-05-24, 12:37 PM

I just skimmed through the VoP thread and some of the discussion I saw going there made me sick (I'm not being completely hyperbolic either, it actually made me a little sick inside).

I know that I'm taking it way too seriously, but I get really frustrated when I see such willful disregard for balance, game design and such poor excuses being made by designers (I'm not hating on SKR, just the really poorly thought out posts by him and some of the other posters, Jason Bulmahn included). In fact, Jason's posts are almost as bad to me, he acts as if VoP isn't something that people will take and implies that he thinks the WoTC version was broken and they tried to go the other way to balance it.

(An aside note: if you make an option, people will take it, especially those players who think. "Ooh, I want to be like a monk and get cool stuff and not have any money." Intentionally hurting that unsuspecting player is just plain bad game design.) If you made something bad take ownership for your mistake please, it's more intellectually honest. It's the internet, people are going to blow something you see as small out of proportion, it's the truth (This is not necessarily a bad thing, more accountability is typically better for game design as a whole IMO.)

So yeah, while I like Pathfinder, that definitely doesn't mean that I agree with everything that their designers say. And I can't say what SKR or Jason are like in person, and I don't hate them at all. But they put their ideas and opinions (opinions that effect me personally as long as I continue to care about and support their product) out in the open, and I'm critiquing them. No more, no less.

ericgrau

2013-05-24, 01:04 PM

Spuddles

2013-05-24, 01:09 PM

Here's the VoP in question:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/monk-vows/vow-of-poverty

Okay then, how about Artificer?

Standard VoP is absolutely impossible as Artificer, with his "fix" you can at least have a Dedicated Wright.

Granted, VoP does need Dimensional Travel, Energy Immunity, Death Ward, Mind Blank and Flight in most games. Then again some people would probably complain about how magic items are pointless.

It doesnt work like that. This is a pf alternate class feature. Imagine if in 3.5 you had a fighter that could give up material possessions to get double fighter feats. You still have to take levels in the fighter class to get those bonus feats. If you are going to cheese your one item with artificer, why not 20 levels of artificer?

3WhiteFox3

2013-05-24, 01:09 PM

That includes the "general consensus" here, which will be different from everything elsewhere that wasn't influenced by it, or a source of influence for it.
I'm not entirely convinced this is totally true (I'm not arguing that there's truth to it), people tend to come up with similar ideas if they both see the same thing. Whether or not they had the same influences is nigh-impossible to determine. And one could argue that all people (or at least all people of a similar culture) have the set pool of shared influences, even if that pool is slight different for any particular group of people.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 01:12 PM

Any point system is going to have opinions, and opinions come with flaws. That includes the "general consensus" here, which will be different from everything elsewhere that wasn't influenced by it, or a source of influence for it. The internet may spread opinions even farther than usual, but rumors go as far as reason. The real error is harshly criticizing any opinion that is different from your own or the Playground's, and focusing only on their flaws instead of on cold logic. That reinforces opinion for the sake of opinion, rather than reason. Better to disagree and discuss what parts do and don't work, than to pretend that a universal and best consensus actually exists when nothing of the sort is even close to true.
Well, there's opinions that come with flaws, and then there are giant huddled masses of flaws with no way out. If you want to make the argument that there is any justification for his system, then I think that you have to show any possible reason why a +5 HP version of toughness is worth two more feat points than leadership. The fact of the matter is, game balance isn't just some opinion we pretend reflects some greater truth. It's a real and tangible thing. SKR's feat point system isn't just incorrect; it's remarkably incorrect.

3WhiteFox3

2013-05-24, 01:22 PM

Well, there's opinions that come with flaws, and then there are giant huddled masses of flaws with no way out. If you want to make the argument that there is any justification for his system, then I think that you have to show any possible reason why a +5 HP version of toughness is worth two more feat points than leadership. The fact of the matter is, game balance isn't just some opinion we pretend reflects some greater truth. It's a real and tangible thing. SKR's feat point system isn't just incorrect; it's remarkably incorrect.

Not only that, it's incorrect on a level that is can be argued on entirely factual basis, as in actual numbers and easily proven concepts.

Fact: 5 Hit Points becomes more and more worthless at an astonishing rate (even at level 5, 5 HP is pretty insignificant compared to the hit points you have on a purely mathematic level).

Fact: Leadership scales with level and can give you a beat-stick who will quickly out pace the extra 5 hit points you would have gained through toughness. That's completely ignoring the other crazy things Leadership can do like give you a free party buffer or Artificer or Spell Casting buddy.

Note: My definition of fact in this instance is something that is easily verifiable and quantifiable. It's pretty simple to understand that as long as more that 5 hit points go from you to your leadership based beatstick, you win out over toughness.

