| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ugly child
 Joined: 02 Mar 2010 Posts: 176 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 6:47 am Post subject: The Advanced Player's Guide |
|
|
| Well, some of the subscribers have their PDF copies. This does increase the tension. I'll be buying it from my local games store. Anybody lucky enough to have perused it yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tetsubo
 Joined: 05 Jun 2009 Posts: 205 Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Matt
Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 745 Location: Montreal
|
Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tetsubo wrote: |
Sadly, due to my wife being unemployed at the moment, I must wait for a copy...  |
Sorry to hear about both of those things Tetsubo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Redcelt
 Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Posts: 126 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ugly child
 Joined: 02 Mar 2010 Posts: 176 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unfortunately some folks are posting a bit too much. I spotted the full anti-paladin class on there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Redcelt
 Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Posts: 126 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am just happy that the barbarian and monk seem to be getting some nice options to make them viable choices again. Plus some of the feats, etc are very cool... combat patrol for example, where as a full round action you can threaten a zone of squares around your character, and move to make AoO anywhere within the zone. I could see this being huge with a skirmishing type character (scout, anyone?). Just soo much in the way of cool new ideas seem to be coming out of the APG...I can hardly wait...
Edit - Just got my copy of the PDF! So if anyone has questions about something specific, I can paraphrase the answer, just cant cut and paste text, per Jason's request. _________________ We be goblins, you be food! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmccoy1693
Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 25 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I got my PDF last night. I haven't read the book entirely, I've skimmed it. Short answer. This is what I have been waiting for since I first played D&D. Now not every monk is the same monk and every paladin is not the same paladin. Now you can say that this barbarian tribe does things this way and another does things a different way. While the Pathfinder core book did start going in this direction, the APG takes it a mile further.
The new playtest classes got some nice additions. Alchemists got a few alchemist only extracts. Unfortunately, I"m not familiar enough with the other playtest classes to really tell the differences. Sorry.
Favored Classes comes back in a new way. Instead of taking an extra skill point or hp, you can choose certain advantages that only your race gets. i.e. a dwarf favored class witch can choose to reduce the untrained weapon penalty by 1 every level until it hits 0 (at which point they are considered to be fully proficient).
Traits are FINALLY in a core book. Nuf said.
New PrCs. The Alchemist one fully fleshes out the Dr. Jeckel/Mr Hyde idea by making the alchemist turn into mutant form without requiring mutagen. And it is a more violent version of yourself.
Equipment is cool but nothing to write home about.
I haven't delved to deeply into the feats and spells section yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ugly child
 Joined: 02 Mar 2010 Posts: 176 Location: Dublin, Ireland
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've just one question, to address any fears I may have. Is there anything in the new moving part to balls up the machine. Is anything obviously not balanced or a sign of power creep?
I am very excited by the APG but this was chief amongst my concerns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tetsubo
 Joined: 05 Jun 2009 Posts: 205 Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmccoy1693 wrote: |
I got my PDF last night. I haven't read the book entirely, I've skimmed it. Short answer. This is what I have been waiting for since I first played D&D. Now not every monk is the same monk and every paladin is not the same paladin. Now you can say that this barbarian tribe does things this way and another does things a different way. While the Pathfinder core book did start going in this direction, the APG takes it a mile further.
The new playtest classes got some nice additions. Alchemists got a few alchemist only extracts. Unfortunately, I"m not familiar enough with the other playtest classes to really tell the differences. Sorry.
Favored Classes comes back in a new way. Instead of taking an extra skill point or hp, you can choose certain advantages that only your race gets. i.e. a dwarf favored class witch can choose to reduce the untrained weapon penalty by 1 every level until it hits 0 (at which point they are considered to be fully proficient).
Traits are FINALLY in a core book. Nuf said.
New PrCs. The Alchemist one fully fleshes out the Dr. Jeckel/Mr Hyde idea by making the alchemist turn into mutant form without requiring mutagen. And it is a more violent version of yourself.
Equipment is cool but nothing to write home about.
