Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Varisian Wanderer

Aelryinth's page

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16. RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter, 2014 Star Voter. 6,770 posts (6,833 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.

1 to 50 of 755 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barachiel Shina wrote:

---A wizard is the guy who just heisted a secure vault and managed to pin it on someone else for the crime - and the patsy even remembers doing it and confessed!

---A wizard is the guy that knew how to get around the city to get the information you needed without leaving a trail -- or getting up from his comfy chair by the fire!
---A wizard is the guy who was not there for half the battle, but that's because he set up some elaborate environmental trap on half the enemies and took them down without lifting a finger or ever exposing himself to danger.
---A wizard is that McGuyver kind of guy, his mastery over mundane tools and magical tools (as he can casually max out UMD and doesn't need to roll for most toys) gives him an edge in almost any situation as long as they are creative enough...assuming his spellbook doesn't have THAT covered for much, much less gold.
---A wizard is the guy who disguised himself as the guards by actually becoming one of them via magic, and infiltrated to assassinate the guy that intended to make the PCs lives hell by using all the military and political power he had so he died at one of the hands of his own underlings.
---A wizard is the guy that had the right sort of contacts to pretty much get whatever it is you needed. You know, like entities on other planes and stuff, sages, academia, and all those underworld figures who want him to find out stuff for them, or make toys for them.
---A wizard is the guy that rose through the ranks of an organization for the sole purpose of spying and betraying them. Has the magic to ward his thoughts and conceal his alignment, divert suspicion and learn things without having to actually be there, too.
---A wizard is the guy that was off rescuing victims, mentally mapping passageways, sabotaging ambushes and traps, misleading and misdirection enemies into danger, and basically speeding up your dungeon bashing game so that a quest that would have taken a month to finish, he just helped you do it in a week. Mostly by just using Summoned creatures.
---A wizard would have stolen enough money to hire, bribe, or blackmail others into doing the dirty work for them. Or, you know, just charmed or dominated them for more reliable and quick service.



RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:

1) What you choose to eat can have a definite effect on your alignment. Food is not immune from choice. You can be a Humanitarian!

2)They are the same thing, one on the micro level, one on the macro level.

3) You're twisting the meaning of it to one-offs.
Evil can undertake pretty much any action, even a externally good one, and have it still be an evil action because of why it was done. It's what Evil Masterminds DO.
There are whole slews of actions that Good people cannot take and call them Good actions. They will NEVER be good. They might be Necessary, but they will not be Good. Taking those actions does not make them more of a Good person, whereas the obverse with Evil people taking Good actions can very well make them even more sinister.
Or not, it's indeed their choice! And this freedom of choice is one of the great lures of Evil.

4)Indeed, same as #3.

5)Rampant slaughter without discernible rhyme or reason is indeed CE. It's insane behavior on its face.
Actually Chaotic Good believes that individuals must take responsibility for their actions. That means if the Law won't do what's right, it's up to the individual to do so. You are responsible for your actions, you can't protect yourself with the law, and I have as much right to punish you for your wicked ways as you had the choice to do them in the first place. Take your lumps! This is why your earlier example of a CG killing the LN king is not an Evil action...the king's is responsible for the actions of those who act in his name, and even if his personal hands are clean, he is responsible. The CG guy is holding him to account for his laws and evil actions of his minions. Granted, he's also going to go after those minions, too, but the king doesn't get a free pass just because he's turning a blind eye to things.
As an example, there's plenty of jihadists who would happily kill Obama for the things America has done in the Middle East, and it's a given that Obama doesn't know everything that goes on there, doesn't really want to be there, and has little to no involvement in the day to day activities of the conflict. He's still ultimately responsible, and they would feel totally justified in popping him and striking a blow at America.

Where's this Damning thousands to die coming from? Society choosing to kill thousands of people because one man won't kowtow to them is Tyranny in its finest form. Put the blame where it belongs. This is exactly akin to the standard no-win situation contrived to make a Paladin Fall: Save the baby or save the town. Either way, innocents die, your choice doomed them, and you Fall. That is an outright lie by the party that contrived the situation in the first place, and where the blame truly lies.
Damning thousands to perpetual, invioble slavery is also Evil. You've a classic case of the lesser of two Evils, not good.
By your judgment there, any war is evil, when war is specifically seen as neutral and oppressing everyone equally. Choosing not to save someone is Evil, because it damns them, be it from accident, natural disaster, starvation, weather, or their own stupidity...even if you don't have the power to save them! Woot!

You see, the only way you could work LG into your example is to remove slavery and institute voluntary this or that labor. If the people in your example want to work without pay or recompense, that's LG, and nobody, not even CG, is going to foreswear that. It's the highest level of community and civic responsibility. However, the problem is that the non-volunteers will rapidly exploit them. Free helpful labor is much better then paid helpful labor and better then unhelpful unpaid labor, after all!

By IMPOSING slavery, regardless of choice, by any methods or means, you've moved this to Tyranny of the Majority, a Lawful stance. By imposing it on the unwilling, you've made it Evil.
And if the subjugated choose to rise up, and die fighting instead of die of starvation or 'damning', that's not Evil in the slightest. Your only Good way around this is to let them go, or to find another way.

The motivation that 'the race as a whole could survive' is a smokescreen to justify tyranny. You've removed the option to say 'no'. Cloaking yourself in shiny colors doesn't make it a Good decision in the slightest. It's still cruel and draconian. There's tons of examples of this very trope you are talking about and trying to call 'good', for the very same reasons, and when you peel it back, you see it's evil on its face, and only gets worse with time.

Your extremely borderline scenario does not work, Band.

As for the have a choice not to live in a country that imposes a draft. If you choose to live there, it's a responsibility of yours to fight for your country when they call on you, part of the implied social contract. A modern draft is also fairer and equal, drawing from all portions of society, instead of from the lowest orders as was done in the past (the rich paid their way out).

You also have the right to be a conscientious objector and possibly be assigned to support duties, and/or you have the right to go to jail if you choose not to fight. My dad actually knows a guy in the Vietnam War who would fire over the heads of the enemy. He was wounded in combat and got sent home, never having taken an honest shot at the Viet Cong.

Drafts are definitely Lawful Neutral, and not Good. You see LG when people volunteer to serve in their military, and that is always far and away the preferred method to gain soldiers. Just ask long time commanders the difference between volunteers and draft/conscripts in their ranks (like, Iraqi line soldiers and American line soldiers). There is a world of difference in morale and competency.

What your example is imposing is worse then a draft. It's SLAVERY. It will simply never be Good, regardless of the reasons why you are doing it.

The best example I can think of for you is the Warhammer 40k universe, aptly described as 'grimdark crapsack.' Despite the total ruthlessness and amorality of the Empire, it considers itself Good and Just, mainly because all the alternatives are so very, very much worse. It isn't, by any stretch of the imagination (just start reading about it), but there is indeed little recourse.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Okay, I'd like to clarify something.

Aelrynith, was the character in question actually doing anything Good? At all? Ever? Was he saving people, helping the downtrodden, defending the innocent, or just being generally nice, anything like that?

Because I think a lot of people objecting to treating the player and character as you did are assuming he was doing stuff like that, but that's not the impression I'm getting from your posts. So...was he? Or was he being a self-serving mercenary type even aside from the spells thing.

He was a mercenary. CG is a very flexible alignment, you can justify just about anything for it. Getting paid to 'do good' is certainly inside that paradigm.

Did he go out of his way to do 'good things' of his own volition? Like, charity and such? no. He'd rescue things if he was paid to rescue things...happily. If that involved carrying decrepit miners out on the shoulders of an undead ogre, c'est la vies. If the enemy had loot, that was even better. If there was a size L creature to charm with strength, reach and good hit points to turn into an undead minion after it killed his enemies for him and got killed, even better!

i.e. he didn't play like some saintly guy who just happened to use evil magic. He played like a ruthlessly intelligent, pragmatic wizard who had no compunction against breaking the wills of sentient creatures, using them against their own kin and kind, animating their remains when they were killed, and dealing with creatures of the Lower Planes for more power...because it was mechanically the best thing to do, and he could justify it in his own mind as being without consequence.

He simply didn't use the tactics against local governments and 'good people'. Because that would get him into instant trouble, and he knew it.

And Ashiel, you're ignoring alignment descriptors again, which I know you do in your campaign, but not in mine. Summoning Evil creatures is indeed an Evil spell. It was the best choice, it was taken because it was the best choice, and no other reason. He didn't care that it was Evil magic, because he thought he could justify it away. Just Summoning any old thing? sure, good tactic. But he made the choice for Evil creatures because it was the most powerful choice to make, ignoring the consequences.

And yes, it was powergaming. You don't use Locate Creature to locate hydras to turn into zombies for any other reason then that they keep all their attacks even when undead. I was perfectly aware of it, and rolled my eyes when he told me. I don't call someone a power gamer lightly, he was doing it.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

What's the definition of judgmental? Because I tend to analyze and evaluate stuff based on the information I have. And that's exactly what I did.

Considering all the information given... I still define it as "a dick move that would make me walk away from the table". In fact, taking the second post into consideration, I'd call it "even more of a dick move than I expected".

You can play however you want, of course, and if it works for you and your friends, that's awesome! More power to you! But me? I wouldn't have stayed another minute in that table. At least not in game sessions with the GM who did it.

Well... I suppose I'd try to talk to the GM first, but if that didn't help, or worse, if he refused to listen, I wouldn't give another try. That's the sort of red flag that I simply can't ignore.

If I warned you repeatedly ahead of time that using Evil magic and using the kind of tactics you used are going to have alignment consequences, and you refused to stop, who is at fault here, Lemmy? Me, for delivering on what I told you, or you, for saying that I wouldn't?

I told you I warned him repeatedly. I didn't tell him not to do it...I warned him there would be consequences. He ignored it, using his justifications, despite my warning him in spite of his justifications.

he didn't determine the alignments in my campaign. He was using Evil magic and ruthless tactics that would instantly be called Evil if and when they were used against the party, but thought that as a PC he could get away with it.

He basically walked into it with his eyes wide shut, and then had a decision to make when he thought he was calling my bluff.

As I said, if I gave in, the game was over. I'd have folded up everything, and started anew. I wasn't going to back down. I gave him the rope, he hung himself, and then he challenged my authority to pull it tight. I didn't make him make the decisions, I just warned him of the road he was walking down, and he ignored me until it came up and bit him in the arse. He was selling, and I wasn't buying, hadn't been buying, and he thought he could make me buy, and I didn't, repeatedly.

That was the situation.

Oh, and yes, this was not the only indication that things were going south on him, given the rep of a fiend summoner, undead-making necromancer who regularly enslaved monstrous creatures, and then animated them as undead if they died.

Like I said, it wasn't a surprise. You, Lemmy, might make the choice to realize I'm firm on alignments and consequences of your actions, keep the character, and start on the road to redemption. He didn't want to, and started a new PC, since the personality of the character was established and he didn't want to ruin it with a heel-face turn.

It wasn't hostile, there was no gnashing of the teeth. He was a little surprised I stood by my guns, but he made his choice, and stuck by the choice not to change the character. We had to talk out the circumstances to the party and decide how and why the character was leaving, but in truth they were tired of his little armies of undead and summoned creatures, the Good churches slamming their doors in their faces, people pulling into homes and buildings when they went by, etc.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see.

He's using Evil magic, which I repeatedly warned him would have consequences (because, you know, I love profound alignments!). But because he was only using Evil magic against non-good things, he gets a pass by his reasoning. In other words, he's trying to cover his ass with a thin veneer of gratuity.

No. That's not how it works anywhere. You guys are the ones with the double standard, not me. He used Evil magic, it wasn't for good ends, it was because it was the most efficient and powerful thing for him to do. There was no sacrifice involved, no moral trauma. He made the choice to use Evil magic, believing there would be no consequences in the face of my telling him otherwise.

Dominating intelligent beings, getting them killed, then animating them to do the same thing. Yeah, no, that's not good, and it's a big step past neutral. If you see otherwise, that's your judgment. Pharasma and Pathfinder agree with me.

Maybe you're more forgiving of the extremely pragmatic, I'm-beyond-alignment style of play. But there's alignments in my campaign, and if you want to act like someone who can ignore them, that doesn't mean they ignore you. The alignments are bigger then you are.

If you're crying about why I don't allow Evil people...that's because I've too much experience with people using Evil as an excuse to do whatever they want. He was using Evil magic as an excuse to do whatever he wanted, trying to loophole things by not using it against Good people. It's a classic denier strategy, I warned him on it, and he still went ahead and did it.

And kindly note, I gave the guy a choice...go for redemption, doing what it took, or become an NPC.

It's my campaign, I set the rules, he tried to flaunt them, and I didn't let him. I wasn't going to change them for him.

My alternative was to scrape the campaign just so he could cater to his powergamer build and ruthless, pragmatic PC mentality. I didn't. The campaign went on.

