|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Orfamay Quest wrote:
A quick Google says it's very much pop psychology.
I think you certainly can play Pathfinder with low-magic. The game system's flexible that way.
That said, it might be a lot simpler and more fun to play a game that's built from the ground up around low-magic assumptions, instead of trying to shave the corners off of the square peg that is Pathfinder until it'll fit into a round hole
I don’t think the PF system requires as much adjustment as many people feel it does. They come up with extensive systems that mostly amount to canceling out the other adjustments. This guy gets a + to hit and the other guy gets the same + to AC. This one gets a + to a casting DC and the other gets a + to saves. If you eliminate all of those things normally provided by the ‘big 6’ there is essentially no change.
Except that's completely wrong. The Big Six are overwhelmingly defensive in nature, and cutting them out just makes rocket tag even worse. You take away stat headbands max out at boosting a caster's DCs by three, while the cloak of resistance goes up to five, and another three points from stat-boosting items. Magic weapons only go up to +5, while Armor, Ring of Protection, and Amulet of Natural Armor all add up to +15.
If you think +3 vs +8 and +5 vs +15 are things that balance out...
I would actually disagree on this, because Lawful Evil is far more dangerous and effective, and can more easily reach a large scope.
Chaotic Evil, by its very nature, doesn't do well at creating large-scale, enduring organizations. Chaotic evil creates a street gang that mugs a couple dozen people. Lawful evil creates a megacorp that robs from millions.
All true. But in the absence of teamwork feats you usually get what you describe a subpar weapon. So from the perspective of the OPs question, in a vacuum a character on his own isnt going to gain as much as a two hander would with as little effort.
Not to mention that since shield-bashing is fairly feat-intensive, and sword-and-board doesn't have any advantage with teamwork feats over other styles.
A greatsword user gets just as much benefit out of teamwork feats, and has easier access to them since he'll have more feats to spare.
Every table is a different game. MPL's table is no less Pathfinder than others. The game lends itself to a wide variety of play styles.
I'd say there's a distinction between different playstyles and houserules that are so extensive they change fundamental aspects of the game. Obviously YMMV on when house-rules reach the point where the game is no longer recognizable, but it's more than just playstyle.
Have to agree on this one. Managing your daily resources has always been a huge part of D&D/Pathfinder. Out of all the Paizo classes, Fighter and Rogue are the only ones who don't have in-class resources to manage (other than HP), and even then they still need to be cognizant of the rest of team's resources.
I suppose in that case, it really boils down to where one draws the line between good and neutral. I find that most people's commitment to good starts dropping the instant they need to make any significant sacrifice to do good. "Oh yeah, I'm all for helping the homeless? What, spend a weekend working in a soup kitchen? Well I'd like to, but..."
Did you really expect them to say this is actually a rules change but we're not going to issue errata because we don't feel like it. Even if it wasn't really unanimous it's not like anyone is gong to say something that makes the company look that bad.
Yeah, that too. From what I understand, the whole "No-errata until there's a new print run" thing is something that wasn't the rules-guys' idea or something they necessarily like, but it can cause some real perception problems. While I know it's not their intent, the anti-errata policy can easily come across as "We don't issue errata because we don't make mistakes" if you don't know about the print-run rule.
I find that's often a problem with Paizo's rules clarifications. Because of their baffling policy of only issuing errata when a new print run of the dead-trees format book comes out, there are way too many cases of the devs trying to issue de-facto errata while bending over backwards to change as little rules language as possible. Which just leads to more problems as we get random new rules cobbled together out of existing terms that previous works all used interchagably.
Not to mention DR issues. Sure, consumables and spells can mitigate that, but it's still better to just have a weapon that always beats alignment and adamantine DR. Especially since DR hurts TWF more, since it relies on more hits that do less individual damage.
Also, haste's extra attack benefits a two-hander a lot more than TWF.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Yes, pretty much this. The one bad guy who's studied the party and has planned the battle out being prepared for the fight is fine, and intelligent enemies can use intelligent tactics. But if the majority of battles see protection from arrows, wind wall, and fickle winds being tossed around like candy...
Chess Pwn wrote:
just because the scope of gunslinger isn't as big as the full casters doesn't mean it's not too good for what it does. He makes a lot of combats really easy for him. casters do the same thing with combat. just because casters can do stuff out of combat doesn't lessen others ability to trivialize combat.
Yeah, the gunslinger might be a one-trick pony, but whenever he can apply his one trick (and its hard to stop him too often without obviously countering it) he can dish out terrifying damage.