I haven't delved to deeply into the feats and spells section yet. |
Thank you. This makes me both very happy (yeah! new cool gaming stuff!) and sad (darn, I want a copy).  _________________ --
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R.C, Jr Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 1312 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To disuade jealousy, I will neither confirm nor deny gaining access to a media copy of the APG and consider any "Woo!"s accredited to me to be taken out of context. _________________ "Scorching Ray" avatar courtesy Cat |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Redcelt
 Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Posts: 126 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not so much power creep, as LOTs of options to really customize your character to fit a specific concept much easier than before. IMHO, the barbarian, monk, and bard got much better power-wise, mainly by fleshing out their variants, which gives better tools to players who did not want to play a "traditional" (vanilla) version of these classes. Since I considered the barbarian and monk to be slightly sub-par overall compared to the other classes, in my eyes this is a good thing.
No obviously broken parts so far, maybe a few that are better than others (like human sorcerer favored class bonus), but nothing blantantly broken. You can also see where Paizo thought ahead a bit, and said "but this does not stack with power X" to stop obvious cheese.
Still skimming everything ( there is just that much crunch to absorb), but for the most part, its looks like anything new you get, you pay for with a tradeoff. Since most of the existing class and racial abilities were pretty nice, so for there does not appear to be too many "free lunches" so to speak _________________ We be goblins, you be food! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmccoy1693
Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 25 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really can't answer the power creep question. There is nothing obvious. Mind you, when Redcelt says "(there is just that much crunch to absorb)", he wasn't kidding. This is a book the size of the GMG of PURE CRUNCH. No NPC section, no environment section, no combat section (save the new combat maneuvers), no advice. This is pure crunch that every player is going to want. No matter what class you are, there is something in there for you. Even if it is just for the new fighter feats or the new wizard spells.
But once you dive in a little, you realize that this book is really what you have been waiting for as a player. Ever wanted to play an elemental focused wizard, now you have elemental schools (better ones than WotC did that's for sure). Ever wanted to play an investigative cop, now you have alternate bard class features that let you do just that.
As far as balance goes, I suspect it will take MONTHS to fully figure out how much is or is not balanced. I imagine little is unbalanced. They've been publicly working on this book since about 10 minutes after the core book came out (as opposed to WotC's pump a hardcover out with new crunch every month).
But really, this book is definitely worth the money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Redcelt
 Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Posts: 126 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, this is definitely a must have book... if a new player told me he only had enough money for the core rulebook or this one, I would tell him to buy this one and use the online SRD, its just that good and that packed full of stuff.
I was reading yesterday, last night and today, and so far I am not finished with the class and feats sections yet, so spells and magic items remain. I skimmed the equipment section and optional rules section in the back.
One pleasant surprise is the very well developed hero point section in the back of the book, right next to (the finally canonized) traits. They did a lot of work on these rules, including spells, feats, and magic items that utilize, harvest, and store hero points. Probably take me another week just to get to that section, since its the back of the book!  _________________ We be goblins, you be food! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Evil Genius Prime
 Joined: 04 Apr 2008 Posts: 76 Location: Paducah, KY
|
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ugly child wrote: |
| Unfortunately some folks are posting a bit too much. I spotted the full anti-paladin class on there. |
That just makes me want it more! _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
http://evil-genius-prime.deviantart.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Redcelt
 Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Posts: 126 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Originally our group decided to wait a month and take it all in before switching anyone over, but it was an overwhelming vote to switch now after reading the APG.
So far the two bards in my game switched to new archetypes, one taking the detective and one going sea singer. The barbarian moved to the new elemental kin, the archer ranger is a skirmisher now (I think the defensive bow stance sold him on it), the gnome fire elemental sorcerer added the pyromaniac gnome racial set, and the summoning focused wizard wants to switch to a scout rogue. Hopefully other gaming groups get similarly excited by the APG. _________________ We be goblins, you be food! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tetsubo
 Joined: 05 Jun 2009 Posts: 205 Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, USA
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Redcelt wrote: |
Originally our group decided to wait a month and take it all in before switching anyone over, but it was an overwhelming vote to switch now after reading the APG.