And you being outside looking in means you are getting a highly unknowing view of what went on. It wasn't your campaign, your campaign world, and I didn't spring anything on anyone. You literally have nothing to argue from, aye?

There's a PC in 3.5 called the Malconvoker. It's absolutely the best summoning PC in the game. The whole shtick of it is a Good character summoning evil creatures to fight for them, instead of using Good creatures to do so.
There's another PC called the Grey Guardian, which is basically a Paladin that can ignore the moral code to do whatever they feel can be justified in the name of Good, and get an Atonement and soldier on. NO drawbacks.
I didn't allow either class, ever, because the fundamental alignment infractions of each invalidate the whole idea of alignment.

I take alignments seriously in my games. I love the idea of them. If you don't, well, that's a different game, and I'll play differently in your games then I would in mine.

But that's the context you have to keep in mind. I treat alignments seriously, he didn't, thought I would let him slide, and I didn't. Then he started to see what I was talking about when the same tactics got used repeatedly against the party, by mages exactly as pragmatic and ruthless as his old character. Ruthless, pragmatic and efficient are all hallmarks of Evil, as is justification for their use.

it was good times! They sure got to hate having to fight summoned celestials under the command of mages who didn't care about Summoned monsters of any kind...



RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh, huh. Keep up with the judgmental crap you know nothing about, guys.

He'd happily Summon anything from across the alignment spectrum, based on whatever was most powerful for the level...which were usually fiendish animals or evil outsiders. Not the least being because DR/Good is much better then DR/Evil when you're fighting evil stuff. But he never used them against good people, of course.

Happily try to pull the Calling abuse check thing, but that didn't last long once the churches found out about it. He did try to get away with the Succubus profane gift by petrifying it and using non-detection, however...only for the best of reasons!

He'd happily make undead out of his enemies and throw them into fights, then keep the nice ones around to use for the next fight. Never used them against good people, of course.

he'd happily dominate enemies and keep them under thralldom until their usefulness was done, and then see to it they got killed fighting. Never have them fight good people of course. And they usually made good undead, too.

He could justify each and every single spell he cast as being for the greater good, and for good ends.

In reality, he was powergaming. The same tactics used against the party by enemies were horrible, nasty things, but not so when he used them. After all, he was CG...turning the power of evil against itself was just fair play, right?

Just look at the codes for LE and NE. Having a code where you don't do evil against a specific set of people doesn't hide the Evil of your actions. He used evil magic regularly and to his own benefit and power, and basically thought he could do so without consequence. His actions belied all his words.

And just like you, he claimed I was personally ruling against his almighty effective character to take it out of the game, when I had warned him multiple times about consequences of using evil magic.

he didn't want to play the character any other way, so he gave him up.

he made a great bad guy. The rest of the party was mostly neutrals, and the character didn't have any problem picking on Neutrals. So, once they 'kicked him out' for using Evil magic and 'besmirching their rep' (the justification for his new NPC status), he had no compunctions against using his tactics against them, and training any and all other mages to do the same thing. And that, of course, went south exactly as you might expect it to. I must have used his advancement template another dozen times over that campaign. Do you know that NPC wizards are awesome bad guys even if they have lower Wealth by Level? Because it is all about class levels and spells, not bling.

Man, they grew to hate the powergaming wizards that guy trained up. Charm spells, undead hordes, summoned and Called creatures galore, teleporting away at the first sign of danger only to come back with more minions to throw at them, all healed up. Yeah, they really grew to hate that NPC...who of course knew them really well and never bothered to fight them directly.

So, yeah, the character was a dick, and got what was coming to him. And when he started treating the PC's like they treated everyone else, and the neutral powers that be didn't give a damn for their actions coming back to bite them...yeah, that made an interesting campaign development.

It was pretty memorable. That NPC is still around, they never managed to track him down and kill him (hard to do for a wizard), but man, they sure wanted to. His tactics have spread into widespread use by many, many wizards. I imagine it's something like facing Ashiel's spellcasters, who'll use what is the best thing to use. Evil received quite the how=to leg up from that guy!

And their own fallen PC started it all.

So, you guys weren't there, you didn't know what was going on, and it was basically him saying I couldn't do this, when I warned him repeatedly I could and would, and I stuck by my guns. there was no 'suddenly' about it. He walked into it believing I wouldn't do it, and I did.

Kinda like the first time I actually killed a PC, way back when, but that's a different story.

Having the same tactics turned on them, with his new improvements, was quite the eye-opener, too.

They still talk about it. And when I start talking about Evil magic and the like, they all pay attention now. He thought he was an exception, and he wasn't. I play a bit grimmer and grittier campaign then you people do, I guess, and he thought he was going to be an exception to the rules. He wasn't.

And that's how it was. You should have seen the expression on his face when they got into one dungeon, only to find the remains of several old monster zombies, more denizens of the dungeon who'd obviously been killed twice (once charmed and once as undead), and all the loot gone and the wizard mark of his old character at the end of the dungeon...with all the animated undead left behind for them to deal with as a bonus...which is exactly what he did most of the time when they were clearing a dungeon.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

A point of curiosity directed at Aelryinth:

If I recall from the previous thread which got consumed by the IH debate, you stated that using an [evil] spell often enough would shift the caster (and the recipient?) toward Evil over time. I take this to mean that in your games, such a caster would find themselves having more and more selfish thoughts, and would eventually begin acting on those thoughts.

If so, I can see how this is easily acted out from your side of the screen: You control the NPCs, so they act as you deem appropriate. And when you explain how [evil] spells affect a caster to your players, most of them are probably more or less willing to either avoid casting [evil] spells while playing non-Evil characters or to act out the alignment shift. My question is: Have you ever had a player who decided that "I don't care if using IH makes my character hear voices; Evil is a choice, and my character continues making Good ones"?

He's deluding himself.

Casting IH is making an evil choice. He's a hypocrite. He can continue to think he's making good choices, but where it really matters, i.e. wanting healing, he stoops to using Evil because it's better and more convenient.

He could say whatever he wanted...his actions would speak for him, and soon enough he'd start popping the paladin's detect-o-meter, which has been a kind of 'oh s@#+' moment for some people when it happens. Of course there's the one guy who tried to make it seem like I was singling him out personally, but he's the same guy who thought he could stay CG while using Evil magic to good ends. I warned him, he learned otherwise. And since I don't allow Evil PC's when I GM, he had a choice of taking drastic action to reclaim his destiny, or becoming an NPC. I ended up with his character sheet, and he started someone new.

What happened to the new NPC after that was interesting, but that's a separate story.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

correct. The Rogue is way down on the totem pole. You don't make a Rogue or Fighter class that's the equal of what they are pick a target, say, Inquisitor or Barbarian, and aim to equal that class. Or a notch above them, like a paladin.

Can you just imagine what you'd have to do to a party to have a rogue or fighter as flexible and useful as a cleric?


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking of a variant Wounds/Vitality system as well.

Vitality would be akin to subdual damage, healed at the rate of your hit die type (d6 to d12)/hour, with a bonus for fighter-types (surges when combat ends and so forth). In effect, you could regain vitality quickly without needing a healer, it's the magical/stamina aspect of hit points.

Health would be harder to regain (level/day), and naturally represent actual physical injury.

Cure spells would only heal health. Potions would heal both, with health coming first. In essence, the 'intangible' protection of Vitality is harder to heal then the physical injury. This turns Vitality into something akin to Temporary Hit points, which are indeed harder to accumulate and keep then cure spells of the same level.

As for infliction...the PC determines which he'd like any injury to take, from health or Vitality. This takes the whole problems with crits away, and leaves the PC to manage their hit points as they see best.

If he thinks he'll have some time to recover, or its his first hit, or he's going to suck a potion, he'll take it off of Vitality.
If he wants it quick mended after the fight, or someone is throwing Cures around, he'll take it off of health.

As an aside, this explains why monster hit points are different from characters. Hit points gained from classes is almost all vitality. Hit die from racial hit dice (most monsters) is all health. So, you're inflicting grievous wounds on the giant while he's basically whiffing you...until he lands one solid blow and down you go. It provides a good difference between learned hit points and natural hit points.

PC's will have lower health then Vitality in most cases.

I let them take side levels in the Racial Levels from 3.5E, which gives them up to 3 racial hit die and ups their health. Otherwise, their base health is their first level of hit points from class, the rest is Vitality. Toughness also ups health.

This way, a 10th level character might have 20 health and 80 Vit, and a cure serious wounds could get two characters back to full Health. If they have 3 Human Racial levels, their Health is 3d8+Conx3, + Toughness, and can go up significantly.

Don't let crits automatically go against health, leave it the player's choice, and crit-fishing is no longer a problem. But a wounded fighter with Health low can still recover his Vitality fast, and be able to fight soon without leaning on a cleric or healing magic.

I thought it was a decent compromise.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suggest just giving your fighters extra stat bonuses, instead of doing this with feats.

Go back to the 3e Forsaker. Give them a +1 Inherent bonus to stats per Fighter level. This gets you more stats over time without giving them anything they wouldn't receive at extreme high level anyways. Indeed, if you use the 'We can Summon Efreeti excuse', it's giving them nothing they wouldn't have by level 13.

If you want to limit the abuse this causes, simply mandate that the inherent bonus always goes to the Fighter's lowest ability scores. This would allow the fighter to assign higher scores at creation, knowing that he'll get inherent bonuses to buy off lower point buy, but only over time.

This also has the benefit of being dependent on taking fighter levels, so not benefiting multiclassers.

This moves the stat raises from the territory of a free bonus that stacks, like your feat methodology, and simply to 'free gold' a few levels early.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magic almost always has an inbuilt element of change to it. The fireball you cast today may not be exactly the same fireball you cast a year from now. 'old and forgotten magic' is practically the foundation of this.

Science tends to get stronger as you advance it. Magic tends to be more powerful the further BACK in time you go. Hah!


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic vs Science often comes out of a Law vs Chaos conflict.

Magic is the ultimate expression of the worth of a single individual. But without that individual to manipulate the magic and make the magical things, magic is, in the end, worthless to the average man. There are whole classes of magic items that normal people simply cannot use because it requires a specific type of magical ability to wield them.

Science, on the other hand, is the triumph of many individuals into a pool of knowledge that ANYONE can use. Anyone can shoot a gun, not everyone can shoot a wand. Anyone can drive a car and learn to fix a car. Not everyone is going to figure out how to make a Stone Horse.

Science effectively becomes the collective power of a society pooled together and able to be accessed with education. The knowledge of magic pooled does absolutely nothing for those who can't actually wield just allows 'special' individuals to get stronger, and the fallout of their generosity may incrementally help people over time, but doesn't replace the broad, low power that science can bring.

of course, when those powerful magical individuals spend time and effort to undercut the advancing of science via using magic, it forestalls the advance since the incentive to find alternate ways evaporates in the short term. In the long term, being beholden to spellcasters makes you dependent, and society is better off with an alternative.
Also, science works by working with the existing laws of reality and mastering them. Magic is almost by definition manipulating the laws of reality in your favor. That's pretty much a natural opposition right there. For them to work together, you'd basically have to master the science that exists within the altered reality of a magical spell.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Zeitgeist AP (3rd party) has the rule that unbroken circuits of gold foil all teleporting. So, you can stop a mage using dimensional shenanigans by putting a gold bracelet on them, stop entry/exit via dimensional shifting into an area by running a gold thread through the walls around it.

A nice non-magical solution.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder overprices magical defenses because it doesn't want to take the fun of using those options away from spellcasters.

Having areas where you can't fly, teleport, summon monsters, or charm the natives into slavery is badwrongfun because of that.

meh. In any real world, defending against magical flight and teleporting would be far easier then actually being able to do such stuff.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.

As you slide the scale from no healing magic to frequent healing magic, you move from low to high fantasy. Nothing else is as important.

If you've another 'break point', please say so. But I believe healing is the magic that, if removed, has the greatest effect on the low/high feel of a fantasy setting.

Healing is a Critical point, yes- maybe even the most critical point if you include condition removal, etc.

But Transportation magic, esp Teleport etc is another Critical point.

Magic damage, oddly, is not.

Indeed, teleport is a huge and powerful thing. Teleportation makes your town the entire world, and you can laugh at the laws of kings and tyrants who simply cannot keep up with you if you choose not to let them.

However, assuming teleportation is limited to those who can cast it, the overall effect on a world will be minor. For individuals, it can be a defining thing, being able to walk out the door and into a city a thousand miles away. For society as a whole, it will be a 'meh' thing, because those who can teleport are outnumbered thousands to one by those that cannot and never will.

Permanent teleportation is also a huge security risk. So mass movement over distances like that is likely to have many, many folk opposed to it, especially those who don't like the idea of an uninvited army of foreigners. You'd have to have permanent teleportation circles and a lot of high level characters before this would actually start messing with a campaign.

