Everyone wont fail sure, but your 10 str caster can go down in 2 failure.
Yeah but a tiger pounce at CR 4 is likely to kill you outright if you're a squishy caster. I'm not really seeing where is is really all that terrible. Mummies are worse and I don't think they're over-CRed either. :P
EDIT: Actually I'm a little curious. What do you think of Basilisks? :P
Mmm...I dunno. It's DC 14. Even with a +0, you've got about a 35% chance to save. Four of them would be CR 8. It seems like the chance of everyone in the party repeatedly failing would be very slim. (o.o)
As finer reason than most. Enjoy your book sir. :)
Oh god those things were horrible. XD
Do you mean this post? Probably not since there's no yelling involved in said post. Just curious though.
What Ashiel understands better than most is that Pathfinder is an overlay of multiple effectiveness curves: Hit points accumulated versus damage, healing versus damage, To-Hit numbers versus AC. Ash understands the numbers behind the system as a systematic whole.
Thank you AdAstraGames. That is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me on the Paizo boards. (^-^)
That's not a bad idea if possible. Though honestly I've run for some pretty large groups. In a sense it's pretty fun if you're good at moving your actions along (larger groups means I get to include much, much larger and more dynamic encounters and that makes me giddy).
PS. Done the build thing. It gets old. I stopped posting builds after I saw them repeatedly ignored. I've got better things to do with my time, like listen to Lumiere tell me about this bizarre game.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
My face and my palm are going to need some alone time together.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Low wealth doesn't help but it also sounds like he's just strait out ignoring rules whenever it suits him. I imagine he probably didn't take into account that sneak attack on a cat is almost assuredly useless in anything other than a surprise round charge since cats have no reach.
There's also the nature of being unable to purchase magic items but granting NPCs access to them in the form of consumables is kind of a huge steaming pile of auroch patties. Either be consistent with your lack of magic marts or don't. (Pet peeve here)
Also, while I'm actually not opposed to the idea of animals with class levels but within reason. If you wanted to represent a particularly awesome war-animal, I wouldn't mind if someone tossed a level or two of an NPC class like warrior onto it to represent its ferocity or combat training, but animals with heroic class levels just rubs me the wrong way something fierce.
Frankly I wish I could GM for you just a few times.
That makes a lot of assumptions about the campaign to make statements like that. You are also emphasizing only what you might do. You state no summoner is going to buy or craft wands...well, that's fine if you think that but they can and I've seen them do it. You say they won't have item creation time but you are not what decides that and in many sandbox games (and some non-sandbox games) they can do so when they want to do so.
Gear is nice. Of course I also noted that you don't actually have to play dress-up with your eidolon for them to be powerful, and gear is pretty meaningless to summons. Which pretty much just leaves you padding your defenses and possibly getting a weapon to shoot or poke with when you're not doing something grander. Since defensive items are cheaper than offensive items we're in luck here.
As for the consumables such as scrolls, they do count because they are a class feature (the ability to use scrolls and wands and staffs with spells from your class without making a UMD check is a feature of your class and nothing else). I've seen enough to know that having one or two major scrolls can be a get out of jail free card.
I'm also not sure why you seem to ignore all the rods other than extend.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
That explains a lot. What you are playing is barely anything like the Pathfinder described in the books. And it sounds like it is being ran by a Chaotic Evil GM.
I'm more Lawful Evil myself when it comes to encounters, Lawful Neutral when arbitrating, and Lawful Good when helping players make choices for their characters.
the Queen's Raven wrote:
I'm pretty happy with it. Pathfinder has the most balanced core of any iteration of D&D I've ever seen before it, and without giving up character building opportunities.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Not in my games and we're not scared of pushing the system to its limits. Part of love for the Paladin for example stems from its ability to shrug huge amounts of punishment. Survival is something I prize.
If you're following the rules the game tends to set up pretty well. Can you give me an example of rocket tag? Because honestly a battle like this is similar to the crazy s+!@ my group takes on at high levels, and we do it on 15 point buy and don't use hero points.