So far the two bards in my game switched to new archetypes, one taking the detective and one going sea singer. The barbarian moved to the new elemental kin, the archer ranger is a skirmisher now (I think the defensive bow stance sold him on it), the gnome fire elemental sorcerer added the pyromaniac gnome racial set, and the summoning focused wizard wants to switch to a scout rogue. Hopefully other gaming groups get similarly excited by the APG. |
This is killing me...  _________________ --
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmccoy1693
Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 25 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Redcelt wrote: |
| Yeah, this is definitely a must have book... if a new player told me he only had enough money for the core rulebook or this one, I would tell him to buy this one and use the online SRD, its just that good and that packed full of stuff. |
I wouldn't. I'd still recommend the core book. The online SRD isn't userfriendly enough IMHO to replace the core book. I'd probably recommend the core book PDF (for $10), but not skipping the book altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Majuba
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 237
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Redcelt wrote: |
| So far the two bards in my game switched to new archetypes, one taking the detective and one going sea singer. The barbarian moved to the new elemental kin, the archer ranger is a skirmisher now (I think the defensive bow stance sold him on it), the gnome fire elemental sorcerer added the pyromaniac gnome racial set, and the summoning focused wizard wants to switch to a scout rogue. Hopefully other gaming groups get similarly excited by the APG. |
*burp* ... excuse me... just sounds like so much bloat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Viletta Vadim
 Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 182
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Majuba wrote: |
| *burp* ... excuse me... just sounds like so much bloat. |
The problem with that being...?
I've never heard an explanation for disliking this "rules bloat" that didn't boil down to a love of stagnation, a, "I don't like things I haven't been using for the last decade and anyone using such things is a minmaxmunchkinpowergamercommiemutanttraitor."
Why would having additional material to draw on be a bad thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 255 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| Why would having additional material to draw on be a bad thing? |
Additional material isn't. Too much material (ie, rules bloat) can be.
- Player confusion
- DM headaches
- Rules imbalances/unfairness
- Rules contradictions
- Rules deprecation
- Rules redundancy
- Over-emphasis on rules
None of these issues on their own necessitate rules bloat, nor the converse. However, rules bloat tends to bring about these issues in most groups, thus making a perfectly valid argument for problems with rules bloat that don't fall into the "minmaxmunchkinpowergamercommiemutanttraitor" category. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dmccoy1693
Joined: 09 Feb 2010 Posts: 25 Location: New Jersey
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay wrote: |
| Additional material isn't. Too much material (ie, rules bloat) can be. |
I see what you're saying, but it feels like Knee Jerk reaction to me. 1 player book/month the way wizards was doing it, yea absolutely. Complaining about rules bloat when it has been reduced to 1 player book/year feel similar to coming home after a bad day at work and being an a**hole to the wife when she didn't do anything. It kinda feels to me that Paizo is getting the short shrift when it is a feeling left over from the Wizards days (when they were experimenting on us with 4E in 3E rules).
Its literally the first book of new player options (outside of certain 3rd party companies that I have a permanent "no way in hell, don't even bother asking" list) we've had since the core rules came out. Complaining about rules bloat after a year of nothing doesn't seem fair.
Atleast, that is my opinion. YMMV.
All I'm saying is, "Give it a chance," before calling it either balanced or power creepy or bloaty or anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 255 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh, I'm totally *not* calling APG rules bloat. Just making the argument against rules bloat in general. Haven't read it, in fact am VERY much looking forward to reading it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Viletta Vadim
 Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 182
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Except most of those arguments against the so-called "rules bloat" which you list are precisely, "I don't like things I haven't been using for the last decade." Like confusion? That's the pinnacle of a temporary condition that gets sorted out in short order, something that merely stems from the material not being something you've used for the last decade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 255 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| Except most of those arguments against the so-called "rules bloat" which you list are precisely, "I don't like things I haven't been using for the last decade." Like confusion? That's the pinnacle of a temporary condition that gets sorted out in short order, something that merely stems from the material not being something you've used for the last decade. |
I've gotta disagree with that. Not a single item in my list has to do with not liking things because I haven't been using them. It has to do with the fundamental nature of change and the issues that come about because of change. Now if you're arguing that everything boils down to "change", and that change is or isn't bad because it's change, well then -1 for circular reasoning I'd say
But I'm not arguing that. Not in the least. I'm simply arguing that these issues are very common amongst a playerbase and certainly can creep up as a result of rules bloat.
Take confusion, as your example for my examples I'd say this is significantly more complicated an issue than being classified as a "temporary condition". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume, in this case, that you mean temporary because one can simply lookup the rule and have it sorted in mere moments. I'll caveat, in this instance, the more rules you add, the more time it takes not only for you to learn, but for the group to sort out. Even minor breaks in play to clarify rules can break immersion. The more frequent this confusion, albeit easy to remedy, the more detrimental it could be to your game.
Now, if you were to argue that breaking game immersion isn't detrimental, I'd say that that's your view and that many consider this the focal enjoyment aspect of their game.