But, yes, teleportation is Fantasy's version of hyperdrive and warp drive...the ability to get to a place fast, without having to slog through every stop on the road in between. How much is there is often one of the defining marks of high fantasy.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is only the monk's thing in 3E. In 1E, the fighter ended up the king of saving throws.

Seriously, as the only totally non-magical class, all good saves should be the core of the fighter. he's the one that actually needs them!

Kirth's condition immunities are an interesting approach. COmbined with all good saves, it really turns the fighter into the tank character of the party.

I'm still opposed to stuff that triggers to activate it with weird conditions the fighter can't control, especially as class abilities. If the fighter wants to blow a feat on something like that, hey, more power to him. But for ALL fighters? It just doesn't fit.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally believe the defining point of low magic is access to healing.

As you slide the scale from no healing magic to frequent healing magic, you move from low to high fantasy. Nothing else is as important.

Take Warhammer RPG. You can throw lightning bolts, fireballs, and end up being able to teleport. But it's still a grim and gritty, low magic setting, because magic is rare, and there simply is not much healing magic around for anyone. People die of dumb stuff all the time in the setting. Warhammer never feels 'high' fantasy because of the healing access.

Having access to healing magic in all its forms allows you to do things you would never, ever dare without it, live through it, and more importantly, get right back into the fight. Worlds with powerful magic but no healing feel less high fantasy then they do hi-tech to me.

If you've another 'break point', please say so. But I believe healing is the magic that, if removed, has the greatest effect on the low/high feel of a fantasy setting.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To truly make clerics unique and special you'd have to restrict the spell list by god, increase the relevance of domains, and have class abilities dependent on the god.

it is the god worshipped, not the domains, that are the ultimate definition of the cleric. Domains differentiate the clerics OF a god, but the religion itself is always the single most important thing that defines a cleric.

And needless to say, making up restricted spell lists for every single religion is not a task PF is ever going to undertake. That aspect of play is left to the PC's and style of play.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Malachai, you're trying really, really hard to say that high BAB is not equivalent of excellent hand/eye coordination for the purposes of weapon-wielding, and I'm not buying it. It is indeed skill and practice and repetition, and how it manifests is improved hand-eye coordination in melee combat. You have greater control, focus, and deftness with your weapon from long practice. It's going to manifest as the equivalent of better precision and faster speed.

It's certainly not increased POWER, now, is it? Nor is it fantastic insight. A guy with 10 BAB and 12 Dex spinning around a weapon will be every bit as graceful and coordinated with his weapon as some guy with 5 BAB and 22 Dex. Except, of course, he gets twice as many attacks.

Driving a rapier through a chest can take tremendous force, if that torso is wearing a leather cuirass and not skin. it's night impossible if you are wearing scaled mail or a breastplate, and I don't even want to think about dragonscale.
Basically, unless you've a soft target, you're wrong on this point. And you are consistently arguing for soft, squishy targets to make your point. How about a treant? Gorgon? Elemental? Drake? IN effect, your argument is weapon design does what it does, it is not an argument for Dex. Indeed, you could say it's an argument against any ability bonus whatsoever to damage. Increasing the threat range also makes no sense, as I could make the same argument for ANY weapon that more penetration = better crit chance, and high Str definitely allows for more penetration.

I'm getting those figures from the real world. The highest level human who ever lived in reality might be level 6. The rest of us tend to be level 2-3. Elites might be 4th. The best in the world MIGHT be 5, but are likely just talented 3's and 4's.
And at low levels, stats are more important then levels for many purposes.

And no, that's not what you were talking about earlier. Old guys beat young guys is a trope, not reality, but it's a trope Pathfinder reflects in the level system.
Young guy beats old guy is reality, because in real life levels are limited and stat mods dominate when levels are limited.
Dexterous guy manhandles armored guy is a trope, it is NOT a reflection of reality. Barring a significant skill gap, armored guy will win that fight...that's why people wore armor for 3000 years to fights. So, armored guy beats unarmored guy has the advantage of both trope and reality on its side. INigo Montoya's victory is better reflected by the fact he's one of the greatest swordsmen in the land, i.e. high level, and the soldiers are mooks. IN 4E, they'd be 1 hp minions, there to be disposed of to show how awesome the characters are.

If you want to throw reality out the door, by all means. But you've been trying to justify it with reality, and it's just not the case. The problem we have with Dex to damage is not existence, it's that Str gets nothing to counterpoise it. Anything can be handwaved and arguments made for it in a magical realm.
But Strength gets no love in return, and every other stat chips away at it. Balance!


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a fantasy world were actually 'real', the sheer amount of slaughter perpetrated by PC characters would have immense consequences.

Just imagine how invading orcs/goblins/giants/ogres would view parties of PC's going out there and ripping them apart day after day, hunting them down, slaughtering them, taking their stuff.

yes, PC's and the races they come from would be seen like demons, and the only way to fight those things is all out war or run. Nothing in between works.

PC's coming would be like a natural disaster on the way...pray you're going to survive, because death is on the wind.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

@Aelyrinth: I know it was me that set up the comparison. This is so we could compare Str and Dex.

You're saying that hand-eye coordination is a function of BAB, and I say it's a function of Dex. The game agrees with me.

When fighting with a rapier, the entire torso is target area, because being run through is far more deadly than any cut. A normal blow with normal Str will probably be fatal, whereas a slashing weapon will be stopped by the ribs, maybe breaking some.

I make no apologies for using rapier combat in my example, since we are discussing the subject of finesse weapons and whether Str or Dex is the most important ability score when fighting with them.

We can agree that strong is better than weak and dextrous is better than clumsy, no matter which melee weapon used. We can also agree that with most weapons the Str rating has more influence on the combat than the Dex rating. What I'm trying to point out is that when using finesse weapons Dex is more important than Str. In a game like Stormbringer, Str, Dex, and Int all modify your chances so this discussion wouldn't exist. But in PF/D&D only one ability can be used, so we must choose the ability that has the most influence. I've no objection to Str being used for most weapons, but Dex makes more sense for finesse weapons.

What this game system actually says is that Str is still the ability that modifies attacks with finesse weapons, unless you have special training in the form of the feat, and then you may use Dex instead. I've never heard any objection to that, even from you. I suspect that there may be objections to a feat that allows Con to attack!

The game system still has Str to damage with finesse weapons. Is it really so strange that extra training in the form of a feat, building on the training already put in to get Weapon Finesse, should result in using Dex instead of Str to damage, with finesse weapons?

Both experience and natural ability count. When taking a player who's shot 10,000 baskets (experience), do you think his...

Again, you're misconstruing what I'm saying.

Hand/eye coordination is one of the functions of Dex. When fighting, BAB is the skill that takes over, just like Dancing Skill takes over when doing that. It manifests as increased hand/eye coordination for purpose of what you are doing. As I noted before, a 10 Dex 10 Rank Dancer looks every bit as graceful as a 20 Dex 5 ranks dancer. Similarly, BAB manifests as increased hand/eye coordination in combat, above and beyond your stats. That's just what it IS.

The entire torso is a bad target if that torso is armored. It's why fencing is non-viable in serious melee combat.

A poke through the chest can slow you down and will eventually kill you. Hacking an axe into someone's chest will probably maim them and almost immediately cripple them. Both are lethal, but one stops the enemy's counterpoint.

Dex to damage doesn't make sense because 'precision hits' are covered by crits and/or sneak attacks. Furthermore, Dex to damage makes no sense against objects or hardness. Hitting a point accurately is a to hit roll, not a damage roll. Driving it in emphatically is a damage roll, and requires force and power, not precision. Precision already did its job.

As for the basketball, it's a ranged attack roll. Of course being clumsy will affect the shot. So would having an injured arm, for that matter, and so uneven Strength. But we abstract that all away and ignore it because we don't use a Wound system that penalizes for injury.

And the difference between the talented young guy and experienced older guy tends to be 1-2 pts, someone level 2-3 vs someone level 3-4. Of course stats matter more at low levels.

If he was a level 10 vs level 5, you'd see the gap. This is reflected in anime stuff where highly experienced older guys beat the snot out of talented younger guys, when in the real world it's completely the other way around. A level 20 with all stats at 12 will beat a level 10 with all stats at 20. But that's not the real world.

Even with finesse weapons, the ability to punch through a defense is important and useful. Better/worse is another argument. But saying you can't use strength with a precision weapon, especially with a high BAB, just doesn't compute.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

1) Malachai, you're doing it again. I never said Dex guy was weak...that's YOU. I've said Str guy and Dex guy, and just assumed equal stats in the main one and equal stats in the off one.

So not only are YOU the one mischaracterizing the combatants, you're trying to blame ME for it.
Can you understand why I'm not taking you seriously?

2) You're calling the ability to hit a skill, and then turning right around and saying it depends on Dex. I'm saying it's a skill, and complements a high Strength wonderfully.

2b) More words in my mouth. if you look at my examples you can clearly see I'm referring to your 'critical points'. the dex fighter MUST aim for the critical points. If he misses, his little pointy thing will bounce, be parried, avoided, and do nothing.
The Strength guy is ALSO aiming for those one shot kill points. But if he misses the 'point', his big heavy weapon can crush armor, break bones, stun, bruise, shock and do other things even if he didn't hit the primary target. Because it's a big heavy weapon.

3)The speedy blow, once launched, cannot be redirected...unless you're strong and it's a well-balanced blade. Also, it's not a thrust. If a fencer tries to stop a point-heavy greatsword that's just whisked through a third of an arc and is coming crosswise into his chest with his forte, he's not going to stop it with a parry...he's going to LOSE HIS HAND and probably the weapon in it. This is especially true when the weapon has 1-2 feet of reach on you!
You can't just knock away big heavy weapons coming in at velocity so easily. Thrusting weapons, sure. Ping, redirect momentum, especially nice, light things like rapier points. it becomes a bit harder with spears and 2h swords, and you can't really do it with crushing, cleaving and slashing weapons.
And there's also the problem that if you mess up, those casual hits break you wide open. A punctured lung is more survivable then a ten-inch bone-severing crash into your chest cavity.

And your entire martial tradition of fencing is based on foes not wearing armor, using shields, or wielding heavy weapons. A guy with a staff will clean your clock! You have no item of comparison to the true martial world to justify the viability of your weapons...except history noting that no fencing weapons were ever used until armor went OUT OF STYLE.

4) And lo, the Str guy has a lower AC then Dex guy. Wow, what news. Did I argue that point? no? Well, then.

Your restriction of the weapon to the rapier once again shifts the combat to a formal duel. What is the Str guy's best option here? It's to close in on the Dex guy and not pussyfoot around with footwork and parries. A formal exchange of blows back and forth is not a fight. Lack of armor plays directly to the Dex guy's advantage.
But, lo, the fact the str guy can get into the face of the dex guy and totally f'up his fighting style by getting inside his reach isn't occurring to you.

So, you've got this incredibly corner case example of Str vs Dex where all the conditions and rules favor the Dex guy. Please at least attempt some utility and realism.

5) Actually, it applies if the basket is trying to dodge, too, I'm afraid to inform you. Take the guy with average dex firing at a moving target with ten thousand rounds and some mook with high dex who has only fired 100 rounds. In reality, the guy with experience is going to be much better at hitting things then the guy with high coordination.

or to put it another way: This guy over here has killed ten thousand opponents X, and has average dex. This guy over here has killed 100 opponents X, and has great dex. Which is more dangerous?

6) Combat Skill/BAB translates directly to hand-eye coordination with the weapon you are using, just the way it translates to better dancing, better tightrope walking, better this, better that. You are better at putting the weapon where it needs to be at the moment you need it there. That screams hand-eye coordination. High combat skill IS hand-eye coordination for that purpose!
Sure, the Dex guy is better at ALL types of hand-eye coordination. But in combat, the Strength guy is also looking pretty. His training gives him what his stats do not.

And while you're focusing so incredibly intently on need for high coordination to hit a point in space, you're totally ignoring the need for Strength to penetrate the defense, be it armor/nat armor, speed to get the blow in Right Now, the force to overcome a block or parry, or the might to rattle something even if they do manage a block. Being able to align your blade precisely and deliver it to a point means nothing if you can't pierce the armor, beat the block, overcome the parry, or have enough force behind it to deal damage even if you miss your preferred target.

Dex only gives you half the attacking equation. Strength does all the rest.

It's these points which are really weakening your arguments, in addition to goalpost moving and putting words into my mouth, Marachai. we could go on with the total lack of realism of using a rapier against a dragon or grizzly bear, etc etc. But suffice it to say, the mere existence of decent armor in reality renders most fencing weapons completely useless.

History proved the point for thousands of years. As soon as armor comes onto the scene, you abandon fencing weapons for things that can actually penetrate a defense, not just hit a point in space.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is avoided in PF because of the inherent imbalance in bonuses.

A bonus to hit is intrinsically worth more then a bonus to damage. Just look at power attack. If I take my +2 weapon to +3/+1, 1 point of Power Attack now gets me to +2/+4. The trade off is not even, and its worse with a 2h weapon.