You've Probably Seen This Before:
The few individual monsters who can actually take on a party do so because they have the means to prepare, and many of them have powerful summons. For example, solars are excessively powerful and could take on an entire party, but they can also gate more solars, chain-spam summon monster VII to call in celestial Tyrannosaurs to swallow PCs and their minions whole, etc, etc, etc, etc.
High level combat is NOT like low level combat. It is a tactical game of dropping nukes and bio-weapons on your enemies while shielding yourself with your star-wars program and hazmat teams. A high level encounter where enemies are using their full resources is a terrifying ordeal. A 20th level party vs a Solar for example is akin to the freakin' Ragnarok on the scale of extreme terror that it would incite in normal humans, as on this scale you are literally hurling meteors at people, calling upon earth shattering storms, and cracking the land and sundering buildings, while the legions of heaven and hell descend or crawl up from their realms to join the battle.
CR 20 encounter = 307,200 XP
This is a demon horde led by a Marilith, who commands their fiendish legions. The entire horde can greater teleport at will, and works together. Most of them can summon more demons as spell-like abilities. Here is a quick rundown of the types of things these demons might do.
Marilith uses telekinesis at range to hurl objects or even other demons at the party, or uses it to grapple an enemy magician. If she sees an opening, she will get in and attack an opponent with her tail and constrict them. Anyone who is constricted must make a DC 25 fortitude save or fall unconscious for 1d8 rounds. At this point she moves on to the next foe, as one of the succubi coup de grace the unconscious character with a caster level 12 vampiric touch, likely killing the victim and buffing the succubus to hell and back with temporary HP. Blade barrier controls the battlefield and makes moving around a pain for those without teleportation.
The Nebasu wander around spamming enervation at targets, especially those in heavy armor, inflicting 1d4 negative levels with each ray that hits, no save. There are 6 of them, so that's a potential for 6-24 negative levels. Every negative level inflicts a -1 penalty to all saving throws. When they are out of rays, they will spam telekinesis to hurl objects at the party, or force DC 19 will saves or be hurled about like a rag doll.
The shadow demons seep through the floor and attack anyone who is on land using their blind-fight feat to ignore the miss %, and since they have cover you can't make AoOs against them, and retaliating against them is something of a pain, since you can't ready a full-attack against them. Your best bet is to take to the air. Each shadow demon of course attempts to summon another shadow demon with a 50% success rate, so 4 demons becomes 6 more than likely. They too can also stand back and spam telekinesis.
The succubi screech about the battlefield charm-bombing enemies and taking pot-shots at downed foes with vampiric touch when they're down. Of course, they all attempt to summon Babau demons with a 50% chance, so that adds another 2 acid-coated demons into the mix as cannon fodder. They also will not hesitate to dominate animal companions, mounts, and similar creatures. They're not difficult to kill, but they will generally spread out and distract the party, and can turn ethereal at-will, allowing them very good tactics. If desired, they can fly around and drop nets on the party to entangle them, as they can comfortably carry plenty of them and still greater teleport around the field.
The vrocks all begin a dance of ruin, spreading out into groups of 4 vrocks for maximum effectiveness. Every 3rd round, each group unleashes a 20d6 blast of lightning in a 100 ft. radius, which all of the demons are immune to. So if you don't break up or crowd control the vrocks, you will be eating up to 4 instances of 20d6 electricity damage, which is an average of 280 damage anywhere the radius's overlap. Alternatively, they can keep flying around the party screeching hellishly, forcing DC 21 saves vs stun for 1 round. Becoming stunned can easily mean death in this battle, and you can get hit by up to 15 of these at once, making saving a harry business. That's not counting the auto-damaging spores they can shake every 3 rounds.
The Glabrezu play hell with the party's counters. They possess at-will mirror image, making taking them out difficult, and they can function as spotters for the team, utilizing their constant true-seeing ability. Each can cast power word stun to screw over any foe with 150 HP or less. All can cast reverse gravity and dispel magic, and won't hesitate to shut down the magic items of the party, since a CL 16 dispel magic can shut down the vast majority of magic items easily. Finally they can drop unholy blight every round without fail, dealing 8d8 damage to all good creatures in an area and forcing saves vs nausea. If pushed into combat, they have a 15 ft. reach and decent natural attacks.