If you were to argue that confusion disappears with experience, I'd then say that people aren't robots. People forget things and/or mis-remember things all the time and that confusion is simply unavoidable. As such, confusion potentially (though not necessarily) begets rules discussion and/or arguments, leading to the other issues such as rules misinterpretation, rules contradictions, etc.
To clarify, I'm not claiming that rules bloat *will* necessarily causing any and/or all of these gaming issues. I simply claim that rules bloat *can* lead to these issues that are more than trivial aspects of gaming one might remedy with the flick of a page and a well timed word; these issues *can* require varying degrees of involvement and participation to overcome and, ultimately, rules bloat *can* be seen as a hindrance to tabletop games. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 255 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm gonna add a quick post-post:
I LOVE variety. I make my own classes and spells and templates and rulesets all the time. I dream up ways of converting current fantasy and scifi and all that to d20. So does Matt. So does Ry.
Therefore, I actually kinda love rules bloat. But even I have my limits. But I'm far from hitting them yet in PF. I do consider 3.5 bloated, but I don't see it as an absolutely bad thing. I see its pros and cons, and quite frankly am of the opinion that the pros outweigh the cons from a net perspective.
But I do see the cons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Viletta Vadim
 Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 182
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay wrote: |
Take confusion, as your example for my examples I'd say this is significantly more complicated an issue than being classified as a "temporary condition". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume, in this case, that you mean temporary because one can simply lookup the rule and have it sorted in mere moments. I'll caveat, in this instance, the more rules you add, the more time it takes not only for you to learn, but for the group to sort out. Even minor breaks in play to clarify rules can break immersion. The more frequent this confusion, albeit easy to remedy, the more detrimental it could be to your game. |
Yet if you're breaking in the middle of play to sort out confusion, the problem has nothing to do with the rules because you waited until you were in the middle of play to try and understand the rules, and you chose to break the flow of the game to crack open the books rather than making a temporary ruling and looking it up later. It's a table policy issue, not a rules issue.
| Jay wrote: |
| If you were to argue that confusion disappears with experience, I'd then say that people aren't robots. People forget things and/or mis-remember things all the time and that confusion is simply unavoidable. As such, confusion potentially (though not necessarily) begets rules discussion and/or arguments, leading to the other issues such as rules misinterpretation, rules contradictions, etc. |
Now that's getting closer to the "more sourcebooks make the game more complicated," but here's the problem. It doesn't.
If there are one million sourcebooks, so what? You don't need to know everything in all of them, and they're not all making their way to the table at all times. If you have a first-level character, they still have one character with one race, one class, maybe three feats, some skills, and maybe a stack of spells. That's all that needs to be understood. It would be the exact same if you were going core-only. Whether they come from one book or a dozen, a single character only has so many elements going in.
There are going to be mix-ups and oversights no matter what, but if you're putting in due diligence up front to go over the characters, to understand them, to lay out their abilities in a clear and organized manner that does not disrupt table flow (all things you ought to be doing in a core-only game anyways), it's no worse if there are a billion books.
Except in the case of badly-designed classes like Cleric and Druid (which get everything in every book automatically), it's not more complicated, and other than with classes like those, the system pretty much cannot become bloated by more races/classes/feats/spells/whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 255 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
Yet if you're breaking in the middle of play to sort out confusion, the problem has nothing to do with the rules because you waited until you were in the middle of play to try and understand the rules, and you chose to break the flow of the game to crack open the books rather than making a temporary ruling and looking it up later. It's a table policy issue, not a rules issue. |
Here you're arguing that to compensate for rules bloat, you need a house rule/temporary ruling/alternate table policy. That seems counter-productive, does it not? "We don't know the rule for this right now, so as to not break flow, we'll make a new temporary rule!". And right there's yet another rule to remember and subsequently forget/get confused with the actual rule. And if you make a new rule every time, why even bother with rules at all? Lets just play make-believe! I win!
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
Now that's getting closer to the "more sourcebooks make the game more complicated," but here's the problem. It doesn't.
