[PF] Pathfinder Strategy Guide?

[Renegade Paladin]

One of the co-owners of the local game shop asked me for my opinion on what they should stock for Pathfinder. I was browsing through Paizo's catalog while making my answer to see if I'd missed anything, and saw this (http://paizo.com/products/btpy90bd?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Strategy-Guide-Hardcover) in the preorders.

So the game designers think they can give good advice on character building now. I'll believe it when I see it, but it should at least be an interesting insight into how far they've come (if at all) from the 3.0 playtest days when everyone thought magic missile and fireball were the cat's pajamas and didn't give polymorph a second look. :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of developers only have a very loose grasp of their system's mechanics. I expect nothing of value from this product, and I'll get it simply for completion's sake.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Oh man, this is gonna be hilarious! I can't wait, honestly.

[Renegade Paladin]

Depends whether or not they listened to all the flak they got after Ultimate Magic stated that magic missile is the best first-level spell in the game and would still be good at second level. :smalltongue:

[grarrrg]

Depends whether or not they listened to all the flak they got after Ultimate Magic stated that magic missile is the best first-level spell in the game and would still be good at second level. :smalltongue:

*cough*metamagicreductiontraitandtopplingspell*cou gh*
I really don't care that much, just throwing it out there :P

[Renegade Paladin]

*cough*metamagicreductiontraitandtopplingspell*cou gh*
I really don't care that much, just throwing it out there :P
Somehow I doubt that's what they had in mind. :smallwink:

[Crustypeanut]

Depends whether or not they listened to all the flak they got after Ultimate Magic stated that magic missile is the best first-level spell in the game and would still be good at second level. :smalltongue:

Wait, where was this in the book? I need to read this XD

Nevermind, found it. Hehehehe

[Renegade Paladin]

Wait, where was this in the book? I need to read this XD

Nevermind, found it. Hehehehe
For those who haven't, it's on page 138 in the section on creating new spells, under the Benchmarks heading, 1st Level subheading. The same section also calls out burning hands as better than sleep. And yes, it's hilarious. :smallamused:

[Crustypeanut]

I think they think in a more damage-oriented way, much like V from OOTS. Aka 'How might I best blast the living crap out of things?', rather than simply putting them to sleep and coup-de-gracing them.

Because you have to admit, blasting things can be more fun, if less efficient.

[Keneth]

It actually exemplifies how a lot of the developers think: They're afraid damage potential. Bleeds, sneak attack, weapon spec, and magic missiles are things they feel they need to keep in check, while far more gamebreaking things are viewed as weaker options. This is not really an uncommon view, but it's mostly found in beginners, not veterans with decades of experience (not that all of them are).

[Drelua]

Wow, advice from the people that made this guy (http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters/harsk---iconic-ranger/harsk-iconic-ranger-12), a level 12 ranger who does an average of 12 damage per round, and he can only get that attack if he doesn't move. He would immediately become so much more useful if they just gave him a light crossbow. One less damage per attack for the ability to make iteratives seems like a good trade to me, but apparently they disagree.

I'm gonna have to buy this book. This is going to be hilarious.

[Blisstake]

Yeah, I don't think this book is going to be very valuable. Maybe it will have decent advice for new players, but as a not-new player, that doesn't really excite me.

I think for the benchmarks, they were mostly going for best spells of their type if you're making comparable spells. Burning Hands is about the power a first level AoE damaging spell should be at, which makes sense. The comments on it being better than sleep were a bit... terrible, though. I think they were going for it affects more possible targets, or maybe they were just being stupid. Their other picks at higher spell levels make a lot more sense, anyway.

[Raven777]

The Paizo staff are routinely off their rocker. Their world building and class ideas are often really engrossing, but their ideas about system balance (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r85) are worrisome at the best of times. I'm eager to get a glimpse into their idea of char building "strategy". This is gonna be glorious.

[3WhiteFox3]

Wow, advice from the people that made this guy (http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters/harsk---iconic-ranger/harsk-iconic-ranger-12), a level 12 ranger who does an average of 12 damage per round, and he can only get that attack if he doesn't move. He would immediately become so much more useful if they just gave him a light crossbow. One less damage per attack for the ability to make iteratives seems like a good trade to me, but apparently they disagree.