Dretch simply skulk about the battlefield dropping stinking clouds into the fray. All the demons are immune to the cloud, but it forces a 5% chance per round to become nauseated for 1d4 rounds, potentially causing some PCs to lose several rounds worth of actions. They also use it because the 20% concealment it provides to people inside the cloud completely negates sneak attack, and thus ruins any chance a rogue has to sneak attack their bosses. With five of them, they should also be able to summon an additional dretch, allowing up to 5-6 stinking clouds throughout the battle.
All of the above is assuming, of course, that none of them are using any of their treasures themselves (such as the marilith using any superior weapons, or clad in armor, or any of them wearing rings or cloaks or anything cool like that, which may indeed be part of their treasure and thus added to their statblock by the GM).
Even this isn't "initiative, lulz" at even 17th level. >.>
Now that I mentioned Vital Strike, I would like to say that I do agree it should be applied to charges. Unsure on Spring Attack, but definitely charges.
I like the idea of Vital Strike. Unfortunately it diminishes the benefit of class features like Weapon Training and favors big weapons in the extreme. It also generally means you move, attack, get ravaged by someone else's full attack (but then this is a general problem with the move+attack situation).
It's not bad. But it's not particularly special. In this example the ogre mage is lower in CR than the fighter himself. If the ogre mage backs up and gives some ground, the fighter trades his action for his enemy's.
At 1st level, if a fighter fights an enemy that is CR 1/2, more than likely he traded his action for ALL of the enemy's actions. Because he just killed the enemy or put the enemy into critical condition (where most creatures sentient or not are not going to fight it out unless posed no other choice).
I'm not saying anyone is useless. I'm saying you are relatively less powerful and less capable of doing your job than when you were 1st level. The amount of enemies and Hp that you can meet in fair combats far outweighs your ability to neutralize a threat. Even if that threat is nothing more than a trash-mook.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
It's important to keep in mind enemy HP. When you're not full-attacking you are not dealing meaningful damage at higher levels. Just as an example to Odraude, let's say you have a 9th level Fighter (+9/+4 BAB).
Now let's say this fighter began with an 18 Strength (do-able on 15 pb with a +2 racial), and has increased his Strength to 22 (2 level increases and a +2 item). Now he's hitting at +15 for +9 damage with his two-hander (let's give him a greataxe 'cause axes are cool). Now let's give him a nice +2 weapon. That's +17 for 1d12+11 damage. Now let's give him Power Attack for another +9 damage, bringing him to +14/1d12+20 damage. Dat is some serious damage you might say! But wait, we're not done yet, we toss on Weapon Training (axes) for +1, and weapon specialization and greater weapon focus!
Muahaha, behold your mighty 1d20+17 to hit and 1d12+23! Mucho damage eh!? :D
Except...you're level 9. The average CR 4 enemy has enough HP to survive one of your attacks (40 hp). The average CR 7 enemy has enough HP to survive a few of your hits (85 hp). The higher the CR of the encounter goes the less you matter because HP scales faster than damage. The more dynamic the encounter you face, the less you matter because the more foes and/or tricks an enemy has the less likely it'll matter.
If you encounter a pair of Ogre Magi (a "challenging" encounter, merely APL+1, each with 95 hp each plus regeneration), moving up and hitting them will deal around 22.5 points of damage on a non-crit. You have dealt about 22.5/190 total HP for the enemy encounter. But since enemies aren't just HP bubbles the ogres move away from you in flight (one takes a withdraw action into the air and heals 5 hp from regeneration). And so on and so forth.
At very high levels it's even worse. You probably won't deal 20% of a mook's HP per swing.
The strongest you will ever be relative to the enemies you face will be at 1st level where a single move+attack has a good chance of removing a whole creature from a fight, even if that creature is near your CR.
Rangers don't need major buffs, IMO... I'd give them the Trapper archetype for free and scaling senses as an alternate Hunter's Bond (low-light vision at 2nd level, darkvision at 6th, scent at 10th level, blindsense at 14th level and blindsight at 18th), but I'm not sure how these senses balance out. They don't seem too much for the levels where they are acquired, but I can't be sure... So I'm still crunching that.