If there are one million sourcebooks, so what? You don't need to know everything in all of them, and they're not all making their way to the table at all times. If you have a first-level character, they still have one character with one race, one class, maybe three feats, some skills, and maybe a stack of spells. That's all that needs to be understood. It would be the exact same if you were going core-only. Whether they come from one book or a dozen, a single character only has so many elements going in. |
This argument breaks down, however, if you look at the other end of the spectrum... 20th level. 5 PCs at a table, 50 feats, 100 special abilities, 1000 spells. With core rules it's bad enough. With n sourcebooks and the combinatoric potential to not have a single repeated rule, it's somewhat mind-bending. And then there's the DM's side of the screen. To say that anything is "all that needs to be understood" is to trivialize the very non-trivial.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| There are going to be mix-ups and oversights no matter what, but if you're putting in due diligence up front to go over the characters, to understand them, to lay out their abilities in a clear and organized manner that does not disrupt table flow (all things you ought to be doing in a core-only game anyways), it's no worse if there are a billion books. |
This goes contrary to my definition of rules bloat. I argue that it's quite frankly not possible to be able to cover all the rules from top to bottom ahead of time. Due diligence is one thing. You can do your best, granted, and we all do. Where confusion kicks in is when rules aren't understood at the time the rule needs to be understood, or the option that was thought to have been understood is discovered to be contradictory or ultimately unclear under a given context. And the more bloat, the more likely. This is much less of an issue core-only. The more tractable a dataset, the less likely the above.
Furthermore, the more pre-gaming you do from a rules perspective, the less gaming you actually get in. If at every time your party levels you need to spend 1 hour/PC going over their new abilities with the table and the DM, that's 5 hours less/level that you actually get to spend playing the game. And STILL at this there's no way you're guaranteed to hit every nook and cranny in terms of possible rules conflict. Again, the more rules, the more likely this is.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| Except in the case of badly-designed classes like Cleric and Druid (which get everything in every book automatically), it's not more complicated, and other than with classes like those, the system pretty much cannot become bloated by more races/classes/feats/spells/whatever. |
Except in the case of all of the above  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Viletta Vadim
 Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 182
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay wrote: |
| Here you're arguing that to compensate for rules bloat, you need a house rule/temporary ruling/alternate table policy. That seems counter-productive, does it not? "We don't know the rule for this right now, so as to not break flow, we'll make a new temporary rule!". And right there's yet another rule to remember and subsequently forget/get confused with the actual rule. And if you make a new rule every time, why even bother with rules at all? Lets just play make-believe! I win! |
That's not a counter-bloat policy. That's a universal rules-management policy that you should always have at the table no matter how many or few books you're using, whether it's core-only (which probably has the most niggling details that can be mis-remembered anyways and have the most need of attention anyways).
And I'm not saying, "Make new rules every time you forget something." That's not what a one-time, temporary ruling is. It's just what it says on the tin; temporary. If no one's really sure on the rule and it's no big deal and a PC's not about to die over it, you can make a note to look the odd detail up later while keeping the game moving. A policy of "grind the game to a complete halt every time you forget something that really didn't matter anyways" is far sillier.
If it's something that happens three, four, five times a session, that's getting out of the realm of human fallibility. That's incompetence.
| Jay wrote: |
| This argument breaks down, however, if you look at the other end of the spectrum... 20th level. 5 PCs at a table, 50 feats, 100 special abilities, 1000 spells. With core rules it's bad enough. With n sourcebooks and the combinatoric potential to not have a single repeated rule, it's somewhat mind-bending. And then there's the DM's side of the screen. To say that anything is "all that needs to be understood" is to trivialize the very non-trivial. |
Except the argument doesn't break down. The game does.
Core-only, you have X many elements. Billion-book, you have X many elements. X is simply very large.
I assure you, a core-only Druid is far more complex than a full splat Warlock. With core spells, you still need to stop to look up how Soul Jar or Planar Ally works, but an Orb of Fire needs squat in the way of reference; it's a very simple spell.
Either way, the DM only needs to understand five PCs. After all, it's the players' responsibility to explain how their characters work in a clear and coherent and organized manner. And if you're in a 20th-level game, it becomes that much more important to be neat and organized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Redcelt
 Joined: 01 Jun 2009 Posts: 126 Location: Virginia Beach, VA
|
Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| *burp* ... excuse me... just sounds like so much bloat. |
If they come out with a similar book every year, then yes after a few years it will be ridiculous. I am expecting that this is likely the only book we see of this magnitude for a very long time, frankly the remaining options probably don't amount to much. This is of course assuming the plan to break out psionics, oriental, etc into their own books.