I'm gonna have to buy this book. This is going to be hilarious.

I... I... just... wow. 12 DPR as a Ranger? I've seen 3rd level rangers with better DPR. That said, Pathfinder seems to think that 'Iconic' actually means 'guy/gal-who-sucks'. None of them (that I've seen so far) are well designed (let alone optimized).

Of course, I think this would be hilarious if this is actually good, and our initial preconceptions are completely off-mark. Not that I think that's very likely of course.

[Snowbluff]

It looks like they are digging into my market share as a handbook curator. I even thought this was a handbook in the works, but it looks like it's my notice of termination. :smalltongue:

Seriously, who would write this when they have an advice board literally 2 clicks away? :smallconfused:

[jaybird]

I... I... just... wow. 12 DPR as a Ranger? I've seen 3rd level rangers with better DPR. That said, Pathfinder seems to think that 'Iconic' actually means 'guy/gal-who-sucks'. None of them (that I've seen so far) are well designed (let alone optimized).

I've seen it at 1st. Admittedly, it's an Orc with 22 Str, Power Attack, Furious Focus, and a Greatsword :smallbiggrin:

[SAMAS]

For those who haven't, it's on page 138 in the section on creating new spells, under the Benchmarks heading, 1st Level subheading. The same section also calls out burning hands as better than sleep. And yes, it's hilarious. :smallamused:
They do techically have a point. Sleep is a far superior spell... right up until you start hitting more powerful creatures. Burning Hands, at the very least, will work on pretty much anything without Immunity or substantial DR/SR. It may not do a whole lot, but it can usually do something, as opposed to Sleep's flat cut-off point.

It's also a little more useful if you happen to be an Elemental (Air)/Djinni, (Water)/Marid, (Earth)/Shaitan Sorcerer or have the Elemental Spell Metamagic.

Really, it all depends on level and what you're looking for.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I think they think in a more damage-oriented way, much like V from OOTS. Aka 'How might I best blast the living crap out of things?', rather than simply putting them to sleep and coup-de-gracing them.Honestly, at first level, a sleep spell really isn't that great unless you have people already in position. It does have a round/level duration, so until level 2 or 3 your pet fighter probably won't be able to get into position to coup de gra them in time.

That said, if you were to give me a choice between color spray or burning hands...

Also, if this is OGL, is it going to end up on the PRD at some point? I'll make a point of reading it. It should at least give me some small insight into how the developers approach, or think that their audience approaches character creation.

[13_CBS]

Seriously, who would write this when they have an advice board literally 2 clicks away? :smallconfused:

One possibility: some people might find CharOp forums too abrasive, rightly or wrongly.

My DM, who has played 3.5 for years but has only recently been exposed to internet CharOp stuff, has told me that, while he finds CharOp forums to be useful as sources of information, he also said that he found said providers of information to be jerks.

I dunno exactly which website he went to (I hope it wasn't here! :smalleek:), but if someone gets a bad impression of internet forum resources (someone mean yelled at them, or they said something rude and got yelled at but didn't realize they were in the wrong, or someone responded to their build request with "lol play a ___, n00b"), they might not want to go back to the internet. If they still end up needing build advice, then they might shell out for a "strategy guide".

That said, given what we here on CharOp forums know...I wonder if the Paizo staff ever played a game, 3.5 or Pathfinder, where Wizards used Sleep and Color Spray much more than Magic Missile or Burning Hands? Did it just never happen? Or did it happen, but no one capitalized on the situation to deliver cdgs?

My D&D gaming table in real life bears a similar philosophy towards spells--blasting is awesome, everything else is utility (and therefore only situationally useful at best). I'm tempted to try playing a God Wizard just once and see how everyone reacts, but it'd be the biggest Richard Grayson move in the world to just go in and break my table's game like that...

[Snowbluff]

Hmm... makes sense. I am not to fond of the peeps at the Paizo boards. I hope it wasn't here, as I generally get good advice from the regulars and I often build characters with others over messages.