Defender and Guardian both sacrifice full bonuses for +1 to AC or to saves.

Statistically speaking, any smart player will take the opportunity to double their bonus to hit and assure damage of getting through. THis only becomes more important with higher damage numbers and multiple attacks.

The only time you would NOT do this is if it gets your hit % over 95%, which would be a waste.

If you could dump TH for damage, that would probably be okay...a small damage bonus isn't going to overdo anything.

But potentially doubling a bonus to hit is EXTREMELY powerful.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tryn wrote:

@ Aelryinth:

Some of your "solutions" aren't from PF at all others are so costly that no kingdom could buy it.

Regarding the Barbarian vs. Army:
Do you ever tried to hit a level 10 Figther/Barbarian/Paladin etc. with a level 3 character? no chance due to the high AC.
Which means 100 arrows fly.. no hit (even with a lucky shot 5 out of 100 will hit and deal.. no damage due to Magic items/DR/Potions etc).

I'm perfectly aware that defenses are vastly overpriced in Pathfinder and 3E. I'm saying they should be handwaved and their price vastly decreased because they are static and put into effect over long time periods. A ward that takes a month of rituals and some finely carved anchor stalae to cast and raise, and then made Permanent, should not cost 100000 gp to put in place.

Without cheap defenses, offense trumps defense in Pathfinder. It breaks the suspension of disbelief. These defenses should exist, because no military man in their right mind would leave those kind of holes. It's just plain STUPIDITY on their part. Yet, it's an accepted part of the game world.

You can do it in stories where magic is rare and so defenses would be nigh impossible to forge. But PF is rich in magic, and making it so easy to bypass defenses just suspends incredulity.

Example: WHY is it harder to stop something from teleporting, then it is to teleport?
Dimensional hopping takes energy to rip open the dimensions, make a connection to another point, and move you there. It's patently unnatural.
Reinforcing the Veil to make it nigh impossible to do that should be SIMPLE. You're helping reality do what it is supposed to do! Instead, it's a ceremonial clerical spell you can only apply to a place of worship, and 4th level. You can start dimension skipping at level 1!

DR only decreases damage, it doesn't stop it. Nat 20's will eventually wear anything down. And minor damage buffs like bardsong and cast spells aren't hard to come by.

If you have enough dweebs shooting arrows, the barb and the paladin are going to die, it's just simple math. He may inherit 50 arrows through his visor slit to make it happen, but it will happen.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Aelyrinth wrote:
1) yes, they are. Big guys can eye gouge and throat punch just like little guys can. And they're harder to block.

Clumsy big guys are less likely to execute a precise attack, and are easier to dodge/counter because they are slower.

2) Dexterity has nothing to do with it. He has the BAB, he moves faster because he has more power, and so he's harder to dodge and defend against. Conversely, it's easier for him to block some guy relying on precision and attacking fewer vulnerable spots.

Rubbish! There is such a thing as strength in real life, and there is such a thing as dexterity. But there is no such thing as 'base attack bonus' in real life. Trying to say that 'real' fighters have a high BAB is absurd.

If you mean 'skill', then there is skill in real life. But we are comparing equally skilled fighters, one with high Str/low Dex, and the other with high Dex/low Str. In order to compare these factors we must assume equal skill or the comparison won't work. So comparing these two, the strong guy might swing faster but he'll swing less accurately, therefore his attacks will be predictable. A dextrous fighter can start an attack in one vector and change the attack vector faster than the less dextrous guy can react to. Therefore the Str guy is likely to hit and more likely to be hit than the dextrous guy.


3) It's harder to move out of the way of someone who has more power and equal skill, and it's easier to get boxed in and herded. Blocking improperly can shatter a weapon and numb your whole arm. A low Str dex blocker has no choice but to try and evade and redirect. The Str guy, not being stupid, is going to minimize those options and force the dex guy to block with force. It's called smart fighting and leveraging your strengths. The blocker may expend less energy, but the Strength guy isn't expending a lot of effort to do what he does, simply because he's so much stronger and it's easier for him to swing the weapon. 

Str guy isn't going to

1) He's not CLUMSY. Where's this 6 dex argument coming from? He's a SKILLED COMBATANT with average Dex. He has excellent control of himself, he knows what to hit and where, and the power to get his blows where he wants them to land. Everything he wields is 'lighter' and easier to control because he's so strong.

BAB is combat and control with a weapon.

IF we were talking about clumsy big guys they are easier to hit, but happily they don't fight finesse style so restricting themselves to weak points is unnecessary.

2) There is indeed BAB in real's called experience in combat.
Your example falls down because now you're having Str guy fight stupid - Fewer options? He isn't reliant on hitting special points - he has more options. A miss from him is still likely to hurt and jar his opponent - that's the advantage of being brutally strong. A miss from his opponent isn't going to do anything.
The strong guy moves faster because he's stronger, all other things being equal. Dex is not speed of movement. Dex guy can react quicker, and he'll have to, to have any chance at a parry, but he's also at a penalty on the parry because he's weaker.

3) Wait, now you're moving the goalposts to FIGHTING STYLE? WTF? And Str guy is STUPID?
Rapier guy lunges...and his rapier bounces off STr guy's breastplate. He could have tried for the throat, but the Str guy's massive swordhilt safeguards the face and upper body, and all the damn armor is protecting the other vital spots.
Str guy's is moving forward as dex guy lunges and slams the hilt of his very big weapon into Dex guy somewhere,'s like getting hit by a mace. As Dex guy rocks back, a sword moving with the speed of a willow wand comes down, crashes through the desperate parry, and opens him up like a gourd. If he misses the throat, he hits the collarbone and either breaks it or cleaves it open.
I mean, COME ON. Now strong = stupid? If nothing else, Greatsword guy can thrust perfectly fine with his weapon...he can 2h Thrust with it, most greatswords have half grips designed to be used that way! And the hilts are virtual shields in and of themselves. You're talking stupidity in a duel completely set to favor a fencing style.

4) And if the Str guy is wearing a breastplate, his torso is fine. That puny rapier isn't going to punch through anything, and now his rapier is out of position and he's going to be hacked up. Indeed, unless he can somehow do an instant kill, the Greatsword guy is going to complete his motion and hack him in two, while the 2h guy deals with his little hole.
All he has to do is guard against a heart thrust, or shot to throat or eye. Rapier guy has to understand that unless he can somehow stop the 2h guy in midswing (and remember, you're talking 2 feet of extra reach) he's dead. He can't parry that sword, all he can do is dodge.
And the problem is, if that greatsword doesn't land's still landing. It can break bones, rupture skin, crunch armor. If the Dex guy DOES parry and can still crunch right through the parry and the armor and do what it needs.
You're equivocating that Str can't overcome a defense. Not all defenses are dodging. There's parrying and armor, and Str is much better suited to dealing with those, not to mention that the power and speed of a Strong man is better at getting to someone trying to dodge before a defense is effective then a precise thrust at average speed. You're equivocating that just because a blow is aimed precisely that it is going to land. Against a Dex guy, you respond correctly, or you get hit. Against a Str guy, you respond in time and with sufficient force...or you get hit.

And you automatically chose the biggest, slowest type of sword he can use. What if Str guy is also using a rapier? Do you still think that thing is going to be SLOW? He's going to be wielding it as easily as a feather and driving it like a piston!

5) No, that's where you're misunderstanding and extemporizing in favor of your beloved stat. Skill and repetition build control. Natural coordination makes you better at it, but doesn't do it all. Someone who practices ten thousand free throws can sink as many as some guy with 18 dex who has only done it a hundred times.
You seem to think dex covers ALL coordination. That's blatantly untrue. Every single skill that uses dex disproves you. Someone with 10 ranks of Dance and 10 dex looks as skilled and graceful dancing as someone with 1 rank of Dance and a 28 Dex.
You seem to think Dex does it all. It does's only a part of the combat cycle, and BAB is the 'skill ranks' that apply here.

6)Fighters develop BAB, and get exposed to different weapons to determine how to deal with them. But Finesse style is and has always been a niche for those warriors not strong enough to be effective otherwise.
It's REALITY. Simulating Inigo Montoya is fine. Now I want to simulate an armored knight, and that armored knight should kick Inigo's arse. Nobody used thin pointy swords in real combat for thousands of years because it didn't work when the enemy wore armor!
So, you are abandoning reality arguments for "I want" arguments. I have no problem with that, but just be clear that the 'real basis' for what you want Does Not Exist.

7) If we're dealing with lack of reality, I have no problem with Dex to damage if Strength gets the counterbalancing utility feats. I would prefer Dex to damage to be precision damage, at the very least, but if Strength gets some feats to boost AC and other stuff and not rely on Dex for those, I'm happy from a balance standpoint.

Your stance of ENTITLEMENT and 'this is how it should be' to such is what I am opposed to.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

Somewhat related question; Say that a Wizard can cast as many spells as he wants per day, however the wizard can only prepare one spell at a time. Preparing a spell takes a full round action that provokes. What should that wizard's spell progression look like to remain balanced?

Part of the logic behind this question is that magic is allowed to get very powerful because it is a limited resource but what if that limit were diminished? what should be the most powerful spell if spells were not limited to slots?

You'd have to have extremely limited spells known.

This is basically taking the sorcerer's shtick, being able to cast the same spell multiple times, and blowing it wide open with unlimited casting.

If the wizard has access to any spell he likes, and he can cast it an unlimited number of times a day, this will play absolute hell on game balance.

1) There will be no lower level spells. why have monster summoning II when you can cast M Summon V all day along? Why have levitate when you can spam overland fly for the party?

2) the power of long term buffs will be magnified. Since the wizard never runs out of slots, stopping every ten minutes to prepare and cast Shield is a wise tactical decision. Renewing buffs on the rest of the party on a regular basis is basically the same as having them up all the time. Expect steroid monsters all the time.

3) the usefulness of wands and scrolls will drop away without severe limits on spells known. Since the wizard never runs out of spell power, he will never need these items for spells he knows.

4) Non spellcasters will be completely overshadowed by the wizards ability to spam powerful spells, particularly Summons. Other casting classes will be thrown into the shadow of the unlimited casting power of the wizard.

Note that while they gave unlimited casting to the 3e Warlock, they severely curtailed and controlled what 'spells' he had access to. Since his spells were always intrinsicially less powerful then casters of the same level, he never overshadowed them even if he could outlast them.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's from Harry Potter. :)

And don't get me started on the screwy defensive magic of the Potterverse.

The tools are there in 3e+...they're just made too expensive or too limited to use. It's like offense trumps defense, as long as it's magical.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's some suggestions for static defenses I like to use in my homebrew.

Interdiction: This is a combination of Proof against Teleportation and Forbiddance. It completely blocks the Veil in a radius of 10'/caster level, and can be made permanent. The Spell can be cast at any level from 1 to 9, it adds that level to the level of the spell required to enter. So, an Interdiction cast from a 3rd level slot would force you to blow an 8th level slot to teleport into or out of it, or a 5th level slot to blink. Creatures that can't Raise their magic, such as most spell like abilities, simply can't get around the defense.
By Casting the Interdiction from a higher and higher level slot, even the most minor bendings of the Veil become impossible to accomplish.
This tactic shuts down incorporeality, etherealness, and dimensional hijinks, as well as the entire Summoning school.

Stillflight Field: This AoE comes from a combination of Earth and Air magic, and completely neutralizes magical flight. I.e. if you aren't a natural creature that can fly in our world, you can't fly. This prohibition extends to even creatures that are not material or are shapechanged...they are treated as their original forms.
So Dragons, Ghosts, Elementals and other flying monsters hit the edge of the Stillflight Field and fall out of the sky, as do polymorphed mages and t&@%s using Flying magic and effects.

Devoted SPell Engines: This 8th level spell from 1E stopped all spellcasting and activating of magic within it's 10'/level radius, while actually making it easier for spellcasters to sleep and regain spells. It could be destroyed by hitting it with any magical item, but this is easily gotten around by simply sealing it behind a stone wall.
In addition, simply make up a magic item attuned to this particular Engine that makes amulets that harmonize with the field it produces and render you immune to its spells. Every morning, the existing amulets disintegrate, and 8 new ones reform on the item for dispersal, so they cannot be stolen by enemies.
You now have spell supremacy within your stronghold.

Wardfields: This is like Forbiddance, without the Clerical requirement. The default should be Protection from Evil within the area of effect, along with Protection from Scrying. This neutralizes charm magic on your people, stops magical control across its bounds, prevents extraplanar creatures from entering, and means you cannot be spied upon by magic.

Continuous Faerie Fire: This spell could be set to an area, limning everything within the area of effect...especially the invisible, or those hiding in shadows. In particular, it changed color when touching magical items, spells, or effects.
Adjust the spell to only show non-attuned magic, including magical beings, and infiltration becomes nigh impossible.