Oh I wasn't criticizing. Just noting that though that sounds like some huge buff it's really not. Even without any buffs I'd still play a Ranger or a Paladin in your games, though now I might consider running a Fighter for some things. :P
Zombie Ninja wrote:
It's the action economy. It has been pretty much forever. It was less noticeable in 3E because haste allowed an extra standard or move action (then called partial actions). Since every martial under the sun had some means of haste at at higher levels (and in the iconic 4 person party you probably had it from 5th level and up) you could move and full-attack.
3.5 removed the ability to take an extra move with haste. Martials have been crippled ever since. So much so that martials who get the ability to move and attack seem leaps and bounds better than any who cannot. This is also one of the reasons ranged attackers dominate the scene (they don't have to move to get their full-attack on so it's much harder to avoid them unless you can get total cover).
There is a funny fact that while every other class gets relatively stronger as they gain levels, martials get relatively weaker. You will never - ever - kill things as efficiently as you can at 1st level. At first level moving and using a standard attack can slay a single CR 1/3 opponent in a single blow. By 11th level, moving and using a standard attack wouldn't slay a CR 5 enemy with with any reliability.
I'm not sure anyone cares, but since I was discussing the summoner in the thread earlier, I'd probably prefer to use the following progression for summoners in my games henceforth. Summoner Spell Progression Change. Then give 'em the appropriate HD and BAB to go with it and you eliminate pretty much all my complaints with them in one fell swoop.
Yeah grappling creatures with natural attacks is usually a really bad idea. Hell, grappling creatures with 1-handed weapons is often a really bad idea too (generally they can full attack your face while you have to not full-attack them to continue trying to maintain the grapple).
Base AC 19 at 10th level. Hmm. I guess 9,000 gp for +3 armor bracers, 8,000 gp for +2 ring of protection, another 8,000 gp for natural armor +2 on some other body slot besides neck. I guess that leaves us with 5,000 gp for a [i]+1 amulet of mighty fists[/url]?
That brings use to...
Against a CR 10 average that gives him about a 65% chance to hit when using Flurry of Blows, and the enemy has a 70% chance to save. The chances of landing a stunning blow during a flurry are about 45.5%. The chances of him landing it when he's not using flurry are about 35%.
For the enemy, the chances to hit the monk are about 65% for 29.25 per full attack.
That's what the base monster creation chart gives us. It's a little worse in general if you're actually fighting fully fleshed out monsters with actual abilities and such, but it gives us a nice starting point.
Zombie Ninja wrote:
As far as I know the only ability that allows a full attack at the end of a movement is pounce, I could be forgetting something, but I'm sure someone will remind me if I am.
It's the only core method I think. There's a magic item in a splatbook that lets you take a move action a few times per day. It caused some hubub as to whether or not it was overpowered (it's not overpowered really, it's just that having it is so critical to actually being able to move and still do something meaningful).
Psionics allows for moving and full-attacking. There's a power called hustle which is a swift action and gives you a move action. It costs some juice but it can allow you to move and full attack in the same round. It's one of the reasons this psionic monk actually makes a pretty solid skirmisher if you want to go that route.
Something I might note is that in a tabletop RPG an "encounter" - random or not - doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to break down into combat. My players frequently find characters (including monsters) doing their own thing out in the wild. Sometimes it's just nice to see that the world is alive around you. For example, I once had a party that was 1st level and traveling through the wild. They saw an Ettin (the two headed giants) hunting deer off in the distance (this actually wasn't a random encounter but just some scenery I decorated the trip with, but random encounters are good for this sort of thing too). Unfortunately the monk player (he was new I admit) decided that Ettins are monsters and if they saw one it must mean they can fight and defeat it and should do so. The monk shall be missed. The Ettin didn't even have to finish his deer hunt, for clearly his gods had delivered a meal right into his arms. XD
In another adventure, a pair of adventurers were traveling and saw some worgs in the distance. They shot at them and caused them to run off. Later during their camping period they heard what sounded like a woman screaming for help. When the pair rode out towards the edge of the forest to investigate the worgs sprang their trap and slaughtered their horses. Frantically the two adventurers scrambled up a tree. They sat in that tree as the worgs teased them for days, living off the trail rations and water in their backpack. The worgs were taking shifts waiting for them to come down from the tree, and would eat their latest hunts in front of the very hungry pair ('cause they're jerkasses like that :P).