Erick Wilson wrote:
The thing is, they're very different types of too good.
The Gunslinger is the ultimate one-trick pony. The class can devastate most published combat encounters by virtue of "ranged attack with Dex-to-damage vs. touch AC." However, that's about all the gunslinger can do. He has almost no in-class ability to solve problems in any way other than shooting.
Though I will say IMO a true Sword and Board build (with Shield Slam, Shield Master, TWFing, etc.) is as good as a 2H build. Has a solid amount of versatility, good defenses, and dishes out at least as much damage (since the shield bashes ignore the TWFing penalty that is the bane of most TWFing builds).
Not to mention Shield Master cuts down on the enchanting cost, which is the other bane of TWF builds.
I'm curious how you reached that conclusion from someone saying that dex builds do not have superior armor class.
I don't want more feats. I want more things a character can do without having to burn a feat. If something really must be a feat for some.reason, it should scale with level instead of requiring additional feats in a chain to be functional.
Yeah, one of the worst sorts of feats and abilities Pathfinder has kept putting out are ones like Strike Back, Helpless Prisoner, and Rumormonger, which require character resources to do things that shouldn't require any such investment in the first place. Which leads to ridiculous things like "Only level 10+ rogues can start rumors" and "Only Gnomes can trick their captors into loosening their ropes."
In fairness, he did put up a post on his blog more-or-less retracting the whole water balloons thing.
I imagine there'd be quite a bit of dispute about whether 10th level characters with level 10 wbl qualify as low magic. That's not a low-magic game, it's just a game that ends at level 10.
Though that does bring another one of the issues with low magic to mind; it's one of those terms that seems to have a lot of different meanings. I've seen people use low magic to mean fewer magic items but spellcasters just as strong as ever (actually stronger, relatively speaking) or to mean untouched magic items, while spellcasting is heavily toned down.
I've never been overly fond of low-magic in Pathfinder, since without a lot of house rules it can really throw off the balance of the game. Especially when a lot of low-magic rules seem to end up being "You get 1/4 of your normal wbl, and I won't let you spend your gold on anything but consumables." Which can often come across as less of a low-magic game than it is a GM who doesn't want his players to have nice things.
Really, the way to fix stuff like the Christmas Tree Effect without needing to overhaul the system/alter CRs would be to roll a lot of the assumed magic items into character advancement. Have saves and stats advance more often, add some sort of level-based modifier to AC, etc.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Not to mention it essentially reduces the argument to "Tier I characters don't break the game. They're totally balanced once you house-rule out all their game-breaking powers."
Honestly, I think a lot of the people frothing at the mouth about dump stats would still complain if people didn't dump, it would just change from "anyone who dumps a stat to 7 is evil and wrong" to "anyone who keeps a stat at the baseline of 10 is evil and wrong."
Except you don't describe compromise....you describe a GM that isn't allowed to take his own preferences into account, and must run a game for the other players regardless of whether or not he is having fun.
Funny how I don't recall saying that. I know straw's a lot easier to fight, but come on...
Look, I get some people feel like the point of RPGs is not to play a game, but for the players to spend every several hours fawning over the massive size and girth of the GM's metaphorical penis. Personally, I prefer to just play a fun game with friends. And when friends play a game together, that means that when disagreements happen you compromise and handle them like mature, rational adults. Anyone who's going pitch a hissy fit and storm out the first time they don't get their way shouldn't be GMing in the first place.
To toss my two cents in, I would say that everyone involved at the table should talk things out whenever someone isn't having fun, and try to work out a compromise that lets everyone at the table enjoy themselves. But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.
The main thing that duplicate traits indicate to me is that Paizo probably doesn't do an exhaustive check to see if they already have a trait that does something before they publish new traits.
Admittedly, it is fun to play the sort of character who's so adept at fast talking/diplomacy that they can convince (almost) anyone of (almost) anything.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Granted, but there does come a point where the background economic model might just be more complex than it's worth. Do we really need mechanics for peasants doing job searches, and supply/demand curves for various goods and services?
Personally, I'd say that the Pathfinder system isn't doing too badly with basic peasants if it's economic model is "Can maintain an average lifestyle so long as they have regular employment and nothing goes wrong." As a very rough and vague general rule, poverty usually comes about from folks either not having a well-paying job, or having some additional expenses/problems.
There are many popular plots that require the absence of long range teleportation. There are no popular plots that require its presence. That tells me that we'd be better off without it at any level.