Elemental Stone: Every hardpoint should have a devoted major Earth Elemental whose job is simply to shut down burrowers, collapse tunnels, and combat things trying to earthglide in the vicinity of the building. Powering a wardfield that forces earthgliders and burrowers to the surface as if the surrounding earth was made of solid iron would be a priority.

This kind of thing should be STANDARD in any campaign that wants to have secure hardpoints, i.e. castles. I submit that they should all be basically cast spells in Ritual, with components typical of making a spell Permanent, and with caster level/spell level easily upgradeable to reinforce defenses over time.

Seriously, can you picture any king's court where divination magic was allowed to work on his courtiers, and enchantment magic allowed to seize the thoughts of a realm's rulers? It makes no sense whatsoever.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Those operations are as available for strong guys as dexterous guys.

No, they're not.

The problem is that for the dexterous guys, its the ONLY way to viably fight, since they can't trade one for one.

And the problem for the high Str/low Dex guy is that he's not dextrous enough to accurately aim and hit these precise spots, making him suffer in comparison to the high Dex/low Str fighter.

That means it's EASIER to defend against a finesse fighter, who also finds it harder to block.

But easier to move out of the way. Blocking takes less strength than attacking, because you parry with the forte of the blade, and redirect the blow. Which benefits from high Dex.

Not only must he block normal blows with all his energy, but additionally these 'crit blows' that currently are not permitted. The strong guy, meanwhile, easily fends off the normal blows and only has to be truly concerned about the crit blows.

'Crit blows' are more deadly, so the more you have to face the more likely one is to land.


And again, Dex isn't the 'to hit' stat. You're totally ignoring the fact that a high Str gives you much, much better control over your weapon. 'Greatsword wielded like a willow wand' is a trope, it's used so often. A high Strength character has superb control over his weapon because it doesn't take him effort to control it, and can move it very, very fast. He has control, and he has POWER.

Finesse only has control.

You're talking about a fighter who not only has high Str but hasn't dumped Dex. No-one will argue that being high in both is better!

High Str gives you the potential to use a greatsword like a willow wand, but with low Dex your control will suck.

A Str dumped fighter wouldbe a poor greatsword fighter, but we have a solution for that: finesse weapons!

For 3000 years, NOBODY used finesse weapons on a battlefield. Finesse weapons weren't used in duels until NO ARMOR came along and made

1) yes, they are. Big guys can eye gouge and throat punch just like little guys can. And they're harder to block.

2) Dexterity has nothing to do with it. He has the BAB, he moves faster because he has more power, and so he's harder to dodge and defend against. Conversely, it's easier for him to block some guy relying on precision and attacking fewer vulnerable spots.

3) It's harder to move out of the way of someone who has more power and equal skill, and it's easier to get boxed in and herded. Blocking improperly can shatter a weapon and numb your whole arm. A low Str dex blocker has no choice but to try and evade and redirect. The Str guy, not being stupid, is going to minimize those options and force the dex guy to block with force. It's called smart fighting and leveraging your strengths. The blocker may expend less energy, but the Strength guy isn't expending a lot of effort to do what he does, simply because he's so much stronger and it's easier for him to swing the weapon.
Str guy isn't going to do tap parries like a fencer. He's going to crash the weapons together and force the dex guy into playing his game. Kindly keep in mind that he has POWER, and the finesse guy does not.

4) Crit blows are less likely to land, and everyone goes for them and knows where they are vulnerable. IF all you are throwing are crit blows, you're easy to defend against.

5) No, I'm talking about a Str fighter who has BAB. You keep ignoring the fact that BAB is coordination, control and skill in combat...BAB lets you hit stuff. BAB is all the finesse a Str guy needs. ANd he has the Strength to turn his BAB from endless hours of combat into control, precision and power.

6) Short swords are finesse weapons and been used in armies for three millennia. Likewise knives. Chains existed. So did stick fighting.
Finesse weapons existed. nobody used them finesse style, because in reality, finesse style doesn't work when you have to deal with armor and active defenses. Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee weren't awesome because they had high Dex. They were awesome because they were really, really good, much better then their opponents (higher BAB)...and they were STRONG.

7) And thank you, it's not about fear, it's about equality. I turn that around and think you are the on suffering from fear that you won't get the option, and you want it.

I can see Dex being a heightened control option. It's inefficient, but if you are really good at it and train hard (i.e. burn a feat) it's viable.
Dex to damage makes no sense at all. Superior coordination does not help you chop down a tree or pound through a brick wall, and you should not do more damage as you get smaller. Everything lauded about 'more accurate blows' is a function of BAB and crits. It has nothing to do with Dex.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Oly wrote:
Tell that to a very skilled and quick (but weaker) Flyweight who wonders why he can't beat Heavyweights in MMA. In a fair fight, they aren't equal.

That's as false as modern fencing.

MMA is a sport, not actual fighting. You are not allowed to insert anything into any orifice (no eye gauging etc.) for example. Basically, any deadly attack available to a real skilled, dextrous fighter is nullified by the rules, while strength is hardly hampered.

Meanwhile, a real smallsword could easily pierce and kill a target, no matter the low Str of the attacker and high Str of the target. This is why some weapons should definately use Dex to attack and damage, simply because that is how they are designed.

You're not allowed to 'crit' and 'one shot kill' in MMA.

Those operations are as available for strong guys as dexterous guys. The problem is that for the dexterous guys, its the ONLY way to viably fight, since they can't trade one for one. That means it's EASIER to defend against a finesse fighter, who also finds it harder to block. Not only must he block normal blows with all his energy, but additionally these 'crit blows' that currently are not permitted. The strong guy, meanwhile, easily fends off the normal blows and only has to be truly concerned about the crit blows.

Big Guy beats Small Guy if skills are equal. IT's a truism and a trope. We don't have fractal edge blades in reality, which turn everything into touch attacks. If we did, yeah, Dex would be the killer melee stat. But in reality, things are solid, weapons have weight, people defend as well as dodge, and armor exists. All those are things that Dex does not help you with.

Any sword will cut right through a target. They are MADE TO DO THAT. So will an arrow! You still have to hit the right spot and get past the defense.

And again, Dex isn't the 'to hit' stat. You're totally ignoring the fact that a high Str gives you much, much better control over your weapon. 'Greatsword wielded like a willow wand' is a trope, it's used so often. A high Strength character has superb control over his weapon because it doesn't take him effort to control it, and can move it very, very fast. He has control, and he has POWER.
Finesse only has control.

BAB is the control stat. Everything else is style.

For 3000 years, NOBODY used finesse weapons on a battlefield. Finesse weapons weren't used in duels until NO ARMOR came along and made them viable. The entire swashbuckling combat style in reality is dependent upon opponents who are NOT WEARING ARMOR. Gunpowder weapons, forcing opponents to ditch armor, were the things that opened up any viability for the finesse style.

So the game is already being liberal with reality by allowing swashbuckling to exist at all. In reality, a swashbuckler's best option when faced with a guy in plate armor is to RUN AWAY.

So, let's stay away from reality here, aye? It's about balance.

Introduce two feats that give Strength builds some of the advantages of Dex builds, and there will be balance and nobody will care.

5E does this. There's advantages and disadvantages for both styles.

There's no balance in PF for this. There's NO REASON why you would not EVER take dex to damage on a dex build melee. None. There's no feat to equal its effect on damage. It allows you to weren't a Str build before, you aren't giving up anything, you're only gaining. No balance, no tradeoff.

Give it a counterbalance for the strength side of the equation, and life is fine.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Modern Rapier has no weight classes because it's not fighting. It's scoring touches. Touches have literally NOTHING to do with strength, it really is pure finesse. The killing factor in Rapier fencing is REACH, and it's counterbalance is SMALLNESS. The one means you can lunge and be immune to riposte, and the other means you have no cross-section and are nigh impossible to land a touch on.

In other words, it's a much better model of actually fighting with deadly weapons than any form of unarmed fighting sport. In real combat, any clean hit will usually end the fight.

Aelryinth wrote:
Let me reiterate: Most of the opposition for a Dex to damage feat comes from the fact there is no counterbalancing Str to Utility abilities feat. If such existed as a counterpoint, Dex to damage opposition would fade away.

You don't need a feat to make strength extremely; it already is. And there's no good reason to require a feat in order to use finesse weapons with finesse. That's like requiring a feat to be able to aim a crossbow; anybody proficient with the weapon at all already knows how to do that.

"Clean Hits" happen in unarmed combat all the time. People don't go down. You can one-shot someone with UA combat, ask any experienced military guy. It's just deuced hard to do when the person knows you are there.

You're talking about crits and kill shots. 'Clean Shots' are very hard to land because people DEFEND AGAINST THEM. So, it's a very lousy way of representing true combat. I mean, seriously, a tall guy running up chest to chest with a shorter opponent and using his height to stab down from above for a touch would simply GET HIM KILLED in a real fight. In fencing, totally legit move.

Ever try to land a rapier touch on someone 4'8 who knows what they are doing? They have no cross-section, they can parry everything you throw at them with minimal effort. In a real fight, someone that small is going to get hurled around and be unable to parry a heavier weapon from a stronger person, and die.
Strength affects ability to carry things, and TH/DMG. And 2 skills.

Dexterity can affect TH, is being argued for damage, reflex saves, Armor Class, initiative, and what, 9 skills?

You're trying to balance "I can carry lots stuff and maybe make Strength checks" against AC, Initiative, reflex saves, and multiple skill checks?

In response to Weapon Finesse, give Str guys their Strength bonus to Reflex saves when in armor.
IN response to Str to damage, let Str guys use their Str bonus instead of their Dex bonus for AC when in medium or heavier armor, reflecting their ease of moving around which a wimpier person just can't do. And it would have the side effect of letting every fighter max out his Class bonus to AC, too!


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:
boring7 wrote:
Caster level isn't actually a prerequisite, it's just how the DC is set. Of course,that means you have to make a DC 25 spellcraft check or fail

Heh. Item create DC is 5 + caster level. Fail DC by 5 or more make cursed item.

By FAQ/Errata can pick caster level. "He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC)"

Pick caster level huge. Fail DC. Useful for beguiling gift.

Fuss fun. Not useful. Educational! Hope Unchained learns. Even more fun is 7gp magic item can destroy a city economy.

That example is taking extreme liberties with the rules.

1) Dividing the price by charges per use is basically restricted to Staves. In all other cases, you'd simply create items with fewer charges.

2) The only normal items with charges are wands and staves. The rest tend to be unique magic items (like the gems on a Helm of Brilliance).

3) Dividing the price by uses/day is restricted to permanent magical items, not spell completion items. The price difference is a part of the base cost. The logic behind this is simple...a potion is a charged item, usable 1/day. Since it only has 1 charge and is only usable once a day, it's price should really be 1/5th of what the players are being charged, right? YEt that's what you went right ahead and did...divided the cost of a wand by 5, while keeping full charges.

So, you'd apply rule #1 to that Cantrip device, and instantly see that it's equivalent to a wand, and should use the wand rules. The uses/day rule only applies to permanent items, so is not applied.
So, you'd pay for the wand the same as any other. If you want a wand that anyone can use, like a potion, you'll have to double the price.

4) The economics are completely bogus. The actual value of that cantrip maker is 375 gp, like any other 0 level device. If it's a permanent device usable 1/day, it's 2000 gp (base 2000 x .5 cantrip x 1st level x 1/5th). Since it's just a wand in another form, you can't make it with 'partial charges', i.e. use 5 charges an activation, so really a 10 charge wand. You pay for all 50.

Secondly, it is introduced as a cost without a benefit. In other words, the people who 'must' pay for it suddenly aren't rewarded for it.
If you 'must' pay for it without a benefit, then you Don't Pay for it. that's economics. Even if that benefit is 'retain market share', you must get a benefit to shell out the money. Since none of that happens, nobody is going to pay.

That cantrip has value to the average craftsman only at one point...when his skill modifier is low by 1. If the cantrip can push it that 1 pt, then the craftsman can suddenly make something masterwork and reap extra rewards.

But there is no difference in the game pricewise between a DC 12 rope and a DC 15. It's just rope.

Now, if you were making armor, those have scaling DC's, and +1 allows you to make a better suit of armor. If that widget was only 7 gp, that might well be worth the investment of going from making plate to full plate (heck, it'd be a 'raw material cost', if you like). Alas, it's far more expensive then that.

If he's at +9, and the cantrip pushes him to +10, he can then make masterwork. It'll cut into his profits, but the extra funds might even be enough to compensate. Unfortunately, guidance doesn't last long enough to affect 8 hours of crafting work like it has to.

The main value to the cantrip is contested skill checks, such as bluff vs Sense Motive and the like. For these, every random bonus is useful, and the +1 MIGHT give you the edge. But only someone who has money to burn would pay this level of price for an uncertain and minor benefit.

4) The duration of the bonus is 1 minute or until you roll. Craft checks are for 8 hours of work. The cantrip will have NO BENEFIT to any crafter.

5) What would actually happen is that the druids would come into town, and their market might be the courtier engaging in contested skill checks. Nobody else is going to look twice at their offering, because they won't get any economic gain from shelling out the money. Nor will anyone buying their wares see any benefit, so they'll 'make do' with the cheaper stuff that is just as good in all ways. Which is also economics.

The rare corner case where someone is at +9 and the widget pushes him to +10 might be a case, too, if you can find a way to make it last 8 hours for a crafter.

If the widget DOES make an item going from DC 15 to 16 more viable, then guess what? The cost of the wand will be reflected directly in the price of the item, plus a profit level. In other words, the shopkeeper would charge 3x the amount of money spent on cantrip charges as a 'raw material' to recover his costs, and that's what everyone would pay for the item that isn't really any better, it just looks like it.

It would be a fool's play on all sides, and unless charm magic or coercion was employed, have little to no effect on the local economy.
So, in summary, that's not a 7 gp item unless you ignore all the magic item creation rules; there must be a benefit if people are willing to put up with the cost; it must last long enough to be useful; and that cost must be definable and logical in order to be shouldered. In most cases, nobody is going to bother to buy the widget, as there's no benefit for doing so in game terms. The only 'leap' in quality is masterwork, which is less a leap in quality then a whole new level. DC 30 plate mail is exactly as valuable as DC 17 in the game.

as for the shelf space example...that's simply a case of underselling glossed up in pretty language. Underselling your competition has been used since trade existed. The competitors had to cut prices and match you to keep their market. Standard fare. It's just a bidding war.

Can you tell I've an economics and finance masters degree?


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, if we're totally throwing realism out the window, then a feat that gives a Str wielder the benefits of a high Dex would serve as proper counter-balance, and str and dex become interchangeable.

That solves all the problems, right?


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I would like to reiterate that one point of Dex wishers is that they confuse high Dex with high skill.

Dexterity represents coordination and agility in Pathfinder. Nowhere in the rules does it have anything to do with speed. Indeed, the only stats related to speed normally are Con for running endurance, and Str for being able to leap higher and farther.

Attacks per round? You could say Combat Reflexes can grant you more attacks...that's the closest you can come. But attacks are a result of skill, and supreme weapon skill is going to look like everyone is picturing awesome Dex to even if the character has a Dex of 10.

Also, you are severely, severely underestimating the power of a high Str weapon wielder with a large weapon, particularly those with inhuman strength levels. A common phrase is 'moves a greatsword like a willow wand.' That's not clumsy, that's POWER. They can be incredibly, brutally fast. They just won't be 'pretty'. Watch some martial artist displays of using a staff or naginata, and see just how fast and controlled those big weapons can be moved. Now picture that in the hands of the strongest guy in the world, who can fight like Jackie Chan.

Weapon finesse also has a poor argument in that it strikes at 'weak points.' Sorry, EVERYONE strikes at weak points. The problem is that the Finesse fighter can't get through anywhere else. The Str fighter can turn a miss on a weak point into a hit by brutally smashing through defenses and armor, where a weak person can't force the issue. It's sort of a Hardness you really expect someone with a 20 Dex to do +5 damage against a wall?
The inability to target anything but weak points and the fact you can't effectively parry against heavier weapons forces you into an agile fighting style. That's a LIMIT OF YOUR OPTIONS. You can't choose to go corps-a-corps with a bigger, stronger man, you can't tank, hack and pound. Your fighting style is more limited, not more open, because you fight with a finesse style. You're more limited in what you can do, but better at working inside those limitations.

The adage in the martial arts world that a skilled big man will beat an equally skilled (and presumably more dexterous) smaller man has endured for centuries. Remember that much of the fighting you see on cinema is meant to be flashy and enjoyable to watch, and so the Dex guys get to win. In real life, you don't want to be the very skilled and fast bantamweight going up an equally skilled heavyweight. You'll get crushed.

Also, armor endured for centuries because armor worked. The thing that killed armor was not the invention of the was gunpowder, which obviated the strongest armor and could be used by anyone. Rapiers and swashbuckling combat did not take off until the invention of gunpowder made wearing steel virtually useless. Even shipboard combat preferred heavier swords then rapiers until the gunpowder age, because at least it was useful against people in armor. Rapiers, not so much.

The above facts are why people don't believe in Dex to damage. They'd be more likely to approve a Bab to Damage feat, because skill can translate directly to more damage. But just because you have better hand-eye coordination doesn't help you damage a brick better, and it blows suspension of disbelief for many people. Not to mention the fact that getting SMALLER means your ability to hit and do damage actually goes UP...which is passing strange.

It also means that housecats beat dogs. Which is also weird.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
He can take the feat Spell Preparation and prepare different and extra spells every single day.
Imma need a source on that for research purposes.

My apologies, I misnamed the Feat. here it's actually from PFS.

The following is a list of sorc stuff every sorc should be looking at.
Couple points for sorcs: First, this feat.
Versatile Spontaneity
You made a good name for yourself in the Pathfinder Society in part because you knew how to prepare for the challenges before you, even if your natural magical abilities lend themselves less to preparation and more to spontaneity.
Prerequisites: Int 13 or Wis 13 (see Special), ability to spontaneously cast 2nd-level spells.
Benefit: When you regain spell slots at the start of the day, you may opt to prepare one spell you don’t know in place of a daily spell slot 1 level higher than the prepared spell’s level. To do so, you must have access to the selected spell on a scroll or in a spellbook, and the spell must be on your spell list (even if it is not one of your spells known). This process takes 10 minutes per spell level of the selected spell. You can cast the selected spell a single time, expending the spell slot as though it were a known spell being cast by you. Preparing a spell in this manner expends a scroll but not a spellbook. A spell prepared in this way is considered its actual level rather than the level of the spell slot expended. You can apply metamagic feats to the spell as normal, as long as the spell’s actual level plus the increases from metamagic feats is 1 level lower than the highest-level spell you can cast. For example, a 12th-level sorcerer with this feat, a scroll of fireball, and the Empower Spell metamagic feat could prepare an empowered fireball spell in her 6th-level spell slot.
Special: If you spontaneously cast arcane spells, you must have an Intelligence score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you spontaneously cast divine spells, you must have a Wisdom score of at least 13 to take this feat. If you have both arcane and divine spellcasting classes, you can use this feat to prepare a spell using a given class’s spell slot as long as you meet the associated ability score prerequisite.
Pathfinder Player Companion: Pathfinder Society Primer is set for a July release, so preorder your copy today to ensure that you can start using the great character options within at the start of Pathfinder Society Organized Play’s Year of the Demon, which launches at Gen Con Indy on August 15.
(Summary: Sorcs can get spellbooks and prep spells for all that wizardly downtime flexibility).

+ Mnemonic Vestment
Vestment, Mnemonic

Aura strong transmutation; CL 17thSlot body; Price 5,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.DESCRIPTIONThe surface of this delicate-looking blue silk robe is adorned with tiny embossed runes across its entire surface.
If the wearer is a spontaneous caster, once per day she may use a spell slot to cast a spell from a written source (such as a scroll or spellbook) as if she knew that spell. The spell must be on her spell list, the same spell level or lower than the expended spell slot, and the same type of spell (arcane or divine) as the spell slot expended. The caster must also understand the written source (such as using Decipher Script (Editor’s Note: This should probably be Spellcraft.) or read magic) and be carrying it. Activating the robe is not an action, but casting the spell otherwise works as normal, including casting time, providing components or foci, and so on. Using a mnemonic vestment’s properties does not consume the written source.

Robe of Arcane Heritage
Robe of Arcane Heritage

Aura moderate necromancy; CL 9thSlot body; Price 16,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.DescriptionThese elegant, dark purple robes are usually decorated with gold stitching suggesting a particular sorcerer bloodline, though some might indicate a family tree.
When a sorcerer dons a robe of arcane heritage, the stitching pulls itself apart and reweaves to match her particular sorcerer bloodline. The wearer treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects.Construction RequirementsCraft Wondrous Item, speak with dead, creator must be a sorcerer; Cost 8,000 gp

Ring of Spell Knowledge

Ring of Spell Knowledge

Aura moderate or strong (no school); CL 7thSlot ring; Price 1,500 gp (Type I), 6,000 gp (Type II), 13,500 gp (Type III), 24,000 gp (Type IV); Weight —Description: This ring comes in four types: ring of spell knowledge I, ring of spell knowledge II, ring of spell knowledge III, and ring of spell knowledge IV.
All of them are useful only to spontaneous arcane spellcasters.Through study, the wearer can gain the knowledge of a single spell in addition to those allotted by her class and level. A ring of spell knowledge I can hold 1st-level spells only, a ring of spell knowledge II 1st- or 2nd-level spells, a ring of spell knowledge III spells of 3rd level or lower, and a ring of spell knowledge IV up to 4th-level spells. A ring of spell knowledge is only a storage space; the wearer must still encounter a written, active, or cast version of the spell and succeed at a DC 20 Spellcraft check to teach the spell to the ring. Thereafter, the arcane spellcaster may cast the spell as though she knew the spell and it appeared on her class’ spell list.Arcane spells that do not appear on the wearer’s class list are treated as one level higher for all purposes (storage and casting).Construction Requirements: Forge Ring, creator must be able to cast spells of the spell level to be granted; Cost 750 gp (Type I), 3,000 gp (Type II), 6,750 (Type III), 12,000 gp (Type IV).

Pages of Spell Knowledge
Page of Spell Knowledge

Aura strong transmutation; CL 17th; Weight —Slot none; Price 1,000 gp (1st), 4,000 gp (2nd), 9,000 gp (3rd), 16,000 gp (4th), 25,000 gp (5th), 36,000 gp (6th), 49,000 gp (7th), 64,000 gp (8th), 81,000 gp (9th) DESCRIPTION: This page is covered in densely-worded arcane or divine magical runes.
It contains the knowledge of a single arcane or divine spell (chosen by the creator when the item is crafted). If the bearer is a spontaneous spellcaster and has that spell on her class spell list, she may use her spell slots to cast that spell as if it were one of her spells known. A page of spell knowledge is priced based on the spell's cleric or sorcerer/wizard spell level, unless the spell doesn't appear on either of those spell lists, in which case it is based on the highest spell level as it appears on any other spell list. For example, a spell that is on the 4th-level inquisitor list and the 2nd-level paladin list is priced as a 4th-level spell.CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be able to cast the spell contained in the page ; Cost 500 gp (1st), 2,000 gp (2nd), 4,500 gp (3rd), 8,000 gp (4th), 12,500 gp (5th), 18,000 gp (6th), 24,000 gp (7th), 32,000 gp (8th), 40,500 gp (9th)


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In an e6 world, you can only control 12 hd of Animated Dead. It's hardly a powerful spell unless you get ahold of a big monster's which case the army will likely turn out to deal with you and your undead horror.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
You know, if anyone in a low magic world did have access to those spells, it would be the very rich King? Just an interesting factoid. Sorry, however much you might wish it to be, low level magic is not an automatic 'I win!!!' Button even in a low magic world.

In the world of the blind, the one eyed man is king. In a low magic setting, those few with magic would be the rulers, not servants to them.

If it was a world where casters are hunted, as has been described, I was supporting just how much havok even the weakest one could still wreak, to indicate the implausible nature of such a setting remaining sustainable.

As much as you might wish it to be, low magic in general is not a "you lose" button.

There's a counterpoint to this. The rich and powerful will simply buy the services of the magical. If the magical refuse to be bought, the non-magical will rise up against them and kill them out of fear for the very powers they are flaunting. After all, the outnumber the magical hundreds to one, and unlike PF, the magical in an E6 world can't slaughter armies. Saving throws also don't have the huge pass/fail range that they do in high level campaigns, either, meaning lower level characters still have decent chances of making saves.

And even in a low magic campaign, if anybody is going to have an attendant who can use magical spells, it's going to be the local ruler. he's where the money, power and influence is, after all.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.

The correct way to price an item is by comparing its abilities to similar items (see Magic Item Gold Piece Values), and only if there are no similar items should you use the pricing formulas to determine an approximate price for the item. If you discover a loophole that allows an item to have an ability for a much lower price than is given for a comparable item, the GM should require using the price of the item, as that is the standard cost for such an effect. Most of these loopholes stem from trying to get unlimited uses per day of a spell effect from the "command word" or "use-activated or continuous" lines of Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.

Kindly note that last sentence. Because you're stereotyping exactly what it means.

The only difference between continuous and x/day is 5 charges. It's the ONLY difference in price. A 5 charge/day item is priced exactly as if continuous, even if it is 'command word activated'. Remove command word, and the only difference in treatment is a 200 gp multiplier in the price.

The only variable here is the fact you are trying to juice the formula for minmaxing. By using command word, you're trying to remove yourself from the comparison which is ruling this whole example by making the error that it removes you from the same paradigm.

Sorry, ozy, but you still have to play within the rules, you don't get to suddenly throw them out the door.

And I was going from memory on the Nat Armor Amulet, but thank you for making my point for me. It's suddenly not cost-effective to do it your way, so you're going to use a cheaper way.