Snails

2013-05-24, 01:39 PM

I have a feeling SKR (and the PF crew for that matter) plays a lot of chars starting at level 1 with the bulk of their time spent playing under level 10.

I think you are right on the money.

On level 1 TWF is strictly worse than two-handed fighting. Same damage, worse to hit, requires 15 Dex. Rapid Shot is a fine feat, granted.

TWF is primarily used by characters who have bonus damage that offers synergies. Favored Enemy. Sneak Attack. These characters do not care about the Dex requirement. For them 2H fighting is may be strictly worse.

Eldariel

2013-05-24, 02:03 PM

TWF is primarily used by characters who have bonus damage that offers synergies. Favored Enemy. Sneak Attack. These characters do not care about the Dex requirement. For them 2H fighting is may be strictly worse.

No, on level 1 THF is always at least equal. 1d6 Sneak Attack, +2 FE or such is not enough, even if it were reliable (which it's not). Let's not forget the lack of ability to full attack on move, only single hit per AoO and so on, problems THF is not subjected to.

TWF costs 1 feat with a requirement. It gives you -2 penalty on all attacks and restricts you to only getting full damage if you stand still and only in-turn. It also restricts you not to use reach weapons (which are amazingly powerful on level 1 where on AoO can kill almost anyone and even characters with Tumble in class don't reliably make the DC 15) and has that 15 Dex requirement I mentioned earlier (if your Dex is higher than your Strength and you pick TWF over Weapon Finesse, you're in for trouble).

THF costs nothing. It has no -2 penalty, its base damage is 2d6 vs. 1d6+1d8 of TWF (so 1 point less), it has the same strength to damage & it's tactically way more versatile. Even if you add 1d6 to all attacks for TWF vs. THF, they are only about even before accounting for the feat and Dex-requirement.

No, TWF needs damage multipliers to even keep up and those take level to accumulate; 5d6 Sneak Attack and we're talking. 1d6? That's piddly squat.

For the record, an 18 Strength 18 Dex Rogue with Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword vs. TWF (using Longsword and Shortsword; guess he's an Elf or something) does average 8.90 damage to bogstandard Goblin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm) with single attack from Greatsword while sneak attacking, and average 5.14+3.82=8.96 with Longsword+Shortsword on Full Attack Sneak Attack. So TWF is about equal to Martial Weapon Proficiency on level 1 if you have +1d6 bonus damage on all your attacks (if you can full attack, and don't get AoOs, and are Rogue, and get to use Sneak Attack without moving). This is the absolute best case scenario for TWF and they're even only if we assume our Rogue burn the free feat to Martial Weapon Proficiency.

I hope we don't need to discuss why TWF is terrible on 1st level ever again.

navar100

2013-05-24, 03:04 PM

On level 1 TWF is strictly worse than two-handed fighting. Same damage, worse to hit, requires 15 Dex. Rapid Shot is a fine feat, granted.

But yeah, this is in a nutshell why the minmax community doesn't like PF even though the system is kinda-sorta an improvement over 3.5 (much like 3.5 was kinda-sorta an improvement over 3.0); it could've been much better, SKR is the Uwe Boll of game design (down right to being completely blind to his own failings) & all the people who brought up problems in the system at Paizo's more or less got banned for it.

Don't speak for me. I am a min/maxer and love Pathfinder.

ericgrau

2013-05-24, 03:49 PM

Well, there's opinions that come with flaws, and then there are giant huddled masses of flaws with no way out. If you want to make the argument that there is any justification for his system, then I think that you have to show any possible reason why a +5 HP version of toughness is worth two more feat points than leadership. The fact of the matter is, game balance isn't just some opinion we pretend reflects some greater truth. It's a real and tangible thing. SKR's feat point system isn't just incorrect; it's remarkably incorrect.
Some, but not all, of the rationale at the beginning is good and worth discussion. Some of the conclusions are bad, but some make sense. I find a lot of popular opinions here to be pretty bad too.

To explain it better without causing an uproar, I'll go to the general consensus and absolute truth among class American car enthusiast internet forums: torque is the only thing that matters. That's not only a questionable opinion, it downright defies the laws of physics. And it all stemmed from 60s professional racer comments referring to low end torque. Likewise ideas here get way overblown as they spread more and more, and adding to the hyperbole while ragging on somebody else doesn't help things.

Personally half of sonofzeal's point costs don't make sense to me. But my gripe isn't so much with the conclusions as it is with the rationale, or lack there-of.

Eldariel

2013-05-24, 03:58 PM

Don't speak for me. I am a min/maxer and love Pathfinder.

I'm talking about minmax community, as in the community on the minmax boards. Sorry if I was unclear; this has nothing at all to do with you. I don't mind Pathfinder, either. The community opinion, which does not extend to every individual, is contra-Pathfinder on those boards.