As for sleep/etc, it has to have happened. What are the odds the bad guys rolled really well on all of their saves when the wizard cast color spray?

As for wizardry, I've broken at least 3 tables proving a point or because my asthmatic DM couldn't stop laughing, but I try my best to keep from instantly killing everything I meet.

[3WhiteFox3]

Honestly, at first level, a sleep spell really isn't that great unless you have people already in position. It does have a round/level duration, so until level 2 or 3 your pet fighter probably won't be able to get into position to coup de gra them in time.

That said, if you were to give me a choice between color spray or burning hands...

Also, if this is OGL, is it going to end up on the PRD at some point? I'll make a point of reading it. It should at least give me some small insight into how the developers approach, or think that their audience approaches character creation.

Sleep has a minute/level duration, not round/level. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sleep)

[Snowbluff]

Speaking of which, Grease did get a duration buff in PF from round/level to minute/level. I wonder if they played with the spell and thought "This needs to be better."

[Craft (Cheese)]

For those who haven't, it's on page 138 in the section on creating new spells, under the Benchmarks heading, 1st Level subheading. The same section also calls out burning hands as better than sleep. And yes, it's hilarious. :smallamused:

Sleep is a horrible spell! As soon as you get attacked by an elf, or a skeleton, it's completely worthless!

[13_CBS]

Sleep is a horrible spell! As soon as you get attacked by an elf, or a skeleton, it's completely worthless!

*Shrug* maybe their test campaign happened to include an inordinate number of elves and zombies/skeletons.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The more I think about the potential of this book, the more I can't get the music out of my head. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-LbvFckptY)


Sleep has a minute/level duration, not round/level. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/sleep)Well... it's still an enchantment spell which means that unless you don't ban enchantment (or a sorcerer, or a witch, or bard, or someone with the night domain...) it takes up two spell slots.

Burning Hands is clearly the "benchmark for level 1 area attack spells."

[Keneth]

What are the odds the bad guys rolled really well on all of their saves when the wizard cast color spray?

At our tables—pretty high. As soon as someone rolls out a wizard, druid, or other class with a limited number of prepared slots, the DM starts making uncannily high rolls on his saves. :smallbiggrin:

[Stux]

I really don't think this is intended to be an optimisation guide. It looks to me like it is designed for new players overwhelmed by all the information in the CRB, setting out clearly and concisely how to put together a character. Which might be a good thing. I mean look at the number of people who come on to the boards asking how to level up and stuff like that.

[Dragonus45]

*Shrug* maybe their test campaign happened to include an inordinate number of elves and zombies/skeletons.

Or even... EVLEN SKELETONS :smalleek:

[3WhiteFox3]

The more I think about the potential of this book, the more I can't get the music out of my head. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-LbvFckptY)

Well... it's still an enchantment spell which means that unless you don't ban enchantment (or a sorcerer, or a witch, or bard, or someone with the night domain...) it takes up two spell slots.

Burning Hands is clearly the "benchmark for level 1 area attack spells."

I agree, I don't actually like sleep that much. Mainly because of the fact that it's enchantment, only useful until around level 4 at best, and has a 1 round casting time, I can't tell you how often I've cast the spell only for the opponents to leave the area or for an ally to wander in.

And to be fair to Burning Hands, it is the way to get 5d4+1 damage at 1st level (Evoker with Spell Specialization + Lore Seeker + Gifted Adept). In normal circumstances though, I'd probably rate Color Spray or Ear-Piercing Scream as best 1st level AOE spell.

[Alefiend]

In normal circumstances though, I'd probably rate Color Spray or Ear-Piercing Scream as best 1st level AOE spell.

Except it isn't.

Target one creature

[3WhiteFox3]

Except it isn't.

Oops, forgot about that. My Color Spray point still stands though.

[Snowbluff]

Plant Zombies versus sleep?

At our tables—pretty high. As soon as someone rolls out a wizard, druid, or other class with a limited number of prepared slots, the DM starts making uncannily high rolls on his saves. :smallbiggrin:

I agree with this. :smalltongue:

[3WhiteFox3]

Plant Zombies versus sleep?