It was especially nice because some of the rules had variant crunch to perfectly fit fluff that the players had already adopted when they made their characters, they were just limited to roleplaying it, and now they have supporting benefits, like our pyro gnome.
As far as the bards, all I can say is thank god! I had two female players who both decided to make half elf bards and their 20 pt buy left them almost clones except for a few skill points and weapon of choice. The new archetypes fortunately make them different enough now to feel unique, at least to me. Now their bardic performance abilities are both relevant instead of being redundant, which to our group was worth the price of the APG all by itself. YMMV _________________ We be goblins, you be food! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Site Admin
 Joined: 07 Dec 2007 Posts: 255 Location: Montreal, QC
|
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| That's not a counter-bloat policy. That's a universal rules-management policy that you should always have at the table no matter how many or few books you're using, whether it's core-only (which probably has the most niggling details that can be mis-remembered anyways and have the most need of attention anyways). |
I agree this is a great rule to have. However, the more rules bloat you have, the more instances of this you'll have at the table. With enough rules bloat (and the subsequent issues arisen therefrom), you could live in a world of temporary rules. Fewer rules = fewer potential instances of this.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| And I'm not saying, "Make new rules every time you forget something." That's not what a one-time, temporary ruling is. It's just what it says on the tin; temporary. If no one's really sure on the rule and it's no big deal and a PC's not about to die over it, you can make a note to look the odd detail up later while keeping the game moving. A policy of "grind the game to a complete halt every time you forget something that really didn't matter anyways" is far sillier. |
Agreed. There's a balance to be struck. How often during go-fish do you need to make up temporary rules? There's simply no denying that the more rules you have, the more likely you'll face situations that you don't know said rules and that you'll actually *need* temp rules.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| If it's something that happens three, four, five times a session, that's getting out of the realm of human fallibility. That's incompetence. |
No. As I said before, with enough rules bloat, there's sometimes just no way to keep track of them. You might have an encyclopedic memory of things D&D, but the rest of us mortals have other things on our minds and have a hard enough time keeping up with the core rules to begin with, never mind all the splat.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| Except the argument doesn't break down. The game does. |
Agreed, and bloat doesn't help the matter.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| Core-only, you have X many elements. Billion-book, you have X many elements. X is simply very large. |
You're quite right. But X >= X then in this equation.
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| I assure you, a core-only Druid is far more complex than a full splat Warlock. With core spells, you still need to stop to look up how Soul Jar or Planar Ally works, but an Orb of Fire needs squat in the way of reference; it's a very simple spell. |
That may be, but lets keep apples to apples. A core druid is far simpler than a core+ druid. Similarly, a "basic" warlock is certainly simpler than a full-splat warlock.
If you're stopping every now and then to look up how core rules work, just imagine how often you're stopping to lookup (or explain to your dm) how non-core rules work. Like I said, we only have so much room in our heads for rules. After a certain while, they start to all fudge together (yeah, i said fudge).
| Viletta Vadim wrote: |
| Either way, the DM only needs to understand five PCs. After all, it's the players' responsibility to explain how their characters work in a clear and coherent and organized manner. And if you're in a 20th-level game, it becomes that much more important to be neat and organized. |
Agreed, and it becomes that much more difficult. I needn't explain to my DM what greater weapon spec is when I take it at level 15. He knows it, and so does everyone at my table. When I do extra damage on my turn, people get it. People are used to it.
However, when all of a sudden I'm hitting hidden creatures with my ranged attacks without having to roll for concealment miss chance, I'll probably have to remind my DM at least once that I have that feat from I-don't-remember-where. It'll come to me in a second. I'll probably have to explain it once or twice, and then we'll remember. And then I'll have to explain the feat that I took at 16th-17th level that compliment this feat, and I'll have to remind my caster at 18th level not to bother with mass dispel; I can hit the invisible dragon flying over-head. And then we'll have to adjudicate if this feat counts for creatures that are considered phased into the shadow plane because we're using a new option from some setting sourcebook at level 19. And I might argue with my DM about it (rightly or wrongly), and my DM may or may not decide to houserule something, or change my feat, or find some other solution.
And it's not that I didn't explain my feats or spells or abilities ahead of time, and it's not that I don't understand them. This is just what happens when you have rules bloat. It's the nature of the beast. Is it a bad thing? Totally depends on you.
But *CAN* this be seen as a bad thing and therefore a valid argument *AGAINST* rules bloat? Abso-positiv-utely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|