|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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.
While I normally am very much a RAI guy, and I admit I make homebrew changes, I have to agree with Anzyr. Any test attempting to measure anything about pathfinder should be run as close to RAW as possible, without any houserules or the data is intrinsically polluted and invalid.
Indeed. Add in too many house rules or GM fiat calls and the test tells you more about "Pathfinder as run by Bob the GM" than Pathfinder. And even if Bob the GM says that all of his calls were ones that "any reasonable GM" would make, anyone who spends much time on the forums knows that there are a lot of issues where you'll get as many opinions on what's reasonable as there are posters in the thread.
Not to mention house-ruling a test can provide such wonderfully skewed results as "Wizards don't break the game as long as you remove all their game-breaking abilities."
Generally speaking, the tier system and other such things don't measure how the class performs when operating a bunch of house rules or gentleman's agreements to keep them from breaking the game. Because the fact that casters have to agree not to break the game in any of the a dozen ways is, itself, indicative of how much power magic can bring to the table.
"Casters don't break the game if you remove all their game-breaking abilities" isn't much of a statement.
And yet, now you can dual-wield sawtooth sabres using Slashing Grace to two-weapon fight.
The comparison has to be done with minimal changes so it's only the thing being changed that is what's causing the differences. This is why you use a dex based TWF vs. a strength based TWF. Compare apples to apples and slowly modify the apple not apples to oranges which makes no comparison.
I don't think there's going to be much dispute that the feat chain which requires 19 dexterity is going to favor dex-based characters. Or that a well-optimized dexterity fighter will beat a poorly optimized strength fighter.
Really, your position could be summed up as "If we take away and minimize every single advantage strength-based fighters have, dex totally wins."
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Er ... what exactly in my post were you disagreeing with, then? Because it sounds like we're both saying the Magus has a lot more versatility than spell combat and spellstriking with a few metamagiced touch spells.
2-5.5, depending on where your strength score is for the 1.5x bonus. And I don't think there are any commonly-used 2-handed weapons that only give +1 damage when up-sized. It'd have to have base damage of 1d6 or lower to give that little.
Also, don't underestimate reach. Getting an attack of opportunity or a full attack you normally would've missed out on is worth a lot more +2 to anything.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
It's very easy to see the Magus as being all about spell combat + spellstrike, and miss that he has a very nice spell list that consists of far more than just Shocking Grasp, Intensified Shocking Grasp, Empowered Intensified Shocking Grasp...
Str gains +2 average damage per swing and reach if they go large, but aren't hitting any easier. As long as you aren't going small to tiny to lose reach then it's still pretty much in the favor of dex.
+2 to damage is on the very low end of what a size increase gives to a strength character, if they're using a two-handed weapon. Going from 1d10->2d8 or 2d6->3d6 is going to give +3.5 damage just on its own. Then another 1-2 damage for the strength boost.
Then there's the added reach, which is a bit hard to put into numbers, but carries all kinds of advantages.
Heck, one of the main reasons THF is considered such a good weapon style compared to the others is that it requires so few feats, so characters have plenty of feats to spend on the "everything else" part of the game.
Matthew Downie wrote:
The problem that often comes up is that when you mix realism and magic/fantasy, what falls under realism and what falls under magic can start to feel like a fairly arbitrary distinction.
That's not getting into the fact that most people's sense of realism when it comes to medieval combat is often rather far away from what's actually realistic. It's usually more dictated by popular movies/books than any actual knowledge of the time period.
Which would help a lot more if you didn't lose your full attack once you moved more than five feet, regardless of how mobile your character is (barring abilities like Pounce, of course).
Attacks of opportunity would also favor the strength fighter, though I suppose one could make the case that a dex fighter would get more out of combat reflexes. Though really, without reach it would be rare to have a chance to make more than one attack of opportunity per turn anyway.
Granted, but you were only one of the people in the conversation. And jumped in with a third position that was different from the ones under discussion.
Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:
1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.
2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.
3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.