I agree with this. :smalltongue:

I also agree, but I still don't get it, burning hands is going to be just as screwed over if enemies make their reflex saves, 1d4/2 really isn't much damage at all even at first level.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I also agree, but I still don't get it, burning hands is going to be just as screwed over if enemies make their reflex saves, 1d4/2 really isn't much damage at all even at first level.Well, by third level you'll start getting the big numbers with 3d4/2. That's almost 1/2 the health of a level 2 elf wizard!

[Psyren]

Speaking of which, Grease did get a duration buff in PF from round/level to minute/level. I wonder if they played with the spell and thought "This needs to be better."

It also got nerfed though (You don't have to repeat the save on subsequent rounds if you don't move, Acrobatics is much more common in monsters than Balance, and you aren't considered flat-footed while balancing anymore.) So extending the duration isn't bad.

[Keneth]

I can't tell you how often I've cast the spell only for the opponents to leave the area or for an ally to wander in.

Erm, the target (area) is selected after the spell is successfully cast. You don't need to pick a spot on your round and then hope no one moves from it. :smallconfused:

[Snowbluff]

It also got nerfed though (You don't have to repeat the save on subsequent rounds if you don't move, Acrobatics is much more common in monsters than Balance, and you aren't considered flat-footed while balancing anymore.) So extending the duration isn't bad.

It still knocks people over on cast, so everything else it does is gravy at first level.

[Korahir]

It still knocks people over on cast, so everything else it does is gravy at first level.

At first level a reflex or disarm is also close to save or die. Gravy ;)

[Snowbluff]

At first level a reflex or disarm is also close to save or die. Gravy ;)

Mhm. This spell does a ton of things for first level. :smalltongue:

[Raven777]

Erm, the target (area) is selected after the spell is successfully cast. You don't need to pick a spot on your round and then hope no one moves from it. :smallconfused:

Wait wait wait wait wait... wait. The grease puddle doesn't appear on the caster's round? Can you explain this in more detail?

[Keneth]

Wait wait wait wait wait... wait. The grease puddle doesn't appear on the caster's round? Can you explain this in more detail?

He was talking about sleep which has a 1 round casting time.

[Renegade Paladin]

Speaking of the iconic characters, I have a great idea! Let's prepare cure spells as a good-aligned cleric! (http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters/kyra---iconic-cleric/kyra-iconic-cleric-12) :smallamused:

[Squirrel_Dude]

Speaking of the iconic characters, I have a great idea! Let's prepare cure spells as a good-aligned cleric! (http://www.pathfindercommunity.net/iconic-characters/kyra---iconic-cleric/kyra-iconic-cleric-12) :smallamused:That... that hurts me on the inside. I wonder, and I really hope I'm wrong... *checks* Thank god, the Druid isn't preparing Summon Nature's Ally spells.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Kyra's just practicing the Gentleman's agreement. She doesn't want Harsk and Valeros to feel bad.

(If you want some REALLY hilarious caster builds, take a look at the mystic theurges (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/npcCodex/prestige/mysticTheurge.html) in the NPC codex. They actually have them in medium armor sucking down that 25% ASF chance.)

[grarrrg]

(If you want some REALLY hilarious caster builds, take a look at the mystic theurges (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/npcCodex/prestige/mysticTheurge.html) in the NPC codex. They actually have them in medium armor sucking down that 25% ASF chance.)

They at least gave most of them the Arcane Armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/arcane-armor-mastery-combat) feats.
But still....

[Renegade Paladin]

The NPC Codex has not one but two dwarf paladins with no Charisma bonus. That makes me die a little on the inside just to have read it. :smallfrown:

[Squirrel_Dude]

I don't know if anyone else saw this line in the description, but...

"Comprehensive guide to complex Pathfinder RPG rules systems like combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity, action types, and modifier stacking."

Isn't that what the combat section in the Core Rulebook is for?

[Raven777]

Maybe they'll include the flowchart (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/crimson-skies/wikis/grapple-flowchart)? XD

[IronFist]

I don't know if anyone else saw this line in the description, but...