However the unusual worg activity attracted the attention of the forest unicorns who came and curbstomped them some worgs and drove them off and allowed the pair to get down. They still talk about that adventure with great glee, laughing about them being stuck in that tree and chucking alchemist bombs at the worgs when they got too close.
Random encounters can be great tools for creating more fun-filled and harrowing adventures. It's really just how you choose to use them.
Frankly I don't put a lot of stock in pounce myself. Pounce doesn't mean a lot in a ton of situations. It relies on charging and there are lists of situations where charging is not viable. Some of the more common ones are situations where you are downhill, on difficult terrain, in the snow, in a swamp, caltrops scattered everywhere, stuff is in your way (even things like tables, chairs, barrels, etc).
One of my groups is preparing to play Reign of Winter and we've all pretty much made peace with the fact charging is going to happen very rarely and our movement speed is going to blow. :P
EDIT: Actually this is exactly what I mean~! Pounce looks good on paper if you're only looking at the DPR in the situations you will get to pounce. Good theorycrafting looks at the environmental rules, the lighting rules, the charge rules, and the combat rules and weighs how frequently you are actually going to get to do this. In any situation where you A) cannot charge in a strait line, B) have hampered movement, C) have a broken path you have to jump over, D) have something between you and your opponent; suddenly Charging is not an option and thus pounce is dead in the water.
That may be worthwhile to know if your GM tends to run games with dynamic environments! :O
On Monk Stunning Fist DC
In Reality: Monks are more starved for ability score modifiers so they tend to have a lower modifier by a few points. Monks have to hit their opponents so AC becomes a new form of saving throw against the attack (if you your opponent has a 60% chance to ignore your attack and a 45% chance to successfully save against the attack means you only have around a 22% chance to land your stunning fist), and their effect is wasted on a miss (contrast to a held touch spell which is not expended if you miss on an unarmed attack). Effects that provide evasive benefits such as concealment, cover, mirror image, blur, displacement and so forth can push the chances down even further; where most of these things have little to no effect on most spells. For example, if you have a 40% chance to hit, a 25% chance to save, and a 20% static miss chance (such as from a blur spell or mundane concealment) then your chance to successfully land a stunning blow looks more like 17.6%. With displacement or similar, you're looking at more like 11%.
From a meta-perspective we note that any situation where the monk has to move means that the monk's to-hit chances are lowered. We also can examine and see that the high statistic on most enemies who are going to be willing to engage the monk on his terms (in melee making full attacks) will generally have superior fortitude saves than those that would not. So while this isn't something that is directly within the monk's mechanics it is another common mechanic that influences the monk (these associated mechanics are often where you find the phenomena of the "stealth buff" or "stealth nerf").
What's amusing about this is that in this scenario the monk has a 75% chance of successfully landing the saving-throw effect based solely on whether or not our hypothetical opponent can save against it or not. However the devil is in the fact he's testing multiple times (testing to hit, testing to save, potentially testing to be negated).
In a similar fashion, let's pretend that a caster allowed 2 saving throws for their spell. Even if they have a 75% chance of the enemy failing their saves, allowing the enemy to test twice actually looks something like a 56.25% to actually land their spell.
The Dazing metamagic feat does this in reverse to the enemy by making them test twice to succeed which hits their successful saving % pretty harshly. The lower their chance to save the worse it is too. For example, if you're fighting a caster pushing their save DCs or targeting a weak save (say you have a 40% chance to successfully save) then you double-success or fail will actually look closer to a 16% chance to succeed.
When we're breaking down things in a testing format it is important to look at a lot of different things. When I compared monks vs rangers, I showed the initial formula, explained what I was doing, then once we had the results I ran it again and again and again, making tweaks and notes to show at what point the monk catches up with the ranger.