Which mostly draws upon how the commentary on the system was handled, and especially SRK's contributions personally. In other words, the people extend their hatred for SRK and Paizo to the system even though the system is fine. Again, I'm being intentionally vague here since I don't want to point any fingers, I just want to bring the light the state of affairs.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 03:59 PM

Some, but not all, of the rationale at the beginning is good and worth discussion. Some of the conclusions are bad, but some make sense. I find a lot of popular opinions here to be pretty bad too.

And I absolutely agree. As I say all the time, the man has good ideas, but his execution is horrific. I even brought up Sonofzeal's revised version in another thread, and he offered it up himself in this thread. The idea of a feat point system that assigns value to feats is actually a really well thought out one. The problem, is that the system puts natural spell at 5, leadership at 8, two weapon fighting at 11, and manyshot at the absolute maximum of 12. Moreover, instead of being either archetype neutral, or favoring mundane characters over caster characters, the system seems to actively favor casters. He built a system which seems to have the purpose of balancing the game, and made it such that it actively imbalances the game, and that's pretty crazy. If you think that the arguments here are against the concept of a feat point system, you are very much mistaken.

ericgrau

2013-05-24, 04:02 PM

Well I almost killed the whole response because it's becoming a bit of a tangent. But in short, without taking it further, I'm in favor of the constructive discussion that is occurring here and elsewhere, and not the rest.

If I were to put together a point system I'd probably do a 6/8/10 setup: highly situational, situational and always useful. The idea is that, in the right situations, nearly any feat can be useful. For this reason no feat would be priced too much below max. If it's bad for you, then don't take it at all. But situational ones do tend to see less use, so they get a small encouragement. Many splatbook feats show power creep or are comboriffic, and could go above 10. And anyone who makes combos is probably pairing them with feats that I give 8 points, since those are the only ones that match specific goals, and would wonder why I would dare set others at 10 points above them. So even if you had a good point system, it wouldn't even fit every gaming group as it depends on splatbooks and so on.

IncoherentEssay

2013-05-24, 04:20 PM

I find it quite funny how SKR's first argument for a crap Vow of Poverty is Roleplaying but near the end the loss of character power from being poor is talked of as the only possible sacrifice involved.
A VoP character can no longer have a luxurious meal, live in a nice house or have/enjoy the nice things in life at all. "Nope not a sacrifice, that's just fluff. You Munchkin."
Brilliant :smallbiggrin:.

eggynack

2013-05-24, 04:30 PM

Personally half of sonofzeal's point costs don't make sense to me. But my gripe isn't so much with the conclusions as it is with the rationale, or lack there-of.
Huh. That's weird. I just reread through it and I couldn't really find any flaws in the pricing. As long as you act on the assumption that the best feat for a caster and the best feat for a mundane guy should be priced the same, it seems to make perfect sense. There's really two schools of thought, in my opinion. there's the school which believes that a feat point system should be used to balance the game as a whole, and there's the school that believes that a feat point system should be used to balance the game on an archetype by archetype basis. With the second school as a premise, what feat point costs don't make sense to you?

navar100

2013-05-24, 06:26 PM

I'm talking about minmax community, as in the community on the minmax boards. Sorry if I was unclear; this has nothing at all to do with you. I don't mind Pathfinder, either. The community opinion, which does not extend to every individual, is contra-Pathfinder on those boards.

Which mostly draws upon how the commentary on the system was handled, and especially SRK's contributions personally. In other words, the people extend their hatred for SRK and Paizo to the system even though the system is fine. Again, I'm being intentionally vague here since I don't want to point any fingers, I just want to bring the light the state of affairs.

Clarification accepted. :smallsmile:

sonofzeal

2013-05-24, 07:51 PM

Personally half of sonofzeal's point costs don't make sense to me. But my gripe isn't so much with the conclusions as it is with the rationale, or lack there-of.
Care to explain? I'm open to addressing any mis-priced elements on the table.

Svata

2013-05-24, 09:27 PM

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. And I agree, the idea behind it, and some of the rationale is GREAT, but the implementation is awful. I like your version quite a bit, SonOfZeal.

137beth

2013-05-24, 11:17 PM

I suppose that makes some sense. Still gives you some pretty massive hoops to jump through just to gain anything approaching competence. I mean, artificer isn't even general 3.5, as it's pretty Ebberon specific. That doesn't really stop people from taking it, but it's an issue. More importantly, it still falls partially under the wish issue. If your party has an artificer then the monk is utterly pointless anyway. Either way, it feels like a corner case to a massive nerf.

Maybe they wanted to make you buy more products to get a reasonable VoP character? Wait, but Paizo doesn't even sell ECS, so that doesn't make any sense at all:smallconfused: