|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The idea that the Wizard (implicitly less attractive and probably male) is more competent definitionally is baked in and rather the heart of the problem in many ways.
But if the nerds aren't BETTER than the popular people and the jocks then EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER!
(I have been reading grognards.txt. This has not made me a better person. But it is weird the degree to which Int Supremacy is baked into 3.X and derivatives.)
As far as ACTUAL wacky nonsense concepts I've seen in action, there's this barbarian named Grog who fights with a Merciful greatsword, and, somehow - I don't know the specifics, and I'm too new at this to really guess them - hits waaaay harder with "nonlethal" damage then with lethal. He frequently KILLS people with nonlethal damage.
I accidentally did that TWICE last session. Stupid unexpected crits...(Note to self: When using a Merciful weapon, if you ALMOST drop them with the first attack, don't use Power Attack on the second.)
Consider the endgame of this. Is the witch's player going to like finding out the source of their powers is evil?
If not, how well will the group do with a high-Int Commoner in the party?
"Overpowered" is an issue in context. An easy, general dex-to-damage feat is a giant middle finger to a ton of build concepts that would prefer not to use it.
This seems like an incredibly bizarre statement to me. It's like the existence of non-spellcasting classes is a 'giant middle finger' to the wizards, or something?
(Other way around, actually, but that's another unending argument.)
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Those were also editions that single weapon fighter types got at best, two swings per round at the high end levels. And there were no such things as swift or immediate actions. Lets be aware of the apple/orange comparisons here.
Wellll, not quite. In AD&D, a Fighter surrounded by opponents with less than one hit die (This was back before CR was invented, so this could happen) got their level in attacks against them, and I seem to recall BECMI edition has some neat weapon-mastery abilities at the high levels.
Something like the Martial Master archetype's floating feats would be a good standard option for fighters - it would really increase their versatility.
But it has the same problem so much of PF does, in making System Mastery = Power.
Yeah, this is a large part of the problem, I think. Even if a fighter CAN fillet a dragon in 6 seconds, when the plot requires curing poison, traveling the Planes, detective work, social interaction, or even building a fort, they're stuck standing back and trying to look tough while the COMPETENT people handle things.
Fusing the Fighter and the Rogue (getting a class with full BAB, 8 skill-points per level, and maybe a nerfed Sneak Attack*) might make a decent no-magic class. Just give it a good Will save, for pity's sake...
* (Explain to me why a glorified pickpocket is better at hitting opponents where it really hurts than the alleged professional weaponmaster.)
Seen in another thread, possibly relevant here:
Hence the problems we're chewing on in this thread.
Talek & Luna wrote:
1) No, I never said any person should survive falls from insanely high, HALO like parachute drops. That should be DM narrative at that point because you should be dead. Even Conan should not survive those types of falls.
Ahhh, this takes me back to the Good Old Days of rec.games.frp.misc. We must've spent a few man-centuries arguing back and forth about whether Conan should have a non-zero chance of getting shanked in a back-alley by some hood with a rusty dagger if the dice JUST HAPPENED to come up the right way. These days, we'd just chalk it up to 'narrativist' vs. 'simulationist' and call it a day.
HP make very little sense as anything BUT 'ablative plot armor' - and part of that is the writer slipping in some ridiculous explanation for how you survived that Plummet To Certain Death if need be. Happened all the time in the pulp stories that were one of the inspirations for early D&D.
Essentially, rather than the Fighter being representative of a fantasy soldier, replete with all the skills and versatility that were required of soldiers even in medieval times, he's a roided out bodybuilder, and shares much of the same issues. Sure, he's objectively physically stonger than some of his peers, but God help him if the challenge requires him to scratch his own back.
Yes. By the rules, fighters are pretty good at delivering HP damage with one preferred weapon, but nearly hopeless at everything else.
Also, the "exercise and pursuit of physical prowess is really hard in the real world" has exactly nothing to do with Pathfinder. Golarion is a world where a guy literally used the pursuit of personal perfection through exercise and meditation to become a god. Your personal experiences as a hobbyist in the realm of exercise and the arts martial should absolutely not be informing what a high level fantasy character in such a world is capable of achieving.
And that's the mindset that makes fixing the fighter pretty much impossible - some people are PERSONALLY OFFENDED by the idea that a fighter can do anything that The Guy At The Gym can't do.
(I've been reading Something Awful's "Grognards.txt" compilation of idiotic gamer quotes, and variations on that attitude show up a LOT.)
So all we need to do is come up with bonus feats for level 10+ Fighters as powerful as level 5+ spells!
(And for my next trick after that, I'll unscramble an egg.)
Natan Linggod 327 wrote:
Talek & Luna wrote:
Stop making martial feats and training seem like its no big deal. It is in fact a huge deal and very hard to get to the next level physically.
I find it hard to believe that sheer physical effort should be MORE restricted than the ability to reshuffle reality.
All he needs is an army of incorporeal undead, pretty sure we don't have any magic weapons on earth.
That's only a good plan if you want to rule over a dead world.
Thank you for your contribution to this thread. please be sure to close the lid, flush, and wash your hands before you leave.
I dunno if I'd go THAT far. Storyteller system has its own problems.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
The only ones that actually accomplish Pathfinder level feats are either literal Gods or in anime.
A lot of actual mythological gods have less magic power than a max-level PF caster.
Look at Odin, bragging about the 18 spells he knows. Bless his little heart. (Edit: And I got ninja'ed, appropriately enough.)
Talek & Luna wrote:
Why? Because you are biased against wizards? It makes far more sense for a wizard to have a ton of skills than a fighter. Wizards deal in academia. Most people in academia have a far greater selection of skills than others in a profession that does not require much learning.
Skills are not all 'book learning'. They also include everything you'd need to run an obstacle course, keep watch, stay alive in the field, or build a fort.
Talek & Luna wrote:
Rangers are in my mind much more like special forces. Trained in hit & run and guerilla tactics. It makes sense that they get perception due to ambushing prey and looking out for ambushes. Fighters should not get to ruin everyone one else's perk. Rogues should hands down beat fighters in stealth vs detection scenarios.
And fighters are stupid meatshields, I hear you imply.
Milo v3 wrote:
HP is "the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." Doing that to having your head cut off is rather "anime".
Once again, we are forcibly reminded how "Anime" the Knights of the Round Table (and in this case, their enemies) were. :D
It has a really high chance of killing a single non-Paladin foe. Almost any single non-Paladin foe. But a group? Someone's gonna make the Save.
It's downright ADORABLE the way you think the dice won't slaughter the party mercilessly.
I guess we can add 'Make Sense of Hitpoints' to the list. :)
Here's one that's way EASIER than it should be: A typical Pathfinder human can fully recover from having a vital organ ripped out of their body by an enraged barbarian in 1-4 days.
Quark Blast wrote:
I'm not sure it would be a huge improvement.
Another one: Dodging. Aside from Monks, a 20th level whatever caught with their armored pants down is just as easy to hit as a level 1 whatever.
Lucas Yew wrote:
Hitting 4 people standing apart 10 feet in a straight line in 6 seconds. Even a totally frail guy like me can do it in real life, but...
Hitting things, period, really.
I saw an amusing video a while back of a tortoise headbutting a trash can 8 times in about 6 seconds.
It must be an EPIC LEVEL tortoise.
Edit: Also, bleeding. Stabbing someone with a sharp object isn't enough to make them bleed over time, you need magic or a feat for that. (Which makes it harder to do that hoary old cliche where a wounded person lasts long enough to say something before dropping dead. It's still possible with poison and such, I guess.)
There's some things that are bizarrely difficult in Pathfinder.
1: Jumping high. At level 3, a Wizard can levitate to any height they like. At that level, good luck jumping higher than your height, anyone but a Gnome Monk!
2: Regeneration It is significantly easier to bring someone back from the dead than to restore a missing ear. (Do the rules make any allowances for if they died of decapitation?)
3: Surviving cold weather. By the rules, a skiing holiday is risking death, and a Minnesota winter should be a TPK.
Any others people can think of?
A theme song for your game. :D
My group also has a reckless player in it - his latest escapade involved his monk diving into a group of 'Adherers' (flypaper mummies, basically), relying on Freedom of Movement and sky-high AC to protect him. He got away with 6 HP left (out of 70-something) and no pants. I dunno if character or player will wise up before death...
Yeah, but you're overfocussing. The 'poor tactical decision' was playing a martial, because they didn't understand how hard the rules punish that choice.
(Also, your post made my Condescensionometer started beeping. Can't imagine why...whoops, there goes the sarcasm detector!)
Well, there's no accounting for bad rules design. Then again, this was 2nd ed, so I shouldn't be surprised. That edition from what little I can recall was all about weird (nearly-)auto-win spells and abilities.
First Ed, actually. (I'm OOOOOLD.) And yeah, the whole point of 1st-ed wizards was that they had some impressive Win Buttons... once a day... if they lived long enough to use them.
Kahel Stormbender wrote:
Back in AD&D times, you could blind someone by casting Light directly on their eyes. Continual Light would perma-blind them.
Not sure why you would try and trip someone up when you both have weapons in hands. It seems to me that tripping should be difficult else people would be doing it all the time.
Yes, the nerve of that trained, experienced warrior, trying to do anything more interesting in a fight than roll hit then damage.
Basically, yes. Because MAGIC CAN DO ANYTHING, whereas non-spellcasters can't do anything that guy at the gym can't do (unless they've spent multiple feats on it). (And outside of combat, those stoopid fightars aren't even as competent as real-world Boy Scouts.)
How'd it end up like that? Let's ask Skip Williams, designer of D&D 3rd Edition:
Likewise, there was a vocal group that steadfastly opposed anything even faintly magical for the feat selection or for the class powers for any non spelllcaster. So, for example, in 3rd edition you can't choose a feat that lets you perform a few useful cantrips, a rogue can't pickup a class ability that allows fast travel via shadows, and a fighter can't gain a class ability that that paralyzes lesser foes with fear. Again, 4th edition got some great mileage out of magics tailored for every class.
Wizards are SUPPOSED to be Supreme Overlords of the Cosmos, Fighters are SUPPOSED to beat the hitpoints out of things one full-attack at a time.[SARCASM]That's balanced, right?[/SARCASM]
Wuxia thing, actually. I've seen characters with prehensile hair in Chinese Ghost Story and Bride With White Hair (who got an archetype named after her!).
Consider playing a different game.
Toon, Kobolds Ate My Baby, Hackmaster, or Paranoia sound more their speed.
As has been said, ask them: "Guys, WHY do you always play such suicidally stupid murderhoboes?"
Hugo Rune wrote:
If you wanted to avoid rolling a new character solid tactics and intelligent roleplay were required.
There's not a lot of 'roleplay' involved in searching every 10-foot square like you're defusing a Viet Cong tunnel.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Pathfinder players who couldn't cope with such traumatic event shouldn't play
This highlights one of PF (and D&D's) big problems - characters are excessively gear-centric. A fighter's likely to be specialized in one type of weapon (and needs armor), a wizard with no spellbook (or component pouch!) is a Commoner with a good Will-save, even a cleric needs a holy symbol.
This was LESS of a problem in AD&D because magic items were so random there, but it was definitely still a problem. And AD&D had a certain attitude that PCs could do anything a real human could plausibly do, instead of needing sixty bazillion skills and feats and whatnot to achieve baseline competence.
Blame the game for making this 'traumatic', not the players for being [sarcasm]WEAK BABIES NOT LIKE REAL MANLY ROLEPLAYERS[/sarcasm].
(And getting mad at cutscene railroading is perfectly reasonable for players.)
Matthew Downie wrote:
I should've mentioned the dozen or so OTHER evil flying heads that were spitting (weak) elemental blasts at the monk...
Just a Guess wrote:
Vargouilles, right? ONE of those damn things nearly TPKed our group of three. Thankfully, the one guy who DID make his save fended the enemy off until the other two snapped out of it.
One problem with insta-death stuff is that PF, as a game, generally doesn't allow insta-kills in combat - hit points exist to give an experienced character SOME confidence that they can survive at least a little while. But Save-or-Cry stuff cuts right past that, and you live or die based on pure chance. Rather annoying.
A good thing to include in the statblock of your critters is "Morale". What will make them flee? 7hp or less? 15hp or less if their leader is dead? If more than half of their numbers fall? If a cleric presents a holy symbol? And why are they fighting? For a lot of critters it's ok to have the simple "Fight to the death because they want to kill the party and take their stuff", but a large amount of creatures aren't suicidal levels of greedy like that.
Fun fact: Basic D&D (You remember, the simplified version of AD&D, for kids) HAD a Morale stat, so it was possible to send enemies running, or negotiate or bribe them. Meanwhile, 3.x players often assume everything should fight to the death. Go figure...
What things can be better done by mundane means than through magic?
Just about the only things I can think of are building long-term relationships and (possibly) architecture.
Derek Dalton wrote:
Almost all the archtypes for Arcanist are not worth taking. Same with the Wizard.
Most archetypes aren't worth taking (unless you have a very specific character concept), period.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
*cough* devasprobablycomefromthesamerootword. *cough*
Martials are mundane, highly trained and skilled, but mundane...
And therefore, they SHOULD NOT BE IN THE GAME past level 6 or so, because after that, you've left 'mundane' bleeding in the dirt and every opponent worth mentioning has magic powers of one sort or another.
Jack of Dust wrote:
But that's ANIME!!1!@! You know, like the Ramayana or the Táin bó Cúailnge!
It's nothing like Darkest Dungeon's, but Unknown Armies has a really good sanity system, too. (To sum up: PCs can take different types of mental trauma, which are tracked separately. Either they get Failed notches, which means they're hypersensitive to that kind of trauma, or Hardened, which makes them ignore weaker traumas of that type. The bad news is that too many Hardened notches make you lose connection to your own emotions, which penalizes you in-game.)