Those who break down the mechanics behind the games they play who actually respect their own tests and the game will look at it from many, many different angles. They'll look at what effects certain common buffs, conditions, and so forth have on their results. They'll test equipment, ability scores, feat opportunities, investment difficulty, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth here. Even if someone can be a designer there are generally better means out there. Especially if you're working for WotC.
Wind Chime wrote:
Actually an army of 10,000 1-2 peasants and 500 5th level knights can be destroyed by a single wizard of 17th level. Probably lower (like 13th even).
Given their levels, the likelihood of the army being armed with lots of magical items beyond a few low level potions. The wizard would likely know of their coming and would have taken some time to create some duplicates of himself via simulacrum. Say about 10 duplicates (giving you a head wizard plus 10 8th level mini-mes).
That's enough. Each cast fly (or in the case of the head wizard overland flight) and begin raining down fire and brimstone from the heavens, spreading cloudkill across the armies, preventing enemies from retaliating with wind wall, etc.
If the wizard has money to spare he can be a douche and have an unseen servant run up to enemy commanders and generals and stuff a portable hole into a bag of holding and sucks all of them within a 10 ft. radius into the astral plane with no save, tossing them out into the endless expanses of planar-space.
If the wizard really didn't like them, he could have a bound Glabrezu dismantle the army for him. Its DR against non-blessed weapons pretty much stifles any attempt to fight it effectively with peasants, and it has peerless mobility and can just keep slaughtering the soldiers en mass with chaos hammer which will devastate any non-chaotic members of the army (likely nearly everyone).
Seriously there are so many ways only a single high level wizard could slaughter this army that he could sit back and file his nails while watching the wholesale slaughter.
500 high level wizards means they insult their enemies by meleeing them to death and never casting an offensive spell.
I think the whole quality is real or not goes back to the fact it is at it's heart subjective. Ashiel labels some feats as "non-functional", while some posters have also referred to the Rogue, Monk, and Fighter as. But obviously some people don't mind those classes and play them, which means that by there definitions those classes are functional.
Actually at least two of the feats I mentioned were basically nonfunctional, and the third was just a gross and unholy thing. Also, I'd like to note, that at least 1 of those feats received revisions making it functional (though no longer anything like it was described) by Paizo because of forum feedback.
If anything, I think the fact Paizo reads their forums is a sign that the company may continue to improve.
I also feel it's a bit unfair to call out individual feats as if they were independent entities. They were packaged within a 200 + page rulebook. Really you should be judging these products at the level of the book, in which case I would say the developers probably do come off much better than an amateur.
I judge rules based on rules. I've recommended books to people that were 2/3 absolute crap because of some incredibly good rules for something buried in the 3rd portion. As an actual company Paizo has more reasons to not include craptastic nonfunctional stuff. Because it reflects on their standards, and it is a waste of time, money, and space.
But I'll admit it's probably difficult. See, more than likely they probably have a few in house writers working on some things and then get a lot of freelancers. Now freelancers are "professionals" but the quality of their work can vary drastically from writer to writer. I'm fairly certain that this is how a lot of the stinky stuff gets through. On the other hand this is also how a lot of truly golden stuff gets through (the Juju Oracle for example gave many players something they have been longing for since Pathfinder launched, but the devs said they wouldn't have published it if not by accident).
Steve Geddes wrote:
Fair enough. We're definitely going to approach these kinds of discussions from a different perspective (I think balance, consistency and completeness are not terribly important traits in a ruleset, for example - I'm willing to bet that view wouldnt sit well with you).
Well it kinda depends. I don't have any innate hatred towards a game that's unbalanced. I played 3.x for about a decade before Pathfinder came out. 3.x was horribly unbalanced before you even included splatbooks (just with the stuff you can do within the core rules). This is actually what led to me appreciating things that were more balanced more and more.
See, I've ran games from 1st-20th+. I'm the GM who actually enjoys high level play. I'm the GM who watched players who picked certain classes begin dropping off in effectiveness at key milestones along the way until they weren't really having fun anymore. I've watched a fighter get annihilated by an enemy that was significantly under his CR in 3.x (and not a custom monster either, just one out of the core MM which most people tended to agree were pretty consistent).