There IS NO CHEAPER WAY. There's exactly one way. The system doesn't mix and match between different methods for the same thing, you don't get to use loopholes to juice the system.

Especially when dealing with AC boosting items.

Your 'command word' is no different then the two examples above - you compare first for an item of similar power. You divide by charges/day. You maybe take off 10% for requiring a command word.

They are all part of the same ruleset, and you're loopholing. It's that plain.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is the outlier not following the rules. See, Bracers of Falcon's Aspect for an absolutely identical example that is ALSO not valid.

So, you are being hypocritical, not I. Citing a clear irregularity as proof of the law is self-defeating.

You are stating, without any support, that the cloak of the hedge wizard isn't following the rules. To try and support this you compare to an item that has been officially banned by PFS.

Has the cloak been banned? No.
Has the cloak been FAQ'd or errata'd otherwise? No.

Any support other than your 'say so' that the cloak is against the rules? None.


The spell-storing wand combo argument is a wand argument. Deal with it. It has no bearing.

I don't know what you mean by 'wand argument'. I provided a mechanism and cost for obtaining shield for each combat during the day.

How does this 'have no bearing' since we're talking about how much it should cost to obtain shield during combat?


X/day items are priced as continuous items if they fall under the paradigm. An AC granting device falls under the AC granting device paradigm. x/day items cost from 1/5 to 100% of a continuous item depending on how many uses they have. Period.

This is absolutely identical to the "Mage Armor casting device = Bracers of Armor" in Ultimate Equipment that you BLATANTLY IGNORING. Where the munchkin wanted to make a continuous mage armor device for a fraction of the cost of the bracers using the spell level x caster level rule.

If it's continuous, then it isn't an X uses per day item.


Yet you are selectively ignoring all applicable precedents that override your view because you are salivating over a cheap bonus for a good deal of AC that you don't want to buy a wand for, invest in UMD, and spend actions on.
I'm what now? I don't have any characters that would require such an item. The only character that would come close is the Magus, and he would just use a wand as...

You really don't see the hollows of your own argument. You are focused myopically on the caster level x spell level and completely ignoring the precedents of pricing.

By your logic:
A +1 Shield of Faith Ring usable 5 times a day should cost less then a +1 Ring of Protection. Same argument as your Shield...except the Shield of Faith isn't as good for what you get out of it.
A Mage Armor Ring usable 5 times a day should cost less then a continuous Mage Armor device. EXCEPT WHEN THIS VERY POINT WAS USED IN ULTIMATE EQUIPMENT AND THEY SHOT IT DOWN.
A +2 Nat Armor Bonus usable 5t/day via Barkskin should cost less then a +2 Amulet of Nat AC. Except this is the same thing as Mage Armor, except the AC isn't fixed.

A Shield bonus is a supplement to an Armor Bonus, but is not listed on the Armor bonus table. Therefore, it's 'another AC type', which goes on the LAST armor table...all other AC bonuses.

X charge per day items are priced as continuous items. It's a fact. You keep choosing to ignore this. Those with short duration spells cost double.

I don't have any problem with wands holding the spells and then shoving them into a rock. The rock still takes an action to use, and the source is still the's a moot argument. The pricing of wands for cost/benefit is not the same as permanent items.

If you don't like how Pathfinder prices AC items, house rule it, Oyz. But just because something is a first level spell doesn't mean it should be cheap, no matter how much you want it to be.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Cloak of the Hedge Wizard is the outlier not following the rules. See, Bracers of Falcon's Aspect for an absolutely identical example that is ALSO not valid.
So, you are being hypocritical, not I. Citing a clear irregularity as proof of the law is self-defeating.

The spell-storing wand combo argument is a wand argument. Deal with it. It has no bearing.

X/day items are priced as continuous items if they fall under the paradigm. An AC granting device falls under the AC granting device paradigm. x/day items cost from 1/5 to 100% of a continuous item depending on how many uses they have. Period.

This is absolutely identical to the "Mage Armor casting device = Bracers of Armor" in Ultimate Equipment that you BLATANTLY IGNORING. Where the munchkin wanted to make a continuous mage armor device for a fraction of the cost of the bracers using the spell level x caster level rule.

Yet you are selectively ignoring all applicable precedents that override your view because you are salivating over a cheap bonus for a good deal of AC that you don't want to buy a wand for, invest in UMD, and spend actions on.

Dude, I'm not the one being hypocritical. I'm the one using Core Rules, and you're grasping for splatbook examples and acknowledged outliers that don't follow the core rules.

By YOUR LOGIC, I should be able to up the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard to 5 uses/day, declare it the price of a continuous effect, and make a permanent Cloak of Shield for like 10k.

Your pricing attempts are illogical, don't follow the core rules, and violate both the spirit and intent of balance and item creation.

Come ON, man. Give it up. If you were making the argument for Mage Armor, it would be the same on my end. Shield of Faith, ditto. The only reason you're using it for Shield is because there's no Cloak of Shield+5 out there, so you feel free to reinterpret stuff as if 'this AC bonus is different.'

It's not working. It's clearly 'any other AC bonus', which puts it up equal to Deflection, 2500 gp x bonus squared. Then adjust for uses/day, double for short term spell, and you've got your item.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blackmoor the setting has the trope that only wizards are responsible arcane casters, and sorcerers are dangerous lunatics consorting with powers they don't understand and are hunted down.

In counterpoint, sorcerers having 'noble' bloodlines and occupying the positions of power would be hugely threatened by the fact that ANYONE with a brain could become a wizard and mimic all their precious magic, and I can quite imagine the pogroms they'd initiate to keep their unique powers to themselves instead of some thieving wizard.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note that paladins don't fall for committing an illegal behavior. They fall for committing an EVIL action.

What you're referring to is a moderately chaotic act at best, depending on which set of 'laws' the paladins deem to be pre-eminent. It is perfectly within the rights of the paladins to ignore an unjust and biased law...and criminalizing the religion of one of the great gods of Good is one of those laws no paladin in their right mind is going to acknowledge as 'right and worthy of obediance'.

So the paladin did exactly what he should in defying the unjust law to help Good followers of Saranrae.

It probably should be noted that the royal family of Taldor also owes their power to Asmodeus, and illegalizing Saranrae's faith is exactly the kind of machination Asmodeus would put into place.

oh, and they are retconning the 'illegal faith' thing to just the Dawnflower sect.

Paladins should have no problem with the scenario. Choosing to enforce an unjust law over the goodness of Saranrae...THAT could very easily make them fall.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For all you people who want to be able to pick and choose from a variety of weapon enhancements;

Price +1 bonus + 1-4 bonus + special
Aura moderate evocation; CL 6th to 15th+; Weight —

A Versatile Weapon is capable of altering the lesser alternate enhancements on a weapon.
When made, a Versatile Weapon assigns a pool +1 to +4 of enhancement bonuses to Versatile (making the true cost of Versatile +2 to +5). This range of enhancements may be altered once every minute as a move action by the wielder of the weapon.
A +1 Enhancement costs 1000 gp to assign into Versatile.
A +2 Enhancement costs 4000 GP to assign into Versatile.
A +3 Enhancement costs 9000 GP to assign into Versatile.
A +4 Enhancement costs 16000 GP to assign into Versatile.

There is no limit to the number of lesser enhancements that may become part of Versatile. Versatile does not, however, include straight numeric enhancements.
Effects that have various subeffects, such as Bane Weapon, require separate assignments for each sub effect (i.e. Bane (elves) and Bane (orcs) requires 2 separate assignments).

Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Mnemonic Enhancer, + Special by assigned powers; Cost +1 bonus + +1-4 + Individual costs.

Note this means you start with the equal of a +3 blade for alternate +1 powers.
But it also finally gives melees some of the combat flexibility that paladins, magic, soulknives and spellcasters enjoy.

A +5, Versatile+4 Weapon would be a +10 weapon that would be extremely flexible, depending on which additional powers it was assigned.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

fighter archetypes basically should not exist. They should simply be alternate feat trees.

There simply is no good reason for them. I assume that anyone creating a 'new' fighter simply assumes that archetypes are just specialized feat trees. Ergo, I don't worry about them at all. Have you even LOOKED at fighter archetypes? Basically, they devote an entire archetype to either one weapon, or one fighting style. Things that a fighter should be able to do 2-3 things of naturally.

Lazar...I'm not sure what to say to your examples, because you're instantly trotting out 'adversarial DM solutions' to standard class abilities.

Teleport can be done via SCRYING. Teleport w/o error doesn't even require that. And in any event, teleporting home is little to no risk at all...and then you can teleport BACK, which is the huge thing to it. Once you've been there, the DM can't do much to stop your coming and going (and don't be silly and think the party is going to teleport into an ambush...nobody would be dumb enough to use the same coming and going point twice in hostile territory.)

Plane Shift gets you to a FRIENDLY place in an instant. You're not on a random're on one of your choice. And 1-100 miles away from your destination on the Prime when you come back is, um, a teleport home. After a full rest and recovery, of course. A couple days ride, at worst. And you think that's a horrible penalty to an instant retreat spell? Plus, this may sound funny, but a thousand mile overland trip or an ocean trek shortened to 1-100 miles is pretty much a time saver, I'd think.

Planar Ally involves a die roll with diplomacy, whatever modifiers you set up ahead of time, and the DM telling you a price in line with who you're bringing in, and for what purpose. That's literally all there is to it. And outsiders don't need to eat. Plus, these are largely friendly're not forcing them to serve in 99% of the cases. You're paying them to do something they are already inclined to do!

I shouldn't even have to bring in things like Commune effects, flight, various divination spells, and other such things that can alter the way the game is played. These are all basic abilities that have nothing to do with trying to piss off the DM, and everything to do with the fact that by their simple existence they change what is possible in the story...narrative power.

The problem is that the story line and the story world are largely based on the existence of the rogue and the fighter, and don't make accommodations for the transforming characteristic of magic, and what it can do to change a story around. 'role play' is not a class ability, anyone can use it.

Not everyone can scry, and then teleport to avoid a thousand mile haul on horseback with random encounters the whole way. Not everyone has class features to fly and thus trivialize some encounters. Not everyone can whip up a small army of magical beings at will with their powers. Not everyone can talk with divine beings and find out hidden things, or suss out secrets with the casting of a spell, or literally build a castle out of mud and a couple elemental friends and no real manpower help.

Narrative power is part of a standard repertoire of class abilities, and using them is not adversarial. It's simply POWERFUL because of what they are.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:


The narrative is the story, and of course when the story is generated everything matters.

Narrative POWER is the ability to change the story.

We need to get to point B from point A. Teleport has narrative POWER. No riding overland for us, thank you!
We need to escape NOW. Plane SHift has narrative simply Get Away. Maybe you can run for it...but you don't NEED to.
We need ALLIES. Calling in Otherplaner allies has narrative POWER. So would your personal army. Nobody gets an army as a result of class features.
We need fortifications! The ability to summon walls of stone, pour rock to mud and dispel back to rock, summon earth elementals to move dirt around, or heaven forfend, open up your own demiplane, is narrative POWER. So is having a thousand followers who could do the job via manpower.
We need to convince NPC X of Y. Charm spells do the job, as does a Diplomancer...independent of role-playing! Remember that we're assuming a DM that follows the rules...anyone can House rule in changes. But anyone can potentially be a diplomancer, not everyone can charm. Charming is a class feature...

Your definitions of narrative power seem restricted to the extreme, either powerful magic or major regional types of power as the only ways to do narrative power.

You seem to define narrative power more in the terms of overriding your DM. You've got this planned for us! Screw you, I've got the narrative power to force you to chuck your storyline!

Again I don't play or run adversarial games of Player vs DM no matter which side of the screen I happen to be sitting on. So yes, my games are that different from yours. By your own measure, most story heroes have little to no narrative power no matter what class they are in as their actions are constrained by the story circumstances.

It sounds more like your game is "My DM took away many of my iconic powers so he can railroad me wherever he likes,", Lazar. That's not Player vs DM, that's a train ride.

I'm talking about class features. Stuff having levels in class X simply allows you to do, you don't have to 'roleplay gimme this DM', you can simply go out and DO it.
It's not about confrontation or pissing off the DM, which is also what you seem to be implying.
It's an ability the class simply HAS. Full stop, end of story.

Now, sure, you can go to your DM who has this massive overland series of encounters planned and conveniently forget that you can simply teleport to the end location and skip all that stuff.
But that's your choice. You HAVE the choice.
Fighter and rogue do not have that choice, that power. They simply have to do what they do.

So, no, by my own measure, characters aren't constrained by the story. Characters with narrative power can, if they choose, change the parameters of the story. Characters without such power have things happen to them, and respond. Characters with it do things and force major changes to the story because of it.

In short, they can operate outside and around the default narrative, and change it simply because of what they are. And yes, this power is most concentrated in spellcasters.

You seem to be implying that there's no problem because Rule O the DM takes care of it and I don't argue. That's Oberoni Fallacy in its classic form. Ignoring the fact there's a discrepancy and problem because the DM waves it away doesn't actually solve the problem.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I was on Reddit's r/rpg sub and the discussion of Pathfinder came up. One of the frequent stated reasons for jumping ship on Pathfinder was the 'toxic' attitude of the community. The general feelings was that the crunchiness brings out optimizers and a sense that you are wrong for 'this option', 'this class', or 'this opinion'. These problems do not exist at the table until the online rhetoric leaks there and outright destroy games because having a fighter/rogue that is a valuable member of the party suddenly becomes WrongBadFun.

Now those aren't my words but I do see things are too far. Before attending these forums I had been playing for a year with no mechanical problems with the game but judging from the forums the system is so flawed and complex and generally hated that I wouldn't understand why people are still playing it if I had zero of those problems at my table. I am very happy that I did not research these forums before my first purchase.

To tie this to the subject; How much help does the fighter REALLY need? We admit that it does not have a DPR problem and people are happily using it so what do we fix? What is the 'fun' that's missing? Are these just biases talking? I know that I HATE playing a Paladin because most of the abilities happen too few times a day. I enjoy spamming my schtick so I am biased against Paladin. My hatred of powerful abilities a few times per...

Discussion on fighters does not center on niche players who want to spam attacks all day, Malwing. Such players have fine times with Rogues and Monks and 3.5e Warlocks. If the DM can cater to that playstyle, have fun, great, enjoy yourself.

What you're having to face with for the rest of us, is that we want the Fighter to be as viable at the complex level as at the utterly simple level.

And at the complex level, there are very few reasons to play the fighter. It just has too many shortcomings, especially when compared with other classes that comprise the same role.

I am not sitting in judgment of your playstyle. But for many people, the argument that the fighter can 'go all day' is very, very empty.

The fighter can go as long as he has healing. Once he runs out of hit points, he's done.
The ranger can heal himself, the barb has DR, and the paladin can REALLY heal himself. They will all outlast the fighter from an endurance standpoint.

The fighter is good with his chosen weapon all day.
The barb, ranger and paladin are good with any weapon. The Ranger is good all day against his FE's. The barb and paladin can nova against bosses, and plug away reliably the rest of the time.

The fighter is good with armor.
The ranger gets barkskin, the barb gets DR and uncanny dodge, and the paladin gets swift action heals and spells to buff armor class.

The Fighter gets bravery.
I'm not even going to try to find another class feature so weak. Even trap sense is better.

The fighter gets a bunch of combat feats.
Combat feats are over-priced and over-emphasized. Comparing the average combat feat to an average class feature tends to resolve poorly...combat feats just don't measure up. They also have very little defensive benefits compared to a class feature, AND they have no utility usages.
The power in feats is with General Feats. With combat feats, you can make a very good melee combatant with Power's really all you need.

So...Pathfinder tends to attract intelligent, imaginative players who've been around for thirty-plus years of their favorite gaming system, if not longer.
We can see the holes for what they are. And as people grow into the game, they start seeing the holes, too. This can be very easily driven home by a skillful player using a strong class to basically do the job of the rest of the players on their own whim (cleric or druid excel at this).

Quite frankly, if your play style is happy with fighters and rogues and monks and you think wizards are weak and clerics can't do much, then there's no reason to even read these are playing a much different style of game.

But you'll find that many of the people who post here know the rules, know them cold, can optimize to beat all out...and simply don't PLAY that way, because they know it wouldn't be fun to do so.
As a matter of fact, on threads like this, I can pretty much guarantee that most of the posters love to play fighters, rogues and monks.
They just want to be able to do with their characters what the other classes can do, even if it's in new and different ways.

So, it's less a case of telling you you're not having fun, then us complaining that we're not having the fun we could with our favorite classes. We DO want something more then spam, and reliance on spellcasters, and equitable defenses, and the like.
In the end, this is a game, and it is a game with rules. It is very simple to be mathematically superior at this game. Gamers tend to want to be good at their games. We can now pick apart the math behind game mechanics and make our own judgement calls, instead of being dictated to or glossing over weaknesses...we can actually see them for what they are.

Role-playing is fun, but it only makes up for weak mechanical effectiveness if you've got a forgiving DM who caters to you. These boards assume equality and unforgiving DM's who adhere to the rules. That's the default paradigm of these boards. If your game is not like that, then we simply aren't talking to you, and you can safely ignore us and have fun with your game.

Anyone can have fun role-playing. But the things discussed here are about mechanics, and we can see and acknowledge the math.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Leadership is a means of affecting the narrative, of determining the direction of the campaign and influence of the player. The casters summon and Call on magical beings, and you have an Army and a skilled lieutenant.

With your army, you can Drive the Story. This gets more impressive if you can train commoners to warriors or experts, and train warriors into fighters and experts into rogues. Suddenly your followers are just better then everyone else's.
And then you train them up in levels, so now you really have broad, low power that nobody else has.
That's affecting the narrative of the story. Sure, you may only really do this once you 'retire' and settle down, but you know? That's right there in the rules.
Having leadership so you automatically get a rogue or fighter cohort is no different then getting an animal companion, except yours is smarter. As long as they don't have spellcasting, you're basically not doing nothing a druid doesn't get at level 1.

What you're basically talking with above is an Aura of Menace type effect, where you can feel how deadly this guy is if he wants you to.

Which sounds like an effect that works more off of Intimidation then anything. You are radiating danger. I'm not sure that's a 'Fighter' thing, either. It sounds more like a high level character or high level melee thing. Being able to feel the rage bubbling below the surface of the barbarian, the whispers of the forest following the ranger around, and the raw arcane power kept leashed by the wizard are all pretty viable for this 'aura' thing.

But, yeah, Bravery's bonus to all checks that use a mental modifier should be a given. Make it a competence or morale bonus so it doesn't stack unduly, and you're good on abuse.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I'm not terribly comfortable with the core assumption for fighter being military leader. I was under the impression that this was the cavalier's job and that fighters just occasionally leak into that territory.

If I do anything I'm more likely to run Fighters with The Talented Fighter rules and make some extra fighter talents along the lines of what I posted earlier. (or just make them into fighter only feats.

The cavalier is a subclass of the fighter, and is not core.

He is not intended to be the leader of armies. He was built with the ability to lead small groups...that's a major difference and a big leg up from a fighter. A cavaliar is basically a noble-born warrior who adheres to a code, with slight exceptions on birth. He is simply a fighter variant. Ideally, he shouldn't even exist...he should simply be a fighter with a different flavor to him.

The Fighter is the professional, full time combatant, the Olympian of the melee classes. Military leadership is one of the primary jobs of any fighting man, and the fighter should be SUPERB at it...soldiering is basically the only one of the classic six jobs he's actually good at.

Instead, he suckeths.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Go right over to the WoTC boards where Tempest Stormwind still posts, Flawed. "You don't have to be good at x because role-play and the DM will give it to you." is still one of his huge pet peeves.

And that's what the Stormwind Fallacy also represents...which ties it to Oberoni, where 'there's no problem because rule o' means exactly the same thing.

You are arguing that you'll roleplay and get the character whatever he needs and 'affect the narrative' that way.

Meanwhile, the wizard is teleporting around the globe, the cleric is summoning servants of the divine to multiply his power , the sorcerer is creating masterwork armor out of raw comps and making a fortune, and they are doing so using class abilities and not really caring what the DM will give them with 'roleplay'.

Which, they can also do, and so double their money. Stormwind. Oberoni. The DM does not solve your problems. Roleplay does not solve mechanical issues in a comparison between classes.


And lo, Flawed, you are attempting to move the conversation again.

We are talking about the Fighter class. NOT a character who happens to have fighter levels.

As soon as you bring in traits, stats, race and FC, you are now outside the confines of the class. YOu are attempting to make this about a character, and refusing to accept the boundaries of what we are studying this through.

Traits, stats, race and FC can all be applied to ANY class. Thus, they are inherently neutral and mean NOTHING in a comparison. The only difference become what the classes itself bring to the table.

Any of those things you give to a fighter you can give to a ranger, barbarian or paladin and end up with a better CHARACTER...because they have a better CLASS.

Your refusal to accept this simple point of comparison is why your opinion is basically not being taken seriously.

And as for the million threads of fighter hate, I think of them more as a million threads of fighter love. Because we love the fighter and want him to be what he should be, instead of what we are stuck with.


RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flawed wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
r/4's have the same number of feats as f/4's

Fighter bonus feats: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20

Ranger bonus feats: 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 18

What am I missing? A f/4 has more feats than a r/4 and they always do and continue to gain more.

Do you always turn to insults and personal attacks when proven wrong and move the goal posts again and again because you don't like being wrong on the interwebs?

Aelryinth wrote:
Stormwind Fallacy

Lol. Stormwind Fallacy. It's the cry of the boards. Where did I say you can't optimize if you want to role play or vice versa. I said a fighter doesn't need a class feature to talk to people and develop relationships with NPCs to accomplish things. Sure, this is true of all classes so what's your point. Spells are NOT the only means of affecting narrative. The only fallacy is the argument that spells win all the time.

Aelryinth wrote:
a buff pretty much every other class can get.

What other classes get it? Where's the validation of your erroneous claims. Everyone gets a dex bonus while in armor. A fighter gets an even bigger one wearing the exact same armor. Not the same thing at all. Other classes don't get this. Stop trying to minimize what a class can do by making false claims.

Aelryinth wrote:
And for practical purposes, a combat line of feats for the archer is exactly the same as a weapon spec line for the fighter. Except they are not tied to one weapon, and the fighter is (or at the best, one group of weapons). It's the fighter who is not only limited to one fighting style, but one weapon within that style, if they wish to stay relevant.

And yet there's archetypes that trade out weapon training entirely. Sounds legit.

Aelryinth wrote:
It's because with spell resources, you don't need the rogue, and you don't need the fighter
And by using spell resources to mitigate tasks like climbing, unlocking doors, bypassing any scenario you've now reduced your...

Aaaand you can't add, either.

Technically, Animal companion is a feat under PF. Track is a feat under the 3E system. And nitpicking numbers is a sure sign of a lost argument. I'll weigh those two against the fighter's heavy armor prof and call it a wash. O, wait, I already did! Funny how people do think ahead like that.
As for insults, do you always assume the other posters are stupid and belittle them to prove your point? Because that is entirely your posting style. Being called on it seems to upset you.
And belittling the Stormwind Fallacy is the cry of people who don't know how the game works. Because it is TRUE. You lost the argument when you moved from class features to 'roleplay'. THe Stormwind Fallacy has covered that argument for TEN YEARS.
How does it feel to be bring up outdated arguments and think they are fresh and applicable, so much so that an entire Trope is named after their irrelevance?
Hey, look at that, taking things out of context again. Great, you're showing your snippiness again. Newsflash, every class can get their full dex bonus to AC in armor if they bother to try. You know, those DEFENSIVE PLANS you were saying the fighter should have. It's like you think other classes can't do the same. And we already showed what Celestial Armor can do. It isn't until the late late late game when you are looking at AC scores of 32+ that the Fighter's class features get him something other classes can't get.

So, yes, pretty much every other class can get that buff.
And look archetypes that trade out the fighter's ability to do damage. Amazing how irrelevant they are to the argument. What was your point, here? That fighters are worse at their primary job, instead of secondary ones?
And by using spell resources by the character who is TASKED TO DO THAT JOB, you are doing exactly what you should be doing. Except, of course, that caster can do other jobs instead of just combat and skills. Which makes the melee and skill monkey irrelevant.
You seem to think spellcasters should be all spell support. I think you need to learn how to play casters doing a specific job in the party, not just doing what YOU think a caster should be doing.
It's like you think there's a rogue or fighter in the same party, standing around. No, the party doesn't NEED them. In their place, you get a melee caster and a skill caster, and can get tons more versatility. Leave those two at the inn. After all, they don't even have the OPTION of having a second fireball prepared to hit the hoard of enemies, yet somehow it's better then having a caster that does?
I'm not assuming anything about the enemy, other then looking at published modules and the sheer variety of monsters and noting, hey, not many monsters have ranged attacks, bows and lots of archery feats aren't all the common, and wizards can easily prepare to bypass those things. And you don't see those things on non-humanoid monsters at all.

But you seem to think wizards aren't smart enough to take into account that the 20% of enemies who stand back and use ranged fire can be subverted. It's like you're playing idiot wizards, genius monsters. What game is that, now?
I haven't seen anything helpful from you, Flawed, that doesn't amount to 'Suck it up, Fighters suck, assign your stats so they suck at their main job, beg the GM for high point buy, and don't play the game until 15th level when you can have this massive int so you can have fewer skill points then the Barb does, still, and be nowhere as good in a fight."

Or maybe you think you're providing helpful advice when you're pouring on the derogatories and outdated arguments?


1 to 50 of 755 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.