"Comprehensive guide to complex Pathfinder RPG rules systems like combat maneuvers, attacks of opportunity, action types, and modifier stacking."

Isn't that what the combat section in the Core Rulebook is for?

Many people have doubts about the rules. The book is aimed at those people.
Really, the elitism in these forums is becoming more and more aggravating.

[Doorhandle]

Many people have doubts about the rules. The book is aimed at those people.
Really, the elitism in these forums is becoming more and more aggravating.

Mmmmm. Any way to curb it?

[Andvare]

They at least gave most of them the Arcane Armor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/arcane-armor-mastery-combat) feats.
But still....

The first one, the Celestial Theurge, somehow has it, even though last I checked, caster levels don't stack between different classes, and the feat requires caster level 7 (caster level 6 with sorcerer + theurge, it is even statted out correctly on the sheet). Or they might have missed a comma in the feat prerequisites, so it read "caster, level 7"

Too bad it comes out in 2014, I would have loved to give it to myself as a Christmas present, something fun to read over the holidays.

[Andvare]

Many people have doubts about the rules. The book is aimed at those people.
Really, the elitism in these forums is becoming more and more aggravating.

When you take money from people, claiming you are an expert, and give very poor advise, it is fair game to ridicule them to hell and back.

If it isn't an actual strategy guide, but a beginner's helper, fair, but then it has a gawd-awful title.

[Keneth]

Really, the elitism in these forums is becoming more and more aggravating.

But... what would we do if we couldn't mock all the plebs? :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Many people have doubts about the rules. The book is aimed at those people.
Really, the elitism in these forums is becoming more and more aggravating.

To be fair, I don't see much point behind this book anyway. People who want help playing the game will get it the way they always have, asking their friends and going online. The ones who don't won't buy this. So this is one paizo product I don't see a use for. If it was free that would be one thing.

As for the general attitude towards Paizo outside of this product, well, haters gonna hate. *Kanye shades*

[Squirrel_Dude]

Many people have doubts about the rules. The book is aimed at those people.Those rules are the basic core of the combat system. If you ("You" = Paizo, not you Ironfist) are going to say that they are complex, so complex that you need to release a book for them, then you've confirmed one of two things:

1. The developers think that they wrote a really awful combat section in the first book; bad enough that they need me to pay $40 dollars for them to reexplain those rules.

2. The system is so overly-complicated that if the entire combat system needs to be thrown and and a new one built from the ground up.

I can't see a situation where reexplaining those features makes the product look any better.

[Raven777]

Anyway, we all know that the Grapple rules being so asinine is just one more part of the ancient conspiracy to grant casters more Ultimate Power™ by making it more difficult for melee to use it against us.

[Psyren]

1. The developers think that they wrote a really awful combat section in the first book; bad enough that they need me to pay $40 dollars for them to reexplain those rules.

$30 actually, and presumably only some of that goes to "re-explaining." The art is another big reason for the price tag I would assume.

It also includes some of the "help me pick a theme" stuff from the beginning of PHB2, so it's not unprecedented to charge for that stuff.

Again, I'm with you that this is an unnecessary product (though I am interested in the stacking rules explanations as that has long been a point of contention) but if we're going to criticize it we should do so accurately and fairly.

[Snowbluff]

$30 actually, and presumably only some of that goes to "re-explaining." The art is another big reason for the price tag I would assume. I don't know about you guys, but I would just look at my Magic cards for good art. The card not drawn by WR, of course.


It also includes some of the "help me pick a theme" stuff from the beginning of PHB2, so it's not unprecedented to charge for that stuff.

To be fair to the PHB 2, it has quite a bit of good material in it. I use the ACFs constantly.

[Andvare]

Anyway, we all know that the Grapple rules being so asinine is just one more part of the ancient conspiracy to grant casters more Ultimate Power™ by making it more difficult for melee to use it against us.

It is a world wide conspiracy!

All systems I have tried, that featured rules for grappling, had complex rules for it.

[Psyren]

All systems I have tried, that featured rules for grappling, had complex rules for it.

Had to link it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules) Sorry.

[Snowbluff]

Had to link it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules) Sorry.

You've doomed us all to a day of no productivity. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) Thanks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SincerityMode). :smalltongue:

[Keneth]

Damn it, Psyren. That was 30 min wasted which I didn't have. :smallbiggrin:

[Squirrel_Dude]

$30 actually, and presumably only some of that goes to "re-explaining." The art is another big reason for the price tag I would assume.Why did I think it was $40... *checks* :smallsigh: I'm dumb. I was remembering the Bestiary 4 price of $40. Nonetheless, the criticism wasn't that I was paying $40. It that I would paying money for something that I shouldn't be paying more than $0 for, if they had done their job right previously. I understand why it's there (I've had a friend that I've always played with who still tries to make a CMD roll), but I don't like the statement it makes by being there.

There are actually two sections I'm interested (one for myself).

Tips for making an effective and fun character to play whether exploring the world or in the middle of combat.
Just for seeing how the developers think, or choose to present this information, and what they decide to present. That should at least be an interesting read.


Guidelines to help you navigate every aspect of the game, from dungeon exploration to combat to venturing into the wilderness.
I have only been playing for a little less than 4 years now, so, if I saw this product, I would hope to be able to get at least some use out of such a section. Standard strategies that maybe people take for being obvious when playing, and so they've never been properly laid out to me before. It was 2 years before I was introduced to the concept of going down a wizards tower.

[Andvare]

Had to link it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules) Sorry.

You evil man you!

[Kioras]

Ultimate irony is that if they succeed and do teach moderate amount of optimization, certain groups of people will lambast the book for mainstreaming munchkiness into the game. People using or bringing the book would be labeled as a 'dirty min/maxer' by the same groups of people also.

Even though by the standards of this board and others, it would be quite mild and be more in line of how to play your character effectively.

[grarrrg]

Had to link it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GrapplingWithGrapplingRules) Sorry.

HA!
Jokes on you.
I was on TVTropes and THEN came here.
Thus I am immune to your shenaniganery.

[TiaC]

I think that the rules clarifications in this book are going to lead to a lot more fiddly little differences between PF and 3.5. A lot of the questions people have about the rules were answered somewhere in 3.5 so if this book also answers them it will probably reverse some decisions.

[Psyren]

You've doomed us all to a day of no productivity. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife) Thanks (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SincerityMode). :smalltongue:


Damn it, Psyren. That was 30 min wasted which I didn't have. :smallbiggrin:


You evil man you!


HA!
Jokes on you.
I was on TVTropes and THEN came here.
Thus I am immune to your shenaniganery.

I apologize for nothing! *cackles madly, fleeing naked through woods*



@ Squirrel: Most of that stuff will be OGL and thus online anyway. So really it will just be for the art or collection's sake. And honestly I think Ultimate Campaign covered the motivation stuff enough.

I'm looking forward to the examples and clarifications. It won't quite be Rules Compendium but it'll be a first step in terms of citable sources.

[IronFist]

Those rules are the basic core of the combat system. If you ("You" = Paizo, not you Ironfist) are going to say that they are complex, so complex that you need to release a book for them, then you've confirmed one of two things:

1. The developers think that they wrote a really awful combat section in the first book; bad enough that they need me to pay $40 dollars for them to reexplain those rules.

2. The system is so overly-complicated that if the entire combat system needs to be thrown and and a new one built from the ground up.

I can't see a situation where reexplaining those features makes the product look any better.
This book is not aimed at you. You're not this book's target readership. Why do you even care about it? Why do you have to ridicule people that are in its target readership?

[Renegade Paladin]

Because basic reading comprehension explains the combat maneuver rules just fine? :smallconfused:

[Squirrel_Dude]

This book is not aimed at you. You're not this book's target readership. Why do you even care about it?Because when a book is being advertised to answer questions about how to build and effective character, and that book comes from the developer/publisher I can't help be interested. It would be if, 4 years after Halo 2 came out, Bungie released a Halo 2 strategy guide that advertised how to be effective in casual and tournament play.

I'd at least want to read it to better understand how Bungie felt about the balance/relationship between weapons in that game. Also, as Psyren pointed out, this could add some official clarification on rules, which means I'll want to look at it to find some of that anyway.


Why do you have to ridicule people that are in its target readership?If I'm insulting them, I don't mean to. What I was saying is that, if the rules are so complicated that they need to be reexplained, it means the developers most likely failed to do their job, when making the combat system. There are of course cases where it is the reader's fault. I've accidentally skipped over a sentence and later felt dumb for it plenty of times, but most debates over rules comes from vague or confusing language.

[13_CBS]

I apologize for nothing! *cackles madly, fleeing naked through woods*

Sir! There are children on this forum! Children! :smalleek:



Ultimate irony is that if they succeed and do teach moderate amount of optimization, certain groups of people will lambast the book for mainstreaming munchkiness into the game. People using or bringing the book would be labeled as a 'dirty min/maxer' by the same groups of people also.

I hope this won't become the case. :smalleek: It's already a shame that optimizers are frequently labeled as "Dirty munchkins", it'll be worse if the sentiment spreads. (I already kind of get this in real life, anyway...)

[HylianKnight]

Seems to be a potentially great book for newer or inexperienced players. I would guess that the Playground is faaaar outside it's target audience.

Yes there are optimization guides and boards, but there's a vast gulf between optimization cheese and a guide on how to play.

[13_CBS]

Yes there are optimization guides and boards, but there's a vast gulf between optimization cheese and a guide on how to play.

To be fair, it's not like the Playground only ever gives information on optimization cheese. (Unless we're working with differing definitions of "optimization cheese", here.)

[Raven777]

What's optimization cheese anyway? I reckon each of us probably draws the line at a different place. For example, I know Keneth wants nothing to do with Paragon Surge shenanigans while I am perfectly fine with them.

[Craft (Cheese)]

If you look at something and say "There's no way the designers ever intended you to do that!", then it's cheese. We can debate whether the "Pull any cleric/wizard spell you want out of your ass" function of Paragon Surge was intended, but either way it's a very badly designed spell. I don't think it beats PaO or Planar Binding in terms of bad design though.

[Keneth]

For example, I know Keneth wants nothing to do with Paragon Surge shenanigans while I am perfectly fine with them.

I have a problem with aberrant rules, not so much the power one can gain from them. My threshold for optimization is at the point where the game becomes unplayable, and that's fairly hard to achieve.

[Psyren]

Sir! There are children on this forum! Children! :smalleek:

Don't worry, I was running quite fast.


If you look at something and say "There's no way the designers ever intended you to do that!", then it's cheese.

That's generally the benchmark I use as well. There's a handful of these I allow anyway but for the most part, I try to gauge the intent as much as possible.

[Renegade Paladin]

Optimization cheese hardly even matters; I'd be happy if it just gave sensible advice like "If you're using a two-handed weapon, take Power Attack," or "Don't all rush to get between the paladin who actually took Power Attack and the target he intends to charge, particularly after he just moved to get around you doing that very thing last round." :smalltongue: But since their own pregenerated characters don't take such advice on a regular basis, I don't hold out much hope.

[Raven777]

Advice they probably should give because my fellow party members pull that crap all the time :

"Do not get in Archer-Shoot-Guy's line of sight unless he has Improved Precise Shot. Please. We beg you."

"Hey you! Yes, you, Rogue-Sneak-Guy and Barbarian-Rage-Guy! Instead of each fighting a different guy, why not flank this one guy together so it has an AC penalty and Rogue-Sneak-Guy can sneak attack it?"

"Sorcerer-Blast-Guy intends to fireball this pack of Kobold when his turn comes up. Fighter-Sword-Guy, what do you think is going to happen to you if you charge in the middle of the pack before Sorcerer-Wand-Guy's turn?"

"Wizard-Buff-Guy intends to Haste your group when his turn comes up. Fighter-Sword-Guy, what do you think is going to happen to you if you charge away from Haste's range before Wizard-Buff-Guy's turn?"

[Craft (Cheese)]

If you're a not-caster, always delay your first turn so the casters go first. You'll just get in the way otherwise.