From both a GM and a player perspective I don't want anyone who is supposed to be a hero to be the aquaman of the superfriends. From my own enjoyment as a GM, I want everyone to be able to have fun and contribute to the game no matter where they go or what they meet. Classes can have their Achilles' heel, but ultimately I believe that good balance makes for a better game. Especially if it's done well.
I would suggest we hold off on applying labels of foolish or 'understood by a nine year old' as it's hard not to take those things personally. If we engage again, I'll try and make wordier posts - I hardly went to much effort to be complete with rather a lot of 'reading between the lines' being implied. Sorry about that.
S'cool. I apologize again as well. :o
Wind Chime wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Maybe we were in agreement and I didn't realize it. A lot can get jumbled in the threads sometimes. (-.-)
My point has always been that, if you're an amateur, you should approach disagreements with the professionals from the point of view that you're probably missing something rather than from the perspective that they are.
That seems fair.
Nope, pretty spot on. But I didn't mean to imply that you were misrepresenting my posts. Just that there were many posts that were misrepresented and that I might have missed yours through them.
Gee how would you have responded if I'd called you foolish or suggested you lacked the comprehension of a nine year old?
I'm beginning to think this is a communication issue. I said don't be foolish, which you kind of were acting foolish when you tried to claim my example of a fanmade product being considered higher in quality by its critics than a similar professional sourcebook was the same as saying "people on the internet agree with me" and making an errant vaccination comment. I don't think this was unfair as it seemed like you were acting the fool to get my goat.
As for the nine year old thing, I never suggested that you lacked the comprehension of a nine year old. I said any nine year old could see the logical conclusion to a situation where one product isn't available versus another. I presumed that you were well aware of this and were just trying to be contrary.
And I'm sorry if I expect you to just be trying to be contrary. Perhaps it is a symptom I've developed posting on these boards. It's not uncommon for people to argue just to argue with no desire for truth or advancement of the conversation.
But I will say I would use the phrase again because it's a correct one. Most nine year olds could tell you the problem with the assumption that X was better than Y based on consumption when Y is not available.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Well if you can't talk about quality without people jumping down your throat about how insubstantial and ephemeral quality is, where functionality cannot even be a measurement of quality...
Well there's not much left really. The definition includes things such as
At least, that's basically what I took from your posts. Unless there was some sort of point you were driving at. It's very possible I missed it through the many posts grossly misrepresenting my commentary, or acting like I shot the Paizo golem or something.
If there was something other than just being contrary and trying to muddy any sort honest conversation that you were getting at then I'm all ears. Otherwise I'm just going to leave this conversation alone. Getting hammered by other posters for nothing leaves a bad taste in the mouth - especially when you're just trying to converse about not only your hobby but your community.
Another thing that's probably worth noting is that depending on how difficult and/or played-strait your game is can have a lot of impact on how functional the classes seem. If you're actually following the rules for things like Stealth distance penalties, making use of terrain, using the spell-like abilities creatures have, playing enemies like they have two brain-cells and a survival instinct hidden somewhere in their would-be corpses, then the game's true balance really begins to shine through. Some might call it "hardcore" but it's pretty much just the standard rules.
A lot of groups are the "beer & pizza" style group. The ones who the GM just throws stuff down, players often don't track everything, rules are ignored or forgotten, and dragons fight like giant suicidal lizards. It's the sort of game that either everyone has a +5 holy avenger lying around or nobody has managed to get to a +1 armor over 12 levels of gameplay yet. Where people think wizards are underpowered because they've yet to discover spells with names besides magic missile and fireball. The sorts of games where kobolds charge into melee with only some short swords and a fading prayer.
In these sorts of games you can still have fun, but it's a different kind of style. It's often loose and tends to ignore a lot of stuff, or run in weird ways that don't always make a lot of sense (but it's easy to not notice so much when people are laughing around the table :P).
And there really is no right way to play. I personally prefer the former. My younger brother enjoys doing things like tracking ammo and worrying about things like whether or not he's going to roast under a desert sun. Most of my players get great satisfaction when they do stuff worthy of being heroes. That means they like there to be danger and lots of it and they don't want me sandbagging. They want the enemies to be like they would be like. :P
But there's no wrong way to eat a Reese's.