There are many popular encounters that are messed up by the fireball spell. Have you seen what it does to a horde of goblins?
There are no popular encounters that require fireball's presence.
That tells me that we'd be better off without it at any level.
And so on for 90% of the content in the game...
Yep. I mean, in the real world two people can say and do the EXACT SAME things and one be "smooth" and the other be "creepy" based entirely on the the fact that one is prettier and has a nice haircut.
Indeed. As we've all learned in recent years, you can totally win the hearts of millions of girls by breaking into a girl's room, watching her sleep, and saying you like the smell of her blood so long as you look like Robert Pattison.
the secret fire wrote:
I think that people who go around saying "Your way of having fun is bad and wrong and ruining Pathrinder" are far worse for the community than optimization.
That's the inevitable consequence of needing to make a general purpose guide. The authors aren't writing guides specifically for you in your Saturday game with the guys. It's not exactly realistic to expect all kinds of advice on how to fit in with your party and fill gaps when the author doesn't know one thing about your party.
It's the same for situationally useful things. In general, they're not all that useful. If you're in a campaign that focuses on them, they become a lot better. The guide writer does not know that your GM is building a campaign that will feature lots of encounters with undead in dimly lit rooms. The author just knows that's a fairly narrow ability, generally speaking.
Simply put, any guide that tried to even start addressing all the possible corner cases that can crop up in a campaign would be woefully incompletely even if it was several thousand pages long. Since that's obviously impractical, they stick to general guidelines.
Yeah, RPGs in general are a lot more fun when everyone can make a more-or-less equal contribution. "God Wizard and his three useless tagalong buddies" gets old very fast, as does playing the one useless guy in a part of otherwise capable and effective characters.
Yeah, that seems to be a strawman that the True Roleplayers just love attacking. Every guide I've ever looked at is set up as more of a "here are the strongest options, here are the pretty good ones, and here are the ones that aren't so great. Here is why these options are good/bad/okay." Not "You must play in this one specific way or else you're a bad person."
the secret fire wrote:
You've managed to completely miss the point by latching onto two words out a post out of context. I'd suggest working on your reading comprehension.
the secret fire wrote:
I would say that most mythological characters weren't designed on fifteen point buy for the Pathfinder rules system. Author fiat gives a lot more freedom in character creation; you can make the wizard strong and charming without making him one bit less intelligent, or hurting his spellcasting in any way.
Yeah, everyone knows that the first rule of reasonable debate is to assume that anyone who has a different opinion from you is an evil scumbag who has no logical basis for their opinions, and is just trying to manipulate the facts to advance their evil agenda of evilness.
I know just the other day, I had a great time at the meeting of the Evil Alliance of Theorycrafting Scum, where we discussed our villainous plans to ruin Pathfinder for the Real Roleplayers.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Why make the players do something they demonstrably don't want to do? And how is it more fun not to do what you want?
Because that's how we did things back in the day, before all those damn kids who won't get off my lawn started playing RPGs! You had to walk twenty miles uphill through the snow just a cast a single spell, and that's how we liked it! I miss the good old days of RPGs, when men were men, and women were men too. Less manly men than the actual men, but still pretty damn manly!
I tell you, kids today with their "fun" and their "game" talk. Don't they know RPGs are job where you have work to earn the right to have enjoyable gameplay!
Arctic Sphinx wrote:
Of course, if you had any feats that depended on your physical scores getting a +2 racial bump, this could become problematic.
Not to mention the possibility that you had racial feats/traits.
The general rule is that if you no longer meet the prerequisites of a feat, then you can't use it anymore. Though if I were GMing a game where that happened, I would probably let the player retrain any lost feats during their next bit of downtime.
Those are also 4000 gold, same as any other +1 equivalent quality.
Speaking of, might as well make Combat Expertise a prerequisite. It's already the iconic feat tax feat anyway.
Master of Shadows wrote:
Alternately, dip Alchemist to pick up a third arm.
Cerberus Seven wrote:
In a game based around combat, their only saving grace is sneak attack (the potential damage of which, under optimal conditions, is also always used as a justification for saying "They're FINE in combat" as well).
Yeah, sneak attack always seems to fall into the trap of being seen as a very powerful combat ability because it can do tons of damage when all the stars align properly. The problem is that, in my experience, the rogue tends to need several turns of maneuvering to maybe actually get everything lined up so he might be able to manage that mythical duel-wielding full attack sneak attack, by which point the battle is usually close to over anyway.