I understand, my response was just in general, not really directed at anyone. I remember the whole monk debacle, where suddenly Paizo was the white whale, every monk fan Captain Ahab, and the monk their leg. Suddenly, everyone is crying blood and thunder at the horrific atrocity that Paizo hath wrought on the poor monk. Darfur? Forget that. The Holocaust? Not even close. Like, somewhere in a dark corner, Hitler was crying deeply, tears streaming down his rosy cheeks, eating a large tub of chocolate ice cream and watching The Notebook while Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, and Vlad the Impaler were all trying to console him because for that whole time with the monk, Hitler was no longer the most hated person in the world. It's that reaction that makes me and my friends think so little of this forum and the people on it. Which is a shame, because there are some cool people here and I want to like this place.
*claps slowly* I laughed so much. I also want to commend you because I never thought any post - ever - that mentioned Paizo, Monks, Hitler, Bin Ladin, Stalin, Moby Dick and Captain Ahab would make me smile and laugh so much. Hell, I never thought I'd see a post with all of that in it! (O.O)
You have brightened my day. (^.^)
Its the internet. You get all sorts of opinions. That said, people get crazy about their hobbies sometimes.
Indeed. *lays head on desk*
I don't insult the devs and demand immediate changes either. I'm more interested in playing and discussing my favorite game. I enjoy discussing both the good and the bad of it. Acknowledging a lot of the bad points is the reason we have moved forward in a lot of ways in Pathfinder. In much the same, there was a thread where someone collected some data about unbalanced classes and as it turned out the general consensus is that X, Y, and Z were commonly considered underpowered and at least one class was commonly considered overpowered.
There are things in the rules I'm not a fan of but I have often defended Pathfinder on the grounds of what sorts of things they improved (though according to Steve Geddes I was wasting my breath defending Pathfinder since there's no way to suggest what is quality and I nor anyone else is apparently qualified to say "hey, Pathfinder doesn't suck"). I did so right here in fact.
I'm just irritated at how much backlash I got for suggesting that Paizo is anything but infallible. >:(
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'll be sure to remember that quality doesn't exist then. If "being functional" vs "being nonfunctional" is not a near universal measure of quality then we can deduce that quality is a myth.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I guess quality as I see it is whatever is more useful as a product. When I see things like prone shooter, elephant stomp, antagonize, and similar things in the books I buy from professionals, I am forced to look at things that actually work from other writers - many of which are fanmade products with no price tag - and accept that they are at least of equal or greater quality.
I wasn't even being critical of them which is the amusing part. I was remarking about the quality that many of the fanmade products have. Large or small.
Then I said Pathfinder is a big d20 mod (which it is).
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!
Steve Geddes wrote:
Quality vs Availability is a huge thing here. If 100 people would love X more than Y but only have Y available they are going to take Y. This doesn't seem like rocket science here. In fact I'm pretty sure most 9 year olds could tell you that.
I guess quality is merely an opinion. I suppose I could wear rocks on a string and consider it exceptionally high quality jewelry since I've got plenty of rocks and some string.
So there's not much to say past that. Your measure of quality or not quality seems to only extend so far as dollar signs are concerned, which means that we disagree on fundamental levels and there's not much point in discussing it further.
Sorry Wraith. I didn't mean that you were freaking out. I just made an observation based on Gnomersy's post and related a thought my brother had concerning games. PC games as I noted. The thought that many times you can find incredibly awesome fan-made expansions or revisions to games that are better than was actually present or released by the developer itself.
I noted that the fans who love it often carry it on and help keep the game strong through the community and often put out great work, and noted that many of them are leaps and bounds better than the worst Paizo has published (which by default shows they're capable of writing stuff worth being published if the stuff they write is better than what's published).
And apparently people seemed to take this mentioning as some sort of statement that I hate Paizo, or they are lazy, or that I want to take them out back like Old Yeller. I was trying to figure out what on earth got everyone so riled up and begin insulting everyone who writes anything that isn't Paizo. Bad form it is.